Buffman

I agree...and have done so. That does not mean that my "interpretations" are better/worse, more accurate/inaccurate, concerning those written philosophies than anyone else's. Actually, I tend to compare them with the personal and social philosophies that came before and after in order to help me arrive at a better code of values by which I should attempt to live in the here and now. Thus, my cherished, personal, values/beliefs/opinions do not lead me to support your desire to instill Christianity as the basis of a magical world order. Quite the contrary.

I fear that I have a personal aversion to anointing humans with undeserved/phoney titles...especially those that infer supernatural origins. Christ means "Messiah" in the English language. Messiah means "deliverer and King of the Jews" in Judaism. Buddhists use "Lord Buddha" when addressing Siddhartha Gautama. "Lord/lord" is a title with many meanings, uses and conditioned, influential, propaganda purposes. Often these labels are representative for high positions or badges of office. Your use of Christ, instead of Jesus, awards that individual with a high position/badge of office with which I can not agree because of the lack of verifiable, historical, evidence that this individual is of divine origins. (I don't use "Lord Jefferson" as a descriptive title. I do say "President Jefferson" because I have more than enough verifiable evidence that he was, indeed, a President.)

(There you go again using Christ instead of Jesus. Did Jefferson call Jesus "The Christ?" Did Jefferson support "Christianity" or merely the moral philosophies of the biblical "Jesus?")

Try harder! You might start with "Humanism" which bases its philosophies/values on the modern world of today using the collective experiences of all of history not just those of a supposed wandering preacher/Jewish mystic of 2000 years ago.

freigeister

I am just saying that everyone should do as you do, and that should be the basis of our one-world order.

Jefferson avoided the use of the word Christ as part of his effort to purify the whole question. I have no problem with that. You can go ahead and call him Jesse Josephson for all I care. I, however, will stick by calling him Christ. I do not attach any supernatural or magical qualities to the term. It is "Messiah", the "Annointed One", a title of honour that my most cherished beliefs compel me to confer on him, even at the risk of losing allies.

I cannot conceive of a humanism that does not carry Christ in its heart.

Buffman

Optimistically, I prefer to believe that most folks attempt to do exactly that. Unfortunately, ever-so-much is dependent on the level of accuracy of the information that folks use to establish their guiding principles. It is because of that factor that I am not anti-religious although remain anti-supernatural. Religious faith beliefs that provide socially tested and "valid" ethical/moral values are an important contributor to positive, peaceful and productive societies/cultures. In this, the philosophies of the biblical man we call Jesus have been a major asset in the western world. Those philosophies are valid, not because they were divinely inspired by faith, but because historical experience has taught us that they work in reality. Religious cults that attempt to use reward(carrot)-punishment(stick) dogma to enforce these realities tend to defeat the very benefits that they claim to represent and attempt to sell to the masses. What a shame. As I see it, our efforts should be oriented toward finding and distributing the most accurate knowledge possible to the largest number of people possible and allowing them to critically process and apply that knowledge to themselves and the society in which we all must live by constantly seeking the establishment of justice, domestic tranquillity, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. (Sound familiar? It doesn't come from the Bible.)

I understand...but do you? Exactly why and what are you honoring?

Try to understand that it was Jesus who philosophized about carrying humanism in one's mind (what you call the heart)...and the cult Master Manipulators that prostituted, plundered and perverted his philosophies...and continue to do so for their own vested ends/goals.

freigeister

I gotta say that this time, Buffman, I don't disagree with a word you say. As for why and what I am honoring, it is, as you put it, "the philosophies of the biblical man we call Jesus."

Buffman

You failed to answer "why" just the philosophies of Jesus and not all the philosophies that have contributed to the positive and productive ethical/moral advancement of humankind.

Toto

Is there a coherent version of the philosophy of the Biblical man we call Jesus? I don't think so, and that is why I don't think that a modern political movement would want to base anything on Christ.

I challenge you to find a consensus of modern Biblical scholars on who Jesus was or what his message was.

The good stuff that you like about what Jesus said - do unto others, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, etc - was probably borrowed from the Hellenistic philosophies of the time. If there is any virtue to this philosophy, it should be evident from its practice, and should not need a supernatural or even a 2000 year old Great Man of History to validate it.

But there is more to what Jesus is reported to have said - bad stuff about people who didn't follow him burning in Hell, bringing not peace but a sword. the end times a-comin'. What are you going to do with that?

freigeister

I'll just let Thomas Jefferson's words on the subject speak for me.