What are you talking about?

To me, Christ is post-Easter Jesus, the Jesus of the Christian tradition and the Christian experience.

I am not sure what not using God language has to do with Christ, but perhaps some remove all such names.

I would not personally remove all God language, but in reading Barbara Brown Taylor's When God is Silent, I think I do better understand the concept of words being so very maligned or so overused or misused that they make themselves pretty much useless or that they actually stand between people and God. She uses vine ripe tomatoes, as having tasted a mealy, pink tasteless thing, you will never believe the sign again....

She talks about the same happening to much of our faith language.

So, for me, if the goal is not  "us" or even "church" or "organized religion" and is really about discipleship and building relationship between people and God and them then spreading the good news to others then..... hmmmm

A lifetime of Sunday mornings in groupthink sessions with way too much stained glass and way too little wine.

Christ to me is exactly what StevieG explained - the post-Easter Jesus resurrected in and guiding every one of us, the holy/divine Jesus found in himself, and strove to teach us to find in ourselves ... a more internalized version of the Holy Spirit.

I recall one of the documents (Philip?) of the Naj Hammani Library stating that --

(OK I'll look it up)....Ah. Here it is:

Yes. The Gospel of Phillip:

"Jesus...did not reveal himself in the manner that he was, but it was in the manner in which they would  be able to see him that he revealed himself."

Talk about giving one pause.....

If it's you that gets to drink the bottle of wine at your daughter's communion, you may indeed love just about everyone in the room, and tell them so repeatedly.

Wait a sec.  For those sins which may have come at the expense of others, why does Jesus get to be the one to forgive those sins?  What the hell does he have to do with the injured party?

If I have raised that point before, I apologize.  There is just so much wrong with statements like the above, it's hard to catalogue them all in one's head.

Reposted from the "One Month with Atheists" thread, because it is mildly related:

Chansen,"Wait a sec.  For those sins which may have come at the expense of others, why does Jesus get to be the one to forgive those sins?  What the hell does he have to do with the injured party?"

I think because unlike us, Jesus offers us the insight that love is able to forgive what we may see as unforgivable. 

For me, the gospels have always- depending on when they were written and by whom - varied on who they say Jesus said he was.

That's not what I meant.  What right does a god/son/spirit/whatever have to forgive you, when there is another person who suffered because of your actions?  What does Jesus have to do with it?

Jesus forgiving people for their sins is just a version of the scapegoat - designed solely to make the sinner feel better, without any real repercussions.  Unless you're the goat.

What a completely baseless load of crap.

that was thought our well of you

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

its called faith, you asked what legal right Jesus had to do so, and according to my faith I answered you, I already know you dont believe, but you asked a faith based question and got a faith bases answer.

I wasn't referring to law - I was referring to the moral right to forgive on behalf of another.

And of course it is faith-based.  In other words, it is based on nothing but a series of old stories.  There is no reason to believe it, so you call it "faith-based" in an attempt to lend it some legitimacy.  It still doesn't have any.

So "we all screw up" is your only answer for the fact that those who claim "legal authority" from God are most often the ones who use it to abuse people?

Why is it that "everyone does it" is your excuse every time someone points out the hypocrisy of your position?

Sure doesn't lend much creedence to your point?

Of what possible value is your "legal authority" if it just makes you just like "everyone"?

and it was explained to you why Jesus has the right to do so , because Jesus was given all athority, all includes moral

Jesus, for whom there is no evidence, you say was given this right by God, for whom there is no evidence, in a book that is sometimes contradictory, largely immoral, and often just plain wrong.

I'm sorry to have to keep telling you this, but as something to base your beliefs on, your bible is crap.

Incredible arrogance, followed by false self-deprecation.

Good strategy... too bad it's so transparent.

according to you,

what else is to be expexcted

What church do you know that gives people a bottle of wine to drink at communion?

Gotta admit it sounds like a church I'd visit.

To me, The Christ spirit is the spirit of cosmic unity and synthesis. To be aware of the unitive state as the basic state of being is unitive awareness or consciousneness—or Christ consciousness—and to  think and act directly from the awareness of that state is acting in unitive or Christ conscience.

In the Christian tradition, it was Jesus the Christ who first taught unitive awareness. Anyone who is aware of the basic unity that underlies all being, and thinks and acts from that unitive awareness, is or can be a Christ.

To me, Christhood is similar to Buddhahood: A Christ or a Buddha is one who has attained enlightenement, and thinks and acts directly from the level of enlightenment. And enlightenment is unititive awarenss. It can occur inside or outside of any religion, and can be described in secular terms as well as in the terms of any religion. 

thanks for you unborn again opinion