I saw John Dominic Crossan speak again this week. The last time was 20 years ago, when I was just beginning my spiritual journey. This time I saw him knowing “spirit” is a word that gets abused. Unfortunately, I didn’t formulate my question well enough to really find what is up with this guy. His new book compares the non-violent Jesus movement with the violent Roman empire. Obviously he thinks non-violence is better. I’m fine with that, but he adds on “because Jesus”. He’s an entertaining speaker, if you get a chance to see him, go. He is a professor in Chicago and will be doing something in Charlotte NC on October 16.
Here’s the question I wish I had asked, it’s more of a statement, but the I guess the question is, why do you believe that?
What I hear is, you are saying people need Jesus. People are not capable of overcoming their violent tendencies. You’re saying that if the Biblical stories were to disappear, if we stopped preaching about Jesus or attempting to discover him, then we would not figure out on our own that being kind to one another and cooperating with our neighbors is a better way to live.
Lausten, I hear what you are saying. But do you really think that people give a damn about Jesus? Take away all the BS and are you left with “Jesus" or “Self"? My god, how can you ignore what happened when they found the ark? And then when the question about finding the bones of “god/Jesus". God, who made everything known and controls external life. You would think there should be more than just a little denial. If someone like John Dominic Crossan doesn’t stop everything he is doing and deal with the bone box of god or just the possibility of it being the bone box of god, then he is teaching “Self" and not “Jesus". Real thing get quick reactions whereas people with doubts take longer. What has it been? Seven years now?
Lausten, I hear what you are saying. But do you really think that people give a damn about Jesus?Yes, I do, I think that is exactly what the problem is. All but a very few can look back at the first splits of the major forms of Christianity and not see them as completely silly. They were about the cracker at communion and did God enter Jesus after birth or at conception or what. But if you ask them why they go to one church vs another, they will come up with something just as silly.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I am feeling better, so or course, less time on the tube. We are in agreement with Jesus and the way he is being conceived. Don’t you think that people like Dominic Crossan are part of this problem? I have read that the violence by the Roman Empire was caused mainly by a plague and the people did not know what was causing the plague. In other words they were striking out more at the dying than anything to do with Jesus or Christianity. But the promoters of Christianity twist the facts to get mileage on the violent actions as a good vs. bad action, which was not the case. Christianity is here today because of the backing of the Roman Empire.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I am feeling better, so or course, less time on the tube. We are in agreement with Jesus and the way he is being conceived. Don’t you think that people like Dominic Crossan are part of this problem?You take little irrelevant things and try to make them central, I can't follow that. Yes, John Dominic Crossan is part of the problem. He gives people so much to think about but none of it is relevant to whether or not God exists or Jesus had supernatural powers. He thinks talking about the history of Jesus is a spiritual experience or something. Or maybe if you studied him, you will come to know him or something. It's hard to tell. It creates another way of approaching religion that still ends up in a false conclusion that religion has answers that it doesn't really have.