The heretic theory

...

This might be a translational problem but just what are you trying to say or are you just questioning the base situation?

This might be a translational problem but just what are you trying to say or are you just questioning the base situation?

Im speaking of Jesus

Im speaking of Jesus

I know.
What I don't know, is just what it is you are trying to say?
I mean, what is the point of that text?

if you are trying to disect Christianity and it's origins in a rational way then I say you've failed and have only gone as far as justifying its origins instead.
Similar but not quite the same.
That's not to mention that your reasonings don't follow.

From the looks of it, part of the plan was to eventually die.
i.e him dying wasn't the result of the brainstorming of how to spread the plan as you call it.
So your basic premise is wrong to begin with.
without the dying part, the plan simply becomes "be good to each other" (which isn't anything new really - which really does begin to question the need for a religion)
it is the dying part that allows the following ressurection; the key element of christianity.

the only rationalist part I can see is also a very basically simple idea; that it is sometimes good to lie if it means better for all in the long term.
Bear in mind though that this doesn't mean the religion is good/bad because of it.

I know.
What I don't know, is just what it is you are trying to say?
I mean, what is the point of that text?

Nothing special really, just a brain tickler or something, and to view the possiblity that Jesus might've lied to ensure the prosperity of mankind by printing a new thing for "sheep" behaving people to argue about.

Also, it opens some questions to believers (that probably have asked before yes), like 'For who or what are you believing?'.

if you are trying to disect Christianity and it's origins in a rational way then I say you've failed and have only gone as far as justifying its origins instead.
Similar but not quite the same.
That's not to mention that your reasonings don't follow.

I guess here are some translation problems. Not just slight errors, I have problem getting my point out in general. And I can't blaim you if you think that sound hard to believe.

I'm not an Atheist, so my reasons for "disecting" christianity are not for taking the mystic out of it. Actually, I was trying to get an A on my essay.

From the looks of it, part of the plan was to eventually die.
i.e him dying wasn't the result of the brainstorming of how to spread the plan as you call it.
So your basic premise is wrong to begin with.
without the dying part, the plan simply becomes "be good to each other" (which isn't anything new really - which really does begin to question the need for a religion)
it is the dying part that allows the following ressurection; the key element of christianity.

What do you mean my premise is wrong? I never stated how he would view death, if thats what you mean.

I wrote it as it was the best way he could think of to convince the people enough to make them "be good", not teach them to be good.

the only rationalist part I can see is also a very basically simple idea; that it is sometimes good to lie if it means better for all in the long term.
Bear in mind though that this doesn't mean the religion is good/bad because of it.

The title for the essay we were supposed to write was "Truth or lie?" Subtext; When is it ok to lie and when not?. So I guess I'll take that as some sort of a compliment, since I actually DID get my point out.

I never see things as good/bad by default, rather as a rule of which action to take according to a specific belief/goal.


Anyways, I guess this came out really bad in general because of my way of writing/translating. My apoligizes.