"DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE BIBLE"

That is the title of a fascinating book written by Kenneth C. Davis. I was reading through it today as I indulged three of my favorite activities 1. Reading, 2. Drinking Coffee, 3. Pipe Smoking. These are a few of my favorite things. But back to the book, it really is very interesting and brings up some good questions and then works to answer them in a respectful way. Questions like "Who wrote the Old Testament?" and "Who really killed Goliath?" or "Did Jesus have brothers and Sisters?" These are all interesting questions in that they are not salvation questions but they call in to play what we are taught in Sunday school and in private Christian schools or at church. It really amazes me what people take for granted when they are taught things. I will most likely write more on this book as I move further into it but these were the thoughts in my head as I was reading today.

Divine Foreknowledge/Freewill

I have just been reading Boethius's CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY and if you are at all into philosophy I highly recommend it. But on to the issue at hand. Do we in fact have free will? The deeper question is this one if God knows all that we do and all decisions we make is that truly free will. Boethius argues that we do have free will. He says that God resides outside of time and that for God he sees all possible choices we might make. The thought being that since God is outside of time there is no past or present or future. That for God all these happen at the same time. I would argue that his defense is flawed in that I believe that if we feel that God's knowledge is divine and that he can not make a mistake. Well then if God were to see us do something and then we do something else it brings into question the divinity of God or whether or not he can make a mistake. I think that is the flaw in Boethius's reasoning. I am not sure if I feel one way or the other on this issue. I lean toward the no freewill side of the argument but I feel that while Boethius's defense of it makes some sense. I feel that he makes that one fatal flaw. Thoughts?

What is a Christian?

I read this excerpt from Frederick Buechner this morning and thought it was worth passing along. I'd be curious to hear what you all think of what he says.
"Some think of a Christian as one who necessarily believes certain things. That Jesus was the son of God, say. Or that Mary was a virgin. Or that the Pope is infallible. Or that all other religions are all wrong.
Some think of a Christian as one who necessarily does certain things. Such as going to church. Getting baptized. Giving up liquor and tobacco. Reading the Bible. Doing a good deed a day.
Some think of a Christian as just a Nice Guy.
Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me"(John 14:6). He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could "come to the Father." He said that it was only by him--by living, participating in, being caught up by, the way of life that he embodied, that was his way.
Thus it is possible to be on Christ's way and with his mark upon you without ever having heard of Christ, and for that reason to be on your way to God though maybe you don't even believe in God.
A Christian is one who is on the way, though not necessarily very far along it, and who has at least some dim and half-baked idea of whom to thank.
A Christian isn't necessarily any nicer than anybody else. Just better informed."
courtesy of Erin

I am not sure what to think?

The following is a post from www.time.com and is an interview with the fourth most senior bishop from the church of England and I am still a little puzzled I leave this for you to read and hopefully comment on.

Thursday, Feb. 07, 2008
Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop
By David Van Biema

N.T. "Tom" Wright is one of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought. As Bishop of Durham, he is the fourth most senior cleric in the Church of England and a major player in the strife-riven global Anglican Communion; as a much-read theologian and Biblical scholar he has taught at Cambridge and is a hero to conservative Christians worldwide for his 2003 book The Resurrection of the Son of God, which argued forcefully for a literal interpretation of that event.

It therefore comes as a something of a shock that Wright doesn't believe in heaven — at least, not in the way that millions of Christians understand the term. In his new book, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne), Wright quotes a children's book by California first lady Maria Shriver called What's Heaven, which describes it as "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him." That, says Wright is a good example of "what not to say." The Biblical truth, he continues, "is very, very different."

Wright, 58, talked by phone with TIME's David Van Biema.

TIME: At one point you call the common view of heaven a "distortion and serious diminution of Christian hope."

Wright: It really is. I've often heard people say, "I'm going to heaven soon, and I won't need this stupid body there, thank goodness.' That's a very damaging distortion, all the more so for being unintentional.

TIME: How so? It seems like a typical sentiment.

Wright: There are several important respects in which it's unsupported by the New Testament. First, the timing. In the Bible we are told that you die, and enter an intermediate state. St. Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet. Secondly, our physical state. The New Testament says that when Christ does return, the dead will experience a whole new life: not just our soul, but our bodies. And finally, the location. At no point do the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels say, "Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven." It says that Christ is coming here, to join together the heavens and the Earth in an act of new creation.

TIME: Is there anything more in the Bible about the period between death and the resurrection of the dead?

Wright: We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep. The Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish text from about the same time as Jesus, says "the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God," and that seems like a poetic way to put the Christian understanding, as well.

TIME: But it's not where the real action is, so to speak?

Wright: No. Our culture is very interested in life after death, but the New Testament is much more interested in what I've called the life after life after death — in the ultimate resurrection into the new heavens and the new Earth. Jesus' resurrection marks the beginning of a restoration that he will complete upon his return. Part of this will be the resurrection of all the dead, who will "awake," be embodied and participate in the renewal. John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: "God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom.

TIME: That is rather different from the common understanding. Did some Biblical verse contribute to our confusion?

Wright: There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so "paradise" cannot be a resurrection. It has to be an intermediate state. And chapters 4 and 5 of Revelation, where there is a vision of worship in heaven that people imagine describes our worship at the end of time. In fact it's describing the worship that's going on right now. If you read the book through, you see that at the end we don't have a description of heaven, but, as I said, of the new heavens and the new earth joined together.

TIME: Why, then, have we misread those verses?

Wright: It has, originally, to do with the translation of Jewish ideas into Greek. The New Testament is deeply, deeply Jewish, and the Jews had for some time been intuiting a final, physical resurrection. They believed that the world of space and time and matter is messed up, but remains basically good, and God will eventually sort it out and put it right again. Belief in that goodness is absolutely essential to Christianity, both theologically and morally. But Greek-speaking Christians influenced by Plato saw our cosmos as shabby and misshapen and full of lies, and the idea was not to make it right, but to escape it and leave behind our material bodies. The church at its best has always come back toward the Hebrew view, but there have been times when the Greek view was very influential.

TIME: Can you give some historical examples?

Wright: Two obvious ones are Dante's great poetry, which sets up a Heaven, Purgatory and Hell immediately after death, and Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine chapel, which portrays heaven and hell as equal and opposite last destinations. Both had enormous influence on Western culture, so much so that many Christians think that is Christianity.

TIME: But it's not.

Wright: Never at any point do the Gospels or Paul say Jesus has been raised, therefore we are we are all going to heaven. They all say, Jesus is raised, therefore the new creation has begun, and we have a job to do.

TIME: That sounds a lot like... work.

Wright: It's more exciting than hanging around listening to nice music. In Revelation and Paul's letters we are told that God's people will actually be running the new world on God's behalf. The idea of our participation in the new creation goes back to Genesis, when humans are supposed to be running the Garden and looking after the animals. If you transpose that all the way through, it's a picture like the one that you get at the end of Revelation.

TIME: And it ties in to what you've written about this all having a moral dimension.

Wright: Both that, and the idea of bodily resurrection that people deny when they talk about their "souls going to Heaven." If people think "my physical body doesn't matter very much," then who cares what I do with it? And if people think that our world, our cosmos, doesn't matter much, who cares what we do with that? Much of "traditional" Christianity gives the impression that God has these rather arbitrary rules about how you have to behave, and if you disobey them you go to hell, rather than to heaven. What the New Testament really says is God wants you to be a renewed human being helping him to renew his creation, and his resurrection was the opening bell. And when he returns to fulfil the plan, you won't be going up there to him, he'll be coming down here.

TIME: That's very different from, say, the vision put out in the Left Behind books.

Wright: Yes. If there's going to be an Armageddon, and we'll all be in heaven already or raptured up just in time, it really doesn't matter if you have acid rain or greenhouse gases prior to that. Or, for that matter, whether you bombed civilians in Iraq. All that really matters is saving souls for that disembodied heaven.

TIME: Has anyone you've talked to expressed disappointment at the loss of the old view?

Wright: Yes, you might get disappointment in the case where somebody has recently gone through the death of somebody they love and they are wanting simply to be with them. And I'd say that's understandable. But the end of Revelation describes a marvelous human participation in God's plan. And in almost all cases, when I've explained this to people, there's a sense of excitement and a sense of, "Why haven't we been told this before?"

Food For Thought?

I have been reading Peter Abelard's Ethical Writings : Ethics and Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian So far this has been a very interesting book and I wanted to address some points he made and see what people thought about them. Abelard first a little background was born in 1079 at Brittany and chose to pursue logic and philosophy as areas of study. In 1113 he appeared in Paris and began to study theology. He ultimatly became a monk and a lecturer and has left behind an impressive number of philosophical and theological writings. Abelard writes

Fore he who says, "Do not pursue your lusts, and turn away from your will," commanded us not to satisfy our lusts, but not to do without them altogether. For satisfying them is wicked, but going without them is impossible in our feeble state. And so it isn't the lusting after a woman but the consenting to the lust that is the sin. It isn't the will to have sex with her that is damnable but the will's consent.

I find this makes for an interesting viewpoint it appears that Abelard is saying that since we are fallen and weak and we can not control our thoughts that lusting isn't a sin. So in effect thinking anything isn't a sin it is just taking action on those thoughts that is the sin. Any thought?

UPDATE

So after discussions with my philosophy instructor my understanding of what Abelard is trying to say has changed. It seems that Abelard is saying that the sin comes in consenting to the thought within the mind. So the action of doing the sin doesn't change the impact one way or the other but when you first think the thought and then you consent to doing it you have sinned whether or not the action takes place. By just consenting to the idea then the sin has taken place.

QUESTION FROM NICOLE?

How do you love a G/god ?

BIBLE ACCURACY

Bible Accuracy - P. Wesley Edwards
(updated 4-Sept-2004)

The question of Bible accuracy is important in many debates, particularly those regarding creationism and certain defenses of Christianity. Creationism is, in fact, an attempt to make science compatible with the fundamentalist requirement of Biblical literalism and infallibility. Christian theism typically defends its claim to truth by appealing to supposedly fulfilled Bible prophesies. Before tackling these issues, we need to understand the context.

A Brief History of the Bible:
The Bible descends from what was an ever-changing and expanding body of written and oral traditions dating from as early as the 12th Century B.C. The reformulations and additions continued from then all the way up until the 4th Century A.D. when, out of a large collection of candidate books, some were selected to be part of what we now call the Bible. It is important to remember that literally none of the original manuscripts of either the Old or New Testaments has survived. The Bible was passed down by individual manual copying and translation right up to the discovery of printing in the 15th Century A.D. The oldest manuscript copies date from sometime during the first 3 Centuries A.D.

The original language of the Old Testament was Hebrew followed by Aramaic translations appearing in the period following the Exile and then Greek translations following Alexander the Great. It was not until around the 2nd Century, A.D. that the contents of the Old Testament had become fixed.

The original language of the New Testament was Greek. As with the OT, no originals now exist, and the oldest of the manuscript copies dates from the 2nd Century, A.D. Before the NT was "canonized" into its current form, each of the early Christian communities apparently had a gospel of its own, in some ways redundant, in some ways in direct conflict, with the gospels of other communities. Some of these included the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, a Gospel of the Egyptians, an Apocalypse of Peter, an Apocalypse of Paul, and the Epistle of Barnabas, to name just a few.

What the Christians used as an "infallible" Bible was different depending on which Christian community you talked to, at least until the year A.D. 325. In that year, Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea, which not only did the picking and choosing of the books, but also ended a power struggle in Christian circles as to the nature of Jesus. As Roman Emperor, Constantine decreed that the Trinitarian view would become Christian dogma (which is remarkable considering how weak his Christian credentials were), and this decree silenced the large Christian segment that said Jesus was only a man.

Of course, the history doesn't end there. As the Bible was translated into Latin, Augustine ultimately complained of the "infinite variety" of Bible translations. Under the direction of Pope Damascus, Jerome attempted to standardize the Latin Bible. Drawing on Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, he completed the "Vulgate" by sometime around A.D. 405, which was ultimately recognized as the Standard Bible of the Roman Church (1546).

The first English Bible was completed in the late 1300's by John Wyclif, an Oxford instructor in religion and philosophy. Condemned by the church, it lasted in the underground for some 150 years. Then, around 1524, William Tyndale, an Oxford and Cambridge educated linguist, who was influenced by Erasmus and Martin Luther, published a New Testament translation based on medieval Greek copies. Then Mike Coverdale's Bible appeared (~1535) based on his translation of German and Greek translations, as well as drawing from Tyndale's work. John Rogers and Richard Taverner also published their particular translations (~1539) drawing from and adding to each other and to Tyndale's work. All of this was eventually edited by Coverdale into the Great Bible, which the King approved. Separately, the Roman Catholic church created its first English Bible, the Douay version, which was based directly on the Latin Vulgate (~1609).

In 1604, King James I wanted a fresh start, and pulled together Oxford and Cambridge scholars, as well as Puritan and Episcopal priests. This large group used the Catholic Douay, Luther's German translation, the available Hebrew and Greek copies, and to a very large extent Tyndale's work, and created the King James Version (~1611). Language, of course, is a fluid thing. Just how fluid can be seen in just a few examples: In 1611 "allege" meant "prove," "prevent" meant "precede," and "reprove" meant "decide." To cope with this, the English Revised Version came out by 1885, followed shortly by the American Standard Version.

Clarifying Infallibility:
One thing this long history over the last few thousand years tells us is that the infallibility of the oldest manuscript copy (let alone a remotely descended English Bible) would require divine inspiration all along the very, very long line of manual copying and translating (remember, this is all occurring before the advent of the printing press). However, once one puts the stake the ground and says "The King James Version is infallible," then one eliminates any appeal to "mistranslation" from the Hebrew or Greek. On the other hand, if only the original, autograph manuscripts are infallible (none of which exist), while all subsequent copies and translations are vulnerable to transcription or translation errors, then the whole line of copies from the oldest manuscript copies (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) to all of today's descendent versions of the Bible are not infallible.

It is important to understand in which sense your opponent believes the Bible to be infallible. In the first sense, contradictions and factual / scientific errors are all one needs to falsify the claim of Biblical infallibility. In the second sense, the notion of infallibility is simply irrelevant to both the Bible and the oldest sources we have available today, and so amounts to little more than an empty claim.

© 1999-2006 Freethought Debater. All rights reserved

ERIN V's THOUGHTS!!

I had a few thoughts after last nights meeting.
1. I liked Scott's take on the 2nd Tim. passage - that being we can view what is Scripture based on if it holds up to the things listed: inspiration of God,profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. My thought in light of this however is - what if some of those passages DON'T stand up to the afore mentioned list? Do we not view that as Scripture(even if it's in the Bible)? - and how does that impact us and how we use the Bible?
2. I also felt like it was HUGE that we in essence said that writings that are not the Bible could be viewed as Scripture. That's pretty big for me and leads me to my next question: If that's what we really believe than why do we usually exclusively study just the bible without bringing other sources in? What would it look like to bring in other sources? Are we afraid of this? (Courtesy of Erin V)

What does help consist of?

(This has caused quite a stir on the Statesmen Journal Website. Thanks for the heads up Erin V)

Church members were too busy to help needy man

PATTI WARKENTIN

December 13, 2007

On a recent weekend, I joined with other volunteers in decorating our church for the Christmas season.

Saturday morning as I was pulling into a parking spot, I noticed a man sitting on the steps of a church building. He was tucked back under the porch protecting himself from the blustery rain storm. With snow on its way, I felt sad for this man who was bound for a miserably cold day!

I parked and went inside the church. The church I attend is a large church and decorating it is no small task. We decorated eight towering evergreens and 10 smaller evergreens all with lights and ornaments aplenty. Underneath each tree were empty boxes wrapped in colors that matched the decorated trees.

The worship center was festooned with brightly lit garlands. The garlands supported giant wreaths. The lobby decorations needed to be strategically placed so as to not block six wall-mounted flat-screen TV monitors used to advertise church programs.

Also of significant concern were the "IMAGINE" banners that adorn the church, reminding us of the fundraising process going on for a new building.

We had been working for about an hour when I glanced down the hallway and noticed the homeless man standing at the door of the church, just looking in. I don't think he was knocking, just looking in. In the flurry of activity, no one seemed to notice him.

I went down the hallway and opened the locked door so he could come in. He just wanted to use the bathroom. After showing him where the bathroom was, I looked around hoping to find a man that might be available to visit a bit with him. Everyone was busy!

As he exited the bathroom, I brought him into the partially decorated lobby and offered him a cup of coffee, a scone and a place to sit that was warm and dry. He stayed for about five minutes and then left. No one visited with him ... we were all too busy!

As he left, and since then, I have been struck by the contrasts of that moment. A church full of people preparing to celebrate Christmas. The coming of Jesus -- the very Jesus who had time for the sick, the poor, the prostitute, the demon-possessed, the wealthy, the leader, the foreigner, the lost, the hungry, the dying, the broken -- and we were too busy to celebrate His love by loving others.

A church full of people who have TV monitors advertising programs and new buildings promising new programs, and we were too busy to stop, listen and love!

Patti Warkentin of Salem is a working mom, grandmother and volunteer. She can be reached at pattirandall@comcast.net

Talking Points

http://www.georgefox.edu/journalonline/archives/fall05/emerging.html

this is a very good article that you can read below or use the above address yourself. (courtesy of Mr Tom V)

GEORGE FOX JOURNAL: What is the emergent church?
LEN SWEET: It probably would mean something different to everyone you would ask, but from my perspective, the “emergent church” is an ongoing conversation about how new times call for new churches, and that the mortar- happy church of the last half of the 20th century is ill-poised to face the promises and perils of the future. In fact, attempting to define the “emergent church” betrays the essence of the movement because the emergent consciousness questions the notion that there is such a thing. Rather, there are only individual emerging churches that are missional in orientation that grow out of the indigenous soils in which they are planted. In other words, no two emerging churches are alike.

GFJ: Are there some common practices in emerging churches?
LEN SWEET: Pews are now antiques. Since the focus of emerging churches is on community, their worship space is flexible. Some have tables and chairs. Others have a more living room look and feel. But emerging churches are proving to be very surprising. For example, hymns are now back. And the church’s liturgy and Eucharist are being rediscovered in creative and compelling ways. A lot of emerging churches are very “smells and bells” in their worship. Whatever the diversity of spiritual practices, the key words for emerging churches are incarnational, missional, and relational.

GFJ: Can you explain those key terms?
LEN SWEET: I’ll try ... although books literally have been written on each.
• Incarnational: That means that Christianity does not go through time like water in a straw. It passes through cultural prisms and historical periods, which means that Christianity is organic. And like with any living thing, in order for things to stay the same, they have to change. There are some who think that Christianity is meant to stand in and for itself as a bounded discourse, impervious to cultural influences. That’s one reason it took the Vatican 300 years to come around to heliocentrism: the idea that the sun, not the earth, was at the center.
• Missional: Does the church face inward or outward? A missional church faces outward toward the world, not like a porcupine stands against its enemies, but like water fills every container without losing its content. In fact, many in the emerging church reject the dichotomy between the church and the world . For too long, churches have faced inward, offering religion as a benefits package — something that “meets my needs” or offers good outcomes.
I tell churches to look at their mission statement. Many of them are no more than self-statements, not mission statements. This is how you can tell. Is your mission statement based on how to get people to go into the world, or how to get more people to come to church? The missional mantra that people are saying today is this: The church is measured, not by its seating capacity, but by its sending capacity.
• Relational: The gospel is all about the formation of community. The individualistic “meet my needs” orientation is seen as antagonistic to the ministry of Jesus. The African word ubuntu is often used, which literally means “It takes a ‘we’ to make a ‘me.’’ Emerging churches are discovering the “we” part of “me.”

GFJ: So it’s the incarnational characteristic of emerging churches that threatens its critics. Some remark that when churches try to become “relevant,” they really mean “relative.” True?
LEN SWEET: There is all too much panic over that word relative. I believe in absolute truth (which I believe, by the way, is Jesus the Christ, the way, the truth, the life — notice here that absolute truth is not abstract truth, but incarnate truth). The notion that there are no absolutes is self-defeating and self-contradictory.
Not all truth is absolute. Some truth is relative — to a person, to a culture, to a historical period. What brings together absolute truth and relative truth is relational truth.

GFJ: Then you are not connecting the concept of relative truth with the idea that it’s equally valid to choose any of the “many paths to God.” What are some examples of relative truth that you do endorse?
LEN SWEET: Relativism is illogical and selfdefeating. If all truth is relative, what is the truth status of the assertion that all truth is relative? What I am trying to do is end the apartheid of absolutism and relativism in Christian theology. I am a relative absolutist. That means that absolute truth has to become incarnate in relative time. Faith is for the living of this hour, and the Bible has reference to and relevance for the living of this hour.
The world in which Jesus came could not conceive of a world without slavery. In fact, the ancient economy was based on slavery. Jesus did not deal violently with human nature and first-century culture. He did not go about brandishing “absolute truth.” He dealt tenderly and patiently with the culture and people of his day. If he was harsh with anyone, it was the religious establishment. By regulating our treatments of others, and rejiggering our thinking about others, Jesus led us inexorably into a place where things like slavery and polygamy were abolished.
Just as absolute truth had to be made relative to the culture in which it was first proclaimed, so absolute truth today must be made relative to our day and to our 21st-century culture.

GFJ: How are emerging churches any more relational than evangelical mainstream churches? Isn’t this what small groups are all about?
LEN SWEET: Much of the evangelical mainstream makes small groups a program of the church. It’s an add-on, or a drive-through. In emerging churches, community is constitutive of their identity. It’s the very essence of who they are. There is also a relational component of the theology of the emerging church, where truth is seen more in relational than in propositional terms. After all, God didn’t send us a principle. God sent us a person. God didn’t send us a statement. God sent us a savior . . . who is Christ the Lord.

GFJ: How are emerging churches distinctively missional?
LEN SWEET: Karl Rahner, the great 20thcentury Catholic theologian, referred to what he called Thermos-bottle Christianity. This is a form of pseudo-church where you keep everything inside warm and cozy and fresh, but let the outside freeze and take care of itself. Missional churches are focused on what God is doing in the world. Their circles face outward, not inward. This is a culture that loves gated communities, and there are gated churches to match. Missional churches are putting back together what for too long has been rent asunder: the whole gospel, both the personal gospel (evangelism), and the social gospel (justice and kingdom ministries).

GFJ: Please elaborate on what it means to promote justice and kingdom ministries. Can you share a few examples?
LEN SWEET: It seems like every other week I have a favorite book. But for a few months now my favorite book has been Greg Paul’s God in the Alley. Greg is pastor of a church in Toronto called Sanctuary, a community of people who have covenanted with each other to focus on the people who live and work on the streets of Toronto: the homeless, drug addicts, dealers, prostitutes, etc. There are other churches similarly focused on peace or on hunger. Woodman Valley Chapel in Colorado Springs adopted a squatter camp in Johannesburg, South Africa, and sends youth and others there to help elevate these poorest places on our planet.

GFJ: Finally, why might a pastor of an emerging church tell me I should follow Christ? And so what if I don’t?
LEN SWEET: Everybody follows someone. We all give our lives to something. The only questions are who, or what? I invite you to give your life to Jesus.
I like how philosopher Dallas Willard does it: He challenges his students to the reality test: Put Jesus into practice.
Go ahead. Got someone better than Jesus in mind to follow? OK, try someone else first. Put Sigmund Freud into practice. Put Charles Darwin into practice. Put Karl Marx into practice. Put Aristotle into practice. Put Plato into practice. Put Pablo Picasso into practice.
The only who or what that can stand up to the reality test is Jesus the Christ, who is bold enough to say to each of us, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
There’s only one reason to follow Christ: Truth. Truth or consequences. GFJ