Jesus of Nazareth, known as "J-dogg" by some

What is your opinion of Jesus?

  • Total voters
I knew you would chicken out. But I really did want to hear your theory. Nietzsche also believed that Jesus was something of an amoralist. He thought Jesus was an anarchist who preached a radical equality; he also called him an idiot, but in the flattering sense of Dostoevsky's prince (or Bresson's donkey, but that came later). Unfortunately he never cited anything except his own intuition, which I suspect you're doing too.

I'm at the point where I think St. Paul is the far more fascinating specimen than Jesus. Jesus is easy. He had the same set of qualities that any garden variety cult leader or revolutionary has. I think his movement would've died as a sad remnant of a Jewish sect if it hadn't been for Paul. Paul is my kind of Jew, really: conflicted, literate, sex-obsessed, wrestling with God, delusional, and bald. If this was school, Jesus is the good-looking popular long-haired poet who gets all the girls. Paul is the awkward one who spends his nights alone in his room reading the Torah, going on bouts of resentful misotheism, and listening to the Smiths.
I'm not going to debate Jesus with people who are dead set on deliberately misunderstanding
Him to be cool.

There's nothing wrong with relying on intuition to know Jesus. After all, the kingdom of God is in one's heart. Is one supposed to rely on outside sources to know God, or does one come to know him in quiet contemplation? I have a strong inner guide and always have. No biblical scholar knows more than me about Jesus.
The suspension of disbelief that is required to accept the basic tenets of Christianity – that not only does God exist but a very specific God, and He had an incarnation that performed miracles, died to redeem the sins of mankind, was raised from the dead, ascended to Heaven alive and will return… I mean it’s just staggering. To believe that in the modern world is a feat in itself. And that’s without the centuries of doctrinal and ritual claptrap that the Church added on top; Popes and palaces, limbo, purgatory and Hell, confession and saints, mortal and venial sins. It’s mountains and mountains of twaddle, to me. But life can be hard and I can understand why people burrow into their traditions and look to them for nuggets of wisdom to get them through the night, I am just the same. Even atheists are at it.
But the only reason we know Jesus said that in the first place, is from the gospels.
which is as much proof of jesus that i can think of: the fact that his words match exactly what is in ones heart. i cant talk to you anymore anyway now because of your dumb signature. forgive me, but for as long as it remains im going to be scrolling past your posts as quickly as possible. you're doing that deliberately to be offensive, and i dont find it becoming in a man of your advanced years.
I take this occasion to quote Valentin Tomberg's Christological masterpiece Meditations on the Tarot ( pg. 246 — adding some bolding and breaking up the dense paragraphs into shorter ones for easier reading from a screen): The world is not what it should be.

Something might be askew in the translation here, Catholic, but this seems a tad gnostic to me. Wouldn't the orthodox position be that the world is as it should be? God preordained the Fall and permits all the sufferings of the world in order to bring about a greater good, I think is the idea. O felix culpa and all that.
Last edited:
ill come back and tell you what i mean about jesus being an amoralist later, since it's the least i can do for jesus, to try to help people understand what he was really about
When you’ve accepted that the Bible is a historical text that has been edited, changed, translated by mere mortals for centuries… when you recognise that it didn’t actually float down from a cloud, where does that leave your understanding of Jesus? Some of my favourite parables and stories are thought to have been ‘insertions’ i.e fabrications (eg. the woman in adultery, the woman at the well). We have no proof that Jesus said anything that is attributed to him in the four gospels.

I liked Bishop John Spong, who was criticised as an atheist in a collar because he ‘shelved’ so much Christian thought and practice that there was hardly anything left. Yet he couldn’t let go, he had a Jesus fixation and he wrote book after book after book. He thought that the ‘truth’ of the resurrection and so on didn’t matter. If Jesus was just a normal guy and a teacher and the son of no-one in particular, that would be fine because “Jesus is where God is met, for me” – meaning that’s how he understands God. And it didn't matter to him if he was 'right', because he saw faith as a personal thing and I totally understand that.
I accept the Bible has been edited by mortals.

I don't understand why Jesus being primarily homosexual is a problem for so many.

Same with Morrissey's hate of with people of a different religion or race. They don't need to buy his records. Simple really. He doesn't need your money. FO.

Morrissey had written much better all of them put together.

I know of an Arab neighbour who also hates Pakistans and listens to dance music. He loves M so much he has a quiff.
I don't think Morrissey cares much about religion.
Obviously he does care about race and colour.
His objection to dark skin is ascetic. Not everything in Morrissey's world race centred.
christianity edith sitwell jesus religion
Top Bottom