As it was intended.
This is understandable, and I agree. I was more referencing the passage as an example of one part of Christ's message that is noteworthy, regardless of his relationship (or lack thereof) to God.
I understand the reference, but disagree with the usage. And truism of the relationship notwithstanding, the significance of the message as a whole IS the crux of the message.
I would disagree. Even a madman can dispense pearls of wisdom from time to time. Luckily for us though, we don't believe Jesus to be a madman.
But, the stringing of the pearls together provides its cohesiveness and clarity. A madman cannot do that, and isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t worthy of fellowship. One bad apple and all thatÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.
I really don't think adopting Christlike behavior a waste whether or not he was truly the Son of God. I have had many conversations with Buddhists (just to name one of many) who acknowledge the clarity and relevance of Christ's message.
Again, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the Ã¢â‚¬Å“part and parcelÃ¢â‚¬Â Jesus was speaking of, lived for and died to retrieve. And according to that message, He is the only way. So any other meaning rings hollow apart from that message in this life.
Quantum Field Theory?...................... Just kiddingÃ¢â‚¬Â¦..
I actually laughed out loud at this. Everyone in the Internet Cafe is looking at me like I am crazy right now... Forgive me, I have a dry sense of humor...
Had you passed beverage through your sinus cavity during the laugh, that would have been coolÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Of course, that would have been quite the scene in an Internet CafÃƒÂ©.