david f,
“Everything Jesus said cannot be ascribed to the Jewish religion. “ – True enough, for if one reads him correctly, in many ways he says transcends it.

Gandhi promoted the principle of ahimsa very successfully by applying it to all spheres of life, particularly to politics. His non-violent resistance movement satyagraha had an immense impact on India. However, and you did mention controversy, Sri Aurobindo (Indian scholar, poet, yogi and spiritual guru) criticized the Gandhian concept of ahimsa as unrealistic and not universally applicable; he adopted a pragmatic non-pacifist position, saying that the justification of violence depends on the specific circumstances of the given situation. Hindu scriptures and law books in fact support the use of violence in self-defense against an armed attacker. They make it clear that criminals are not protected by the rule of ahimsa. They have no misgivings about the death penalty; their position is that evil-doers who deserve death should be killed. Quite interestingly and as an aside, there are parallels between Sri Aurobindo's vision and that of Teilhard de Chardin

In understanding Krishna I would find no contradiction between ‘Christ’ and, “…Go on doing what is God’s will for you to do, but accept failure as gladly as you would welcome success, indifferent always to the result. Works are only yours on loan: they in no sense belong to you. Perform them, then, in a spirit of sacrifice: return them to God to whom they really belong…” . And I agree with you on the question of arrogance, concurring with Robert Zaegner who said, “The whole ascetic tradition, whether it be Buddhist, Platonist, Manichaean, Christian or Islamic, springs from that most polluted of all sources, the Satanic sin of pride, the desire to be 'like gods'.”

Grim,
My remark was neither about Jesus’ teachings nor his divinity but about the absurdity of expecting NT or OT to contain statements about the heliocentric system or general relativity. Did you expect Jesus to just draw a picture or formula? Or to write a whole paper that would be preserved for centuries, to be read by a generation of future scientists who would understand it?

And if, assuming the Gospels contained also a “scientific treatise” claiming e.g. the superiority of loop quantum gravity over superstring theory (or vice versa) written in the language of contemporary physics, and somehow preserved intact, do you think that contemporary physicists would stop in their research trying to find out for themselves, which one of these two theories better reflected reality? Do you think that scholars in centuries past would have acted differently? As I say, this is not about Jesus but about absurdity.

>>define "our time". We have known for several centuries that the Earth is a ball of rock revolving around the Sun<<
Compared to the time scales involving evolution of humanity (also into the future, if we manage to survive a few more millennia), the few centuries that separate Galileo from Einstein are negligible.

David f you are right of course; I would make no claim that the Christian myth is unique or original in it's parts.
As has been mentioned by many posters on these pages, the Golden Rule has parallels in many religions and philosophies, and more than one preceded Jesus. The pagan tradition of the 'murdered God' is explored in some detail in Frazer's Golden Bough, as I recall.
I do think however, that it is not unreasonable to claim that the early Christians put together a rather neat package, as evidenced by it's success. The parables and the Sermon on the Mount are worthy of consideration by any student of morality and ethics.
George, once again I find your logic unfathomable. Possibly the one thing the Bible and Science have in common is the respect for prophecy.
Science is in essence about achieving such a level of understanding, that reliable predictions can be made. Newton's theory of gravity was perfectly acceptable to the people of his time, as it made reliable predictions about objects falling to the ground.
Einstein's theory was impressive to people of a later age, as it successfully predicted how light would be affected by gravity.
The Bible, both old and new, rests very heavily on prophecy. Matthew in particular I think, was at pains to 'prove' that Jesus was the fulfilment of many prophecies; all of which seem to be rather clumsily manufactured to later students.
Why then is it 'absurd' to ask for one small prophecy, beyond the immediate time frame of the Bible? Jesus claimed intimate knowledge of 'his Father's House'; how could he not know the Earth was round? (Of course, that isn't a good example, as Pythagoras among others had already guessed, or worked out the truth. The point is, Jesus at no time demonstrated verifiable knowledge, not available to a mortal human).
Armageddon appears to be the only prophecy left. Terminal philosophies are a bit of a copout; if they don't happen, they may still happen, and if they do, it's too late for the faithless anyway.

Relda wrote: Sri Aurobindo ... criticized the Gandhian concept of ahimsa as unrealistic and not universally applicable.

Dear Relda,

Gandhi recognised that Ahimsa was not universally applicable.

From http://ramallahonline.com/articles/are-palestinians-allowed-to-resist-part-iiii

... whether it is better to be a coward or to resist violently, he [Gandhi] said: “I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour…” (2: Eds. R. K. Rabhu & U. R. Rao, “Between Cowardice and Violence,” The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Ahemadabad, India, 1967, p. 3) He also said: “Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right. (3: Ibid, pp. 369-70)

In some ways Christianity is a step backward from Judaism toward paganism. God in human form, virgin birth and gods impregnating humans were all ideas current in the pagan religions of that time. The idea that human necessity and compassion justifies breaking the law was present in the Judaism of Jesus' time and today. Ultra-Orthodox Jews of today accept a pig’s valve inserted in a human heart if necessary to save a life.

Roman chronicles tell that Pontius Pilate was so cruel that the Romans sacked him from his position. The New Testament pictures him as somewhat wishy-washy and manipulated by the Jewish mob.

The New Testament was designed to minimize antagonizing the Roman authorities and to seek favour from the surrounding people. Therefore Jews rather than Romans could be blamed for the crucifixion and pagan elements could be included.

Pride is not the same as arrogance. It is unreasonable guilt to regard a normal emotion as sin.

Grim,
I am not sure what you call logic, but you seem to confuse scientific predictions (after QM not a clear concept either) with prophecies of the biblical or Nostradamus kind.

I did not say it was absurd to think Jesus could have made prophecies comprehensible to his contemporaries that “proved” God’s existence to a 21st century man, although this could also be called an absurdity.

I only said it was an absurdity to ask Jesus to present to those simple fishermen a treatise, or what, reflecting and explaining the scientific understanding of the physical reality as understood by scholars in the 16th or 20th century. Or not explaing it but asking them (or the authors of NT) to somehow preserve the completely incomprehensible to them text for centuries until somebody will understand it. This to expect is absurd whether or not you accept the Christian perception of Jesus.

Besides, I doubt it that a record in the Gospel about Jesus having stated E=mc^2 would be more convincing to a 21st century sceptic than records about him having risen from death: both records can be dismissed or explained away if you want to.

david f,
In 1938, Gandhi was asked in an interview, "What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?" Gandhi gave the view that the German Jews should commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." I wonder at the naiveté of such an answer where, as the horror unfolded, the Jews actually were “helpless” and so witnessed their own degradation and dishonor.

You seem to overlook the concept of a biblical narrative which has the basic elements of a setting, characters and a plot. They are important to consider in the hearing of a story, but are not themselves the purpose of the narrative or the point of its message. They are the vehicle by which to communicate a larger truth to be understood in the story. Your literal taking of the N.T. story naturally lends itself to Pagan interpretation – for Paganism is merely a part of the setting and performs as a backdrop, as with the Roman consul.

Pride and arrogance are strong associates - even if not the same, one generally leads to the other. Niebuhr makes the point on Christian evangelicals in their perhaps arrogant attempt (triumphalism) to convert the Jews, in that they "have little fruit to boast for their exertions. They are wrong because the two faiths despite differences are sufficiently alike for the Jew to find God more easily in terms of his own religious heritage than by subjecting them to the hazards of guilt feeling involved in a conversion to a faith, which whatever it’s excellencies, must appear to him as a symbol of an oppressive majority culture.”