(the Man's response has been lost at this point. we know he did respond and that some discussion regarding Christianity was on-going when he posted the following message to the woman who has posted critical of one of his blog entrys..first his blog then his response ):

Man:

I wrote this to you but thought I would also post to my blog:

Dear Woman:
Sorry. I hope Jesus would find it funny. He had a great sense of humor. Also, I do not consider myself (nor do I think most Christians would consider me) to be Christian in any traditional sense. I find all that symbolic cannibalism to be a bit too much. I do, however, greatly respect what Jesus taught...most of which, I believe, is not reflected in the synoptic gospels accurately. I find that I trust some of the modern new testament scholars who have employed a much less chauvinistic method and included a greater variety of sources to verify what Jesus actually said. The early church, which created the 'idea of Jesus as a supernatural being, did a disservice and I believe, distorted the true gospel of Jesus, who would never have claimed himself to be different from "even the least of" us. Their scholarship has helped me to understand the real beauty and magic that lays in the teachings, not so much the man.

IMHO Jesus taught that if you lived your life as he did then you will find heaven right here on earth, and that if you live your life based upon selfishness and greed and avarice and aggression and violence then you will find hell on earth. In no account do I believe that Christ was ever discussing the afterlife. He was a teacher of life, of how to live right here and now, not how to avoid punishment and get rewards after you die. I realize that Christianity finds these views to be heretical but I don't think that any Church or school of religion or philosophy has the right to claim Jesus as their own.

Here's a question I find easy to answer which most Christian friends I know find difficult:

Imagine two men, one accepts Jesus as his personal lord and savior, attends Church regularly, and prays to God everyday.

The second man does none of these things.

Further, the first man is angry and intolerant of others not like him. He despises those not of his own race and conducts himself accordingly. He is mean to his children and kicks his pets. He sleeps with all the women he can though he is married. When he feels someone has wronged him, he takes great lengths to get revenge. He feels that those who are poor and hungry are lazy and so he shares nothing with them.



The second man however treats everyone with respect and dignity, concerns himself with the suffering of others and does what he can to relieve it. He volunteers at hospitals and asylums. He gives of his own wealth to help those less fortunate. When he is injured by someone he meditates carefully on what his own possible role was. He seeks to help understand the pathologies of his injurer that he might demonstrate with example of his own life that he might find a path less injurious to others and therefore less injurious to himself.

Many Church leaders would find the first man to be a 'Christian" albeit a sinner, who will be forgiven and accepted into the kingdom of heaven. They would also claim that the second man would not be saved and would end up somewhere else.

I know who I would rather go with.

Love, Man
PS You look just like Judy Garland in current photo..Beautiful!