Gerald Cleaver "Farmers by Nature"
William Parker
Craig Taborn

Luis Vicente / Vasco Trilla "A Brighter Side of Darkness"

Sonny Rollins "A Night at the Village Vanguard"

Benny Carter "Jazz Giant"

Max Reger "Sonatas for Solo Violin"
Ulrike-Anima Mathe

Nice selections.

Never thought about not being in a cheery mood to listen to the Schnittke piano quartet. Works for me in whatever mood.

On the other hand, one could argue that the accusation leveled against another of ‘unsound critical thinking skills’ is often a convenient way to blame the other for our failure to understand their framework for interpreting a situation. — Joshs

C'mon. You seem to have taken a portion of what I wrote out of context and created a straw man. Try considering the entirety of what I wrote within the context of the post it was in response to.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not mainly about difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook. It's mostly about knowledge, awareness and information. It's a common view in arenas where views about the topic are expressed. Only tell the trans folk about biology and they will quickly see their error. Educate the terfs about trans rights and they will understand. It doesn't seem to work. Sure, there is ignorance, too, although few people who offer a view lay claim to it. But it's mainly about outlook. Offering people more experience or information does not suit the case. People may have equal knowledge, experience and information and still disagree. — Cuthbert

Let's try this a different way. Consider critical thinking skills:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Critical thinking skills are also on a spectrum: from poor to excellent. Given the same information: an individual with excellent critical thinking skills forms sound beliefs while an individual with poor critical thinking skills forms unsound beliefs. A bigot with otherwise good critical thinking skills will also form unsound beliefs.

Individuals who forms unsound beliefs will "disagree" with the sound beliefs. Many of them will try to assert that it is merely a "difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook" or whatever other disingenuous rationalizations that they may dream up.

Interesting idea, but can you give an example of the sort of thing you have in mind? It's fairly obvious how such an approach could be useful in a mathematical philosphy forum, for example, but how do you see it applying to areas like metaphysics or epistemology? In what way would it be superior to a simple verbal reply? — alan1000

Search for "Euler diagram" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology.
Perhaps something like that?

A lot of people have difficulty understanding abstract concepts. Diagrams can help.

I have not heard anyone apparently clueless or inexperienced. Almost everyone seems quite certain of their views on gender identity. Adults generally claim to have been well versed in the topic and have a settled and confident opinion. They tend to dismiss contrary opinions as invalid, being fully sure of their own. People will readily admit to being clueless about maths or French and inexperienced in making crochet blankets. But gender identity - nobody's going to get educated, they all have their degrees already. The problem is not lack of experience. It's difference of viewpoints and opinions. — Cuthbert

You don't think individuals can BOTH be "confident" and be "clueless"?
You don't think individuals can BOTH believe themselves "well versed" and be "clueless"?

Daunik Lazro / Joelle Leandre "Hasparren"

Cecil Taylor "Celebrated Blazons"
William Parker
Tony Oxley

Horace Silver "The Jody Grind"

Leos Janacek "String Quartets / Violin Sonata"
Prazak Quartet

Max Reger "Cello Suites"
Guido Schiefen

But this is exactly the basic idea of humanism: that man has a special position within nature...
Modern humanism is no longer based on the idea of the spiritual or even the divine. Nevertheless, it grants man a special position by ascribing to him a unique DIGNITY...
This dignity distinguishes Sapiens - and only him ! - It marks the qualitative difference, the gap which separates the human being from the animal kingdom. — Matias

On what do you base this assertion?

Why is there such a large gulf between the underlying concepts of what you wrote and the underlying concepts of the following?:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
– American Humanist Association
From <https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/>

To say that human beings have dignity is to say that human beings also have an obligation or duty to respect the rights of all people. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and security of person; the right to be freed from slavery; equal protection before the law; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; and so on.
From <https://www.apadivisions.org/division-32/publications/newsletters/humanistic/2014/01/dignity>

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong when I am. I wish more people would act on their similar sentiments when appropriate. — god must be atheist

You and me both. Unfortunately it seems to be quite rare nowadays. And getting rarer. Especially since the rise of Trump. Never admit that you're wrong. Just keep slinging the BS. Facts don't matter. Solid evidence doesn't matter. Sound reasoning doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they believe that they are right.

Glad we got that resolved.

I am a Christian and I have heard this point made before but I cannot help thinking that it sounds terribly like a dog-whistle excuse. "I know I said we should keep England for the English - but I never meant you should beat up foreigners!" This was, after all, the son of God. Even if he wasn't, he must have known how words like that from a leader get interpreted by followers. — Cuthbert

Christians have a long history of taking scripture out of context and deluding themselves into believing that it supports whatever self-serving belief they may have. When Matthew 10:34 is placed in the context of (34-39) the meaning is clear. It is made even more clear in the context of Luke 12:51-53. Even clearer within the context of the gospel preached by Jesus in its entirety.

A recurring theme throughout the four gospels is that Jesus speaks figuratively, many in the audience take it literally and fail to understand what Jesus is saying (as with Matthew 10:34). Of those who fail to understand Jesus had the following to say:

John 8
43Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot listen to My word. 44You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

In what way can such Christians reasonably be called "followers" of Jesus?

You said that the gospels are pauline. There are no other gospels. So where does one get Jesus's teaching? Not from the bible, because that is PAULINE. You said that.

I really don't understand what you don't understand. There is one bible. It is pauline. So where is the Jesu gospel? it is not available to us, because, as you said, only the pauline gospel is what we can get. — god must be atheist

Okay. Evidently you misunderstood what I wrote. The problem is that I did NOT say what you say I said.

Contrast what you say I said with what I actually wrote:

Only because the gospel preached by Jesus is not the foundation for Christianity. The gospel that Christianity is spreading is the Pauline gospel. — ThinkOfOne

The gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

Paul subsequently all but ignored the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus and created a "gospel" of his own with very different underlying concepts. Paul even called it "my gospel". This is the Pauline gospel.

So, the gospel that Christianity is spreading is the Pauline gospel. Not the gospel preached by Jesus. Just as I wrote. NOT what you say I said.

so... we have no clue whatsoever what the real gospel is, the gospel written by those who witnessed Jesus. We have the Pauline gospel, and nothing else.

This is rather very peculiar. — god must be atheist

Can you elaborate on what you've written here? As it stands, it doesn't make any sense in the context of what I wrote.

I agree. I was not saying that Jesus advocates violence and bloodshed. I just think when a figure as polarizing as Jesus comes around you're going to get it though. He did bring division. I like Christianity, but it's inevitable with all the different variants and the insistence on spreading the Gospel that war will come. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
2 minutes ago — Moses

Only because the gospel preached by Jesus is not the foundation for Christianity. The gospel that Christianity is spreading is the Pauline gospel. I suspect that you responded before I edited my previous post and added another paragraph.

Jesus says “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). In sum, I think Christian violence in that period is reasonably understood as the continuation of the Gospel and not in contrast to it. — Moses

Many Christians take that verse literally and out of context, as you've done here, as a justification for Christian violence.

Matthew 10
34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35“For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39“He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it.

Jesus is in no way advocating violence here. The sword is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking of division.

This is made clear in the parallel passage from Luke:
Luke 12
51“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three. 53“They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

A key concept in the gospel preached by Jesus is the division between the righteous and the unrighteous. The words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel are by which the division between righteous and the unrighteous will be judged. Those words are the "sword". Interestingly, it is also by the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel that the unrighteous can make themselves righteous.

I mean if he is not God/divine some of his teachings are way out of line, such as his teaching in John 6 that he requires his followers to consume him to attain everlasting life. — Moses

As so often happened while Jesus preached His gospel, Jesus used metaphor and the listeners (including the disciples) take it literally and don't understand what He is saying.

Jesus first attempted to explain the metaphor as follows:
John 6
32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.”

After the disciples still do not understand, Jesus explicitly gives what He means by the "bread of God":
John 6
63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

The "bread of God" which gives "life to the world" are the words He spoke while preaching His gospel. His words are what give "life to the world". As He so often did, Jesus returned to this theme repeatedly. For example:
John 8
"34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
" 31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
"36So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. "
" 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”

John 12
48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. 49“For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. 50“I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”

Thoughts on the above?

I was also hoping to get your thoughts on my earlier post:

— ThinkOfOne

Julliard String Quartet - "The Four String Quartets"
Elliott Carter

Teodoro Anzellotti "Janacek"
Leos Janacek piano works arranged for accordion

Barbara Hannigan / Reinbert de Leeuw "Socrate"
Erik Satie compositions

Yuko Yamaoka "Diary 2005-2015"
Satoko Fujii compostional sketches

Maneri / Morris / Maneri "Three Men Walking"

The other thread has plenty of music that's not rock and pop. Maybe you've just been looking at the last few pages.

Be that as it may, I was just listening to "The Creator has a Master Plan" by Pharaoh Sanders. — Jamal

Seems to be dominated by rock/pop regardless. Hopefully there'll be folks who have jazz and/or classical as their primary interest.

Had never listened to the Sanders. Thanks for posting it.
Jeri Brown enlisted Leon Thomas for a vocal duet version if you're interested.

If JC is a man he is absolutely batshit insane. — Moses

What do you have in mind here?

I agree with most of it -- the first 4 parts are fine. I get a little skeptical when you tell me that Jesus is speaking "figuratively" about the righteous being "resurrected." I'm not sure where this is in the Gospels. I suppose it isn't a major point if the general theme is righteousness = life and sin = death.

I wouldn't say I'm a Paul expert but I have read the entire NT. There are many components to Jesus' Gospels and many themes so any sort of analysis/commentary of the Gospels will surely add things or amplify certain aspects and Paul certainly does this, the question is whether this counts as "perverting" or "contaminating" the Gospel. IMHO the core of the religion, as I understand it, is Jesus' teaching on the greatest commandment -- love God and then love your neighbor as yourself. Other Jesus themes: Simplicity, acceptance, anti-materialism, hierarchy reversal, greatest leader as greatest servant, and others -- but love trumps all. — Moses

As to how the gospel preached by Jesus was corrupted, maybe it will help to highlight the underlying concepts of the main line.

To lend perspective, the underlying concepts of Isaiah 1:11-20 and Ezekiel 18:27-32:
No more substitutionary atonement. God wants loyalty.
Make yourselves righteous. Cease to sin. Make yourselves clean.
Making oneself righteous is the standard for repentance.

There is a direct line to the underlying concepts of the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus as it builds upon the above:
Jesus came to light the way for the unrighteous to make themselves righteous by ceasing to sin. It's about transformation: from a "bad tree" to a "good tree"; from a "slave" to a "son"; from one "born of the flesh" to one "born of the spirit".
The unrighteous who make themselves righteous have made themselves clean. They have been "saved".
Being righteous is required to have eternal life /to live in the Kingdom.
Making oneself righteous is the standard for repentance.

The underlying concepts of the main line of the Pauline gospel:
Everyone has sinned.
No one can make themselves righteous.
Therefore, everyone needs the substitutionary atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to make them clean.
Faith in this substitutionary atonement is required to be made clean / to be "saved" / to have eternal life / to live in the Kingdom.
Making oneself righteous is not the standard for repentance.

Paul abandoned the direct line from the underlying concepts of Isaiah 1:11-20 and Ezekiel 18:27-32 to the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus and went off in a completely different direction. For all intents and purposes the underlying concepts of the main line of the Pauline gospel are antithetical to the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus.

There are many other ways of course, but…

Like race, way too much importance has been and continues to be given to superficial attributes such as these. Human beings are human beings.

From what I can tell, biases such as these are inculcated into very young children as a simplistic way to help them categorize the world around them. Unfortunately many seem to lack the maturity to be to able to gain a more highly developed understanding of the world even as adults.
"This is the way I've viewed the world. Can't people see how wrong it is to view the world otherwise?"
It's as if they perceive it as an attack on themselves. Of course, it couldn't possibly be that their worldview has been overly simplistic from very early in their childhood...

This specific discussion was supposed to be geared at the overall logic of Lewis's trilemma (and I think most of us think that it is flawed including myself). Perhaps I could've titled the new forum something a little more "academic" but the conversations that have been flowing with these past two discussions have been interesting. If you (or anyone else) have ideas about discussion topics for the future please let me know. I have one idea in particular but I don't think I would get much discussion because of the topic. — Dermot Griffin

I had understood the topic of this thread.

You seem to have misunderstood my previous post.

You had indicated that you were going to create a new thread to discuss the following topic. You then indicated that you entitled the new thread "The Real Meaning of the Gospel". However, the OP for "The Real Meaning of the Gospel" was about something very different from the following:

In the spirit of what I quoted from Kierkegaard, seems like it calls for instead is an analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus. How it is the " the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ". — ThinkOfOne

I'm not skeptical of the gospel preached by Jesus.

I'm skeptical of the "gospel" of Christianity which is based on the Pauline gospel and the "gospel stories" that the writers of the "four gospels" wrapped around the gospel preached by Jesus . You speak of your "certitude about the Gospel". From what I gather, you are speaking of the latter rather than the former.

John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

Jesus' true disciples are those who abide in His word. That would be the words that Jesus spoke while He preached His gospel. It is they that know the truth. Not those who have "certitude about the Gospel" taught by Paul and followers of Paul.

When Jesus was preaching His gospel He used the terms "believe Him" and "believe in Him" essentially in three different ways:
1) Believe that He has the authority to speak the word of God
2) Believe that His words are the word of God
3) Believe His words in and of themselves. That is believe in living as Jesus exhorted people to live.

Of the three listed, the first two are as means of getting to the third and not the ends in and of themselves. Those who believe in living as Jesus exhorts people to live and therefore actually do it are His true disciples.

Jesus did NOT use them to mean to believe in the "redemptive work on the cross for salvation", "believe in the resurrection" or what have you - which is what many Christians think.

The real meaning of the Gospel is simple to understand in three easy steps:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

"You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth"

“Go into the world. Go everywhere and announce God’s good news to one and all.” — Joe Mello

In my experience, many read much into the first verse you've quoted even though it is ambiguous in and of itself.
In your opinion:
Who do you believe is speaking? Jesus or the narrator of the Book of John?
What does "believe in him" entail? What is the underlying meaning of "eternal life"? What is the underlying meaning of "his one and only Son"?
Specifically what do you believe is being said? What is the underlying meaning? What underlying concepts are being conveyed?

From Dictionary.com
Instinct: an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.

Habits are actions that have been repeated so often that they become ingrained in the unconscious which are performed without conscious thought.

From Merriam-Webster:
Ritual: an act or series of acts regularly repeated in a set precise manner

The ultimate root for acts of ritual are as a way to relieve anxiety:
This can be seen most directly in an individual with OCD. Performing the acts results in the alleviation of their anxiety. The acts typically become increasing elaborate if the efficacy of the ritual is not consistent.

Religious rituals are typically much more elaborate performances that are codified for a culture:
An ancient culture performs a series of acts to ensure a good harvest. They can rest assured.

Modern day rituals were born of the same root:
Eucharist/holy communion as an assurance of good standing with God.
Wedding rituals as an assurance of a successful marriage.

Correlation isn't meaningless. It's a mistake to assume causation, as you said. It's definitely mistake to jump to conclusions based on a correlation. But it's not meaningless. — Tate

It isn't that correlation is meaningless, it is that correlation in and of itself is meaningless. There's a distinction that needs to be made there.

Why would racism pertain to the quarterback position, but none of the other positions? I'd be happy to believe it, it just doesn't make any sense. — Tate

Based on your responses on this thread, you don't seem very familiar with the history of the NFL, racism in the US and the long-term effects of systemic racism. Another poster started to try to explain things to you, but you didn't seem to have the prerequisite knowledge needed to understand what was being said.

What sort of incentive system would explain why dimorphic animals are usually not monogamous? I'm asking.

It's not just primates, btw. — Tate

The point was that dimorphism likely has nothing to do with it. It's merely a statistic what shows correlation. In and of itself, it means nothing.

This actually started because of a little stray factoid. The reason most NFL quarterbacks are white isn't what you'd expect. It's not a history of racism. It's that white males between 32 and 43 have superior long range depth perception. Go figure. — Tate

This doesn't even begin to make rational sense for any number of reasons. Not least since NFL quarterbacks typically become starters well before the age of 32. Racism has been and remains the best answer. Seems likely that this "little stray factoid" was started by racists.

What does this imply about the human psyche in terms of our power to override biology? — Tate

This seems a bit strong. Correlation does not imply causation. Seems more likely that it is rooted in the neurobiological incentive system than primate dimorphism.

So how did monogamy become an ideal for our species? — Tate

Stability comes to mind. Two are more likely to be stable than three, three more likely than four...

Interesting. Sounds like rather than an Australian Baptist tradition per se, it was the tradition of the individual church that you attended? Perhaps more accurately, the tradition of a subset of its congregation? Do I understand you correctly?

I'd like to find a church with a tradition that believes in the gospel preached by Jesus rather than the Pauline gospel. But from what investigation I've done, there are none.

But many Christians see the Bible as a vast completion of allegories. I grew up in that tradition and we were taught that the stories of the Old Testament were myths - stories designed for teaching larger truths. Truths I might add I happily ignored as superfluous to requirements. There's a reason many Christians ignore the OT and focus on the ethical teachings of JC. — Tom Storm

What tradition was that?

Were the mythical stories of the NT - literal resurrection of Jesus, literal healing of a blind man, literal raising of a dead man, Jesus being literally born of God, etc. - similarly taken as myths?

Was the focus on the ethical teaching of JC to the exclusion of the Pauline gospel?

I'd genuinely like to know.

New discussion forum is up titled "The Real Meaning of the Gospel." — Dermot Griffin

You indicated that the plan was to discuss the following in the new thread you were creating:

In the spirit of what I quoted from Kierkegaard, seems like it calls for instead is an analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus. How it is the " the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ". — ThinkOfOne

The OP seems to be about something very different. What happened?

Any given passage from the gospel preached by Jesus needs to be understood within the context of the entirety of the gospel preached by Jesus.
Seems like you've taken Matthew 6:25-34 out of context of the entirety of the gospel preached by Jesus and decided that what you'd like to think about that passage is the "real gospel".

Keep in mind that Jesus came to bring the unrighteous to righteousness.
The subtext for Matthew 6:25-34 is that Jesus is telling the unrighteous that transforming themselves into righteous individuals needs to be their one and only priority. They shouldn't be concerned about anything else. They concern themselves with the wrong things. It's part of a recurring theme.
It's akin to telling a heroin addict that getting clean needs to be their one and only priority. They shouldn't be concerned about anything else.

The core of the gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the parables, explanations of the parables, the Sermon on the Mount, passages where Jesus explicitly describes what is required to receive "eternal life" / "salvation" and passages where Jesus explicitly describes the Kingdom and what living in the Kingdom entails. In short, passages where Jesus is explicitly preaching the vision of His gospel.
The above passages can be found in the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as presented in the "four gospels".

↪ThinkOfOne I broadly agree with your take on the Jesus gospel. How did Paul corrupt that message? — Moses

First let me know what you found questionable as to it being a part of Jesus' message.

Also, just how familiar are you with the teachings of Paul? For some reason I was thinking that you had a reasonably firm grasp on the teachings of Paul and had ideas about what the Pauline message was about.

Looking forward to it. After you've created the new thread, please post a note here.

If you have rational basis for your position, it seems that you are either unable or unwilling to articulate what it is.

From what I can tell having sifted through many of your posts, you are concerned about the left with regard to "traditional values". Isn't that what you're concerned about rather than the left "standing for a lack of role models"?

The problem with "traditional values" in the US is that there has been and continues to be a tradition of bigotry. Bigotry against racial minorities, women, the LGBT community, etc. Having long-standing bigotry has had a deleterious effect on society. The left seems to be trying to eradicate that bigotry and remediate those long-term effects. You seem to perceive this as an attack on all "traditional values". The aphorism "A house divided cannot stand" has much wisdom in it. Bigotry divides. It should be eradicated and its long-term effects remediated.

In the spirit of what I quoted from Kierkegaard, seems like it calls for instead is an analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus. How it is the " the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ".

The gospel preached by Jesus can be found in the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

Some years ago, I had a series of discussions with a retired pastor regarding the gospel preached by Jesus. As part of those discussions, I noticed that he would often force Jesus' words into the gospel taught by Paul and others influenced by Paul - no matter how awkward the fit. He acknowledged that he did so. So I issued him the following challenge: that he set aside his beliefs and read the words of Jesus as if the rest of the NT did not exist. To allow the words spoken by Jesus to speak for themselves. He said that he didn't think himself capable of doing so. Do you think yourself capable? If so, are you willing to work through analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus.

Does not liberalism (as we know it today) stand for the lack of all role models (but volunteerism)? — Eros1982

Can you try to make a cogent case for this? From what you've presented, you don't seem to have a solid rational basis for it.

Jesus paints an ideal. Perhaps in an ideal world the righteous among us, with their pure hearts and proper means and perfect environment, never sin -- but in the actual world "all [have] sinned" (Romans 5:12). We see the universality of sin in the OT too; King David is as righteous as a king can be but he is not perfect. I consider David's moral imperfection one of the core truths of the OT that no one is perfect. I see Jesus's strength as a visionary. It's like he paints a picture for us and we run towards it despite the difficulties of the world.

I guess in this sense I'm somewhat sympathetic to Paul in his view that the material world brings us down, and it even seem to have perhaps vague roots in JC: "the flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing." — Moses

What a curious response.

You made the following request:
"I'd be interested to know in what way he perverts the word of Jesus."

My post was in order to begin to fulfill that request. In order to show how Paul "perverts the word of Jesus", it is logical to first establish what the word of Jesus says. My post was in order to do that.

Whether or not you believe Jesus is a different matter.

Whether or not Paul believed Jesus is a different matter.
Even more illogically, how is it not wrongheaded for you to cite Paul in support of your unbelief, given the context?

Also you've taken ""the flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing" out of context.
Matthew 26
“Keep watching and praying, that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
In context, it's a reminder to be vigilant.

What's more, even IF no one has never sinned, how does that demonstrate that no one is capable of ceasing to commit sin?"

Kierkegaard was correct in saying, "Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ".