View of Christ notably differs

Dear Editor: Re: “Christ a rational, historical fact,” Daily Courier, Aug. 1.

As one who believes that Christ basically was what he claimed to be, I’ve found that most Christian denominations practice a view of Christ that notably differs from much of his own teachings.

Also, I believe that Christ’s true nature practiced en masse by his followers over the many centuries since his crucifixion would indeed have notably improved human existence.

Over the last three decades, I’ve listened to many (what I term as) “institutional Christians” interpret various biblical passages (in both literal and figurative contexts) in an attempt to reconcile the conspicuously contradictory pacifist practices of Jesus in comparison to those of the fiercely angry, vengeful, and even jealous nature of God the Father. The latter, of course, is widely believed to require the shedding of Jesus’ sin-free blood — in place of that of anything-but-innocent man—as atonement for his consistent disdain for any sin whatsoever.

I sometimes contemplate whether our own individual instinctive need for retribution or ‘justice’— regardless of Christ and great spiritual leaders having emphasized unconditional forgiveness — may be intrinsically linked to the same unfortunate morally-flawed aspect of humankind that enables the most horrible acts of violent cruelty to readily occur on this planet.

As for the potential consequences of selfprofessed Christians publicly behaving little like Christ (according to biblical teachings), I wonder how many potential genuine Jesus Christians have felt repelled from the faith altogether due to the vocal angry-condemnation brand? Frank Sterle Jr

White Rock