Perry J, From what I can tell, we agree on quite a few things. I suspect that if we were talking to Jesus about some of the things that are attributed to him, he would have a lot more to say that would clarify where he was coming from.

For instance, one of his lines "Do not suppose I come to bring peace, but, rather a sword," has been taken by many to mean that Jesus was advocating violence. I don't see it that way. I think he was just describing what was going to happen when he came. I think it means something like "When the stuff I'm talking about gets out there into the world, into the hands of people, it is really going to hit the fan, and it's going to be like that for a long time."

I have no doubt that Jesus would say "You are all sons and daughters of God. At the time, nobody wanted to hear it said in that clean of a manner."

I also see some people on this thread who question that Jesus even existed. As I've said, I've seen some people suggest that Christianity (regardless of how it has come down over the centuries) caught a lucky break or that Constantine and some others devised a belief system to control the masses. After examining all of the possibilities, what works best for me is that Jesus really existed, and the reason his teachings are still very much with us (and will continue to be) is that they are that powerful.

Even if Jesus did not exist, there is no way to deny the impact that his words and deeds have had on the world for 2000 years and counting. I totally agree that there is a vast difference between what Jesus was talking about and what has come down as organized religion(s), but the teachings are still there for us to examine and apply to our own lives.

I have a problem with those people who talk about hating the ego, destroying the ego, killing the ego, etc. In a very real sense, we are a consciousness that's experiencing life in a flesh and blood suit. Ever since Freud (although he didn't originate the idea), there has been this idea that our consciousness is somehow divided into parts (i.e. id, ego, super-ego) that don't completely communicate with each other.

Even those many people who have dismissed Freud's ideas have latched onto some model of consciousness that incorporates this idea. I also see people giving labels to parts of our consciousness (i.e. the shadow self, the I, the conditioned vs unconditioned self and on and on). All of these things are just some imaginary part of our consciousness, and there is no way to differentiate between one part (i.e. ego) and all the rest.

I think that we should recognize and appreciate the ego for what it is, part of who we are. Yes, there are people who are so caught up in what we like to think of as the ego that we even have bad names for them (i.e. egomaniac), but if we hate our own egos, we are hating part of who we are.

OK, I've got to go. See you later...