Oh dear. So, you confirm your confirmation bias?
I take it you are not going to answer my questions, then? In case you've forgotten what they were, here they are again:
"Why are you being so simplistic in your consideration of Christ's words? And why are your only conclusions about his motives evil ones? What's your beef with Jesus? Why are you so eager to see him in a bad light?"
Have you heard of Stockholm Syndrome?
Why do you want to worship a celestial dictator?
Yes, I have heard of Stockholm Syndrome.
I don't worship a "celestial dictator." I worship the Creator of Everything because He is absolutely
worthy of my worship. God isn't a dictator, which is a distinctly human thing; He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End of all that exists. We are all utterly contingent upon Him. Calling God a "celestial dictator" doesn't really get it right. God is the Maker and Sustainer of the universe. Without Him, there is no universe. No human dictator has ever lived of whom this is true.
Ah! Got it. So, humans are more powerful than god? And can create things that god cannot, right?
I think you know that this is neither what I believe or meant by what I wrote. Why are you being willfully obtuse?
Let's look at this rationally: we have second hand accounts written along time ago about a person that the authors could not confirm existed.
Well, if being rational is your goal, you've already failed to be so. First, the Gospels offer
eye-witness testimony to the life and deeds of Christ, which is powerful evidence in any court of law today. It is perfectly rational to give serious weight to such testimony. Second, the fact that a thing was "written a long time ago" does not mean it is therefore false. We could know nothing of human history if the mere passage of time was enough to make all records of the past untrue. It is, then, quite irrational to discount the New Testament accounts of Christ simply because they are old. Third, the main subject of the Gospels, Jesus Christ, is a well-attested historical figure. He most certainly existed. For a thorough treatment of the historical evidence for Jesus Christ read "The Historical Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas. In light of the substantial evidence for the historicity of Jesus, it is not particularly rational to doubt his existence.
Those second hand accounts tells us of a man who by today's standards would likely be considered to be mentally ill (delusional disorder of the grandiose type), who was probably a rogue dooms day prophet with a limited number of followers.
See, it is stuff like this that clearly shows that you have a distinct bias against Christian belief. You are not an inquirer open to where the facts may lead but an attacker already convinced Christianity is nonsense. Many brilliant men over the last 2000 years or so have hailed Jesus as the wisest and most moral man to ever live. Millions have concluded, not that Jesus was insane, but that he truly was who he claimed to be. Christ's followers necessarily began as a minority but within four centuries had transformed the Roman Empire without a single violent act.
By what metric is that relevant to anyone living today?
As you have characterized it, it is not at all relevant. But how you frame the Christian worldview and how Christians frame it are far removed from one another.
Selah.