First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Don't you hate it when...
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/08

saywhaat wrote:

a·the·ist Audio Help (ā'thē-ĭst) Pronunciation Key
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


One who disbelieces or denies the existence of God... I don't do either of those things. Do you really understand the English language? Well, you can call me an atheist all you want. I don't really think it's an insult, but the fact is that it's a false statement.



religious? me? noooway, am i?


Yes.


well, if you are religious about soccor, and then religious about religion seems to me very different, well i might just look into that later on...


The Arabic word we translate to religion actually means, “way of life,” and in fact many indigenous religions are called, “life ways.” So, a religion is merely a way of life built on beliefs. You believe murder is wrong. You live your life accordingly; therefore, you’re religious in the same fashion that almost everyone in the world is.
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 7/14/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


saywhaat wrote:

a·the·ist Audio Help (ā'thē-ĭst) Pronunciation Key
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


One who disbelieces or denies the existence of God... I don't do either of those things. Do you really understand the English language? Well, you can call me an atheist all you want. I don't really think it's an insult, but the fact is that it's a false statement.



religious? me? noooway, am i?


Yes.


well, if you are religious about soccor, and then religious about religion seems to me very different, well i might just look into that later on...


The Arabic word we translate to religion actually means, “way of life,” and in fact many indigenous religions are called, “life ways.” So, a religion is merely a way of life built on beliefs. You believe murder is wrong. You live your life accordingly; therefore, you’re religious in the same fashion that almost everyone in the world is.



One who disbelieces or denies the existence of God... I don't do either of those things. Do you really understand the English language? Well, you can call me an atheist all you want. I don't really think it's an insult, but the fact is that it's a false statement.

so you think god/gods means Yahwe? Please dude, if you dont believe in Thor you are an atheist concerning Thor, ooohh sorry, and you where so happy to lecture little me who never speaks English in the English language..


The Arabic word we translate to religion actually means, “way of life,” and in fact many indigenous religions are called, “life ways.” So, a religion is merely a way of life built on beliefs. You believe murder is wrong. You live your life accordingly; therefore, you’re religious in the same fashion that almost everyone in the world is.


Nice for the Arabs then, but take a look at our dictionary, you just cant transtale from Arab to English without context, the same words can mean many things depending on the context.
So, what does religion mean? And i dont give a shit about the arabs, what does the word mean to us?


1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.


Okey a life built on beliefs, but you forgot, i am changing mine as i go, or at least i have the opurtunity to, whilst you have some beliefs you cant (acording to the bible at least) Mine does not concern some higher beings either, which i believe also is included in the def of religion..
I have never agreed about my beliefs or morals with others than myself, you are just using words as you please, well not that i mind being called religious..
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 7/14/08


The fact is that without some kind of religious belief…Richard is right. We’re no better or worse than plants. Morality is a mere invention, a religious one. We can pretend that right and wrong exist, but it’s just an imaginary concept without religion…in which case, it’s a religious concept.

Secularly, if we’re honest, there is no right or wrong. There’s only necessity. We say murder is wrong because it’s necessary to preserve our lives. Does this give our life value? No, not in the least bit, it simply means there’s the illusion of value. It’s the acceptance of a happy lie to escape a brutal reality. It’s religious. Murder is wrong-that’s an opinion and a belief. I’d argue that murder is actually acceptable under certain circumstances.


Right and wrong do exist and i have written long texts about which i honestly do not want to now, you can pretend that we dont believe in right and wrong, but face it, did we force ourselves onto your relligion, we would do the same, create the illusion of right and wrong, simply because we cant be forced to believe in you religion, or other religions for that matter..

There is the concept of wrong and right, i strongly believe that, and since the zeitgeist is ever changing atheist can follow that with ease, while Christians have a harder time doing that since they have a moral code to abide by..

You argue that murder is what? Dont give me that you just told me under what conditions you accepted the murder of you mother, by your own hands, so dont prance around pretending..

I actually read about Dawkins defending that statement ones, ill see if i can find it, but you are looking at it to simplistic, its goes deeper than that, not that i care, because i do not believe that..
i believe that with the coming of our brains, the needs of our genes and needs of our brains are in conflict, and it all goes away from the black and white picture of genes and survival of the fittest (on the strength plan at least)


Secularly, if we’re honest, there is no right or wrong. There’s only necessity. We say murder is wrong because it’s necessary to preserve our lives. Does this give our life value? No, not in the least bit, it simply means there’s the illusion of value. It’s the acceptance of a happy lie to escape a brutal reality. It’s religious. Murder is wrong-that’s an opinion and a belief. I’d argue that murder is actually acceptable under certain circumstances.


Ofcourse there are, we get our rights and wrong from the ultimate judge, ourselves! We get our morals from those around us, from tv and from all that we see and hear, dont tell us that we dont have a concept of wrong and right, as i told you, we get ours from the changing zeitgeist..

i would like to write loads and loads more, but i want to watch himawari, so bye..

Roman documentations. Galilean documentations. The Gnostic Texts. The Apocryphal Texts. There was even a case in Japan in which Kiyomaro Takeuchi discovered a document which evidence what I said.


Let’s look at this: The Romans hated the Galileans. As a matter of a fact, they slaughtered them. Yet, they both agree that a man named Jesus walked, called himself God, and was crucified. The Romans say he was a nut-case. The Galileans say that he was a heretic. Both agree that he was a bad person. Both also agree that he believe himself divine and that he gave his life for his followers.

The Apocryphal texts are mythological stories. They don’t hold much ground in a historical debate, but they’re not entirely useless.

The Gnostic texts were documents that said “Jesus was a great dude, but not God on earth, he did great things-died for us, ext-but he was just a man.”

The question that remains isn’t “did Jesus exist,” and “Did he die for us,” but rather, “was he god.”

I’ve cited sources, the rest is up to you.


hmm.. okey ill look into it, even though i have never heard of this before..
Well i have always thought that Jesus existed, i always had my doubts about whether he was god (duh)..
Moderator
1783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/18/08
I know i'm not in this discussion, but since "thread" has a double meaning of "open discussion" i'd like to throw my two cents in and have a little go at this.

Did Jesus live? Yeah, i believe he did. I believe he walked, cried, ate, shit, smiled and spoke.

Did Jesus' words have a larger meaning? Sure, why the hell not? I believe he spoke of many things, greater things than most of the people at that time could comprehend.

Do you have every right to ignore his words? Yes, i do. But i think it would be a huge mistake to do so. Lets face it, the man spoke and through action displayed a great understanding for many, many things. He told people how to live a beautiful life through kindness. And any man who speaks so should be respected.

Are you a believer of the bible? No. I can't begin to explain my qualms about the bible. Books are an exaggeration of the truth to help heighten the moral of a story or just to help sell books.

Does moral come from religions or a simple understanding of people? I think the answer could be either or. As an atheist it's my thought even if i don't follow word for word what the Host of hosts' son said and i lead a decent life (i.e. don't steal, don't sleep with another man's wife, don't kill) i seriously doubt he will turn me away at the gates.
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 8/15/08
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods/god, so Seraph i take he doesnt believe in Thor, but does that mean he has 2 religions? Not only 2, but what about all the other gods?

Atheism is a position on a single subject, heck the word shouldnt even exist..
not collecting stamps, is not a hobby..

just wanted to clear that out
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 8/15/08

Joliame wrote:

I know i'm not in this discussion, but since "thread" has a double meaning of "open discussion" i'd like to throw my two cents in and have a little go at this.

Did Jesus live? Yeah, i believe he did. I believe he walked, cried, ate, shit, smiled and spoke.

Did Jesus' words have a larger meaning? Sure, why the hell not? I believe he spoke of many things, greater things than most of the people at that time could comprehend.

Do you have every right to ignore his words? Yes, i do. But i think it would be a huge mistake to do so. Lets face it, the man spoke and through action displayed a great understanding for many, many things. He told people how to live a beautiful life through kindness. And any man who speaks so should be respected.

Are you a believer of the bible? No. I can't begin to explain my qualms about the bible. Books are an exaggeration of the truth to help heighten the moral of a story or just to help sell books.

Does moral come from religions or a simple understanding of people? I think the answer could be either or. As an atheist it's my thought even if i don't follow word for word what the Host of hosts' son said and i lead a decent life (i.e. don't steal, don't sleep with another man's wife, don't kill) i seriously doubt he will turn me away at the gates.


there is evidence to suggest Jesus lived, yes, i also thought the probability for his existence was good enough for me to allow it for myself.. HOWEVER! He did not walk on water, and all the bs..

But many great men, speak good today, why arent anybody listening to them?
Jesus might have spoken great words back then, however, its different now, times have changed, and all his words doesnt fit our time anymore, therefor it is safe to say, that morals are better if you pick and chose those that fits today, instead of them ALL (from jesus)

If the biblical god exists, there is a majority christian vote that you would go straight to hell..
however, i also doubt if a god exists he would have the vanity to reject those who doesnt believe in him..

Heaven is in a gated community lol
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/21/08


I think I disagree. In my opinion Jesus Christ would not be worthy of respect unless he was the son of God. Look at it logically. As I’ve said before he could’ve only been one of three things. Jesus Christ was either the son of God, mentally insane, or a liar.

Say he’s the son of god. Well, that’s a respect worthy position of it’s own.

Suppose he wasn’t and he knew it. Well, he certainly felt secure in telling people he was. Heck, Jesus went so far as to tell people to abandon their friends, families, belongings, jobs, and social lives to follow him. They were willing to do this because they thought he was the son of god. Assuming this wasn’t true, can you really respect somebody who just deceived thousands of people to give up everything? In my opinion, he’s brilliant, but a bleeding con-artist.

What if he thought he was divine even though he really wasn’t? In this case he was just another nut case who accidentally stumble upon a great revolution of thought. (Which is obviously unlikely; therefore, I’m immediately inclined toward one of the first two options.)

I believe he was the son of god, and I think if you analyze all of this you’ll understand why, maybe even feel inclined to believe.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to try and convert you. You know me well enough to know that. As it is I’m certain of your salvation anyway. (We agree, I don’t see how a loving God could let somebody unknowingly choose hell. He simply expects us to pick right over wrong, good over bad.) It’s just an interesting topic that I enjoy talking about. I think you might find what I have to say interesting.

So, without further ado…a really frikin’ long post!

Was he insane:

Actually, this question has been asked for a long time. Secular historians/theologians studying Jesus Christ immediately assumed that he was a man suffering from the divinity complex. After all, he’s evidenced extreme honesty/morality in most areas of his life, so they felt it wasn’t likely that he was tricking people. Yet, as secular men, they weren’t willing to accept he could be divine.

So, to test the theory that he was insane they brought in psychologists and peered into Jesus Christ…the historical figure, not the biblical character. The bible did play a role in providing some information, but there were also other sources. You can do some research on your own if you distrust my honesty.

The text with the ( )’s isn’t actually necessary. You might come back and read it but I suggest you skip ahead and finish the rest first.

(That last bit was less to you, Jo, and more to other readers. Now, many people are actually surprised that people use the bible as a historical source. This being said, much of the bible is considered historically inaccurate, mainly the O.T. The N.T, however, is written as a series of witness accounts of one event. The fact that there are some minor contradictions bodes well for it, in a historical since. Let me explain, one book of the N.T says Jesus came to a fork in the road and saw a blind man. The next says he came to a fork in the rode but didn’t see a blind man. You see, that’s two people agreeing that he came to a fork in the road. So, we say

“There may have been a blind man, don’t know. He did come to a fork in the road. The fork in the road becomes a piece of historical fact. Now, some people are skeptical about this logic where the bible is concerned. But, consider this: Herodotus is called the father of history. It is from his written accounts that we gather most of our information about Greek history. This includes but is not limited to the battle of Thermopylae. We believe the battle of Thermopylae did exist because it was written in Herodotus’ literature. But, in another book of his literature he wrote that there was a region in Greece where giant ants mined the ground for gold. At another point he writes that a king was captured by pirates and thrown into the middle of an ocean only to be miraculously rescued by Dolphins. We accept some history in his source, but clearly not all.)

The psychologists, however, eventually decided that Jesus Christ couldn’t have possibly been insane. You see if he were insane in that he really thought he was god then he had the divinity complex, but psychologically there are certain signs that most victims of the complex evidence and others that all evidence.

One thing, Jesus Christ was very organized. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that nut-cases usually aren’t. Another thing, people with the divinity complex do sometimes mimic Jesus. This being said, they’re what we call philosophy recyclers. They’re not original, they just borrow the messages and cultural acceptances of other great thinkers throughout history. Jesus Christ didn’t have any historical reference because he was the first to teach his message. His ethics and theology made their debut with him. They were not only entirely original but completely revolutionary.

To continue along this line, everyone with the divinity complex has one characteristic in common. They’re self-indulged. Jesus Christ, however, wasn’t. Witness all agree that he was very interest in people. Romans and Jews and Ebionites alike all agree on this. Even the skeptical Gnostics. But, let’s assume they’re all liars. Let’s investigate this claim for our self.

It is given, by historical accounts (readers can check out a good history book,) that Jesus Christ had a large following. We also know that his followers were at times incredibly poor, though many of them had been very rich before coming with him. Jesus Christ had them all hand aside their belongings and families to come with him.

Now, put yourself in their place. Some bearded man with a bunch of smelly fishermen, all of them in rags and worn with travel, come to your house. He asks you to give everything up and come with him. Now, you’re not likely to do so at all, but under what circumstances would you?

Say, if he was constantly talking about himself and dominating conversation, would you want to be around him? What if he proved to be utterly egotistical and self-indulged? What if he made you feel small by constantly stressing how big he was? No, you’d probably tell him where to stick stuff.

But, if he made you feel involved in the group, if he made you feel important, if he seemed truly concerned with you…then maybe, just maybe, because he made you happy, you’d go with him.

People in those times aren’t any different. Yet, thousands of them really did give everything up to follow him. So, we can deduce from our own observation that he was down to earth. We also see from the witness reports of the time that everyone else agreed with us.


To summarize this segment,

Divinity Complex:
Typically Disorganized
Yet to be original
Always self indulged

Jesus Christ the historical figure:
Very organized. (He was a public speaker, remember?)
Obviously and incredibly original
Not self indulged but down to earth.

So, psychologists, theologians, and historians agreed he wasn’t insane.

Was he a liar

This one is a bit harder to discuss. It’s very easy to decide rather or not somebody is mentally stable or not. Asking if he was an honest man, however, is incredibly difficult. But, let’s consider it as if we were in his place.

What was the motive? Most historians agree that he was very poor because most accounts of him mention that he was wearing rags or camel hair cloths. However, I think he was rich. So, was it for money that Jesus Christ “lied,” and called himself God?

Possible, but not likely. Why? Because if this were true then he would’ve simply back-tracked whenever controversy arrive. Tell me, do you think a sane man would trade his life for money on earth? No, but Jesus Christ died insisting he was the son of God.

His lie brought him torture and crucifixion.

So, maybe he lied to be remembered? Well, again that seem unlikely. After all, having brought along such a massive movement he had no reason to cling to the claim until death. He would’ve been remembered one way or the other. Plus, given his character, this seems unlikely. Remember, we just showed that he was more concerned with other people than he was with himself.

Did he do it because he still wanted people to believe that he was god? That’s doubtful. First, and I repeat at the risk of being irritably redundant, he wasn’t self indulged. Second, how does showing people you’re weak make them believe you’re so incredibly powerful as an omnipotent deity and, simultaneously, his son! Assuming he wasn’t the son of god, there obviously wasn’t a resurrection. Without a resurrection Jesus’ crucifixion was proof of his mortality and thus disproof of his divinity.

There’s just no motive except the truth. Jesus Christ could’ve been lying, but if you assess it intellectually you see that this is kind of…an absurd belief. Reductio ad absurdum! (sp?) Lots of things are technically possible, but we’d have to go out on a limb to believe them. In this case there’s no reason, at least no a logical one, to believe that. It’s just inventing things to avoid accepting what seems to be true. Human beings invent unnecessary and unlikely complexities to avoid apparent simplicities.

So, to finalize the three part argument-he -wasn’t- insane, and almost certainly wasn’t a liar. So, he must’ve been the son of god.

There’s a final dodge.


Some secular historians are trying to prove that Jesus Christ did not exist. Now, that’s only a tiny minority of published historians, but there are some still there. Honestly I think that this movement has simply emerged because these secular men are nihilistic. Studying the history itself you’ll find that there are countless myriads of sources from people of different ethnicities, religions, political stances, and circumstances all attesting that Jesus Christ did in fact live, do great things, and preach that he was the son of God.

But, there’s a dodge to this as well. Most of those were written after his supposed life. So, it’d be like if you wrote about your grandfather’s friend. It’s very likely that he lived, since your grandfather told you about him and you have no reason to lie about it, but not a historical proof. Except, in this case there’s a great deal of people all agreeing that Jesus lived.

Now then, consider he didn’t. Observe the history from a different perspective. No longer considering rather or not Jesus was real let’s look at what life was like for the early Christians who claimed that he was.

They were called the Ebionites. Ebionites translates to poor ones. They were poor. The Jews, their families and friends in most cases, ostracized them. The Romans captured, imprisoned, tortured, crucified, and decapitated them. The book of Revelations was written by a man who was ferried out to an island and stranded there for his beliefs.

You know how those ancient Catholic cathedrals in Rome always have a saint carrying his head in the windows/masonry? This is because Christians who were Roman citizens were all decapitated. Those who were not were crucified/tortured to death.

So, let’s assume that all these people really -did- get together and decide “Hey, let’s make up a story about a man who called himself god/son of god.” Not only did these uneducated and poverty stricken Jews (Ebionites were considered a heretical sect of Judaism,) invent the greatest philosophical/theological/ethic story of all time…they also gave their lies to support it.

Why? What did they gain? They lived lives of poverty…they didn’t get rich. Most of them were forgotten, they haven’t been remembered. They didn’t save themselves, but rather condemned themselves. Now, if they all believed it then we can see them making that sacrifice!

So, either they weren’t just a conspiracy trying to trick modern mankind. Maybe they were -all- insane? …Yup, thousands and thousands of people were all simultaneously diluted into the same insanity.

Technical it’s possible Jesus didn’t live/claim divinity. But it’s only by inventing a conspiracy/mutual insanity shared by a massive group of extremely determined people that it becomes a possibility.




Moderator
1783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/22/08

SeraphAlford wrote:



I think I disagree. In my opinion Jesus Christ would not be worthy of respect unless he was the son of God. Look at it logically. As I’ve said before he could’ve only been one of three things. Jesus Christ was either the son of God, mentally insane, or a liar.

Say he’s the son of god. Well, that’s a respect worthy position of it’s own.

Suppose he wasn’t and he knew it. Well, he certainly felt secure in telling people he was. Heck, Jesus went so far as to tell people to abandon their friends, families, belongings, jobs, and social lives to follow him. They were willing to do this because they thought he was the son of god. Assuming this wasn’t true, can you really respect somebody who just deceived thousands of people to give up everything? In my opinion, he’s brilliant, but a bleeding con-artist.

What if he thought he was divine even though he really wasn’t? In this case he was just another nut case who accidentally stumble upon a great revolution of thought. (Which is obviously unlikely; therefore, I’m immediately inclined toward one of the first two options.)

I believe he was the son of god, and I think if you analyze all of this you’ll understand why, maybe even feel inclined to believe.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to try and convert you. You know me well enough to know that. As it is I’m certain of your salvation anyway. (We agree, I don’t see how a loving God could let somebody unknowingly choose hell. He simply expects us to pick right over wrong, good over bad.) It’s just an interesting topic that I enjoy talking about. I think you might find what I have to say interesting.

So, without further ado…a really frikin’ long post!

Was he insane:

Actually, this question has been asked for a long time. Secular historians/theologians studying Jesus Christ immediately assumed that he was a man suffering from the divinity complex. After all, he’s evidenced extreme honesty/morality in most areas of his life, so they felt it wasn’t likely that he was tricking people. Yet, as secular men, they weren’t willing to accept he could be divine.

So, to test the theory that he was insane they brought in psychologists and peered into Jesus Christ…the historical figure, not the biblical character. The bible did play a role in providing some information, but there were also other sources. You can do some research on your own if you distrust my honesty.

The text with the ( )’s isn’t actually necessary. You might come back and read it but I suggest you skip ahead and finish the rest first.

(That last bit was less to you, Jo, and more to other readers. Now, many people are actually surprised that people use the bible as a historical source. This being said, much of the bible is considered historically inaccurate, mainly the O.T. The N.T, however, is written as a series of witness accounts of one event. The fact that there are some minor contradictions bodes well for it, in a historical since. Let me explain, one book of the N.T says Jesus came to a fork in the road and saw a blind man. The next says he came to a fork in the rode but didn’t see a blind man. You see, that’s two people agreeing that he came to a fork in the road. So, we say

“There may have been a blind man, don’t know. He did come to a fork in the road. The fork in the road becomes a piece of historical fact. Now, some people are skeptical about this logic where the bible is concerned. But, consider this: Herodotus is called the father of history. It is from his written accounts that we gather most of our information about Greek history. This includes but is not limited to the battle of Thermopylae. We believe the battle of Thermopylae did exist because it was written in Herodotus’ literature. But, in another book of his literature he wrote that there was a region in Greece where giant ants mined the ground for gold. At another point he writes that a king was captured by pirates and thrown into the middle of an ocean only to be miraculously rescued by Dolphins. We accept some history in his source, but clearly not all.)

The psychologists, however, eventually decided that Jesus Christ couldn’t have possibly been insane. You see if he were insane in that he really thought he was god then he had the divinity complex, but psychologically there are certain signs that most victims of the complex evidence and others that all evidence.

One thing, Jesus Christ was very organized. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that nut-cases usually aren’t. Another thing, people with the divinity complex do sometimes mimic Jesus. This being said, they’re what we call philosophy recyclers. They’re not original, they just borrow the messages and cultural acceptances of other great thinkers throughout history. Jesus Christ didn’t have any historical reference because he was the first to teach his message. His ethics and theology made their debut with him. They were not only entirely original but completely revolutionary.

To continue along this line, everyone with the divinity complex has one characteristic in common. They’re self-indulged. Jesus Christ, however, wasn’t. Witness all agree that he was very interest in people. Romans and Jews and Ebionites alike all agree on this. Even the skeptical Gnostics. But, let’s assume they’re all liars. Let’s investigate this claim for our self.

It is given, by historical accounts (readers can check out a good history book,) that Jesus Christ had a large following. We also know that his followers were at times incredibly poor, though many of them had been very rich before coming with him. Jesus Christ had them all hand aside their belongings and families to come with him.

Now, put yourself in their place. Some bearded man with a bunch of smelly fishermen, all of them in rags and worn with travel, come to your house. He asks you to give everything up and come with him. Now, you’re not likely to do so at all, but under what circumstances would you?

Say, if he was constantly talking about himself and dominating conversation, would you want to be around him? What if he proved to be utterly egotistical and self-indulged? What if he made you feel small by constantly stressing how big he was? No, you’d probably tell him where to stick stuff.

But, if he made you feel involved in the group, if he made you feel important, if he seemed truly concerned with you…then maybe, just maybe, because he made you happy, you’d go with him.

People in those times aren’t any different. Yet, thousands of them really did give everything up to follow him. So, we can deduce from our own observation that he was down to earth. We also see from the witness reports of the time that everyone else agreed with us.


To summarize this segment,

Divinity Complex:
Typically Disorganized
Yet to be original
Always self indulged

Jesus Christ the historical figure:
Very organized. (He was a public speaker, remember?)
Obviously and incredibly original
Not self indulged but down to earth.

So, psychologists, theologians, and historians agreed he wasn’t insane.

Was he a liar

This one is a bit harder to discuss. It’s very easy to decide rather or not somebody is mentally stable or not. Asking if he was an honest man, however, is incredibly difficult. But, let’s consider it as if we were in his place.

What was the motive? Most historians agree that he was very poor because most accounts of him mention that he was wearing rags or camel hair cloths. However, I think he was rich. So, was it for money that Jesus Christ “lied,” and called himself God?

Possible, but not likely. Why? Because if this were true then he would’ve simply back-tracked whenever controversy arrive. Tell me, do you think a sane man would trade his life for money on earth? No, but Jesus Christ died insisting he was the son of God.

His lie brought him torture and crucifixion.

So, maybe he lied to be remembered? Well, again that seem unlikely. After all, having brought along such a massive movement he had no reason to cling to the claim until death. He would’ve been remembered one way or the other. Plus, given his character, this seems unlikely. Remember, we just showed that he was more concerned with other people than he was with himself.

Did he do it because he still wanted people to believe that he was god? That’s doubtful. First, and I repeat at the risk of being irritably redundant, he wasn’t self indulged. Second, how does showing people you’re weak make them believe you’re so incredibly powerful as an omnipotent deity and, simultaneously, his son! Assuming he wasn’t the son of god, there obviously wasn’t a resurrection. Without a resurrection Jesus’ crucifixion was proof of his mortality and thus disproof of his divinity.

There’s just no motive except the truth. Jesus Christ could’ve been lying, but if you assess it intellectually you see that this is kind of…an absurd belief. Reductio ad absurdum! (sp?) Lots of things are technically possible, but we’d have to go out on a limb to believe them. In this case there’s no reason, at least no a logical one, to believe that. It’s just inventing things to avoid accepting what seems to be true. Human beings invent unnecessary and unlikely complexities to avoid apparent simplicities.

So, to finalize the three part argument-he -wasn’t- insane, and almost certainly wasn’t a liar. So, he must’ve been the son of god.

There’s a final dodge.


Some secular historians are trying to prove that Jesus Christ did not exist. Now, that’s only a tiny minority of published historians, but there are some still there. Honestly I think that this movement has simply emerged because these secular men are nihilistic. Studying the history itself you’ll find that there are countless myriads of sources from people of different ethnicities, religions, political stances, and circumstances all attesting that Jesus Christ did in fact live, do great things, and preach that he was the son of God.

But, there’s a dodge to this as well. Most of those were written after his supposed life. So, it’d be like if you wrote about your grandfather’s friend. It’s very likely that he lived, since your grandfather told you about him and you have no reason to lie about it, but not a historical proof. Except, in this case there’s a great deal of people all agreeing that Jesus lived.

Now then, consider he didn’t. Observe the history from a different perspective. No longer considering rather or not Jesus was real let’s look at what life was like for the early Christians who claimed that he was.

They were called the Ebionites. Ebionites translates to poor ones. They were poor. The Jews, their families and friends in most cases, ostracized them. The Romans captured, imprisoned, tortured, crucified, and decapitated them. The book of Revelations was written by a man who was ferried out to an island and stranded there for his beliefs.

You know how those ancient Catholic cathedrals in Rome always have a saint carrying his head in the windows/masonry? This is because Christians who were Roman citizens were all decapitated. Those who were not were crucified/tortured to death.

So, let’s assume that all these people really -did- get together and decide “Hey, let’s make up a story about a man who called himself god/son of god.” Not only did these uneducated and poverty stricken Jews (Ebionites were considered a heretical sect of Judaism,) invent the greatest philosophical/theological/ethic story of all time…they also gave their lies to support it.

Why? What did they gain? They lived lives of poverty…they didn’t get rich. Most of them were forgotten, they haven’t been remembered. They didn’t save themselves, but rather condemned themselves. Now, if they all believed it then we can see them making that sacrifice!

So, either they weren’t just a conspiracy trying to trick modern mankind. Maybe they were -all- insane? …Yup, thousands and thousands of people were all simultaneously diluted into the same insanity.

Technical it’s possible Jesus didn’t live/claim divinity. But it’s only by inventing a conspiracy/mutual insanity shared by a massive group of extremely determined people that it becomes a possibility.






I think my first point still stands a little. ^_^ With the list of good deeds done by Jesus, even if he wasn't the son of God should still be respected. He managed to gather a following of kindhearted people, by simply talking to them.

Even if his father wasn't God, his words (be if they were lies) managed to influence people into doing good and giving up their life for him, i still say that's historically relievant. And worthy of respect.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/22/08

Joliame wrote:

I think my first point still stands a little. ^_^ With the list of good deeds done by Jesus, even if he wasn't the son of God should still be respected. He managed to gather a following of kindhearted people, by simply talking to them.

Even if his father wasn't God, his words (be if they were lies) managed to influence people into doing good and giving up their life for him, i still say that's historically relievant. And worthy of respect.


I see your point, and in a sense I agree. I certainly would respect his brilliance, but not his character. A lot like Alexander the Great. He’s worthy of his title but if I knew him in real life I’d probably have fought with him. I mean, he gets knocked out in a battle. His soldier risks his life to save him. How does Alexander repay that man? First, he takes full credit for the victory. Second, he kills the soldier in a drunken stupor.

As far as Jesus Christ goes, what good did he do? He did miracles! He didn’t purge political evil or go around handing out money. Take away the miracles and he didn’t do anything but talk a lot. Getting his disciples to do good things? Well, most of them betrayed him and aided in his crucifixion. Those who remained loyal went out “preaching the good news,” but didn’t do much good outside of that. If Jesus was lying then much more bad came from his actions than good… At least in the relative time period.

I think Christianity has, throughout history, done more good than bad for society. As a matter of fact, I don’t see how any intellectual and educated individual can disagree. However, short of being divine there’s no way Jesus Christ could’ve predicted what would happen. We can only judge him by what he did in his life, and if he wasn’t divine…he didn’t do miracles, and if he didn’t do miracles then he didn’t do much good to compensate for his evil.

What about the rest of my post though? What did you think about it? Did you get through the whole thing? Well, I can’t blame you if you didn’t, but that argument is the body of my belief. I’d really like to hear what you have to say about it!
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/3/08

saywhaat wrote:

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods/god, so Seraph i take he doesnt believe in Thor, but does that mean he has 2 religions? Not only 2, but what about all the other gods?

Atheism is a position on a single subject, heck the word shouldnt even exist..
not collecting stamps, is not a hobby..

just wanted to clear that out


Yes, but just because you have atheistic beliefs doesn’t make you an atheist. I can believe that eating meat is wrong, but if I devour big-macs and bacon-cheese burgers every day I’m not a vegetarian. You can believe in right and wrong-a religious concept-but that doesn’t mean you’re religious. It’s only when you let your beliefs dictate your life that it’s religious.

A religion is simply a way of life based on beliefs.
Moderator
3229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/7/08
yes atheist is just a term. If people ask me what my religion is i don't say atheist. I just say i have no preference. By the way if we were all supposed to live as Christ did, we would all be nothing but a bunch of rebels, fighting the status quo, and turning the world upside down on a daily basis. can you imagine 6 billion charlie manson's....... hmmmmhmmm... i mean jesus Christ's running around.
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 12/26/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


saywhaat wrote:

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods/god, so Seraph i take he doesnt believe in Thor, but does that mean he has 2 religions? Not only 2, but what about all the other gods?

Atheism is a position on a single subject, heck the word shouldnt even exist..
not collecting stamps, is not a hobby..

just wanted to clear that out


Yes, but just because you have atheistic beliefs doesn’t make you an atheist. I can believe that eating meat is wrong, but if I devour big-macs and bacon-cheese burgers every day I’m not a vegetarian. You can believe in right and wrong-a religious concept-but that doesn’t mean you’re religious. It’s only when you let your beliefs dictate your life that it’s religious.

A religion is simply a way of life based on beliefs.


Sorry, been very busy lately ...

You misunderstood/didn't read my post.

"atheistic beliefs" cant be used in the context you are describing, because there are no beliefs.
Or can you tell me what my "atheistic beliefs" are? Its a position on a single subject.
Like "i like rice" ...

Do you believe in god/gods.
me: No
= Atheism
there is really nothing more to it, no beliefs.
Unless you are using it in a negative like "not believing in UFO's" is a belief.
But no belief"S" ...
And it certainly doesnt make it a religion by proper definition, and if you think it does then "Where are my tax-benefits"

I can believe that eating meat is wrong, but if I devour big-macs and bacon-cheese burgers every day I’m not a vegetarian.
You are not a vegetarian, you are a hypocrite. (so i guess we agree)

It’s only when you let your beliefs dictate your life that it’s religious.
Solely depends on your definition, surely i can say im a "religious" contributor to secularism, albeit the word religion would have no real meaning, unless you understand context, and the person you are debating understand it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.