Don't get to tired , you should notice my reply are not to the OP. but to ill advises posted by several of the nonbeliever , who are encouraging the poster be a selfish individual as the atheist view, so please refrain yourself from castigating my replay to your, because there are other ways in life then your and Spidergoat's Pal I am not self righteous by far, But I like better the morality in this country in the 1950 then in the present and you guy are encouraging to make it even worse.
Again, no one is telling him to be selfish. I suggest re-reading the thread, I'm not explaining it to you again. You certainly are. The morality of the 1950s? So, women in the kitchen while men go out and whore around? What aspects of that morality do you like?
Why is it even plausible that God and Jesus are fiction (let alone ''more plausible'')? And what do you mean by ''God'' and ''the son of God'' Please try to answer these questions without drawing from the atheist handbook. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
Not a contemporary record of the event. He could simply be relating the Christian mythology. In any case, it doesn't show anything supernatural about Jesus, or that he is accurately presented in the New Testament.
You are forgetting to tell that there were different sect of Jews and one of them were the The way later it become Nazarene and tin the outside Israel in ? Antiokia ? it become coined Christian, The Jews were persecuted in the land of Palestine, for rebellion against the roman empire . The Christian were persecuted for different reasons . for their believe.
A generation after the death of Christ, Christianity had reached Rome in the form of an obscure offshoot of Judaism popular among the city's poor and destitute. Members of this religious sect spoke of the coming of a new kingdom and a new king. These views provoked suspicion among the Jewish authorities who rejected the group and fear among the Roman authorities who perceived these sentiments as a threat to the Empire. A Roman mosaic shows prisoners put to death in the arena as part of a festival In the summer of 64, Rome suffered a terrible fire that burned for six days and seven nights consuming almost three quarters of the city. The people accused the Emperor Nero for the devastation claiming he set the fire for his own amusement. In order to deflect these accusations and placate the people, Nero laid blame for the fire on the Christians. The emperor ordered the arrest of a few members of the sect who, under torture, accused others until the entire Christian populace was implicated and became fair game for retribution. As many of the religious sect that could be found were rounded up and put to death in the most horrific manner for the amusement of the citizens of Rome. The ghastly way in which the victims were put to death aroused sympathy among many Romans, although most felt their execution justified
I thought I made it clear: history shows that the Christians were persecuted. The simplest explanation about the miracles that Jesus performed is that Jesus was a martyr and a great teacher whom the masses loved, adored, cherished, believed, and followed. His death spurred the whole Christian movement and the myths of Jesus's divinity and that is all there is to tell. It is more likely than there being complex forces at work and a supernatural being's plan in motion. It is a simple solution that Jesus divinity was an exaggeration by his disciples/followers who believed him to be the son of God. There is no record outside of the scripture of the supernatural, so it is a more simpler solution to the question: is there a god? Does that make it fact? By no means, but it doesn't make it true either. It is merely plausible meaning there is a chance that there is no god. Believing anything other than that without personal experience (which I will grant anyone who says they believe in a god) is delusional. I've had no such experience, so the matter remains plausible to me only. It is more of an agnostic point of view that I have than atheistic, but the difference is I have chosen to not believe. I mean there is no evidence of supernatural powers at work.
You're splitting hairs and therefore not contributing to the conversation. The disciples were Jews of course that followed Christ's teachings and thereafter labeled as Christians.
jayleew, Did you really think that? History shows that alot of people were persecuted. It also omits information about alot of people that were persecuted. What's your point? How does this explain the works (miracles)? This explains nothing. Now do you understand why you've made nothing clear. ''Supernatural'' means stuff that happens that our current mundane understanding of nature cannot explain. Our understanding of nature does not come from science, science merely explains and allow us to make predictions (in short). Your understanding of ''supernatural'' seems to have been shaped by the media. You don't understand the term ''son of God'' do you? There are lots of records i.e. personal testimony. For you, there never was a God, so there is no need for you to make this question. If you are interested in God, then you have to surrender your false ego, the part of you that identifies with this life you live, as all in all. Please explain what is ''truth''? If there is any perception or knowledge to be gleaned, outside of ''personal experience'' please feel free to explain. You experience it all the time, you just simply acknowledge what you like, and discard the rest. We all do it, it's called conditional life. You've been fooled into thinking there is nothing outside of what the current mainstream science priesthood say, just like back in the day people were fooled into thinking they would burn in hell forever if they didn't believe in Jesus Christ. Wake up! It's the same old shit with a different method of capture, in line with the movement of time and underdevelopment of consciousness. jan.
There were no miracles to explain. They didn't happen. He's saying they were invented by his disciples (and later authors) who sought to deify him. As evidence for this, he cites the lack of extra-biblical sources for these miracles. Pretty simple, really. No, "supernatural" means something that exists outside of natural law; you're loading the term with an implication that simply doesn't exist in its definition. In other words, our understanding of nature comes from science. No, his understanding is shaped by an accurate definition of the concept. Yours, on the other hand, is clearly shaped by religious apologetics. Hence the need to redefine with the implication that our understand of nature is lacking. Without that little trick, you couldn't support your case. Of Jesus' miracles? Where? If you mean of miracles in general, that doesn't help us. There are also mounds of personal testimonies from alien abductees, witnesses to Sasquatch, and avid time travelers. So being interested in God means falling to your knees and believing? How convenient. "If you were interested in God, you'd stop thinking so much and just believe!" Fucking nonsense. You certainly do it, but I'm not seeing evidence of it in the OP's posts. He's apparently trying to work through his beliefs logically (which will never result in belief, thankfully), and you're railing against it because you don't like logic or reason. They are poison to your faith. Jesus himself says you go to hell for not following the law. The only one being fooled is you, by whatever lunatic imparted their paranoid and half-assed interpretation of the biblical scriptures to you. You're just spouting nonsense. Nothing you say has any substance, and now you've reduced yourself to fire-and-brimstone hucksterism. How do you even look yourself in the mirror with this level of dishonesty?
Not really, they would not have understood Christianity, it was something developed and codified later. Not even the early Christians would have recognized what it would become.
So what is wrong with studding about God , there are many deceivers. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// .
Tacitus was born in 56CE, after all of these events are alleged to have occurred. I'm looking for eyewitness reports. Don't you think something as amazing as walking on water or rising from the dead would have been reported in real time? Considering, as I already pointed out, that the Romans were as meticulous in their record-keeping as the Nazis. Do you know what Tacitus's so-called "record" would be called in a modern court of law? "Hearsay"! It would not even be allowed as testimony. As I said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Jesus's teachings are something we could all stand to integrate into our lives. It doesn't matter if they were said by a real human being named Jesus, some scholars who wanted to change the world for the better, or a felt frog puppet. We must discover the wisdom in things we read by analyzing them and imagining how life would be if we adopted them. Not by assessing the authority of the person to whom they are attributed. Argument by authority is a classic logical fallacy that we were all taught to look out for in our first-year university classes. Notice that Buddha (who was certainly a real flesh-and-blood person and is now quite dead) never wanted anyone to adopt his teachings on his authority. He wanted us to see the wisdom in them and adopt them because they will make us better people. The same can be said of the other famous Eastern "prophets," including Kong Fu Zi ("Confucius") and Lao Zi ("Lao Tzu"). Sure, but what does the gobbledygook phrase "live through Christ" mean to those of us who don't believe in a supernatural universe? Christ is a metaphor for an ideal human being who can forgive everyone for everything and love everyone despite their sins and flaws--and even accept punishment for the things they have done in order to spare them from punishment. Obviously no real human being can do this, but to strive to be as close to that ideal as we can... well dude this is what it means to "live through Christ." One does not have to be a Christian to live that way, and on the other hand calling oneself a Christian is no guarantee that one does in fact live that way. Several of our Christian friends have told Mrs. Fraggle and me that we are "more Christian" than they are. (I don't know how true that is but I admit it's easy to have a deep reservoir of patience and kindness when you don't have children.) They have gone so far as to tell their pastors that if they somehow make it into heaven they expect to see us there because God can't possibly be so proud, arrogant and selfish as to deny us entry just because we don't believe in him. (Although as I've said before, if dogs don't go to heaven, when I die I want to go where they went.--quote from Will Rogers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) And I say that this should have virtually no impact on your behavior. You should want to be a good person, treat people fairly, give a little more back to civilization than you take out, try to leave this place a little better than you found it. That's all any of us can strive for, even though throughout history a few of us have managed to far exceed that. At least try not to be the next Genghis Khan, who killed a full ten percent of the people his armies could reach with the transportation technology of their era. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Whether or not you believe in God and Jesus, doesn't this seem like a pretty good approach to life? Wouldn't God and Jesus approve? Jesus especially was not a proud man and he would not be angry if you did not believe in him, so long as you tried to adopt his teachings anyway. That's pretty much what our Christian friends keep telling my wife and me. I certainly appreciate anyone applying the tools of the Scientific Method to the problems of real life. As I've noted before, the Rule of Laplace comes in handy rather often. Nonetheless, don't lose sight of the present. Whether or not Christ was real, Christianity certainly is, and we have to find a way to coexist with it as we wait for it to die out as all religions eventually do. (Remember Zarathustra? I didn't think so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Fighting against it is probably not the best thing for your blood pressure--or your marriage. Start by remembering that you don't have to be a Christian, or even believe that he was real, to take his advice. Turn the other cheek. You obviously didn't live here during that decade. Women were treated like cattle, Afro-Americans were treated like second-class citizens (e.g., the Jews under the Ottoman Empire) and gay people were treated like monsters--most of them had to pretend to be heterosexual to avoid being victims of ostracism and often outright violence. You appear to be a very selfish person. You don't care how badly people who are different from you are treated. You should be ashamed of yourself. I wish you could see the things that I saw in the 1950s. There were entire towns called "sunset towns" where black people were not allowed to be present at night; they had to leave at sunset or be either put in jail by the police or physically harmed by the citizens. There were stores and restaurants where they were not allowed to enter. They had to sit in the back seats of the movie theaters, in the back of buses and streetcars, and their children couldn't swim in our pools. It was impossible for them to get good jobs and their children weren't admitted to most good universities. In many cities black children had separate schools where the teachers and other resources were not as good as the white kids' schools. This was all done with the blessing of the Christian churches. There have always been a few churches who fought against this, notably the Quakers, but they were outnumbered by the evil Christians. Women were treated like slaves. They were expected to do nothing but housework while their husbands had fulfilling, responsible jobs. A few got college educations and decent jobs, but once they got married they were expected to stay at home and be nothing more than "mommies." "Daddies" had only minimal responsibility as parents and could spend their evenings drinking beer with their friends so long as they paid for the family's food and rent. The Christian churches also supported this kind of discrimination. They taught that women are inferior to men, just as black men are inferior to white men. As for homosexuals, who make up 8 - 12% of our population, the way they were treated was utterly shameful. The Christian churches also condoned this. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that you would prefer to live in this kind of country. It was horrible! And it was Christianity that made it possible. Uh, how about the fact that there is ZERO EVIDENCE for their existence? The only "evidence" we're given is fairy tales handed down from an era in which science had not yet been invented and most people still believed in witchcraft and miracles. I assume you are referring to the Scientific Method, which requires empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and peer review--none of which support belief in supernatural creatures. If you don't respect the scientific method, you will be treated with contempt on this website, so don't complain. There are a zillion websites on which supernaturalists are allowed or even encouraged to peddle their foolishness. This one is ours and we try to keep it clean. People who come here to peddle superstition and other nonsense have come to the wrong place.
I think they would have understood the Sermon on the Mount - and agreed that their religion was based on that guy's words.
What about Jesus dying for your sins and then rising 3 days later? It's not widely acknowledged that early Christianity was much less homogenous than it is now, or would be several centuries later.
Something else that both early Christians and later Christians would likely agree on - his crucifixion and later return. Although I suspect they would disagree on the details, as such things get embellished with time.
But not the disciples. They didn't all agree on the resurrection. For instance Mary seems to have felt that the resurrection was a resurrection of the spirit, kind of a personal gnosis, not literal.
