Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

[crowTrobot]

I care, but obviously you avoid the real question. Do you agree with joe atwill?

no, but I also don't agree with people who argue that it's a settled question.

 

[BrianFromWA]

obviously you do. the clear implication of your post was that it's significant one atheist is discrediting another.

The meaning of my post was that if your targeted audience thinks you're not worth reading, then you have issues. I'm not the targeted audience.

 

[Natebishop3]

Hey mags, I'm curious, if you were presented with actual evidence that Jesus was completely fabricated, would you actually listen and review the evidence?

 

[magnifier661]

Hey mags, I'm curious, if you were presented with actual evidence that Jesus was completely fabricated, would you actually listen and review the evidence?

Absolutely... I even read this hack's attempt. It was really funny too. You should read that review I posted. Seriously hilarious

 

[MarAzul]

Hey mags, I'm curious, if you were presented with actual evidence that Jesus was completely fabricated, would you actually listen and review the evidence?

You know, I don't think it makes any difference. I spent about 5 years time studying to answer the question, Why to men need religion? The answer is not easy to come by when you are a doubter like so many in here. But the answer is really simple, the world works better that way.
Jefferson was not a religious man but he chose to use this phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

He was right to do so, it is a prescription for freedom to understand that you best not look to men to give you your rights. Not only is it above their pay grade, you must reserve your rights
as beyond doubt that you processes them unequivocally, out of reach to men desiring power.


Then there is the observable truth that people live better lives when bound together and treat each other civilly under the commandments of religion. How much better places like Chicago would be for citizens to live if it were not populated by so many godless, fatherless, feral children hell bent on destruction of the other fellow. Chicago is but one example.

The benefit of the Judeo Christian philosophy is all around us every day. Over 80% percent of our population profess to be part of this though out this country. Very few of the problems we have in the country comes from these people, overwhelmingly the problems come from those that have not been taught to live withing this philosophy and the commandments that are really only rules of civility.

 

[crowTrobot]

The meaning of my post was that if your targeted audience thinks you're not worth reading, then you have issues. I'm not the targeted audience.

I know what you meant. I was just pointing out that your deduction doesn't seem logical because you think the target audience isn't any kind of authority in the first place. It doesn't follow you would deduce that Atwill has issues based on what other atheists think. Yeah I know you would easily logically deduce that he is full of it for many other reasons, but not that one.

 

[crowTrobot]

You know, I don't think it makes any difference. I spent about 5 years time studying to answer the question, Why to men need religion? The answer is not easy to come by when you are a doubter like so many in here. But the answer is really simple, the world works better that way.
Jefferson was not a religious man but he chose to use this phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

Jefferson was a intellectual deist, not a Christian, in fact not "religious" at all.

Then there is the observable truth that people live better lives when bound together and treat each other civilly under the commandments of religion. How much better places like Chicago would be for citizens to live if it were not populated by so many godless, fatherless, feral children hell bent on destruction of the other fellow. Chicago is but one example.

1. this statement seems borderline racist (maybe a little chain yanking involved here which you like to do). 2. The issue is with poverty and lack of education, not lack of religion. Europeon countries dominated by atheism have some of the highest standards of living in the world. Obviously 3rd world countries bound by Islam don't treat each other anywhere nearly as civilly.

The benefit of the Judeo Christian philosophy is all around us every day. Over 80% percent of out population profess to be part of this though out this country. Very few of the problems we have in the country comes from these people, overwhelmingly the problems come from those that have not been taught to live withing this philosophy and the commandments that are really only rules of civility.

what you are calling Judeo Christian philosophy (individual freedoms, golden rule, general empathetic behavior) predates the rise of Christianity and has virtually nothing to do with commandments in the bible or any other religious book. morality does not come from religion. it comes from evolution and common sense.

 

[MarAzul]

what you are calling Judeo Christian philosophy predates the rise of Christianity and has virtually nothing to do with commandments in the bible. morality does not come from religion. it comes from common sense.

I see. Well please explain why this morality or civility is missing where the feral children are killing each other at an astonishing rate. Or they kill some unsuspecting fellow from Australia out for a jog. Or they pull some dude out of his Auto and beat him senseless in front of his family. Godless and fatherless for the most of them.

 

[crowTrobot]

I see. Well please explain why this morality or civility is missing where the feral children are killing each other at an astonishing rate. Or they kill some unsuspecting fellow from Australia out for a jog. Or they pull some dude out of his Auto and beat him senseless in front of his family. Godless and fatherless for the most of them.

I agree with fatherless being a problem - gangs are in essence a substitute for the breakdown of the family/clan unit due to poverty and lack of education.

Inserting "Godless" doesn't make any sense however. Religion has historically been one of mankind's most violent influences.

 

[MarAzul]

I agree with fatherless - gangs are in essence a substitute for the breakdown of the family/clan unit due to poverty and lack of education.

Inserting "Godless" doesn't make any sense however. Religion has historically been one of mankind's most violent influences.

A man that learns the Golden rule, Marries the mother of his children in the eyes of God, does his job as a father and neighbor.
He may also understand Jefferson's prescription for freedom and his philosophical use of religion, as sparingly as he used it.

 

[crowTrobot]

Absolutely... I even read this hack's attempt. It was really funny too. You should read that review I posted. Seriously hilarious

this is cool, but it kind of blows my mind. How can you have a real relationship of any kind with a god you allow could be discredited at any time, even if you think the current evidence doesn't do so?

 

[crowTrobot]

A man that learns the Golden rule, Marries the mother of his children in the eyes of God, does his job as a father and neighbor.

again this sentence would be great without "in the eyes of God". that's just an unnecessary, unwarranted insert.

golden rule/family unit are beneficial for individuals and societies for logical reasons that have nothing to do with religious commandments.

He may also understand Jefferson's prescription for freedom and his philosophical use of religion, as sparingly as used it.

again, even though Jefferson endorsed it you shouldn't need "endowed by the creator" to see the social benefits of individual freedoms. it's common sense. modern morality would have the same benefits with or without the implication it is something intrinsically endowed. the morality you refer to is in fact a secular thing you are attempting to attach religion to.

 

[magnifier661]

this is cool, but it kind of blows my mind. How can you have a real relationship of any kind with a god you allow could be discredited at any time, even if you think the current evidence doesn't do so?

Why? You put a belief on science that's model is to always try and be proven wrong? What's the difference?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Jefferson was a intellectual deist, not a Christian, in fact not "religious" at all.

Gordon Wood seems to have a large following, but Jefferson may not agree with you:

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thompson, January 9, 1816

Jefferson, Memoir, Vol. III, p. 509, “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merits of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared with Those of Others,”

The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's orthodox, or that he thought of Jesus as Divine. I'm not saying I want my children in a Sunday School class taught by him. But the man wasn't as you represent him.

 

[crowTrobot]

Why? You put a belief on science that's model is to always try and be proven wrong? What's the difference?

I'm not having conversations with an invisible friend.

 

[crowTrobot]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's orthodox, or that he thought of Jesus as Divine. I'm not saying I want my children in a Sunday School class taught by him. But the man wasn't as you represent him.

I was just saying he wasn't religious, or a Christian by any standard definition. I misread what MarAzul implied in that paragraph, sorry.

 

[BrianFromWA]

no worries.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not having conversations with an invisible friend.

Irrelevant... You made a comment that I believe in something that others are trying to refute; saying "it blows your mind". Your belief dose every time

 

[MarAzul]

again this sentence would be great without "in the eyes of God". that's just an unnecessary, unwarranted insert.

golden rule/family unit are beneficial for individuals and societies for logical reasons that have nothing to do with religious commandments.



again, even though Jefferson endorsed it you shouldn't need "endowed by the creator" to see the social benefits of individual freedoms. it's common sense. modern morality would have the same benefits with or without the implication it is something intrinsically endowed. the morality you refer to is in fact a secular thing you are attempting to attach religion to.

Yes I can see you have a firm grasp on why what isn't working has nothing to do with what is missing. You shouldn't need what 80% of men use to help them.

 

[crowTrobot]

Yes I can see you have a firm grasp on why what isn't working has nothing to do with what is missing. You shouldn't need what 80% of men use to help them.

as previously noted all you have to do is look outside the USA, or at the history or religion to see that there is no causal relationship between belief in god and the adoption of your modern morality.

 

[crowTrobot]

Irrelevant... You made a comment that I believe in something that others are trying to refute; saying "it blows your mind". Your belief dose every time

you have an emotional relationship and conversations with someone you think its possible might not exist. there is no parallel whatsoever there to how I think about science.

there is of course a parallel to BAD science there - becoming irrationally/emotionally attached to certain hypothesis or whatever, but that does not describe me.

 

[magnifier661]

this is cool, but it kind of blows my mind. How can you have a real relationship of any kind with a god you allow could be discredited at any time, even if you think the current evidence doesn't do so?

Did you not say this crow? You've side stepped my response and completely turned it into something else. Figured I would bump your original response to avoid confusion.

 

[magnifier661]

you have an emotional relationship and conversations with someone you think its possible might not exist. there is no parallel whatsoever there to how I think about science.

there is of course a parallel to BAD science there - becoming irrationally/emotionally attached to certain hypothesis or whatever, but that does not describe me.

That's where you got me all wrong. The original question asked to me is "would I look at evidence that Jesus Christ didn't exist?" I said yes. Just as you would to bad thesis or studies on science that you care about.

If you want to dance around this topic on your tip toes, just say so crow

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The difference, Mags, is that scientists don't have a personal relationship with science. We have a personal relationship with God.

Crow's statement was that he can't imagine having a personal relationship with someone for whom you allow the possibility that they don't exist. It would be like carrying on a year-long online romance with someone without ever having spoken to them face-to-face; how could you commit to that relationship unless you were absolutely certain that person was genuine?

 

[crowTrobot]

That's where you got me all wrong. The original question asked to me is "would I look at evidence that Jesus Christ didn't exist?" I said yes. Just as you would to bad thesis or studies on science that you care about.

If you want to dance around this topic on your tip toes, just say so crow

The question was if you were presented with actual (not hack) evidence that Jesus did not exist, would you take it into consideration. The implication of your response was that you think there is at least some possibility such evidence might exist. I'm not understanding how anyone could (sanely) have what they consider a meaningful relationship (assuming you still do so) with an entity they think there's any practical chance might not exist.

I don't think there's any realistic chance I'm imagining the family members I have a relationship with. If somebody asked "if presented with evidence that you are insane and your family is a delusion would you consider it?" my response would be that's a silly question, not "absolutely".

 

[Wizard Mentor]

The author reminds me a bit of Salman Rushdie.

 

[magnifier661]

The question was if you were presented with actual (not hack) evidence that Jesus did not exist, would you take it into consideration. The implication of your response was that you think there is at least some possibility such evidence might exist. I'm not understanding how anyone could (sanely) have what they consider a meaningful relationship (assuming you still do so) with an entity they think there's any practical chance might not exist.

I don't think there's any realistic chance I'm imagining the family members I have a relationship with. If somebody asked "if presented with evidence that you are insane and your family is a delusion would you consider it?" my response would be that's a silly question, not "absolutely".

No I was explaining that I will look at all evidence, including the hack's. There is nothing wrong with looking into other views.

If you study how nazi Germany innovated some incredible technology; does that make you a nazi? Will you tell those people how they blow your mind?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No I was explaining that I will look at all evidence, including the hack's. There is nothing wrong with looking into other views.

So, you're saying you'd review the "evidence", but not actually consider its potential validity?

 

[BlazerWookee]

The difference, Mags, is that scientists don't have a personal relationship with science. We have a personal relationship with God.

Crow's statement was that he can't imagine having a personal relationship with someone for whom you allow the possibility that they don't exist. It would be like carrying on a year-long online romance with someone without ever having spoken to them face-to-face; how could you commit to that relationship unless you were absolutely certain that person was genuine?

*COUGHManti Te'o"

 

[magnifier661]

So, you're saying you'd review the "evidence", but not actually consider its potential validity?

Exactly