Jump to content

The concept of Jesus


Recommended Posts

Guest Sleeping Like An Angel

Well now I think we really should debate it! :P I think it's mad to imagine him walking around at any time. :shrugs:

We've discussed it before and we just don't agree!

I can predict this already :lol:

Me: Jesus is real.

You: No he isn't.

An essay on why religion is so terrible.

Followed by countless anti religion videos.

Oh and some jokes about Father Damien molesting everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well now I think we really should debate it! :P I think it's mad to imagine him walking around at any time. :shrugs:

We've discussed it before and we just don't agree!

I can predict this already :lol:

Me: Jesus is real.

You: No he isn't.

An essay on why religion is so terrible.

Followed by countless anti religion videos.

Oh and some jokes about Father Damien molesting everybody.

I never said he wasn't real. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now I think we really should debate it! :P I think it's mad to imagine him walking around at any time. :shrugs:

We've discussed it before and we just don't agree!

I can predict this already :lol:

Me: Jesus is real.

You: No he isn't.

An essay on why religion is so terrible.

Followed by countless anti religion videos.

Oh and some jokes about Father Damien molesting everybody.

I never said he wasn't real. <_<

Bingo, there is a huge difference between not believing what Jesus did was real and denying his existence completely. Many atheists agree that a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago but they dispute the miracles he carried out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sleeping Like An Angel

You're itching to have a discussion with a God botherer and I won't give it to you emoticon-0130-devil.gif

I know you too well. You're like a dog with a bone with the stuff. :xmasssanta:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teachings of Christianity basically comes to this. God gave humanity a choice. Adam and Eve blew that by eating the fruit they were told not to eat so they have to live by God so they will be forgiven. Jesus is seen as humanity's second chance. All forgiven if you accept Christ as your savior. You have to mean it though. No fakes.

Well god seems like a bit of a jerk doesn't he? Condemning us for things we didn't do? Or forgiving us for things someone else did. I'd rather not be spoken to in that tone of voice.

It was never meant to be taken literally. It just means we human beings are sinful and must seek forgiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo, there is a huge difference between not believing what Jesus did was real and denying his existence completely. Many atheists agree that a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago but they dispute the miracles he carried out.

I mean I'm not being flippant but look at this video and tell me that people 2000 years ago wouldn't have believed this guy was the son of god if he'd told em so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OettT3Zed-Q&feature=related

It was never meant to be taken literally. It just means we human beings are sinful and must seek forgiveness.

Yeah but we aren't and we shouldn't. :shrugs:

You're itching to have a discussion with a God botherer and I won't give it to you emoticon-0130-devil.gif

I know you too well. You're like a dog with a bone with the stuff. :xmasssanta:

Putter.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This didn't turn out how I thought it would. No one is trying to tell me how Jesus makes sense it's a bunch of people either agreeing or brushing me off. Lol. Ah well. Good show boys!

One thing:

Religion works under the premise that we, mankind, do not know everything. The ways of God are supposed to be a mystery to us. So, yeah, that's why it isn't logical. It isn't a fucking equation. Its a faith. It takes faith to believe in it, not deduction.

How is this so simple and we still have these arguments?

This is the exact opposite of how I see it. Religion works to explain everything we don't understand. When we didn't understand something, God was applied. It's the opposite of working under the impression we don't know everything it gives explanation (however incorrectly) about all sorts of things we don't know. Where the universe came from..... shit, I'll have to go back to things that we know the answer to now to get other examples: Where humans came from, why the sun rises, where'd Earth come from, why's there thunder, etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fear is based in unknowns. People will take a junk answer over no answer to avoid unknowns so they can remain comfortable. Religion provides easy to swallow junk answers and this relieves anxiety. When people are confronted with the fact many of the answers are junk answers, the anxiety comes back and people cling to the junk answers harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion works under the premise that we, mankind, do not know everything.

Actually that's the very definition of how science works. :shrugs:

Science:

1. Not knowing anything

2. Come up with hypothesis

3. Test it

4. ???

5. Proft

Science:

1. Not knowing anything

2. Come up with hypothesis

3. Test it

4. Test it

5. Test it

6. Test it

7. Test it

8. Test it

9. Test it

10. Test it

11. Test it

12. Test it

13. Test it

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

999. ???

1000. Theory

;)

We don't have "proofs" as such in science, it's not in the lingo. This is why so many cretins come out with the "just a theory" argument. It means effectively the same thing but in a scientific context the word "proof" is very rarely used. :)

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now I think we really should debate it! :P I think it's mad to imagine him walking around at any time. :shrugs:

We've discussed it before and we just don't agree!

I can predict this already :lol:

Me: Jesus is real.

You: No he isn't.

An essay on why religion is so terrible.

Followed by countless anti religion videos.

Oh and some jokes about Father Damien molesting everybody.

I never said he wasn't real. <_<

Bingo, there is a huge difference between not believing what Jesus did was real and denying his existence completely. Many atheists agree that a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago but they dispute the miracles he carried out.

More annoying are the ones that refuse to recognise that he did exist - given the overwhelming evidence that suggests he did.

Fair play - up to you to believe whether he did or didn't, but he existed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who back up their faith in god by saying life on earth and everything about it is too perfect to be coincidence or random annoy me. Like, really? I just can't fathom how that thought process works - what makes us so special? Of the billion upon billions of planets and galaxies and space matter and all that, it's highly likely there is other life out there, which is something most people seem to accept. So, if there is in fact many forms of life out there, are their living conditions "too perfect" or not perfect enough or what?

I'm not sure how to phrase my thoughts here so I'm sort of rambling, but planets were not created by a divine being. They were formed over millions or billions of years, as was the life forms inhabiting said planets. We just happen to live in this world with trees and oceans and whales and tigers and shit. We happen to look like we do, walk on two legs, have thumbs and kneecaps and shit like that. If we all had one eye, 4 foot wide purple foreheads and 3 left arms, some people would say it was too perfectly designed to not be the work of god, because that's the life and world they're accustomed to.

I hope that made sense to at least a few people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only slightly less evidence christ existed than socrates did. Socrates's existence only has a secondary source, Plato. Earliest record of Christ's existence come from Paul, who didn't live during christ's time. His letters are a tertiary source. But what's clear is that some sort of figure likely named Socrates existed. Same goes for Jesus. Truly what makes jesus's existence so believable is how common his was. Remove the healings and miracles, he lived the life of a political dissident. Romans generally had no issues with local religions unless they caused a ruckus. Christ running around in Matthew and Luke vandalizing the Temple was causing a ruckus. So the Romans crucified him, as they did any other political dissident. Frankly nothing about his origin story is all that unique, the parts that weren't lifted from early israelite tribal mythology and greek mythology were a story of a typical political criminal. For that reason I believe a figure named Jesus Christ existed. I just don't believe his father sent him on a suicide mission to absolve mankind of sins someone else committed. That would just be silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish there was a subforum for atheist topics. Once upon a time I would involve myself in these threads, but now they are just repetitive dribble. What's the point?

So you don't believe in God or Jesus. Congratulations. Go outside and enjoy life without either idea. Next.

couldn't agree more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now I think we really should debate it! :P I think it's mad to imagine him walking around at any time. :shrugs:

We've discussed it before and we just don't agree!

I can predict this already :lol:

Me: Jesus is real.

You: No he isn't.

An essay on why religion is so terrible.

Followed by countless anti religion videos.

Oh and some jokes about Father Damien molesting everybody.

I never said he wasn't real. <_<

Bingo, there is a huge difference between not believing what Jesus did was real and denying his existence completely. Many atheists agree that a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago but they dispute the miracles he carried out.

More annoying are the ones that refuse to recognise that he did exist - given the overwhelming evidence that suggests he did.

Fair play - up to you to believe whether he did or didn't, but he existed!

As you said yourself " evidence suggests", but the Romans kept maticulous records of crucifictions and there is no Jesus Christ on the books, and as Dennis Hopper told Christopher Walken in True Romance, " that is a fact".

Can we all cut down on the Jebus debates? Nobody is changing anyone's opinion anytime soon.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! These debates are fucking hilarious. They are almost as funny as the threads claiming that CD is a masterpiece...almost. As a devout non believer, I would convert to Christianity before I would convert to CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all cut down on the Jebus debates? Nobody is changing anyone's opinion anytime soon.

This exactly this^ it always starts nice reading Interesting opinions n then it leads to your wrong religion is stupid or not believing is dumb. Quote a bunch of other peoples ideas n TADA!!!! U got yourself a GOD dame bullet proof theory lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only slightly less evidence christ existed than socrates did. Socrates's existence only has a secondary source, Plato. Earliest record of Christ's existence come from Paul, who didn't live during christ's time. His letters are a tertiary source. But what's clear is that some sort of figure likely named Socrates existed. Same goes for Jesus. Truly what makes jesus's existence so believable is how common his was. Remove the healings and miracles, he lived the life of a political dissident. Romans generally had no issues with local religions unless they caused a ruckus. Christ running around in Matthew and Luke vandalizing the Temple was causing a ruckus. So the Romans crucified him, as they did any other political dissident. Frankly nothing about his origin story is all that unique, the parts that weren't lifted from early israelite tribal mythology and greek mythology were a story of a typical political criminal. For that reason I believe a figure named Jesus Christ existed. I just don't believe his father sent him on a suicide mission to absolve mankind of sins someone else committed. That would just be silly.

But you can't take any mention of somebody as truth. Some people only write about other people things they heard from different other people, without knowing the truth.

Also, Plato was Socrates' student, didn't he? That means that they knew each other.

Now, like somebody else mentioned, the first mention of Christ comes from a book in which the oldest part to be written is from (according to a post from this thread) 80CE, that means like what, 50 years after Christ died? And they had to be at least 20 when he died, so the first one was written by a guy who was like 70-80 years old. And then you get the rest. Doesn't sound really likely for that to happen, and even if that guy really wrote it 50 years after Christ dies, then he must have had some sort of illness due to age/drugs or was just drunk and went "hey! I can write a story about a superhero! And better, let's make it more controversial by using my long dead friend's name and personal data to describe that person so I can tell people it's true and some idiots are bound to believe it!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought the bible was something invented by the ruling elite of the time to help manipulate the poor people into doing their bidding. Personally, I don't believe there ever was a Jesus Christ in real life.

Even as someone who is not a Christian (I am open minded to it, though), I would say this to your comment:

Most historians, whether atheist or otherwise, accept there was a real living Jesus Christ who was crucified for his claims.

There are more documents in history supporting the existance of the figure Jesus Christ than even some of the other figures of history we believe in/accept/take for granted.

If you take the New Testament, and don't even accept it was holy or whatever, it still contains a collection of first century documents describing the teachings of a man called Jesus who made these claims.

Outside of the new testament, there are other historians, who were not amongst Christ's followers, who have written about Jesus and his life etc. For instance, Tacitus, a non-Christian, who was a historian of the Roman empire, wrote about the living figure of Jesus in early AD. Another document written by a non-Christian - Pliny the Younger, wrote about Jesus being alive and what he did. Then a Jewish (non Christian) historian called Josephus also wrote commentaries about Jesus Christ. These figures were not disciples of Jesus, neither did they have anything to gain from writing about him other than doing what they thought they were doing: writing about current affairs and preserving history.

It's one thing to say "I don't believe Jesus' claims" but quite another altogether to just say he was a made-up figure who never even lived.

If we had even half the documents we have for Jesus for another figure, we wouldn't question the persons existance or authenticity in history - but because of the claims Jesus makes, people make all sorts of unreasonable assumptions, when the evidence doesn't fit the fact.

Edited by Towelie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And is that really so unusual? The science advocacy that most often accompanies this kind of militant atheism is delivered with a distinctly religious zeal, to call a spade a spade. We don't know everything. Not me, not you, not the science community, not the Pope. To condemn the beliefs of either side is unnecessary.

The problem is that one side has evidence for what it believes and one doesn't but the side without the evidence is the one that seems to want to evangelise. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion works under the premise that we, mankind, do not know everything.

Actually that's the very definition of how science works. :shrugs:

Science:

1. Not knowing anything

2. Come up with hypothesis

3. Test it

4. ???

5. Proft

Science:

1. Not knowing anything

2. Come up with hypothesis

3. Test it

4. Test it

5. Test it

6. Test it

7. Test it

8. Test it

9. Test it

10. Test it

11. Test it

12. Test it

13. Test it

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

999. ???

1000. Theory

;)

We don't have "proofs" as such in science, it's not in the lingo. This is why so many cretins come out with the "just a theory" argument. It means effectively the same thing but in a scientific context the word "proof" is very rarely used. :)

Well yeah, because it's only held true until you disprove it. How negative :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...