Jesus never existed

[DieselDaisy]

T

He was crucified.

If you want Christian irregularities, you are all looking in the wrong areas. Rather than question whether Jesus existed, you should ask yourself why Mary and Joseph were travelling to pay Caesar's tax since, since, as a client kingdom at that time, historically, Caesar's tax did not apply to Judea. Also

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

You left out the fact that, all these texts are non-Christian - in fact, opposed to Christianity - and therefore have no interest in sustaining a ''mythical Jesus'' narrative tradition. They are also historical and have no vested interest in proselytising. They have to be then regarded as, objective evidence, and are irrefutable.

Kasanova is actually completely correct. With the exception of certain elite statesman (e.g. the Roman imperial family; various soldiers and senators; various client kings), we have far more evidence of Jesus's existence than we have for the great mass of humanity at that time - or most other times of recorded history. Perhaps we only have more information about Cicero - maybe Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Kasanova is aboslutely not "completely correct" when he states that we have "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". You even admit it yourself in the next sentence when you agree that numerous persona described by Roman and Greek historians as well as featured in other contemporary sources like epitaphs, coins, memorials, letters, have more evidence for their existence. Not to mention China which also had a rich culture of writing and historiography at the time. These people add up in the hundreds. Saying that Jesus, with what, 3-4 brief and largely controversial mentions in non-religious texts, is more evidenced as having lived than, say, Cicero, Augustus, Cæsar, Juba, Ping, Confucius, Wang Mang, Deng Yu, etc, etc, is quite simply hilarious.

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

Why worship another messiah figure and provide the name of a fictitious one?

We are talking about Pliny's reference to "Christus" which could be any Messiah figure at the time. Because nowhere in Pliny's letter to Trajan is "Jesus" mentioned. Hence it is evidence for a Christus cult but not evidence for Jesus' existence.

I still stand by the statement that, ''we know more about Jesus than most people from this period''. Firstly, the person we know most about from a loosely similar time frame is Cicero as, by a quirk of history, so much of his writings survives. After Cicero, I would be not necessarily be disinclined to place Jesus of Nazareth - perhaps Julius Caesar also. Firstly, regarding elite Romans, you have to understand how much information we lack about, even the most powerful people on the planet, the Roman Emperors themselves. This is particularly true for the Emperors after Domitian (when, both Suetonius and Tacitus end their accounts). Secondly, the mass majority of Romans are completely absent from history. This is because Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny et al. were from the scholarly elite class and were unconcerned with the lives of normal Romans. The majority of Romans did not live in the luxurious villas, the ruins of which adorn the Palatine today, but inhabited high rise insulae. They did not conduct hedonistic symposia but, subsisted on the state 'corn dole', cooking this up into bread in these universal ovens. Their lives can be glimpsed only occasionally, from graffiti at Pompeii for instance. Even the lives of Equestrian Romans (a sort of, Roman middle class) are difficult to reconstruct beyond the information contained on their edifices which flank the Via Appia. A lot of them were descended from slaves. That is about all we can reconstruct of their lives.

Compare this to what we know of Jesus Christ,

- He was born before the death of Herod the Great (4 BC), probably 6-4 BC

- He was baptised by John the Baptist

- He cast himself as a sort of mystic 'Messiah' like figure, declaiming upon a 'second covenant'

- He was crucified by the Roman Prefect of Judea at the time (AD 26- 36), Pontius Pilate, at the behest of the Sanhedrin

[Snake-Pit]

Was he the son of God?

Who knows?

That's faith for you.

Whatever keeps you through the night. Baby.

[SoulMonster]

T

He was crucified.

If you want Christian irregularities, you are all looking in the wrong areas. Rather than question whether Jesus existed, you should ask yourself why Mary and Joseph were travelling to pay Caesar's tax since, since, as a client kingdom at that time, historically, Caesar's tax did not apply to Judea. Also

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

You left out the fact that, all these texts are non-Christian - in fact, opposed to Christianity - and therefore have no interest in sustaining a ''mythical Jesus'' narrative tradition. They are also historical and have no vested interest in proselytising. They have to be then regarded as, objective evidence, and are irrefutable.

Kasanova is actually completely correct. With the exception of certain elite statesman (e.g. the Roman imperial family; various soldiers and senators; various client kings), we have far more evidence of Jesus's existence than we have for the great mass of humanity at that time - or most other times of recorded history. Perhaps we only have more information about Cicero - maybe Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Kasanova is aboslutely not "completely correct" when he states that we have "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". You even admit it yourself in the next sentence when you agree that numerous persona described by Roman and Greek historians as well as featured in other contemporary sources like epitaphs, coins, memorials, letters, have more evidence for their existence. Not to mention China which also had a rich culture of writing and historiography at the time. These people add up in the hundreds. Saying that Jesus, with what, 3-4 brief and largely controversial mentions in non-religious texts, is more evidenced as having lived than, say, Cicero, Augustus, Cæsar, Juba, Ping, Confucius, Wang Mang, Deng Yu, etc, etc, is quite simply hilarious.

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

Why worship another messiah figure and provide the name of a fictitious one?

We are talking about Pliny's reference to "Christus" which could be any Messiah figure at the time. Because nowhere in Pliny's letter to Trajan is "Jesus" mentioned. Hence it is evidence for a Christus cult but not evidence for Jesus' existence.

I still stand by the statement that, ''we know more about Jesus than most people from this period''.

That's not the statement I have been disagreeing with. The statement I have agreed with is "we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". That being said, using Livy is a trusted primary source, I would say there are many people form that period we know more about than Jesus. You mention Cæsar as an example, check this site out (not that I agree with the notion that Jesus is a myth): http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html Other people from Livy that is described in more detail than Jesus and where we would be safe to trust more parts than what is generally considered among historians to be known about Jesus' life, and I am just brainstorming now, this is absolutely not a comprehensive list: Cicero (mentioned by you, too), Augustus, Marcus Antonius, Cleopatra, Pompey, Crassus, Lepidus, Sulla, Atia, Brutus, Quintus Pesidus, Agrippa....Basically a "who's who" among 1st century Roman politicians For all of these we have a lot of information on their lives, much more than for Jesus of Nazareth, and this information comes to us from numerous sources, including the Roman historians that lived at that time (Livi, Suetonius, Caesar etc), and later, as well as conserved letters (especially from Cicero), as well as foreign historians, conserved treaties, documents, papyri, inscriptions, stratagems, Babylonian chronicles, grafitti, etc etc. I would trust that the number of people we know more of than Jesus from that particular time period counts in the hundreds.

Edited October 6, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Nulla Lex Ink.]

And as Jesus hung there on the cross he looked up with his last dying breath and said, "What a heck of a way to spend Easter!"

Hah, that reminds me of a good one.

What did Jesus say when he was crucified?

"Peter, I think I can see your house from up here!"

[DieselDaisy]

T

He was crucified.

If you want Christian irregularities, you are all looking in the wrong areas. Rather than question whether Jesus existed, you should ask yourself why Mary and Joseph were travelling to pay Caesar's tax since, since, as a client kingdom at that time, historically, Caesar's tax did not apply to Judea. Also

"We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from his time period"

Wow. He was a historian you said? The only way the above sentence can be closed to truth is if he regards the gospel as gospel, and no proper historian would make the mistake of taking religious propaganda as any legit sources for the existence of anything. Disregarding the gospels we are left with just a few texts that are more or less contemporary and which mention Jesus. This is far less than the records we have of numerous other people who lived at around Jesus' time and before. What a quack historian.

You left out the fact that, all these texts are non-Christian - in fact, opposed to Christianity - and therefore have no interest in sustaining a ''mythical Jesus'' narrative tradition. They are also historical and have no vested interest in proselytising. They have to be then regarded as, objective evidence, and are irrefutable.

Kasanova is actually completely correct. With the exception of certain elite statesman (e.g. the Roman imperial family; various soldiers and senators; various client kings), we have far more evidence of Jesus's existence than we have for the great mass of humanity at that time - or most other times of recorded history. Perhaps we only have more information about Cicero - maybe Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Kasanova is aboslutely not "completely correct" when he states that we have "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". You even admit it yourself in the next sentence when you agree that numerous persona described by Roman and Greek historians as well as featured in other contemporary sources like epitaphs, coins, memorials, letters, have more evidence for their existence. Not to mention China which also had a rich culture of writing and historiography at the time. These people add up in the hundreds. Saying that Jesus, with what, 3-4 brief and largely controversial mentions in non-religious texts, is more evidenced as having lived than, say, Cicero, Augustus, Cæsar, Juba, Ping, Confucius, Wang Mang, Deng Yu, etc, etc, is quite simply hilarious.

There are also other non-Christian sources. Pliny the Younger mentions the worshipers of 'Christus' to the Emperor Trajan. While this does not prove Christ existed in itself, it does prove the relative antiquarianism of a 'Jesus cult' (for lack of a better term): circa 112 AD. Thus, if 'Jesus Christ' was fabricated, the fabrication must have occurred at a very early date - before, Christianity had proliferated to such a degree that it undermined traditional Graeco-Romano religious practices (and eventually, become the state religion of Rome itself).

Well, you could easily have Christus believers, or followers of the Christus branch of Judaism, without that being evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having existed. Maybe they worshipped another Messiah figure? Or maybe they were just waiting for Messiah to come?

Why worship another messiah figure and provide the name of a fictitious one?

We are talking about Pliny's reference to "Christus" which could be any Messiah figure at the time. Because nowhere in Pliny's letter to Trajan is "Jesus" mentioned. Hence it is evidence for a Christus cult but not evidence for Jesus' existence.

I still stand by the statement that, ''we know more about Jesus than most people from this period''.

That's not the statement I have been disagreeing with. The statement I have agreed with is "we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than just about anyone else from that time period". That being said, using Livy is a trusted primary source, I would say there are many people form that period we know more about than Jesus. You mention Cæsar as an example, check this site out (not that I agree with the notion that Jesus is a myth): http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html Other people from Livy that is described in more detail than Jesus and where we would be safe to trust more parts than what is generally considered among historians to be known about Jesus' life, and I am just brainstorming now, this is absolutely not a comprehensive list: Cicero (mentioned by you, too), Augustus, Marcus Antonius, Cleopatra, Pompey, Crassus, Lepidus, Sulla, Atia, Brutus, Quintus Pesidus, Agrippa....Basically a "who's who" among 1st century Roman politicians For all of these we have a lot of information on their lives, much more than for Jesus of Nazareth, and this information comes to us from numerous sources, including the Roman historians that lived at that time (Livi, Suetonius, Caesar etc), and later, as well as conserved letters (especially from Cicero), as well as foreign historians, conserved treaties, documents, papyri, inscriptions, stratagems, Babylonian chronicles, grafitti, etc etc. I would trust that the number of people we know more of than Jesus from that particular time period counts in the hundreds.

But we do not have any notion of plebeian Romans. The list of figures there represent the senatorial elite.

I still do not agree (apart from Cicero). You do know that, from 142 libri, we only have about 35 libri of Livy's ab urbe condita? There is so much that we do not know about all of those figures, and much of what we do know, comes from fragmentary sources, often written, at a much latter date from when the events took place. All of our knowledge of the Principate of Augustus for instance basically comes from Suetonius and Tacitus, both written about one-hundred years, and Cassius Dio, about two hundred years, after the Principate of Augustus. There is also Augustus's own epitaph, Res Gestae, and the coinage and architectural ruins which tell us a bit about how Augustus wished to be perceived, his propaganda. And that is it! This is the most important man in the universe and we are basically relying on three accounts written years after the events, one of which (Suetonius) is, not so much 'history', more, racy titillating gossip. We could do better? We could, for instance, have Augustus's Memoirs, all lost.

And it is not as if we are privy to what actually motivated Augustus. Take also Caesar. We have more on Caesar than Augustus because we have Caesar's own writings. But we do not actually have much idea what Caesar intended, before the Ides of March, as he was ruling through dictatorships. We have no idea whether or not he aimed to reconstitute a republic of sorts and retire (a la Sulla), reconstitute the kingship, or do what Augustus would later do and invent a new sort of monarchy.

Now, compare this to Jesus, where we have the Pauline letters and the Gospels - which are four biographical variations.

[estrangedtwat]

It's all bullshit speculation that will never be proved.

We live in a day and age of 24 hour surveillance and instant global communication and even with all that technology, shit like a cop shooting a black guy in broad daylight still happens, where it's one person's word against another. We can't even PROVE what really happened and why. And that happened 2 months ago.

So why in the fuck would anyone believe in ANYTHING that one caveman may or may not have said to another caveman thousands of years ago? It's all myth, legend, fairy tales, and hearsay.

There is no evidence that "Jesus Christ" ever existed and is anything other than a tall tale.

Just like feathers on dinosaurs. We can speculate all we want but we will never, ever, EVER know what those things really looked like other than as a stack of bones.

Oh...wait. There weren't any dinsosaurs in the bible, so I guess you don't believe they ever existed.

[Lithium]

Oh...wait. There weren't any dinsosaurs in the bible, so I guess you don't believe they ever existed.

False.

[magisme]

Jesus is like the Axl of Anything Goes.

[Johnny Drama]

Jesus got betrayed, not the other way around ODB.

[DieselDaisy]

It's all bullshit speculation that will never be proved.

We live in a day and age of 24 hour surveillance and instant global communication and even with all that technology, shit like a cop shooting a black guy in broad daylight still happens, where it's one person's word against another. We can't even PROVE what really happened and why. And that happened 2 months ago.

So why in the fuck would anyone believe in ANYTHING that one caveman may or may not have said to another caveman thousands of years ago? It's all myth, legend, fairy tales, and hearsay.

There is no evidence that "Jesus Christ" ever existed and is anything other than a tall tale.

Just like feathers on dinosaurs. We can speculate all we want but we will never, ever, EVER know what those things really looked like other than as a stack of bones.

Oh...wait. There weren't any dinsosaurs in the bible, so I guess you don't believe they ever existed.

This is all horseshit.

[estrangedtwat]

It's not.

Christians believe "Jesus Christ" existed despite there being no physical evidence to back it up because they desperately NEED to believe it. Their very lives are based on a fairy tale. So terrified of the unknown that they cling to a fantasy just so they can sleep at night. They need it to be true. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise, and their big defense is how they have "faith."

Well, I have faith in science, logic, reason, rationality, and common sense. And your millenia old legends of a jew with magic powers will never change that.

So keep on believing if it stifles those screams of terror, but the intelligent members of societies all over this planet are marching towards the light of reason. Eventually the Christ myth will go the way of Zeus and Thor and all the rest.

[Dazey]

It's not.

Christians believe "Jesus Christ" existed despite there being no physical evidence to back it up because they desperately NEED to believe it. Their very lives are based on a fairy tale. So terrified of the unknown that they cling to a fantasy just so they can sleep at night. They need it to be true. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise, and their big defense is how they have "faith."

Well, I have faith in science, logic, reason, rationality, and common sense. And your millenia old legends of a jew with magic powers will never change that.

So keep on believing if it stifles those screams of terror, but the intelligent members of societies all over this planet are marching towards the light of reason. Eventually the Christ myth will go the way of Zeus and Thor and all the rest.

There's no reason to believe that a bloke called Jesus didn't exist. There's every reason to believe that all the supernatural stuff if horseshit however.

[Ace Nova]

It's all bullshit speculation that will never be proved.

We live in a day and age of 24 hour surveillance and instant global communication and even with all that technology, shit like a cop shooting a black guy in broad daylight still happens, where it's one person's word against another. We can't even PROVE what really happened and why. And that happened 2 months ago.

So why in the fuck would anyone believe in ANYTHING that one caveman may or may not have said to another caveman thousands of years ago? It's all myth, legend, fairy tales, and hearsay.

There is no evidence that "Jesus Christ" ever existed and is anything other than a tall tale.

Just like feathers on dinosaurs. We can speculate all we want but we will never, ever, EVER know what those things really looked like other than as a stack of bones.

Oh...wait. There weren't any dinsosaurs in the bible, so I guess you don't believe they ever existed.

It actually is all horseshit.

You're stating that people that lived 2000 years ago were "cave men". Are you kidding me? And then, you take it a step further and compare something from 2000 years ago to something from millions of years ago (feathers on dinosaurs).

Do you even read what you write or are have those ruffies turned whatever is left of your brain to mush?

Edited October 6, 2014 by Kasanova King

[DieselDaisy]

It's not.

Christians believe "Jesus Christ" existed despite there being no physical evidence to back it up because they desperately NEED to believe it. Their very lives are based on a fairy tale. So terrified of the unknown that they cling to a fantasy just so they can sleep at night. They need it to be true. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise, and their big defense is how they have "faith."

Well, I have faith in science, logic, reason, rationality, and common sense. And your millenia old legends of a jew with magic powers will never change that.

So keep on believing if it stifles those screams of terror, but the intelligent members of societies all over this planet are marching towards the light of reason. Eventually the Christ myth will go the way of Zeus and Thor and all the rest.

But we are not talking about 'Christians'. We are talking about pagan - anti-Christian even - Roman historians! We have also mentioned real, solid, substantive, archaeology evidence (which you can go and see with your own eyes). You clearly have not been following this debate very well.

It's not.

Christians believe "Jesus Christ" existed despite there being no physical evidence to back it up because they desperately NEED to believe it. Their very lives are based on a fairy tale. So terrified of the unknown that they cling to a fantasy just so they can sleep at night. They need it to be true. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise, and their big defense is how they have "faith."

Well, I have faith in science, logic, reason, rationality, and common sense. And your millenia old legends of a jew with magic powers will never change that.

So keep on believing if it stifles those screams of terror, but the intelligent members of societies all over this planet are marching towards the light of reason. Eventually the Christ myth will go the way of Zeus and Thor and all the rest.

There's no reason to believe that a bloke called Jesus didn't exist. There's every reason to believe that all the supernatural stuff if horseshit however.

But it is the historical debate that concerns us. The argument on, whether Jesus was the Son of God is a completely separate issue.

[Lithium]

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults are still having serious discussions about supernaturalism in 2014.

[DieselDaisy]

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults are still having serious discussions about supernaturalism in 2014.

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults cannot separate the historical and supernatural in 2014 (and cannot follow forum threads very clearly).

Again, and I repeat for the millionth time, we are not discussing whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, performed miracles and was Resurrected etc etc. We are discussing whether or not there existed a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth.

[estrangedtwat]

Which is impossible to prove.

[Lithium]

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults are still having serious discussions about supernaturalism in 2014.

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults cannot separate the historical and supernatural in 2014 (and cannot follow forum threads very clearly).

Again, and I repeat for the millionth time, we are not discussing whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, performed miracles and was Resurrected etc etc. We are discussing whether or not there existed a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, and i agree with it. I agree that there is historical evidence of the existence of a guy by the name of Jesus, just as there are evidence for many other historical figures of the time.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Lithium

[Ace Nova]

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults are still having serious discussions about supernaturalism in 2014.

So how does it make you feel to have to teach a class about it? I'm assuming you're having serious discussions about it in your classes, no?

[estrangedtwat]

There's no reason to believe that a bloke called Jesus didn't exist. There's every reason to believe that all the supernatural stuff if horseshit however.

I agree. He MIGHT have existed. He probably didn't though. We'll never know though, cause there's no way to prove it. Mankind has wasted enough time and resources on pondering it. We really should just ignore it and move on.

Trying to argue about evidence, logic, and reason with these imbeciles is a complete waste of time and will only leave you shaking your head at their blind willful ignorance.

Kasanova King....your staggering idiocy is just embarrassing. It's just shameful that an ADULT, a grown ass human being, can choose to be so fucking blitheringly stupid. Whatever. It's your life. If you want to believe in Jesus and Santa Claus and Spider-Man and Spongebob and other made up children's stories, there's nothing we can do about it.

I've said all I feel like saying on the topic, in this thread and others. Not gonna bother anymore. I'd get a more rational thought-out response from the annoying fucking yippy dog that barks all afternoon down the street.

[Lithium]

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults are still having serious discussions about supernaturalism in 2014.

So how does it make you feel to have to teach a class about it? I'm assuming you're having serious discussions about it in your classes, no?

It makes me feel great because I will be in a position where I'm able to encourage kids to think critically and see things from other perspectives.

[DieselDaisy]

There's no reason to believe that a bloke called Jesus didn't exist. There's every reason to believe that all the supernatural stuff if horseshit however.

I agree. He MIGHT have existed. He probably didn't though. We'll never know though, cause there's no way to prove it. Mankind has wasted enough time and resources on pondering it. We really should just ignore it and move on.

Presumably, by ignoring it and moving on, we produce people with your immense brain power who cannot differentiate between, Iron Age Classical societies and the age of Neanderthal Man!

[Ace Nova]

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults are still having serious discussions about supernaturalism in 2014.

So how does it make you feel to have to teach a class about it? I'm assuming you're having serious discussions about it in your classes, no?

It makes me feel great because I will be in a position where I'm able to encourage kids to think critically and see things from other perspectives.

That's fine but you stated that it "terrifies and fascinates you". I thought those words were a little extreme, considering the fact that you're teaching a class about this supposed "supernaturalism". If you were so terrified by the thought of having serious discussion about it, surely you wouldn't be capable of teaching a class about it.....

[Lithium]

It both terrifies and fascinates me that adults are still having serious discussions about supernaturalism in 2014.

So how does it make you feel to have to teach a class about it? I'm assuming you're having serious discussions about it in your classes, no?

It makes me feel great because I will be in a position where I'm able to encourage kids to think critically and see things from other perspectives.

That's fine but you stated that it "terrifies and fascinates you". I thought those words were a little extreme, considering the fact that you're teaching a class about this supposed "supernaturalism". If you were so terrified by the thought of having serious discussion about it, surely you wouldn't be capable of teaching a class about it.....

I meant it in the sense that it terrifies and fascinates me that it is still a subject in 2014, just as I find it terrifying and fascinating that there are still people who think Nazism is the way to go in 2014. Furthermore, the joy of seeing young minds think critically without having their family's points of view clogging their heads far outweighs the fact that discussing what I consider fairytales in a serious manner makes me terrified.

Before anyone bites my head off, I'd like to emphasize that I'm not comparing Nazism and supernaturalism in any other way than that I think they are both things that clearly do not belong in this day and age.

[SoulMonster]

I think we can all agree with estrangedtwat that religion is horseshit.

But teaching religion was an interesting digression from the done-to-death discussion on the historicity of a jewish punk who has gotten way more attention than he ever deserved and is now the most undeservingly hyped person that ever existed. Personally I think we should be very careful about teaching kids things that are obviously wrong. I think it is uneducational. I think it is unpedagogic. Of course we could do it as an exercise in understanding the history of philosophy, and in understanding how we have progressed from not underatanding to understanding. And more importantly, it is important to the extent when these religious misunderstandings and irrationalities actually affect humans today. E.g. we should talk about why many moronic Christians are opposed to abortion (because they believe featuses have "souls" and are "sacred"), why muslim imbeciles got completely rabid when cartoons of their beloved prophet was published (because for reasons that can best be described as inane the prophet should never be rendered in an artistic creation) and why they now kill innocents in an effort to create a state based on their idiocity, the IS, or why primitive jews won't eact juicy, succulent bacon (because they want to live according to completely outdated bronze age rules); but we should absolutely not waste any of our precious student's time and curriculum by telling them the details of theistic nonsense that really doesn't affect anyone but the affected themselves. For instance the details of ludicrious Christian theology, like virgin birth, that Jesus was sent to earth to be tortured and killed for human's sin, original sin, flawed solutions to the problem of evil, etc, is best kept in Church or as part of a standup routine.