Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:25 PM Dec 2014

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

--snip--

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

.
288 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up. (Original Post) cleanhippie Dec 2014 OP
Well I still believe in Jesus. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #1
Of course you do. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #3
They can not prove to me it didn't happen. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #5
Of course they can't cleanhippie Dec 2014 #6
that is fine but I wanted to go on the record here. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #7
Again? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #8
Close-minded? I think not. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #11
Close-minded? Absolutely. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #15
Hilarious! hrmjustin Dec 2014 #18
When you're right you're right. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #22
Well we will just leave it at this because this will only go downhill now. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #23
You sure about that? Seems like we reached the bottom some time ago. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #25
Low i think not. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #26
Cya, Justin. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #27
In fairness to Justin and those like him, he must go on record here or anywhere NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #52
I've no doubt that justin is a loving, wonderful, peace loving person. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #65
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, they who resort to ad homina have lost. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #75
This is what he has stated himself over and over again. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #79
"regurgitation of tired apologist arguments and asinine statements" = failure. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #86
Lol cleanhippie Dec 2014 #87
"Scientists Feral Child Dec 2014 #169
Are you a scientist? I am. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #171
Yes but Feral Child Dec 2014 #195
I see, you don't accept my experience. That's very sad. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #198
I did respond to your post. Feral Child Dec 2014 #202
I just called Heddi Dec 2014 #241
Interesting. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #268
I thought the reply was hillarious Heddi Dec 2014 #269
Pay no attention Feral Child Dec 2014 #280
Oh, my. Feral Child Dec 2014 #278
I think what they are saying edhopper Dec 2014 #209
Thank you for the well reasoned and civil reply. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #212
I think a man named Yeshua living edhopper Dec 2014 #230
I don't take any religious texts at face value, as gospel truths (couldn't resist). NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #231
You have to wonder edhopper Dec 2014 #233
I saw those numbers. It is absolutely amazing. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #237
Do you think this jesus person was a god? Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #234
Why would I think that? Odd how people in the A-A group say "I'm not one of them". NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #238
Scientific " faith"is not the same word as used in religious faith, you are confusing yourself. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #254
Neither are they black and white, nor found exclusive of one another. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #265
Most who believe Jesus didn't exist aren't scholars. okasha Dec 2014 #148
Thanks. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #159
The correct word should be doesn't. Leontius Dec 2014 #172
He is risen indeed! hrmjustin Dec 2014 #173
This message was self-deleted by its author okasha Dec 2014 #181
There are plenty of genuine scholars who do support his existence. okasha Dec 2014 #183
Your comment about Josephus is completely untrue Trajan Dec 2014 #190
Wrong. okasha Dec 2014 #192
I've read lots of texts that mention Paul Bunyan, SheilaT Dec 2014 #204
Were those history or current affairs books? okasha Dec 2014 #208
There are plenty of history and current affairs books SheilaT Dec 2014 #213
I don't believe that history according to Dan Brown has any professional support. okasha Dec 2014 #242
No, no professional support, SheilaT Dec 2014 #253
And some of them are right here on DU. okasha Dec 2014 #261
OK, this one bit of snark strikes me as funny. riqster Dec 2014 #276
Oddly enough most who believe Jesus did exist aren't scholars either. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #235
Not in the least. okasha Dec 2014 #243
This message was self-deleted by its author John1956PA Dec 2014 #245
so your close minded MFM008 Dec 2014 #72
Say what? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #74
What would be evidence for the non-existence of the tooth fairy? Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #111
isn't that the entire basis of religious belief? Skittles Dec 2014 #252
That's totally already on the record....lol. Iggo Dec 2014 #50
Yes and I said it again. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #51
and again, and again, and again... cleanhippie Dec 2014 #69
Rationally, the burden of proof lies with the people who claim he DID exist. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #13
Stop it. Just stop it right now. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #19
Only if they are trying to convince you he was real. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #20
Right. You're only trying to convince yourself. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #24
Well, he is convincing me he has nothing convincing to give me. Faith, of course, can not be proven. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #255
But you do engage with a 'they' that do not accept that premise, and whom AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #33
I come to the discussion with one given. i can't prove he existed. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #38
At this moment, there is insufficient data. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #43
We cant prove leprechauns dont exist either, but they dont. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #53
WHAT ! ! ! ! nichomachus Dec 2014 #64
What became of the gold DonViejo Dec 2014 #106
I have thought about that too edhopper Dec 2014 #114
Not even a card? PassingFair Dec 2014 #201
no MFM008 Dec 2014 #73
Like what? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #76
must have been MFM008 Dec 2014 #80
Can't say since you won't tell me. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #83
So that's it? Just a "well I had this experience once, so there"? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #160
Only one side *requires* proof. The side making an extraordinary claim. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #117
Come on AC, he had some sort of "profound experience" so... cleanhippie Dec 2014 #161
How many specific, individual people from 1st century Palestine could be "proven"... YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #91
lots may have existed. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #121
Very scary way of thinking. phil89 Dec 2014 #10
Your scared by my faith? hrmjustin Dec 2014 #12
Inconvenienced by the general existence of it. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #14
That is not what I asked and I am not responsible in anyway shape ot form by the litany you just hrmjustin Dec 2014 #17
Au contraire. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #32
Let me put it another way, because that last paragraph I just wrote is probably difficult to parse. AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #168
I understand. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #170
I don't think you do. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #216
Thats nice. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #217
It's not nice, it's dishonest and unfortunate. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #218
Your calling me a liar? hrmjustin Dec 2014 #219
No. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #220
Your complaining because I gave a short response? hrmjustin Dec 2014 #221
I'm not complaining, I'm commenting. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #222
Sounds more like complaining to me. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #223
Of course it does. If you understood, you would know the difference. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #224
Gee I was going to say the same to you. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #225
You would've if you actually understood. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #226
Good bye cleanhippie. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #227
Cya, Justin. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #228
Self delete. Feral Child Dec 2014 #56
Well at least your honest. Wrong but honest. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #58
You're gloating is premature. Feral Child Dec 2014 #162
Why are you trying to bait me? i did not alert on your post nor am I going to. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #164
I'm baiting *you*? Feral Child Dec 2014 #196
Hang back and alert, maybe you'll get lucky. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #203
Not bait. Feral Child Dec 2014 #206
No thank you. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #207
You should consider revising and reposting this as it's own OP. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #71
at one time MFM008 Dec 2014 #78
They are scared of your faith. Leontius Dec 2014 #95
This is an interesting point. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #100
How utterly offensive Heddi Dec 2014 #107
If it offends you I am sorry but it is a reasonable question. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #110
You're not sorry, and it's not a reasonable question Heddi Dec 2014 #116
My point was I wonder how many Atheists here wished they had faith. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #118
I'll be sure to remind you of your words Heddi Dec 2014 #125
Goodbye Heddi! hrmjustin Dec 2014 #127
They are jealous of the atheist lack of faith and belief only in science and facts that can be Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #257
I wonder if they're jealous of my freedom from the fear of the eternity Heddi Dec 2014 #258
Yes. Not having to think about the many versions of Hell is a relief they do not have. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #259
And the best part Heddi Dec 2014 #260
I think about hell almost as much as I value your opinion. Leontius Dec 2014 #264
How Christian of you. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #266
If by chance someone who read it is an idiot they can ask for an explaination. Leontius Dec 2014 #267
You're better than that, Justin. Goblinmonger Dec 2014 #123
I never said you did and I don't have a bad opinion of atheists. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #124
No, you just agreed that we were jealous of your faith Heddi Dec 2014 #128
keep going if you like. for the record I hope no one alerts on you. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #130
No, you keep going, Justin. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #144
Please go reread the post that you replied to with "good point." Goblinmonger Dec 2014 #129
Well you have the right to take it how you want but I never meant all of you. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #134
That's just not true, Leontius. Feral Child Dec 2014 #103
You forgot edhopper Dec 2014 #115
No I didn't Leontius Dec 2014 #119
You did use whom correctly. Goblinmonger Dec 2014 #126
There is a group that posts here a lot that I feel are perfectly defined Leontius Dec 2014 #133
It's backpedaling. rug Dec 2014 #136
I'm sure he feels I'm doing both. Leontius Dec 2014 #139
If it can't be rebutted, they make up some shit and rebut that. rug Dec 2014 #142
Holy shit, dude. That's a lot of offensive bullshit to put in one post. Goblinmonger Dec 2014 #122
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! cleanhippie Dec 2014 #145
The amount of knowledge and truth in your post is up to it's standard level Leontius Dec 2014 #166
Careful you're projecting again. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #175
Your courage has been seen and measured here in this thread Leontius Dec 2014 #263
Says the oh-so-brave keyboard warrior. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #270
jury results RussBLib Dec 2014 #271
Yes! That must be it! PassingFair Dec 2014 #244
You might want to read the story of Isis, Osiris and Horus WhiteTara Dec 2014 #2
Shhhhhhhh. Every time that gets brought up around here... cleanhippie Dec 2014 #4
For the story about his "resurrection" you might enjoy WhiteTara Dec 2014 #40
Has nothing to do with the Jesus narrative. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #41
not coincidence...several centuries before WhiteTara Dec 2014 #138
I didn't think I needed the sarcasm tag. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #141
you didn't WhiteTara Dec 2014 #143
Oh, ok. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #147
No, No, No! WhiteTara Dec 2014 #149
No worries. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #150
Uh, no, it doesn't. okasha Dec 2014 #154
Created flame bait? Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #9
Sorry. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #21
LMAO n/t trotsky Dec 2014 #31
Oh yeah? bvf Dec 2014 #16
You rascal! Feral Child Dec 2014 #28
See Frontline, from Jesus to Christ, elleng Dec 2014 #29
Summary, please? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #45
Lengthy history, elleng Dec 2014 #55
Have you seen this or is it a new series? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #67
It was first broadcast on PBS some time ago ... Trajan Dec 2014 #81
What was the conclusion? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #84
They were not looking to answer the question posed in the OP, elleng Dec 2014 #101
Ahh, more of a 'this is how the story came to be' type of a thing? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #104
Yes, as historians. elleng Dec 2014 #112
Cool, thanks. I'll check it out. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #137
I agree, says this agnostic. elleng Dec 2014 #98
Saw much of Part 1 last night, elleng Dec 2014 #97
I believe it's available on pbs.org choie Dec 2014 #120
Probably is and yes, elleng Dec 2014 #135
That far back it is difficult to find evidence that a king really existed Drale Dec 2014 #30
Well gosh there is plenty of evidence for all sorts of actual human beings. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #35
The Romans were actually very meticulous record keepers. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #37
Perhaps that lack of Roman documentation was deliberate on their part YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #82
I'm sure that's it. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #85
True. edhopper Dec 2014 #89
No one knows. Kirk Douglas to the contrary. okasha Dec 2014 #155
Give us a link to the Roman records in their occupation of Judea and Galilee kwassa Dec 2014 #197
The Romans executed many tens of thousands of criminals and politically dangerous folk. thucythucy Dec 2014 #211
If, 2000 years from now, a large portion of the planets worships me as a god cleanhippie Dec 2014 #214
harry potter has 7 books about him, therefore he is 7X more likely to be real nt msongs Dec 2014 #34
That would stand to reason. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #39
This right here is the key, I think: trotsky Dec 2014 #36
Every work of history written by eyewitnesses or not is biased so there is no Leontius Dec 2014 #240
Maybe he didn't walk the earth Sanity Claws Dec 2014 #42
There was a book I read edhopper Dec 2014 #44
Probably just like they react to ANYTHING contrary to their belief. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #48
Are you talking about the Gospel of Judas? hrmjustin Dec 2014 #49
No edhopper Dec 2014 #61
Like this miracle? PassingFair Dec 2014 #247
with all due respect DonCoquixote Dec 2014 #46
There are better examples, I think. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2014 #57
oh indeed DonCoquixote Dec 2014 #63
To answer that question, I would look at Joseph Smith. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2014 #68
I like this post YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #88
"No, they did not find Hector or Helen" - nobody is questioning that Jerusalem exists. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #62
true, although DonCoquixote Dec 2014 #66
Some people will never believe any evidence of nonexistence Politicalboi Dec 2014 #47
But you get why they would believe such obvious nonsense, right? NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #54
Those people you speak of bvf Dec 2014 #59
Wrong. okasha Dec 2014 #158
4 possibilities zipplewrath Dec 2014 #60
What is a "a professionally secular PhD researcher"? rug Dec 2014 #70
I don't believe he earned a legitimate PhD. Maybe it's an honorary PhD from www.bullshit.net NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #93
Are you saying that WaPo published an article with a fake author holding fake credentials? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #94
What, you think it's the first time? NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #96
. hrmjustin Dec 2014 #99
Wow, just wow. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #109
Is that a yes? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #102
Yes. That's a yes. Phony and shit for brains dude has a page at University of G'Day! NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #113
From what I see (links provided in previous post) his PhD paper is there for you to read. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #140
Does the University of Sydney call its PhDs Mister? rug Dec 2014 #132
I've found exclusive footage of Dr. Lataster in his office at the UoS!!! NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #165
Are you using Bing or something? Google returned these results... cleanhippie Dec 2014 #108
The vast majority of reputed historians and scholars from related disciplines disagree YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #77
A very good article. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2014 #157
Thanks for the links. I hadn't seen that. Great, objective writing from a real academic. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #167
Self delete Feral Child Dec 2014 #90
I'm not familiar with the post you are talking about, so I cannot comment on that. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #92
"...shrouded in controversy..." Mike Nelson Dec 2014 #105
I know, right? Next month: Did Historical Buddha Really Exist?". Professional Whacks say "Derp". NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #131
Too funny. Your original premise that he is a fake author was debunked cleanhippie Dec 2014 #146
=:-) Your characterization of my claims is wrong. I didn't say he wasn't a real author. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #151
Are you not seeing his paper and credentials on the UofS website? cleanhippie Dec 2014 #152
You poor thing! I looked at each link. No mention of his "PhD". So he's an author. Duh. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #163
Here ya go, pumpkin. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #174
Bravo. He hasn't earned his PhD. Game. Set. Match. You Lose. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #177
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Dec 2014 #179
I just realized that all this hubabaloo is due to your abject failure at reading comprehension. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #185
It's just how he rolls. Leontius Dec 2014 #153
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Dec 2014 #156
Who knows but we all know that Santa did. jwirr Dec 2014 #176
Will this thread be locked too? I see some emotional posts here. Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #178
If you can keep your head when all about you rug Dec 2014 #180
The OP is legit, even if the author of the article doesn't hold a PhD but others insist he does. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #182
The only one ever insisting that he was a fake one was you. Look at your response to rug cleanhippie Dec 2014 #187
His personal website says he's a PhD researcher. That is a lie, and he is a liar wannabe. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #188
Nice try, skippy, but this ain't about me. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #191
Probably, since it's about the historical jesus, not the religious one. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #186
I don't know if Jesus walked the Earth or not. nilesobek Dec 2014 #184
Jesus is not God. Like Mohammed and Buddha, Jesus was a historic mortal human being. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #189
You are absolutely incorrect. mr blur Dec 2014 #194
The other two dudes never claim to be the Son of God, or divine, only one is literally God. Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #262
This topic is becoming a real holiday tradition of anti-Christians goldent Dec 2014 #193
It is our own DU War on Christmas! Right here, pull up a chair. kwassa Dec 2014 #199
For sure, I always get a kick out of it. goldent Dec 2014 #249
Discussing whether the basis for the largest religion in the world is real Goblinmonger Dec 2014 #200
No, but if you follow the links and read the material goldent Dec 2014 #248
"Anti-Christians". Lol cleanhippie Dec 2014 #205
Well, the arguments I found in following the links need goldent Dec 2014 #250
Ok and why would that be a problem? Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #236
I welcome this kind of stuff in the Religion forum goldent Dec 2014 #246
There is no proof of the existence of the vast majority of human beings thucythucy Dec 2014 #210
And yet only one particular person is worshiped as a god. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #215
Not particularly. thucythucy Dec 2014 #239
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Carl Sagan kwassa Dec 2014 #256
Wait - If Jesus didn't exist, then who spoke the words in red in the Bible? yellowcanine Dec 2014 #229
First Thesalonians, dated to 51 or 52 CE by internal evidence Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #232
I'm an agnostic, but I believe that some person named Yeshua probably existed. Xithras Dec 2014 #251
I don't know that it matters now Prophet 451 Dec 2014 #272
Though what they believe is important, edhopper Dec 2014 #273
Perhaps Prophet 451 Dec 2014 #274
I don't buy the belief=love tautology edhopper Dec 2014 #275
Not a tautology Prophet 451 Dec 2014 #279
I am sure the experience feels very real edhopper Dec 2014 #282
Let me put it this way Prophet 451 Dec 2014 #283
I don't think you are crazy or delusional or anything like that edhopper Dec 2014 #284
I find it offensive Rye Bread Pizza Dec 2014 #277
. cleanhippie Dec 2014 #281
I find it offensive edhopper Dec 2014 #285
It would have to be more like three months, now. Mariana Dec 2014 #286
That's funny. DavidDvorkin Dec 2014 #287
There isn't much collaborative evidence mmonk Dec 2014 #288
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
1. Well I still believe in Jesus.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:33 PM
Dec 2014

They can try all they want to say he didn't exist but I will never believe them.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
6. Of course they can't
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:41 PM
Dec 2014

You've already stated that there is nothing at all that can.

And if that's true, discussing this topic with you is an exercise in futility.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
8. Again?
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:49 PM
Dec 2014

That you choose to remain close-minded and unconvinced despite any evidence or argument given is already well documented.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
11. Close-minded? I think not.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:52 PM
Dec 2014

I am always willing to listen to them. But i am not going to give up my faith because scholars think he did not exist.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
15. Close-minded? Absolutely.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:57 PM
Dec 2014

Stating that there is nothing that will ever change your mind regardless of how convincing it is pretty much defines the term "close-minded".

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
22. When you're right you're right.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:05 PM
Dec 2014

What would be the point of having a discussion with someone who states that regardless of what you have to say or demonstrate, they will remain firmly entrenched in their position?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
25. You sure about that? Seems like we reached the bottom some time ago.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:09 PM
Dec 2014

Right about the time you stated you would remain unconvinced despite any evidence to the contrary.

Can't get much lower than that.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
27. Cya, Justin.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:19 PM
Dec 2014

You have a nice day now, ya hear?



On 2nd edit: nevermind. You can read it in the edit versions if you really want to.

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
52. In fairness to Justin and those like him, he must go on record here or anywhere
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:12 PM
Dec 2014

to express his belief in Jesus, as to not do so is to deny his existence as the apostle Thomas did, and Jesus or god would consider this a great offense.


I totally get what they believe and why, and some of them can be the most wonderful, peace loving people anywhere.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
65. I've no doubt that justin is a loving, wonderful, peace loving person.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:56 PM
Dec 2014

But that has nothing to do with his inability to think crtically or open his mind on this subject, especially when he goes on the record to state that nothing at all could ever change his mind.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
75. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, they who resort to ad homina have lost.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:16 PM
Dec 2014

.

If you're going to claim to say that a man is unable to think critically or open his mind, then you presume far too much and have taken the low road.

Scientists work on faith in their fields. Do you argue with them about things that cannot be proven?

Is anthropogenic climate change a real phenomenon? Is the center of the Earth really mostly iron?

How do you choose which are legitimate theories and which are bogus?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
79. This is what he has stated himself over and over again.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:23 PM
Dec 2014

That there is nothing that could possible make him not believe. Nothing, not ever.


That is the definition of close-minded. Its not ad hominem. It's not an attack. It's observation.


And I make no definitive claim, I conclude that the story of Jesus, whether he be a regular man or the son of a god, is most probably pure mythology. It's a rebuttal to the original claim. Those making the claim have the burden of proof, and they have none. But you knew that.


It's nice to see a new poster in here, but your usual regurgitation of tired apologist arguments and asinine statements are less than intellectually stimulating, so you'll forgive me for not responding to them.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
86. "regurgitation of tired apologist arguments and asinine statements" = failure.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:31 PM
Dec 2014

You're an abject failure and, to be kind, disingenuous.

First you say you're just observing and then you lay out more ad homina, that's pretty clear evidence that you can't handle a discussion without turning it into an insult.

I apologize for nothing and as for "asinine", (stupid, foolish, brainless, mindless, senseless, idiotic, imbecilic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, inane, witless, empty-headed), well, aren't you the creative writer!

If that's how you treat people then you have a long path toward becoming a civil contributor to discussion and to society.

I'm sorry for you.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
169. "Scientists
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:10 PM
Dec 2014

work on faith..."

No. Scientists conjecture, then rigorously test their hypotheses. If the results prove them wrong, they discard the premise and begin anew.

Occasionally an accepted theory is proven incorrect by later experiment and acquired information, then the true scientist abandons his position gladly, accepting the newer knowledge and works from a more informed perspective.

Your statement indicates you have no understanding of the scientific method.


That's how you choose which are legitimate, the "you", of course, not being those who fail to understand how science works.

That's the exact opposite of "faith".

EDIT: Oh, and absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It's not proof. You're quoting a "clever" mincing of words, but you fail to understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof".

The lack of evidence persuades that Jesus doesn't exist. The emotionally needful refuse to accept it, though, because the truth is too painful to endure. Le condition humaine...

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
171. Are you a scientist? I am.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:22 PM
Dec 2014

I had a presentation before several, ~25-30, retired scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs back in 2007 and some of them were surprisingly candid about how much they don't know- how much is taken as true without proof, based on faith.

These include the nature of energy, magnetism, and whether or not the speed of light is really a limit.

I remain friends with a couple of them, great people and humble.

They freely admit that they don't know with certainty many things that are taught and accepted to be fact.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
195. Yes but
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 08:32 AM
Dec 2014

in 2007 I conducted the Philharmonic, and at a crucial moment magical monkeys flew out of my ass and distributed bananas to the crowd and the people cheered and cheered!

Many of those grateful folk are still my friends today, so you know it's true!

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
198. I see, you don't accept my experience. That's very sad.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:51 AM
Dec 2014

There are others on the board who chose at some point in a discussion to reply with mockery.

Really, it's a shame. Happily, many respected DU members are my friends in real life and know of my professional experiences, so when you suggest that I'm lying, you look like a very small person.

If you can't respond to my point about science and faith, then maybe you should just remain silent and keep your mocking insults to yourself.

Good day.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
202. I did respond to your post.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 11:23 AM
Dec 2014

With all the solemnity it deserved.

No, I don't accept your anecdote. It was self-serving and preposterous. Faith is the direct opposite of scientific rigor.

EDIT: Look, Skip, I'm sorry your feelings got hurt.

Perhaps your experience actually happened, but my skepticism is understandable. People make ludicrous claims on the internet everyday.

If your story is true, I suspect your field of expertise is Creation Science and the non-specific numbers in your audience represents professionals who have abandoned the discipline required by science due to personal failures, resentment over being forced into retirement, or personal tragedies that rendered them susceptible to feel-good fantasies.

I also suspect your respected DU friends might be fellow-travelers in following the illusion of a messiah, respected by the same group of respected DUers. Indeed, I do appear small to them, I refute the delusions they live by. After all, time is, according to R. Cohle, a flat circle.

In fact, I am small. A mere whisper of reason in a raging torrent of sanctimony.

True, I'm fairly new. I don't have a following of respected followers. Soon, though, the World and DU will learn of my magical butt-monkeys and I shall be as honored as you are!

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
268. Interesting.
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 12:28 AM
Dec 2014

That you would go through the effort to thank a member for posting a snarky and juvenile attempt to insult and denigrate.

This could have been done by PM, but you chose to publicly for others to read. That's interesting and sad.

I remember something about school playgrounds:

Bullies didn't have many friends, and the few friends they had were all bullies.

Nice.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
280. Pay no attention
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:35 PM
Dec 2014

to Dr. Sour Grapes, PHD.

He just takes himself way too seriously, and is astounded that the entire world doesn't share his high opinion of his worth.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
209. I think what they are saying
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 12:18 PM
Dec 2014

is this is our best guess and that it fits and continues to fit all our models and data. but we must allow that it could be wrong.

That is a much different faith that the type expressed here that says contrary evidence and the complete lack of evidence does not dissuade someone from their faith.

You may see the difference or not, but it is different.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
212. Thank you for the well reasoned and civil reply.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 02:22 PM
Dec 2014

I would agree with you and add that, while we might say that there is scientific faith and a separate form of spiritual faith, that among these are a range of types, maybe even a spectrum including an area in the middle where some science overlaps with some faith.

Thus, I don't think anyone can say with certainty that Jesus actually did or did not walk this Earth, though many, through their personal form of faith, may choose to adopt one rigid view or another.

Personally, I think the story of Jesus is a considerable bit of fact and a lot of embellishment over time.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
230. I think a man named Yeshua living
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 05:27 PM
Dec 2014

is the least of it.
All the supernatural stuff, the nativity and the son of God parts I have a real problem with.
And even if we had evidence for a man at that time, say a document showing he was crucified, that is immaterial to the NT being true.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
231. I don't take any religious texts at face value, as gospel truths (couldn't resist).
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 05:43 PM
Dec 2014

My skepticism is applied liberally (there I go again); Moses didn't get the ten commandments from God, Allah didn't split the moon, and I don't believe that Buddha strode on a jeweled walkway suspended in the air.

It's with a big block of salt that I take religious stories of any origin, and I have to wonder if the writers really expected followers to take them literally to begin with.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
233. You have to wonder
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 05:46 PM
Dec 2014

but look at even now over 70% of Americans think the whole story of Jesus is literally true.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
237. I saw those numbers. It is absolutely amazing.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 06:09 PM
Dec 2014

But then a bunch of people voted for Bush, too!

Before the masses were literate, when communication and news was all storytelling, I can see how easy it might be to convince people of remarkable, incredible, events.

How would they know otherwise?

As things evolved, the need to press the masses to continue to believe against logic and science grew.

And as these needs grew, the stories changed, other stories were stricken, and other resources came to bear.

I think it's an interesting topic, the relationship of truth to myth in religions that include real-life figures as fact or even as inspiration.

Embellishment is inevitable.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
234. Do you think this jesus person was a god?
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 06:01 PM
Dec 2014

Do you think he revived after being dead for three days and walked around for a while?

There is a whole list of absurd bullshit that is fundamental to Christianity. Claiming that there might have been some real person who the Jesus Myth was based on is the least of the problem. It is the surrounding bullshit that is fundamental to the religion, that stuff, that people claim they believe, that is delusional nonsense.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
238. Why would I think that? Odd how people in the A-A group say "I'm not one of them".
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 06:21 PM
Dec 2014

That idea is wholly wrong, based perhaps on the fact that I challenge them on their nasty behavior, like that must mean I'm a Christian.

The lead host told me I was clearly not one of them, another member yesterday wrote that if I'm a scientist then it must be Creation Science.

I tell you, the further they go with it the sillier they look.

I most closely relate to Theravada Buddhism, according to my Belief-O-Matic quiz results.

I don't believe in any one religion, but I respect parts of each one.

All those stories? Well of course they didn't happen as described.

But how else are you going to keep people entertained before there was the NFL and Kardashians?

And Snookie?

Yes, I went there.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
265. Neither are they black and white, nor found exclusive of one another.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 11:04 PM
Dec 2014

There are scientists, for example, who so want to believe a thing that they skew the factual data, and believers who find scientific evidence for their beliefs.

This might all be above your head, if you think I'm confusing myself.

88

...

okasha

(11,573 posts)
148. Most who believe Jesus didn't exist aren't scholars.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:24 PM
Dec 2014

There's dear Lloyd Graham, who came into the discussion a few days ago, who also believes that the earth used to be a star.

There's S. Acharya, who calls herself an archaeologist (she sifted dirt the summer of her senior year on a dig in Greece); a historian and a linguguist (she has a BA in classics but can't keep her Greek and Latin straight); and something else absurd, that I don't remember offhand. Bottom line, she's a fraud.

And poor Paul Doherty, who lists no academic credentials at all and has really, really innovative interpretations of Greek words and phrases.

Then there's the jesusneverexisted website, which assures us in all seriousness that the last time the Inquisition burned a heretic in Mexico City was in the 1860's.

Robert Price, on the other hand, is a genuine scholar, but he seems to be hedging his bets by going regularly to church (Episcopalian.)

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
159. Thanks.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:50 PM
Dec 2014

I am not an expert on these scholars and you and others are more able to speak to them.

All i want is to live out my faith as best I can and when I hear people say Jesus didn't exist it gets my juices going.

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #159)

okasha

(11,573 posts)
183. There are plenty of genuine scholars who do support his existence.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:16 PM
Dec 2014

The documentary evidence from Tacitus and Josephus is actually quite sound, and there is a growing body of archaeological material that supports it. Finds are being made which may not only verify Jesus' own existence (Yes, folks I'm talking about the James ossuary: no, folks, it's not a forgery--catch up on your reading.) but that of some of the other persons who were important enough in his life that they are remembered. One of the most interesting lines of inquiry going on now is the growing evidence that Jesus' brothers played a far greater role in his ministry than previously assumed.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
190. Your comment about Josephus is completely untrue
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:38 PM
Dec 2014

There is one single reference in a Josephus text to a Jesus, where two other documents had been found with the same text but WITHOUT any reference to a Jesus ... this fact is well known ...

okasha

(11,573 posts)
192. Wrong.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 11:39 PM
Dec 2014

There are two mentions of Jesus in the Antiquities.. The 'Testmonium Flavianum" is the contentious one. The other passage, which mentions Jesus in conjunction with his brother Jacob (James). is generally regarded as authentic.,

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
204. I've read lots of texts that mention Paul Bunyan,
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 11:52 AM
Dec 2014

so he must be real.

Not to mention all the books about vampires and werewolves. How could anyone doubt their existence in the face of such evidence?

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
213. There are plenty of history and current affairs books
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 02:39 PM
Dec 2014

out there that have wrong information in them. A couple of possible mentions of a fictitious figure by someone a couple of thousand years ago just does not convince me.

Look at all the people who think "The DaVinci Code" is accurate history. And so on.

I happen to be in the Jesus is a charming myth corner. For those who want to believe he actually existed, fine, but don't think that you have any actual proof that he did live.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
242. I don't believe that history according to Dan Brown has any professional support.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 07:23 PM
Dec 2014

I'll go with the scholarship on Jesus.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
253. No, no professional support,
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 09:07 PM
Dec 2014

but a lot of people really do think it's accurate. Granted, they aren't thinking in terms of scholarship, but it's still a frighteningly large number of people.

Back at ya!

okasha

(11,573 posts)
261. And some of them are right here on DU.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:31 PM
Dec 2014

They believe that the four canonical gospels were chosen by the Council of Nicaea. Strange, that.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
243. Not in the least.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 07:26 PM
Dec 2014

Which doesn't change the fact that the non-scholars listed in my post are, academically speaking, batshit crazy.

Have a nice day, Warren.

Response to okasha (Reply #243)

MFM008

(19,776 posts)
72. so your close minded
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:07 PM
Dec 2014

About not doubting his existence , despite no absolute evidence he did not? Just coz.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
255. Well, he is convincing me he has nothing convincing to give me. Faith, of course, can not be proven.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 09:30 PM
Dec 2014

That is why they have it as central to their beliefs. Unprovable, unresearchable non-peer reviewable, unassailable, uncontestable, unscratchable, by definition, faith.

Some fundies even say since some scientists question if the speed of light is a physical limit, that is a lack of "faith" similar to the word as used in the religious sense....it is the nature of science to always question, it is the nature of religion to never ask.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
33. But you do engage with a 'they' that do not accept that premise, and whom
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:34 PM
Dec 2014

you discuss these things yes? (*Looks upthread*) Yes.

So, it is sort of unreasonable for one to expect 'they' to prove he/she/it/they don't exist.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
38. I come to the discussion with one given. i can't prove he existed.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:41 PM
Dec 2014

But my point is you can't prove he didn't.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
43. At this moment, there is insufficient data.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:47 PM
Dec 2014

Where we differ, is one of our positions requires faith, and one does not. You've chosen faith. Ok.

Rationality puts me in a different place, and on a lot more issues than just this one.
Interestingly, I don't have any 'givens' like that, but I do rely on a couple axioms, such as 'existence exists' (though I am aware that the universe may be a hologram at its most fundamental level, and I am ok with that possibility) or 'self ownership', but only because these things can be critically and rationally examined, challenged, and tested, even if the manner of test is 'acceptable as a working premise but unproven until falsified'.

I suppose your position on jesus is similar to my concept of an axiom. However, being that he was claimed to be a real historical character, as well as a supernaturally imbued biblical character, some of those things can be supported/refuted, where philosophical abstracts like self ownership, aren't.

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
53. We cant prove leprechauns dont exist either, but they dont.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:16 PM
Dec 2014

Like I said in another post, I really respect some religious folks because they can be so loving and giving.

Were it not for some religious institutions a very close family member would be homeless now.

I dont like that many in need have to rely on religious organizations, we should have homeless shelters that resemble $150 a night hotels provided by tax dollars from the under taxed top 5% of the economy, but we dont.

I dont like that a person has to swallow a shitload of religious nonsense in order to swallow food they need to survive, but I am thankful that they exist to help.


nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
64. WHAT ! ! ! !
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:54 PM
Dec 2014

I believe in leprechauns. Therefore, they exist -- just like Jesus. Except Jesus didn't have that pot of gold thing going for him.

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
106. What became of the gold
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:11 PM
Dec 2014

the magi/kings/wise men brought to the manger...along with the frankincense and myrrh?

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
114. I have thought about that too
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:29 PM
Dec 2014

they came with all these gifts, said he was king and then...

Took off and left him to live the son of a poor day laborer?

Why were they never heard of again?

MFM008

(19,776 posts)
73. no
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:12 PM
Dec 2014

No one has an absolute answer or proof.
I used to be an arrogant militant atheist see,and things happen that can change your mind.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
117. Only one side *requires* proof. The side making an extraordinary claim.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:36 PM
Dec 2014

I make no claims about a potential afterlife, or a potential supernatural thingy, etc. I simply dismiss claims that are currently made, that have no credible evidence.

If believers can pony up some credible, testable evidence that withstands scrutiny, I'm all ears. Till then, I have no faith at all. That's not a position that requires defense.

Where I get *active* as an atheist, is where jackalopes that DO believe in XYZ made up imaginary friend, try to modify society or worse, government, to suit their imaginary whims.

 

YoungDemCA

(5,714 posts)
91. How many specific, individual people from 1st century Palestine could be "proven"...
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:38 PM
Dec 2014

...to have existed?

If the answer is "not very many at all", does that necessarily mean that all the rest of those people from that place and time didn't exist?



AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
121. lots may have existed.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:37 PM
Dec 2014

None are evidenced to have provided a credible basis for a supernatural anything at all.

If not for the associated supernatural claims, we wouldn't be talking about some dude from the first century gregorian calendar at all.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
10. Very scary way of thinking.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:52 PM
Dec 2014

What causes you to believe something without evidence and how can that be a good thing?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
14. Inconvenienced by the general existence of it.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:55 PM
Dec 2014

Attacks upon the ACA in court. Bans on abortion. Bans on physician assisted suicide. Bans on comprehensive sex ed. You name it, a lot of really bad political crap in the US comes directly from that book and the presumption that any of it is true on any level.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
17. That is not what I asked and I am not responsible in anyway shape ot form by the litany you just
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:00 PM
Dec 2014

stated.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
32. Au contraire.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:32 PM
Dec 2014

That may not be what you meant to ask, but that is one credible interpretation of your question.

"Your scared by my faith?"

My faith could be interpreted as your subjective personal interpretation/implementation of your faith, or the general 'faith' to which you subscribe, which has many members, and a large historical tradition behind it, and associated faiths that it splintered off from, and built upon over centuries.


As for personal responsibility, generally, I grant you are not responsible, and your particular brand of faith is better than some, in the US, but it still starts with a general acceptance of the foundation, the underlying premise that the biblical character of jesus was a real thing. Without that, one can further marginalize groups that share your premise, but then use data in the bible differently than you do, to attack civil rights. Without that shared, core foundation, people who do that would be more isolated, and people like me could be free to be a LOT less respectful of the general concept they rely upon.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
168. Let me put it another way, because that last paragraph I just wrote is probably difficult to parse.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:10 PM
Dec 2014

If I don't read it back to myself with the same cadence I wrote it in my head, it's difficult to grok, so, revising in simplistic terms.

The Rider is a subjective interpretation of faith.
The Horse is the general premise that god exists.

One rides the other.

I can't tell people like the Westboro Baptist Church 'Fuck you and the horse you rode in on', because you are on the horse too. You're a separate rider, frankly, your faith has many progressive ideals/doctrines and I applaud that. But you're still riding the horse. Your presence on it, lends credence to the idea that the WBC builds upon as its foundation, even though the WBC and it's implementation of faith may be wholly abhorrent to you/yours.

I want to attack the horse too, and your presence means I have to be careful of bystanders. That I can't be too critical of the horse (or the idea of it).

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
220. No.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:56 PM
Dec 2014

But you really don't understand the implications AC just explained. If you did, you would have more to say than "I understand".

His point is as valid as can be, and your place on that "horse" is equivalent, in many ways, to the others he mentioned. If you really understood that fact, your response would be different. Unless you just don't care...

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
58. Well at least your honest. Wrong but honest.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:34 PM
Dec 2014

I don't want to get a hidden post so I will leave it at that. I leave it to others to tangle with you.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
162. You're gloating is premature.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:57 PM
Dec 2014


I just don't want to deflect from cleanhippie's very honest OP, the one you've found to be so challenging.

You can continue to avoid "tangling" with me, though. I'll accept that as validation. My honesty, as well as my correct observations, will continue. Hang back and alert, maybe you'll get lucky.
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
164. Why are you trying to bait me? i did not alert on your post nor am I going to.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:01 PM
Dec 2014

Your post was infuriating to me but I do not have the eloquence or desire to tangle with you.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
196. I'm baiting *you*?
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 08:52 AM
Dec 2014

"Well at least your (sic) honest. Wrong but honest."

That's baiting.

The post I deleted infuriated you because I AM honest, and it's an honest appraisal of your Christian world.

Eloquence has nothing to do with your inability to rebut, you're not able to refute it because fact trumps fiction.

I deleted it only because cleanhippie pointed out that I was vulnerable to an alert, solely because I spoke directly to you and addressed you by name. In your world that counts as a personal insult and a jury of your peers would likely give me another undeserved "hide". I don't want that post hidden; ie, censored, due to a quibble.

Just as responding to your patronizing post counts as "baiting" to you.

As cleanhippie cautioned I'll rewrite that "infuriating" post and re-post it because the message it held is quite important. You may respond or not, as you wish.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
206. Not bait.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 12:11 PM
Dec 2014

A fitting riposte.

That you choose to consider it bait might be symptomatic. If your "faith" is as strong as you claim, then you needn't proclaim it so loudly and repetitively. If, on the other hand, you do feel such a need and if you're so sensitive to perceived insult from proffered reason, perhaps that indicates doubt creeping in.

Justin, I'm deriving much pleasure from our tete a tete, but duty calls. I have limited time to devote to your devotions.

Seek me out on Monday, if you like.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
71. You should consider revising and reposting this as it's own OP.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:02 PM
Dec 2014

Take out the direct references to justin and make it apply to believers in general, and BOOM, you've got yourself one hell of an OP.

MFM008

(19,776 posts)
78. at one time
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:22 PM
Dec 2014

There was no more of a contemptuous, arrogant, atheist crusader than me. I am not born again nor am i a church goer, I know few who are. Things change and I'm just saying there are more things that are thought of than in your philosophy Horatio. If your so willing to call a believer closed minded for stating belief your doing the same thing.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
95. They are scared of your faith.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:57 PM
Dec 2014

They are also angry that they have none and it eats at them every hour of every day so they have to strike out in a pathetic attempt to shake or destroy yours.

Heddi

(18,312 posts)
107. How utterly offensive
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:13 PM
Dec 2014

Think about how offended you have been when the opposite was questioned:

How many "christians" are really afraid to state their disbelief?

You had a goddamn stroke at the idea that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is anything but a Christian.

But you can impinge upon the thoughts of Atheists, that we're jealous of your faith?

That's nasty. And it wouldn't be tolerated by you if reversed (and hasn't been tolerated by you in the past when it WAS reversed)

You're out of line with this shit, Justin.

Heddi

(18,312 posts)
116. You're not sorry, and it's not a reasonable question
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:32 PM
Dec 2014

Tell me, Justin, are you really a Christian, or are you just playing the part, too afraid to admit to yourself and to your made-up God that you don't believe it at all? Afraid of the friends you'll lose, the community you'll be shunned from if you came out and said "I DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD?"

Be honest with yourself. It's okay to not believe.

The question "are atheists really believers" is just as nasty and offensive as what I wrote above. It's just as nasty and offensive as saying that homophobes who commit hate crimes are really closeted gays/lesbians.

Do you believe that's offensive? That crimes against GBLT"s are committed by closeted GBLT's who are too ashamed to admit their true feelings? Because its exactly the same as saying that Atheists are too ashamed to admit they're believers.

And again, you're not sorry. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like Atheists, you don't respect our viewpoints or point of view by saying, without any ambiguity, that we're closeted Christians.

Is that an attitude that Jesus would approve of? Seems pretty nasty and judgemental to me.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
118. My point was I wonder how many Atheists here wished they had faith.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:36 PM
Dec 2014

Not that they really believed and were lying,

I suggest you reread my post instead of unloading on me with bullshit.

Heddi

(18,312 posts)
125. I'll be sure to remind you of your words
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:40 PM
Dec 2014

next time you take umbrage at the mere whisper that a Christian may be anything but a 100% Full Fledged Believing Everything Christian. Because hey! Suggesting that they might not be is a-okay with you...well, as long as it has to do with Atheists then it's okay.

BUT WE MUST NEVER QUESTION A CHRISTIAN'S BELIEF. NEVER. IT IS SO OFFENSIVE TO DO SO.

Atheists...not so much so fuck them.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
257. They are jealous of the atheist lack of faith and belief only in science and facts that can be
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:01 PM
Dec 2014

verified.

Imagine if you could verify any of the stuff in the Bible? And a God. That would be a good religion, one with evidence.

Atheism IS a religion also, one based on facts, not faith. One that celebrates, not worships, the Solstice, which can be verified, not Christmas Day, which can not.

In my neck of the woods Solstice is precisely and measurably on December 21st at 5:03 p.m EST.

And from that bit of science you would be able to find out where I live...isn't science more magical than religion?

"Jesus was risen", when? Precisely?

Heddi

(18,312 posts)
258. I wonder if they're jealous of my freedom from the fear of the eternity
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:05 PM
Dec 2014

I don't do what I do, or don't do what I don't do for fear of eternal punishment or reward. I do or don't do things because they're the right things to do, or the wrong things that shouldn't be done.

It's an easy way to live. No confusing rules (is it masturbation if my husband is in the room with me? Is it premarital sex? Does the premarital sex get wiped away once we get married?). Just live a good life, make good decisions because they're the right things to do.

No fear of hell. No dream of salvation. And I can sleep in on sunday mornings? Count me in!

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
259. Yes. Not having to think about the many versions of Hell is a relief they do not have.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:24 PM
Dec 2014

Not having to live in fear, moral compass fixed and set for us, robbing us of our individual freedom to have our own, the magic of science to amuse us..yes, WE are the rejects of society.......

Heddi

(18,312 posts)
260. And the best part
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:29 PM
Dec 2014

all my sex is guilt free. ALL of it. With EVERYONE. Guys, Gals, independently or at the same time. NOT AN OUNCE OF GUILT. NO SIN.

That, my friend, is awesome

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
266. How Christian of you.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 11:43 PM
Dec 2014

P.S. Helpful writing lesson: "Thinking" and valuing" are poor comparitors for whatever point it was that you did not make by the poor analogy.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
123. You're better than that, Justin.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:39 PM
Dec 2014

Please don't get sucked into his crappy view of atheists. We don't have a god-shaped hole in our hearts.

Heddi

(18,312 posts)
128. No, you just agreed that we were jealous of your faith
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:43 PM
Dec 2014

and that we wished we had it.

Well I think Christians are jealous of my ability to think for myself and make decisions NOT based on eternal paradise, but rather to make decisions based on what's right and wrong. I think Christians wish they could have the freedom of thought and freedom from the repressive church that I and other Atheists have.

No reason for anyone to alert on this--Justin already said upthread that saying such things about Atheists aren't offensive, so they can't possibly be offensive when turned about a Christian.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
129. Please go reread the post that you replied to with "good point."
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:44 PM
Dec 2014

You have to see how offensive it is.

As close as I can get to an answer: Would it be awesome if I could see my mom and dad again when I die in a place where everything is perfect and I can have an eternity of all things good? Yes. It would be. Doesn't mean I wish I could believe. I, and most every atheists I know, are very happy with our non-belief.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
134. Well you have the right to take it how you want but I never meant all of you.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:49 PM
Dec 2014

My point is i wonder how many wish they could believe.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
103. That's just not true, Leontius.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:07 PM
Dec 2014

I find it a bit rude as well. Presumptuous, even.

Requiring evidence in lieu of blind acceptance is not indicative of fear, merely a sign of the reality based mind.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
119. No I didn't
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:37 PM
Dec 2014

It applies to whom it applies to. You may not be one of them. Gee I hope I used whom correctly.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
133. There is a group that posts here a lot that I feel are perfectly defined
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:49 PM
Dec 2014

by what I posted. It's eating them alive and they hate it that. Their only relief is to try and pull others down to the pit of rage and pity they inhabit by trying to tear at their faith. If you're not one of them then I'm happy for you.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
139. I'm sure he feels I'm doing both.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:06 PM
Dec 2014

I just wonder why he assumes that I'm saying all atheist have this problem. Does he believe atheists are a monolithic block that all share the same problems and beliefs and attitudes, some unspoken dogma?

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
122. Holy shit, dude. That's a lot of offensive bullshit to put in one post.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:38 PM
Dec 2014

How did you possibly do that?

But, yes, I'll admit it, all atheists have a god-shaped hole in their heart and we have special meetings where the first half is spent talking about how we wish we could believe and fill that god-shaped hole and the second half is spent talking about how we are going to make the lives of those that do believe miserable. But, please, do forgive us. That attitude just stems from our jealousy of those that don't believe.

The really pathetic thing here is that you probably actually believe that bullshit and don't even have a clue as to how fucking offensive it is.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
166. The amount of knowledge and truth in your post is up to it's standard level
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:03 PM
Dec 2014

I guess comedy is it's own reward.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
270. Says the oh-so-brave keyboard warrior.
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:03 AM
Dec 2014

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)




Instead of projecting, how about reflecting, or does that take too much courage?

RussBLib

(8,984 posts)
271. jury results
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:15 AM
Dec 2014

On Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:53 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your courage has been seen and measured here in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=171458

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling someone a coward is a personal attack, is disruptive, over the top, and otherwise innapropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 20, 2014, 09:01 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: poster is directing this to cleanhippie, who has a habit of being rather caustic toward the religious (and even agnostics who just want to be civil to those holding reliigous beliefs), so I do not find this response out of line.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is not the Land of Oz and lions. Leontius shows little courage hiding behind a screen name that doesn't even identify what state he or she lives in.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this is a mild 'personal attack,' given the sub-thread (context is everything) I vote to LEAVE
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This entire thread was tiresome and should have been taken into a private chat room a long time ago. Hide the thread, not just one of the back and forth comments
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leonitus may be an idiot, but this post isn't nearly as offensive as some of Leon's others in this thread.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
2. You might want to read the story of Isis, Osiris and Horus
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:34 PM
Dec 2014

it makes for interesting reading and gives a basis for the Jesus story.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
40. For the story about his "resurrection" you might enjoy
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:44 PM
Dec 2014

the story of Innana, the Queen of Heaven who went to the land of the dead voluntarily and then returned to the land of the living 3 days later.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
149. No, No, No!
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:24 PM
Dec 2014

No person, the OP itself is the beast. Silly stuff. I'm sick and have been in bed for a week, so I must be bored.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
154. Uh, no, it doesn't.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:38 PM
Dec 2014

The only part of the Horus mythos that actually parallels the gospels is Isis' flight with her son into the marshes to save him from Set. See Matthew for the story of the flight into Egypt. There would be no need for Matthew to turn to Egyptian tradition for his model, though, because he had both the sojourn of Israel in Egypt and the Moses narrative right there in the Torah to make his point Which was that Jesus represented both the new Israel and a new covenant of the Jewish people with their god.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
9. Created flame bait?
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:50 PM
Dec 2014

Your only purpose in posting this here is to goad people into discussing theological issues in the religion forum. You know that is not what this forum is about, so stop, just stop.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
16. Oh yeah?
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 01:58 PM
Dec 2014

Then whose flesh do millions of catholics ingest on a weekly basis, huh? Answer me that.

Feral Child

(2,086 posts)
28. You rascal!
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:23 PM
Dec 2014

You know I have to post in this thread, and you know my anti-fans will show up to try futilely to goad me.

Then they'll succeed in giving me another fallacious "hide" cause FC isn't nice to them. How deliciously Christian to be censored for merely challenging their cherished beliefs, despite the lack of actual personal insults they so self-righteously claim.


I agree most heartily with you. There never was an actual person and the Jesus of the New Testament is entirely fictitious.
The total lack of any record from the period described by believers is as good proof of the non-existence as is necessary for all but the critically-challenged. The worship of Nothing only persists due to the gullibility of believers and their desperate need to have something to believe in, no matter how macabre.

Sad, but so essentially human, that so much grief, guilt, death and horror have been perpetrated by It's believers in the name of Nothing.

elleng

(130,129 posts)
55. Lengthy history,
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:22 PM
Dec 2014

several historians discuss the history including archeological clues relating to his life and times, his world, the gospels' accuracy, clashes among early Christians, and how a small Jewish sect became the Church.

Comes in 2 parts, each 1 1/2 hours long, I think. Check your local listings.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
81. It was first broadcast on PBS some time ago ...
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:27 PM
Dec 2014

It's actually quite well done ... says this atheist ...

elleng

(130,129 posts)
101. They were not looking to answer the question posed in the OP,
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:02 PM
Dec 2014

did he REALLY exist. Their 'conclusion' was these are the things that occurred in history during the development of early Christianity.

elleng

(130,129 posts)
97. Saw much of Part 1 last night,
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:59 PM
Dec 2014

and they weren't debating whether or not he actually existed, I think. May be a rerun, I'm not sure.

Drale

(7,932 posts)
30. That far back it is difficult to find evidence that a king really existed
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:24 PM
Dec 2014

let alone a common man, which is what Jesus would have been at the time he lived.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
35. Well gosh there is plenty of evidence for all sorts of actual human beings.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:38 PM
Dec 2014

But I agree that an ordinary itinerant rabbi would be hard to document, particularly if this rabbi did not have a lot of followers, and did not make any actual impression on the place and time in which he lived, if he did live.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
37. The Romans were actually very meticulous record keepers.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:41 PM
Dec 2014

There are heaps of historical records from that time documenting all sorts of things, from yields of harvests to Senate meetings.

Yet nothing, not a single thing documenting this Jesus fellow.

 

YoungDemCA

(5,714 posts)
82. Perhaps that lack of Roman documentation was deliberate on their part
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:27 PM
Dec 2014

If you're in a position of power and authority over the Roman Empire c. 30 CE, the last thing you'd want is for a charismatic rabbi from Palestine-who preached a message that was threatening to your power- to be remembered after you had him crucified. Note that crucifixion was considered the lowest and most degrading form of capital punishment in the Roman times.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
89. True.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:33 PM
Dec 2014

that is why we have never heard of the rebellion lead by Spartacus.

I wonder what happened to him in the end?

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
197. Give us a link to the Roman records in their occupation of Judea and Galilee
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:41 AM
Dec 2014

or Roman records of anything relating to these places.

This will certainly be interesting to see.

thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
211. The Romans executed many tens of thousands of criminals and politically dangerous folk.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 02:10 PM
Dec 2014

Even if they kept records of all these executions, many of those records no longer exist. Anyway, I doubt they bothered keeping records of all the peasants executed in the provinces. Thousands of slaves were executed after the rebellion led by Sparticus. Their tortured bodies were hung up and down the main roads of Italy. Is there a list of all their names, anywhere?

Tens of millions of Romans--citizens, slaves, subjects of the Empire--lived and died without a single record of their existence that survives to this day. How many hundreds of thousands of Palestinian peasants lived and died during the era Jesus was supposed to have lived? How many of these lives are documented, anywhere? How much of that documentation survives to this day? Did none of these people then exist?

Even the writings and accounts of extremely famous persons have been lost. Almost all the poems ascribed to Homer are gone. Almost every single contemporary account of the life of Alexander the Great has been lost. Plutarch repeatedly cites texts which are no longer extant, and if all of his work had been lost (and much of it was--even his famous "Lives"--a best seller by Roman standards--has gaps) we'd have no record at all of these historians' existence. Ergo, by your argument, none of these people then existed?

There is no evidence of the existence of the vast majority of the human beings who lived and died on this planet, most especially those who lived and died before the advent of mass literacy. Which makes the fact that we have any mention at all of someone like Jesus notable, coming within decades of his death.

I wonder: do you honestly believe that, more than two thousand years from now, there will be any record of your existence at all? And if not, will this prove you were never really alive?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
214. If, 2000 years from now, a large portion of the planets worships me as a god
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:34 PM
Dec 2014

Then there better damn well be some record of my actual existence.


And if there isn't, all those folks should be labeled as delusional and irrational.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
36. This right here is the key, I think:
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:40 PM
Dec 2014
There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.
 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
240. Every work of history written by eyewitnesses or not is biased so there is no
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 06:43 PM
Dec 2014

history we can trust by your standard.

Sanity Claws

(21,822 posts)
42. Maybe he didn't walk the earth
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:46 PM
Dec 2014

Perhaps he glided over the earth. People say he walked on water so he must have moved around in a different way.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
44. There was a book I read
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:47 PM
Dec 2014

(can't recall the title) about documents found that proved Jesus was not real.

(Googling this doesn't bring helpful results )

The papyrus turns out to be a forgery, but I wonder how the Christian world would react if a real artifact like this were found?

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
61. No
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:38 PM
Dec 2014

it was not that recent. It was a novel set in the modern day. From the 70s I think.

Wish I could remember the title and author.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
46. with all due respect
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:52 PM
Dec 2014

the ideas of "jesus, religious figure" and some guy that may have lived in modern Israel/Palestine circa 30 c.e. are apples and oranges. No, there is no birth certificate, but most of the subjects of the Empire did not have them. The idea that there was or was not some carpenter who lived in that area, with a commion name like Yeshua (a.k.a "joshua" in modern english) is not as relevant. I do not make this statement to prove the Jesus that christians belive exists; it is up to Christianity to prove that. But if you focus on the idea that "history says there was no historical Jesus" you run right into the quagmire of the fact hisotry is not that reliable about individual people, period.

For example, for the longest time, Troy was considered to be a fantasy. Then people went and did excavations in Turkey. No, they did not find Hector or Helen, but they did find that yes, there were several cities on the site of Troy, some dating before and after the Iliad was written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_campaigns

Now of course, the people who say "there was no historical Troy" wind up being wrong, because they insisted that in order to kill a myth, they had to go past what could be proven and define exactly what is impossible. That works great for Physics, were the variables are the same if you are in Berlin or Brooklyn or Botswana, but History does not work like that.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
57. There are better examples, I think.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:25 PM
Dec 2014

Because something as large and enduring as a city is well within the historian's ability to locate, date, and confirm. Individual people, as you note, are much harder.

Sticking with Homer as our point of reference, I'd say Achilles or Odysseus are better examples. Sure, there very well may have been Greek soldiers with these names who fought and/or died in Asia Minor during the Mycenaean period, but we can be reasonably certain that neither of these guys were blessed with (near) invulnerability or ever ran into a hungry cyclops.

That leaves us with a philosophical noodle-baker: if everything we know about these figures is wrong, can they be said to have "existed", if only for sharing a name with a contemporaneous person?

Personally, I'm not sure that we can. A man named Yeshua bar Yosef was likely to have lived in first century Judea, but the Jesus of Nazareth recorded in the Gospels is almost certainly myth. I don't think a Christian can point at this man and say, "Look, Jesus existed!" when the real Jesus bears little to no resemblance to the one in which they believe. For all intents and purposes, they are describing two different people with the same name.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
63. oh indeed
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:50 PM
Dec 2014

There probably were many people with a really common name in Nazareth, just like there could be ten guys named Joshua Jones in Nazareth, Pennsylvania. What the religous folk call "jesus" could have been an amalgam of different people. My point is though, that yes, something as large as a city was belived to be a fairytale. My advice to cleanhippie was to not rely on hostory to give the gotcha blow, because in some areas, even history is not as reliable, and those wishing to twist truth into what Kipling called "a trap for fools" may use that.

Side note: it will be interestign to see how the future reagrds people who can be documented. In the case of cult leaders, well, the thosuands of feet of film of L. Ron Hubbard does not seem to have changed the minds of many of his followers

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
68. To answer that question, I would look at Joseph Smith.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:57 PM
Dec 2014

While he might not have lived in the time of CNN and the intertubez, his life was pretty well documented. He was obviously a fraud, as most non-Mormons tend to think. But this doesn't seem to have changed the minds of Mormons one iota.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
62. "No, they did not find Hector or Helen" - nobody is questioning that Jerusalem exists.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:50 PM
Dec 2014

Nor was the discovery of Troy proof of the divinity of Athena or that Achilles was a real person. What it did show is that some myths are based on historical events. Some aren't. Was there some itinerant rabbi that the Jesus myth is based on? It is possible, but there really isn't any evidence, no "troy" that this happened. The question is not "could there have been this guy?" it is "is there historical evidence for this guy?".

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
66. true, although
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:57 PM
Dec 2014

in the ancient period, there is not much of a way to get modern historical evidence. We know for example, Julis caesar wrote a book called "the war in Gaul", ever fiurst year Latin student reads it, going "Omnes gallia in partes tres, primiim horum sunt Belgae" (trans; "All of Gaul is divided into three parts, first among them are the belgians) However, it is know that we wrote many books that were destroyed by Augustus. Supposedly, they were Homoerotic love poems (Ceasar often bragged he could make be any woman;s husband, and make any man his wife.) Now we know that Augustus read books before he burned them, becaus ehis friend Virgil asked him tpo bnurn the aenied, another poem that everybody who gets an education runs into. So, here is Julis Caesar, one of the mosr dociumented people in history, and yet, ther eis this huge void as to whether he was gay or not.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
47. Some people will never believe any evidence of nonexistence
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 02:54 PM
Dec 2014

They supposedly have the "shroud". They don't want to find out how old it really is because that ends their fantasy. That ends dollars in collection plates. We're too far gone unfortunately to get a majority of non believers. People want to believe the fantasy.

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
54. But you get why they would believe such obvious nonsense, right?
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:20 PM
Dec 2014

Think of how hard it is just to pay your electricity bill and buy food at the same time.

You watch the rich get richer and laugh at you while they do, and you think to yourself surely there must be a reward in another life if I live this one without incidence, right?

I mean if there was no god in most minds would they not start to think about exacting revenge on the fat fucking rich assholes who steal their money and food on a daily basis?

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
59. Those people you speak of
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:37 PM
Dec 2014

obviously have had a real number done on them, usually from childhood on.

I disagree that we're too far gone, though. More and more atheists have been speaking out over the years, and are regarded as so much of a threat to believers (well, their braintrusts, anyway), that the latter have worked furiously to coin terms to compartmentalize their critics. See "New Atheist," "Fundamentalist Atheist," etc.

(The invention "apatheist" is especially interesting. A tortured coinage of last resort that translates when self-applied as, "My brain hurts when you ask whether I believe in fairies, so shut up already.&quot



okasha

(11,573 posts)
158. Wrong.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:47 PM
Dec 2014

The Shroud of Turin, assuming that's what you're referring to, has never been officially accepted by the Catholic Church, which also agreed to and provided samples for radiocarbon dating.

Cloth is 13th. century linen.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
60. 4 possibilities
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 03:37 PM
Dec 2014

1. He existed just like it says in the scriptures
2. Someone existed and their name and life was co-opted by Christians and converted into the current identity
3. SomeONEs existed and they were consolidated into a single character, either using one of their names, or a fictitious name.
4. No one ever existed and it was created out of thin air by people looking to connect a set of beliefs to a historical figure which would satisfy various predictions of even older texts.

For most of these, any actual person wouldn't have particularly attracted much attention beyond the group of followers they may have developed. Records wouldn't really exist. Even the crucifixion, if it happened at all, may have been done without much understanding of whom was being killed for what reason. Names and crimes might be hard to pin down in records. Heck, look at what happened to names at Ellis Island. My ancestors are recorded arriving there, but there is no record of them getting on the boat upon which they supposedly arrived.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
70. What is a "a professionally secular PhD researcher"?
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:01 PM
Dec 2014
Raphael Lataster is a professionally secular PhD researcher at the University of Sydney (Studies in Religion) and teaches on religion at the University of Sydney and at other institutions.
http://www.raphaellataster.com/


I'm glad somebody's making money off this dreck.
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
93. I don't believe he earned a legitimate PhD. Maybe it's an honorary PhD from www.bullshit.net
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:47 PM
Dec 2014

Seriously, if he holds a legitimate degree, it would turn up in a search and it does not.

If he was at U of Sydney, he would have a profile with a url like this:

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/adrian.bauman.php

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/raphael.lataster.php

The second link above doesn't exist.

So, I think he and his article is phony-ass bullshit.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
113. Yes. That's a yes. Phony and shit for brains dude has a page at University of G'Day!
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:26 PM
Dec 2014

Did he earn a fukkin piece of paper or not?

I'm dying to learn where he earned the PhD.



cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
140. From what I see (links provided in previous post) his PhD paper is there for you to read.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:07 PM
Dec 2014

Unless the University of Sydney is in on the conspiracy, he appears to be a real person who wrote a real paper for his PhD, wrote a real book, and really wrote the WaPo article.

 

YoungDemCA

(5,714 posts)
77. The vast majority of reputed historians and scholars from related disciplines disagree
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:21 PM
Dec 2014

And the author of the article demonstrates a rather hopeless (but unfortunately common) misunderstanding of the historical discipline and its methodology.

Here's a good, intelligent, well-argued blog post on why Jesus was very likely a real man-written by an atheist historian, I might add. It also rebutts many of the commonly repeated claims in the OP's article:

Part 1: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
Part 2: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
157. A very good article.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:45 PM
Dec 2014

Sums up the scholarly consensus very nicely. Mythicists or potential mythicists should take note.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
167. Thanks for the links. I hadn't seen that. Great, objective writing from a real academic.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:06 PM
Dec 2014

Not at all like the author of the wapo article.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
92. I'm not familiar with the post you are talking about, so I cannot comment on that.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:42 PM
Dec 2014

We've all had hides in here. well, most of us have, there are some that seem to be 'above the law' in that regard.

Mike Nelson

(9,903 posts)
105. "...shrouded in controversy..."
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:10 PM
Dec 2014

Surely looks like accounts of the man as simply a good, wise man were trashed.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
131. I know, right? Next month: Did Historical Buddha Really Exist?". Professional Whacks say "Derp".
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:46 PM
Dec 2014

I don't know why they do as they do, as if they're the first to question the historical accuracy of accounts of the man's life.

Among members of the global academic community, Australia is a bit like Texas, or Florida, when it comes to sketchy academics.

Merry Christmas!

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
146. Too funny. Your original premise that he is a fake author was debunked
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:20 PM
Dec 2014

So you move on to disparaging and entire continents worth of academics in order to try and savage what's left of your dignity.

Fail, dude. Epic fail


 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
151. =:-) Your characterization of my claims is wrong. I didn't say he wasn't a real author.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:29 PM
Dec 2014

I questioned whether or not he actually conducts research at the U of Sydney and still question his CV and claim of a PhD.

Must be very sad to have to mis-characterize what others write in order to construct some shabby semblance of being correct.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
152. Are you not seeing his paper and credentials on the UofS website?
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:32 PM
Dec 2014

Or merely ignoring it?

It's ok to admit if you're wrong.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
163. You poor thing! I looked at each link. No mention of his "PhD". So he's an author. Duh.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 06:58 PM
Dec 2014

Seriously man, getagrip.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
174. Here ya go, pumpkin.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:34 PM
Dec 2014
Raphael Lataster
Doctor of Philosophy
God's Intellectual Battles: New Atheists, New Theologians, Philosophical Arguments and Public Engagement

Raphael's thesis analyses the arguments of William Lane Craig (and also Richard Swinburne) for the existence of God, and investigates Craig's sociological impact.

With a background in pharmacy, medicine, and finance, Raphael Lataster is a professionally secular PhD researcher (Studies in Religion), having recently passed his Master of Arts (Research), undertaken in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, with Distinction. His main research interests include philosophy of religion, sociology of religion, Christian origins, logic, epistemology, Bayesian reasoning, justifications and social impacts of atheism, Taoism, overpopulation and sustainability concerns, pantheism, and pandeism. Other interests include rock-climbing and volunteering with the State Emergency Service.
Raphael wrote his Master’s thesis on Jesus mythicism, concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the ‘historical Jesus’. For his doctoral work, Raphael is analysing the major philosophical arguments for God’s existence (as argued by William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Aquinas), attempts to demonstrate the logical implausibility of the monotheistic concept, explores the theological tendencies of Philosophy of Religion, and considers the plausibility of pantheistic worldviews.

Raphael is currently publishing numerous articles summarising his Master’s dissertation, and exploring the themes of his doctoral project. Being passionate about education, Raphael hopes to eventually teach in Religious Studies and possibly Philosophy (critical thinking and philosophy of religion), and also to make every effort to engage with the public, through popular books, speaking engagements, public debates and websites, www.RaphaelLataster.com and www.PantheismUnites.org.

Publications
Bayesian Reasoning: Criticising the ‘Criteria of Authenticity’ and Calling for a Review of Biblical Criticism. Published in the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (Volume 5, Issue 2, pp.271-293) - May 2013

New Atheists and New Theologians. Published in Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review (Volume 4, Issue 1) - June 2013

http://sydney.edu.au/arts/religion/postgraduate_research/student_research.shtml#Lataster
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
177. Bravo. He hasn't earned his PhD. Game. Set. Match. You Lose.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:44 PM
Dec 2014

Scuse me, your link shows a page of current projects.

Current Postgraduate Research Projects
Sarah K Balstrup
Raphael Lataster
Merrilyn Mansfield


Don't just post it. Read it, darling:

Raphael is currently publishing numerous articles summarising his Master’s dissertation, and exploring the themes of his doctoral project.


and:

Raphael Lataster is a professionally secular PhD researcher (Studies in Religion), having recently passed his Master of Arts


Mister Lataster is "working on his doctorate".

He's a dick and a poser.

Dude, let it go.

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #177)

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
185. I just realized that all this hubabaloo is due to your abject failure at reading comprehension.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:25 PM
Dec 2014

Look at rug's post that you originally responded to. Go on, look at it, read it again. Then look at his bio page where rug got that from. (Its a good question, what IS a professionally secular PhD researcher? Fuck if I know.) Then look at your response and see if you can figure out where your fail started.

Had you actually read it correctly and not jumped to your own conclusion and let your knee-jerking fingers fly to the keyboard, this entire subthread would never have taken place. My failure was to catch that when it first happened, and for that I apologize.

Game, set, match. Indeed.

Response to Leontius (Reply #153)

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
180. If you can keep your head when all about you
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:04 PM
Dec 2014

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

- Rudyard Kipling

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
182. The OP is legit, even if the author of the article doesn't hold a PhD but others insist he does.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:08 PM
Dec 2014

Even the author says it: http://www.raphaellataster.com/

I have come to accept that Mr. Lataster is OK with using language that suggests that he is a PhD holding author:

Raphael Lataster is a professionally secular PhD researcher at the University of Sydney (Studies in Religion) and teaches on religion at the University of Sydney and at other institutions.


When what he really means is that he's working on research in an effort to someday earn an advanced degree and is in the PhD program, but doesn't really have one yet.

A minor detail, I'm sure.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
187. The only one ever insisting that he was a fake one was you. Look at your response to rug
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:29 PM
Dec 2014

then look at what rug copied from the authors bio.




It never said he had a PhD, YOU did.



Admittedly, I got caught up in it toward the end but realize where it went off the rails; at your first response.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
188. His personal website says he's a PhD researcher. That is a lie, and he is a liar wannabe.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:22 PM
Dec 2014

Why you want to defend him is rather disturbing.

Why defend a liar?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
186. Probably, since it's about the historical jesus, not the religious one.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:26 PM
Dec 2014

It's most definitely off-topic and should be locked.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
184. I don't know if Jesus walked the Earth or not.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 08:23 PM
Dec 2014

All I know is that I don't see him walking around now. I need a "right now," kinda God. I need Gods that are real and alive, not phantoms and myths, who are there to help me, not condemn me. So far, its an exercise in futility.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
189. Jesus is not God. Like Mohammed and Buddha, Jesus was a historic mortal human being.
Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:36 PM
Dec 2014

Now scholars will argue forever about how much of the record is accurate, but most of the literature accept the existence of an actual human as the basis for the "mythology" as fact.

That fact, by itself, doesn't make Jesus a fact but it seems more than likely that he was a real dude.

It's unlikely, on the other hand, that all that was written about his life is true.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
262. The other two dudes never claim to be the Son of God, or divine, only one is literally God.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:38 PM
Dec 2014

And how come, then, is Jesus a white dude, no way, not historically possible?

goldent

(1,582 posts)
193. This topic is becoming a real holiday tradition of anti-Christians
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 02:40 AM
Dec 2014

Perhaps at the anti-Christmas dinner, the youngest child recites the four claims for the non-existence of Jesus?

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
200. Discussing whether the basis for the largest religion in the world is real
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:56 AM
Dec 2014

does not make one an anti-Christian.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
248. No, but if you follow the links and read the material
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 08:17 PM
Dec 2014

it is obvious there is an agenda at work - and no attempt to hide it.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
250. Well, the arguments I found in following the links need
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 08:22 PM
Dec 2014

to get a lot better before I will be able to feel persecuted. As it is, I think they are just kidding around.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
236. Ok and why would that be a problem?
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 06:07 PM
Dec 2014

Anti-Christian beliefs and opinions are perfectly acceptable in this forum. If you have a problem with anti-Christian opinions, there are safe haven forums where you will not be bothered.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
246. I welcome this kind of stuff in the Religion forum
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 08:08 PM
Dec 2014

It's what makes the forum entertaining.

I remember quite a few years ago watching a TV documentary that described how the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. I've got to admit, on a detailed level it was pretty convincing, and very entertaining. I remember specifically the point that the landing engine did not seem to disturb the soil at the landing site.

thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
210. There is no proof of the existence of the vast majority of human beings
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 01:39 PM
Dec 2014

who have lived and died on this planet.

And by "vast majority" I would estimate, say, 90+%. Doesn't mean they didn't all exist, does it?

Even if you discount the hundreds of millions who lived and died before the invention of writing, whose remains weren't fossilized and who didn't leave handprints on cave walls, you're still left with "no evidence" of the existence of the majority of all the people who have ever lived or died.

This is especially true of societies--such as all those under Roman hegemony in the first century CE--where, again, the vast majority were illiterate.

So, no letters, no journals, no interviews, no texts of any sort. And of the texts that were produced, the majority have been lost over time. Homer, for instance, is said to have produced several dozen epic poems. Only two survive. And BTW--there is also no evidence--of the sort you're looking for--for the existence of Homer.

The fact that Jesus -- by most accounts a peasant/craftsman from a rather obscure part of the empire -- is mentioned at all, by anyone, within the first hundred years after his death is what is remarkable. It seems to me that rather than asking--did this man even exist--a more intriguing question would be why is it, out of the millions of people of the era who lived and died in obscurity, and out of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of criminals executed by the Romans, this one man should be singled out for mention.

As has been stated before, in reference to this argument--"Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
215. And yet only one particular person is worshiped as a god.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:39 PM
Dec 2014

THAT guy needs to have his actual existence well documented, don't ya think?

thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
239. Not particularly.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 06:24 PM
Dec 2014

People who believe Jesus to be in any way divine hardly need some Roman bureaucrat's scribble as confirmation of their belief.

And the lack of such scribbling is easily met with the adage that has no doubt been quoted to you a number of times now: "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." I don't see how you can honestly refute that--and in fact you've made no effort in your replies to me here. Could be tomorrow morning or a year from now or a century from now some manuscript or inscription will be discovered documenting some portion of the man's life and death. But until every manuscript or inscription left by the Romans is unearthed and examined (and there remain tons of material not yet properly scrutinized--we find more pretty much every time there's a major building project in the heart of Rome or any other Roman era city), until every acre of land in what was ancient Palestine is sifted through for artifacts, it will be impossible to say definitely that such evidence doesn't exist. It took close to two thousand years for the Dead Sea Scrolls to be unearthed--an entire library of ancient material stashed in a cave. So your "there is no documentation" claim seems pretty feeble to me as the basis for asserting that this particular human being never actually existed.

As for people such as yourself, who obviously don't believe, I don't see why it should be an issue. Well, I guess I DO see, you want to debunk the Jesus myth and feel compelled to do so in this particular forum, and I suppose since it's Christmas time the urge is especially difficult for you to resist, hence this OP. But it doesn't make for a compelling argument, for the reasons I've cited.

My unsolicited advice to you would be to take the time you're expending on this rather pointless intellectual exercise, and use the existence of this holiday to reconnect with family and friends, whether they are believers or not. If nothing else, the Jesus story gives us a socially sanctioned excuse to take some days off, kick back, and appreciate the fact of our existence in the here and now. For me, it's nice that all the kids in my extended family have time off from school and can hang out and play and visit--which is what they'll be doing all next week. Most of the people I know who work will get some time off as well--a welcome relief from the grind.

The Romans celebrated this winter holiday, as do most cultures past and present, in some form or another, as a way to beat the mid-winter blues. It's been a well documented part of the human story for ages. So why not enjoy? That's what I plan to do. Not to mention--I love all those colored lights. Seems to me any self-described hippy would appreciate the opportunity to make the world a little more psychedelic.

And so happy holidays, peace and love and joy and good will to you and yours.

Merry Christmas, and happy New Year.

Thucy


kwassa

(23,340 posts)
256. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." - Carl Sagan
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 09:33 PM
Dec 2014

A lack of evidence that Jesus existed doesn't prove he didn't exist. A lack of evidence is simply a lack of evidence.

You have nothing, cleanhippie. You've never had anything on this topic. You keep repeated the same tired supposition year after year at Christmastime and Easter, because you are anti-Christian. So, do you have anything new to say? Nope.

Same stuff, different year. Over and over and over.

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
229. Wait - If Jesus didn't exist, then who spoke the words in red in the Bible?
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 05:26 PM
Dec 2014

And you thought you had it all figured out.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
232. First Thesalonians, dated to 51 or 52 CE by internal evidence
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 05:43 PM
Dec 2014

is attributed to Paul and is the oldest book of the New Testament.

It is clear that Christianity had already spread around the Mediterranean.

Josephus also mentions Jesus.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
251. I'm an agnostic, but I believe that some person named Yeshua probably existed.
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 09:03 PM
Dec 2014

It's interesting, but there are really only two possibilities here:

1) A historical Jesus existed.

2) There was a deliberate conspiracy to invent a new religion undertaken over a period of decades by people who DID exist and who were, in the later part of their lives, geographically separated by thousands of miles and months of travel. These people persisted in proclaiming their conspiracy even while being tortured and executed. None ever broke or sold out their compatriots.

Do I believe that Jesus walked on water, performed miracles, and was the son of a diety? No. But I do believe that a physical person named Yeshua existed, and that he inspired his followers to go out and found the religion. It's even possible that THEY believed him to be a messiah.

My reasoning is simple...the odds of a geographically dispersed conspiracy of that magnitude being pulled off in that era, without ANYONE ever revealing the truth, seems more unlikely than the possibility that some loon in the desert inspired a few dozen followers to follow his new faith. If Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite (Heavens Gate) can convince people to KILL THEMSELVES because they've so thoroughly convinced them that they're some kind of messiah's, why is it so hard to believe that someone from a Judean backwater did the same thing a couple of millenia ago? We even have a relatively recent, large scale example of it happening. Joseph Smith forked Christianity in the 1820's the same way Yeshua forked Judaism in the 0030's. He took an established religion, convinced people that he was a messenger sent to fix that religion, and created something new out of it. One guy in an American backwater started preaching, convinced people that he was some sort of messiah, and less than 200 years later there are over 15 million people around the world follow Smith's faith. Hubbard did the same thing in the 1950's and has over 50,000 true believers today, decades after his death.

The possibility that Christianity was started by a lone preacher is HIGHER than the possibility that it was a grand conspiracy, and it is a possibility that is consistent with modern observable human behavior.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
272. I don't know that it matters now
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:15 AM
Dec 2014

Personally, I side with the majority of historians in thinking that there probably was a man called Yeshua who wandered around Galilee preaching peace and love and was then executed (as such people tend to be). The rest is two thousand years of mythologising.

That said, I don't think it really matters anymore. Christians believe and it would be better to deal with them as believers than expend a lot of time and effort failing to make them into unbelievers. They are not going to change their minds, no matter what historians consider likely or how snotty internet atheists are to them.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
273. Though what they believe is important,
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:25 AM
Dec 2014

even if we can't dissuade them from believing in a divine Jesus.

Dealing with how they interpret the Bible, or just convincing some of them that they are interpreting it, and not following the expressed wishes of God, would help.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
274. Perhaps
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:42 AM
Dec 2014

I would suggest that Christ exists as the collective body of the dreams and desires of Christians worldwide. That is, regardless of whether Yeshua the man existed, Jesus the Christ exists by virtue of affecting the lives of so many. Granted, that's a metaphysical, philosophical argument but I would argue that the beliefs of Christians (and I'm not, I'm a Lucferian Satanist; I worship the other guy) should be respected for the same reason and on the same grounds as those of people who are in love. Whether we happen to like the beloved or not, we are necessarily obliged to respect the strength of feeling in the lover and so, I would suggest we are likewise obliged to respect the Christian's strength of feeling. With that in mind, it therefore doesn't actually matter whether Yeshua the man existed since millions of Christians are going to act as if he did regardless.

I would also doubt the utility of trying to convince them that they are interpreting their Bible wrongly. The psychological biases of humanity means that, not only will they reject your interpretation, they will resent you for having informed them of it. I strongly suspect that the obnoxious assholes would be such regardless of their faith (or lack thereof, plenty of atheists being assholes too). If the professional Christians can manage to legalistically parse Jesus's words to pretend that he would oppose welfare, they can legalistically parse them to support any position they care to name.

I also think that, in many cases, they are against something just because liberals are for it. Conservatism, and Republianity (that witches brew of fundie Christianity, nationalism and fringe-right politics that exists purely to convey divine approval of the GOP platform) can now be best understood as blind spite. We saw that with the "Rolling Coal" fiasco. They disbelieve in global warming, not because they misunderstand the evidence but because they don't care about the evidence. If liberals are for it, they're against it. End of story.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
275. I don't buy the belief=love tautology
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:57 AM
Dec 2014

but even if I accept it. there are many times someone is in love and their emotions shouldn't be respected, in fact they should be persuaded to rethink it. the woman in love with an abusive man. the person in love with someone married who keeps think they will leave the other person, when they won't. The person in love with someone they don't personally know, or a causal acquaintance they wait to "notice them".

I also think some beliefs are based on what people are told by their church, and those beliefs can be countered.

Things like birth control and Gay rights come to mind.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
279. Not a tautology
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:34 PM
Dec 2014

Those of us who believe experience love for our deity. Moreover, we experience the presence of our deity when we pray (and no, it's not delusion, take it from someone who has experienced both).

Yes, things like opposition to birth control and gay rights can and should be countered. But you will have more success in either appealing to the secular society laid out in the Constitution and/or making common cause with the more liberal churches. Around 80% of teh American population is Christian but, if we take Biblical literalism as a useful definition of being a fundie, only about a quarter are fundies. That means around 55% are mainstream or liberal Christians.Trying to proselytize atheism to these people is pointless but one can make common cause with them to keep fundies out of power.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
282. I am sure the experience feels very real
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:56 PM
Dec 2014

but I don't think that means the object of that feeling needs to be. I think that emotions are an internal experience. The stimulus doesn't have to be real.

Many. many Christians were taught being gay was wrong and a sin. I think there has been a lot of improvement in believing that maybe it's not. Removing a big religious obstacle of Gay rights.
The shift in black churches after Prop 8 is an example.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/25/black-church-shifting-gay-marriage-qa-filmmaker-yoruba-richen/


(if you object to tautology, just use the word idea instead, it wasn't meant as a slam)

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
283. Let me put it this way
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:11 PM
Dec 2014

I am severely mentally ill. I know what delusions feel like because I sometimes suffer from them. The presence of the deity feels quite different. Now, could this be another form of crazy? Possibly.

Yes, many Christians were taught that being gay was immoral. Although the most Christian (in the best sense of that word) woman I ever knew was my grandmother and she was pro-gay and pro-choice. I think there's several things changing that. Firstly, there's the increasing evidence that being gay is not a choice. We found the brain structures that set sexuality some years ago and they set it in the womb. Secondly, there's the fact that more gay people are now "out". They no longer think of gays as some pervert in a dirty mac hanging around the public loos, they think of Bob from work. Thirdly, and in conjuction with that, there's the visibility of gay people in the media. Shows like "Ellen" and "Will & Grace" presented an image of gay people that was funny, unthreatening and, in some key human ways, very familiar.

Personally, I'm bisexual. Due to some incidents in my childhood, I didn't figure that out until my early-mid Twenties (by which point, my grandmother had passed away). My faith (Luciferian Satanism, a very small sub-group of Theistic Satanism) has absolutely zero problem with homosexuality. Father Lucifer is gay and straight and both and neither, as the whim strikes him.

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
284. I don't think you are crazy or delusional or anything like that
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:24 PM
Dec 2014

I am just saying emotions and internal feelings don't say anything about the stimulus of that emotion.
People have deep emotional experiences over movies, even animated ones, they cry their eyes out over Up or Toy Story. Those experiences are real, the characters that cause them are fictional constructs.

I agree that the best way to address gay rights is to change the culture in general, in ways like the ones you point out.

i was just speaking to the religious component of that equation (which is a large one)

Rye Bread Pizza

(37 posts)
277. I find it offensive
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 01:31 PM
Dec 2014

That you are choosing to attack the very basis of the Christian religion less than a week before their most holy day. Pretty despicable and sad way of saying "Look at me!"

edhopper

(33,196 posts)
285. I find it offensive
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 02:27 PM
Dec 2014

that I am more or less forced to participate in a celebration in this society that is based on a fantastical story.

And yes I said forced. Unless I want to go away for two months and live in a cabin away from family and friends i do have to participate in this whole thing.

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
286. It would have to be more like three months, now.
Sat Dec 20, 2014, 05:57 PM
Dec 2014

Around where I live, Xmas crap was being put up for display in early October this year. The Xmas music was being played well before Halloween. Next year I expect we'll see it right after Labor Day.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
288. There isn't much collaborative evidence
Mon Dec 22, 2014, 05:48 AM
Dec 2014

for many figures of ancient times many people believe existed, but accept without controversy. For example, there are no Roman records that Pilate existed but there is coinage from the period that bears his name and image.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Did historical Jesus real...