# What's Your take....



## Oak-flat Hunter (Dec 6, 2011)

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm Sounds logical...


----------



## pnome (Dec 6, 2011)

laskerknight said:


> http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm Sounds logical...



Sounds logical, but it's not.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The claim that there was a man named Jesus who had a following in ancient Judea is not extraordinary at all and thus, does not require extraordinary evidence to believe.  

Do you doubt that Socrates lived in Athens?


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 6, 2011)

laskerknight said:


> http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm



Same ol' stuff.  Yawn.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 6, 2011)

There isn't a single piece of physical evidence that millions and millions of people ever existed.  But they did.  Why do I need a piece of pottery with "Property of Jesus of Nazereth" inscribed on it to prove he was here?


----------



## Four (Dec 7, 2011)

pnome said:


> Do you doubt that Socrates lived in Athens?



That's actually debated, there are no first hand writings of Socrates, only what Plato recorded from him. Historically speaking Socrates might not have existed.

while that does have some similarities between the stories of jesus, unlike jesus, plato was  alleged to have known socrates directly, were as those that recorded Jesus's life dont claim to have any first hand knowledge (there is at least 1 more person in between)

Also, Socrates wasn't alleged to have performed anything supernatural.


----------



## pnome (Dec 7, 2011)

Four said:


> Socrates wasn't alleged to have performed anything supernatural.




Yes, but that's not what we're debating here.  The question isn't "Was Jesus who he claimed to be?"  It's "Did a man named Jesus ever live and preach in ancient Judea?"

To me, there is more than enough reason to believe it.  There is nothing at all extraordinary about it.


----------



## Four (Dec 7, 2011)

pnome said:


> Yes, but that's not what we're debating here.  The question isn't "Was Jesus who he claimed to be?"  It's "Did a man named Jesus ever live and preach in ancient Judea?"
> 
> To me, there is more than enough reason to believe it.  There is nothing at all extraordinary about it.



Yea in terms of a non-supernatural claim of a person that was preaching in the bronze age? Yea that seems pretty plausible. lol


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 7, 2011)

Since the bible is not one book, but a collection of writings, the thought that Jesus may have never existed is not going to get much support. I think the majority of people, regardless of beliefs will agree that Jesus existed. What they believe about him will vary widely. Am I missing the OP? I did not read much of the link.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 8, 2011)

pnome said:


> Yes, but that's not what we're debating here.  The question isn't "Was Jesus who he claimed to be?"  It's "Did a man named Jesus ever live and preach in ancient Judea?"
> 
> To me, there is more than enough reason to believe it.  There is nothing at all extraordinary about it.



I agree 100% that such a person existing is feasible and probable even.  What makes him different from the other billions who have gone before us?  After all there's no reason to establish a religion for every being that ever existed.

Now why I'm not a Christian though hinges not on his existence, but on the ability to execute magic with which he is purported to have wowed the masses.   Miracles...did he perform them?  I say no because I have no evidence.   Do I believe in Jesus?  Basically yeah.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 9, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Miracles...did he perform them?  I say no because I have no evidence.   Do I believe in Jesus?  Basically yeah.



But here's what gets me, the folks who claimed to see them were willing to die telling folks about him.  I would venture to say they saw something quite amazing.

I take that, and his message which was so contradictory to what was being taught by religious folks during his time (love your neighbors, feed the poor, not condemning, etc.), and you have a pretty solid foundation for an extraordinary person. 

I think a lot of non-Christians use the actions of Christians as a reason to reject Jesus.  I see Jesus outside the context of religion, that's why I believe.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 9, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> But here's what gets me, the folks who claimed to see them were willing to die telling folks about him.  I would venture to say they saw something quite amazing.
> 
> I take that, and his message which was so contradictory to what was being taught by religious folks during his time (love your neighbors, feed the poor, not condemning, etc.), and you have a pretty solid foundation for an extraordinary person.
> 
> I think a lot of non-Christians use the actions of Christians as a reason to reject Jesus.  I see Jesus outside the context of religion, that's why I believe.




I agree.
Another thing is that these same people that were not willing to die for/with Christ, ie Peter, etc.....were willing to die after the crusifiction.
What changed their minds?

The resurrection.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 9, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I agree 100% that such a person existing is feasible and probable even.  What makes him different from the other billions who have gone before us?  After all there's no reason to establish a religion for every being that ever existed.
> 
> Now why I'm not a Christian though hinges not on his existence, but on the ability to execute magic with which he is purported to have wowed the masses.   Miracles...did he perform them?  I say no because I have no evidence.   Do I believe in Jesus?  Basically yeah.



Wow Hammy, that's a good post!!!
I know you aren't impressed because I'm impressed, but I am truly impressed with your answer.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 9, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> But here's what gets me, the folks who claimed to see them were willing to die telling folks about him.  I would venture to say they saw something quite amazing.



People see all sorts of things.  Sometimes people admire that and flock to said person.





JB0704 said:


> I think a lot of non-Christians use the actions of Christians as a reason to reject Jesus.



Maybe so.  I think there are a whole array of reasons.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 9, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> People see all sorts of things.  Sometimes people admire that and flock to said person.



Yea, I walked right into that one.

I have always been honest that my belief in Jesus is difficult to defend with a non-believer.  For me, the record we have is very different than what we have on Manson, etc.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 10, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Yea, I walked right into that one.
> 
> I have always been honest that my belief in Jesus is difficult to defend with a non-believer.  For me, the record we have is very different than what we have on Manson, etc.



I'm gonna not address that part, in the interest of harmony.


----------



## JFS (Dec 11, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> I agree.
> Another thing is that these same people that were not willing to die for/with Christ, ie Peter, etc.....were willing to die after the crusifiction.
> What changed their minds?
> 
> The resurrection.



In 1997 39 members of the Heaven's Gate group committed suicide in order to reach an alien space craft which they believed was following the Comet Hale-Bopp.  Are you willing to convert because they were willing to die?   How many muslims are willing to die for Allah?  How are the irrational beliefs of others any way to make decisions for yourself?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2011)

JFS said:


> In 1997 39 members of the Heaven's Gate group committed suicide in order to reach an alien space craft which they believed was following the Comet Hale-Bopp.  Are you willing to convert because they were willing to die?   How many muslims are willing to die for Allah?  How are the irrational beliefs of others any way to make decisions for yourself?



Yeah, but they're wrong and Christians are right.  It says so in the Bible.  Don't be obtuse.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah, but they're wrong and Christians are right.  It says so in the Bible.  Don't be obtuse.



Its a touch more complicated than that.  I am not saying there is no similarity, just that there are differences as well, though they may seem ridiculous to you.  We can say the US is similar to Iran because both have elections, and both have governments, but are the two countries really the same?  There are huge differences.  To an alien, they might appear similar, though.  It might require a closer examination before we say we are comparing apples to apples.

I don't think any of y'all are obtuse.  In fact, all you atheists/agnostics seem to be pretty decent folks, as far as can be determined via a web forum.


----------



## Asath (Dec 12, 2011)

If it makes any difference, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a charismatic Rabbi (preacher) who later came to be known as Jesus of Nazareth actually existed.  That this man never wrote a single word of his own is quite odd, and that we have about a 30 year gap of evidence, even anecdotally, concerning his life is another problem.  But this sort of thing is hardly unprecedented considering the times he was living.

Consider that the later prophet Mohamed was also completely illiterate, and that his writings were not his, but those of a scribe (a relative, if I read the history correctly) who studiously transcribed his visions over a period of over 25 years.  Mohamed can also be shown, though just as thinly, to have been an actual person.  

Far prior to either of them, the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama can also be demonstrated to have existed, as an actual person.  

So the fact of having existed, even if the very thin and not so well documented historical ‘evidence’ bears out the claim, is just that.  These people may have, and probably did live at some time in the distant past.  

By the same token, Venerable Mahākāśyapa also existed, as did Constantine and King James, and also Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi.  These latter folks are likely more important, since they are the ones who took matters into their own hands and decided that each of these men were to be held as godly icons.  The funny thing about the history of ‘God’s Representatives on Earth,’ regardless of which one you wish to follow, is that they each and all failed to write a single word of their own. Other folks did that for them.  Often hundreds of years later.

So if the contention is that any proof of the existence of the men themselves proves the contentions later made on their behalf, well, that would be something of a stretch.  And, as I’ve noticed before, if any of it were incontrovertibly true, from any perspective, there would be no arguments.  An all–powerful God could hardly be said to lack the ability to make His message clear.  To everyone.  Having failed to do that, which is readily obvious, we would have to think less of this God, and that thought alone invalidates him.

Perfection demands nothing less than what it says.  If it is an imperfect world, then it is created and administered by an imperfect God, and since the very definition of God is perfection, then you have little more than a dog’s breakfast of all-too human excuse-making on your hands all around.


----------



## pnome (Dec 12, 2011)

Asath said:


> Perfection demands nothing less than what it says.  If it is an imperfect world, then it is created and administered by an imperfect God, and since the very definition of God is perfection, then you have little more than a dog’s breakfast of all-too human excuse-making on your hands all around.



But isn't "Perfection" subjective?

My perfect world and Huntinfool's perfect world would be two distinctly different places.  Even if they both would have spring woods full of hot gobblers with 10 inch beards.


----------



## Asath (Dec 14, 2011)

Unfortunately, ‘perfection’ isn’t a word that has a lot of synonyms.  “Completeness, exactness, exquisiteness, flawlessness, ideal, purity, superiority, wholeness.”  These are the sorts of ideas you find, and these are also the sorts of ideas that believers bandy about with alacrity concerning the god of their own belief.  

And the excuse is always as you state – your idea of ‘perfection’ and another’s idea of the same may vary.  Well of course they do.  Otherwise we would not be in this mess of competing and violent ‘belief systems.’    But if the idea of just what is to be considered ‘perfect’ is allowed to vary from observer to observer, then the idea itself lacks credibility, and must be invalid.  If something is ‘perfect’ in all regards, then it simply is.  This cannot be relative to the observer.  And no ‘god’ who holds these attributes, far above the well-described flaws of his human creations, could or would allow even (and especially)  himself to be misinterpreted as often and as violently as history bears out.

A ‘god of creation’ would have necessarily had a plan for his creation, or else, why bother?  A higher power created all of this for the sheer fun of watching us squabble amongst ourselves and slaughter each other wholesale over the many thousands of years in order to establish the theological high ground for the ultimate winners?  That seems a little bit sick, as a contention.  And that thought by itself negates any ideas of perfection.

Shall we contend that the ‘god of creation’ put forth his best efforts at creating man in ‘His’ image, as is contended, but he played favorites, and chose only a few to lead and be rewarded (as is also contended)?  That thought is also a little bit strange, and tends to also rule out the thought of ‘perfection,’ unless the thought is that we are all a gigantic video game played from above, pitted one against the other for the amusement of the all-knowing and all-seeing.  A ‘perfect’ being cannot be contended nor defended unless the works of that being are up to the task.   There is no evidence that this is so.

None.  What is real, as you point out so well, is that one person’s idea of what is true and what is not is often, and always, far different than the idea of the person next door.  But that person also thinks they are right, and will defend their own ideas to the death, pointing out continuously where it is ‘Written’ in their own holy book of choice.  This also invalidates the thought.  Apologies, excuses, and wild leaps of imaginative defense still do not create the singular thing that would exist if any such a god had ever come out of the ether and revealed itself to its own creation – consensus.  It would be more than a little stupid to defy an actual  ‘God,’ by failing to heed his words.   And fail we have, as a species.  Not ‘god’s’ problem, many rejoin?  Of course it is, since one cannot connect the idea of their god to the facts on the ground.  If their ‘god’ was capable of creating something less than perfect (us, for example), then that ‘god’ is necessarily limited, and since the definition of this ‘god’ is infallibility, then reality reveals this god to be a fraudulently constructed icon designed only to serve the uses of the rulers.  As uncomfortable as that makes many folks, it is true just the same.


A big, judgmental, omnipotent being, capable of creating an entire universe just for the fun of it, could hardly be described as a being that also allows its own creation to fragment into so many different splinter groups, all seeking advantage over all others.  This thought, also, is antithetical to the idea of a ‘perfect’ god.

‘Perfection,’ regardless of personal interpretations, would be just that, and would not be open to personal opinions.  ‘Perfection,’ under the rule of a ‘god,’ would logically allow no room for interpretations.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2011)

Asath said:


> Unfortunately, ‘perfection’ isn’t a word that has a lot of synonyms.  “Completeness, exactness, exquisiteness, flawlessness, ideal, purity, superiority, wholeness.”  These are the sorts of ideas you find, and these are also the sorts of ideas that believers bandy about with alacrity concerning the god of their own belief.
> 
> And the excuse is always as you state – your idea of ‘perfection’ and another’s idea of the same may vary.  Well of course they do.  Otherwise we would not be in this mess of competing and violent ‘belief systems.’    But if the idea of just what is to be considered ‘perfect’ is allowed to vary from observer to observer, then the idea itself lacks credibility, and must be invalid.  If something is ‘perfect’ in all regards, then it simply is.  This cannot be relative to the observer.  And no ‘god’ who holds these attributes, far above the well-described flaws of his human creations, could or would allow even (and especially)  himself to be misinterpreted as often and as violently as history bears out.
> 
> ...



But believers propose that we brought it upon ourselves; that God gave us a perfect situation and that we chose of our own free will the option to not remain in a perfect state.  What would that have been like if Adam chose to obey God?  If Adam had commanded Eve (in a way ordained by the Bible) not to eat the fruit? I suppose that we would now be in a state of Heaven on Earth. All of us. All 165 trillion of us, since there would be no death and destruction in the perfect garden.  Perfect and obedient and boring.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Perfect and obedient and boring.



Heeeyyyyy, I'm perfect and obedient and I'm not bored or boring...


----------



## pnome (Dec 15, 2011)

Asath said:


> A ‘god of creation’ would have necessarily had a plan for his creation, or else, why bother?  A higher power created all of this for the sheer fun of watching us squabble amongst ourselves and slaughter each other wholesale over the many thousands of years in order to establish the theological high ground for the ultimate winners?  That seems a little bit sick, as a contention.  And that thought by itself negates any ideas of perfection.



I don't see a plan as a necessity.  We could be an experiment whose outcome is not entirely certain.  Or a whim.  Or it could be that in this plan, we are just not a major part.  Or maybe our part necessitates that we slaughter each other wholesale. Who knows?


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 15, 2011)

JFS said:


> In 1997 39 members of the Heaven's Gate group committed suicide in order to reach an alien space craft which they believed was following the Comet Hale-Bopp.  Are you willing to convert because they were willing to die?   How many muslims are willing to die for Allah?  How are the irrational beliefs of others any way to make decisions for yourself?



But the people that I was referring to, witnessed the crusifiction and the resurrection. They weren't willing to die before that....that was my point.

Yes some muslims are willing to die for what they believe, I haven't studied their religion enough to know exactly why, except that they get a bunch of virgins when they die.  I myself wouldn't choose to die for that reason.

And hale-bopp was a short lived belief...I can't compare Christians, Muslims, Buddists, etc, to that.


----------



## Asath (Dec 15, 2011)

“I haven't studied their religion enough to know exactly why, except that they get a bunch of virgins when they die.”

Okay, that one is hard to pass up, as straight lines go . . . anyone else want that one?  I mean, I’m already criticized for long posts, and taking on that one would be about five pages . . . 

I’ll go with this – “I don't see a plan as a necessity. We could be an experiment whose outcome is not entirely certain. Or a whim. Or it could be that in this plan, we are just not a major part.”

Exactly.   So let’s take this one in reverse – if there is a plan, from above, and we are not a major part of it, then all of our cathedrals and mosques and other holy icons are little more than monuments to our own egos.  One quick look at all of the abandoned ‘holy’ sites of human history would tend to suggest that this is likely the case.  

If we are a whim, or an experiment whose outcome is less than certain, again on the part of a ‘Creator,’ then that would once again suggest that this ‘Creator’ didn’t really have us in mind, and didn’t actually decide that we would be the pinnacle of his creation.  But all of the major religions put us, by declaration, in just that position – so much so that we have endless stories in holy books of God’s words and instructions to us.  Well, not to us, per se, but to certain hand selected representatives who mainly lived in deserts and had the overall education of field mice.  Some of them may actually have existed.

So, if any of the religions are to be taken seriously, and they demand that they be respected at the risk of imprisonment or lethal violence still to this day, then what they put forward is that there was a plan, from above, and it only included themselves.  This is a bit hard to swallow.

All of it argues against any concept of perfection or infallibility on the part of this fictional god that they have created.  It is hard to argue that any such being as a ‘God’ would need his (already flawed)  human interpreters to apologize for the stuff that went wrong.  That is just plain silly.


----------



## hunter rich (Dec 16, 2011)

All i have to say to Asath is - "Wow!"  Well done, well written, thank you.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 23, 2011)

Bo Webb said:


> were as those that recorded Jesus's life dont claim to have any first hand knowledge (there is at least 1 more person in between)
> 
> What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John oh, and Jesus's half brother James. They all claimed to have been first person witnesses to the life of Christ. Each having written one of the gospels or an epistle.  I don't know the works of  Socrates or Plato well enough, so I cannot comment on the or there writings. But I am curious as to who is this "1 more person in between"?



Have you actually read any of their work?( matthew,mark,luke ....etc....)


----------



## vowell462 (Dec 23, 2011)

hunter rich said:


> All i have to say to Asath is - "Wow!"  Well done, well written, thank you.



agreed. Everytime I see his name I stop and read. Natural talent for getting words together correctly.


----------



## Four (Dec 23, 2011)

Bo Webb said:


> were as those that recorded Jesus's life dont claim to have any first hand knowledge (there is at least 1 more person in between)
> 
> What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John oh, and Jesus's half brother James. They all claimed to have been first person witnesses to the life of Christ. Each having written one of the gospels or an epistle.  I don't know the works of  Socrates or Plato well enough, so I cannot comment on the or there writings. But I am curious as to who is this "1 more person in between"?



The authors of the gospels your referring to weren't the people. Luke didnt write luke. etc etc


----------



## bullethead (Dec 23, 2011)

The first 4 verses of Luke go against your statement about him claiming to be a first person witness to the life of Christ.

Luke was a Greek physician and writes in the 3rd person.

Assuming he/they were the real authors.


----------



## bigreddwon (Dec 23, 2011)

One could argue that the story of 'Jesus' is a rehashed version of the story of Krishna written hundreds of years before.

 The similarity's are staggering, and most 'Christians' have no clue about them.

Jesus could have been real. _I_ doubt he was real. I think there could be a good many people thru out history we think were real people that were made up by folks who could write.

Imagine if ol Ben Franklin hadn't come forward about being Silence Dogood? How many people would swear she was a real woman?




> Correspondences between events in Jesus' and Krishna's life:
> 
> Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Yeshua's and Krishna's life. He found what he believed were 346 elements in common within Christiana and Hindu writings. 1 That appears to be overwhelming evidence that incidents in Jesus' life were copied from Krishna's. However, many of Graves' points of similarity are a real stretch.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The first 4 verses of Luke go against your statement about him claiming to be a first person witness to the life of Christ.
> 
> Luke was a Greek physician and writes in the 3rd person.
> 
> Assuming he/they were the real authors.


I agree, that Luke was not an eyewitness of the accounts expressed in the book attributed to him. I think he had Marks gospel in front of him as he copied, paraphrasing as he went. Notice in the story of the paralytic let down through the roof. Luke's original greek has not the word "house". Now my NIV does, only because they tried to cover up lukes carelessness. What does this mean, While Luke was copying, since he had Mark's gospel that told the story about the crowd and them taking him up on the roof, of the house, he assumes that he is telling the story as if independantly, but he makes a mistake and leaves off the word house. He unknowingly assumes that we know what he knows except we are not reading Mark's as he is, therefore how would we know the details of the story. Google "Did Matthew and Luke copy Mark". Lots more evidence for this. An eyewitness would have no need to copy or even tell the same stories


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 23, 2011)

I took 4 yrs of history and I always did a book report on swampfox, I'm sad to know that to believe he was real I'd have to see him myself. I liked his persona.


----------



## Asath (Dec 24, 2011)

Sad to say, but entirely true --  the moment someone claims to have seen a god of any sort, or claims to have consorted personally with any of their god's representatives on earth, that is the moment we begin herding them towards the mental hospital.

Do a simple thought experiment -- extract 'Revelations,' which is little more than the rantings of John of Patmos, who wrote this screed in exile, and read it again from the beginning, as though you had never seen it before.  Keep in mind that this one is reliably dated hundreds of years after the 'fact.'  If you can walk out of a whole reading of the entire chapter, in a single sitting, and be able to stop laughing, then you really are a believer, and we are afraid of you.

The rest of us are very sorry about your belief in this sort of thing, but -- REALLY?  This is a tough sell, and the writers and compilers chose THIS mess to close out the final chapter of a 'Holy' Book?  Be serious.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 24, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I agree, that Luke was not an eyewitness of the accounts expressed in the book attributed to him. I think he had Marks gospel in front of him as he copied, paraphrasing as he went. Notice in the story of the paralytic let down through the roof. Luke's original greek has not the word "house". Now my NIV does, only because they tried to cover up lukes carelessness. What does this mean, While Luke was copying, since he had Mark's gospel that told the story about the crowd and them taking him up on the roof, of the house, he assumes that he is telling the story as if independantly, but he makes a mistake and leaves off the word house. He unknowingly assumes that we know what he knows except we are not reading Mark's as he is, therefore how would we know the details of the story. Google "Did Matthew and Luke copy Mark". Lots more evidence for this. An eyewitness would have no need to copy or even tell the same stories



Agreed


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 24, 2011)

Asath said:


> Sad to say, but entirely true --  the moment someone claims to have seen a god of any sort, or claims to have consorted personally with any of their god's representatives on earth, that is the moment we begin herding them towards the mental hospital.
> 
> Do a simple thought experiment -- extract 'Revelations,' which is little more than the rantings of John of Patmos, who wrote this screed in exile, and read it again from the beginning, as though you had never seen it before.  Keep in mind that this one is reliably dated hundreds of years after the 'fact.'  If you can walk out of a whole reading of the entire chapter, in a single sitting, and be able to stop laughing, then you really are a believer, and we are afraid of you.
> 
> The rest of us are very sorry about your belief in this sort of thing, but -- REALLY?  This is a tough sell, and the writers and compilers chose THIS mess to close out the final chapter of a 'Holy' Book?  Be serious.



mental hospital...eh? that's cold.


----------



## Asath (Dec 27, 2011)

Revelation, 4.  Read it.  Then start over, and read the whole chapter over again.  Cold?  I suppose it is, but you have to be kidding if a bit of this can be defended as the Word of God.  

It reads as little more than hallucinatory ranting, which is actually what is was.  They didn’t have mental hospitals back then, so they did the logical thing – they exiled the nut to an island where he could rant and rave to the sky all day long.  Whoever decided to include the ranting of a lunatic in a Holy Book (See also: Constantine), must have been a bit disconnected themselves.


----------

