Jesus Christ and Atheism

Kinda wish It was a NPH joke now in hindsight. That was gold.

 

i find the diversity of possibilities humans have yet to imagine, more comforting then the lack of diversity of what people try to tell each other to pretend.

i was a follower of baha'u'llah, on and off, for most of 40 years, and one of the things baha'is believe, is that indeed, all of the names worshiped by all of the major religions, are, the same god.
but i don't identify with any brand name flavor of belief today, because i find no compelling evidence, again, that any god or god like being, should they choose to exist,
owes anything to what people tell each other. that any sort of objective link between the scriptures of any belief, and whatever there might be of them, conspicuously a.w.o.l.

the problem i specifically have with abrahamic religions is the idea of a god wishing to be feared, when even they are forced by reality to admit,
that goodness and the desire to be feared, are absolute binary opposites.

but you know, everything people have come up with, to try and tell each other to pretend the same things, are just such a tiny tiny fraction of the diversity of possibilities,
that may well be, just as likely.

on the other paw, there are things that we can observe, the effect that perspectives have statistically, on the kinds of social environments, we all have to experience being surrounded by.

 

Exactly , it's not it's job to teach morality but some symbolic aestheticism of it's own view - which i agreed with for a long time - , for a long time it was all the manifesto we had for morality and social relations , it worked by the time and for the being mentality , but I believe that 2000 years later its out of humanity anymore , it's broke , and it's up to us to try and practice our rite and freedom to come up with new questions and answers and live on , till we in turn vanish like our ancestors .. yesterdays religions are todays myths , and todays religions are tomorrows myths

 

Technology is rapidly becoming a religion and, increasingly, bordering on magic. Every electronics engineer I know complains that it makes no sense that they have to account for electron holes moving around without their electrons, but every time I've offered to explain they turn me down flat. Religious people are like that, so I don't take it personally, but already physicists have documented time flowing backwards on macroscopic scales, and the shit is about to hit the fan. Theoretical physics has turned up nothing new in over forty years, despite spending more money than God, while the computers are about to spit out the explanation that 42 is as good as it gets. Both modern philosophers and physicists are now relying on theories they either don't comprehend or don't believe in, which means they might as well be doing the modern equivalent of reading gibberish out of an ancient tome and casting spells for all they can prove.

Ours is the best of all possible worlds, if for no other reason, then because instant karma's gonna getcha baby! They are becoming who they hate the most, with both Militant Atheists and the Fundamentalists, using the same propaganda approach as well. They are so similar, that bots can use the same mathematics with different lexicons to imitate them both.

 

If this is the best of all possible worlds, I'd hate to see the worst. Particularly on the political and religious fronts, the wheels are coming off. It will take a century or so for people to figure out what happened and to try to put some of the pieces back again.

 

Reality sucks, but its impossible to have dreams with it, and mother nature's complaint department is a recording of laughter, so you are free to complain that reality sucks all the way into the grave, and live your own worst nightmares if you prefer. Atheists can bitch all they want about religion destroying the world, but it is atheists designing weapons of mass destruction and insisting everyone is else is insane. Get over it already, start learning how to share your words and play nice, or its the end of the world as you know it.

 

I like your post but Biblical scholars don't believe that the authors of the gospels actually knew Jesus. The Gospel Of Mark was written first, around 70 AD. In fact there is no independent evidence that Jesus even existed.

 

That depends on what you think of the passage in Josephus's Antiquities--not the Testimonium Flavium, which most scholars reject, but the other one, Book 20, Chp. 9, 1, which most scholars accept as authentic, referring to "the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James". James was the head of the Jerusalem Church, and ordinarily if a person's brother is factual, so is the person.

 

There is alot of time spent determining the actuality of rhetoric. I would hope if I was seeking truth and prosperity for my brothers that no time would be wasted dwelling on my credibity.

Structured time VS Idle hands.

 

Christians argue love, Atheists argue reason, but they both argue the dictionary is wrong. Rhetoric is all about refusing to listen and even denying others the ability to listen by encouraging everyone to argue over complete bullshit instead.

 

All of us argue about both love and reason. If we could both imagine the dictionary as a sword I would hope we could agree that the dictionary is unnecessary. They say the pen is mightier but that understanding takes a bit of imagination too.

 

Is it said in the bilbe that the human being named Jesus never sinned?

In all those 30+ years of walking around, Jesus never ever sinned once...... that's a crock.

 

Are you referring to James I, who commissioned the King James Bible for the specific purpose of biblically justifying the "divine right of kings" to rule?

 

I think bird migration may have flown south, leaving his droppings for us to clean up.

• "The book, you could say it's an autobiography about Jesus Christ, consists of first-hand accounts and encounters with Jesus Christ." Well, which is it.? If its an autobiography, then it must have been written by Jesus. But that's unlikely, cuz the four gospels present four different views of Jesus--something not ordinarily found in autobiographies, especially if it "consists of first-hand accounts and encounters with Jesus Christ."
• "There have been many books written about him, most famously one called the 'King James Bible". The KJV may be the most famous, and is surely the most eloquent, but not necessarily the most accurate. In its original form, it led readers to believe there were unicorns, that being the translation of the Hebrew word re'em. Later, the New KJV conceded to the prevailing view that the word means "wild ox" or aurochs. From 1 Cor. 6:9, which includes the "effeminate" among those who will not see the Kingdom of Heaven, the reader might be concerned about limp wrists and lisps. The New KJV is more explicit, if not more accurate, in translating the term "malakoi " as "homosexuals".
  
• We've already discussed the confusion over whether an atheist can believe Jesus Christ actually was the son of God. Let me make a case for the possibility that an atheist could believer Jesus was both real and the Son of God. Agnostic Bart Ehrman has written a whole book arguing that Jesus probably existed. An atheist could just as well accept the same evidence and arrive at the same conclusion. And the term "Son of God" was often used in Judaism as an honorific title given to kings like David. If we mean God's actual progeny, though, obviously a person who doesn't believe in God couldn't logically believe that God fathered a son or even adopted one.
• In loving spirit... Doubtful.

 

Jesus died in the 1800s?

 

"Literally thousands" (or a couple of thousand) would have been more descriptive, although the crucifixion is usually dated at around 30 A.D., so "literally" would still be inaccurate.

 

What you cannot argue over, is the simple fact that metaethics rule the human immune and reproductive system. Sorry, but the facts state you are literally hurting yourself arguing that you can argue whatever you prefer. My work focuses on simply comparing the number of lies with the overall mortality and reproductive rates, to show that sharing your words and playing nice are required to live long and prosper. English is the language of compulsive liars, who are taught how to lie from a very young age, by encouraging them to argue over the definition of stupid.

 

Well. most scholars think Paul was writing about Jesus in the forties and fifties, and claims to have interacted with James and Peter, albeit his direct encounters with Jesus were with a vision. Most scholars date Mark to 65-70 AD., at the time of Nero's persecution or the Jewish revolt against Rome; Matthew and Luke to the eighties; and John to the nineties or the first decade of the 2nd century. Writings about him after that fall into the Gnostic tradition, which was mostly second and third century. You're correct though that there were no first hand accounts. The gospel writers themselves were anonymous and none claimed to be providing first hand accounts.

As for those "almost identical writings about a Jesus type entity copied by Christian religion", I strongly doubt that. Bring the candidates forward, and let's see how "almost identical" they were. Plagiarism is such a strong word, and the evidence for it is so weak to non-existent. As for his "alleged crucifixion", maybe you could tell us why anyone at the time would allege that their Messiah was crucified like a common criminal and loser when scripture said that a person who died in such a manner would be "cursed" (Deuteronomy 21:23).

 

Well. Paul visted Peter and James in Jerusalem in 36 AD, three years after his conversion and six years after Jesus' crucifixion. Most scholars think Paul was writing most of his epistles about Jesus in the forties and fifties (10 to 20 years after the event), and he claimed to have interacted with James and Peter, albeit his direct encounters with Jesus were with a vision. Most scholars date Mark to 65-70 AD., at the time of Nero's persecution or the Jewish revolt against Rome; Matthew and Luke to the eighties; and John to the nineties or the first decade of the 2nd century. You're correct though that there were no first hand accounts. The gospel writers themselves were anonymous and none claimed to be providing first hand accounts.

As for those "almost identical writings about a Jesus type entity copied by Christian religion", I strongly doubt that. Bring them forward, and let's see how "almost identical" they were. As for his "alleged crucifixion", maybe you could tell us why anyone at the time would allege that their alleged Messiah was crucified like a common criminal and loser when scripture said that a person who died in such a manner would be "cursed"(Deuteronomy 21:23).