View Single Post
Old 11-29-2008, 12:02 AM   #255
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by alexrdias View Post
No, it doesn't. It has become clear that what we are discussing here is if Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, not if He had made all those miracles.

And Achilles thinks Jesus (person) never existed, because there is no proof that can support it.
I'm not making a claim one way or the other, I'm merely inquiring and offering criticism. It seems to me that there are a few choices with regard to historicity of Jesus, and that's the point I endeavored to make:

1) Jesus was a god/son of a god with magical powers and the story as told in the Christian bible is true, 100%.

2) Jesus was normal person who caught the attention of a fanbase who ultimately embellished his story creating a new history and, thus, a new "Jesus" to fit this archetypal mold.

3) Jesus didn't exist at all. Not a normal person; not a magical one. First and Second century proto-Christians created the myth, perhaps based on archetypes found in other religions.

I see no good reason to believe the first option; some reason to believe the second; and still a bit more to believe the third. Magical beings simply don't exist; charismatic authority is known to suffer embellishment by "worshipers" and fans; and good examples of several religious figures and deities exist that pre-date Jesus which fit the "hero" and "savior" archetype.

As for what you've said about Shakespear, it could be a group of people, not a single person. We don't know from that point of view.
I could be, but literary scholars are confident that there are enough consistencies in style to say there was at least one person that was consistently present throughout the body of work. Still, I'm not defending the existence of Shakespeare (there is, by the way, an "e" on the end of the alleged Bard's name) and I would be the first in line to question his existence should it be told to me that my salvation depended upon living my life according to the teachings of MacBeth or Othello.

Besides, I don't know what's the problem of this matter. If christians were assassins and terrorist, I would agree in changing their minds, but Christianity, teaches good manners, which I thinks many people on this world need. And the target is always Christianity, never other religions very similar in teatchings. (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to escape from the thread.)
There are those that would argue that there are Christians who are "assassins" and "terrorists." Timothy McVeigh, and several abortion clinic bombers would seem to support this. Indeed, some of the most brutal slayings of children in our time were related to indoctrination to Christian dogma. The woman in Houston who drowned her children one-by-one as they each watched; the woman who severed her child's arms in the Dallas area; the woman in Georgia who drove her car into a lake with her children locked inside; and others. The abuse of children by pedophile priest is, likewise, and act of terrorism -I'm sure the children who lived with the abuse would think so at any rate- and this degenerate behavior isn't limited to Catholics but is found among Protestants as well.

But, just as important to understanding "what's the problem of the matter," Christians, who claim that their version of Jesus is magical and must be accepted as historical, also cite this as their core belief but also wish to oppress scientific knowledge and understanding; seek to oppress homosexuals; seek to impose their particular brand of "god" and "religion" on the rest of society. This is unacceptable. Therefore, their core beliefs are open to question, inquiry and criticism. That core belief being Jesus the alleged Christ.

Originally Posted by alexrdias View Post
But those are not Christian teachings, so it's irrelevant what those "supposed" Christian teach or say...
Originally Posted by alexrdias View Post
They call themselves Christians, but they are not.
Your assessment and opinion of their "christianity" is irrelevant. They believe themselves to be Christian and commit their atrocities and position their societal impositions in the name of Jesus the alleged Christ. Therefore, Jesus' historicity is open to criticism and inquiry.

I also find it convenient for some "Christians" to simply brush off the behavior of those who believe the same doctrine as they but apply differing interpretations such that their behavior becomes embarrassing by saying, "oh, they're not real Christians." Poppycock. It is necessary and sufficient to call lump these degenerates in with all Christians simply because they believe themselves to be christian and acting under christian dogma.

Originally Posted by alexrdias View Post
But there is a standard, although not very objective but it's the definition used today: one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
The ones you claim are "not real Christians" profess belief in "Jesus as Christ" and believe, every bit as much as you, that they are following the religion "based on the life and teachings of Jesus."

If the "life and teachings of Jesus" are going to be invoked to tell me how I should live and imposed upon society, limiting the freedoms and knowledge of others, then this alleged Christ requires a modicum of evidence to be accepted as a real, historical person; and an extraordinary body of evidence to be accepted as a magical being. Otherwise, we'd do better to believe in the reality of Harry Potter or Gandolf.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: