How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[F1fan]

It doesn't matter, all that matters is that He existed.

Existed? So you think he's dead and gone? How do you explain @InChrist claiming to have personal relationship with Jesus? That suggests Jesus exists. Or is she mistaken? Or are you?

 

[InChrist]

That has never happened. Christian scholars are very much in agreement that the two cannot be reconciled. Please do not conflate Christian apologists with Christian scholars. They make very very weak excuses for those differences. The odds are that in reality that Jesus was born where his name indicates that he was born. In Nazareth. The authors of both Luke and Matthew looked for a way to get him born there just because one of the clear messianic prophecies has him born in Bethlehem. We know when Herod died, And Matthews was based upon Herod. We know when the Census of Quirinius was, and we know why it could not have happened while Herod was alive. That was ten years later.

I’ll have to look into it further if I have time. From what I understand it’s most likely that Quirinius ruled on two separate occasions, and there were two censuses taken. The first census mentioned in Luke 2:2 took place during Quirinius’ first term as governor, then another during his second term. It was during the first one that Jesus was born.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ll have to look into it further if I have time. From what I understand it’s most likely that Quirinius ruled on two separate occasions, and there were two censuses taken. The first census mentioned in Luke 2:2 took place during Quirinius’ first term as governor, then another during his second term. It was during the first one that Jesus was born.

No, that is a claim of apologists. professional Liars For Jesus. Actual scholars know where Quirinius was and when

Judea was not part of Rome under Herod the Great. It was a client state. Its own laws applied and censuses were illegal then There was even an uprising when the Romans forced the first census on Judea during the time of Quirinius. That was long after Herod had died and his son had failed so badly that Rome felt that they had to take over. Once they took over they needed a census, and that was in the year 6 CE. There really is no doubt about this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We will all celebrate the end of Christianity.

Why just Christianity, but all prophet/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi established religions.
Pagans, including Hinduism are OK.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

as long as you don't perform heinous acts or pass harmful legislation because of your anti-God and anti-religion beliefs

Me? I'm a humanist. My personal ethics and vision for society are based in the Golden Rule. We embrace freedom, tolerance, equity, and enabling and developing people. In that kind of a society, you are free to be a Christian and I and others who want to be are free of the influence of its moral values.

The one your church envisions is the opposite. It would impose piety as it understands it, including oppressing "abominations" like atheists and gays and constricting sexual and reproductive freedoms. That's for volunteers to live under, not free, autonomous citizens who have no interest in living life under such rules. Sin is for believers to worry about, as is hell. Forced pregnancy is for volunteers.

Regarding gods and religions, I have no anti-God beliefs, and I have no gods including the one most in the West call God - the god of Abraham, which is the one I assume you mean when you capitalize God. But I am antitheistic in the limited sense that I object to organized, politicized religion invading government and the lives where it is unwelcome and write against it often. Here I go twice more:

Nobelist Stephen Weinberg's hateful verbal attack against religion not withstanding.

Hateful? Attack? It's a valid observation. Abrahamic religion and its divine command theory of right and wrong makes good people do bad, and I don't know anything else that does that. Did you want to try to rebut that? I'd say that you're an example of that. You're on the Internet promoting harmful religious values. Without your religion, you'd think more like a humanist in terms of freedoms and enabling people to live fullest lives possible. You'd agree with Weinberg. Those are humanist values, and they arise naturally from the application reason to an evolved intuition interested in human potential.

That's why it's called humanism. It's by humans for humans and sees humanity as potentially noble and the only source for answers and progress possible. I say potentially noble, because there are other isms people might get caught up in which degrade humanity, degrade "the flesh," degrade human society and warn against being part of it ("the world"), degrade human aspiration as hubris and futile, and degrade reason and human knowledge. There is nothing noble there.

You no doubt consider this a hateful attack against your religion, but in my opinion, these are valid observations. If you think can show that they're wrong, you should. If you merely don't like them but can't rebut them, then that's fine, too. This is what sharing ideas in the marketplace of ideas looks like. You offer yours and I offer mine, and we let the "market" decide what resonates most with it. There's nothing hateful or attacklike about it unless you choose to frame it that way, and of course, church doctrine with its persecution fetish does exactly that.

Why just Christianity, but all; prophet/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi established religions. Pagans, including Hinduism are OK.

Agreed. The polytheistic religions are fine and welcome in the world. They are still earth-centric. They tend to see nature as sacred and valuable. It's the Abrahamic religions which are the problem, and the problem is that they have exported the sacred out of reality to an imagined, harshly judgmental ghost with commandments, bigotries, and an ancient moral code that we have outgrown. That was a huge wrong turn for humanity. The pagans and Dharmics are relatively peaceful and compatible with humanistic values, although Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs have their kerfuffles now and again. The Wiccans, Druids, and the like also seem like they would make good neighbors. I don't see any of them trying to limit or change my life.

 

[F1fan]

Indeed, I have not argued that Christian beliefs are true or false. Why Christians believe what they believe may or may not be rooted in your notions of truth and fact.

Well my notions of truth and fact is actually what is true, and factual. Shocked? Critical thinkers use this as a normal basis for their analysis. Theists have a bad pattern of belief in non-true and non-factual concepts.

In reality, many people do trust or mistrust sources of information regardless of your personal evaluation of their validity or credibility. And critical minded people ought not to trust or mistrust based solely on your evaluation.

Why shouldn't critical thinkers use reliable and valid sources? By definition critical thinkers are careful to use valid sources, and facts. Sloppy thinkers are such because they lack the skills and considerations for valid sources. It is easy to expose when they do this.

It could come from social pressure and a need to conform or from "analytical thought and careful consideration" or come about in some other way. If you are able to articulate its relevance to this thread, we can delve deeper into that here.

If you believe that a person can adopt religious dogma via analytical thought I'd like to see an example.

Perhaps I have missed the point. Can you articulate the point? Because it sounds like you are saying that Christians have to not believe the things that they believe... in favor of the things that you believe - which, honestly, makes no sense.

If they believe their religious dogma extends into the lives of those who reject that dogma, then they assume an authority they don't have. If a Christian insists a hell exists and that I am destined for hell, and I reject all of that, does that mean I am in denial and hell-bound?

It sounds like you are trying to argue that your point of view has authority over what Christians are allowed to believe.

No, I have authority over my own understanding of life and the universe, and I have the right to reject whatever anyone claims that they think applies to me. Do I not have a choice? Am I subservient to Christian dogma? Of course not. Is that clear now?

I think that if Christians believe that you are going to Hell, then they are allowed that belief even if you don't like it that they believe you are going to Hell.

But why would they want to believe any such thing when they don't have facts, nor the authority to impose their beliefs over me? In essence, it is bad manners.

There doesn't seem to be an authority problem to solve here.

You're right, because Christians have no authority.

You are also free to regard theists as arrogant regardless of whether or not the theists (that you regard as arrogant) agree with you or not.

A person exhibits arrogance when they assume things about themseves that are exagerated and untrue.

 

[Ponder This]

Weinberg performed a hateful act? Or passed harmful legislation?

No, he made a hateful verbal attack - which is not the same thing as a hateful act or a form of harmful legislation.
Here is the quote I was refering to:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." - Nobelist Steven Weinberg

I hope that clears up your confusion @ppp .

Me? I'm a humanist. My personal ethics and vision for society are based in the Golden Rule. We embrace freedom, tolerance, equity, and enabling and developing people. In that kind of a society, you are free to be a Christian and I and others who want to be are free of the influence of its moral values.

The one your church envisions is the opposite. It would impose piety as it understands it, including oppressing "abominations" like atheists and gays and constricting sexual and reproductive freedoms. That's for volunteers to live under, not free, autonomous citizens who have no interest in living life under such rules. Sin is for believers to worry about, as is hell. Forced pregnancy is for volunteers.

Regarding gods and religions, I have no anti-God beliefs, and I have no gods including the one most in the West call God - the god of Abraham, which is the one I assume you mean when you capitalize God. But I am antitheistic in the limited sense that I object to organized, politicized religion invading government and the lives where it is unwelcome and write against it often.

You are the one who said:

Every atheist - most being humanists - rejects what all of the religions claim are commandments from their gods just as every religion rejects the moral precepts of every other religion where they conflict. And yes, I believe that I am a better judge of good and right behavior than any of these gods - or more correctly, people speaking for gods we never see or hear from directly - including yours.

So, yes, when I talk about anti-God and anti-religion beliefs, I am including referring to your beliefs.

Hateful? Attack? It's a valid observation. Abrahamic religion and its divine command theory of right and wrong makes good people do bad, and I don't know anything else that does that. Did you want to try to rebut that? I'd say that you're an example of that. You're on the Internet promoting harmful religious values. Without your religion, you'd think more like a humanist in terms of freedoms and enabling people to live fullest lives possible. You'd agree with Weinberg. Those are humanist values, and they arise naturally from the application reason to an evolved intuition interested in human potential.

That's why it's called humanism. It's by humans for humans and sees humanity as potentially noble and the only source for answers and progress possible. I say potentially noble, because there are other isms people might get caught up in which degrade humanity, degrade "the flesh," degrade human society and warn against being part of it ("the world"), degrade human aspiration as hubris and futile, and degrade reason and human knowledge. There is nothing noble there.

You no doubt consider this a hateful attack against your religion, but in my opinion, these are valid observations. If you think can show that they're wrong, you should. If you merely don't like them but can't rebut them, then that's fine, too. This is what sharing ideas in the marketplace of ideas looks like. You offer yours and I offer mine, and we let the "market" decide what resonates most with it. There's nothing hateful or attacklike about it unless you choose to frame it that way, and of course, church doctrine with its persecution fetish does exactly that.

I understand that you think it is a valid observation. As long as you don't take Nobelist Stephen Weinberg's ill-chosen quote as a justification for heinous acts or harmful legislation (things of that nature), then I think you will be okay (?), even though it is a very deliberately provocative statement attacking religion that I suspect comes from a place of hate. You are entitled to share his opinion. And I don't have to agree with it.

The point being that Christianity has a 2 millenia long history of active and unequivocal support and commands to perform hateful acts and harmful legislation.

That is not a point evident in your previous statement. But let's say you are trying to make this point instead. Yes, that's (still) different. "Hateful acts and harmful legislation" is still different from "some Christians being upset that you don't believe in God." In particular, nothing you've said would alter the point that people are entitled to their opinions.

Well my notions of truth and fact is actually what is true, and factual. Shocked? Critical thinkers use this as a normal basis for their analysis. Theists have a bad pattern of belief in non-true and non-factual concepts.
Why shouldn't critical thinkers use reliable and valid sources? By definition critical thinkers are careful to use valid sources, and facts. Sloppy thinkers are such because they lack the skills and considerations for valid sources. It is easy to expose when they do this.
If you believe that a person can adopt religious dogma via analytical thought I'd like to see an example.
If they believe their religious dogma extends into the lives of those who reject that dogma, then they assume an authority they don't have. If a Christian insists a hell exists and that I am destined for hell, and I reject all of that, does that mean I am in denial and hell-bound?

According to them you are in denial and hell-bound. They can think what they want to think. Just because you think otherwise, doesn't mean that they must think otherwise, no matter how well thought out you think your thinking is.

No, I have authority over my own understanding of life and the universe, and I have the right to reject whatever anyone claims that they think applies to me. Do I not have a choice? Am I subservient to Christian dogma? Of course not. Is that clear now?

Yes, you are free to think you are not in denial and not hell-bound. And they don't have to agree with you.

But why would they want to believe any such thing when they don't have facts, nor the authority to impose their beliefs over me? In essence, it is bad manners.

It may be bad manners to repeatedly, vocally insist that you are going to hell even if it's true! It is not a presence nor an absence of facts that makes such a thing good or bad manners.

You're right, because Christians have no authority.

I only ever claimed that people believe whatever it is that they believe, just as you believe whatever it is that you believe, and that one of you having a belief doesn't mean that the other has to agree.

A person exhibits arrogance when they assume things about themseves that are exagerated and untrue.

It's your claim that the theists disagreeing with you are arrogant. What you said before was:

It is the arrogance of theists who believe their religious belief has authority over others that I am talking about.

And you seem to think that this theist "authority" takes the form of hateful actions like crashing planes into buildings when in reality we're talking about a philosophical disagreement of opinion on the destination of your soul. Social pressure could be what makes this uncomfortable for you. If you are constantly having to defend your (soul) beliefs in verbal discourse every day... that could really be draining. It can be difficult to find a balance of supportive friends while also maintaining healthy exposure to different views. People instinctually desire social acceptance.

 

[ppp]

No, he made a hateful verbal attack - which is not the same thing as a hateful act or a form of harmful legislation.
Here is the quote I was refering to:

I hope that clears up your confusion @ppp .

I am aware of the quote you are excerpting:

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

When you say that the statement is hateful, do you mean that it is full of hatred, or that the statement is deserving of hate? If the former, then I have to ask, do you only speak out against things against which you are "full of hate"?

 

[F1fan]

According to them you are in denial and hell-bound.

And their judgment is baseless. I don't care what people think is true when it is dogma, and they can't defend themselves. They should know better, yet they don't.

They can think what they want to think. Just because you think otherwise, doesn't mean that they must think otherwise, no matter how well thought out you think your thinking is.

Sure they can believe what they want, I'm not condemning them to hell for their beliefs, that's what they do.

Yes, you are free to think you are not in denial and not hell-bound. And they don't have to agree with you.

They don't have facts, so they have no basis to claim anything about me. Yet they do anyway despite the unethical nature of it. They should know better. Their religion has not taught them such a valuable lesson.

It may be bad manners to repeatedly, vocally insist that you are going to hell even if it's true! It is not a presence nor an absence of facts that makes such a thing good or bad manners.

They don't have any basis to think they are correct in how they condemn me. THAT is the bad manners. They should learn to be respectful and humble, but their religion has failed them. They have failed themselves, because they can do better without a religion's influence.

I only ever claimed that people believe whatever it is that they believe, just as you believe whatever it is that you believe, and that one of you having a belief doesn't mean that the other has to agree.

They are responsible for themselves and should take what they believe more seriously, and with better ethics.

It's your claim that the theists disagreeing with you are arrogant. What you said before was:

And you seem to think that this theist "authority" takes the form of hateful actions like crashing planes into buildings when in reality we're talking about a philosophical disagreement of opinion on the destination of your soul. Social pressure could be what makes this uncomfortable for you. If you are constantly having to defend your (soul) beliefs in verbal discourse every day... that could really be draining. It can be difficult to find a balance of supportive friends while also maintaining healthy exposure to different views. People instinctually desire social acceptance.

It is arrogant to hold beliefs that lack evidence, and use them against others with malice.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand that you think it is a valid observation. As long as you don't take Nobelist Stephen Weinberg's ill-chosen quote as a justification for heinous acts or harmful legislation (things of that nature), then I think you will be okay

I'm a humanist. The only legislation I support is that which enables the greatest number of affected people to pursue happiness as they understand it in an open, tolerant, secular, democratic state.

It's the church that promotes what I consider heinous legislation through Christian elected representatives and voters listening to sermons about how abominable gays, atheists, transexuals, drag queens are and how women should be prevented from having access to safe, affordable, legal abortion. The church opposes that, and I oppose the church for that reason. The church is invasive like kudzu and will overrun and control the government to the extent it can, and will constrict rights based in its religious doctrine whenever it can. This form of antitheism is the opposition to that.

And when the time comes that the church has hemorrhaged sufficient cultural hegemony that its opinions imposed on nobody and are confined to volunteers who choose these values for themselves, then I'll probably never think about it again just as I don't think about any of the other religions that powerless to control law and policy. Sure, the Muslims would make eating pork a crime and forbid women drivers' licenses if it could, but it can't, so that world overlaps mine none at all and doesn't get a second thought. They're just clubs that I don't belong to and never think about because why would I?

it is a very deliberately provocative statement attacking religion that I suspect comes from a place of hate.

It comes from the same place the words you just read came from - contempt for a system of thought that deforms thought and degrades humanity. In Weinberg's case, he objects to a moral system like the one I just described, where good people can be convinced to support irrational, destructive doctrine. Sure, you don't like reading that, but does that matter if you can't rebut it? Why should Weinberg or any other humanist mind provoking people who buy into such a system? The purpose is to inform others of what this church is and does, and to convince whoever supports freedom and tolerance that church doctrine is antithetical to it.

This forum is a part of the marketplace of ideas where people make arguments like these. That's one of its purposes notwithstanding the implication of many that it exists to promote religion - the ones who ask what atheists are doing on a site called Religious Forums. This, among other things, is what we're doing - promoting a fair and rational worldview that esteems humanity, human potential, and human opportunity through human development and maximal freedom.

That church would criminalize this discussion if it could. If it had the power to arrest me for a post like this, it would. If you disagree, please make the evidenced argument demonstrating the church's tolerance. That's how the marketplace works. Someone makes a case, and others who disagree explain how, where, and why. It's (uncommonly) called dialectic, but it's to give and take that defines peer review in science and courtroom trials, where opposing factions make their case before other experts in the field in the case of science and jurors in the case of a trial, each trying to poke holes in the other's case, until a decision is reached, the last plausible, unrebutted (or unsuccessfully rebutted) claim prevails.

And why is that? Because correct answers can't be successfully rebutted. That's one method for arriving at correct answers. Another is an idea's ability to predict outcomes, but that means that there needs to be a test of the idea. I say that Weinberg's claim passes both tests. It cannot be successfully refuted, and it predicts exactly the kind of behavior Handmaid's Tale we've been seeing lately.

So now, yes, you find Weinberg's comment offensive, but do you find it incorrect? Do you still consider it nothing more than a hateful, unjustified, gratuitous attack? If so, please explain how. Show how religion doesn't do what Weinberg says it does, and I assume that Weinberg had Western religion in mind when he made the comment, which is chiefly Christianity. And if you can find no fault in it, why are you objecting to it? Why aren't you promoting it yourself? I don't know how you'll answer this, but if you reject it all out of hand and continue framing antitheism as an unwarranted attack on a lovely religion, then aren't you an example of what Weinberg referred to? You would be from my perspective.

I hope you choose reason and compassion over irrational dogma. That's why I post like this. This is an argument appealing to your sense of what is good and right, and I hope it comes from a mature conscience and not an old holy book or a pulpit.

 

[CG Didymus]

That has never happened. Christian scholars are very much in agreement that the two cannot be reconciled. Please do not conflate Christian apologists with Christian scholars. They make very very weak excuses for those differences. The odds are that in reality that Jesus was born where his name indicates that he was born. In Nazareth. The authors of both Luke and Matthew looked for a way to get him born there just because one of the clear messianic prophecies has him born in Bethlehem. We know when Herod died, And Matthews was based upon Herod. We know when the Census of Quirinius was, and we know why it could not have happened while Herod was alive. That was ten years later.

I’ll have to look into it further if I have time. From what I understand it’s most likely that Quirinius ruled on two separate occasions, and there were two censuses taken. The first census mentioned in Luke 2:2 took place during Quirinius’ first term as governor, then another during his second term. It was during the first one that Jesus was born.

No, that is a claim of apologists. professional Liars For Jesus. Actual scholars know where Quirinius was and when

Judea was not part of Rome under Herod the Great. It was a client state. Its own laws applied and censuses were illegal then There was even an uprising when the Romans forced the first census on Judea during the time of Quirinius. That was long after Herod had died and his son had failed so badly that Rome felt that they had to take over. Once they took over they needed a census, and that was in the year 6 CE. There really is no doubt about this.

Also, is the Christian claim that Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to register for the census, because people had to go back to their hometown? And then one gospel has the family going to Egypt until Herod is dead and the other has them going to Jerusalem to the temple and then on to Nazareth.

Of course, literalist Christians have to have the story exactly true, even if there is evidence that goes against it.

 

[paarsurrey]

That has never happened. Christian scholars are very much in agreement that the two cannot be reconciled. Please do not conflate Christian apologists with Christian scholars. They make very very weak excuses for those differences. The odds are that in reality that Jesus was born where his name indicates that he was born. In Nazareth. The authors of both Luke and Matthew looked for a way to get him born there just because one of the clear messianic prophecies has him born in Bethlehem. We know when Herod died, And Matthews was based upon Herod. We know when the Census of Quirinius was, and we know why it could not have happened while Herod was alive. That was ten years later.

I’ll have to look into it further if I have time. From what I understand it’s most likely that Quirinius ruled on two separate occasions, and there were two censuses taken. The first census mentioned in Luke 2:2 took place during Quirinius’ first term as governor, then another during his second term. It was during the first one that Jesus was born.

No, that is a claim of apologists. professional Liars For Jesus. Actual scholars know where Quirinius was and when

Judea was not part of Rome under Herod the Great. It was a client state. Its own laws applied and censuses were illegal then There was even an uprising when the Romans forced the first census on Judea during the time of Quirinius. That was long after Herod had died and his son had failed so badly that Rome felt that they had to take over. Once they took over they needed a census, and that was in the year 6 CE. There really is no doubt about this.

Also, is the Christian claim that Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to register for the census, because people had to go back to their hometown? And then one gospel has the family going to Egypt until Herod is dead and the other has them going to Jerusalem to the temple and then on to Nazareth.

Of course, literalist Christians have to have the story exactly true, even if there is evidence that goes against it.

paarsurrey: #1,712
I agree with friend @Subduction Zone .
Strange of the Pauline-Christianity people, they just believe queer things out of their blindfaith, would that have been done by Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, please?
Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah would have never done such things, right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

paarsurrey: #1,712

Strange of the Pauline-Christianity people, they just believe queer things out of their blindfaith, would that have been done by Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, please?
Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah would have never done such things, right?

Regards

What are you talking about? I am not a Christian so I do not know why you quoted me. What do you think that I believe out of blind faith?

 

[Willamena]

For those of you who don't take the story of the Fall literally. Adam, Eve, Tree, Serpent, etc, how do you envision the Fall of Man happening? And if it didn't happen, what use is Jesus?

What value is there in taking the story literally?

Non-literally, the fruit gives rise to knowledge of self, which in turn gives rise to ego, which again in turn kills god.

It's not a complicated story.

 

[ppp]

Non-literally, the fruit gives rise to knowledge of self, which in turn gives rise to ego, which again in turn kills god.

It seems to me that gods are the product of ego. It is the recognition that one is not the special designed creation of some superbeing that kills god.

 

[paarsurrey]

What are you talking about? I am not a Christian so I do not know why you quoted me. What do you think that I believe out of blind faith?

I actually agreed with one, I have clarified it in my post now, right? It is the Pauline-Christianity people who have a blind-faith rather than to have a faith based/supported by reason, as I understand.
I liked a sentence/phrase in one's post #1,703 very much, "apologists. professional Liars For Jesus", it is a sort of a quotable quote, right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I actually agreed with one, I have clarified it in my post now, right? It is the Pauline-Christianity people who have a blind-faith rather than to have a faith based/supported by reason, as I understand.
I liked a sentence/phrase in one's post #1,703 very much, "apologists. professional Liars For Jesus", it is a sort of a quotable quote, right?

Regards

I have seen blind faith used in most religions. You probably have blind faith yourself. I do not know enough about your religious beliefs to be sure.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you replace the name Jesus with Attis (the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation), and you'll have a strikingly familiar savior story similar to that of Jesus, except the Greek myths about Attis are dated 1250 BCE, which predates the Bible and Christianity (see here). Furthermore, you could replace the name Jesus with any of the other gods described in the following articles linked below, and you'll have more strikingly familiar stories that not only parallel the stories of his alleged crucifixion, death, and resurrection but also parallel other stories that have been written in the Bible about his supposed life on Earth.

And, like the myths about Attis, these other stories about Christ-like figures from Greek mythology and other pagan religions predate both the Bible and Christianity. I recommend learning more about Jesus in comparative mythology. You can start here: Jesus in comparative mythology. In my opinion, these other accounts of Christlike figures demonstrate that paganism had a significant influence on the stories about Jesus and that Christianity's beliefs are not unique. In other words, the savior story of Jesus isn't the first of its kind and, in my opinion, isn't any more believable than all the other savior stories that predate it. I know that Christians like to claim that the Bible was divinely inspired by God and that Christianity is the only true religion, but I don't believe that is true based on the information provided in these articles and in other similar ones. Christianity, in my opinion, is a cheap imitation of other religions.

10 Christ-Like Figures that predate Jesus

The Truth About Mythological Figures Similar To Jesus

Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ

Based on the information I've read, if a religious leader named Yehoshua (also called Yeshua or Jesus) existed in biblical times, he was most likely just an ordinary man and popular religious teacher whose devoted followers embellished the stories about him, and more embellishment and folklore were later added to these stories to make him appear to be more than he actually was. I believe that it's probable that he was simply a well-liked religious teacher whose loyal followers spread false stories about him to make him appear godlike. I also think that it's likely that a few stories about him were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions, which predate Christianity and the Bible. In my opinion, it's plagiarized pagan myths.

I agree with friend @Sgt. Pepper , the portion I have colored (in aqua) in his post above.
Jesus/Yeshua- son of Mary did exist only as a man and he was the truthful Israelite Messiah.
It is Paul- the false Apostle , I understand, who through a fake vision made Yeshua a myth as pointed by our friend @Sgt. Pepper.
Paul failed to kill Yeshua and when Yeshua , survived death on the Cross and went out of Judea and out of the Romans hands, he invented such stories to deviate Yeshua's followers from the teachings and deeds of the truthful Israelite Messiah, as I understand.
Right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with friend @Sgt. Pepper , the portion I have colored (in aqua) in his post above.
Jesus/Yeshua- son of Mary did exist only as a man and he was the truthful Israelite Messiah.
It is Paul- the false Apostle , I understand, who through a fake vision made Yeshua a myth as pointed by our friend @Sgt. Pepper.
Paul failed to kill Yeshua and when Yeshua , survived death on the Cross and went out of Judea and out of the Romans hands, he invented such stories to deviate Yeshua's followers from the teachings and deeds of the truthful Israelite Messiah, as I understand.
Right?

Regards

Why would you believe that Jesus survived the crucifixion? That story does not appear to have any legs at all.

 

[Audie]

Me? I'm a humanist. My personal ethics and vision for society are based in the Golden Rule. We embrace freedom, tolerance, equity, and enabling and developing people. In that kind of a society, you are free to be a Christian and I and others who want to be are free of the influence of its moral values.

The one your church envisions is the opposite. It would impose piety as it understands it, including oppressing "abominations" like atheists and gays and constricting sexual and reproductive freedoms. That's for volunteers to live under, not free, autonomous citizens who have no interest in living life under such rules. Sin is for believers to worry about, as is hell. Forced pregnancy is for volunteers.

Regarding gods and religions, I have no anti-God beliefs, and I have no gods including the one most in the West call God - the god of Abraham, which is the one I assume you mean when you capitalize God. But I am antitheistic in the limited sense that I object to organized, politicized religion invading government and the lives where it is unwelcome and write against it often. Here I go twice more:

Hateful? Attack? It's a valid observation. Abrahamic religion and its divine command theory of right and wrong makes good people do bad, and I don't know anything else that does that. Did you want to try to rebut that? I'd say that you're an example of that. You're on the Internet promoting harmful religious values. Without your religion, you'd think more like a humanist in terms of freedoms and enabling people to live fullest lives possible. You'd agree with Weinberg. Those are humanist values, and they arise naturally from the application reason to an evolved intuition interested in human potential.

That's why it's called humanism. It's by humans for humans and sees humanity as potentially noble and the only source for answers and progress possible. I say potentially noble, because there are other isms people might get caught up in which degrade humanity, degrade "the flesh," degrade human society and warn against being part of it ("the world"), degrade human aspiration as hubris and futile, and degrade reason and human knowledge. There is nothing noble there.

You no doubt consider this a hateful attack against your religion, but in my opinion, these are valid observations. If you think can show that they're wrong, you should. If you merely don't like them but can't rebut them, then that's fine, too. This is what sharing ideas in the marketplace of ideas looks like. You offer yours and I offer mine, and we let the "market" decide what resonates most with it. There's nothing hateful or attacklike about it unless you choose to frame it that way, and of course, church doctrine with its persecution fetish does exactly that.

Agreed. The polytheistic religions are fine and welcome in the world. They are still earth-centric. They tend to see nature as sacred and valuable. It's the Abrahamic religions which are the problem, and the problem is that they have exported the sacred out of reality to an imagined, harshly judgmental ghost with commandments, bigotries, and an ancient moral code that we have outgrown. That was a huge wrong turn for humanity. The pagans and Dharmics are relatively peaceful and compatible with humanistic values, although Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs have their kerfuffles now and again. The Wiccans, Druids, and the like also seem like they would make good neighbors. I don't see any of them trying to limit or change my life.

Winner frubal.
With gold leaf