There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Colt]

What is the virtue in claiming to know the truth and telling people they are better off killing themselves? What is so evil about not claiming to know the truth and not believing in telling people they are better off dead?

I don’t know what that’s about.

 

[lukethethird]

I don’t know what that’s about.

Your post #785 and #793 is what that is about, are you now pretending you didn't post that?

 

[Ashoka]

You have previously explained that you have a grudge for Christians and prefer to stay angry rather than forgive.

Christianity forces itself into society, into people's lives.

It made a name for itself based upon the amount of violence and colonization it could muster up.

It teaches that humans are wretched sinners deserving of conscious torment.

The crusades. The inquisitions. The witch hunts.

Why wouldn't there be a grudge?

 

[Augustus]

Good historians are not concerned with personal bias against one religion or another. They stake their honor on giving the unvarnished truth as the historical record would show.

That's not really accurate.

Ancient historians certainly did not stake their honour on giving the unvarnished truth. Almost all of them had a patron to please, a moral point to make, a nation to lionise, an enemy to slander or some other agenda to fulfil. Rhetorical historiography was exponentially more common that critical historiography.

Purportedly objective and balanced historical scholarship is mostly a product of the modern world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

millions of Christians wake up from this nightmare of wasted lives every year and leave Christianity to live life to its fullest because they come to realize that this life is all they are going to get and then everything for them ends permanently.

That's my story - forty years ago. In conjunction with learning the think critically, it's the most valuable change I made in my life. Nothing else had a greater impact on life than that. And that was a nice description of going through an empty life based in false promises which ends with the hope that the reward after death will be more real than the "victory" in life that was promised.

My wife's family are mostly American conservative Christians, and my wife - also a liberal atheist - has always been the black sheep. They warned her all of her life how the path she chose would lead to ruin. She rejected religion, motherhood, and eventually, even American life - everything sacred to them.

But here we all are near the finish line, and it her sibs that have led the empty lives of quiet desperation and unhappy marriages, and she ended up happily married and having lived a full life. They struggled financially and lived cookie cutter lives. Their families are riddled with divorce. It's just not fair, they think. They did everything right and we did everything wrong, yet things turned out the opposite to what they expected. They financed braces and ran soccer practice shuttles while we travelled the world, ate out every night, and accumulate art. But they knew that as it occurred in morality fables, they would be rewarded in their later years and we would be left out in the cold regretting our "hedonistic" choices.

But that's not what happened. It must really nettle them. Being good Christians, they consider us immoral. They still think the worst of us and that we're going to hell and that they are going to end up the happy ones in the end, but I think that they're disappointed that our punishment didn't begin in this life.

Atheists have an evil spirit.

Actually, it's you with the evil spirit - your religion - the one that teaches you to hate atheists, and the one that teaches me to

when you were a Christian, did you call the majority of scientists who accept evolution as the "bandwagon fallacy" because they disagreed with your beliefs in a 6000 year old earth?

Why would he? A consensus of experts is different from a consensus of faith-based thinkers.

I don't think I'd say he was "just an ordinary man", if by that you mean nothing special. He was a human being, but I think it would be safe to say he was extraordinary enough to inspire a movement around him.

I would. That's a very ordinary life that didn't become extraordinary just because Jesus died. Jesus had nothing to do with the growth of that religion. That was the work of Paul, Constantine, the crusaders, the conquistadores, the missionaries, and the millions of people that made a living perpetuating the religion. Did you see the commercials for Jesus on the Superbowl? That's what made the religion, not the mundane travels and words of yet another itinerant preacher.

Baha'u'llah did not need to read the Bible since He received a new Revelation from God.

That's my reason for not reading any so-called holy books - a revelation that they were all written only by people. My revelation come from reading nature.

Absence of historical data is no proof that something (whatever it was) never occurred. In fact in this case it might exemplify Philo's disinterest as well as desire not to record it. Many writings were lost anyway. Doesn't prove anything. You can say it does, but it really does not. Thus your contention is drowning.

Atheists don't need proof of that Jesus didn't exist, nor that he wasn't a god if he did. One only need reject the claim for lack of sufficient evidence to support it.

It's sad, and telling, how all these folks crying out for "evidence" have set themselves up as the singular unimpeachable judges of what is and is not "credible evidence" so that they can then dismiss ANY evidence they're given.

Yes. The methods of critical analysis are the only valid means of evaluating evidence - the only method that can be used to discover how the world works and predict its unfolding. And yes, other "ways of knowing" and their "fruits" are rejected. Like astrology and Ouija boards, they fail to produce useful content. You can complain about that, and you do - "materialist, "scientism," "myopic") - but until you can produce something of value by another method, such complaints are empty vanities.

 

[dybmh]

No doubt that is how you think.

No doubt it's true.

But you left out the hypocrisy of accusing
me of hypocrisy.
Droll

Nonsense, show me my hypocrisy.

 

[lukethethird]

That's not really accurate.

Ancient historians certainly did not stake their honour on giving the unvarnished truth. Almost all of them had a patron to please, a moral point to make, a nation to lionise, an enemy to slander or some other agenda to fulfil. Rhetorical historiography was exponentially more common that critical historiography.

Purportedly objective and balanced historical scholarship is mostly a product of the modern world.

"Purportedly objective and balanced historical scholarship is mostly a product of the modern world."

LOL, surely you jest.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Based on your responses in this thread, I can understand why you would say you think that is my response.

Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals - Tac. Ann. 15.44​

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews - J. AJ 20.197​

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, 1 who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]...

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews - J. AJ 3.1​

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Pliny The Younger ​

Looks like more than one to me, provided I can count.
In case you are going to challenge the mentions here, let me inform you, that any clamor on the wagon of those who make claims they have no proof of, against the mention of Jesus, is irrelevant.
There will alway be naysayers. That has nothing to do with what you asked for... whic you got.

None of these are legitimate evidence for Jesus. Tacitus alone has so many problems that no reputable historian outside the Christian camp takes the Tacitus passage seriously. Among the problems (listen carefully, you're going to learn something now):

1. the Tacitus passage, outside of suspicions it is an interpolation, is pure hearsay gotten about 40th-hand from rumors Tacitus heard about Christians likely from other Romans talking about the Christians.

Richard Carrier, PhD in Biblical history says this about this Tacitus passage:

"Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect."

2 Tacitus does not give any references to how he came about the information therefore the passage has no foundation for veracity. It's worthless, only good as a historical curiosity.

3. Tacitus does NOT mention the name, Jesus. All he says is "....called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin...." Israel was lousy with "Christs" in Jesus' time. Tacitus didn't know who was referring to or he would have named the Christ by his proper name, Jesus.

4. Tacitus is writing a full century after the alleged events of Jesus. How much reliable info do you think he's going to get with that large a gap in time and ALL witnesses dead having left no writings. Note: the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts according to nearly all historians.

5. How do we know Tacitus isn't referring to Dositheos the Samaritan

• Dositheos the Samaritan (mid 1st century), Origen wrote that Dositheos wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Jewish Messiah who was prophesied by Moses, and classes him with John the Baptist, Theodas, and Judas of Galilee as people whom the Jews mistakenly held to be the Christ (Hom. xxv in Lucam; Contra Celsum, I, lvii).[16][17]

6. There is no reliable text of the Annals directly from Roman records. The first copy doesn't appear until roughly 800 years after it was allegedly written.

"There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier, but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand."

The Text of Tacitus' Annals and Histories Survived in Only Two Manuscripts : History of Information

The Text of Tacitus' Annals and Histories Survived in Only Two Manuscripts

www.historyofinformation.com

I know none of this is going to matter to you because you simply don't care about integrity of sources as long as it supports your position that Jesus was real. But there is a reason why secular scholars admit that there is little to no evidence for Jesus' existence. It's because anything that is extant is of the poor to worthless quality of the Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny and Suetonius passages for reliable evidence. None of them mention the name, "Jesus" and scholars outside Christianity all agree the phrase "who was called Christ" in the Josephus passage is an interpolation

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred NOT to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus."

Jesus in Josephus • Richard Carrier Blogs

Now that the world has ended, my peer reviewed article on Josephus just came out: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), pp. 489-514. The official description is...

www.richardcarrier.info

Christians sadly scrape the bottom of the barrel to try to find ANYTHING they can lay their hands on if it just sniffs of something they can try to claim proves the divine Jesus was real. Pathetic, nPeace.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Christianity forces itself into society, into people's lives.

It made a name for itself based upon the amount of violence and colonization it could muster up.

It teaches that humans are wretched sinners deserving of conscious torment.

The crusades. The inquisitions. The witch hunts.

Why wouldn't there be a grudge?

Winner frubal.

 

[nPeace]

None of this is relevant to the fact that the Bible was written in an era where embellishment was common. The fantastic and unbelievable nature of the stories suggest these were not written as factual statements, but stories that shared cultural ideas.

It's only irrelevant to those who want to use an argument like that, to ignore the fact that to claim that it being common for people to circumcise girls means everyone circumcised girls.
To those who don't find such arguments as stupid as it gets, I have no response which could make sense.

I would say this though... for a book to be written at a time when people could not write anything without making up stuff, the Bible is a pretty impressive book, to have gotten scientific facts right, centuries ahead of modern discoveries.
Pretty hard evidence it couldn't have been authored from the thoughts of those men living at that time.

Yet Western governments moved from theocracies to secular, so not really timeless.

Yes. Timeless. If they applied its counsel, that's a third of their problems solved.
As it stands, the fruit of their move from theocracies to secular, is bearing out.

List of global issues​

More like obsolete. Heck, the major religions can't even maintain consistency within themselves as we see with tens of thousands of sects in Christianity alone.

Are we talking about the same thing.... I think you flew off the rails.
Back on track... I was talking about the Bible - it's values. Not professed Christians or so called Christianity... which even knowledgeable people who aren't even Christian, can't even identify with Jesus, and first century Christianity.

Freedom of religion. What religion has ever actively allowed that under their own rule, with the exception of Arab Spain under the Muslims

Freedom of religion has been in effect from Genesis. So, you haven't mentioned anything.
Want to try again?

Al-Andalus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because it allows thinkers to not be duped by believing in absurd concepts. Look at how people get defrauded by scam artists. If they were skeptical and slowed down their emotional reactions to great deals they would be less likely to be fooled.

Skepticism isn't viewed this way, depending on which angle you are looking.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

I think, skepticism might have its place, but I think careful examination - investigation, should remove skepticism, and replace it with, simply a search for the truth,. What's one word for that? It's somewhere in the back of my mind.

If you were skeptical of what your religious disinformation tells you about science you wouldn't ask these embarrassing questions.

See. This is an example of what I mean.
Being skeptical of something one has thoroughly investigated in order to determine its trustworthiness, and found it to be so, is stupid, imo.
This is where skepticism loses its proper place.
It becomes a case of arrogance and haughtiness - pride - the opposite of humility, which allows one to be teachable.
It manifests itself in looking down on others, and trying to belittle them... Of course, to the glory of one's ego.

First of all the sciences follow a set of ethical standards that experts have to follow in order to keep their jobs. Compare this with Catholic preists who sexually abuse children and are only transfered to a different church and a slap on the wrist.

You must not be aware of fraud in science, among other things... as well as the conflicts scientists have.
Maybe you think scientists have lost their human nature.

Perhaps you need some help with this. Link

Second, the ethics that are crucial to science are part of science itself, and it is this high standard, and that science follows facts, and shows all its work, is why it can be trusted by lay people.

Seems much of it is not trusted by scientists themselves.
I am guessing you have a reason for this. I think I can figure out what reason you would give, but I would rather you tell me.
Why don't scientists trust the work of their colleagues?
The links provided gave reasons.
Do you agree with any?

Third, I don't know anything about whale evolution, except that I remember something about residual bones that are similar to hip and leg bones. Is that what you are referring to, as if there is some probllem with the work my marine biologists? Did you read some Christian disinformation about whale evolution and you were duped into believing it because you lack adequate skepticism of the fraud that creationists publish?

The only thing I read were science papers. Honestly.
It's the strongest evidence given for the theory of evolution. Yet, I found no objective evidence fir it.
I even asked some of your fellow believers to provide some, but for obvious reasons no one answers. They just disappear from the discussion.
This is all from me - not being skeptical - but investigating for myself.
Has nothing to do with religion. Why, do you think every religious person loses their sense of reason?
That would not surprise me, considering that you repeated your first statement in this post.

I can't read the link because I am replying and it doesn't work.

No problem. I extracted a quote, above.

Are you trying to catch me in some gotcha thing?

I'm not even going to answer that. What?

Why not make an argument instead of little games.

What? What little games are you going on about? Sometimes I wonder if atheist hear these little voices, and start talking to them. The things they say are so incoherent.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

But millions of Christians wake up from this nightmare of wasted lives every year and leave Christianity to live life to its fullest…

There is little difference in lifestyle and quality of life between the average Christian and average non-Christian in modern Western society.

 

[dybmh]

Anyone can answer any question, the dispute tends to be whether the answers believers offer are based on credible evidence, or at least plausible. The fatal dilemma for most all religious answers is the assumptions that are necessary that critical thinkes dismiss. Critical thinkers don't tell believers they can't believe what they do, we only assss the truthfulness of religious claims and examine the explanations, and any evidence that is offered, if any. For example a believer may assert a Bible passage means X, and perhaps it does, but that interpretation doesn't establish that X is objectively true.

It actually depends on the question asked. If the so-called critical thinker asks a question which presumes God's existence, then demands evidence for God, then that's shifting the goal post. The question is a hypothetical, then it's being flip-flopped into something else.

Normally, I would ignore this sort of person in a one-on-one interaction. But in a public sphere, it's good to answer the question.

You are quibbling. I suggest treating claims as untrue is synonymous with "I don't know". That believers have answers they believe are true does not mean this standard is at the level of truth used by logic and critical thought.

untrue is very different than I don't know. Lack of precision, lack of attention to detail...

Two questions: Did you eat a ham sandwich for lunch? I don't know. Does any sort of God exist?

Well, there you go. Lack of precision. The question we're discussing is not God's existence. The question we're discussing is, does Jesus match the mythical attributes that were designed to identify mythical heros like Hercules.

You keep wanting to generalize and find an exaggerated question, and then pretend that I'm making some exaggerated truth claim. Misrepresenting me and my position is dishonest. Please stop. I have corrected you numerous times.

I don't know. A ham sandwich for lunch is vastly more probable since we know ham sandiwiches actually exist, and people eat them for lunch. Gods? Who knows? Not believers. This is why I suggest everyone is agnostic where it comes to most all god concepts, none of us have facts, and none of us have knowlegde. We can know the descriptions of Apollo, Yahweh, Zeus, but we don't know if any of them exist.

Ignored, not the topic.

So your gripe is with historians and experts in ancient lore. That we don't have first hand sources is more of the mysterious roots of the Caananites and Hebrews.

My gripe is when someone claims to be a critical thinker, and critisizes others for not being critical thinkers. Historians are story tellers, but people mistake them for court reporters. Experts? Critics never seem to verify that these "experts" are accurate or credible.

Neither of us are experts. I have heard experts say it is most likely that the Noah myth was a retelling of Gilgamesh. I find that a resonable conclusion since there are patterns of copying in ancient stories and cross culture influence.

Uh-huh. But I doubt that you can tell me which expert without looking it up. Nor the exact words used, without looking it up. And there is evidence of copying in those OTHER cultures. This ignores the outliers. No one innovates? No one comes up with new ideas? No one is original? Everyone is the same?

Baloney. It's the same as considering all Christians, and all religious people to be just like you were, and just like the religious people you knew when you were a Christian.

I understand you think highly of yourself. The insult is bolded above. You have your beliefs and arguments, and some don't agree. You should keep it civil instead of making it personal.

Ummmm, you said I don't value truth. If you don't want to be labeled a so-called critical thinker, then do some critical thinking. An insult only stings if there's some truth to it.

I never claimed it was a copy. You have a problem taking humble comments and inflating then into claims. I have said nothing more than it is most likely that Noah was copied, and I base that on what I have heard experts say.

humble comments, lolz. Your claim was there were similarities between the Jesus story and pagan and egytian myths. You haven't brought a speck of evidence for it, and it's your burden to do so. You heard it? Sure. Did you verify it? Probably not? Did you actually hear it from an expert, or did you hear that an expert said it?

Look, this is simple. Bring the actual egyptian and myths, along with the original language, and make a bullet point list of the similarities. If experts, plural, say this, and you *actually* heard it, you should be able to bring a list of similarities and the myths so that I can read them myself.

Otherwise, it's just FAITH in a guru.

But the bottom line is that the stories are not consistent with what we observe and know of reality, so if anyone is going to claim the Jesus myth is true they need to bring a truck load of evidence.

Ignored, not the topic.

You say "lying" here as a motive, but you certainly know that ancient writers didn't write in terms to jouranalistic standards.

Oopsie doopsie, you're wrong here. Take a look at Chap 1 of revelation and let me know if you think that it's considered OK by the authors of religious scripture to miscommunicate in this context? Hmmmmmm?

Lying implies an intent to deceive and I don't think that is what ancient writers intended.

But they would also AVOID making false statements about what their lord and savior said and did under penalty of divine retibution.

Mordern people who are capable of understanding true statements, and can understand true statements versus untrue statements can lie about ideas in the Bible. Creationism are an example, as it is nothing more than deliberate fraud.

And so-called critical thinkers delude themselves. Ex-christians lie all the time. My favorite is "I read the bible 3 times cover to cover, I know what's in it." Uh-huh. 66 books, read 3 times. How long did that take you?

 

[dybmh]

At face value this can be true in most cases. But a low standard for evidence is acceptable if the claim is: Jim ate a ham sanwich for lunch. It's not an extraordinary claim and seeing bread crumbs on a plate is enough to believe Jim did indeed eat a ham sandwich for lunch.

But we're not talking about ham sandwiches.

But if Fred claims he is the second coming of Christ, and all he has as evidence is his beard, a robe, and memorized bits from the Gospels, well, that's an extraordinary claim that will require a high standard for evidence. The more extraordinary the claim the higher the standard, even to be casually believed.

And we're not talking about a Christ claimant.

This is the thing that theists want to gloss over, as they seem to think their beliefs are supported by their own assumptions. The dilemma is that critical thinkers don't hold those assumptions and require more than any arbitrary theist who already thinks some sort of god exists.

What you keep missing is, the question often includes the assumption. So that means the answer doesn't need to validate it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Christianity forces itself into society, into people's lives.

It made a name for itself based upon the amount of violence and colonization it could muster up.

It teaches that humans are wretched sinners deserving of conscious torment.

The crusades. The inquisitions. The witch hunts.

Why wouldn't there be a grudge?

My sentiments exactly. To be quite honest, some of the most hateful, obnoxious, and bigoted people I've ever met are Christians, and the majority of these Christians are evangelical conservatives. Grant it, there are some Christians who practice what they preach and live by what they profess, but based on my overall experiences with Christians, I consider them to be the exception, not the rule. The truth is that the majority of the Christians I've met either in person or online are extremely cunning because they hide their hatred and religious intolerance behind the pretense of "speaking God's truth" and "spreading the gospel." Some, on the other hand, don't bother to hide their true colors while preaching about "God's love" and that they "hate the sin but love the sinner."

These Christians are deliberately rude and obnoxious, and they repeatedly put other people down (as we have seen in this thread). Ironically, Christians are commanded in the Bible to be ambassadors for Christ and to love their neighbor and their enemies, yet the vast majority of them tarnish their personal character and Christian witness by how they behave and treat others, and they don't seem to care that they're severely damaging the public perception of Christians and Christianity in general. I think that it's quite apparent that they do not care about the biblical commandments to love their neighbor, love their enemies, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and treat others the way they want to be treated. They don't inspire me to become a Christian again.

 

[nPeace]

I'll finish answering your post now.

Of course not. All you said was much of the historical record cannot be trusted. That's an incredibly biased remark. It presumes that historical entries that disprove Jesus cannot be trust but historical entries that prove Jesus CAN be trusted. You don't to have your cake and eat it, Peace.

That's not in keeping with what I actually said.
The general statement that much of the historical record cannot be trusted, is a fact.
All you have to do, if you disagree, is say the word, and I will give you all the documents you will ever need.
That had nothing to do with Jesus, but had to do with the fact that I don't rely on them, but the Bible, which is also historical documents, have often been shown to be reliable.

The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology is reported to have said this about the Bible (referring to history, not spiritual teachings.)

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”

I explained elsewhere that secular evidence tries to be non-biased which is why it is more trustworthy than Christian writings which are naturally heavily slanted in favor of trying to prove Jesus was real at any cost. This is why the gospels are generally accepted as faith testimonies, not historical records. I've shown this before but I'll probably have to show it time and time again:

The claim that " secular evidence tries to be non-biased which is why it is more trustworthy than Christian writings which are naturally heavily slanted in favor of trying to prove Jesus was real at any cost" sounds more biased.
Here is why.
Two things, out of others, which I think we do well to consider... are the honesty of the writers, and the candor - element of embarrassment... two elements present in both Hebrew and Greek texts.

The writers recorded things about themselves ad their religion, which we know people normally would try to hide - not reveal.

I think we have a case here, where people are claiming that secular sources are honest, while religious sorces are dishonest
That seems to be really biased.
Especially when all reasons possible, are made, for why we can't determine if the Bible writers were honest.

"Are the Gospels based on historical facts?

Neither biographies nor objective historical accounts, the gospels resembled religious advertisements. The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience."

The Story Of The Storytellers - What Are The Gospels? | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

I think people love these opinions because they support their bias.

 

[Augustus]

"Purportedly objective and balanced historical scholarship is mostly a product of the modern world."

LOL, surely you jest.

I don't think much modern scholarship actually is objective and balanced, but it is a purported aim for scholarship.

In the past, it generally wasn't even a consideration.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That's my story - forty years ago. In conjunction with learning the think critically, it's the most valuable change I made in my life. Nothing else had a greater impact on life than that. And that was a nice description of going through an empty life based in false promises which ends with the hope that the reward after death will be more real than the "victory" in life that was promised.

My wife's family are mostly American conservative Christians, and my wife - also a liberal atheist - has always been the black sheep. They warned her all of her life how the path she chose would lead to ruin. She rejected religion, motherhood, and eventually, even American life - everything sacred to them.

But here we all are near the finish line, and it her sibs that have led the empty lives of quiet desperation and unhappy marriages, and she ended up happily married and having lived a full life. They struggled financially and lived cookie cutter lives. Their families are riddled with divorce. It's just not fair, they think. They did everything right and we did everything wrong, yet things turned out the opposite to what they expected. They financed braces and ran soccer practice shuttles while we travelled the world, ate out every night, and accumulate art. But they knew that as it occurred in morality fables, they would be rewarded in their later years and we would be left out in the cold regretting our "hedonistic" choices.

But that's not what happened. It must really nettle them. Being good Christians, they consider us immoral. They still think the worst of us and that we're going to hell and that they are going to end up the happy ones in the end, but I think that they're disappointed that our punishment didn't begin in this life.

I can personally relate to your story in some ways. For me, being a Christian was a living nightmare, but now that I've liberated myself from the Christian indoctrination that I was subjected to throughout my life, I'm emotionally stable and peacefully content with my life. It was a difficult lesson for me to learn, but the emotional struggle to detox from all the Christian indoctrination was well worth it. And in the process, I've learned that I don't need God in my life to be a good person, to make moral decisions, to dictate the decisions I make for myself and my family, to take care of myself and my family, or to protect or heal me. I realized that I don't need the emotional crutch of believing in God. I eventually realized that I am more than capable of standing on my own and that I don't need to believe in God to have peace in my heart and to be pleased with my life. I'm much better off without believing in God.

Actually, it's you with the evil spirit - your religion - the one that teaches you to hate atheists, and the one that teaches me to.

^ This. Well said.

 

[Colt]

I don’t know what that’s about.

I see, you are talking about the quote from Jesus. the context:

The apostles held their peace because many of them had continued the discussion begun at Mount Hermon as to what positions they were to have in the coming kingdom; who should be the greatest, and so on. Jesus, knowing what it was that occupied their thoughts that day, beckoned to one of Peter’s little ones and, setting the child down among them, said: “Verily, verily, I say to you, except you turn about and become more like this child, you will make little progress in the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever shall humble himself and become as this little one, the same shall become greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso receives such a little one receives me. And they who receive me receive also Him who sent me. If you would be first in the kingdom, seek to minister these good truths to your brethren in the flesh. But whosoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea. If the things you do with your hands, or the things you see with your eyes give offense in the progress of the kingdom, sacrifice these cherished idols, for it is better to enter the kingdom minus many of the beloved things of life rather than to cling to these idols and find yourself shut out of the kingdom. But most of all, see that you despise not one of these little ones, for their angels do always behold the faces of the heavenly hosts.”

Jesus is saying that if you deliberately lead people away from faith in God, "causing one to stumble" then you may ultimately pay the price of eternal death. Having aligned yourself with the forces of darkness in persistently trying to undermine people's faith in god you are in grave danger.

The way of the transgressor is hard.

 

[Ashoka]

You have previously explained that you have a grudge for Christians and prefer to stay angry rather than forgive. Trying to turn people against Jesus for petty vengeance is evil IMOP.

The perpetrator (Christianity) doesn't get to tell the victim, "But you should forgive me!"

 

[F1fan]

Yet you find the same teachings of Jesus in the teachings of the Buddha and you seem to find value there. What explains that inconsistency?

There are many differences here. Buddha never claimed to be a supernatual being with supernatural teachings. His teachings are pragmatic and self-focused. Christinsity doesn't always focus on what jesus taught and focus more on the benefits that involve the church, namely giving them money, and the believer is assured of salvation. Will the Christian learn how to introspect and be aware of right action as a virtue? We are all aware of how Christians fall way short of basic human decency, yet they claim being saved from hell.

There are many things I agree with what Jesus taught, and am more Christ-like than many fervent Christians. What is their response? I'm damned for not believing in an absurd story.

What I find it teaches that is useful, is the same things you find in the Dharmic religions which you seem to find useful for yourself. It teaches the Way to live consistently and in harmony with others, with yourself, and with the world. I also draw from Taoism, and very much find a consistency of themes between that and the Way.

Some of the Dharmic paths do seem to promote a more positive attitude, or attitude adjustments. I think that can come to those who reflect on their own thoughts and actions. I've not really found much use for them. I'm probably more cynical than I should be but I am managing.

It's just that I can see it as merely a matter of language, ways to frame and talk about it, but in its application, is has the same Goal in mind. Perhaps it is your inability to understand that where you begin to assume I do not apply critical thinking to spiritual and religious matters as well?

Well I haven't seen you or others point it out. There have been superficial criticisms of me (and others) being critical thinkers who reject religious assumptions, but no explanations about what critical thinkers are doing wrong AS thinkers. Let's note that believers of any stripe have mixed results in their "spiritual experiences", and at times not very good manners.

I can assure you, I do not shut off my brain at any point when it comes to approaching or understanding these matters, even though in practice we must move beyond the reasoning mind, and simply rest in Stillness and Awareness, beyond thinking processes themselves. But you should know this already as a Buddhist, I would assume.

I went through my "dark night of the soul" many years ago, and now I see my life as enjoying less drama, more stability, and more clear understanding of how things are. The ego wants meaning, and dogma is attractive to it. To my mind many believers approach their spiritual experiences as taking on loads of beliefs and practices/rituals, and does this really bring out an awareness and clarity for them? Or does it burden the believer with layers of concepts that define an ego like a cloak that suffocates the soul? In my experience I see spiritual evolution more fulfilling if the mind strips away the layers of dogma, and lets the soul breathe and experience, and experience free of loads of assumptions that tries to drag the mind with it.

I think many belkievers see the struggle and burden of maintaining belief for the sake of ego as the spiritual path, but it's really just hard labor that offers little to the life as a content person.

TO BE CONTINUED....