Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2014, 01:03 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-05-2014 12:55 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Quite ironic coming from someone who repeatedly attempts to redefine words to mean things that they don't mean to anyone else.

I have recognized a problem, a system of misnomers, and I am trying to give you the "heads-up" on what is probably going to happen.

Christians are going to recognize the problem that I am describing, and subsequently, accept the correction that I am describing. And atheists are going to be charged with not recognizing the problem and correction, and compared to the inquisitions of scientific theories by the Church, for their arguments against me.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-05-2014 09:04 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The problem with atheists on this forum and some others is that they don't understand that a morality can be and must be based on reason. Most people have been brought up to understand that they "should" or should not do something because they will be rewarded or punished by someone, ie., a parent, police etc and god is the ultimate policeman. When they get rid of god, they mistakenly think they have got rid of morality and then they feel that anything goes, which is why there is so much abuse on this forum from people who don't have anything to say about morality and don't behave in a moral way.
Aren't you an atheist? Are you telling us that reward and punishment are the only factors that contribute to your moral behavior? Do YOU believe "anything goes"? Consider

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
22-05-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-05-2014 01:03 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 12:55 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Quite ironic coming from someone who repeatedly attempts to redefine words to mean things that they don't mean to anyone else.

I have recognized a problem, a system of misnomers, and I am trying to give you the "heads-up" on what is probably going to happen.

Christians are going to recognize the problem that I am describing, and subsequently, accept the correction that I am describing. And atheists are going to be charged with not recognizing the problem and correction, and compared to the inquisitions of scientific theories by the Church, for their arguments against me.
Blah, blah, blah. More BS. I'm still waiting for you to recognize THE problem.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 01:35 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-05-2014 01:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:04 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The problem with atheists on this forum and some others is that they don't understand that a morality can be and must be based on reason. Most people have been brought up to understand that they "should" or should not do something because they will be rewarded or punished by someone, ie., a parent, police etc and god is the ultimate policeman. When they get rid of god, they mistakenly think they have got rid of morality and then they feel that anything goes, which is why there is so much abuse on this forum from people who don't have anything to say about morality and don't behave in a moral way.
Aren't you an atheist? Are you telling us that reward and punishment are the only factors that contribute to your moral behavior? Do YOU believe "anything goes"? Consider

I can't figure out your post. I said that morality should be based on reason and not on threats and inducements. You then ask me whether I think morality should be based on threats and inducements. Well, gee, no... And, then I say that "they" feel that "anything goes" and you ask whether I think that. Uh, gee, no. how exhausting. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 02:00 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 02:07 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-05-2014 12:52 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 06:52 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Except that the entire "civilized world" was ruled by a pagan Roman government which was so awful that the "god" Julius Caesar" was stabbed to death because he was so corrupt and hated. He believed that "crime" was "noble". The history of the Caesars is about how some of them were like that, and others were less hated. I think it is naive to think that Christianity was adopted as the imperial cult with the synoptic gospels rammed down the throats of the clergy on pain of death and it all just popped out of thin air and wasn't based on something. There was no one in Rome who was making a good claim to be emperor and then Vespasian goes to Jerusalem and destroys it because there is talk of the possibility of the next ruler of the world coming from Judea. And Vespasian crucifies a Jewish leader and wins, then takes the title of Emperor.

hmmmm.....

That is really all I can say. I am going to try to get hold of some books about it. It is pointless speculating and apart from it being of some historical interest, it doesn't change the underlying philosophy.
I'm not going to pretend I have a great knowledge of history in that time period because I don't. So, until I learn more, I really can't engage in that part of the discussion and I'll leave that to people who know far more than I do about the subject. The purpose of my previous reply to you was to point out the problems with those arguments that I mentioned. So-called arguments like "it just can't be because people were too intelligent to be so fooled" don't hold any water. If you want to present facts and evidence to support that Jesus in concept is based upon an actual person, I would consider them. But the arguments that I replied to are completely dismissible.


I think people then, same as now, can distinguish between a story about a real person, even if he is fictionalized, and a fictional novel or myth. But that isn't the point.

What I have been trying to point out is that it is irrelevant. If someone attached a moral philosophy to a myth or preacher or King of Edessa turned Rabbi, it really doesn't make any difference to the morality. Those are just literary vehicles for delivering a message. People like Carrier go on and on about how they have realized Jesus was a myth. Yeah, whoopee. I realized that when I was 12. In fact, I never believed the resurrection and I immediately doubted he walked on water and brought Lazarus back to life. It seems a lot of people here have chips on their shoulders because they have just figured out that virgins can't give birth and gods can't get women pregnant. It is like listening to people who have had their lives ruined because "they" believed in Santa Claus until they were 30. I just don't get it and it is quite ridiculous listening to how violent their reactions are and how insulting a lot of them are.

Not every atheist here is stupid or immoral. I haven't said that. What I am saying is that the fundamental "grundnorm" , dictates and philosophy of Christianity is actually not theistic..............

When in John it says that "in the beginning was the word", it is saying that the "logos" or "reason" is before "god". That is profoundly different from a theistic religion which says we should believe in a god because we will be punished or rewarded. Then it sets out the type of rules of morality which flow from using reason to find what is moral. "Treat your neighbour as you would have him treat you". That is a statement of the golden rule or categorical imperative and logically, rationally does not require a "god". God becomes superfluous to this sort of morality so Christianity could be said to be "atheistic". It is certainly atheistic in being against pagan gods.

I'm not going to present evidence of there being a person who resembles Jesus at the time of the Jewish Revolt. You can google Izates Manu Monobasus and read about him and Jesus of Gamala in the Jewish Encyclopedia or get hold of Ellis' book if you are interested in the history of the Jewish revolt and whether Jesus was a defeated leader of the Jewish revolt.. Read Suetonius' History of the Caesars if you want to see that Roman Emperors had different philosophies. Read about Vespasian and Titus if you want to find out if they had adopted a "Christian" style of imperial cult.

No one here seems to understand that it is irrelevant to a moral philosophy that it is attached to a mythical representation of a person who preaches it.

The reason that some people here are moral, having rejected Christianity is that the religion doesn't depend on the narrative for its moral philosophy to be valid, and it isn't based on believing in a god or in Jesus, since it is based on the primacy of the "logos" or "reason".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 02:56 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(23-05-2014 02:00 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 12:52 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I'm not going to pretend I have a great knowledge of history in that time period because I don't. So, until I learn more, I really can't engage in that part of the discussion and I'll leave that to people who know far more than I do about the subject. The purpose of my previous reply to you was to point out the problems with those arguments that I mentioned. So-called arguments like "it just can't be because people were too intelligent to be so fooled" don't hold any water. If you want to present facts and evidence to support that Jesus in concept is based upon an actual person, I would consider them. But the arguments that I replied to are completely dismissible.


I think people then, same as now, can distinguish between a story about a real person, even if he is fictionalized, and a fictional novel or myth. But that isn't the point.

What I have been trying to point out is that it is irrelevant. If someone attached a moral philosophy to a myth or preacher or King of Edessa turned Rabbi, it really doesn't make any difference to the morality. Those are just literary vehicles for delivering a message. People like Carrier go on and on about how they have realized Jesus was a myth. Yeah, whoopee. I realized that when I was 12. In fact, I never believed the resurrection and I immediately doubted he walked on water and brought Lazarus back to life. It seems a lot of people here have chips on their shoulders because they have just figured out that virgins can't give birth and gods can't get women pregnant. It is like listening to people who have had their lives ruined because "they" believed in Santa Claus until they were 30. I just don't get it and it is quite ridiculous listening to how violent their reactions are and how insulting a lot of them are.

Not every atheist here is stupid or immoral. I haven't said that. What I am saying is that the fundamental "grundnorm" , dictates and philosophy of Christianity is actually not theistic..............

When in John it says that "in the beginning was the word", it is saying that the "logos" or "reason" is before "god". That is profoundly different from a theistic religion which says we should believe in a god because we will be punished or rewarded. Then it sets out the type of rules of morality which flow from using reason to find what is moral. "Treat your neighbour as you would have him treat you". That is a statement of the golden rule or categorical imperative and logically, rationally does not require a "god". God becomes superfluous to this sort of morality so Christianity could be said to be "atheistic". It is certainly atheistic in being against pagan gods.

I'm not going to present evidence of there being a person who resembles Jesus at the time of the Jewish Revolt. You can google Izates Manu Monobasus and read about him and Jesus of Gamala in the Jewish Encyclopedia or get hold of Ellis' book if you are interested in the history of the Jewish revolt and whether Jesus was a defeated leader of the Jewish revolt.. Read Suetonius' History of the Caesars if you want to see that Roman Emperors had different philosophies. Read about Vespasian and Titus if you want to find out if they had adopted a "Christian" style of imperial cult.

No one here seems to understand that it is irrelevant to a moral philosophy that it is attached to a mythical representation of a person who preaches it.

The reason that some people here are moral, having rejected Christianity is that the religion doesn't depend on the narrative for its moral philosophy to be valid, and it isn't based on believing in a god or in Jesus, since it is based on the primacy of the "logos" or "reason".

With respect Db, you appear to have a limited understanding of what Christianity is for the great unwashed out there. They worship their meek and gentle mythical Jeebus who died for them. They imagine that one day if they believe in him they're going to some eternal theme park in the sky.

Most atheists couldn't give a fuck whether a character called Jesus ever existed or not, other than that they're surrounded by Christians who think that he did. Those Christians have a serious habit of messing with the world. That's not cool, and that's why belief in a real Jeebus is an issue for many atheists.

Logos and reason mean fuck all to the average Christian.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-05-2014, 03:27 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(23-05-2014 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 02:00 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think people then, same as now, can distinguish between a story about a real person, even if he is fictionalized, and a fictional novel or myth. But that isn't the point.

What I have been trying to point out is that it is irrelevant. If someone attached a moral philosophy to a myth or preacher or King of Edessa turned Rabbi, it really doesn't make any difference to the morality. Those are just literary vehicles for delivering a message. People like Carrier go on and on about how they have realized Jesus was a myth. Yeah, whoopee. I realized that when I was 12. In fact, I never believed the resurrection and I immediately doubted he walked on water and brought Lazarus back to life. It seems a lot of people here have chips on their shoulders because they have just figured out that virgins can't give birth and gods can't get women pregnant. It is like listening to people who have had their lives ruined because "they" believed in Santa Claus until they were 30. I just don't get it and it is quite ridiculous listening to how violent their reactions are and how insulting a lot of them are.

Not every atheist here is stupid or immoral. I haven't said that. What I am saying is that the fundamental "grundnorm" , dictates and philosophy of Christianity is actually not theistic..............

When in John it says that "in the beginning was the word", it is saying that the "logos" or "reason" is before "god". That is profoundly different from a theistic religion which says we should believe in a god because we will be punished or rewarded. Then it sets out the type of rules of morality which flow from using reason to find what is moral. "Treat your neighbour as you would have him treat you". That is a statement of the golden rule or categorical imperative and logically, rationally does not require a "god". God becomes superfluous to this sort of morality so Christianity could be said to be "atheistic". It is certainly atheistic in being against pagan gods.

I'm not going to present evidence of there being a person who resembles Jesus at the time of the Jewish Revolt. You can google Izates Manu Monobasus and read about him and Jesus of Gamala in the Jewish Encyclopedia or get hold of Ellis' book if you are interested in the history of the Jewish revolt and whether Jesus was a defeated leader of the Jewish revolt.. Read Suetonius' History of the Caesars if you want to see that Roman Emperors had different philosophies. Read about Vespasian and Titus if you want to find out if they had adopted a "Christian" style of imperial cult.

No one here seems to understand that it is irrelevant to a moral philosophy that it is attached to a mythical representation of a person who preaches it.

The reason that some people here are moral, having rejected Christianity is that the religion doesn't depend on the narrative for its moral philosophy to be valid, and it isn't based on believing in a god or in Jesus, since it is based on the primacy of the "logos" or "reason".

With respect Db, you appear to have a limited understanding of what Christianity is for the great unwashed out there. They worship their meek and gentle mythical Jeebus who died for them. They imagine that one day if they believe in him they're going to some eternal theme park in the sky.

Most atheists couldn't give a fuck whether a character called Jesus ever existed or not, other than that they're surrounded by Christians who think that he did. Those Christians have a serious habit of messing with the world. That's not cool, and that's why belief in a real Jeebus is an issue for many atheists.

Logos and reason mean fuck all to the average Christian.

Well, no, actually I know what Christianity is. I went to a high school in which the former principle was a famous radio evangelist, started a Christian political party which gained 100% control of the legistlature and ruled for 35 years. I grew up in the bible belt, went to Sunday school and studied Christian thought at university. My parents were church elders. I could go on. I know what Christianity is. I think 2000 years ago also understood what religion was all about.

I don't agree with you that atheists don't care about who Jesus was. Richard Dawkins publicized Atwill's recent symposium in London and Ralph Ellis is an atheist. I think if we could figure out who was the most likely candidate as being the Jesus figure we would dispel a lot of nonsense about him being divine. He wasn't considered divine in Arian Christianity, just an ordinary man.

Whether logos or reason mean anything to the average Christian, they are following a philosophy based on it and the rest of what they follow is nonsense, but they are too stupid to realize it. I can't change that. I can do something to argue that reason is the basis of this philosophy whether you get it or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:47 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 05:56 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(23-05-2014 03:27 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  With respect Db, you appear to have a limited understanding of what Christianity is for the great unwashed out there. They worship their meek and gentle mythical Jeebus who died for them. They imagine that one day if they believe in him they're going to some eternal theme park in the sky.

Most atheists couldn't give a fuck whether a character called Jesus ever existed or not, other than that they're surrounded by Christians who think that he did. Those Christians have a serious habit of messing with the world. That's not cool, and that's why belief in a real Jeebus is an issue for many atheists.

Logos and reason mean fuck all to the average Christian.

Well, no, actually I know what Christianity is. I went to a high school in which the former principle was a famous radio evangelist, started a Christian political party which gained 100% control of the legistlature and ruled for 35 years. I grew up in the bible belt, went to Sunday school and studied Christian thought at university. My parents were church elders. I could go on. I know what Christianity is. I think 2000 years ago also understood what religion was all about.

I don't agree with you that atheists don't care about who Jesus was. Richard Dawkins publicized Atwill's recent symposium in London and Ralph Ellis is an atheist. I think if we could figure out who was the most likely candidate as being the Jesus figure we would dispel a lot of nonsense about him being divine. He wasn't considered divine in Arian Christianity, just an ordinary man.

Whether logos or reason mean anything to the average Christian, they are following a philosophy based on it and the rest of what they follow is nonsense, but they are too stupid to realize it. I can't change that. I can do something to argue that reason is the basis of this philosophy whether you get it or not.

"Well, no, actually I know what Christianity is. I went to a high school in which the former principle was a famous radio evangelist, started a Christian political party which gained 100% control of the legistlature and ruled for 35 years. I grew up in the bible belt, went to Sunday school and studied Christian thought at university. My parents were church elders. I could go on."

Ok, I hear you, please elaborate.

"I think 2000 years ago also understood what religion was all about."

I want to know what you meant to say here.

"I don't agree with you that atheists don't care about who Jesus was."

Please reread what I wrote..slowly..


"I think if we could figure out who was the most likely candidate as being the Jesus figure we would dispel a lot of nonsense about him being divine."

Yes. No doubt about that.

"I can do something to argue that reason is the basis of this philosophy whether you get it or not."

Yeah, ok, if you want. Yet what Christianity means to the average Joe Blow, is, at the end of the day, the important issue. Christianity can mean whatever you want it to mean if you cherry pick bits of the new Testament. You and I don't give a fuck. It's what the retards out there who are preaching to the kids, and who influence government policy, and who have their fingers on nuclear buttons, think. That is the important issue.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 11:26 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
The point about 2000 years ago is that Romans were sick of people like Julius Caesar and Nero. Titus was well liked because he adopted practices which one could say were "reasonable". He stopped purges which terrorized Rome, saying that he didn't care what people said about him because he did no wrong and he didn't care about false allegation. He said that if dead Emperors were actually gods then they could take their own revenge. What he said suggests he was more of a humanist than a deist and his policies were "reason" based. He outlawed trial on multiple charges for the same offence and was well liked by Romans.

The philosophy preached by Eleazar b. Azariah was one which was reason based and Queen Helena adopted it and became well liked in Judea because of her beneficence and that of her son Izates. Coincidentally Eleazaar came from Galilee, Joseph came from Galilee, Jesus is supposed to have come from Galilee, Joseph becomes a Flavian, The first of the Synoptics Gospels appear in about 66 AD. Rome converts to Christianity...

I appreciate that a lot of Christians are just mindless in their acceptance of the creed and think it is all about going to heaven as a reward for belief. But, what would the alternative have been in a pagan Roman world. Why did the Romans eventually see how significant this religion was? I see that it appeals to people on a very simplistic level as well as a philosophical/moral level but what choice is there in a brutal pagan world?

I hated Christianity and all the TV evangelists like Ted Bakker. Kids in my day went to summer bible camps and there were Christian sing songs in the gym at lunch. I try to forget about it.

Actually, isn't Christianity anti the Jewish concept of God and also anti the Roman view of god, so in it's day it was like a form of atheism which had "in the beginning" the "logos" rather than a god? My thesis is that if someone believed this, then they were free thinkers so they were more likely, rather than less likely, to believe the Horus/resurrection myth and only used it to get people to buy into the religion who needed to have an incentive or just couldn't be pushed to reject their previous belief systems. That is part of why much of Catholic rituals are adopted from pre-Christian pagan rituals, eg., drink of my blood,eat of my flesh, first communion...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(23-05-2014 01:35 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 01:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Aren't you an atheist? Are you telling us that reward and punishment are the only factors that contribute to your moral behavior? Do YOU believe "anything goes"? Consider

I can't figure out your post. I said that morality should be based on reason and not on threats and inducements. You then ask me whether I think morality should be based on threats and inducements. Well, gee, no... And, then I say that "they" feel that "anything goes" and you ask whether I think that. Uh, gee, no. how exhausting. Facepalm
Ok, regarding the reward and punishment part, it appears that I did misunderstand your post. So my apologies there.

But you did say this:
Quote:When they get rid of god, they mistakenly think they have got rid of morality and then they feel that anything goes, which is why there is so much abuse on this forum from people who don't have anything to say about morality and don't behave in a moral way.
"When they get rid of god" is when they become an atheist, right? And certainly when you tie that in with "abuse on this forum" you are referring to atheists. So that sounds like you are saying for atheists, "anything goes". Well I'm calling bullshit and showing you the ridiculousness of that statement by asking you if that applies to yourself, an atheist.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: