Who is Jesus?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:

Choosing to have “faith” in something for which there is little to no objective evidence makes a lot less sense.

That’s the only thing you CAN have faith in - or else it isn’t faith. You’d have to be a retard to maintain faith in something that is objectively evidenced. Of course, very little in this world can be said to be so, which is why you (yes, even you forlife!) express this faith at every waking moment regarding things for which you have little or no evidence. You just don’t realize it because you haven’t thought about it. Or are too brainwashed by secular materialism.

[/quote]

That which cannot be proven deductively will require a certain degree of faith. Almost everything we know and believe is based in faith. We have faith that historians and scholars are not lying to us about what happened in the past, faith in our media that what they say is the truth, faith in science that the conclusions they draw are statistically significant enough for us to trust the results, faith that the next moment will not be our last, faith in the people around us, we live mired in faith because if you do not you will be paralyzed.

I think it is silly to think that one’s five senses and limited ability to draw conclusions based on the assembling of previously conceived ideas, means there is nothing else in existence.

103

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Reaching a conclusion on the historicity of Jesus, based on relatively objective evidence, makes sense to me.

Choosing to have “faith” in something for which there is little to no objective evidence makes a lot less sense. You might as well choose to have “faith” in the thousands of other gods which similarly have no supporting objective evidence.

Just because you were raised a certain way, in a culture that worships a certain god, doesn’t make the actual reality of that god any more likely.

Forliar,

You should drink a big glass of shut the hell up. You changed your religion because it was against homosexuality and that’s pretty much why you are no longer a believer. In fact you’ve framed your entire life around your sexuality.

You think sucking dick is more important than just about anything.

[/quote]

Fuck, nothing like some good old hateful homophobia to get things going.

Yea buddy. String the homo up.

104

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Reaching a conclusion on the historicity of Jesus, based on relatively objective evidence, makes sense to me.

Choosing to have “faith” in something for which there is little to no objective evidence makes a lot less sense. You might as well choose to have “faith” in the thousands of other gods which similarly have no supporting objective evidence.

Just because you were raised a certain way, in a culture that worships a certain god, doesn’t make the actual reality of that god any more likely.

Forliar,

You should drink a big glass of shut the hell up. You changed your religion because it was against homosexuality and that’s pretty much why you are no longer a believer. In fact you’ve framed your entire life around your sexuality.

You think sucking dick is more important than just about anything.

[/quote]

Might wanna wash the sand outta ya vag.

105

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Reaching a conclusion on the historicity of Jesus, based on relatively objective evidence, makes sense to me.

Choosing to have “faith” in something for which there is little to no objective evidence makes a lot less sense. You might as well choose to have “faith” in the thousands of other gods which similarly have no supporting objective evidence.

Just because you were raised a certain way, in a culture that worships a certain god, doesn’t make the actual reality of that god any more likely.

Forliar,

You should drink a big glass of shut the hell up. You changed your religion because it was against homosexuality and that’s pretty much why you are no longer a believer. In fact you’ve framed your entire life around your sexuality.

You think sucking dick is more important than just about anything.

[/quote]

Might wanna wash the sand outta ya vag.

106

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
That’s the only thing you CAN have faith in - or else it isn’t faith. [/quote]

I agree, but my point was that you shouldn’t have faith in something to the degree that you are convinced it is true, when there is no objective evidence warranting that level of conviction.

107

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
That’s the only thing you CAN have faith in - or else it isn’t faith.

I agree, but my point was that you shouldn’t have faith in something to the degree that you are convinced it is true, when there is no objective evidence warranting that level of conviction.[/quote]

Nothing warrants that level of conviction. Also, there is no faith without the presence of some doubt.

108

[quote]pat wrote:
I think it is silly to think that one’s five senses and limited ability to draw conclusions based on the assembling of previously conceived ideas, means there is nothing else in existence. [/quote]

I agree, but who said this? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Then again, it isn’t evidence of evidence either.

Instead of concluding “there is nothing else in existence”, the honest approach seems to conclude that “we don’t know”. This means concluding that Christianity could in fact be objectively correct, but it is no more likely to be correct than Islam, Buddhism, or atheism.

Which is why I’m an agnostic. I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t have all the answers. I try to live my life fully each day, informed by my core values, and if it turns out there is more to life after I die, all the better.

109

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You changed your religion because it was against homosexuality and that’s pretty much why you are no longer a believer.[/quote]

If that were the case, I would have just moved to another religion that supports equal rights for gays. There are plenty out there, even in the Christian ranks.

As it turns out, I sincerely believe that people can be misguided, based on what they want or fear to be true. Wizard’s First Rule, look it up :slight_smile:

I would find it comforting to believe in a “god” that loves me for who I am, irrespective of my sexual orientation, and I have several friends who believe just that. However, I can’t say with integrity that I actually believe this, without some kind of objective evidence to justify that belief.

110

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Nothing warrants that level of conviction. Also, there is no faith without the presence of some doubt.[/quote]

Again, I agree with you. Unfortunately, I’ve met a lot of people (including several on this board) that are convinced their particular religion is “the truth”, to the point they define their entire world view by it, and feel justified in judging others according to that world view.

111

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Nothing warrants that level of conviction. Also, there is no faith without the presence of some doubt.

Again, I agree with you. Unfortunately, I’ve met a lot of people (including several on this board) that are convinced their particular religion is “the truth”, to the point they define their entire world view by it, and feel justified in judging others according to that world view.[/quote]

First of all, my statement doesn’t preclude the existence of truth, nor mean that reason cannot apprehend truth. And yes, once apprehended truth should inform one’s worldview - what else would you expect it to do? And yes, one ought to judge on the basis of this truth.

Regarding all this ^^

  1. isn’t that exactly what you’re doing? Your truth is just a different truth - it’s “homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality,” or something like that. You’re entirely convinced of this truth, right?

  2. All of this should be done with a dose of humility, yes. But that includes you too.

112

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
I think it is silly to think that one’s five senses and limited ability to draw conclusions based on the assembling of previously conceived ideas, means there is nothing else in existence.

I agree, but who said this? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Then again, it isn’t evidence of evidence either.

Instead of concluding “there is nothing else in existence”, the honest approach seems to conclude that “we don’t know”. This means concluding that Christianity could in fact be objectively correct, but it is no more likely to be correct than Islam, Buddhism, or atheism.

Which is why I’m an agnostic. I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t have all the answers. I try to live my life fully each day, informed by my core values, and if it turns out there is more to life after I die, all the better. [/quote]

Fantastic! An intellectually honest agnostic! That is a rarity these days. Most agnostics are intellectual cheapskates that have become more dogmatic than the worst Inquisitioners.

You see, I have chosen my belief system based on my best reasoning and by my faith. My faith will not take me anywhere that my reason cannot follow. It is critical that it happen in that order. I choose my belief and then verify it by thought and action. I be than I do -(my mantra for life is be-do be-do be-do) then I observe the result.

This is the way that Christ taught and the path of the true follower of Jesus. My faith is resting in what I cannot prove (thus it is faith), but my faith does not violate rationality or reality (thus it is sound). If I had faith in something that rational thought would deny the possibility of - then I am a fool. But since what I believe is possible by rational thought - then I am a just a man following his Savior.

113

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Nothing warrants that level of conviction. Also, there is no faith without the presence of some doubt.

Again, I agree with you. Unfortunately, I’ve met a lot of people (including several on this board) that are convinced their particular religion is “the truth”, to the point they define their entire world view by it, and feel justified in judging others according to that world view.[/quote]

By the way, if “nothing warrants that level of conviction,” that means that faith is involved in nearly everything. Even science.

114

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
And yes, once apprehended truth should inform one’s worldview[/quote]

Exactly. The point is that people claim they have “apprehended truth” without having sufficient objective evidence to support the claim. Recognizing that you could be wrong, and that other belief systems are just as likely to be correct as your own, is the beginning of both humility and wisdom.

Stating that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality is a value judgment, rather than an objective statement about the nature of the universe.

Stating that “god X exists” is an objective statement about the nature of the universe, not a value judgment.

Values can be informed by objective statements, but not vice versa. The objective truth of something exists irrespective of whether or not people understand that truth.

Agreed.

115

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
By the way, if “nothing warrants that level of conviction,” that means that faith is involved in nearly everything. Even science. [/quote]

Some ideas warrant a higher level of conviction than others, depending on the amount of objective evidence that exists to support that particular idea.

116

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
My faith is resting in what I cannot prove (thus it is faith), but my faith does not violate rationality or reality (thus it is sound). If I had faith in something that rational thought would deny the possibility of - then I am a fool. But since what I believe is possible by rational thought - then I am a just a man following his Savior.[/quote]

As I see it, believing something is possible, is different from believing something is real. Accepting the possibility of something being true means also accepting the possibility of it not being true.

In the context of Christianity, this means believing there is a chance that Jesus was the Savior of the world. However, it is equally possible that Allah or Krishna or Vishnu are god, or that there is no god at all.

We simply don’t know. We cannot know. All we can do is determine what our guiding values in life are, and try to live according to those values, recognizing our own ignorance in the face of the mysteries of the universe.

119

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:
There is no way to prove or disprove any of these ancient people lived. Prove Aristotle live, prove Pythagoras lived, prove Julius Caesar lived, prove Khufu lived, prove Cleopatra lived…You can’t when you break it down, all you have is second hand information based on second hand sources which puts us at a minimum f 4 degrees of separation from actually being able to know. So if you don’t believe Jesus lived then don’t. You can’t prove anybody lived really.

Right. All we have are stories from the past.

I believe Jesus was real. The truthfulness of him being the son of god is what’s worth debating, in my eyes.

Correct, who he was can be debated, but whether or not he existed is pointless. There is more written about Jesus than any other person ever. As anything thing can be the fact that he lived is as historically solid as anything can be.

Utter utter bullshit.

The only reason that you could possibly say that there is more written about him than anyone else is that the Bible is the most widely distributed book.

There is more written about the Easter bunny than Obama therefore the Easter Bunny is real and Obama is a figment of your imagination.

I seriously doubt there are more books about the easter bunny than obama. There are thousands of books written about Jesus…There is two millenniums worth of history there. Lot’s and lots of people wrote books about him. I didn’t say that proves he lived, I am saying that you cannot say anybody else lived with any more certainty than you can Jesus. There’s lot’s of books about George Washington, but we have no first hand account of his existence and hence cannot prove he is anything thing more than a grand American fairy tale. Such is the way with historic figures, we have to take on faith that our historical facts written by other people who likely were not present either, are telling the truth.

Do you know what a first hand account is? It’s someone who was there at the time writing about it.

Here is a link to a website with copies of literally hundreds of documents that George Washington actually signed

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/index.html

Here is a portrait of him, painted whilst he was still alive.

Compare that to our mate Chuy for whom we have a few passing references written by people who are writing not about facts but about the beliefs of a group of people over a hundred years after his alleged life.

If you can’t see the difference then your faith truly is blind as well as stupid.

You can’t prove he ever lived. Did you meet him? How can you prove that the author simply didn’t make it up? Perhaps he was an instrument of british conspiracy that failed.

Peter was with Jesus, he wrote about him. He too, would be a first hand account would he not, or is he made up too? Do you not see the slippery slope you are on? You are simply taking it on faith that these historians, authors, etc. are not making everything up. To say that fact that Jesus was alive and all the stuff written about him, and all the interactions are a fantasy you have to apply the same scrutiny to all historical events and people to which you are not personally privy. You can’t say something about one thing but then claim the rules don’t apply to things you think are true. The rules apply to everything. You can’t make it up as you go along, there is no integrity in that.

Bring me any historical fact and I can say it’s made up and you can’t prove it isn’t.

Are you really that dense or is it that you are so blinded by your faith?

Do you really think that the document known as The Gospel of Peter was written by Peter? It was written after the suposed timescale of the life of Peter so how was it a first hand witness account? It varies considerably from Mathew and Luke though it is likely that it was also based on the traditions of the Q gospel that Mathew and Luke were copied from.

Actually if you want to quote the gospel of Peter then it works against your claim that Jesus really existed as it was docetistic.

Gospel of Peter? LOL! Would that be one of the lost books, 'cause I have never heard of it…[/quote]

So, to what were you referring when you stated that ‘Peter was with Jesus, he wrote about him’