Why I am not a Christian

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by skepticalmike, Apr 15, 2021.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because to most historians at the time, he did not really represent anything very remarkable.
    There were many other persons around that time, both before and after, who claimed to be the promised Mesiah (though were obviously not).

    A large segment of ancient society was superstitious at that time and believed in magic, so reports of a man who could heal people would not have been all that uniquely remarkable. Other Romans who heard reports about it might have assumed it was probably just some sort of fraud.
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look, you bring up a lot of different things, and almost everything you bring up can be answered, but no one is going to waste the time answering all of your questions in detail here, since you have brought up a long list of different things.

    If you can select just one or two of those things you would really like to see a rebuttal against, then you can do that, and you will have a higher chance of someone taking the time to respond to you.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "Gospel of Thomas" is considered an obvious forgery, and there are several good reasons for that.

    If you want to discuss that, you will have to do it in a separate thread.
     
  4. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a reasonable conclusion (he did not represent anything remarkable) and the same one that I came up with. It seems to go against what many Christians believe today.

    I appreciate your responses and maybe I will post something on this thread tomorrow.

    The Gospel of Thomas may be a forgery but what matters to scholars is the content of the gospel -I would surmise - because it tells us something about an
    Egyptian sect that had a different view of Jesus from the canonical gospels and it is evidence for the lost gospel of Q.
     
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we have to put that in context. All of the story in the Bible could be true (miracles and all) and he would still have not really represented anything remarkable for non-believers to remember a hundred years later.

    Think about it. If someone in the 1800s allegedly performed some healings, and a small crowd of religious members of some strange cult said they claimed to see the person after they died, and the body had gone missing, would that really be considered that remarkable of an event in history? It probably wouldn't be considered historically worthy.
    Even the strange situation surrounding Rasputin's death we only know of because of his position so close to the Russian royal family. If it had not been for his close connection to the royal family, it would just be some obscure event in history almost no one would know about.

    Most people are just going to assume it represents some sort of fraud, and not believe it shows proof of anything supernatural happening.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see it as merely freedom of choice. For example, I could've chosen to not respond to your comment, or to have responded using different words. Of course, proving such is just as impossible as proving that I was predestined to say this. So, like trying to prove or disprove God, its really a moot point not suitable for anything but philosophical theory.
     
  7. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't believe that anyone should be punished for rejecting any religion or rewarded for believing in any religion. Thinking should not be a crime. Therefore, there should be no punishment or reward for
    believing or disbelieving in Christianity. A rational person can easily reject Christianity for a variety of reasons and Christianity appeals to one's emotions and not one's intellect.

    No reliable sources concerning the message of Jesus.
     
  8. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,005
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a lot of harm that religions can do. The most good that a religion can do is to point to a possibility of discovery.
    Jesus was an educated man and could doubtlessly speak several languages, at least Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek. That he wrote no works was obviously intentional. Buddha, also well educated, left no writings, either. What has survived of both men's words has a similar message; looking inward is the correct direction to finding truth. Outward show accomplishes outward show.
     
    gabmux likes this.
  9. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems the term being discussed is "free will" not "freedom of choice"
     
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I dont see how there could be a distinction between the two. What you're describing sounds more like magical powers, accomplishing things without effort, and I dont think thats a common interpretation of 'free will'.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2021
  11. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you may be missing parts of the thread that give it context.....
    This is the kind of "free will" that was being discussed.
    Do you agree with him?
     
  12. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, a farmer cannot just will themself to be wealthy, but they can make that a reality with hard work and good choices. But it first requires a will to do that work and make those choices. An old women with cancer probably can't cure it by herself, but every day, we take steps toward prolonguing our lives and curing disease, and most likely, that old woman contributed something to the effort, whether it was choosing to focus on being a good parent of a child who chose to become a doctor or illness researcher or choosing to donate some of the fruits of her labor to a cancer research charity or simply choosing to drink clean water instead of diet coke. These are all examples of what I mean when I say 'free will.'

    When you say 'we don't have free will', are you saying that because the farmer might fail to become wealthy or the women might fail to live a long healthy life, that because they tried but were unsuccessful, that means their will didn't matter?
     
  13. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not all folks that work hard become wealthy...in fact most don't.
    It is more likely that someone who hardly works at all becomes wealthy
    for being in the right place at the right time or being born into the right family.
    You don't have to look any farther than your own neighborhood to know that is true.
    But it is quite common practice these days to blame a person for being poor.

    Same goes for an ill person....healthy people get sick and die...it's a fact.
    doesn't mean they ate the wrong kind of food.

    It seems to me you are saying...."If you're not wealthy or you get sick and die...
    then it's your own fault. You must have done something wrong."

    Assuming that you yourself are living your life by those standards....
    you must be the picture of health with plenty of wealth...
    but remember....if you lose your job or die..it's your own fault.

     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2021
  14. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Who wrote the Gospels? They were all written anonymously, anonymous religious writings written around 2000 years ago have been found about 100% of the time to be fictional.

    There may be some truth in some of those Gospels and there probably is, but they are essentially fictional accounts. The names attached to them are second century guesses.


    Many of the verses in Matthew and Luke closely resemble those of Mark. It has been believed for a long time that the writers of those 2 Gospels had a copy of the Gospel of

    Mark and copied or reworked some of the passages to conform to who they thought Jesus was. This has been proposed because of the evidence that all Gospels were originally

    written in Greek, and if there were translations from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek the words used in those gospels would not be so similar. If this is true, then it is evidence that

    the writers of Luke and Matthew were not eyewitnesses to Jesus. There is also the hypothesis that the writers of Luke and Matthew had a Gospel called "Q" which included

    only sayings of Jesus and they added those sayings to the reworked Gospel of Mark. The Sermon on the Mount found only the Gospel of Matthew is a collection of some of those sayings from "Q".


    The Gospel of John is entirely different from the other 3 Gospels. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is God. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is made the son of God after being baptized by John but

    Jesus is never said to be God. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is also the son of God at birth, not at baptism, and also never equated to God The Gospel of John doesn't mention any baptism

    of Jesus because Jesus is already equal to God and has always existed, previously as the Logos.

    from Wikipedia-Logos

    "In Christology, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit. ''Word", "Discourse", or "Reason'')[1] is a name or title of Jesus Christ, derived from the prologue to the Gospel of John (c 100) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God",[2] as well as in the Book of Revelation (c 85), "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."[3] These passages have been important for establishing the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus since the earliest days of Christianity"

    "Christian theologians consider John 1:1 to be a central text in their belief that Jesus is God, in connection with the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together are one God. Although the term Logos or Word is not retained as a title in John's Gospel beyond the prologue, the whole gospel presses these basic claims. As the Logos, Jesus Christ is God in self-revelation (Light) and redemption (Life). He is God to the extent that he can be present to man and knowable to man. The Logos is God"

    So, we have only 1 Gospel telling us that Jesus is God and may have been the last one written, when more time was available for myth-making. According to Biblical scholar Burton Mack,

    "John's story seems to be about the manifestation of a god, not about the historical Jesus or even the Jesus of the synoptics (Luke, Mark, and Matthew)"

    Burton Mack also says, "And the material special to John is also highly mythic: the hymn to the logos, the miracle stories that invite lengthy monologues of the I-am-the -son-from-the-Father-variety,

    the allegorized parables of the good shepherd and the vine, the foot washing, the upper room instructions, Jesus' last prayer, and his after-death appearances.

    If we include the Gospel of Thomas then we have a 5th description of Jesus whose death is of no importance and that Gospel could have been as early or nearly as

    early as the other 4 Gospels.

    Paul's letters are the earliest Christian writings and Paul has essentially nothing
    biographical to say about Jesus. He doesn't mention anything about an empty tomb. Why not, it would help with his mission?


    I haven't mentioned events in those Gospels that are not likely historical or mentioned much in the way of contradictions among the Gospels,
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
  15. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really could you provide an example, or is this just another case of the straw man atheist from the mind of the deceptive pedo supporting catholic?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the most important idea the Jesus character expressed?
     
  17. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,005
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Personal responsibility.
     
    Talon likes this.
  18. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,665
    Likes Received:
    26,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While not considered a 'holy man', one might add Socrates to your list.
     
    gabmux likes this.
  19. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jesus answered, “God’s kingdom is coming, but not in a way that you will be able to see with your eyes.
    People will not say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ because God’s kingdom is within you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
  20. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have a Bible reference for your deduction??
     
  21. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, I'm curious. What evidence do you speak of? I am not aware of many historical records of these events other than the stories in the Bible itself.
     
  22. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jesus the man and Jesus the symbol seem to be two very different messages. The man, if we are to believe the Biblical account, had some good things to say on the sermon on the mount. The symbol is one of vicarious redemption ("he died for your sins"), which is a morally backwards concept.

    Can anyone remind me where in the Bible Jesus himself says he is dying for your sins? Or is that something Paul added later and something a historical Jesus may not have been aware of?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2021
    gabmux likes this.
  23. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,005
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only source for the words of Jesus is the Christian Bible. The "deduction" is the result of reading those words, which point clearly to the individual.
     
  24. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    10,253
    Likes Received:
    6,974
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are other sources. I think the Christian bible has a lot of cherry picking and deliberate misleadings in it. Be sure to look at the gnostic gospels and "A Course in Miracles." The myth that the bible is the only place to find the word of god is yet another deception of the church to maintain power.
     
    gabmux likes this.
  25. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So then if you read them....you can point to those words in the Bible.....no?
    Where are they??
     

Share This Page