there are no evidence for the existence of jesus. all we have is some references to jesus written years after his supposed existence, but still christians say they have proof. are they deliberately misleading or is it that they were taught like that from birth that they don't want to see anything that does not fit their beliefs? (same goes with all religious followers and their gods)
so is beliefs so important to people to blind them them to realty?
why people prefer beliefs to reason when it comes to god?
I highly doubt Jesus existence has been fabricated since he is such an influential person in all mankind history but I do think his teachings and everything related to him has been interpreted so it fits religious BS, still his essence and influence goes beyond religion so in my opinion who cares if he existed or not, he has been here, he is here and he will be here as a myth or real person influencing people's lives still.
Ruben - you make an excellent point. Even if the whole thing is a fairy tale, the positive influence and teachings are so great that one cannot help but love the story and its characters.
I to grew up with the stories. I loved to listen to them when my grandmother told them to us growing up. I really didn't believe everything but I loved to hear her tell the story with such enthusiasm.
Then it came to where I "HAD" to believe in what the family believed in growing up. It didn't matter what I thought or questioned. If I questioned my religion, it was a sin. If I didn't agree with certain teachings, it was a sin. If I had my own opinion, it was a sin. I got so fed up with sinning without sinning that I just turned away.
I think that everyone should be able to choose their own path in life when it comes to their religion and beliefs.
We can disagree as to whether we believe in his existence. But no, I don't think you would find a professed Christian who is deliberately lying. What would be gained by lying? Why not just say you're not a Christian. Wouldn't that make more sense?
haven't you got an opinion for yourself??
lying -only when the person know it is lie. christians believe their lie and for them it is not a lie....
Hey, that wasn't very nice. I do the same thing when I see a post that states basically what I believe. If you don't believe in the New Testament that is a choice you make. Just because another person does doesn't make them a lier, it is called a difference of opinion.
yes when you believe it, it won't be a lie. it will be a lie only when you tell that to another person...
If, indeed, it were a lie. Why would I believe it, simply because you say it? I think you may have taken to heart some of the posts on this thing about sheeple. The definition of a sheeple is just someone who doesn't agree with a narrow minded poster. I don't know that anyone has proven it to exist. Trust me, those who don't agree with you are not always lying.
You can't change a definition just by saying it is not so - a sheeple refers to people with no mind of their own like a sheep and is compounded in its humour by sounding similar to steeple.
don't believe me. in fact don't believe any one except you. i suggest you research(internet make it very easy to get any information you choose but only you have too check the authenticity. then analyse all information rationally without any pre-conceived notions. then whatever you feel is true follow that....
Right back at you on that. But don't believe anything you hear and less than half of what you read. People have to decide for themselves what is true, and then spend a lot of time listening to others, who see a different truth, telling them they are wrong. Which is not a bad thing. It helps us continue to deepen our understanding. I just happen to disagree with you on this point. Not because anyone tells me to. I'm too bull headed to follow anyone, and I'm too obstinate to be followed. I don't consider it to be my place, or my right, to tell someone they are wrong in their beliefs. I suppose if I could crawl up in their heads, or if the Almighty came down and put me in charge of judgement, that might change. For now, it is my firm belief that no one has those powers.
fine with me as long as you don't come with bombs or the like...
ha ha no worries there mate. And if you think that's the way Christianity is heading, good for you to try to stop the spread of it. I hope though, that you have the opportunity to see a diffrrent side than what you may have been exposed to, that has helped you in that opinion.
So if I research something on the Internet, sift through the rubble of information, make an assessment then a decision, whatever I have decided is now true? The question is rhetorical. Of course the answer is yes, if I believe what I have decided and no, because the premise still holds true that we all possess our own truth regardless of any information.
There is some historical references.
blaming Christians for the fire/burning of Rome.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44
well noted & influential Hebrew historian
Pliny the Younger
the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor.
Pliny, Epistles x. 96
Pliny, Letters transl. by William Melmoth
Lucian of Samosata
a Greek satirist
The Works of Lucian of Samosata, Death of Peregrine,11-13
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/histo … us.htm#ch9
i already read that, except josephus all are telling about christians and not jesus. josephus story is manipulated(jesus in the second is actually jesus des damneus and the first part declaring jesus as messiah but josephus remained a jew all through out his life)
All of the Jews that came to believe that Jesus was their Messiah remained Jews through out their lives.
indeed. As did many Hebrews apart from the Jewish order.
Also noted is the power and consistency of twelve uneducated, blue collar persons, who even at death, did not negate the existence or deeds of this man. The only disputable one is S/Paul of Tarsus.
would like to know who those "uneducated" twelve are!!!
Actually, one of them was educated, wasn't he? Was it Mark who was scholarly? You guys know a lot more on the facts in this case but I would assume the reference is to the 12 Apostles, mostly laborers.
then how come the illiterate john wrote gospel in classical greek around AD100?
I don't know. Greek was the language of commerce in those days. Maybe it was common for people who spoke other languages to also write Greek.
It was actually letters. Back then, you could go to a person and for a small fee dictate a letter. So even if they could not read or write, they could easily find someone who could. Also, people can learn to read and write, so he may have been taught later on.
What should be recognized is this: all concur that this "sect" arose from a single man; how they placed him and worshiped him as a god. Else, Christianity would not exist.
It is now the third largest sect of theology in history. If anything, its shear magnitude accounts for something.
As Judaism and Islam both identify with this sect, under different ideologies but the same basic laws and governing principles.
no the sect didn't arise from a single man. there were so many beliefs regarding messiah...like he lived, he is only a spirit and so on. the gnostics, essenes, edomites and all believed so many different things, which coalesced only later(support of Constantine helped!!)
(the town nazerath came into existence only after 2nd cetuary)
Jomine - I think you are misunderstanding James. The entire Christian world stems from Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise known as the Christ. Anything which existed before may have indeed coalesced but nonetheless became part of the following known as Christianity. All Constantine did was maneuver a way for Christians to worship in public under the guise of pagan holidays.
nazerath is town built after 2nd centuary.
mathew has misquoted " mathew2.23 -And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" from judges 13.5 "For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no rasor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines"
Nazarite(he who vows to grow long hair and serve god)
if there was no city of nazerath then who is this jesus of NAZERATH?
there were so many jesuses and jesus like stories, or people like "the teacher of righteousness" of essenes, or wonder workers like apolloneus, or gods like asclepius all coalesce to form the final jesus of nazerath(which was made to give a birth place to the god man but was out of place)
which james you were referring to james the greater, james the less, james brother of jesus des damneus, james brother of judas, james son of zebedee, james brother of john...on and on
The phrase 'Jesus of Nazareth' is simply my reference to a specific person. I wasn't debating where he was born.
The 'James' I was referring to is the poster who uses "Twenty One Days" as his pen name and signs his posts James. Not James from the Bible.
Regardless of who, which, where - the man commonly known as Jesus of Nazareth is the man around whom the Christian faith revolves.
my point is also the same. there never was a jesus of nazareth. it is a collection of people(like apolloneus) and stories(like asclepius) that is amalgamated over 2-4 centuries to become the god man JESUS OF NAZARETH.
Actually, you'd have to read the early texts. The Bible has been updated through the church and kings. Lands were renamed, and so, to let the people know WHERE they renamed them.
Brainwashing is a form of willful ignorance. If the facts do not meet their agenda, they are willing to lie to make the facts fit---and that often includes outright denying reality.
The REAL truth is replaced with their "TRUTH"
It often seems as though, what you say; can just as rightfully be coming from the oposit side of the fence back atcha.
What is interesting is that you don't seem to see this.
That's erroneous and absurd. But it's the only argument you have. How pathetic.
Jerami - Gotta agree with you on this one. One person's truth is discounted by another who sees himself as right, knowing the REAL truth. When faced with someone else's truth, the mirror turns back on them. They only see themselves in it,not allowing for any other truth. Someone else's truth need not be accepted for oneself, but should, out of expansiveness for truth itself, be acknowledged as someone else's truth without liable.
Even concerning those, that seam to disagree the most, there are more commonalities in place than either would care to admit.
We are all almost the same, the difference of flavors are not as pertinent as we would like them to imagine them to be.
Something like that anyway.
The Bible plainly states this. God created the world and everything in it. Jesus is God's son who died on the cross for our sins. In the Bible you find the words of Christ written in red. Yes he did live on this earth for 33 years before he was crucified. There is God the Father, God the Son who is Jesus christ and God the Holy spirit which lives in every believer's heart
This is called the Trinity..
yes there was a god called Krishna whose coming was foretold his teachings were written (i do not know what color) in a book called Bhagavad Gita and he will be back in end time
well what makes one story different from other??
The only book that I read is the Bible. It gives me all I need to know. If Christians are quoting from the Bible then it isn't a lie. You may call it what you will and your opinion will not change my thoughts on the subject. I frankly do not know where you come up with what you are talking about. All I know is that I am going to heaven when I did and that God is the author of the Bible and Jesus christ is his son who died on the cross for our sins. That is all I need to know or you for that matter.
How depressing that such a world view can still exist 500 years after the Renaissance in such a diverse and wonderful world with so much that we now know that so many people have lived and died to find for us all. Such a world view is be as useful to humanity as if such a person were never to have existed at all. Wasting a life is contrary to all the real thoughts and ideas clearly expressed through the metaphor of your god.
Agreed. That's just like if I were to confess that I still believed in Santa Claus. No shame.
Jesus life was not wated. If he had not died on the cross we would all be bound for hell. God loved us so much that he provided a way for us to be in heaven with him. We just have to believe and acept the forgiveness that Jesus provided for us by dying on the cross for our sins.
As the basis for a personal way of life that suits you then your belief is both harmless and peaceful. Unfortunately you entered it in a thread posing the question do christians lie for jesus . In the context of this thread, blindly following has gained the term 'sheeple' - and I guess your words put you in this category. The liars are those who work at the business of maintaining blindness to reality, knowing the fallacies of their arguments.
China man- Though I agree that Dian'swords4u could have chosen her words differently, I don't think it's fair for you to put anyone into a label.
I believe in God. To me, the truth is simple. The Bible is written from letters and books that the church chose after the death of Jesus. There are many references to him in history. If you do not choose to believe he existed, that is your opinion, mine differs. To have so many references it seems a bit strange for it to be a falsehood. After all, if we're basing this only on genetic proof, then Socrates is not real either.
In any case, they have historic proof of events happening, such as old scrolls found, boats on top of mountains in Turkey and etc. I believe simply because I believe. It is not about lying, it is simply about looking at the evidence and determining whether or not you want to accept it. Kind of like finding a person guilty or not guilty in a courtroom.
The purpose of my post was to point out htat this thread is about lying for jesus and making naive meaningless posts will only attract attack from those who might mistake her naive simpicity for mouting platitudes - you however are a different 'category'.
No evidence of your jesus figure - or any existence of any 'god' has been found outside of your bible and the other versions that are founded in the same muyths. NOWHERE - NONE. You are either deeply and criminally misinformed by the lies of creationsits who claim such things - but not one shred of evidence exists for any of your 'belief' outside of the story book. You are entitled to your belief but you should not propogate the lies and fabrications of creationists in claiming scientific proof for them, they do not exist as has been established in many places including these forums.
Unfortunately for that comment, the book, "Under the Influence" -Schmidt (I believe he wrote that one anyways) shows that almost everything that makes the world better today, then it had been in Roman times comes directly, and almost entirely, from the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. So unless you want to ignore entire libraries, historical societies and even linguistics, there was in fact a man named Jesus who was a philosopher.
Mountains of words are not proof of anything - as you must very well know. There is NO veriable supporting evidence - no-one outside the characters in the story (part of the story themselves) mentions your jesus, not one historical note anywhere - not one. Not one artifact, ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING.
So - all your pseudo professors are lying to you - and you are passing this lie on in your turn. Personally I do not dispute that a jesus who did things something like the story MIGHT have actually existed but it cannot be proved. In this instance the weight of evidence is that the jesus in the story is a METAPHOR.
Then, by that logic, Socrates did not exist, nor did a lot of philosophers. There are references to Jesus, not just as mentioned in the Bible. I'm not asking you to believe in miracles, the question was IF Jesus existed.
Give me one reference to jesus that is not in the bible.
All right, if that's what you really want...
Those two refer to a "Messiah", but the teachings are strikingly similar to Jesus' teachings and historians have theorized that it is the same person.
Lives of the Twelve Caesars- This one is an easy read for anyone, but I won't quote out passages from it because you can't judge an entire book/work on just a paragraph or two of it's contents.
Oh, and let's not forget about Pontius Pilate (The person not the books based on him, though they are fairly interesting to read) Also, they have artifacts with Pilate's name and title on them, so let's not get into an argument about him. -_^
That is exactly the difference - things written after are only repeats of the original story - not any proof of the existence of hte peson in reality - now Pontious Pilate was mentioned in many places, including the usual statues etc. He was clearly a real person who actually existed, but even he did not mention any jesus. Because Pilate was a real person and the places are real (except Nazareth of course as that did not exist until 2 hundred years after the supposed time) does not make your character real any more than Scarlett O'Hara is real because the places and events in 'Gone with the Wind' were real.
Your sources ar no more evidence than you claiming in these posts that the character in your novel is real.
Wherre is your evidence of the existence of a real jesus ?
All right, besides references made in books, artifacts and thousands of religious paraphernalia? Where is the proof to anyone before cameras and DNA testing? You can't really write a history on someone's life until they have lived it. Jesus has been quoted in hundreds of books on philosophy and so has about a million other philosophers. What makes Plato any different then Jesus? Other than the fact people worship him?
I think what you are really wanting is proof he performed the miracles that the Bible says he did.
Also, as I mentioned in an early comment, the Bible has been edited throughout time and "updated" so people would know WHERE the places were. King James was one of the major editors, and I'm sure you all ready know all about him.
Also, there have been articles done by well-respected men and women who have shown that Jesus was a philosopher. I'm not asking you to believe he resurrected the dead, simply the existence of a philosopher before the time of photographs.
No - you are totally avoiding the point. All the mentions are about jesus as a character in the novel - there is no mention of his existence outside of the one reference.
Nobody worships Plato. We do use his teachings as the basis for philosphic thinking - and his existence is not an issue, it is the ideas we want we don't care if he was a real perosn or just a name on the front of a set of writings from that time.
The same applies to your jesus, except that you, and creationists and other fundamental christians, make the claim that your jesus and all the incidences from your bible are fact - and when you can't prove them you try to attack the methods of reasoning that tell you they are not true. Taping up someone's mouth to prevent them speaking does not make your lie true - it makes you blind.
Actually, yes there are. I all ready referred you to a few, but I could give a whole list, but you would say that they were written after he died, like most books based on other people, so I don't see the point.
If you didn't all ready know, there were about 100 other books going around, dating before the Bible was "written", describing a lot of details of Jesus that the Bible leaves out. This was because the church felt it was controversial and did not want the people to get the wrong impression.
But here is some books you might consider reading.
Epistle of Barnabas
The Teachings of the Apostles -This one varies on dates as no one really dated it, but from what many historians believe it is the book first written by Jesus' actual followers who followed him around.
Also, check out the history channel, they had a very good series on missing books and concepts. Also, they have "supposedly" found out what Jesus looked like, because they have found the shroud. Though I, myself, find it skeptical that it is THE shroud, it's still interesting to see. It fits the time line. Oh, also, they say they found the tomb, which was made by his father and even bore his craftsmen mark. But I am betting you'll question all of this because you do not want to admit that a man named Jesus was a philosopher and left a mark so great on the world that they worshiped him.
Oh, and Socrates and Plato were actually 'worshiped' to some degree. They were fawned over and followed around, they were invited to just about everything and even have books based on one of the parties. Oh, and one of those philosophers NEVER had a book until after his death (we all know which one, not Jesus this time).
Also, when did I ever tape up your mouth? Never. I simply pointed out that no one can absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt prove the existence of anyone. To go so deep as this is actually blinding to yourself. Think about, if you discredit the existence of everyone you have not met, then I do not exist. Then, if we go that far, this world is not a reality and it is all a lie. Thoughts like that have driven people mad.
And I would prefer it if you did not tell me that I am blind as I have made rational and logical arguments and you have simply denied each piece because the lack of great chronicles of a simple man who grew up poor. You do realize that during that time, they tried to keep the people quiet and only wanted them to serve their kind/emperor/tyrant and if anyone gave them a different idea, they tried to squash it before it got out of hand.
And if it is ideas you were looking for, then leave it as an idea. I highly doubt that's why you entered his forum. I have to wonder if you are simply looking for a debate.
Also, I never said I believed EVERYTHING in the Bible to be fact. I believe in the teachings, and general concepts. I believe there was a man named Jesus who existed, and I have given you reasons, evidence but you will continually discredit them simply because you want me to say that everything the Bible says is true.
The words that I chose came from the Bible. Romans 6:23. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." This tells us that if we want to spend eternity in heaven we must believe in Jesus and that he died for our sins and rose the third day and if we can confess our sins and ask forgiveness of them , then we can askJesus into our hearts and have eternal life with God in heaven forever. Thank You
This random postin gof meaningless verses and words is thread-jacking which is a violation of the rules - so I have found in the past and been awarded a 3 day ban for it. This thread is "are christians deliberately lying about jesus" so unless you are deliberately lying - you should cease filling this thread with religious spam.
And yet, you said gods can't die? How does that work?
god wanted to grant him permission to prevent me from going to hell he created, by dying himself and resurrecting ....
well what is this death?
who took care of the world when your god was dead?
in bible it is said three days and three night, well Friday night to Sunday early morning, how can that be three days and night? is that some miracle too?
if god wanted to forgive sins why didn't he simply forgive instead of dying himself? was he trying to impress somebody?
why jesus didn't come immediately after the humans were ousted from paradise that so many other generations could also have been saved, instead of drowning people?
or was it that god was experimenting?
God is not dead nor has he ever been dead. He created the world by speaking everything into place. This is found in Genesis chapter 1. In Chapter 2 he creates man and woman. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden until they sinned and ate of the tree of knowledge. They were cast out of the garden. At this time God said that man would have to labor for a living and woman would have to bear pain when in childbirth and the snake would crawl on his belly because of his tempting Eve. God destroyed the earth with a flood because there was only one man named Noah and his family that believed in God and did as God commanded them.. He gave us the rainbow after the flood to signify that he would never destroy the world that way again. God loves us so much because we are his creation that he wants all of us to spend eternity in heaven with him. Because we are sinners we can't be in heaven with him because God is perfect and can't be with sin, so in his plan Jesus came to earth by virgin birth and lived on the earth as a human being. He came to show us how we should live our lives in the Christian manner. He died on the cross for our sins so that we would not have to pay the same penalty for our sins. God did not grant Jesus p[ermission to die. Jesus knew that he came to live and die on the cross for our sins. This was God';s plan. This is a gift that God provided for us so that we may have eternal life with him in heaven. Jesus was crusified and hung on the cross until he died and then was placed in a borrowed grave and was there 3 days. The bible does not say three days and nights. God sent an angel to roll the stone from the door of the tomb and he breathed life into Jesus and he was risen from the dead. He now resides in heaven at the right hand of his father God. Or responsibility in this is that we have to admit that we are sinners and believe that Jesus is God's son and that he died on the cross for our sins and was risen the third day and lives with his father in heaven. We need to confess that we believe this and that we confess our sinful life and ask God to forgive us our sins and then we can ask Jesus into our hearts and be saved and thus spend eternity in heaven with God forever and ever. If we do not ask Jesus into our hearts we wil be doomed to hell for eternity and there you wil be in agony for ever and burn but never be consumed.
This one of the longest most trite pieces of childish drivel I have seen for a long time, I am beginning to think you are joking and winding us up !
You can call it dive if you will. I am not childish nor trying to wind you up as you say, whatever that means. I am merely speaking the truth as the Bible says it. I can see that you don't believe in the Bible and that is your choice. My choice is to believe in the Bible and all it has to offer me. Jesus told his disciples that if they were to go into a place where the people were not receptive to their teaching and would not believe that they should shake the dust from their feet and leave. I am leaving. You do not believe and I really don;t think I could ever convince you of the truths held in the Bible. My prayer for you is that before you pass from this earth that someday you will understand what I have tried to share with you as the truth and that you can acept the gift of eternal life. If you don;t accept the gift of eternal life you will go to hell. I would not wish that on anyone especially you.
First you say god never died, then you say god died in the form of Jesus. But, you said god never died. Isn't that a contradiction?
Sorry, but when a religion uses threats of eternal damnation simply because people do not accept those myths, it is not a religion anyone would actually want to join.
My friend hell is not a threat it is an absolute truth. If you do not accept the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ then you will surely go to hell. that is not my wish for you. I hope some day that you will come to an understanding of the truth before it is eternally too late.
Funny how you don't know what constitutes a threat. You just made one. You threatened me with hell if I don't accept Jesus. That is a threat, by definition. Even if you don't own a dictionary, there are many free ones online available.
No, you are taking it as a threat, but it's a warning from the inspired word of God. God prepared hell for the devils and his angels. God promises that anyone who believes in Jesus ( John 3:16), and accepting him as your personal Savior ( John 14:6), will be saved and not go to hell. God does not want anyone to hell. ( 2 Peter 3:9)
No - it is a definate and clearly stated threat.
The means of control are the most simple there are - simply put it is the 'carrot and donkey' analogy - the way to make the donkey take the path you dictate is to hold a carrot in front and hold a whip behind. This is your heaven and hell, heaven in front and hell behind. The poor donkey, like yourself, never understands that it will never get the carrot or get whipped except a MAN gives you some carrot or whips you.
It is a threat by definition, check your dictionary, if you have one.
china man, I hope you will have a better day today. You gave me no choice, but to report you. I can see that hubpages has removed your very disrespectful reply to me. Feel free to go over to the forum titled: "Banned because" and tell the hubbers you were banned when you called a christian a donkey. Shame on you for uncilvilized bad behavior.
So, is it okay to report anyone who threatens me with eternal damnation? Seems much worse than calling a Christian a donkey.
You were thinking that Hubpages don't understand metaphors ?
Your inability to understand clear and simple metaphors is at the root of your postings. Your god and your jesus are metaphors for higher things than just a couple of guys wandering around doing stuff. The wooden animals you ran up the ramp into your toy wooden ark ARE metaphors in a story, no less real than in the original story.
And your propensity toward reporting people for what you don't understand - says everything about you.
Oh, my mistake, china man post has not been removed, but that's ok. This gives everyone a chance to see the degrading words which reflects his personality. Beelzedad, No it is not ok to falsely report someone. Thanks for asking me. You were never threatened with eternal damnation. I explained that in my prior post. Have a Happy Smiley Face Day.
nah, he just gives an outrageous punishment for human's first mistake, then requires murder to 'fix it'
Beelzedad, I guess I am damned and will be gong to hell too because I am just so feed up with all of it. I am not going to accept something that I do not truly believe in. It does not make any sense to me AND I'm just T.I.R.E.D. tired of all of the preaching and quoting, ughhhh. Its statements like those that the others have made that makes people turn away from the church.
I need to find my way without being pushed in one direction while someone is twisting my arm at the same time. I thought that we were all given FREE WILL to make decisions for ourselves, not because we were being warned or threatened, that sounds like bullying to me! I guess that is something else that was also taught to me that was false.
ah, the 'loving' yet damning message of christianity
'nor has (god) ever been dead' - so Jesus is not god? Or that Jesus getting murdered really wasn't killing?
hell seems like a harsh punishment for just eating a piece of fruit - first stuff-up and all generations are condemned thereafter.
i didn't bring it up like that. it is what the hindus belief(for your information there is nation called India, which is the second populous nation on earth with a hindu majority but you may not believe it. you may not even believe there are nations other than america and people other than americans)
you can believe any thing you choose, you can believe in santa claus, or tooth fairies, or globins or even harry potter. but however hard you believe it will not cahnge the fact that they are fictional characters and never lived. but nobody will question your right to believe in any nonsense you choose and base your life on it. but when you preach all these and ask others to believe it and try to stop the progress of science then it is a different matter..
Very sorry to hear your indoctrination is so complete that the world and everything it has to offer is passing you by. You have my complete sympathies. I cannot imagine how awful this must be.
The names. Probably a few pieces here and there. Other than that every single book on religion, or God, comes down to the same thing. If it's a myth, why is it there are so many different variables of the exact same story, with little differences that fit the culture it is set to, all made before these cultures had any contact with each other?
Well said Travis.
I am sure the religious AND the anti religious will have some invalid rebuttal.
But after they rebut, humbly request some validity provided by a nonhuman influenced expression. Let's see if, apart from documents, they have any valid argument on either side.
For example does science --apart from "the bible" or other religious texts have a basis of validity for their argument against religion? How about religion apart from Torah, Koran, "New Testament"? My guess is neither have it.
The Jamaicans have a saying "who feels it knows it". That's the basis for all that I believe. This is my validity. I'm not talking about religion, just knowing. I think science is different. Things are done with measured results. If I walk 500 steps, I will be at the next corner. This is a measured result.
once all cultures believed earth is flat, that made earth flat i guess.....
Since they didn't know anything else, I guess it was flat to them. Elks in Yellowstone National Park remain near the warm air of the geysers in bitter winter. There is plant life just near the perimeter of the warm air but they do not know this so they do not venture out and they starve to death. Their reality is stay warm for as long as I can, then starve to death. Reality is in our knowing, in our consciousness.
YOur question reflects some inability to imagine the vast time scales of evolution and human social history - relative to our lifespan.
All the religions originated from one source somewhere in what is now the middle east, where modern civilization began with city states. The hierarchical nature of humans produced a 'high' class that had 'free' time and so started to think and communicate in the abstract. With very little knowledge that we would consider scientific and no thinking process that included logic they set about to define the world and our place in it, along the way inventing writing, logic and the sciences.
The oral tradition that precedes writing, by nature keeps the most basic most traditional stories better than relatively local events like some king or other getting his head cut off or whatever. So the big things like the establishment of a whole nation get retold within the resulting peoples along with the ancient attepts at explaining the unknown with all the tools at their disposal wich were pretty much limited to sitting on the roof watching the sun, moon and stars.
The reason for similarities between those old stories that appear in any area connected by land or sea trade routes is pretty obvious. Any connection with places not - are similar because sitting on a roof watching the sun, moon and stars in any place will produce similar results.
How people can still believe the metaphors are facts from those ancient stories - over what is in front of their noses is a mystery that I cannot begin to understand.
Maybe because science still has yet to prove that God doesn't exist, that there still is not proof to the Big Bang THEORY or any other means of the earth's and all life's creation? As long as there is some piece missing, there is going to be major differences in opinion. I also believe that even IF science some how managed to prove the in-existence of a "greater being," there will still be people believing in such thing. I have my reasons to believe, just as many people do. Just as well others have their own reasons not to believe, be it pride, lack of understanding of the nature of this "greater being" or whatever the reason may be.
It is impossible to prove the inexistence of anything. NORMALLY people weigh evidence, or reason their way through a theory, or use logic and by extension they use probability. Then we can weigh up the what if? and then treat the proposition as if it were a fact to obtain information, and when even that does not make any conclusions that fit with the posited situation - we conclude that the possibilites of the premise are too remote to rank as a very likely, likely, unlikely, improbable, unreasonable, highly unlikely, to the downright "you have to be kidding me right!" that the ideas of religion produce in normal people who can reason.
Or of course you can find some half decomposed shreds of paper and get a bunch of people interested in the religion business to put them together to support a hierarchical male dominated theory of everything that deals only in absolutes - then get a roman official to rewrite the sequel with no authority from the accepted authors of the rerwrite, and then follow the instructions contained therein as the meaning to your life, I suppose, maybe, well if you reeeeeeeeeeeeeealy stretch it, just maybe.
Hey china man. I get your stand, and I get the preconceived notions of what all Christians think. The question I keep coming back to is; what is the something more? There is evidence to many that it exists. I know through personal experience it does. Does any religion know? They couldn't completely. If they did, I would think all people would follow it. Christianity gets kicked around because they're one of the big kids on the block, and nobody feels safe harassing the muslims. Logic can't follow this thing completely. There is more to this universe than what we see in the physical world. I don't get why some think there's harm in trying to find it.
The 'something more' is the THOUGHT of some purpose higher than just living. That can include your kids future, future of mankind, being a better person, understanding more, thinking more clearly - in fact a whole range of things that are more than just you as human animal.
This transcendental aspect of human thinking is about knowledge being independant from ourselves, there being more than we will ever know, direct contemplation of the unknown. This is well illustrated by an aspect of one type of transcendental number (where the trans part means kinda the same but relating to mathematics) pi is a transcendental number - we know it is 22 over 7 but if we try to calculate it the .3333 goes on without end. It can be used but it cannot be contained.
If this is extended to the universe we can say that however it came into being (if it wasn't always in existence without an origin and end) that phenomenon would still exist if the universe seased to exist, as would the phenomenon that caused that one and on like .333
One way to reconcile that with our limited thinking ability is to personify it as a god, another is to just accept that we don't know. Either way, the abstract thinking that comes with the idea satisfies the spiritual element in our makeup, whether we do it through religion, philosophy or science. I prefer philosophy.
I agree completely that we don't know. Personal experience tells me there is a something more, in the nature of a presence that is actually capable of interacting. Whatever it is, I am curious enough to search. I admit that can sometimes come off as crazy, but it's a little deeper than that to anyone on that path. I do completely agree that religion can, very often, veer to the left so far that it is impossible to rationally follow and a philosophical course is a much gentler approach. Good for you, to be on a path of your own. I just wish everyone could leave a little more leeway for each other. Sometimes our posts read a little rank.
curious - the 'something more' is that you are god. we as a species, thinking and feeling, have god within us. as a collective, we are god with all the power and energy we need to create worlds, to move objects, to perform miracles. humans have not evolved as a collective to this point, but know this - the 'something else' you are feeling is that you are god.
Well, If that is true I'm way more powerful than I come off on a daily basis. I'll try that theory out and see if I can pull of a couple of things I would classify as miracles. I'm sure I won't be able to stop myself from sharing it if I do. But I agee with you in that we all have a piece of the divine within us.
That is a purely religous thinking somersault - you have a desire or feeling for something outside of yourself - this is the divine or the sublime or many other things - it is not a thing that you can have in you not even an abstract thing.
I agree completely. I believe in both. I believe that to be the ultimate concept of the body of Christ. I just think it applies to all of us. I think it is simply a variation of the teachings that we are all one with the universe. Call me crazy.
china - I use the word god for lack of a better word to explain the concept of we are literally our own world. Simply put, our perception is everything. The glass half full concept. Same thing.
Curious, if you classify them as miracles, are they really miracles or just something you haven't quite figured out yet?
I've really tried to figure them out. As of this post, still no rational explanation.
So why can't you be satisfied, at this point, that the answer is that you just don't know?
Why do you need to assign the word "miracle" to something just because you can't figure it out?
This is no way to pursue the truth. It is only a way to confirm your indoctrination: Goddunnit.
Hi getitrite. I was wondering when you would show up. With no knowledge of the facts behind my statement I find it not entirely surprising that you would jump to that conclusion, but that could be just me prejudging you. Who knows. Anyway, the difference between us, as it appears to me, is I am secure enough in myself not to be concerned if others find me silly. I don't, but by talking to people occasionally I run across someone with an opposing outlook who can offer insight. Sorry to say that does not appear to be you. I hope you have a nice day.
I'm quite sure you have irrefutable proof that the things you can't figure are "miracles."
I guess I just wasn't thinking.
So let's hear it. I'm always willing to hear an opposing view, backed up with evidence---however, whim is not to be taken as evidence.
...Oh! have a nice day!
Hey getitrite, read my post on the miracle forum akawinston started. i was thinking about you when i said it. i'm glad to see you admit you don't think when you post. Understanding your problems is the first step in beating them and, thanks, my day's been great so far and I anticipate it will continue in a postive manner.
Beelzedad - miracles are in the eye of the beholder. There's not much to figure out once one 'gets it'. I think you get it. I could be wrong.
No you are not a god, this is pure new age BS that arises out of half understood premise. This has all been more than covered on recent threads and the god/human possibilites have been explained to you before - you don't listen much I guess.
Or - to get back on thread about christians lying for jesus . . . .
china man the middle east connection because most dominant races of today originated in middle east(the indo european family) but don't extrapolate that to all religions existing.
then again something should be common as human experiences around the globe are similar.........
just curious ---about experiences. experiences doesn't matter as they are biased. that is why we have double and triple blind study in statistics
People are led to False Understanding ... if and when they are asked to Believe in Fallacies ... It is thus, in justifying a Fallacy, that a people tell lies.
Jesus Christ, is a Sign of the Almighty Creator ... One, who can have the Blessed Virgin, Mary, Bear Jesus ... Peace be Upon the Christ ...
Praised be The Lord, Who Grants, Sons to old of age Prophets and their past mensuration wives.
You can go on following Logics and Reason, but at least think once, if your own Life ... Your Being in a Body ... is all lies.
In other words, Christians do outright lie about Jesus.
Whatever makes you presume that ... ?
Read again, carefully, what I have stated ...
When was the last time you saw a virgin give birth?
And if so, when was the last time you saw a virgin give birth to the son of God?
Please provide reasonable evidence outside of hearsay(bible)
I am not qouting out of what you call hearsay ... I am quoting The Word of God ... Koran...
where, and it is also Stated ...
"Try [as one may] they will never understand."
My friend, I am only sharing, what little I know. To accept or to reject the Word ... is your business.
I hereby reject your "WORD" as nothing but hearsay.
Have a nice day.
That would appear to be the issue being pointed out.
Had you said instead, "to reject a Word" - one amongst many such alleged Words, it would have some credibility and would be a valid statement, however to decree it as "the Word" only serves to diminish your position to that of simple zealotry.
Belief, In Truth ... is usually given many names ... anyones upgrading or degrading, therefore, is not what I seek ... its not what matters... What matters is, that I live The Ordained.
Sure, and when the belief and the truth do not align with reality, it is called delusion, madness, insanity, etc., many names indeed.
Fine, it may matter to you but is just as easily perceived as delusion if it does not appear to align with reality.
Certainly, the Quran does not appear to align.
This is the last , but one, of these exchanges ...
So I am to request you to write me a short note about
your definitive, of two words ... "Real" and "Truth"
It is unrealistic to think that I would have to fear that something really bad will happen to me because I chose not to believe in what others believe.
It is like a dictatorship and as I recall dictators enslaved, tortured, murdered and started wars.
Why should I have to live in fear because I disagree? It just doesn't make sense.
You might as well stop believing that the air you are now breathing is benifical to your physical life
Christians are just going by what they have been told, and by what they believe to be true. I really dont think they go to the church basement and laugh their asses off because they are playing a really long standing practical joke.
Most beliefs blind us from reality. If we eliminated all or most of our beliefs perhaps we would see more of the bigger picture. Since they are beliefs how can one be lying? Believing something to be true and stating this perception is not lying.
Do atheists lie about God not existing?
Yes, in exactly the same way they lie about Santa Claus not existing.
Yes - christians lie all the time, the further up the religious business tree they climb the more they come to realise there is no jesus or god as advertised but it is a business. Only the sheeple actually believe the strange story - and there is not one shred of evidence for any of the stuff - you have to be normal to realise that probably means it was just a fabricated story as a metaphor supposed to be a guide for life - until Paul got hold of it and put adverts in it.
Everyone lies at one point or another, I am normal and I don't think it was a made up story, what's normal anyways? It's very subjective based on any give individual point of view.
Yeah, everyone lies. If you deny that, then you are lying. And please do define "normal." Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what "normal" really is.
If you have to ask what normal is . . . . .
You can't even define it yourself now can you?
Well - yes I can. Normality is the sum of the shared symbolic universe that is the individuals reference background. Or something like that. Some people confuse this with reality.
This is what creationsits work to achieve, the changing of the shared symbolic universe to make the impossible 'normal'. It does not make it real however and even if they managed to spread this desease eough it would still have to fall in some future renaissance in the face of reality - so best to avoid that route ?
Normal is the sum of all participating entities or objects or events set on a curve and being the middle average of said sum. So just because something is within the normal range, doesn't make it anything but ...normal.
It was a nice little story, he dies in the end, but it is left open for a sequel albeit 2000 years later... ;
People prefer lying to get acceptance to their opinion. It's similar to retweet and social support thingy. Same applies here.
i don't think so...for a minute let us say Jesus didn't exist ...still i don't think Christians are lying....
The lying is when people do not believe the reality of what they are saying but say it anyway. The christian controllers are clearly lying because they make no attempt to live or behave in accordance with their supposed faith - but lie anyway as they are in the business. Those who are not lying are the mentally limited sheeple who these people control, these are generally good people misdirected by Paul, the first CEO of the christian religion business, the cynical 'upper' classes of highly educated religious egomaniacs, and the distasteful 'middle' class of local control freaks.
The sheeple are harmless in the main, baaaaing - love you - bless you - pray for you - and other empty phrases at each other, apparently in complete bliss and unaware that their 'shepherd' is in the mutton business.
Blah Blah Blah
My God's better then your God
Well my No God is better then your God
Why not try living your lives and enjoy that which is real people? Friendship, thats real, family, again thats real. Having a bit of fun discussing the color of angle wings or the implications of the latest quantum theories is fine, if your having fun doing it. Is anyone having fun arguing who has the best God anymore?
Maybe God exists, maybe not, it really makes no difference . It will not change how easily I can put food in my fridge, it wont make my kids excel in school or have any relevant effect on my life. My choices have a relevant effect, not the existence of some Deity who doesn't bother with us anymore. I don't need God to want to live the best life I can. I want to live in a better world, the way to do that is to make it a better world by doing acts of kindness and avoiding causing harm whenever possible. It really just doesn't matter if God exists or not, what matters is the here and now. Who are you? Who do you choose to be? This is what matters.
I could agree wholeheartedly withh this - except - the extenion of the harmless to fundamentalism is a major factor in making the world a far more unsafe place, even to the point of manufacturing ignorance that works toward an end to civilization.
Actually i am with kristineblog. I agree with what she said. Why dont we just forget about god and religion and anything related to that. Lets just concentrate on our present. We all have a family and we have to take care of them.
I say, Just forget that there was no god at all. Forget about the bible and the kuran and the bhagvatgita. Just think that there was no god at all. And we are here only because of our ansestors and Science. If there was no religion and god, There would have not been wars and fights among each other. Wverybody would have lived peacefully and happly among each other.
Nice sentiment I would agree - but there are so many who don't agree and they drive the agenda, we are just passengers trying to get off the bus.
I think the problem comes down to people truly believing that they only way they can be good people is because God told them to. If they are so shallow that they can only be good people by being commanded to be such or risk the fires of hell they cannot see how others can be good simply for the sake of being good.
I seriously doubt the good in such people, they seem to spend a lot more time preaching about being good then actually doing good. The folks who are only ever there to argue that their God is best but are never there when someone needs the comfort of friends during a difficult time, or the advice of others as to how to practically deal with one of life's little problems. And they wonder why I think religion is just a pile of hypocritical trite
In one of your responses, you had mentioned about Krishna and Bhagavad Gita.
I am a Hindu. What makes you believe that if Krishna existed, Jesus could not have existed or vice versa?
When human beings of divine qualities (Avatars) come to this world, at whatever period, they make such an impact that their lives will be recorded in some way or other. Their life becomes a reference for future generations to understand God. Yes. There may be some distortions, exaggerations, misunderstandings etc about their lives and teachings. Some amount of sand is bound to get mixed with sugar.
But, sugar there is, undoubtedly. If you are interested in tasting that sugar, you have to work like ants to segregate sugar from sand and then consume it.
Instead of questioning whether Jeus really existed or Krishna really existed, it would be better to delve deeper into Bible or Bhagavad Gita to grasp the crux of their teachings. There may be some areas not acceptable to your intellect or reasoning. Don't cling to them. Treat them as sand and proceed to gather sugar.
A bible or Gita can never be understood in one go. You have to read them again and again. Every reading will throw a fresh light to you about the deeper aspects of spirituality, if only you are curious to learn and grow.
As you read, contemplate and grasp, you will be surprised about one thing. The amount of sand will gradually reduce over a period of time!
This applies of course whether the people you choose to make divinities were talking about a real god or a metphorical god.
I can agree that some people have been inspired by the deep meanings in a particular concept or life path and reached high levels of understanding and managed to teach these inspired ideas.
First the message they taught will be confused either on purpose or by ignorance - as you put it in your sand/sugar metaphor.
Secondly if they were at a higher level of conciousness, or understanding, we cannot think beyond them, and so they use metaphor to describe the things we will not understand - unless of course we reach their advanced level.
On a logical extension of all this - I believe there is a lot of wisdom and guidance in all the old teachings, but this does not mean that the god they refer to is not a metaphor. I lean toward Buddha - who, as far as I am aware, did not claim a god, just a higher plane of existence that we (including him) should acknowledge in our lives to satisfy the spiritual side of our natures and keep us looking outward which is necessary for us to rise above being only human animals.
hi C V rajan
i studied gita(no, not a scholar). that is what made me think about bible more deeply. it also prompted me to think both in philosophical and literal terms. i searched as much as possible by me. what i found is that all religions are made by humans to ensure morality, to ward of fear of unknown. in time as human evolved that to evolved and gods changed or become more powerful(like the indra, mithra and varuna of rigveda time became vishnu, brahma and shiva (as chief gods) of later time )
but you are right to some extent when you say existence of krishna or jesus doesn't matter(as long as people followed the good things) but the problem is that 2000-3000 years later the meanings change and now a days they are used not to unify but to divide people and stifle freethinking.
if you care after reciting the gita krishna in the end tell arjuna to choose what is good for him and do accordingly
What makes you believe that if Krishna existed, Jesus could not have existed or vice versa? i didn't say that.
forgot to add i don't believe either jesus nor krishna's existence. i was merely stating that if one can be believed the other can be believed as well to dian.
she was claiming bible is truth with out any reason for the claim. i was merely pointing out that there are so many other beliefs and religious texts and none can be said to be superior to other and all are riddled with inconsistencies and fictions. also we are continuously interpreting and reinterpreting all scriptures to changing times, for if we don't do it, all will be pathetically outdated(eg. though bible prohibit divorce, how many christians will cling to their uncomfortable marriage just for bible's sake, or how many will remain virgins for bibles sake(according to jesus even looking at a female with lust is adultery)
By reading your replies, I understand now that you have a fair grip of this subject. Sorry if I misunderstood some of your posts out of context.
Perhaps the difference in view point between you and me is that I believe the existence of both Jesus and Krishna.
As for as interpreting religion and getting the right religious guidance to suit changing times, my personal opinion is that Hinduism is better endowed in that aspect. In Hinduism, we have a constant stream of realized souls who take birth from time to time in India to guide people on the right path suited to specific periods of time.
In recent times we had Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, whose teachings had a unifying effect on the different and conflicting sects of Hinduism and also across other religions too. We had Ramana Maharshi, who was essentially a Gnyani, not bound by any sectarianism. Ramana's life and teachings continue to be a great inspiration to lots of westerners seeking spirituality.
Right now, we have the hugging saint Mata Amritanandamayi whose path of universal love is taking the west by storm.
And another important aspect in Hinduism is the need for a Guru and surrendering to a Guru to get true enlightenment. No amount of self-study can clear our doubts and misconceptions about God or religion. Only a truly realized soul (Satguru) can guide us properly to grasp spirituality and lead us to attain that realization ourselves.
Again faith and surrender is the requirement. Egotism will not help in grasping true knowledge.
exactly the reason why i respect hinduism more than any other religion(aham brahmasmi, tatwamasi-i am god, so are you), the mind to accept others too might be true.even charvaka -an atheist, is a sage.
i respect the beliefs but not subscribe to it for reasons a hindu will surely comprehend better than anybody.
So kind of you!
Swami Vivekananda's predictions are getting truer by day. He said India has to seek west for materialistic progress and the west has to seek India for spiritual progress. It is happening now.
Ramana's Ashram at Thiruvannamalai (India) is constantly swarmed by westerners who are seeking the true meaning of spirituality earnestly.
At Mata Amritanandamayi's Ashram at Kerala, there are umpteen Westerners permanently staying there amidst totally different cultural surroundings, sacrificing lots of their materialistic comforts, in search of true spiritual guidance at the feet of the Mata. It a real eye opener to see such westerners doing service with utter dedication and many of them opting to do basic scavenging and cleaning work to keep the ashram and surroundings clean and tidy! Their earnestness is a lesson to us locals!
I think that we (individually) can compare our lives to that of living is a fish bowl. Some larger that others.
We perceive ours as the bestest one of ALL.
In this manner we are lying to ourselves and to those that we attempt to convince... They, of course, know that we are lying, cause there's is the bestest one!
And as a whole, (the human race) we are living in a much larger fish bowl believing the same thing.
jomine wrote ...
.. then analyse all information rationally without any pre-conceived notions.
= - = - = - = - = -
I agree! Whole heartedly! My question is; how easy is that to do?,
I don't think that it is possible for many.
It takes much more effort and time than most people are willing to spend.
Everyone’s thinking processes are no more than preconceived ideas. We just don't realize it.
Whenever we are reading a book, even though we have never read it; we attempt to anticipate the next sentence or paragraph before we come to it.
How true is this when we are reading something that we have read before.
We live in a bubble constructed by our preconceived ideas.
We can not truly consider ourselves to be open minded until we relinquish EVERY preconceived Idea that we poses.
For our possessions poses US!
If any person fails to save his own backside when bunch of people attacked him and when he was crucified and lost blood which in turn thrown him into state of coma. In such case are we supposed to say that X person is our savior and resurrected from death ? yeah sure.
Tell me how many elements are there in periodic table as of 2011 and which verse mentions about the elements or even guide human to make such table.
"are christians deliberately lying about jesus?"
Yes, its our plan to control the world.
Won't work now, you figured it all out.
Exactly! You are the only Christian on here who actually tells the truth.
Sorry, what was I thinking.
You COULD have a Spanish guy named Jesus standing there beside you, coercing you to post on hubpages. My bad.
Don't take getitrite personally. He doesn't appear to have a sense of humor. I'm sure you intimidate him.
I can't follow the strings. Are you saying it is absurd that Jim Hunter hopes not, or that you don't have a sense of humor. I believe them both to be true, so I guess it's OK that I respond to your post.
I think it's absurd that you think someone on a forum can intimidate me. You are dead wrong. I'm a 200 lbs former Marine...and former child prodigy. I can mentally and physically take care of myself.
You have no idea how insulting you are.
Quite possibly as insulting as you attempt to be to me? I apologize if I offended you. It was my intent to grate you the wrong way a little bit, but certainly not to the level you have taken it. Lighten up. I let your insults roll off me.
One question, does a child prodigy cease being a prodigy upon entering adulthood?
It is usually used in reference to young people, but by considering every definition of the word, it does apply to anyone.
Are you ready to prove that I was lying when I said Jesus the son of God told me to tell the truth?
No, Jim, you were the one who made an EXTRAORDINARY claim, therefore the onus is on you to provide some EXTRAORDINARY evidence.
I only implied that there is no evidence, whatsoever that you are, in fact, telling the truth.
It is self-evident that you are not on this plain of reality(by stating that imaginary characters order you to do things).
By a preponderance of the evidence, in this reality, you are either a barefaced liar or completely delusional.
I'm willing to take it on faith myself. Jim looks like a pretty honest guy. Doesn't look delusional at all, from his picture there.
appearance can be deceiving. there schizophrenics who lead near normal lives, undetected by society, that they have the illness
Hi jomine. I know. I knew a woman once who finally realized her husband was one. When she told me everything she'd been through on some levels you couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of what she had beend forced to try and rationalize.
You are joking right? See I do have a sense of humor.
yes, I was joking with you about Jim. Glad to see your sense of humor. Let it out as gently more often. It's so much more fun when everyone laughs together.
I don't have to provide proof that Jesus exists or existed.
You called me a liar and I asked you to prove I was lying.
Making extraordinary claims is not unusual on this forum.
I see them made daily.
When it comes to proof of people in the past all we have is faith. Photos of Benjamin Franklin and all the other founding fathers what does that proof??
Can any any proof what really happened at Little Big Horn?
We say we only believe in facts but the further back in time the less faces we have to believe in.
You are only talking about your inabilty to think beyond 2 dimensions. If you think you exist you come and ask me - and I poke you and talk to you and I confirm you are here. Then, to ensure that I am not an illusion we go ask other people if we are both here - if they tell us yes then we can reasonably conclude we exist. This is the case with historical figures, Benjamin Franklin can be seen to have existed because many other written sources from the time, photographs and artifacts that point to him exist. A range of OTHER people talk about his existence.
For juseus or god there is no such OTHER evidence except in your book. This has the same weight of evidence as there is for the Grinch, the story talks about him - but nobody else has ever seen a Grinch.
This does not mean that a jesus or even a god does or did not exist - it means there is no proof or corroborative evidence for such existence. And trying to downgrade the reasoning that civilization is built upon because there is no evidence or proof is lying for jesus - so quit it before it does you harm.
Thats a really good point.
How do we know our ancestors existed? We might or might not have photo's. We might or might not have many stories except for those handed down. Perhaps they are a figment of our imagination and we magically came into existence with genetic coding handed down from these figments.
Very thought provoking
Do we now consider Benjamin Franklin a god to worship and General Custer the devil to be feared?
You are doing the creationist polka argument. You can't produce any evidence of any kind from records of the time that was not written many years after the event. You don't know the history of your own rleigion. And you create constant circular arguments that make little sense.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR JESUS OR YOUR GOD. Your belief is totally on faith - don't try to make up things that don't exist or point me to books written by creationists with the same circular arguments that you try to fob off on me.
I Have had this same argument so many times now that I am tired of showing sheeple the way out of their confusion - try someone else. AKA is doing the same thing on another thread here, he can show you the childish arguments you are using and the lies that you are repeating.
So anyone who even remotely believes in a philosopher named Jesus is a liar? And thank you for the harsh comments on faith. God has nothing to do with this debate, it was on Jesus. Even Wicca believes in the existence of Jesus. Even early forms of paganism believed in the teachings of Jesus.
If you want to view him as only a figure head, go right ahead.
Are you referring to Jesus as a God or as a person? Jesus as a God, no proof, as a person, there are countless arguments against that.
Also, some of the books I mentioned were written not as pro-creationisms, but obviously you refuse to read anything you might find outside a very narrow spectrum of your own beliefs.
This may come as a shock to you, but I believe in many things, not just Jesus. I believe in evolution, I believe in science and I also believe in the teachings of many minds. I don't narrow my thoughts to just one book. So you can stop with the insults. I have been respectful to you and this is becoming a mudslinging match. Which, I refuse to partake in such vulgarity. I have listed evidence and I have philosophy books, written by people who do not believe in God in the slightest, who mention Jesus. So let's leave it as we disagree and we won't agree on that matter. If you want to continue this, just e-mail me. I don't feel like checking forums constantly.
Perhaps. Were there Rabbi's and other religious folks walking around giving their insights into a god? Sure. Did some of them wind up being crucified on the cross? Absolutely.
Was one of them named Jesus Christ? Highly unlikely, considering both names mean "Messiah" in old Greek and Latin.
Okay, were there historians living during the time the alleged Christ was crucified? Yup. Did a single one ever write about the alleged event of the crucifixion of a Christ? Nope.
It was only decades later that historians, after talking with Christians of that time, did the story of the "Chrestos" emerge. But, all the information that came from those historians came from the mouths of Christians, NONE of whom ever saw the Christ, the Crucifixion or the Resurrection.
Essentially, no evidence for the Christ of the bible.
Creationist Polka haha is that a dance?
Was there any evidence for Plato or Socrates apart from classical writers? Jesus was also a poor man so it is less likely he would be mentioned in early historical records.
Sorry, but the way the bible and Christians have embellished this story, it would have made headlines, had their been newspapers. A huge event of biblical proportions.
If you consider God is in and of each and everyone of us, I would say yes but since we are very limited expressions of God it is the limitations that dictate what is embellished.
But then I know you don't believe in God which is why I say writers.
So if you don't believe Man not God were the writers.
So, if the writers embellished the bible, then it is not the word of god, it is the word of those writers, yes?
Can we then toss out the concept of gods considering the bible is not the word of a god, but the word of men?
Then, you agree that there is no such thing as gods?
If you are meaning 'concepts' of Gods in the commonly defined way. Sure! Will make no difference to what is.
I'm referring to the claims of believers for their gods.
Then no, no matter what you or I subscribe to. We cannot change anyones belief or understanding of God. Concepts sure. Beliefs no.
So, even though you admit the bible was embellished and written by men, further admitting that the concept of gods can be tossed out entirely, you come 180 degrees and will not change your beliefs in a god?
That's what I would call hardcore religious indoctrination.
What are my beliefs in God according to you? What religion do you think I have been indoctrinated by?
Yes I do admit the bible was embellished. Embellished because we have such thing as perception. I also admit the "concept of God" can be tossed out entirely. Does not mean the presence/process of God ceases to exist. It will only do so in our minds. Even our beliefs which are subject to change does not affect the existence of God.
That could be based on your posts and what you've shared thus far. I don't think I'll go back through them to find out. You are free to tell me here now, if you wish to clarify.
I can easily perceive something in nature and not be compelled to embellish the observation as that would be intellectually dishonest. Can we conclude by your words that the writers of the bible were intellectually dishonest?
Funny how you don't see that as a blatant contradiction.
Or, the non-existence of gods.
Is there such a thing as religion of experience? If so that is it. I am indoctrinated by experience.
How is dishonesty describing embellished? Embellished by perception it is for me. How one perceives is how one will write. You might describe the wind as wind. I might describe the wind as a gentle wind or a gusty wind. You describe wind the way you perceive it. I describe it the way I perceive it. It is still wind just perceived differently. I embellished my wind with the description of the force of the wind.
How is it blatant contradiction? Our beliefs or ideas about wind can be tossed out but it still exists.
Or non existence agree.
True! The same may be said for fairies and leprechauns.
Not really, you were indoctrinated as a child. This has caused you to never have gained critical thinking skills as you accepted those beliefs without question throughout your life. If you did manage to question something, you were most likely told to accept it on faith and that your god works in mysterious ways that are far beyond our comprehension.
The problem with your example is that it deals with real world phenomena and not supernatural entities. Apples and oranges. Blatant contradictions.
The writers of the bible not only embellished it with claims of the supernatural realm existing, but further to embellish whatever characteristics such a realm would exhibit.
No. Unless you deem as living with nature and learning to understand the laws of nature as indoctrinated then ok.
Is this supernatural realm your talking about heaven and hell. If so I agree.
That is utterly ridiculous. Where would you get that notion?
The supernatural realm encapsulates ALL believers claims of that which is not of the natural world; heaven, hell, gods, angels, imps, demons, ghosts, spirits, etc. etc. etc.
Oh well you seem to think I was indoctrinated as a child. (see your earlier post) If living with nature and learning the laws of nature is not indoctrinated to you ok.
If supernatural realms encompass all that is not real phenomena in accordance with your understanding of it. You might not get that what some deem as supernatural realms often more than not belong within the real phenomena of our reality and can be explained. That which cannot has still yet to be proven as existing or not existing, so no point in going there.
Supernatural has a stigma attached to it that sometimes get in the way. For instance what is natural for some is supernatural for others. Like couples who know what the other is thinking when they are across the room. No supernatural feat for them. For couples however who do not have that connection it can be supernatural and ridiculous.
Of course it isn't, that is most ridiculous thing anyone could say. I can tell you how something works, run an experiment that would support the explanation and you could see the experiment running and see the results for yourself. If you decided to deny the results in front of you, that is your prerogative.
You are also free to question and criticize the experiment and the results with opposing or contradictory results, if you are able to provide them.
Then obviously, it would be part of nature and would have a natural explanation.
But, there is a point there, you can make claims of the supernatural all you want, but without a shred of evidence, how is it you came to make the claim in the first place?
That's nice. The stigma you refer is not a stigma at all, it is a fact. If someone asserts something natural that is supernatural, they are obviously deluded.
I don't deny nature, remember I was indoctrinated according to your post as a child. You assumed my beliefs were religious. You assumed I was indoctrinated now you are saying that is ridiculous because I live and experience a life according to nature and learned through nature and by nature.
What is natural is not supernatural is my point. Only how one perceives it or not. If that is delusion for you ok.
Jesus was also a poor man????
except that he forced into all synagogues to preach, fed 5000, did miracles and killed pigs in broad day light!!!
Was there any evidence for Plato or Socrates
you are yet to study about historical records
if jesus was an obscure jew who went shepherding in some villages of judea(or was it Galilie?), yes there couldn't have been any records, but bible tell,he was no obscure jew.
There is lots of evidence that Jesus Christ existed. (Rather, exists.) The greatest, of course, is that he is still alive and will prove it to you if you really ask him into your heart. We also have the New Testament and all the early church documents - most of which was authored by people who died horrible deaths rather than recant their relationship with Jesus Christ. More, many even allowed their children to be killed. And today in a court of law, just like back then, testimony given by someone who knows they are doing to die - "death bed testimony" - holds great weight. Testimony given in spite of the fact doing so will result in one's death, holds even greater weight. 1000s of people died throughout the ages with the truth of Christ's life, death, and resurrection on their lips. All were telling the truth.
There is lots of evidence that Jesus Christ existed. (Rather, exists.) The greatest, of course, is that he is still alive and will prove it to you if you really ask him into your heart. We also have the New Testament and all the early church documents - most of which was authored by people who died horrible deaths
kindly back up your claims with some evidence we can verify..
my heart says so many things. so? is it all true?
who died horribly?
That has to be one of the worst things ever to do is to allow your own children to be killed for faith in a god. I am truly sickened by that.
Yes we have records from some secular writers, one is called Josephus and I have included a video link below.
The point I was making is that you wouldn't have historical records from royal institutional records because they wouldn't have taken Jesus seriously.(remember, they crucified him)
The only historical evidence for Socrates is from Plato and anything written about Plato was 1000's of years after his death..look up Plato on Wikipedia
The claimed mention of Jesus by Josephus was added may years later by church officials because of the embarrassing lack of mention in the historians works. Even after earlier copies of his works show the parts about Jesus were added later on, we still see these corrupted works are used as evidence to support the existence of Jesus.
By the way, Josephus was not born until after the death of Jesus. Josephus could not have ever met the man at all, nor could he attest to his being.
Did you see the video I link to Randy? it talks about what you are saying about Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus Here is an interesting wikipedia article which says they are partially authentic but it is interesting to note they also document John the Baptist.
I suggest watching the short youtube video I linked to above
Yes, I watched the video, Richie. I have also read the wiki article concerning Jesus an Josephus. I have also read other accounts of how the works of Josephus have been corrupted so much by Christian scholars over the course of hundreds of years, that none of the alleged references to Jesus can be trusted implicitly.
The writings of Josephus were not the only ones changed to suit the church clergy. Some church officials admitted they thought it was okay to lie and change history if it brought new adherents to their cult.
So, we are right back where we were with no concrete evidence supporting the existence Jesus.
Can you prove this sttement?
Have you seen those documents Or do you just have blind faith in that persons "satement" ?
Josephus, like every other historian of the time, got all their information from Christians decades after the alleged Christ was crucified. That isn't evidence, that is corruption.
Josephus was a Jew though and not a Christian so wouldn't he suspect something if he thought they were making the account up? and there probably was some evidence of Jesus' family still around in Josephus life time? Remember he was a respected scholar, not a dumb ass
Have you actually read his accounts? All he had was a reference made to a "Messiah" from Christians; Chrestos.
And yet, no account of them, whatsoever.
Yes I know about the Christos part which was mentioned in the video which I linked in my original comment.
What a strange origional question, "Are Christians deliberately lying about Jesus". And so much insightful discussion, Christianity is a religion based completely on your FAITH in belief. There is no eveidence bag , no christian court , No DNA , no test tube or no manuals except one. The bible and your faith! The only ones who need" proof ", are those with no faith , it seems ! Those who live there lives needing a object to idolize , or a reason to invest in faith. Which all kind of negates the question. Listen the bibles of any religion are mans interpretation of a faith in spiritual existance. Faith is the only path you must chose , or not!
Are christians deliberately lying about jesus?
Yes;Christians have been mislead by Paul and the Church; it is time they realize this fact and try to understand correct accounts of Jesus in Quran and believe the truthful concepts and teachings of Jesus.
I am not a liar and its not very nice to say that.
It'd be like me calling a Muslim a Non-Believer because they don't believe Christianity. It's not right and it's not fair.
We are not Liars like the Muslim aren't Liars or any other religion.
One of these days Jesus is gonna come back and everyone is just gonna have to deal with the concesquences.
Oh, and there isn't proof of Jesus because he died, was dead for three days and then he arose again. He spent some time with his men and then went to Heaven. He didn't leave his body on Earth. That's why there aren't remains for idiots - excuse me - some people, to study and come to the conclusion that Jesus was a Man.
Jesus is a Man but he is also God.
Jesus did not die on the cross; he got escaped and he died a natural and peaceful death later in India.
Jesus is not going to come literally; Second Coming of Jesus has already taken place symbolically in the form of the Promised Messiah 1835-1908.
Anybody who has ears; may know it; no compulsion though.
I'm sorry. But you have it wrong.
Why would Jesus go to India anyway and not continue his Work as he did in Rome? fuuu!
He went to Heaven to be with God because THAT is what HAPPENED.
I think Jesus never to preach in Rome; he remained in Judea but the Jews persecuted him and his followers and tried to kill him on the cross as you konw but they failed in their nefarious designs. Jesus therefor like Moses migrated from Judea and went to India alongwith Mary and other trusted friends.
Jesus could not go to Rome as he feared that they may arrest him again and torture him.
Mark 19:16 - After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
I and every other Christian here prays for your soul.
The Christians have been mislead by Paul and the Church to the mythical religion invented by Paul and name "Christianity"- which is a misnomer; it has nothing to do with Jesus. Paul never learnt anything from Jesus directly; he always opposed Jesus.
I, for one, don't mind going to "hell" as is described my idiot people who cannot accet me for who I am.
If someone wants to be Islamic, or Muslim. That's fine by me. I don't care. I only care when I am officially attacked. I will not deny my LORD GOD JESUS CHRIST.
To anyone who is Muslim, or Islamic - Go you!
As for me, I shall spend my days in your hell and I don't give a flying cow patty about it!
One has one's free will; alright; but one should tolerate truth and reality presented with rational arguments without indignation.
by glendoncaba6 years ago
Atheists are looking for evidence to attack the story of Jesus and have been all over the internet saying that Christians stole the myth of Horus.Here is a good article which debunks the lie. Read it and...
by Thomas M D Hemsley4 years ago
This forum is for anyone here who wishes to debate on the subject of religion and religious beliefs. Outline your position, whether it be theist or atheist, explain why you hold that position, and then people can debate...
by Claire Evans4 years ago
This topic is old, I know, but I'd like to ask it anyway. Many Christians will ask an atheist, "Why are you here if you don't believe God (should it be a Christian thread)?" Some will answer,...
by mishpat2 years ago
I have enjoyed many "debates" with folks here on the Hub, but in the long run, its seems those that believe still believe and those that don't still don't. Why is this?Could it be, Christians, that we...
by topgunjager7 years ago
Who can post the best argument about the existence or the non-existence of God and can support their answers using real logic? Don't use faith based logic when proving the existence of God.
by Stump Parrish9 months ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.