Posted June 6, 2009 Why do we have to refer to him for moral guidance? He didn't invent them all. And even if he did, they're all ingrained in society. They hope for "divine intervention". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 6, 2009 I thought what he was getting at was hell for some Christians is existence without God... Wouldn't be nice for them. His concept on being happy without God doesn't matter Moogle totally missed my point - what I was saying is that a commonly held view amongst many Christians I've encountered is that hell is not all fire and brimstone, but simply existence without god. By this common definition, god couldn't ever be in hell, as he couldn't be separated from himself. The historical accounts of Jesus are overwhelming. To question his existence would be like questioning whether or not Julius Ceasar existed, because they've both got around the same amount of historical sources. Oh Great. The old "there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar" line. This is Christians trying to use the fact that people are too lazy to look it up for themselves. There are many, many contemporary accounts of Caesar, yet none of Jesus. Contemporary accounts are the best source for working out if someone existed or not. For Caesar, these range from letters and notes to official records at the time to sculptures done whilst he was alive - for Jesus, by comparison, there is not one iota of contemporary evidence. Hell, Cicero and his letters to Caesar alone pretty much seal his existence. For Jesus, the best anyone has come up with is either references to early Christians, looked at evidence and said "this could be him!", and, in some cases, simply lied or falsified evidence - look at Josephus' writings. This last point begs the question: if there is much evidence for Jesus (or Noah's flood, or Moses and the Jewish Exodus) then where the hell is it, and why has more evidence had to be fabricated? Exactly. Jesus could be fictional or factual, it makes no difference to the underlying morals of his ministry. Not really - Jesus (or more specifically, Paul the Apostle when writing about Jesus) was one of the big proponents of "original sin" - an idea which is, to me, and most people I've mentioned it to, so abhorrent it makes what few good ideas that are simultaneously put forward (nicked from what is now known as Humanism) look somewhat tarnished. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 6, 2009 Just because it can be proved that Jesus existed doesn't prove he actually told those stories. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 6, 2009 I believe Jesus existed. I believe Mohammed existed. I believe the Buddha existed. Why? Because religions don't just start by themselves. To suggest otherwise would be ignorant. There are contemporary accounts of Mohammed and Buddha, but not Jesus. Oh, and as for "they must exist because religions don't just start themselves", ever heard of Scientology? Of course, if you're talking more about the founder, then for Christianity you should probably be talking about Paul. I personally don't know enough about Paul, and what contemporary accounts there are of him, but, at present, if pressed, I'd say he existed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 6, 2009 Why do we have to refer to him for moral guidance? He didn't invent them all. And even if he did, they're all ingrained in society. No, that's true. But for the time, they were revolutionary. They're ingrained into society now because of Christendoms expansion ie we were once a Christian nation, therefore those morals became ingrained, so when we became secular those morals were a part of everybodies lives, even if religion wasn't. Oh Great. The old "there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar" line. This is Christians trying to use the fact that people are too lazy to look it up for themselves. There are many, many contemporary accounts of Caesar, yet none of Jesus. Contemporary accounts are the best source for working out if someone existed or not. For Caesar, these range from letters and notes to official records at the time to sculptures done whilst he was alive - for Jesus, by comparison, there is not one iota of contemporary evidence. Correction: there are no known (or proven) contemporary accounts Some may argue that the canonical gospels were contemporary accounts, as tradition would have you believe. Even though I doubt they are, their material is strikingly similar, and they most probably did use contemporary sources, like the (hypothetical) Gospel Q. Paul, although never meeting Jesus, did, on numerous occasions, meet contemporary apostles, such as Peter, upon whose teachings he based his epistles on. Scientology is, in my opinion, a cult. Nevertheless, the point stands; why would people who supposedly knew Jesus or knew people who knew Jesus face the outstanding oppression and persecution in the Roman Empire for someone who never existed? The historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. Theologian James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory (ie the theory you assumedly believe) a 'thoroughly dead thesis.' For the record, I'm not a Christian. Just because it can be proved that Jesus existed doesn't prove he actually told those stories It doesn't matter a great deal, because that does not render those stories any less relevant or morally righteous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted June 7, 2009 Moogle totally missed my point - what I was saying is that a commonly held view amongst many Christians I've encountered is that hell is not all fire and brimstone, but simply existence without god. By this common definition, god couldn't ever be in hell, as he couldn't be separated from himself. So was what I said alright, or did I miss the point too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
