Who Was Jesus? He Definitely Is Not God

So if he existed, and if he said even a quarter of the things we think he said, then he was a swell guy. No issues there. Where I get confused is when you say he was "divinely inspired to the point of achieving christ consciousness".

As to your asking if I know of a better example, I would say that there are a multitude of people alive today who equal jesus at his moral best, and throughout history, well, too many to count. To me it is not rare or worship-worthy for someone to "Stand up for the little guy" and think we should be nice to our parents; that's the least of what I expect with those I call friends.

 

There is no evidence that a historical jesus existed.
Anything in relation to him is mere hearsay.

 

Mr. Writer, maybe you are emphasizing too heavily on the worshipping part. How many people are slaying others because it was written in the gospel of Luke? Should we rally against the belief and faith people have in Jesus or God because of the latent possibility of people doing so? Why stop there. For example do you rally against socialism too because people have been killed for it

Are you interested in topics like God and Jesus other than to point out you find it ridicilous and/or dangerous and try to debunk people's personal faith by pointing out it is either inconsistent with their religion or clashes with (your view on) reality?
Isn't one of your main issues with religion and religious people that they oppose your and other peoples perception of reality? And how are you any different when you are actively being antitheist and antireligious? Not against the damaging aspects of religion (which I do too and would applaud) but against religion and religious/theist faith in general because it holds a possibility (according to you) that people act upon it in a way that might hurt or obstruct others? Can't and does any ideology hold that possibility... Shouldn't we try to get rid of those belief systems/mindsets just as well? Or just of religion and organized theistic belief because YOU have a problem with it

Do you actually appreciate mindsets and ideologies that are entirely different than, and even oppose, your own? Or only ideas and concepts you can agree with? This is a serious question

 

yes.....

 

Credible sources...varying interpretations....fiction....yadayadayada....and the whole thread stemmed from fucking Wikipedia. lol

 

Your wisdom, perception, and intuition are truly unmatched.

 

When a person is determining what use they have for God (or Jesus for that matter) sometimes personal beliefs and a little faith of course are stronger than any theological or historical source (not primarily talking about wikipedia which may often have good info but is far from always the most credible). It is not about how credible someone's personal faith is to others (unless perhaps when someone is busy evangelizing ). It is what an individual does with it or thinks of it themselves.
Certain atheists react to people sharing their theistic views on here as if they are being evangelized or indoctrinated. Or that a person who believes in a higher power must be nuts or have problems with reality When often they were simply asked to share their views in the OP. And most who do have some theistic beliefs are functioning perfectly fine in society/reality. It's like 'if I can not understand your spiritual beliefs (especially when you affiliate yourself with an organized religion) you must be in conflict with the daily reality of things because if I would have those beliefs and/or affiliate myself with that religion I would be'. Well guess what, it is not that simple.
And it is definitely not a constructive approach to understanding or living with your fellow people (although I am sure most of these people are more pragmatic in reality than when they share their antitheistic thoughts on here ). Hey we don't have to agree with what others believe at all, we can't and we never will agree with ALL people. But to insist they are unlogical, unreasonable and GOT to be a possible danger to others and society because there are some faulty fundamentalists or extremists who actually are, and that their faith and belief system should be actively rallied against sound like being needlessly intolerant. And a perpetuation of the same old same old. When acting upon that mindset enough there will most likely be an unpleasant, unconstructive and extreme reaction. This is not some threat or something it is simply what happens when people react to others long enough as if they are as right as the spanish inquisition thought they were

 

Names, please. If you provide a list of people, "both past and present who equal Jesus at his moral best', we can discuss their achievements and suitability as role models. Of course, it's not just standing for the little guy and being nice to our parents that are determinative here, but a package of teachings and life examples known to us as a path to follow: the Way. What abut the Buddha? Were there lots of people who were just as wise and moral as he? Maybe so. But his teachings and example are available to be followed as a way of life, lots of people are doing that, and I know of none better except Jesus. Take Gandhi, a Hindu martyr. He's one of the finest, most heroic moral examples I can think of--someone all might emulate. Where did he get his ideas? He said from Jesus.

The package of teachings I'd consider to be the essence of Christian morality include the idea that God is love, that the two most important commandments are love of god and love of neighbor, the golden rule, forgiveness, universal love, turning the other cheek, and non-judgmental concern for everyone, including society's rejects. I'm not saying He invented the components. Rabbi Hillel made his contributions, and the golden rule is multi-cultural. Yet not everyone, and not even all Christians accept these as norms for human behavior. A video earlier in this thread challenges them, and the dominant force of Christendom throughout history has made a mockery of them. But I believe that they offer for those who would accept them a way of peace, and if everyone would accept them world peace. As Jesus said: "The Kingdom of the Father is spread out everywhere upon the earth and people do not see it." (Thomas 113)

 

You mean the alpha and omega of religion and faith? The sole most important desire of the god of abraham, to be worshipped? To which he devoted 4 out of 10 of what are to be the perfect moral laws of the universe? I think you're uncomfortable in your own position, much less feeling warm and cozy by the uncomfortable questions I'm bringing up.

Throughout history? Multitudes, as you should well know. Today? Difficult to say thankfully, because we live in an age where religion is on the decline, education and world communication are increasing, and the ability to live a secular lifestyle is, for the first time in all of human history, not only not punishable by death (at least in most countries) but actually seen as intelligent.

How many people are today killing others over Mein Kampf? The Third Reich has ended, so that chapter has closed, and only an occassional crazy still does. Does this mean we should not be concerned if suddenly this book were to become worshipped?

How about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? This book was discredited decades ago, yet it is still sold openly in the bazars of the middle east and is used for the ideological principles of groups such as Hezbollah.

I would 100% rally against that element of thought or society which would murder another person outright in the name of socialism. Or fascism. Or theocracy. And so should you.

People have been killed in the name of capitalism too, but capitalism in itself does not contain the message to go and kill for it. Only religion holds this dubious distinction. Only religion has written within it, literally in stone, that we must murder people for this or that reason.

Yes, I am interested in these topics in a variety of ways, not limited to: understanding human culture, understanding human behavior, understanding psychology, myth, ways to organize society, ontology, epistemology, and ethics.

Incorrect. I am not an ideological tyrant. I am not a dictator of thought . . . I leave that profession to those with the weight of God behind their words. Only they are convinced, by almighty father, creator of the universe, that they alone are chosen and have the proper instruction. I am only a man, who is using his reason. I could be wrong on any point I have ever said in my life. If I am shown to be wrong, I will concede with a minimum of bluster and adjust my position accordingly.

My main issue with religion and religious people boils down to faith based thinking; from this all the evils of this realm become possible and manifest.

I have to appreciate them, I have to be fascinated by them, in order to grow as a person. The amount of holy texts and commentaries on holy texts I have read in my life should grant me an honorary degree in divinity. If you think I live in an ideological bubble, then how is it I am able to argue and discuss topics ad nauseum?

I have a serious question for you Asmo. What is your position in all this? Why do you chime into these conversations? I've said this before, you seem to stand for nothing except keeping a watchful vigilance over the poor defenseless religious people who cannot defend their ideas. You only seem to chime in to say "Hey now, don't be so harsh, let's live and let live!".

Do you think maybe you are the one who needs to sit down and figure out where you are? Who you are?

Do you remember we have a conversation in PM about this very issue, specifically about why Islam is a whole host of bad ideas? You were opposed to me in principle, as though when an idea becomes named a "religion", it suddenly rises above the possibility of textual and ethical criticism. You swore up and down that you had a response to my point.

That was February 21st.

I am still awaiting that response.

In the meantime you have not stopped chiming in to derail the conversation by painting me as an autocrat, a hypocrite, and an all around silly jerk.

I think, with all due respect, that you should let the adults discuss and you should go back to your studies, until you can muster a position that's a bit more interesting than "Gosh, do we have to be so gosh darned mean to these simple religious folk?"

I say, bring it on. Let's put all the cards on the table, and really get at the meat of the issue. That's what's holding this discourse back ultimately . . . an unwillingness to air all the dirty laundry of ideology. The only way that faith can survive in the marketplace of ideas is with the armed escort that people like you, holding ideas like you hold, can provide.

I think you are performing an insidious and shady service to a dark and powerful master, without even being aware of it, and it's sad to see.

 

Well in short: I don't have a master and I think you are not only emphasizing on worship when talking about theistic beliefs IN GENERAL but also are thoroughly confused about what my position is. You seem to be projecting things on me, for example when you say stuff about my supposed position (I explained the agnostic definition comes closest).

Would you please elaborate, if you make such rigid statements about me and my position, why you think being openminded and tolerant to people with opposite belief systems is performing an insidious and shady service? Because I do really not recognize myself or my posts in what you say about me there. I am not approving actions of religious people that hurt others for example. To me it seems you DO at least sound like an ideological tyrant when you stereotype religious followers of abrahamic religions. Like I said I am sure you are not that unreasonable when dealing with religious people irl but you are overly theoretical on here. Don't you think they have a right to believe what they want? Not talking abou any excesses here, just the faith in a God. But most of all, please elaborate on my insidious and shady service. Because to be honest I find it sad to see someone writing such intolerant stuff about other people's beliefs.
It seems you do not understand any person with theistic faith when you make it sound like a person who has it is more prone to be like the worst example of religious followers in history. When any kind of person can act like that.
I also disagree about religious wars and killings in the past mainly happened because of a line in the gosple of Luke. I strongly recommend you take a closer look to why such happenings happened and you will see that there almost always is a secondary motive for that religious agression (I'm not excusing that agression at all, before you put it like that , just saying you are persistently jumping to conclusions that it is mainly because of the believe in such biblical sentences and dogmas. This while most uneducated people back in the day were riled up anytime some person with power felt like (ab)using them for their own purpose). It's almost always about power, influence, making one's own mindset the prevailing one or at least try to crush the one that's the most unlikable or threatening according to the zeitgeist (kind of sound like you too at times, how insidious of me to put it like that), one group being suppressed by another etc. etc. rather than the primary reason being that dogma or biblical sentence and the literal belief in it. I don't know how to get that clear to you, but certainly don't see the point when I try to to say stuff like that about me. So if you mean what you say about me, explain it where this shows. Otherwise it simply seems like you try to discredit me because we disagree about religious people in general.

 

Very true and a fact that Jesus himself acknowledged and why he plainly said that the only sign to be given validating everything he claimed about himself would be the resurrection.

Not trying to get into a debate concerning the resurrection, just interjecting some details that color it differently than you assume it to be.
but if one were truly interested in Jesus' claims of divinity, the resurrection is the place to start your investigation as it is the crux of both Judaism and Christianity, the ending of one and starting of the other if you will.

 

although I will say Greg your juvenile retorts strike me as being out of character for you.
As I said before in a thread about Dawkins, a lot of these type of arguments against Christianity can only stand juxtaposed against the most juvenile, ill-informed and uneducated consideration of the religion.

 

That's what I tried too I guess he just really misinterpretes me. And I have the feeling it is because of his own presumptions.

 

If your criteria for being #1 is "having 12 disciples and being the god of the new testament" then my list will be short indeed.

I have more flexible criteria for moral brilliance, because I do not work backwards from a conclusion.

I think Ghandi was a bit of a tit by the way, he had some truly degenerative ideas for his people and he was known to beat his wife. He's almost as bad as Mother Teresa.

I find it interesting that Jesus ranks #1 when we a) don't know if he existed, and b) can't attribute 75% of what we think he said, to him.

That to me automatically disqualifies him from even appearing on the ranking.

This might infuriate you, but I think Sam Harris ranks very high on that list. Certainly we needn't be uncomfortable with anything he's said in the same we that we need theologians to "make nice" the more firey pronouncements of jesus. Harris' "Moral Landscape" thought experiment alone is something which I think will become canon in moral discourse in the years and decades to come. Socrates is another example of someone we're not sure existed, but he was certainly high on the list as well.

noxious: the resurrection, reffering to 3 days after his crucifiction? A story from a story from hearsay from hearsay? We simply return back to what constitutes acceptable evidence, for a claim so extraordinary. I won't even go into the problem of "miracles" as mentioned by okiefreak/Hume.

Asmo, I think you have very rose colored glasses, and maybe my glasses are a little cynical, and maybe we are really on the same "side" here but we disagree 100% about how to stand and why to stand for it.

I have zero respect for religion, and think it's a blight upon the history of mankind. Even the most benign and gentle of religions is to me, mental autocracy, a substitute for wisdom, and a cheap "shortcut" to second rate and second hand morality and knowledge. Anybody who professes to have "faith" in any religion, no matter how utopian and wonderful, is immediately deeply suspect in my eyes, and I would not trust their faculties in other serious matters. The fact that they seem to be missing an organ for cognitive dissonance, or perhaps the organ that allows processing of that dissonance, tells me something is profoundly different inside their head and inside my head.

 

^^ I don't know if you exist.


BTW...where did ya get your info on Ghandi and Mother Theresa? In a book?

 

faith in religion equals religious faith ... when the rationalist is also a conditionalist .

 

then please do explain to me my personal experiences which coincide directly with accounts from the Bible, and I was/am a much bigger skeptic then you assume.
but the fact of the matter is I still can not reconcile my personal experiences juxtaposed against the myriad other experiences I have had except to accept to some degree that there is something of truth to what is recorded in the text.

hence my mention of the resurrection.
If it didn't happen then Jesus was just another nutbag, but if it actually did occur, then don't you think that the material deserves closer investigation?
all of Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection
.
Please do explain it to me, because I am far from uneducated, I am not delusional, I am not a religious zealot, I am not out to convert anyone, I just still can not reconcile certain experiences I have had without going back to the Bible.
my experiences are what led me to delve into the topic further, I'm not putting the cart before the horse as so many do when it comes to religious topics/experience.

So now we will have to get into the realm of personal experience and on those grounds the majority of your arguments will falter, as will mine because we can not convey the actual experience to one another, only inadequately relate it
I can not nor would I ever begin to dictate to you what taking 15 hits of LSD is like nor will I tell you your experience with it is somehow false. It wasn't my experience, it was yours therefore you are the only one that knows the truth or validity of such experience.

I may have my doubts and reservations, all based on my own personal experiences, yet I am intelligent enough not to completely discount what you have experienced based on my lack of the same, that would just be the height of arrogance and ignorance.

Can you not afford me or others the same consideration?

 

Looks like you noticed my position on this after all. And if you see my position, which is to keep an open mind, and that having faith in a good God is not as despicable as you make it sound (at least not nearly always) and that we should live and let live and accept that other people do have spiritual faith in a higher power, even when they are educated. And that they are not void of reason because they have such faith, as you like to put it. That I have not an absolute conviction about what God is myself, and do not have a problem with anyone who's not being an asshole about other peoples faith, then why do I have to sit down and figure out my position again?

Tell me? I know who I am, I do not make needless convictions about other people (or God). You do. I am not biased about theistic beliefs or their followers. You are. I am not making you sound like a hypocrite and a jerk. I am pointing out what I read in your posts. I am not the one trying to put others in a shameful corner. Please tell me why my position is biased and more dubious than yours.

Read the last post in that private convo and you will understand why I saw little point. And also why it's easy and understandable to see you as a jerk and to use your own description an 'ideological tyrant' . Even if I was a born again christian it would be denigrating to state someone did that solely to crawl back in their comfort cocoon but here it was simply not even the case. It did not apply to me, it was not a joke, it was an excellent example of your biased position on religious people and people that show consideration and understanding for them.
I mean, I see through rose colored glasses because I point out you are only focussing on the bad aspects of religion to the extent you blatantly ignore other aspects? How is that seeing through rose coloured glasses? Is it because I see the beauty in the world and feel so thankful for it that I would give thanks to whatever is responsible for it? How so? Is it something else that makes me see through rose coloured glasses? What is it according to you? I have gone out of my way to point it out to you that I am not ignoring the bad aspects of religion or the bad actions of some of it's followers. So that can't be it.

I do rally against such elements. It can be said I am even doing it when I try to point things out to you. You do seem to feel overly right, like the spanish inquisition I have explained that such sentences are not the primary reason for for example religious wars. I mean why have people been killed in the name of socialism and capitalism without such sentences? Because they are not the primary reason!

I have not derailed any convo or thread as you put it like that. I am always questioning what you say, just like you are questioning what I say. You make yourself sound like a hypocrite and a jerk. For one, I have not called you any names. And I am always willing to explain myself. When I target you it is not an ad hominem attack, I always try to confront you with what you wrote yourself. So when I react to what you wrote what you think of religion in a thread about Does God exists? how am I the one derailing the thread? Huh?

Maybe you are not fully aware what you make yourself sound like, and maybe that's part of the reason why I reacted to you like I did multiple times. But really, I am making you look like a jerk?

See?

And please, there is nothing wrong with MY position. You haven't pointed out what is so shady about it. So far it seems to be just that you don't like it that I point out you are overly focussing on the negative aspects (which I don't deny that they are there) and that it makes your view on religion, and especially religious people, as a whole biased and distorted.

edit: spelling