Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[MonkeyHead]

It is basicaly believing there is an inactive god out there that wants you to be a good person be happy and you only pray to them when you want things usually for yourself.

 there are a good number of people who are MTD (shorter, much shorter) but think they are Christian because they don't know the difference

E: came out a bit more angry than meant to

This is because in so much of the western world, "religion" is pretty much synonymous with "Christian". To me, it seems a lazy and ill informed faith formed from cultural background noise, and I suspect part of what both Dawkins and Reverend Welby refer to as "post-Chrisitan" society.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

For those who follow it thinking it's Christianity is very sad, not in an insulting way but in a way that 'that's how bad we are getting at teaching our religion'
For those that follow it as a religion in of itself I have nothing against it

[Bohandas]

To anyone who can explain this:

What is the reasoning behind the claim by many non-christians that Jesus flat-out didn't exist at all? I understand the objection to the proposition that he was the Son of God, but what reason do anyone have to believe that he was any less of a real person than Jim Jones, David Korseh, L. Ron Hubbard, or Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh?

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

One of my friends didn't think there were historical records of him existing or any proof
Then we had a lesson on Christianity in Rome.
That stifled him a bit, he believe he exists now.

I don't know why people don't believe he existed as (if nothing else) human


E: was going to say something on this friends belief but it might come out a bit snarky in the wording I was going to use

[Vilanat]

The historical records are so flimsy that there is a very high chance jesus never existed, or alternatively, existed in a whole different manner than to be expected from the christian sources.

When you look at "modern" alterations of events by several governments (For example: Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China where many of the peasants never knew it ever happened. the Genocide of the armenians by the turks who turkey maintains never happened, The existence of WMD in Iraq during G.W Bush presidency which most of the modern world believed to be true at some point) you can understand that it is more than possible to alter historic records/events. obviously, those examples are failed examples so i can bring them as examples of attempts, but they were not that far off from being a successful alteration. when the historic records are pre-printing revolution, than it makes it even easier to alter history.

I personally believe that there was a guy called Jesus who was even perhaps a mediocre jewish rabbi and was used by the early Christians figures as an idol to lure people in and construct a myth for the new religion.

[Bohandas]

Personally I wouldn't have expected him to have been significntly mentioned prior to the movement taking off anyway.

[Orange Wizard]

Yeah, no-one really seemed to care about him (or his religion, for that matter) until some years later, and even then it was more like "hey look at this funky cannibal incest cult" rather than "literal omg saviour of the universe".

[Sheb]

Yeah, if I remember my high school religion classes, we don't have direct evidence that he existed, but we have mention of a Christian cult around 50 AD. Which kinda make sense: according to the Bible Jesus only started have more than a dozen followers after his death.

[chaoticag]

Personally I wouldn't have expected him to have been significntly mentioned prior to the movement taking off anyway.

Well, there is a bit of a problem with that in that if he did perform the cleansing of the temple, where he drove out the sellers or the money changers, then an act that big would have drawn the attention of the Roman authorities. Or at least the citizenry. The Temple at Judea was pretty huge and it would have no doubt have attracted some attention. He just doesn't seem to be mentioned in any letters or records that we know of.

I still wouldn't bet on whether Jesus did exist or didn't though. 2000 years ago is a long time, and we definately don't have enough documents to make a solid judgement, but I do think there's enough knowledge that taking the position that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure is at least a defensible one.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Why the comment of WMD's in Iraq being untrue? He wasn't lieing that they had them, the reason we didn't find them is because Iraq (acctually more accurately) Alqueda gave them to (seria IIRC) for safe keeping and who just so happened to have WMDs later on. Oh that's right Seria. The country that started gassing their own people. Sorry if this comes across as angry... And on a tangent...

On Jesus, if nothing else I still hold my faith that he existed.

Yeah, no-one really seemed to care about him (or his religion, for that matter) until some years later, and even then it was more like "hey look at this funky cannibal incest cult" rather than "literal omg saviour of the universe".

Were the early Christians catholic?
I ask because you said canibal, the other side of Christianity (Protestant?) doesn't do the bread and wine ceremony the same way.

[Sheb]

Cryxis, some time you should really look things up before posting. You're embarrassing yourself.


On the plus side, you just made Fox News look sane, and there are few people who manage that!

[Arx]

The tangent shouldn't really be followed up. This is, after all, the religion thread, and it  has served its purpose as an example.

[Helgoland]

Were the early Christians catholic?
I ask because you said canibal, the other side of Christianity (Protestant?) doesn't do the bread and wine ceremony the same way.

They were, actually. Go look up the definition of 'Catholic' sometime - it doesn't mean Roman-Catholic. And since the Roman-Catholic Church is the immediate descendant of the early Church and the pope the successor of St. Peter, one could even argue that they were - in a very loose sense - Roman-Catholic. They certainly believed in transsubstantiation in any case: That particular bit of dogma was only thrown out when the reformation came around.

[Magistrum]

I would like to ask 4maskwolf.

Do the Catholic Church considers the wine and bread commemoration literally as eating jesus flesh and blood?

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I'm not arguing on that tangent, its just going to clutter the thread and end with a flame war or some other lock

Were the early Christians catholic?
I ask because you said canibal, the other side of Christianity (Protestant?) doesn't do the bread and wine ceremony the same way.

They were, actually. Go look up the definition of 'Catholic' sometime - it doesn't mean Roman-Catholic. And since the Roman-Catholic Church is the immediate descendant of the early Church and the pope the successor of St. Peter, one could even argue that they were - in a very loose sense - Roman-Catholic. They certainly believed in transsubstantiation in any case: That particular bit of dogma was only thrown out when the reformation came around.

huh.. Cool..

Cryxis, some time you should really look things up before posting. You're embarrassing yourself.


On the plus side, you just made Fox News look sane, and there are few people who manage that!

Are you saying that my entire year in ROTC was a lie?
we just finished a semester that was basically talking about that entire event..
I thought they were teaching me the truth, sorry