What am I if I think Jesus was the best moral teacher ever but am indifferent re his divinity?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
PP, we know there are plenty of thoughtful atheists like you out there, and who aren't threatened by somebody else's beliefs. Live and let live. |
Anonymous
| Ask the civil rights movement whether Christianity was "controlling the masses" when the black church was instrumental to mobilizing people for social justice... |
Anonymous
Not PP, but "controlling" is not necessarily bad. In fact, I think religion has mostly been a positive tool for controlling people. Definitely some bad too, but mostly good. |
Anonymous
WHAT? |
Anonymous
OK I read the manuscript. (Pro tip: if you link to a manuscript, people will think it's, you know, a manuscript even if it looks like someone might have been starting to lay it out.) It's hard to know what to say about this. It's not really a new theory. Rather, it seems to be a rehash of what the author learned about Plato, the Roman pantheon and early Christians during his time at Oxford. (I googled him. Hard to figure out his non-relationship with academia now, but that doesn't mean he's not smart.) So basically, yes. It's well known that Christianity came into being during the rational Roman occupation. While Judaism and Islam arose in more tribal cultures although both benefited from the exchange of ideas by being in trade routes. I first heard this historical synthesis in college a while back and none of this is new, although he expresses it well. Did you read the paper? Your author says zero, zilch, nada to support your contention that Jesus never existed and some mysterious somebody simply created Jesus to control the masses. Nor does it show a direct link to anybody in the Roman pantheon (not a whisper of Horus' golden you-know-what = immaculate conception). Instead it describes the very interesting ways in which Jesus was a *break* from the pantheon. Once again, I'm with you that religion can, in the wrong hands, be used to control others. But in terms of the origins of Christianity, this paper doesn't support you. What this paper also doesn't do in 27 pages is talk about the direction of transmission. Did Christianity grow because Jesus' message appealed to an audience that was ready for monotheism and fewer rules about sacrifice, eating, clothing, et cetera? That wouldn't discredit anything about Jesus or his message. Or did the "somebody" you think "created" Jesus realize they could better "control the masses" with a new synthesis and they seized that opportunity? If so, still waiting to learn who you think this somebody is. I started skimming-it's long--but pretty sure I didn't miss anything that would have supported your claims. (FWIW, even the author points out that some early Romans thought Christianity's monotheism wasn't strict enough because of the Trinity.) Interestingly, the author concludes by saying there are two ways of knowing, rational and spiritual, and that we'd be worse off without both. I have no idea what his belief system is even after combing his website, and I suspect none. But that's food for thought. He also doesn't insult anybody in 27 pages, also something for you to ponder. |
Anonymous
I don't get "aspiring" to be like any one person - especially someone who lived 2,000 years ago and about whom so little is known -- at least through original writings, as found in the gospels. Why not aspire to be yourself -- being influenced by the people around you as well as numerous admirable figures from history. It seems a little weird to want to take on another person's characteristics. And when it's someone famous, or someone who is one of the most admired people in the world (worshipped, even, by multitudes) it seems like the goal is reflected glory. |
Anonymous
It would be wonderful if there were more religious believers who were not threatened by the very existence of atheists --picking out atheism for special scorn with an irrational vengeance. thinking that atheists are immoral simply because they do not believe in any of the gods of various religions and that human life ends just the way other animals' lives end -- forever. PS - saying religions is "man-made" is not a criticism -- it's a fact. Question: Is it a grade school insult to state, without evidence that "everybody tunes you out as childish bullies with nothing substantive to say?" It sure is nice that not all religious people are like this. |
Anonymous
That's it? The one lame attempt to source the claims above--that Jesus never existed and was invented by some unidentified hegemonist--went down in flames. So there's nothing there. No scholarly support, nothing. How quickly you give up and return to insulting people. This, my friend, is why everybody tunes you out. To answer your question, it's not an insult, it's a fact. Bonus points for playing the atheist victim card even as you continue to insult people. I wish you could appreciate the irony. |
Anonymous
Just go away. Your contempt is jumping off the screen and pretty off topic for this thread. Go start one about atheist persecution and vent there. |
Anonymous
And for the record, I don't think you're immoral, just really obnoxious. |
Anonymous
I think she's boring, but not immoral. Boring because the only quivers in her bow are insults and unsubstantiated nonsense she can't even be bothered to defend. I suppose we could debate whether all her insults are somehow immoral, but they're so immature it doesn't seem fair to judge her as an adult. Who wants to waste time debating insults and substance-free nonsense? Goodbye all, and I'll come back to this thread if atheist pp comes up with some actual substance we can sink our teeth into. |
Anonymous
pp above is definitely not tuning out the atheist. pp can't resist engaging. Makes you wonder about the firmness of pp's faith. |
Anonymous
pp does! But this is not indicative of the behavior of many religious people, especially progressive Christians who are very accepting of all kinds of people. They value their own faith greatly, and feel no need to insult others, whatever their beliefs or non-beliefs. |
Anonymous
How silly |
Anonymous
| I read an interesting article the other day about how Jesus (the historical figure) might not have existed and that this hasn't been sufficiently explored. |