Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since someone asked. Christianity makes the most logical sense to me. At work I’m steeped in logic and quantitative analysis. And I simply can’t believe that an omnipotent God cares what I eat or how I bathe. Or that God chooses to elevate one people over others. I find Jesus’ message of loving your enemy crucial in this age when the world is connected by the internet in split seconds. I’m a very progressive Christian: I follow the Christ who thought even nonbelievers could be more godlike than those who just demonstrate how they go through empty rituals.

Thanks for sharing.

Is this the same religion your family had growing up?

How did you explore other religions? How much time did you spend on each?

How long did it take for you to come to this conclusion?

I took a class on Islam in college and we read the Quran over the course of a semester while learning context. It took me almost a year to read Genesis through Maccabees, while taking classes about archeology and interpretation for context.

I’m not done learning yet—nobody ever is. But I’ve known these basic differences for a while, and my choice is based on them.

Surprised you’re not interested in the contrasting theological points I made. It’s almost like you keep trying to find something to poke holes in.

Peace.

Anonymous wrote:Since someone asked. Christianity makes the most logical sense to me. At work I’m steeped in logic and quantitative analysis. And I simply can’t believe that an omnipotent God cares what I eat or how I bathe. Or that God chooses to elevate one people over others. I find Jesus’ message of loving your enemy crucial in this age when the world is connected by the internet in split seconds. I’m a very progressive Christian: I follow the Christ who thought even nonbelievers could be more godlike than those who just demonstrate how they go through empty rituals.

Thanks for sharing.

Is this the same religion your family had growing up?

How did you explore other religions? How much time did you spend on each?

How long did it take for you to come to this conclusion?

Anonymous wrote:Muhammad’s historicity is similarly debated. The Quran was written down 20 years after his death (echos of Paul). The Hadith were written 2-3 hundred years later. There’s no record the Muslim conquerors across North Africa mentioned Mohammed or Islam, nor did their conquered subjects, until about 80 years in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

https://compassthroughchaos.medium.com/muhammad-is-as-real-as-the-lord-of-the-rings-5322b0bbe1

Yup. Just like Jesus, he “most likely” but we don’t have definitive evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

We don’t? We memorialize them. We have regular rituals on dedicated days to commemorate them and give thanks. We sing about them. We tell stories about them. We have dedicated or “sacred” places that serve as pilgrimage sites. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss how many in this country view its Founders.

No. We don’t think they have supernatural powers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

And there are statues of Jesus. So the statue thing could go either way.

Meanwhile you haven’t been able to deny that Buddhism is an organized religion in the sense of having temples and even persecuting minority groups.

So who said anything about statues of anyone meaning anything about religion? There are statues of Micky Mouse and someone could chisel a statue of me. That would't make me and Micky gods.

Is someone denying that Buddhism is a religion? Don't think so.

Actually that was me. I should say it's as much a philosophical system as a religion, since it has no deity - which I believe is required for a religion to have -- and the founder was an atheist. I understand, however, it has many of the trappings of a religion like temples, holy scriptures, rituals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

And there are statues of Jesus. So the statue thing could go either way.

Meanwhile you haven’t been able to deny that Buddhism is an organized religion in the sense of having temples and even persecuting minority groups.

So who said anything about statues of anyone meaning anything about religion? There are statues of Micky Mouse and someone could chisel a statue of me. That would't make me and Micky gods.

Is someone denying that Buddhism is a religion? Don't think so.

Oh - I see where someone on a previous page said Buddhism is "a philosophical system, not a religion". Not said by me, and I don't know much about Buddhism, so won't attempt to classify it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

And there are statues of Jesus. So the statue thing could go either way.

Meanwhile you haven’t been able to deny that Buddhism is an organized religion in the sense of having temples and even persecuting minority groups.

So who said anything about statues of anyone meaning anything about religion? There are statues of Micky Mouse and someone could chisel a statue of me. That would't make me and Micky gods.

Is someone denying that Buddhism is a religion? Don't think so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to conclude with some confidence that Jesus was born, baptized by John the Baptist, and put to death by Roman authorities.

Beyond that, some threads of historical fact might exist in the Gospels, especially in Mark, but it’s impossible to know for sure.

Obviously, the historical foundations were strong enough to support the construction of a theology and belief system that’s endured for over 2,000 years.

As a Christian, I don’t get tied up in knots over what’s history and what’s not. I remain a Christian because my beliefs challenge me to be a better human being, and remind me that there’s something greater to the universe and all creation.

All well and good and most of us can respect that. But you could have exactly those same beliefs without being Christian. I suppose Jews and Muslims could say the very same things -- there's nothing uniquely Christian about anything you said.

And where did I say that Christianity is the only true religion or the only path to God? Personally, I believe we’re all called to elevate/better ourselves in unique ways, and that God is too awesome to be fully captured, boxed in, or held hostage by any one belief system.

You said you are a Christian because.... so why pick that one? Anyone, of any religion, could say those same things. In fact any ethical person who doesn't believe in any religion could say those exact same things.

DP. I can’t believe God cares about what I eat or whether I follow purity laws when I menstruate. Christianity goes beyond many other religions (maybe not beyond Buddhism) by urging us to love our enemy, not just to love our neighbors and coreligionists while treating others badly. I struggled through the OT and Quran for various reasons not worth going into here. (I did read the both books in their entirety, although neither in their original languages, and I’m betting that’s pretty rare on this board.) Jesus’ direction to turn the other cheek is something Trumpies ignore, but it’s so vital in these days when everything is on a hair trigger.

I too believe there are many paths to God. As did Jesus, apparently, in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

And there are statues of Jesus. So the statue thing could go either way.

Meanwhile you haven’t been able to deny that Buddhism is an organized religion in the sense of having temples and even persecuting minority groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

We don’t? We memorialize them. We have regular rituals on dedicated days to commemorate them and give thanks. We sing about them. We tell stories about them. We have dedicated or “sacred” places that serve as pilgrimage sites. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss how many in this country view its Founders.

No, we don't view the founders as Gods. I'm not dismissing that many people in the US revere the founders. Still, I have never heard of anyone praying, or being encouraged to pray to any of the US founders. Nor are people encouraged to believe that the founders are capable of answering prayers or changing anything after their death. Some people may worship the founders as heroes, but not as gods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to conclude with some confidence that Jesus was born, baptized by John the Baptist, and put to death by Roman authorities.

Beyond that, some threads of historical fact might exist in the Gospels, especially in Mark, but it’s impossible to know for sure.

Obviously, the historical foundations were strong enough to support the construction of a theology and belief system that’s endured for over 2,000 years.

As a Christian, I don’t get tied up in knots over what’s history and what’s not. I remain a Christian because my beliefs challenge me to be a better human being, and remind me that there’s something greater to the universe and all creation.

All well and good and most of us can respect that. But you could have exactly those same beliefs without being Christian. I suppose Jews and Muslims could say the very same things -- there's nothing uniquely Christian about anything you said.

And where did I say that Christianity is the only true religion or the only path to God? Personally, I believe we’re all called to elevate/better ourselves in unique ways, and that God is too awesome to be fully captured, boxed in, or held hostage by any one belief system.

Do you believe that people can elevate/better themselves without believing in God?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

We don’t? We memorialize them. We have regular rituals on dedicated days to commemorate them and give thanks. We sing about them. We tell stories about them. We have dedicated or “sacred” places that serve as pilgrimage sites. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss how many in this country view its Founders.

I think you're really grasping at straws here, So what's your defininition of "religion"?

Look the word up.

you're the one who's in dire need of a dictionary I think.

Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

We don’t? We memorialize them. We have regular rituals on dedicated days to commemorate them and give thanks. We sing about them. We tell stories about them. We have dedicated or “sacred” places that serve as pilgrimage sites. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss how many in this country view its Founders.

I think you're really grasping at straws here, So what's your defininition of "religion"?

Look the word up.

you're the one who's in dire need of a dictionary I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to conclude with some confidence that Jesus was born, baptized by John the Baptist, and put to death by Roman authorities.

Beyond that, some threads of historical fact might exist in the Gospels, especially in Mark, but it’s impossible to know for sure.

Obviously, the historical foundations were strong enough to support the construction of a theology and belief system that’s endured for over 2,000 years.

As a Christian, I don’t get tied up in knots over what’s history and what’s not. I remain a Christian because my beliefs challenge me to be a better human being, and remind me that there’s something greater to the universe and all creation.

All well and good and most of us can respect that. But you could have exactly those same beliefs without being Christian. I suppose Jews and Muslims could say the very same things -- there's nothing uniquely Christian about anything you said.

And where did I say that Christianity is the only true religion or the only path to God? Personally, I believe we’re all called to elevate/better ourselves in unique ways, and that God is too awesome to be fully captured, boxed in, or held hostage by any one belief system.

You said you are a Christian because.... so why pick that one? Anyone, of any religion, could say those same things. In fact any ethical person who doesn't believe in any religion could say those exact same things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone so far off the rails. Seems like the like the people who want to debate Jesus’ divinity or what “fulfill the law” means need to start their own threads.

Yup.

There is zero evidence of his divinity.

There is some evidence that he “most likely” existed in history.

I just don't see how the two issues can be separated. If the OP asks where did Christian theology come from? it has to assume the historical figure was divine or there wouldn't be any "theology." No one builds a religion about some itinerant preacher who spoke in nice parables and beatitudes.

Buddha, anyone?

There are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. You can't base a religion around someone who may or may not exist. And if he did exist, was he divine? And even if he was divine, how many class hours of comparative religion have you had?

a) there are no contemporary accounts of Buddha. Like Jesus, the evidence is circumstantial. b) Correct, you cannot base a religion around some one who is not divine. See the definition of "religion." (indeed Buddha was an atheist, so if Buddhism is a religion it's based on atheism). c) Buddha, like Jesus, has been elevated in death to godhood among some - indeed he is revered in parts of the world as Lord Buddha. d) as for hours of comparative religion, that's just silly, no answer needed.

How can Buddha die if he didn't exist? Atheists can't be Buddhists. Buddhism is anti-science.

Another person (or maybe the same one) confusing the existence of only circumstantial evidence with denying the existence -- two completely different things.

Another person. I am simply pointing out to the atheists that Buddhism seems to get a pass despite having the exact same problems as Christianity. It requires belief in supernatural elements, like rebirth and karma. There is no direct evidence for the founder. But for whatever reason, atheists give it a pass, and many practice it. Wikipedia devotes an entire page to proving the historicty of Jesus. Buddha gets a paragraph that says, "yeah, he existed."

They give it a pass because it's a philosophical system, not a religion. It has no deity and indeed it's founder was an atheist.

DP. It has temples and statues of its founder all across Asia. It has supernatural beliefs in karma and rebirth.

There are statues of the US founders across the county and the US capital city, Washington, DC has numerous monuments to its founders. We don't believe that they are gods.

In the Library of Congress there is a beautiful mosaic of the Goddess Minerva https://www.loc.gov/item/2007684425/ -- Roman Goddess of Learning, and everyone knows it's symbolic.

There's even a fresco in the center of the Capitol dome called the "Apotheosis of George Washington" that is pure symbolism. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/apotheosis-washington

We don’t? We memorialize them. We have regular rituals on dedicated days to commemorate them and give thanks. We sing about them. We tell stories about them. We have dedicated or “sacred” places that serve as pilgrimage sites. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss how many in this country view its Founders.

I think you're really grasping at straws here, So what's your defininition of "religion"?

Look the word up.