5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again RJ!

Forgive me for not offering a lengthy and detailed reply - my time is a little short right now.

Interesting that you refer to it as a Creator/God. Do you have a particular brand of deity that you're attached to?

Yes - the brand that Created the entire universe.

I don't rule out a "God" who has no interest in humanity

Why did you add "who has no interest in humanity?"

Am I missing something about this board?

I don't know what you know about this board - so I don't know if you're missing something?

If you quoted my whole point it might be a little less confusing. To be christlike is usually defined as being like Christ. Christ had a habit of answering people's questions with questions.

I'm sorry RJ, but this is the first time I have ever heard someone suggest that an example of being Christlike is to answer questions with a question.

You find the beliefs of others to be absurd

If you mean someone who believes that there is no Creator/God............then no. I absolutely do not find that to be absurd at all.

If you mean someone who believes they will turn into a red Honda Civic when they reach the age of 20......then yes. I would find that absurd.

and I'm sure others find your beliefs to be equally absurd.

I'm certain that this is true.

I would say it's obvious you are understandably emotionally involved in this subject.

It's that obvious huh?

Gotta run Red!

Thanks for engaging - I'll check back later and reply if need be.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

Hi SP!

Ceeboo,

Do you have faith in the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

No - because - in my opinion - it would be irrational to have faith (a.k.a. - belief) that the tooth fairy really exists.

Your turn: Do you believe that having a belief in the tooth fairy is equal and/or is reasonably comparable to having a belief in a Creator/God?

Peace,
Ceeboo

As already mentioned by others in this thread, I think that there's no evidence for either.

The notion of "god" answered a curiosity of man that the notion of the "tooth fairy" does not. Money under a pillow is, we know, due to people putting it there. How the world came to be and other natural phenomena are curiosities of mankind that for millennia the "god" hypothesis provided a satisfactory answer. The tooth fairy does not provide an explanation as to whether there is any cognitive or other existence after we die, or if so, what that would entail. But the "god" hypothesis does.

So, in sum, I think there is no evidence for either, but one (the "god" hypothesis) has in times past satiated human curiosity about the world's formation and yet gives hope to those who need it that as distinct, integrated conscious entities, they will continue after death--in some kind of easier/rectified existence. But there is no evidence for the "god" hypothesis or the "tooth fairy", but all the tooth fairy does is explain to kids finding money under their pillows when they lose teeth (and provide them some false assurance that there are magical beings that are looking out for the kids--sort of grooming them for believing/hoping for the "god" hypothesis to continue into later life).

[_Bret Ripley]

If you are feeling a bit saucy, you could also observe that some unbelievers entertain things like Q, the Documentary Hypothesis and its spin-offs, or even some sort of historical Jesus -- things that cannot be definitively demonstrated to exist but are nevertheless pointed to for their explanatory power.

That would not only be saucy, it would be more the equivalent of mixing up Napoleon's mother and the Tooth Fairy.

lol, well put. You are correct, of course, and perhaps I overburdened the word 'saucy' here.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm sorry RJ, but this is the first time I have ever heard someone suggest that an example of being Christlike is to answer questions with a question.

He's referring to the teaching style of Christ, Ceeboo. Christ used a combination of question/instruction in his teaching.

[_Jersey Girl]

It's interesting to me to see some people fall all over themselves to establish some sort of historicity re: Jesus.

I don't see anyone falling all over themselves, but let's go with that perspective. Do you find it likewise interesting to see people "fall all over themselves" to establish the opposite position? The topic, the dialogue, the responses, wouldn't exist to begin with were there not those challenging the historicity of Jesus.

Looks like you have that a little backwards.

Anyone who has lived more than a day or two on earth understands how lies and rumors can take on a life of their own, and it's no surprise there were many people who claim to have met the Messiah and were preaching a gospel of some sort.

I support your right to think that and forward that position.

Regardless, even if the gospels were correlated and time stamped, the authors' claims, the miracles, the existential reasons for a blood sacrifice by the Jewish god are as believable as Joseph Smith' s fable. I mean, we're 2,000 years on from the narrative. s*** hasn't changed yo. People are still dicks.

I don't recall anywhere in Biblical scripture the claim that Christianity would change the inherent nature of human beings.

Ain't no Angry Jesus coming back for an Armageddon. And God is still making parasites that bore into the feet of African men, women, and children.

Best to focus on Mankind in the here and now, no?

Yup. So how are we, the collective we, contributing to the well being of African me, women and children? Looks like we're doing a crappy job of it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's interesting to me to see some people fall all over themselves to establish some sort of historicity re: Jesus.

I don't see anyone falling all over themselves, but let's go with that perspective. Do you find it likewise interesting to see people "fall all over themselves" to establish the opposite position? The topic, the dialogue, the responses, wouldn't exist to begin with were there not those challenging the historicity of Jesus.

Looks like you have that a little backwards.

I don't see a problem with challenging truth assertions, whether they're religious in nature or something else.

Regardless, even if the gospels were correlated and time stamped, the authors' claims, the miracles, the existential reasons for a blood sacrifice by the Jewish god are as believable as Joseph Smith' s fable. I mean, we're 2,000 years on from the narrative. s*** hasn't changed yo. People are still dicks.

I don't recall anywhere in Biblical scripture the claim that Christianity would change the inherent nature of human beings.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

Yup. So how are we, the collective we, contributing to the well being of African me, women and children? Looks like we're doing a crappy job of it.

Probably. I donate annually to Docs without Borders, and a few other charities. I volunteer at animal shelters, and at the USO. I like to think all those people who are advancing the human condition are doing it to some degree out of altruism, and not just financial gain.

[_Jersey Girl]

Ceeboo,

Do you have faith in the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

Oh is this a trick question? Can I answer?

I don't have faith in the tooth fairy. I am the tooth fairy.

Here comes the "when you're praying you're talking to yourself" brigade. Wait for it...

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't recall anywhere in Biblical scripture the claim that Christianity would change the inherent nature of human beings.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

Do you really want to play scripture war with me? If so, I'll be back to engage.

[_Jersey Girl]

Just wanted to say that in spite of a rocky start, this thread has been a pretty nice mix of believers and non-believers, and it's been fun, too.

Cam, get your KJV ready. We can start with Romans.

;-)

[_I have a question]

I know that a lot of criticism has been directed your way, but I want you to know that I'm not trying to make you feel down on yourself. I just wanted to try to give you a bit more insight to the children who wear the labels we adults put on them.

And I just wanted to try to give IHAQ a bit more insight to the women who he wanted to wear his labels.

That's a disgraceful attempt at misrepresenting what I actually posted.
The only poster applying labels to women in this thread is you.

I labelled Jersey Girl's posts as 'bitchy', I did not label Jersey Girl a 'bitch'.
Please try and comprehend the difference.