BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.

---

Why do you believe your life has purpose?

---

I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.

---

For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.

---

Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion

---

If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.

Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?

---

The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.

I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.

I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.

---

That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.

---

...Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.

---

But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of "ethical" is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth), and therefore you can't argue that it is "wrong" or "unethical" for someone else to define relative truth a different way, one that would place value on NON-empathy and NON-compassion, or if his idea of a "better world" were to involve the destruction of as many people as possible.

Further, the concepts of "ethical" and "moral" also require free will/choice. If there is no free will/choice, then whatever we do or think is ultimately determined by the physical laws which govern the universe, and nothing more. In which case, truth itself, whether absolute or relative, doesn't have any real significance since there is no choice in the matter to begin with.

From where do absolute truth and free will/choice originate?

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.

---

Why do you believe your life has purpose?

---

I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.

---

For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.

---

Of course life has meaning to a non-believer and personally there is more meaning since this life is all I get.

The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody.

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.

---

I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.

---

You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.

---

I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol

---

You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.

Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.

---

There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.

As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.

---

Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?

This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.

---

Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)

2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.

3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.

A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.

If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.

---

1. Argument from silence, and there isn't even silence. Your attempt to exclude and explain away Paul IS intellectually dishonesty and incredibly biased, and an ad hoc argument. A foolish argument, which even Bart Ehrman would characterize as such.

2. Didn't agree that it was a forgery. Not surprised you weren't able to interpret correctly. The point was even if we eliminate that one, there was a second reference to Jesus by Josephus. The only way you could maintain your argument was by doing away with the second reference by engaging in ridiculous ad hoc reach (yes, it was.) And we aren't even getting into Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Clement, etc.

3. Luke, "a historian of first rate" whose prologue CLEARLY indicates he approaches his Gospel as history rather than myth, who was giving his readers "an orderly account" based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events. Paul, a first century contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who wrote within a decade of Jesus' death, who knew the disciples, who knew James the "brother of Jesus", who clearly indicates a real, historical Jesus.

Now, I never questioned your intelligence directly. What I said was that it is either that, or it is dishonesty. It is your attempts and methods to explain the above away, that bring your honesty and/or intelligence into question. And it's not just me who thinks this, remember? Let's revisit these quotes from highly qualified and relevant scholars regarding the view which you believe to have credence:

-- "the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.." - Bart Ehrman

-- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end." - Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

-- "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." - Joseph Hoffman

---

1. Let me clarify my stance on this matter. I am not asserting that there was never a faith healer named Yeshua in the 1st century who was unknown or had only a small following - there were likely many of those, possibly even hundreds. My argument is that there is enough evidence to question the existence of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (excluding the miracles) - the one who attracted large crowds and was a popular speaker. During the time Jesus supposedly lived, there were numerous well-known historians in Jerusalem who wrote about lesser-known false prophets and mundane figures, yet there is silence on the topic of Jesus, which I find intriguing.

2. As I mentioned previously, the earliest reference to Jesus is clearly a forgery, and the reference to the Christ is not conclusive and may have been inserted later.

3. Although Luke claimed to be a historian in his Gospel, there is evidence to suggest that he was a historical novelist, not a reporter of facts. The author included historical details that are questionable or events that occurred long after the time he claimed they did. Additionally, the author demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic Judaism and Palestinian geography, and contradicted information presented in Paul's epistles

---

1. The Jesus in the Gospels is precisely who those scholars are talking about. THEY DON'T believe in his divinity either. They may or may not believe that he attracted large crowds EITHER. They, like you, have dismissed all the supernatural stuff as myth. But despite this, they insist that the person who is the Christ-figure as depicted in the Gospels is NOT a myth, that it is based on a REAL, HISTORICAL person. You can believe or not believe the miracles, or his public ministry all you want. You can keep arguing from silence all you want, it will always be a logical fallacy that your view is built on. You are not bringing anything new that these scholars have not considered. Bottom line, with all these things considered, they are all saying that your view is utterly false, "completely spurious", "foolish", and is promoted by "incompetent and unqualified people" and "ignorant buggers". Keep flailing. You can never escape this.

2. Not a forgery, at worst just an interpolation.

3. You can reach, stretch, whatever to find all the "evidence to suggest" that Luke is not attempting to faithfully report facts from eyewitnesses, even when that was his stated purpose in his prologue. None of what you are saying diminishes the historical value of his work, if they are even true. One of the world's famous archaelogists called Luke a "historian of first rank" when he verified through archaelogy the accuracy of Luke's gospel.

---

For points one & two, we can agree to disagree. I'm happy with the ignorant bugger label on these.

In regards to Luke, it appears that you give considerable weight to the majority scholarly opinion (which is understandable). I suggest consulting non-evangelical sources to gain a more well-rounded understanding of the topic. In the past century, significant studies and research have been conducted on the subject since William Ramsay's proclamation of Luke as a historian of the highest caliber.

Furthermore, the author's claim to accuracy does not guarantee the truthfulness of their account.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of "ethical" is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth), and therefore you can't argue that it is "wrong" or "unethical" for someone else to define relative truth a different way, one that would place value on NON-empathy and NON-compassion, or if his idea of a "better world" were to involve the destruction of as many people as possible.

---

That is your subjective opinion based on your world-view, yes. It is true that if ethical judgments were purely based on relative truth, then it would be difficult to argue that someone else's different ethical views are "wrong" or "unethical." However, this does not require the existence of absolute truth. Ethical judgments can be based on intersubjective agreement, where individuals agree on certain ethical principles through reasoned discourse and consensus-building. This can provide a basis for arguing that certain actions are unethical, even if there is no absolute truth underlying these principles.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

Further, the concepts of "ethical" and "moral" also require free will/choice. If there is no free will/choice, then whatever we do or think is ultimately determined by the physical laws which govern the universe, and nothing more. In which case, truth itself, whether absolute or relative, doesn't have any real significance since there is no choice in the matter to begin with.

---

Free will is not required for ethical judgements. Ethical principles can be arrived at through rational reflection, and individuals can be held accountable for their actions based on whether they adhere to these principles, regardless of whether they had free will or not.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

From where do absolute truth and free will/choice originate?

---

As mentioned above, there is no need for absolute moral truth. I am open to it existing, but I do not believe it does. Morals evolved over time as a way to promote cooperation and social cohesion within human groups.

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.

---

Why do you believe your life has purpose?

---

I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.

---

For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.

---

Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion

---

If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.

Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?

---

The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.

I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.

I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.

---

That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.

---

I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.

It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.

Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.

---

When you disengage from the divine your value and purpose is not relative to your fellow humans or living creatures, or even societal structure or planet. It is relative to the vastness of the universe and the physical forces within it. And under that comparative there is literally no value to humanity. We are simply an elevated ant hill organizing and reorganizing in pursuit of comfort, dominance, and endorphic drive.

Put simply, when you have no relationship to or with the divine, your value or purpose becomes infinitesimally tiny. To believe otherwise is simply human arrogance.

---

The notion that human worth and purpose are meaningless without a divine relationship is subjective, as it presupposes that human value can only be assessed in the context of the vast universe. Nonetheless, other individuals, cultures, and societies have diverse perspectives on what gives meaning and value to their lives. Some find significance in everyday moments and interactions.

---

In that case, it would s strictly subjective.

Do you like peas or carrots?
Do you enjoy beating infants or not?
Genital mutilation or not?
Jews deserve dignity or not?
Do you prefer peas or carrots?

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "Many people have died for their beliefs throughout history, including those who followed leaders who are now recognized as mythical or legendary figures."

Can you give me a few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist? I cannot think of any which fit the parameters, only a few violent cults who murdered or commited suicide, not peaceful groups which advocated noble ideals.

---

I mean across the world we have extreme denominations of Muslims committing suicide attacks, dying for their beliefs. I understand in your eyes this is awful (because it is), but these people truly believe in the Prophet Mohammed and are extremely religious. They aren't committing suicide in their eyes, they are martyrs of the faith.

Specifically, here are 5 non-Christian's martyrs:
1) Imam Hussein: He was a grandson of Prophet Muhammad and one of the most important figures in Shia Islam. He was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE.
2) Guru Tegh Bahadur: He was the ninth Guru of Sikhism and was executed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1675 CE for refusing to convert to Islam.
3) Rabbi Akiva: He was a prominent Jewish rabbi who lived in the first century CE and was executed by the Romans for teaching Torah after it had been banned.
4) Guru Arjan: He was the fifth Guru of Sikhism and was tortured to death by the Mughal emperor Jahangir in 1606 CE for refusing to remove certain passages from the Sikh scripture.
5) Hypatia: She was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer in ancient Alexandria who was killed by a Christian mob in 415 CE for her perceived pagan beliefs and teachings.

---

Was Mohammed a fictional person?
Was Guru Nanak a fictional person?

---

There are some academics out there who question if Muhammed ever actual lived.

I personal think he did live...even if what he actual did besides unite the Arab tribes is open for interpretation...but its a question that is out in the dialogue. Some academics certainly think he did not really exist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451
[Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt
Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed]


[In 1930, Soviet theoretician Liutsian I. Klimovich, in his lecture "Did Muhammad Exist?", argued the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic; that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement]

[2011, Hans Jansen, in his "The Historicity of Muhammad, Aisha and Who Knows Who Else", argued the position that Muhammad is a fictional character. "a number of scholars consequently suspect that Muhammad is not a historical figure, but a literary character that was created by ancient Arab storytellers, perhaps early in the eighth century of our era."
Hans Jansen (2011), "The Historicity of Muhammad"]

[In 2012, Robert Spencer, in his Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins, asserted, per reason that there is no mention of a person named "Muhammad" in Arab literature until 692, a full sixty years AFTER the purported death of Muhammad in 632, that what is Islamic revelation was an afterthought, a narrative created after the Arab conquests of the Near East, to give the new ruling elite an ideological pretext for power.]

[In 2013, Karl-Heinz Ohlig (1938-) (Ñ), in his "From Muhammad Jesus to Prophet of the Arabs", argued that the term "Muhammad" was not an actual person, but rather an epitaph, meaning "praised one", "promised one", or "god's servant", and agues that the four mentions of the name Muhammad in the Quran, do not justify the existence of an actual extant person, but rather one or more series of Muslim preachers who were selling an new reformed "Muhammad Jesus" figure as role model for a new Jewish-Christian upgraded religion, or something to this effect, in sort.]

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.

---

Why do you believe your life has purpose?

---

I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.

---

For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.

---

Of course life has meaning to a non-believer and personally there is more meaning since this life is all I get.

The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody.

---

Several atheists philosophers disagree with you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.

---

Why do you believe your life has purpose?

---

I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.

---

For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.

---

Of course life has meaning to a non-believer and personally there is more meaning since this life is all I get.

The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody.

---

Several atheists philosophers disagree with you.

---

[If the world is not enchanted, if matter doesn't have any intrinsic meaning, then we are free to bend it to our wills. There is a line not a straight line, but an unbroken one between the disenchantment of matter and the dissolution of gender categories, transhumanism, and the humanism idea itself. The whole idea of "human rights" is of course parasitic on Christianity, and will not hold without a firm religious foundation.]

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.

---

Why do you believe your life has purpose?

---

I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.

---

For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.

---

Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion

---

If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.

Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?

---

The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.

I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.

I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.

---

That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.

---

I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.

It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.

Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.

---

When you disengage from the divine your value and purpose is not relative to your fellow humans or living creatures, or even societal structure or planet. It is relative to the vastness of the universe and the physical forces within it. And under that comparative there is literally no value to humanity. We are simply an elevated ant hill organizing and reorganizing in pursuit of comfort, dominance, and endorphic drive.

Put simply, when you have no relationship to or with the divine, your value or purpose becomes infinitesimally tiny. To believe otherwise is simply human arrogance.

---

The notion that human worth and purpose are meaningless without a divine relationship is subjective, as it presupposes that human value can only be assessed in the context of the vast universe. Nonetheless, other individuals, cultures, and societies have diverse perspectives on what gives meaning and value to their lives. Some find significance in everyday moments and interactions.

---

In that case, it would s strictly subjective.

Do you like peas or carrots?
Do you enjoy beating infants or not?
Genital mutilation or not?
Jews deserve dignity or not?
Do you prefer peas or carrots?

---

Arriving at a conclusion about complex moral questions requires a subjective analysis (yes, subjective), where one considers the available evidence, their values, and the potential consequences of their decision.

If you need a deity to tell you that beating an infant is immoral instead of considering the consequences and values of this action, that is exactly how religions rise and do horrendous things as God commanded. Every religion claims to have "the truth".

Looking at the bible specifically, it's in my opinion one of the worst documents to use as a moral compass. Don't get me wrong, there are numerous incredibly wise teachings and ideas, especially in the New Testament, but there are also many unethical actions done by God or commanded by God.

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "Many people have died for their beliefs throughout history, including those who followed leaders who are now recognized as mythical or legendary figures."

Can you give me a few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist? I cannot think of any which fit the parameters, only a few violent cults who murdered or commited suicide, not peaceful groups which advocated noble ideals.

---

I mean across the world we have extreme denominations of Muslims committing suicide attacks, dying for their beliefs. I understand in your eyes this is awful (because it is), but these people truly believe in the Prophet Mohammed and are extremely religious. They aren't committing suicide in their eyes, they are martyrs of the faith.

Specifically, here are 5 non-Christian's martyrs:
1) Imam Hussein: He was a grandson of Prophet Muhammad and one of the most important figures in Shia Islam. He was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE.
2) Guru Tegh Bahadur: He was the ninth Guru of Sikhism and was executed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1675 CE for refusing to convert to Islam.
3) Rabbi Akiva: He was a prominent Jewish rabbi who lived in the first century CE and was executed by the Romans for teaching Torah after it had been banned.
4) Guru Arjan: He was the fifth Guru of Sikhism and was tortured to death by the Mughal emperor Jahangir in 1606 CE for refusing to remove certain passages from the Sikh scripture.
5) Hypatia: She was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer in ancient Alexandria who was killed by a Christian mob in 415 CE for her perceived pagan beliefs and teachings.

---

Was Mohammed a fictional person?
Was Guru Nanak a fictional person?

---

There are some academics out there who question if Muhammed ever actual lived.

I personal think he did live...even if what he actual did besides unite the Arab tribes is open for interpretation...but its a question that is out in the dialogue. Some academics certainly think he did not really exist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451
[Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt
Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed]


[In 1930, Soviet theoretician Liutsian I. Klimovich, in his lecture "Did Muhammad Exist?", argued the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic; that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement]

[2011, Hans Jansen, in his "The Historicity of Muhammad, Aisha and Who Knows Who Else", argued the position that Muhammad is a fictional character. "a number of scholars consequently suspect that Muhammad is not a historical figure, but a literary character that was created by ancient Arab storytellers, perhaps early in the eighth century of our era."
Hans Jansen (2011), "The Historicity of Muhammad"]

[In 2012, Robert Spencer, in his Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins, asserted, per reason that there is no mention of a person named "Muhammad" in Arab literature until 692, a full sixty years AFTER the purported death of Muhammad in 632, that what is Islamic revelation was an afterthought, a narrative created after the Arab conquests of the Near East, to give the new ruling elite an ideological pretext for power.]

[In 2013, Karl-Heinz Ohlig (1938-) (Ñ), in his "From Muhammad Jesus to Prophet of the Arabs", argued that the term "Muhammad" was not an actual person, but rather an epitaph, meaning "praised one", "promised one", or "god's servant", and agues that the four mentions of the name Muhammad in the Quran, do not justify the existence of an actual extant person, but rather one or more series of Muslim preachers who were selling an new reformed "Muhammad Jesus" figure as role model for a new Jewish-Christian upgraded religion, or something to this effect, in sort.]

---

Very interesting - I have heard this position but not have not looked much into it. Thank you for sharing.

Once I get my fill of early Christianity scholarship, I hope to research how other religions rose as well.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

I personally find this argument unconvincing - there have been many awful wars and actions taken in the name of Christianity throughout history - it's one of the bloodiest religions of the past two millennium (probably second to Islam).

Something I will agree with you on though is Christians do contribute to charity more on average (at least in the US), but there are a lot of incredible secular non-profits who receive donations from religious & non-religious alike.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

I feel like this is a poor argument - there have been many awful wars and actions taken in the name of Christianity throughout history - it's one of the bloodiest religions of the past two millennium (probably second to Islam).

Something I will agree with you on though is Christians do contribute to charity more on average (at least in the US), but there are a lot of incredible secular non-profits who receive donations from religious & non-religious alike.

---

Hard to make that argument unless you count the conquests of the Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, English-French-Dutch as being "in the name of Christianity".

Some people say the Crusades but of course these wars were launched by European Christian Kings in response to hundreds of years of Islamic conquests of the Holy land, aggressive wars, and persecutions.

[Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins.]

And the death toll was of course nothing compared to modern wars: "According to modern estimates, approximately 1.7 million people died as a result of the Crusades, which took place in nine separate campaigns from 1095-1291"

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket: "Many people have died for their beliefs throughout history, including those who followed leaders who are now recognized as mythical or legendary figures."

Can you give me a few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist? I cannot think of any which fit the parameters, only a few violent cults who murdered or commited suicide, not peaceful groups which advocated noble ideals.

---

I mean across the world we have extreme denominations of Muslims committing suicide attacks, dying for their beliefs. I understand in your eyes this is awful (because it is), but these people truly believe in the Prophet Mohammed and are extremely religious. They aren't committing suicide in their eyes, they are martyrs of the faith.

Specifically, here are 5 non-Christian's martyrs:
1) Imam Hussein: He was a grandson of Prophet Muhammad and one of the most important figures in Shia Islam. He was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE.
2) Guru Tegh Bahadur: He was the ninth Guru of Sikhism and was executed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1675 CE for refusing to convert to Islam.
3) Rabbi Akiva: He was a prominent Jewish rabbi who lived in the first century CE and was executed by the Romans for teaching Torah after it had been banned.
4) Guru Arjan: He was the fifth Guru of Sikhism and was tortured to death by the Mughal emperor Jahangir in 1606 CE for refusing to remove certain passages from the Sikh scripture.
5) Hypatia: She was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer in ancient Alexandria who was killed by a Christian mob in 415 CE for her perceived pagan beliefs and teachings.

---

Was Mohammed a fictional person?
Was Guru Nanak a fictional person?

---

There are some academics out there who question if Muhammed ever actual lived.

I personal think he did live...even if what he actual did besides unite the Arab tribes is open for interpretation...but its a question that is out in the dialogue. Some academics certainly think he did not really exist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451
[Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt
Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed]


[In 1930, Soviet theoretician Liutsian I. Klimovich, in his lecture "Did Muhammad Exist?", argued the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic; that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement]

[2011, Hans Jansen, in his "The Historicity of Muhammad, Aisha and Who Knows Who Else", argued the position that Muhammad is a fictional character. "a number of scholars consequently suspect that Muhammad is not a historical figure, but a literary character that was created by ancient Arab storytellers, perhaps early in the eighth century of our era."
Hans Jansen (2011), "The Historicity of Muhammad"]

[In 2012, Robert Spencer, in his Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins, asserted, per reason that there is no mention of a person named "Muhammad" in Arab literature until 692, a full sixty years AFTER the purported death of Muhammad in 632, that what is Islamic revelation was an afterthought, a narrative created after the Arab conquests of the Near East, to give the new ruling elite an ideological pretext for power.]

[In 2013, Karl-Heinz Ohlig (1938-) (Ñ), in his "From Muhammad Jesus to Prophet of the Arabs", argued that the term "Muhammad" was not an actual person, but rather an epitaph, meaning "praised one", "promised one", or "god's servant", and agues that the four mentions of the name Muhammad in the Quran, do not justify the existence of an actual extant person, but rather one or more series of Muslim preachers who were selling an new reformed "Muhammad Jesus" figure as role model for a new Jewish-Christian upgraded religion, or something to this effect, in sort.]

---

Very interesting - I have heard this position but not have not looked much into it. Thank you for sharing.

Once I get my fill of early Christianity scholarship, I hope to research how other religions rose as well.

---

Yea its a very interesting subject.

For a mostly oral based faith there are a lot of questions around the early history of Islam.

For one Abu Baka takes over after Muhammed dies (or we are told that) then launches a series of wars against Arab tribes that are trying to break off...the Ridda wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridda_Wars

The fact these are called the "Apostasy wars" shows they must have had a theological character. But since the victors write the history we can never be certain what these Arab factions were teaching...was it the more accurate Islam? Was it something else? We don't know.

Later in 656-661 the Rashidun Caliphate is overthrown by the Umayyad Caliphate this "1st Islamic Civil War", in truth the 2nd Islamic civil war, also changes what we know about Islam.

We can never be sure how the Rashidun arabs thought of their prophet or what Islam was before the Umayyads took control and rewrote/edited the narrative to suit their political and theological tastes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna#:~:text=Following%20Muhammad's%20death%20in,by%20his%20successor%20Umar%20(%20r.

Everything we know about Islam is really a product of the Umayyads. [This dynasty of the Islamic world was eventually overthrown by the Abbasids in 750. Survivors of the dynasty established themselves in Cordoba Spain which, in the form of an emirate and then a caliphate, became a world center of science, medicine, philosophy and invention during the Islamic Golden Age]

A lot happens between Muhammad's death and the founding of the Umayyad Caliphate.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

I feel like this is a poor argument - there have been many awful wars and actions taken in the name of Christianity throughout history - it's one of the bloodiest religions of the past two millennium (probably second to Islam).

Something I will agree with you on though is Christians do contribute to charity more on average (at least in the US), but there are a lot of incredible secular non-profits who receive donations from religious & non-religious alike.

---

Hard to make that argument unless you count the conquests of the Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, English-French-Dutch as being "in the name of Christianity".

Some people say the Crusades but of course these wars were launched by European Christian Kings in response to hundreds of years of Islamic conquests of the Holy land, aggressive wars, and persecutions.

[Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins.]

And the death toll was of course nothing compared to modern wars: "According to modern estimates, approximately 1.7 million people died as a result of the Crusades, which took place in nine separate campaigns from 1095-1291"

---

That's definitely a fair point - I find it difficult to separate the political motivations for the wars and religious justification, since sometimes there is no clear separation. I am a pacifist by nature, so it is hard for me to justify acts of aggressive war actions (not just simply defending your community or the defenseless).

I will also admit that I do not have much detailed knowledge of the crusades beyond what I learned in University. My understanding is the primary reasoning for the crusades is to reclaim sacred sites and other territories from Muslim control (but I am sure they were additionally influenced by a variety of social, political, and economic factors)

"there have been many awful wars and actions taken in the name of Christianity throughout history"

I noted in an earlier post that prior to Constantine co-opting the religion for his purposes, Christianity was distinct in its peaceful character.

There is an important difference between a religion and Faith. Sort of the same way we can meet someone from Germany and not confuse them for a Nazi.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

I feel like this is a poor argument - there have been many awful wars and actions taken in the name of Christianity throughout history - it's one of the bloodiest religions of the past two millennium (probably second to Islam).

Something I will agree with you on though is Christians do contribute to charity more on average (at least in the US), but there are a lot of incredible secular non-profits who receive donations from religious & non-religious alike.

---

Hard to make that argument unless you count the conquests of the Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, English-French-Dutch as being "in the name of Christianity".

Some people say the Crusades but of course these wars were launched by European Christian Kings in response to hundreds of years of Islamic conquests of the Holy land, aggressive wars, and persecutions.

[Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins.]

And the death toll was of course nothing compared to modern wars: "According to modern estimates, approximately 1.7 million people died as a result of the Crusades, which took place in nine separate campaigns from 1095-1291"

---

That's definitely a fair point - I find it difficult to separate the political motivations for the wars and religious justification, since sometimes there is no clear separation. I am a pacifist by nature, so it is hard for me to justify acts of aggressive war actions (not just simply defending your community or the defenseless).

I will also admit that I do not have much detailed knowledge of the crusades beyond what I learned in University. My understanding is the primary reasoning for the crusades is to reclaim sacred sites and other territories from Muslim control (but I am sure they were additionally influenced by a variety of social, political, and economic factors)

---

No doubt. The Crusades had an extreme religious character.

Noblemen and Royalty don't leave their comfortable lives for warfare and death far away (and often with no financial payout) without an extreme religious motivation.

If people want to criticize Christianity for the Crusades they are welcome to...as long as they acknowledge that they did not happen in a vacuum and came within the context of an appeal for help from the Eastern Christians and in response to hundreds of years of Islamic expansion and conquest.

The simplistic narrative I was taught in school was "Violent European Christians wake up one day and after a bloody speech by the Pope at Clermont decide to launch a Holy war against the peaceful native Muslims of the Middle East". The truth is much more interesting and complicated.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"there have been many awful wars and actions taken in the name of Christianity throughout history"

I noted in an earlier post that prior to Constantine co-opting the religion for his purposes, Christianity was distinct in its peaceful character.

There is an important difference between a religion and Faith. Sort of the same way we can meet someone from Germany and not confuse them for a Nazi.

---

Absolutely a fair point

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody."

Funny though, how humanists in practice only ever seem to take care of their own.

---

Remember when Texas Atheist Men showed up in West,TX after the fertilizer plant explosion?

Remember all the times Athiest Purse has been on the scene of disasters?

Ya, I don't remember them either.

---

I feel like this is a poor argument - there have been many awful wars and actions taken in the name of Christianity throughout history - it's one of the bloodiest religions of the past two millennium (probably second to Islam).

Something I will agree with you on though is Christians do contribute to charity more on average (at least in the US), but there are a lot of incredible secular non-profits who receive donations from religious & non-religious alike.

---

Hard to make that argument unless you count the conquests of the Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, English-French-Dutch as being "in the name of Christianity".

Some people say the Crusades but of course these wars were launched by European Christian Kings in response to hundreds of years of Islamic conquests of the Holy land, aggressive wars, and persecutions.

[Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins.]

And the death toll was of course nothing compared to modern wars: "According to modern estimates, approximately 1.7 million people died as a result of the Crusades, which took place in nine separate campaigns from 1095-1291"

---

That's definitely a fair point - I find it difficult to separate the political motivations for the wars and religious justification, since sometimes there is no clear separation. I am a pacifist by nature, so it is hard for me to justify acts of aggressive war actions (not just simply defending your community or the defenseless).

I will also admit that I do not have much detailed knowledge of the crusades beyond what I learned in University. My understanding is the primary reasoning for the crusades is to reclaim sacred sites and other territories from Muslim control (but I am sure they were additionally influenced by a variety of social, political, and economic factors)

---

No doubt. The Crusades had an extreme religious character.

Noblemen and Royalty don't leave their comfortable lives for warfare and death far away (and often with no financial payout) without an extreme religious motivation.

If people want to criticize Christianity for the Crusades they are welcome to...as long as they acknowledge that they did not happen in a vacuum and came within the context of an appeal for help from the Eastern Christians and in response to hundreds of years of Islamic expansion and conquest.

The simplistic narrative I was taught in school was "Violent European Christians wake up one day and after a bloody speech by the Pope at Clermont decide to launch a Holy war against the peaceful native Muslims of the Middle East". The truth is much more interesting and complicated.

---

Thanks for providing your perspective on this - it is something I hope to look more into in the future

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.

---

I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.

---

You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.

---

I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol

---

You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.

Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.

---

There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.

As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.

---

Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?

This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.

---

Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)

2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.

3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.

A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.

If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.

---

1. Argument from silence, and there isn't even silence. Your attempt to exclude and explain away Paul IS intellectually dishonesty and incredibly biased, and an ad hoc argument. A foolish argument, which even Bart Ehrman would characterize as such.

2. Didn't agree that it was a forgery. Not surprised you weren't able to interpret correctly. The point was even if we eliminate that one, there was a second reference to Jesus by Josephus. The only way you could maintain your argument was by doing away with the second reference by engaging in ridiculous ad hoc reach (yes, it was.) And we aren't even getting into Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Clement, etc.

3. Luke, "a historian of first rate" whose prologue CLEARLY indicates he approaches his Gospel as history rather than myth, who was giving his readers "an orderly account" based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events. Paul, a first century contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who wrote within a decade of Jesus' death, who knew the disciples, who knew James the "brother of Jesus", who clearly indicates a real, historical Jesus.

Now, I never questioned your intelligence directly. What I said was that it is either that, or it is dishonesty. It is your attempts and methods to explain the above away, that bring your honesty and/or intelligence into question. And it's not just me who thinks this, remember? Let's revisit these quotes from highly qualified and relevant scholars regarding the view which you believe to have credence:

-- "the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.." - Bart Ehrman

-- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end." - Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

-- "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." - Joseph Hoffman

---

1. Let me clarify my stance on this matter. I am not asserting that there was never a faith healer named Yeshua in the 1st century who was unknown or had only a small following - there were likely many of those, possibly even hundreds. My argument is that there is enough evidence to question the existence of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (excluding the miracles) - the one who attracted large crowds and was a popular speaker. During the time Jesus supposedly lived, there were numerous well-known historians in Jerusalem who wrote about lesser-known false prophets and mundane figures, yet there is silence on the topic of Jesus, which I find intriguing.

2. As I mentioned previously, the earliest reference to Jesus is clearly a forgery, and the reference to the Christ is not conclusive and may have been inserted later.

3. Although Luke claimed to be a historian in his Gospel, there is evidence to suggest that he was a historical novelist, not a reporter of facts. The author included historical details that are questionable or events that occurred long after the time he claimed they did. Additionally, the author demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic Judaism and Palestinian geography, and contradicted information presented in Paul's epistles

---

1. The Jesus in the Gospels is precisely who those scholars are talking about. THEY DON'T believe in his divinity either. They may or may not believe that he attracted large crowds EITHER. They, like you, have dismissed all the supernatural stuff as myth. But despite this, they insist that the person who is the Christ-figure as depicted in the Gospels is NOT a myth, that it is based on a REAL, HISTORICAL person. You can believe or not believe the miracles, or his public ministry all you want. You can keep arguing from silence all you want, it will always be a logical fallacy that your view is built on. You are not bringing anything new that these scholars have not considered. Bottom line, with all these things considered, they are all saying that your view is utterly false, "completely spurious", "foolish", and is promoted by "incompetent and unqualified people" and "ignorant buggers". Keep flailing. You can never escape this.

2. Not a forgery, at worst just an interpolation.

3. You can reach, stretch, whatever to find all the "evidence to suggest" that Luke is not attempting to faithfully report facts from eyewitnesses, even when that was his stated purpose in his prologue. None of what you are saying diminishes the historical value of his work, if they are even true. One of the world's famous archaelogists called Luke a "historian of first rank" when he verified through archaelogy the accuracy of Luke's gospel.

---

For points one & two, we can agree to disagree. I'm happy with the ignorant bugger label on these.

In regards to Luke, it appears that you give considerable weight to the majority scholarly opinion (which is understandable). I suggest consulting non-evangelical sources to gain a more well-rounded understanding of the topic. In the past century, significant studies and research have been conducted on the subject since William Ramsay's proclamation of Luke as a historian of the highest caliber.

Furthermore, the author's claim to accuracy does not guarantee the truthfulness of their account.

---

You have nothing new. Your problems with Luke, whether valid or not, do not diminish the historicity of Jesus to virtually all reputable scholars in the field. They are firm in their conclusion that the myth view is completely false, foolish, and a view that is promoted by incompetent and unqualified people. Even your argument that since Luke has geographic issues and minor contradictions it is evidence that Jesus was fake, is another really stupid, foolish take. You obviously don't want to believe at all costs, so you're engaging in rationalization through ad hoc hypothesizing and excuse generating.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of "ethical" is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth), and therefore you can't argue that it is "wrong" or "unethical" for someone else to define relative truth a different way, one that would place value on NON-empathy and NON-compassion, or if his idea of a "better world" were to involve the destruction of as many people as possible.

---

That is your subjective opinion based on your world-view, yes. It is true that if ethical judgments were purely based on relative truth, then it would be difficult to argue that someone else's different ethical views are "wrong" or "unethical." However, this does not require the existence of absolute truth. Ethical judgments can be based on intersubjective agreement, where individuals agree on certain ethical principles through reasoned discourse and consensus-building. This can provide a basis for arguing that certain actions are unethical, even if there is no absolute truth underlying these principles.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

Further, the concepts of "ethical" and "moral" also require free will/choice. If there is no free will/choice, then whatever we do or think is ultimately determined by the physical laws which govern the universe, and nothing more. In which case, truth itself, whether absolute or relative, doesn't have any real significance since there is no choice in the matter to begin with.

---

Free will is not required for ethical judgements. Ethical principles can be arrived at through rational reflection, and individuals can be held accountable for their actions based on whether they adhere to these principles, regardless of whether they had free will or not.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

From where do absolute truth and free will/choice originate?

---

As mentioned above, there is no need for absolute moral truth. I am open to it existing, but I do not believe it does. Morals evolved over time as a way to promote cooperation and social cohesion within human groups.

---

It isn't a subjective opinion, it is a logical fact. "Intersubjective agreements" on what is "ethical" is still based on relative truth. Another group can have intersubjective agreements on their own which they consider to be "ethical", that opposes yours. You have not escaped the problem.

The existence of free will is required for ethical judgements, because without free will, the concept of "wrong" or "right" is meaningless, if people are only doing what the physical laws of the universe determine they do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.

---

I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.

---

You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.

---

I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol

---

You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.

Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.

---

There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.

As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.

---

Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?

This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.

---

Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)

2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.

3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.

A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.

If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.

---

1. Argument from silence, and there isn't even silence. Your attempt to exclude and explain away Paul IS intellectually dishonesty and incredibly biased, and an ad hoc argument. A foolish argument, which even Bart Ehrman would characterize as such.

2. Didn't agree that it was a forgery. Not surprised you weren't able to interpret correctly. The point was even if we eliminate that one, there was a second reference to Jesus by Josephus. The only way you could maintain your argument was by doing away with the second reference by engaging in ridiculous ad hoc reach (yes, it was.) And we aren't even getting into Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Clement, etc.

3. Luke, "a historian of first rate" whose prologue CLEARLY indicates he approaches his Gospel as history rather than myth, who was giving his readers "an orderly account" based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events. Paul, a first century contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who wrote within a decade of Jesus' death, who knew the disciples, who knew James the "brother of Jesus", who clearly indicates a real, historical Jesus.

Now, I never questioned your intelligence directly. What I said was that it is either that, or it is dishonesty. It is your attempts and methods to explain the above away, that bring your honesty and/or intelligence into question. And it's not just me who thinks this, remember? Let's revisit these quotes from highly qualified and relevant scholars regarding the view which you believe to have credence:

-- "the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.." - Bart Ehrman

-- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end." - Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

-- "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." - Joseph Hoffman

---

1. Let me clarify my stance on this matter. I am not asserting that there was never a faith healer named Yeshua in the 1st century who was unknown or had only a small following - there were likely many of those, possibly even hundreds. My argument is that there is enough evidence to question the existence of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (excluding the miracles) - the one who attracted large crowds and was a popular speaker. During the time Jesus supposedly lived, there were numerous well-known historians in Jerusalem who wrote about lesser-known false prophets and mundane figures, yet there is silence on the topic of Jesus, which I find intriguing.

2. As I mentioned previously, the earliest reference to Jesus is clearly a forgery, and the reference to the Christ is not conclusive and may have been inserted later.

3. Although Luke claimed to be a historian in his Gospel, there is evidence to suggest that he was a historical novelist, not a reporter of facts. The author included historical details that are questionable or events that occurred long after the time he claimed they did. Additionally, the author demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic Judaism and Palestinian geography, and contradicted information presented in Paul's epistles

---

1. The Jesus in the Gospels is precisely who those scholars are talking about. THEY DON'T believe in his divinity either. They may or may not believe that he attracted large crowds EITHER. They, like you, have dismissed all the supernatural stuff as myth. But despite this, they insist that the person who is the Christ-figure as depicted in the Gospels is NOT a myth, that it is based on a REAL, HISTORICAL person. You can believe or not believe the miracles, or his public ministry all you want. You can keep arguing from silence all you want, it will always be a logical fallacy that your view is built on. You are not bringing anything new that these scholars have not considered. Bottom line, with all these things considered, they are all saying that your view is utterly false, "completely spurious", "foolish", and is promoted by "incompetent and unqualified people" and "ignorant buggers". Keep flailing. You can never escape this.

2. Not a forgery, at worst just an interpolation.

3. You can reach, stretch, whatever to find all the "evidence to suggest" that Luke is not attempting to faithfully report facts from eyewitnesses, even when that was his stated purpose in his prologue. None of what you are saying diminishes the historical value of his work, if they are even true. One of the world's famous archaelogists called Luke a "historian of first rank" when he verified through archaelogy the accuracy of Luke's gospel.

---

For points one & two, we can agree to disagree. I'm happy with the ignorant bugger label on these.

In regards to Luke, it appears that you give considerable weight to the majority scholarly opinion (which is understandable). I suggest consulting non-evangelical sources to gain a more well-rounded understanding of the topic. In the past century, significant studies and research have been conducted on the subject since William Ramsay's proclamation of Luke as a historian of the highest caliber.

Furthermore, the author's claim to accuracy does not guarantee the truthfulness of their account.

---

You have nothing new. Your problems with Luke, whether valid or not, do not diminish the historicity of Jesus to virtually all reputable scholars in the field. They are firm in their conclusion that the myth view is completely false, foolish, and a view that is promoted by incompetent and unqualified people. Even your argument that since Luke has geographic issues and minor contradictions it is evidence that Jesus was fake, is another really stupid, foolish take. You obviously don't want to believe at all costs, so you're engaging in rationalization through ad hoc hypothesizing and excuse generating.

---

You are misrepresenting my point. I am not stating that because Luke (or another Gospel) has historical issues Jesus does not exist, but due to the lack of sufficient evidence I am comfortable stating that while the most probable, Occam's Razor solution is a historical Jesus figure existed, doubt of his literal existence is rational.

Saying I don't want to believe at all cost is humorous, when you consider we hold the same position on the argument - you are just more confident. As stated earlier, I do not care at a theological or personal level if a literal Jesus existed. I am certainly interested in his historicity and the rise of Christianity, but my issues with the beliefs and theology of Christianity have nothing to do with Jesus as a historical figure.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of "ethical" is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth), and therefore you can't argue that it is "wrong" or "unethical" for someone else to define relative truth a different way, one that would place value on NON-empathy and NON-compassion, or if his idea of a "better world" were to involve the destruction of as many people as possible.

---

That is your subjective opinion based on your world-view, yes. It is true that if ethical judgments were purely based on relative truth, then it would be difficult to argue that someone else's different ethical views are "wrong" or "unethical." However, this does not require the existence of absolute truth. Ethical judgments can be based on intersubjective agreement, where individuals agree on certain ethical principles through reasoned discourse and consensus-building. This can provide a basis for arguing that certain actions are unethical, even if there is no absolute truth underlying these principles.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

Further, the concepts of "ethical" and "moral" also require free will/choice. If there is no free will/choice, then whatever we do or think is ultimately determined by the physical laws which govern the universe, and nothing more. In which case, truth itself, whether absolute or relative, doesn't have any real significance since there is no choice in the matter to begin with.

---

Free will is not required for ethical judgements. Ethical principles can be arrived at through rational reflection, and individuals can be held accountable for their actions based on whether they adhere to these principles, regardless of whether they had free will or not.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

From where do absolute truth and free will/choice originate?

---

As mentioned above, there is no need for absolute moral truth. I am open to it existing, but I do not believe it does. Morals evolved over time as a way to promote cooperation and social cohesion within human groups.

---

It isn't a subjective opinion, it is a logical fact. "Intersubjective agreements" on what is "ethical" is still based on relative truth. Another group can have intersubjective agreements on their own which they consider to be "ethical", that opposes yours. You have not escaped the problem.

The existence of free will is required for ethical judgements, because without free will, the concept of "wrong" or "right" is meaningless, if people are only doing what the physical laws of the universe determine they do.

---

I agree with this - different groups of people can indeed have different intersubjective agreements that oppose my own. That is the beauty in human diversity and understanding. You see this as a problem, but I do not.

Logical fact seems to be one of your favorite phrases. I would be careful applying such binary terms to the world of philosophy

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of "ethical" is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth), and therefore you can't argue that it is "wrong" or "unethical" for someone else to define relative truth a different way, one that would place value on NON-empathy and NON-compassion, or if his idea of a "better world" were to involve the destruction of as many people as possible.

---

That is your subjective opinion based on your world-view, yes. It is true that if ethical judgments were purely based on relative truth, then it would be difficult to argue that someone else's different ethical views are "wrong" or "unethical." However, this does not require the existence of absolute truth. Ethical judgments can be based on intersubjective agreement, where individuals agree on certain ethical principles through reasoned discourse and consensus-building. This can provide a basis for arguing that certain actions are unethical, even if there is no absolute truth underlying these principles.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

Further, the concepts of "ethical" and "moral" also require free will/choice. If there is no free will/choice, then whatever we do or think is ultimately determined by the physical laws which govern the universe, and nothing more. In which case, truth itself, whether absolute or relative, doesn't have any real significance since there is no choice in the matter to begin with.

---

Free will is not required for ethical judgements. Ethical principles can be arrived at through rational reflection, and individuals can be held accountable for their actions based on whether they adhere to these principles, regardless of whether they had free will or not.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

From where do absolute truth and free will/choice originate?

---

As mentioned above, there is no need for absolute moral truth. I am open to it existing, but I do not believe it does. Morals evolved over time as a way to promote cooperation and social cohesion within human groups.

---

It isn't a subjective opinion, it is a logical fact. "Intersubjective agreements" on what is "ethical" is still based on relative truth. Another group can have intersubjective agreements on their own which they consider to be "ethical", that opposes yours. You have not escaped the problem.

The existence of free will is required for ethical judgements, because without free will, the concept of "wrong" or "right" is meaningless, if people are only doing what the physical laws of the universe determine they do.

---

I agree with this - different groups of people can indeed have different intersubjective agreements that oppose my own. That is the beauty in human diversity and understanding. You see this as a problem, but I do not.

Logical fact seems to be one of your favorite phrases. I would be careful applying such binary terms to the world of philosophy

---

You don't see it as a problem until someone decides to eat you!

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of "ethical" is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth), and therefore you can't argue that it is "wrong" or "unethical" for someone else to define relative truth a different way, one that would place value on NON-empathy and NON-compassion, or if his idea of a "better world" were to involve the destruction of as many people as possible.

---

That is your subjective opinion based on your world-view, yes. It is true that if ethical judgments were purely based on relative truth, then it would be difficult to argue that someone else's different ethical views are "wrong" or "unethical." However, this does not require the existence of absolute truth. Ethical judgments can be based on intersubjective agreement, where individuals agree on certain ethical principles through reasoned discourse and consensus-building. This can provide a basis for arguing that certain actions are unethical, even if there is no absolute truth underlying these principles.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

Further, the concepts of "ethical" and "moral" also require free will/choice. If there is no free will/choice, then whatever we do or think is ultimately determined by the physical laws which govern the universe, and nothing more. In which case, truth itself, whether absolute or relative, doesn't have any real significance since there is no choice in the matter to begin with.

---

Free will is not required for ethical judgements. Ethical principles can be arrived at through rational reflection, and individuals can be held accountable for their actions based on whether they adhere to these principles, regardless of whether they had free will or not.

BusyTarpDuster201 said:

---

From where do absolute truth and free will/choice originate?

---

As mentioned above, there is no need for absolute moral truth. I am open to it existing, but I do not believe it does. Morals evolved over time as a way to promote cooperation and social cohesion within human groups.

---

It isn't a subjective opinion, it is a logical fact. "Intersubjective agreements" on what is "ethical" is still based on relative truth. Another group can have intersubjective agreements on their own which they consider to be "ethical", that opposes yours. You have not escaped the problem.

The existence of free will is required for ethical judgements, because without free will, the concept of "wrong" or "right" is meaningless, if people are only doing what the physical laws of the universe determine they do.

---

I agree with this - different groups of people can indeed have different intersubjective agreements that oppose my own. That is the beauty in human diversity and understanding. You see this as a problem, but I do not.

Logical fact seems to be one of your favorite phrases. I would be careful applying such binary terms to the world of philosophy

---

Wasn't there intersubjective agreement that slavery was ok? Roman child sex slaves? Subordination of women? Muslim honor killings? Is this the beauty in human diversity and understanding that you're taking about?

And do you not believe in logical facts? This might explain a lot.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.

---

I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.

---

You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.

---

I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol

---

You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.

Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.

---

There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.

As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.

---

Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?

This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.

---

Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)

2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.

3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.

A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.

If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.

---

1. Argument from silence, and there isn't even silence. Your attempt to exclude and explain away Paul IS intellectually dishonesty and incredibly biased, and an ad hoc argument. A foolish argument, which even Bart Ehrman would characterize as such.

2. Didn't agree that it was a forgery. Not surprised you weren't able to interpret correctly. The point was even if we eliminate that one, there was a second reference to Jesus by Josephus. The only way you could maintain your argument was by doing away with the second reference by engaging in ridiculous ad hoc reach (yes, it was.) And we aren't even getting into Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Clement, etc.

3. Luke, "a historian of first rate" whose prologue CLEARLY indicates he approaches his Gospel as history rather than myth, who was giving his readers "an orderly account" based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events. Paul, a first century contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who wrote within a decade of Jesus' death, who knew the disciples, who knew James the "brother of Jesus", who clearly indicates a real, historical Jesus.

Now, I never questioned your intelligence directly. What I said was that it is either that, or it is dishonesty. It is your attempts and methods to explain the above away, that bring your honesty and/or intelligence into question. And it's not just me who thinks this, remember? Let's revisit these quotes from highly qualified and relevant scholars regarding the view which you believe to have credence:

-- "the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.." - Bart Ehrman

-- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end." - Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

-- "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." - Joseph Hoffman

---

1. Let me clarify my stance on this matter. I am not asserting that there was never a faith healer named Yeshua in the 1st century who was unknown or had only a small following - there were likely many of those, possibly even hundreds. My argument is that there is enough evidence to question the existence of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (excluding the miracles) - the one who attracted large crowds and was a popular speaker. During the time Jesus supposedly lived, there were numerous well-known historians in Jerusalem who wrote about lesser-known false prophets and mundane figures, yet there is silence on the topic of Jesus, which I find intriguing.

2. As I mentioned previously, the earliest reference to Jesus is clearly a forgery, and the reference to the Christ is not conclusive and may have been inserted later.

3. Although Luke claimed to be a historian in his Gospel, there is evidence to suggest that he was a historical novelist, not a reporter of facts. The author included historical details that are questionable or events that occurred long after the time he claimed they did. Additionally, the author demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic Judaism and Palestinian geography, and contradicted information presented in Paul's epistles

---

1. The Jesus in the Gospels is precisely who those scholars are talking about. THEY DON'T believe in his divinity either. They may or may not believe that he attracted large crowds EITHER. They, like you, have dismissed all the supernatural stuff as myth. But despite this, they insist that the person who is the Christ-figure as depicted in the Gospels is NOT a myth, that it is based on a REAL, HISTORICAL person. You can believe or not believe the miracles, or his public ministry all you want. You can keep arguing from silence all you want, it will always be a logical fallacy that your view is built on. You are not bringing anything new that these scholars have not considered. Bottom line, with all these things considered, they are all saying that your view is utterly false, "completely spurious", "foolish", and is promoted by "incompetent and unqualified people" and "ignorant buggers". Keep flailing. You can never escape this.

2. Not a forgery, at worst just an interpolation.

3. You can reach, stretch, whatever to find all the "evidence to suggest" that Luke is not attempting to faithfully report facts from eyewitnesses, even when that was his stated purpose in his prologue. None of what you are saying diminishes the historical value of his work, if they are even true. One of the world's famous archaelogists called Luke a "historian of first rank" when he verified through archaelogy the accuracy of Luke's gospel.

---

For points one & two, we can agree to disagree. I'm happy with the ignorant bugger label on these.

In regards to Luke, it appears that you give considerable weight to the majority scholarly opinion (which is understandable). I suggest consulting non-evangelical sources to gain a more well-rounded understanding of the topic. In the past century, significant studies and research have been conducted on the subject since William Ramsay's proclamation of Luke as a historian of the highest caliber.

Furthermore, the author's claim to accuracy does not guarantee the truthfulness of their account.

---

You have nothing new. Your problems with Luke, whether valid or not, do not diminish the historicity of Jesus to virtually all reputable scholars in the field. They are firm in their conclusion that the myth view is completely false, foolish, and a view that is promoted by incompetent and unqualified people. Even your argument that since Luke has geographic issues and minor contradictions it is evidence that Jesus was fake, is another really stupid, foolish take. You obviously don't want to believe at all costs, so you're engaging in rationalization through ad hoc hypothesizing and excuse generating.

---

You are misrepresenting my point. I am not stating that because Luke (or another Gospel) has historical issues Jesus does not exist, but due to the lack of sufficient evidence I am comfortable stating that while the most probable, Occam's Razor solution is a historical Jesus figure existed, doubt of his literal existence is rational.

---

It's NOT rational, according to virtually all reputable and relevant scholars who have studied all this quite more extensively than you. Do I need to quote them again?

Quote:

---

Wasn't there intersubjective agreement that slavery was ok? Roman child sex slaves? Subordination of women? Muslim honor killings? Is this the beauty in human diversity and understanding that you're taking about?

---

No, I am not implying that these practices are positive examples of human diversity. On the contrary, they represent severe instances of systematic oppression and violence towards marginalized groups, and they have been widely criticized and opposed by various societies and individuals across history.

As the wealthy governed and established laws, I don't believe the peasants & slaves typically had much of a say (let's be honest, not that much different from today).

Quote:

---

Do you not believe in logical facts? This might explain a lot.

---

This is what I was referring to that is not a logical fact earlier: "But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of 'ethical' is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth)"

You can not prove via logical deduction that it is necessary to appeal to an absolute truth. This is your subjective, personal opinion influenced by your culture & theology.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's NOT rational, according to virtually all reputable and relevant scholars who have studied all this quite more extensively than you. Do I need to quote them again?

---

It is true that the majority of scholars and historians believe that the evidence strongly supports the historicity of Jesus. However, it is also worth noting that there are credible and respected scholars who have expressed doubts about the historical existence of Jesus.

The fact that there is debate and disagreement among scholars and historians about the historicity of Jesus indicates that this is not a settled issue, and that it is not irrational to question the existence of Jesus based on the available evidence and interpretations.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Wasn't there intersubjective agreement that slavery was ok? Roman child sex slaves? Subordination of women? Muslim honor killings? Is this the beauty in human diversity and understanding that you're taking about?

---

No, I am not implying that these practices are positive examples of human diversity. On the contrary, they represent severe instances of systematic oppression and violence towards marginalized groups, and they have been widely criticized and opposed by various societies and individuals across history.

As the wealthy governed and established laws, I don't believe the peasants & slaves typically had much of a say (let's be honest, not that much different from today).

Quote:

---

Do you not believe in logical facts? This might explain a lot.

---

This is what I was referring to that is not a logical fact earlier: "But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of 'ethical' is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth)"

You can not prove via logical deduction that it is necessary to appeal to an absolute truth. This is your subjective, personal opinion influenced by your culture & theology.

---

- Systemic oppression and violence of other groups were "ethical" by their standards. Intersubjective agreement didn't solve anything. You are still mired in your problem.

- It is a logical fact, that without appealing to absolute truth, any argument regarding "ethics" and "morals" are based on relative truth.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's NOT rational, according to virtually all reputable and relevant scholars who have studied all this quite more extensively than you. Do I need to quote them again?

---

It is true that the majority of scholars and historians believe that the evidence strongly supports the historicity of Jesus. However, it is also worth noting that there are credible and respected scholars who have expressed doubts about the historical existence of Jesus.

The fact that there is debate and disagreement among scholars and historians about the historicity of Jesus indicates that this is not a settled issue, and that it is not irrational to question the existence of Jesus based on the available evidence and interpretations.

---

You keep claiming "credible scholars" and "debate and disagreement" between historians and scholars, even after 3 times I've quoted you what is affirmed by virtuall ALL relevant scholars.

The only "disagreement" between these scholars is the degree of stupidity of the myth argument. One says "foolish", another says "incompetent and unqualified", and another calls them "ignorant buggers".

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Wasn't there intersubjective agreement that slavery was ok? Roman child sex slaves? Subordination of women? Muslim honor killings? Is this the beauty in human diversity and understanding that you're taking about?

---

No, I am not implying that these practices are positive examples of human diversity. On the contrary, they represent severe instances of systematic oppression and violence towards marginalized groups, and they have been widely criticized and opposed by various societies and individuals across history.

As the wealthy governed and established laws, I don't believe the peasants & slaves typically had much of a say (let's be honest, not that much different from today).

Quote:

---

Do you not believe in logical facts? This might explain a lot.

---

This is what I was referring to that is not a logical fact earlier: "But it IS necessary to appeal to absolute truth, otherwise the concept of 'ethical' is based purely on arbitrary endpoints (relative truth)"

You can not prove via logical deduction that it is necessary to appeal to an absolute truth. This is your subjective, personal opinion influenced by your culture & theology.

---

Necessary for what?

Quote:

---

Systemic oppression and violence of other groups were "ethical" by their standards. Intersubjective agreement didn't solve anything. You are still mired in your problem.

---

This is not true across the board historically, but for the sake of argument we can assume every previous society believed systemic oppression and violence to be ethical if committed.

When we view the historical actions of systemic oppression and violence from our present perspective, we can recognize the harm they have caused to other groups. By engaging in intersubjective agreement, we as a society can come to a collective understanding that practices such as slavery are immoral and should never be repeated. This scenario is essentially what intersubjective agreement is: fostering shared recognition of ethical principles and promoting a commitment to upholding them.

Quote:

---

It is a logical fact, that without appealing to absolute truth, any argument regarding "ethics" and "morals" are based on relative truth.

---

Correct, that's a logical fact.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's NOT rational, according to virtually all reputable and relevant scholars who have studied all this quite more extensively than you. Do I need to quote them again?

---

It is true that the majority of scholars and historians believe that the evidence strongly supports the historicity of Jesus. However, it is also worth noting that there are credible and respected scholars who have expressed doubts about the historical existence of Jesus.

The fact that there is debate and disagreement among scholars and historians about the historicity of Jesus indicates that this is not a settled issue, and that it is not irrational to question the existence of Jesus based on the available evidence and interpretations.

---

You keep claiming "credible scholars" and "debate and disagreement" between historians and scholars, even after 3 times I've quoted you what is affirmed by virtuall ALL relevant scholars.

The only "disagreement" between these scholars is the degree of stupidity of the myth argument. One says "foolish", another says "incompetent and unqualified", and another calls them "ignorant buggers".

---

Here are some additional scholars who hold this position :
- John Dominic Crossan (Ph.D. in NT Studies & professor at multiple prestigious universities)
- George Albert Wells (respected scholar of German and religious studies)
- Alvar Ellegard - (Professor at universities of Stockholm and Uppsala)
- Kara Cooney (Egyptologist and professor of Egyptian Art and Architecture at UCLA)

Does mainstream scholarship agree with their position on the historical Jesus? Nope. Are they respected scholars/historians of religious studies? Yes.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.

---

Why do you believe your life has purpose?

---

I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.

---

For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.

---

Of course life has meaning to a non-believer and personally there is more meaning since this life is all I get.

The ethics of humanism is to make the world better. For everybody.

---

Why make the world better for everybody rather than oneself or tribe?