Gospelog2

To be against Christ is not to believe He is who He said He was, God in the flesh, thereby calling him a liar.

LittleGuy

So you mean it takes Faith to disbelieve that someone 2000 years ago claimed he was God in the flesh?

If so, can you tell us why?

Ronin

I don't think a reasonable or loving being would be so upset with me simply because I do not believe in the stories others have told of it...especially with so many other fantastical stories out and about...and the limitations of my nervous system.

Aside from that, it does seem to be rather immature behavior to be so bothered by the perceptions others have of you...especially from a purported deity.

How does one attain the authority to speak for the feelings and intent of such a deity anyhow?

Heathen Dawn

All righty. He was God in the flesh. A demigod.

Jesus the Demigod

Javaman

Apparently you didn't read your Bible as Jesus didn't say that. You're also assuming that Paul was telling the truth about jesus and didn't make most of it up. Finally, several people responded as you requested in the other thread you started so you may want to attemp to respond lest people think you'll behave the same way in this one.

reprise

Well I have enough "faith" to be against the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause - not to mention the tooth fairy and pixies.

Why does it take "faith" to not believe in something?

Javaman

Well said. There are hand-me-down stories relating to boatloads of religions. Not a single account of Gospelog2's particular son-of-God is firsthand. Jesus would know he was one of many trying to get our attention.

Aravnah Ornan

To be against Islam is not to believe that Allah did what he said, which was to reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad, thereby calling Allah a liar.

To be against the Baha'i Faith is not to believe that Baha'u'llah was who He said He was, the One promised by the Bab, thereby calling Baha'u'llah a liar.

To be against Mormonism is ... well, you presumably get my point by now.

Dean Anderson

It is not a question of believing whether Christ is a liar or not.

It is a question of deciding whether the normal fallible humans that wrote the Bible stories:

a) Were telling the accurate truth.
b) Were deliberately lying.
c) Thought they were telling the truth but were mistaken.
d) Were talking using metaphor and were later misinterpreted.

Since the 'historical facts' that they recorded are recorded nowhere else other than in their works - and their works contradict each other - then my best guess would be a combination of (c) and (d).

Given this, I do not have enough faith to believe that Christ either existed or said what you claim.

By the way - the gospel writers never actually record Christ as saying that he is God made flesh, so why do you think he said that?

EverLastingGodStopper

When I was age 17 in college I gave up the last little bit of my theism in my World Religions class. I learned about an ancient Aztec corn god who was the son of a higher god, who was born of a virgin, and with each corn crop was redeeming the people of their "sins."

I learned of other religions who also had half-god/half-man myths, and I learned how for Centuries, Christians killed any people who taught any myth but their own.

This website is about how there may never have been a man named "Jesus.":
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

I recommend to Gospelog2 to also read what Aravnah Ornan posted and think about it for a while. Same myth, different name. All religions require faith, belief without proof. After all, if you had proof, you wouldn't need faith.