Steve Weiss

Of course you are right, and your view isn't even controversial, but the believer will screen out anything that contradicts with his belief system. <edit>

steve_bnk

If not intereersted in what I believe then please stop haraungng every time I refer to a possible HJ. I get you passionatly reject the idea, I believe in free enquirey regardless if the issue is related to religion.

I haae gone around with you several times, we wil just be repeating our arguments.

steve_bnk

Of course. What else shall we talk about, Michael Jackson or the royal wedding?

Christianity is an intreresting and engaging subject.

To me free enquirey requires the ability to temporarily consider that which you reject as true and look at it from that perspepctive.

Some seem to fear accepting or even entertaining the possibilty of an hj as tanatamoiunt to accepting theism.

aa5874

What are really talking about?

You don't seem to understand that people can DISAGREE about any matter and that even EXPERTS disagree about the nature of Jesus.

I simply REJECT belief that is NOT supported by credible historical sources of antiquity.

It is PERFECTLY reasonable that if one proposes that Jesus was a criminal that it can also be a counter-argument that historical sources of antiquity suggest that Jesus did not exist and could NOT have been a criminal.

You appear to be annoyed when people do NOT accept your unsubstantiated speculation about Jesus.

steve_bnk

Again, specifcally with you I have given my rationale and you yours multiple times in other threads. There is no point in repeating the cycle. Post as you will. Don't expecxt a response on this issue

Steve Weiss

Please tell me how much evidence that you would require to substantiate claims like: virgin birth, walking on water, worldwide floods, resurrections, rivers parting so that the chosen can pass on dry land, etc. Would any amount of evidence be sufficient to validate these claims? Is the truth just a matter of opinion or subject to a majority vote? Why would the absurd be worth discussing? Is there no distinction between the possible and the impossible?

Christianity is only worth discussing from an historical or philosophical point of view, not as fact. There have been few more destructive ideas than religion, and if we don't appreciate that fact we will be condemned to repeat that bloody history.

Steve Weiss

To the believer belief trumps the facts. If one doesn't want to alter one's mindset because the belief is more comforting than the facts, the facts may be denied to make way for faith. It goes something like this: "I don't like reality because in objective reality things may not go the way that I want them to, and I will eventually die. That's not acceptable, so I want some kind of magic that will alter reality to suit me. Since there is no accountability for beliefs, anything goes." So, the holder of the belief gets to write his own reality.

People's beliefs get special dispensation because there is political power associated with and cultural support for the prevailing or dominant beliefs, but what those beliefs are is a matter of geography and popularity, not factuality. If reason and reality were sufficinet for believers they wouldn't rely upon belief in the first place. Thus beliefs get ring-fenced where reality and reason are concerned so that beliefs (opinions) may be perpetuated.

steve_bnk

Huh? Where have I asserted fact or argued for any religious claims?

Christianity is an important part of history, and like it or not our cultural foundations.

It is almost a superstitious fear that discussing possible orgins of Christianity including an HJ might make it real.

Religion is a manifistation of our human nature. You can look at the past and present communist regiemes ostensibly atheist and the ensuing oppresion. If it is not religion it is something else.

I believe it was you on another thread that gave me grief for identifying as an agnostic. There is always something that people rally around to define boudaries and their identities.

Metaphorically, see the sin within yourself, or something about casting the first stone.. Or the ancienet dictum, philosospher know thyself.

Beyond this start another thread if you wnat to continue.

Steve Weiss

Apparently you missed where I said that studying religion is valid for historical and philosophical reasons but that that does not validate religious assertions.

Let me ask you and others who think that the existence of a biblical Jesus is historically and factually plausible or possible, on what do you base this viewpoint? In other words, what type and quantity of evidence would sufficient to validate the claims of the bible? Is there any possibility at all of producing that level of evidence? How would one validate walking on water, virgin births, worldwide floods, a fish swallowing a person whole and coughing him up none the worse for wear days later? Take any miracle in the bible, how would one validate it, using what method and artifacts? Would any written document be sufficent to verify the waters parting for the Hebrews twice (the Red Sea and the Jordan River), and the earth pausing in its rotation for 24 hours and then magically restarting itself? What would the consequences have been had that actually happened, and why wasn't this "event" reported anywhere else? Who must prove the case, the claimant or the person to whom the claim is being made?

There is no justification for being agnostic on these preposterous biblical claims. That primitive man may have had a need to create gods and myths to "explain" his world does not mean that modern man who has the benefit of science and history as a guide has the same "need." The need is for education and critical minds, not for the perpetuation of impossible stories.

steve_bnk

'...And by the way, if you think that a non-existent deity is whispering into your ear, seek professional therapy from someone grounded in reality. Such arbitrary beliefs require no refutation..

One of you ad-hom comments on my self declaring as an agnostic in a previous thread, didn't think it worth a response at the time. My agnosticm has nothing to do with biblical claims.

You chronically conflate my belief in the liklihood of an HJ with a belief/proof in the religious apspects of the tale. If you can not separate the two, it is not my problem.

A fear of an HJ is irrational.

I declare as agnostic for two main reasons.

First, I in no way way want to be associated with organized atheism and the irrational rants such as with the cross at ground zero. Combating irrationality with irrationality serves no purpose.

Second, the question of a deity, Abrahamic or otherwise, is neither provable nor disprovable. The obsession with attempting to disprove god is no different than the obsession with proving god.

And last, I tend to weigh things in terms of probabilities. It is a consequence of my years as an engineer. I always try to keep an open mind even when faced with issues that appear moot on the face of it. I do not relegate god to non-existence, but in the grand scheme of things, a low probability.

As to an HJ.

First I look at the region today with its geo-politics and religious conflict. In a broad sense, not much different than in the time of JC. Extreme nationalism and militants, albeit the sides are different.

The question comes down to JC as an outright fabrication of a tale built on an historical character.

Why would one fabricate such a tale? Considering the times those who had the literary skills to dream it up and put it to paper would have been limited. Along with that, they would need the resources, leisure time was a commodity for the few. What would be the goal and why pick a wandering poor Jewish rabbi as the central character? If it was fabricated they would have to market it to get a following. Hard to do in those times, no mass communications.

In the balance an HJ upon which the tale was spun makes more sense. Over time in the retelling curing a psychosomatic disease via faith healing becomes raising Lazarus from the dead. Look at Catholics today. Water at Lourdes believed to cure organic disease. Or the tale of Fatima which just happened in the last century.

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima
In the times JC would have been one of many wandering malcontents preaching the end, it is what Jewish prophets/mystics have always done, and usually suffered for it.

People claiming to be the prophesied messiah were not uncommon. He fits the profile.

In the balance I lean towards an HJ upon which a movement began. To me it is more probable it was a movement that grew and embellished over time than an outright fabrication.


In any case, You can no more disprove an HJ than prove. I have no proof. It is my interpretation based on how humans behave from known movements and a political projection of what the times were like.