gurugeorge

I think this is an important area to stress. Basically, if Jesus never existed as a man, it kind of leaves everything as it is, all that's lost is the notion of a one-shot Avatar of the Divine (whom we need priests connected in a lineage going back to to intercede for us, natch ).

What's left is a type of religion that's not all that different from other mysticisms of the world (Buddhism, Daoism, etc.). You could then view mystical Christianity in the same way as Sam Harris views the mystical component of other religions, as a purely experiential, experimental process, conducive to an ethical life - and the various religious symbolisms are just different clothings, depending on what floats your boat, what gets you going, what awakens the ecstasy of Being, and universal love, in you.

And this of course can be viewed perfectly naturalistically (it's a brain event, just like appreciating Beethoven or veridically seeing a cat are brain events). But it's a type of experience worth having (like any other valuable type of experience in the world). Maybe not for everyone, but probably most could get something out of it.

TedM

Yes.

I do. The mind and belief systems are powerful things. If you believe you should love someone, you can.

I think a new belief that many would have is that nothing really matters in the end and that such a belief can indeed cause many former Christians to take a me-first and screw everyone else attitude.

Zaphod

I think you are on the money here. But I also think that IF the message that Jesus did not even exist was repeated often and forcefully enough, eventually they would all come around. And I think that Biblical "scholars" know this is so, which is why they are so over-the-top churlish about there being lots of good evidence and a perfect consensus for the HJ. Because they know that there isn't. They are the true defenders of the faith.

Because , let's face it - an objective observer new to this area of study is astounded by the lack of evidence supporting a HJ as well as by the astonishing amount of mythological and scriptural backstory to the character. I think many of you regulars here, spamandham, are so erudite, so deeply engaged in the chase, so precisely cautious, and so familiar with the material, that you don't realize just how much of a powderkeg you are sitting on.


Yes, but these people have never heard it said that there is an informed consensus that Jesus did not really exist. While many no doubt understand that not everything said about JC is absolutely true, they still believe that there are profound and core truths to their religion. And these truths are based on the historicity of the central character. This is, after all, what makes a Christian a Christian. They truly believe that there was a fellow in Israel who sacrificed his life for them, and that he waits in heaven for them, and will forgive them their sins, who created the universe and answers their prayers, etc, etc. Once JC has no earthly connection, he is gone. And if he is gone, then it is obvious that everything they believe about Christianity is lies. No heaven, no hell - all lies.

Heck, nearly everybody in the world believes that at the very least, there WAS some guy called Jesus Christ who walked in Jerusalem spouting a new and worthwhile philosophy.

I guess I am a bit of an optimist. I believe that humankind could finally make some real progress if we could throw the yoke of religion off of people's minds. And if enough brave people would come to an honest consensus about the lack of a HJ, and be adamantly outspoken about it, we might just change the world for the better.

So get it together!

spin

And if you believe you should hate people, you do. Belief is not a reliable criterion for guiding action.


spin

aa5874

Well, I have some "good news". Humans beings have changed the Gods that they worship throughout history.

The Romans worshiped ZEUS as a God before they worshiped Jesus.

And BEFORE ZEUS, Gods were ROCKS.

And as is evident some people who are called christians are now REJECTING Jesus as a God.

Perhaps, the very first Gods were the true Gods.

Did not Jesus say something about ROCKS?

spin

This is pathetic, TedM.

If you sat down and thought about it, you'd know that christianity is not the standard setter for ethics. Back when slavery was quite acceptable christians had their slaves and claiming that christians ended slavery is misguided as some christians in a christian society fought against slavery, while other christians fought to maintain it. During the period when Afro-Americans were treated as second class humans, it was people from all situations who fought against racism, christians, atheists, Jews and others. Women's liberation was a movement to free women from the constraints of a fundamentally backward christian mindset in which women were second class citizens. Same sex love relationships are still hated by the majority of conservative christians wishing to maintain the repression of people because of their sexual preferences. (Here you get all those fundies racing out the passages that warn against same sex relationships, while ignoring the passages about stoning women for "illicit" sexual relationships or stoning wayward children, showing that the issue is not so much a biblical one.)

Christian ethics are a reflection of the ethics of the society in which christians live distorted through the lens of christian dogma. Some christians will display a more ethical approach to the world than others, so you must be able to see that ethics is not a function of religion at all. So why on earth would you think that without any reality behind the tenets of christianity christians would fall apart and act like they are not participants in modern society?


spin

Doug Shaver

OK. It can happen. Ordinarily, it doesn't. Christians who love their neighbors generally do so not because they are Christians but because they are loving people who happen also to be Christians.

I don't believe Mother Teresa was actually a loving person, but it's a fact that she had a reputation for being one. It's also a fact that precisely on that account, she was widely regarded as atypical. To this day, she is held up as an example of how Christians are supposed to be, which implies that everybody knows most Christians are not that way.

Yeah, well, that is the apologist party line, isn't it? There can't be any reason to be a decent human being unless God is going to burn your ass in hell if you aren't.

dockeen

I many remember, many years ago, in a philosophy class, discussing a piece by Bertrand Russell that posited that there is no such thing as true altruism. His point was that everything we do, we do for a reason/motivation, even if it is an act that seems altruistic.

I would posit that our relationships with those around us, family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, strangers can be thought of as an understanding that while we might benefit in the short term from me-first actions, that adults realize in the end that having friends and allies actually works out better for us than having enemies.

TedM

I'm not talking about a 'reliable criterion for guiding action'. Belief guides a lot of behavior. That's the point.

TedM

This is too strong a statement. Religion does set and impact the ongoing ethical standards of a society. I can't believe I'm having to defend this rather obvious truth! Look at Israel. Are you going to tell me that the laws in the Torah didn't set ethical standards? Or that an 'turn the other cheek' doesn't set a standard? That it is all reflective of society--and there is no originality in the ethics presented by a religion? Or that the rules in the Bible to have an effect on the actions of people--thus impacting how the rate of change and the quality of change of ethics over time? Of course it does. To minimize the effect of ethics in a religion in the manner in which you do is very inaccurate and naive.

I don't disagree with the impact of society but it goes both ways. BTW, your example of the same-sex vs stoning standards is flawed because Christians let the New Testament override the old.

To think that some people who rely on the Bible to tell them how to live won't change their ways of living once they realize the Bible's standards are no longer valid, is highly naive spin. Because it does go both ways, some will take it to the extreme and take a me-first and screw everyone else attitude. That attitude is prevalent in our society today so it will be easy for some to adopt. You talk as though you think there is only one ethical standard. People are free to choose between different standards, and will do so once they lose certain beliefs.

Jeffrey Dahmer justified his horrific actions by saying that once he believed in evolution he had no foundation on which to guide his behavior (I'm paraphrasing) other than the base--survival of the fittest. I stand by my claim.