Occams_Razor

Good Point!

Clivedurdle

Ellegard - Jesus a hundred years before Christ - argues that these stories arose with a teacher of righteousness - what has happened to his proposal?

With regard to the thread, could all religious studies institutions be understood as similar to the story of the emperor with no clothes?

jonesg

Its because of Jesus's ideas and teachings and claims.

It threatens something.

Some atheists claim the bible is little more than fiction,
OK, so howcome they don't spend the same energy disputing the veracity of a novel.?

Because it threatens something.

Others believe and study (Jesus and the bible) because it doesn't threaten something in their being, it has the opposite effect, it solves their troubles.

Parts of the ancient writings are embellished but the core is stable, religion always gets itself into deep doodoo whenever it tries to prove.
They could make socks from the shroud of turin and go from there.

Ahab

If millions of people started to follow the teachings they think they find in a novel and trying to make laws based on those teachings, you'd find us unbelievers expending the same energy disputing its veracity.

Yes, unfortunately some aspects of religious belief do threaten some basic human rights like gays being able to get married if they choose.

Now I wonder why that is?

Occams_Razor

Our fellow man's grasp of reality.

Actually, I think we all do. Likewise, for you to claim your book isn't little more than fiction, you must, perforce, claim that the Koran, the Avesta, and all others mutually exclusive religions' holy books are "little more than fiction." Why should anyone regard your holy book with any more credulity? (Warning, claims that your holy book is self-proving will be treated for the circular arguments that they are).

It's hard to believe you can't see the effective difference between a work of fiction, regarded as fiction, as against a fantastical "novel" held up by millions of people as containing the truth about life the universe and everything. Ahab already said it; i'll expand a bit. jonesg: If millions of people started inexplicably believing that the Harry Potter series were sacred books revealed directly from the creator and ruler of the universe and that we had to follow all tenets contained therein and everyone around you started wearing little brooms around their neck and ordering their lives to comport with the notions of morality set forth therein and those millions based their lives on the claims contained therein and whole institutions were devoted to its interpretation and people intruded into your life in all manner of ways, asking that Harry Potter (hallowed be his name) be worshipped in your childrens' schools, that his name be enshrined in your nation's official pledge, that all manner of sweeping changes in laws be passed effecting your and your fellow man's rights, and you believed that Harry Potter was just a work of fiction, would you then be floored if someone said "how come jonesg doesn't spend the same energy disputing the veracity of other works of fiction as he does the Holy Harry Potter?"

Actually it doesn't threaten anything--the insane belief that it's not a work of fiction by millions and their actions are what threatens truth, reality, complexity, my rights.

Well yes, no one is disputing that "Godditit" is a scary and very effective panacea for all hard questions.

Stable what?

Vorkosigan

Hell yes it threatens something! At the moment Christinanity is threatening civil rights, the environment, human autonomy in a world of corporate power, progress and growth in the third world, science, and of course, it is threatening to check any effort to halt global warming. Christinanity is hugely threatening.

Chili

It sure does threaten lots of things but it is also wrong to blame the victims for being victims of a lie that has a built in power to mobilize itself like a dis-ease because "it testifies on my behalf" (Jn.5:39).

It is therefore also wrong to expect those people to accept your conclusion at will (even if they should) because there is also a whole school of thought just 'below' you that vehemently argues for the HJ (because they still have their ass on fire and the Inquisition once proved this to be true).

Juliana

At the risk of repeating myself:
Jesus did exist, just hundred years earlier and in another place.
For proof see: www.carotta.de
I'm still waiting for a solid rebuttal by an atheist, infidel, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew... or whoever, even a scholar of Harvard, Yale or the Hebrew University would be fine. But please do it with some intellectual level and integrity.

Annum novum faustum felicem - anno Divi Iulii MMCV - vobis precor.

Juliana

Llyricist

I think he meant to say "like a stable"

Ceverante

Did Jesus exist? Of course he did, given that 'Yeshua' was a common name back then. Taken from The name 'Yeshua'

What exactly then is the question? I wonder...