Dave
Junior Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Dave on Aug 5, 2007 9:09:37 GMT -8
I've been thinking about this alot lately. I've come to the decision that I no longer believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. I still believe in God, and that will never change.
I believe Jesus did live, and was an abnormally good man, and he was the equivalent of a preacher, or something along those lines. And he was elevated to the status of a deity by men, who wanted to spread their beliefs.
Christianity was struggling, they needed a "thing", they take this good man, say he was the son of God, and bend the truth on his miracles. There have been other stories of the Resurrection, sons of gods and so on. I now believe they took a lot of liberties with this man Jesus.
People back then were poorly educated, it would have been very daunting for a clergyman to say accept Jesus or you will go to hell. It's an easy sell on a feeble mind.
So what I'm asking, is if your faith centers around Jesus, or do you just concentrate on God.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 5, 2007 12:03:34 GMT -8
In my transition from Catholic to Atheist, there was a point where I rejected the claims of Jesus' divinity and became a Deist. I was a Deist for about 5-6 months before finally becoming an Atheist.
Two points got me that caused me to reject the claims of Jesus' divinity. First off, I came to reject all miracles, divinity, divine intervention etc. I believe in free will too strongly to acknowledge a deity who intervenes directly in the world. Because I believe that human beings are in total control of their lives and are responsible for every action they take, a deity who directly intervenes would threaten this belief of mine. I couldn't hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time and eventually one would lose out. For me, the deity lost out.
The other thing that got me is the question Why Jesus? I could never sufficiently answer that question. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. all have holy books and savior-figures that at one point walked the earth. With the exception of Judaism, they also have people who came back from the dead to walk the Earth and then ascend into Heaven. So why is Christianity special? Why is it true while the others aren't? I could never answer this question so eventually I had to abandon the belief in the divinity of Jesus. I don't believe in things that I cannot answer - I am too much of an empiricist to accept things on faith.
I've never bought into the "religion was invented to control people" argument. While certainly some denominations have done stuff to control the population (religious taxes, indulgences, etc.), religion itself was not invented to control others. From the dawn of mankind, people have turned to religion to explain what we don't understand. The Sun is the oldest religiously-worshiped symbol in the world for good reason. It's responsible for life existing on Earth and it should be no surprise that the Sun plays a major role in Christian art just as it did for the ancients.
The fact of Jesus' divinity was not acknowledged until the First Council of Nicaea in 325 so you could be true though.
edit: Most importantly, don't forget to put the Bible in historical context. The earliest Gospel was written approx. 30 years after the death of Jesus and it was written during a time of extreme religious hysteria. A time when gods routinely intervened in the world, participated in wars against each other, when human emotions were personified as gods (Fear and Terror were sons of Ares, for example) , when the Sun was a golden chariot, etc. How much we can accept of the Bible is obviously a question for debate. I personally don't put too much stock into the Bible and read it with a grain of salt just as I read the Aeneid with a grain of salt. The Aeneid, by the way, was written around the same time as the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Aug 5, 2007 20:44:46 GMT -8
To simply say, well Zeus wasn't real so neither is Jesus is silly, anyone round still worshiping Zeus besides newage nutters? No. Historical context is important, historians of early time mentioned Zeus as lore, they didn't give Jesus the same treatment at all, he was an historical figure. But I forget according to Ayn Rand they were all liars.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 6, 2007 12:53:13 GMT -8
I didn't make the argument that because Zeus isn't real, neither is Jesus. First of all, you have no way of knowing if Zeus isn't real or not. You seem to have no problem being an Atheist in regards to Zeus but not in regards to the god of Abraham. I find this ironic but you probably don't...
Anyway, Jesus is nothing special in the ancient world. There were literally dozens of guys who had followers, performed miracles, forgave sins, died and came back to life again. At least, they have followers who would swear to such statements. The face that Christianity caught on while others didn't is - to use the favorite term of Theists - almost random chance. There was a point between roughly 100 and 200 CE that Mithraism and Christianity were equal in terms of adherents. Mithraism lost out because it didn't allow women and was a mystery religion.
Arguing that Christianity is different because they have a holy book, a savior and witnesses to his resurrection means absolutely nothing. Congratulations - Christianity is one of the many ancient sun-god religions that has a holy book, a savior and witnesses to miracles. The fact that it won out - as opposed to other faiths or even other fanatically heretical Christian ideas about Jesus and his divinity, e.g. Arianism - is due to the intervention of certain individuals (Paul and Constantine the Great among others) more than any special divine intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Aug 6, 2007 12:57:40 GMT -8
I didn't make the argument that because Zeus isn't real, neither is Jesus. First of all, you have no way of knowing if Zeus isn't real or not. You seem to have no problem being an Atheist in regards to Zeus but not in regards to the god of Abraham. I find this ironic but you probably don't... Anyway, Jesus is nothing special in the ancient world. There were literally dozens of guys who had followers, performed miracles, forgave sins, died and came back to life again. At least, they have followers who would swear to such statements. The face that Christianity caught on while others didn't is - to use the favorite term of Theists - almost random chance. There was a point between roughly 100 and 200 CE that Mithraism and Christianity were equal in terms of adherents. Mithraism lost out because it didn't allow women and was a mystery religion. Arguing that Christianity is different because they have a holy book, a savior and witnesses to his resurrection means absolutely nothing. Congratulations - Christianity is one of the many ancient sun-god religions that has a holy book, a savior and witnesses to miracles. The fact that it won out - as opposed to other faiths or even other fanatically heretical Christian ideas about Jesus and his divinity, e.g. Arianism - is due to the intervention of certain individuals (Paul and Constantine the Great among others) more than any special divine intervention. What about the story of Paul? He was struck down by a blinding light on his way to Damascus and heard the name of Jesus and suddenly changed his ways. Is there a logical explination for this James? |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 6, 2007 14:25:19 GMT -8
What does the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus prove other than the fact that he very likely suffered a delusion?
Constantine the Great would swear that he saw a sign in the sky at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge but no other person (neither his officers, present historians or his 90,000 soldiers) made a mention of it.
Julian the Apostate claimed to have the favor of Zeus and was privy to see an image of him during his reign.
I can keep going if you want. I can start on Islam and how Muhammad claimed to receive visions of Allah, which put him on the path of founding Islam.
What does the supposed conversion of Paul prove? Other than the fact that Paul either suffered a delusion, mental breakdown or added the story later on for dramatic affect?
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Aug 6, 2007 16:20:45 GMT -8
What does the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus prove other than the fact that he very likely suffered a delusion? Constantine the Great would swear that he saw a sign in the sky at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge but no other person (neither his officers, present historians or his 90,000 soldiers) made a mention of it. Julian the Apostate claimed to have the favor of Zeus and was privy to see an image of him during his reign. I can keep going if you want. I can start on Islam and how Muhammad claimed to receive visions of Allah, which put him on the path of founding Islam. What does the supposed conversion of Paul prove? Other than the fact that Paul either suffered a delusion, mental breakdown or added the story later on for dramatic affect? Saul was one of the greater persecutors of Christianity in his time. What in the world did he have to gain by a sudden conversion to what was not a very popular religion at the time? If he had a mental breakdown, why was he so effective at bringing converts to the church after his vision? |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 6, 2007 18:53:55 GMT -8
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened. Perhaps he did indeed have a mental image or delusion but obviously I am never going to believe that god actually appeared before him.
People claim to have mental images all the time - I'm not sure why you think Saul is so different. Just because he went from persecutor to adherent? He's not unique in that aspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Aug 6, 2007 21:03:56 GMT -8
I've been thinking about this alot lately. I've come to the decision that I no longer believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. I still believe in God, and that will never change. I believe Jesus did live, and was an abnormally good man, and he was the equivalent of a preacher, or something along those lines. And he was elevated to the status of a deity by men, who wanted to spread their beliefs. Christianity was struggling, they needed a "thing", they take this good man, say he was the son of God, and bend the truth on his miracles. There have been other stories of the Resurrection, sons of gods and so on. I now believe they took a lot of liberties with this man Jesus. People back then were poorly educated, it would have been very daunting for a clergyman to say accept Jesus or you will go to hell. It's an easy sell on a feeble mind. So what I'm asking, is if your faith centers around Jesus, or do you just concentrate on God. Hi Dave, I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten not made. The begotten part indicates that God did not create Jesus. Please look to the first chapter of the Gospel of John. First Chapter of the Gospel of John. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. Jesus is often called the Word of God. Please note that this scripture says "The Word was with God and the Word was God." The above scripture also explains two parts of the Trinity. The Word was with God and was God. The miracles that Jesus performed could only be performed by God. There are a number of them throughout the four Gospels. The excuses for Jesus not being God fill the media and the blogs. Look at the original and make up your own mind. At Jesus' resurrection there were over 500 witnesses. This would be a very difficult task to fake. Jesus really did arise because He is God. It was also His way of telling us that one day we also will be raised. Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Aug 7, 2007 6:47:43 GMT -8
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened. Perhaps he did indeed have a mental image or delusion but obviously I am never going to believe that god actually appeared before him. People claim to have mental images all the time - I'm not sure why you think Saul is so different. Just because he went from persecutor to adherent? He's not unique in that aspect. Saul died for converting to his beliefs. I'd say that gives high credibility to his claims that Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. Paul's conversion is also is key to giving Christianity it's firm start in the word. Paul is different not only because of the swing from persecutor to convert, but also in his decisive actions after conversion such as advocating allowing the Gentiles to become Christians, discarding with similar Jewish views on diet, and his own power to convert others. It seems that Jesus did speak to Saul on that road and his plan for Saul to ensure Christianities survival. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 7, 2007 14:15:13 GMT -8
Zach you are really stretching here if you think that Saul's conversion somehow proves the existence of god. First of all, you are accepting the story of Saul's life as 100% accurate. Do we really know if the story given to us in the Bible - the same book that makes some very incredulous comments - is what happened? No, we don't. Obviously someone named Paul existed but is the story of his life as depicted in the Bible exactly what happened? I would argue that it wasn't.
I don't see what Paul's theological views have to do with the existence of god. What do his positions on Gentiles, food and conversion have to do with anything?
Again, I'm not sure what this is proving. A man who claims to see god and then tries to converts others? That's happened thousands of times in history. Today we call it mental instability.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Aug 7, 2007 16:52:13 GMT -8
Zach you are really stretching here if you think that Saul's conversion somehow proves the existence of god. First of all, you are accepting the story of Saul's life as 100% accurate. Do we really know if the story given to us in the Bible - the same book that makes some very incredulous comments - is what happened? No, we don't. Obviously someone named Paul existed but is the story of his life as depicted in the Bible exactly what happened? I would argue that it wasn't. I don't see what Paul's theological views have to do with the existence of god. What do his positions on Gentiles, food and conversion have to do with anything? Again, I'm not sure what this is proving. A man who claims to see god and then tries to converts others? That's happened thousands of times in history. Today we call it mental instability. I don't think I've made the arguement that Pauls conversion proves Gods existance, I just acknowledge that it was a extrodinary event that conventional logic doesn't explain IMO. My point is that without Paul's conversion I'd say there's a great chance Christianity dies out early. He was given the responsibility to accept what he had seen and to take the hard road of conversion and converting others. This is not a easy path to take and I accept that it was his belief in God that allowed him to weather his troubles. If this seems far fetched to you, I really don't care, so far I've read nothing except a speculation that he was delusional. |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Aug 8, 2007 23:42:09 GMT -8
Zach you are really stretching here if you think that Saul's conversion somehow proves the existence of god. First of all, you are accepting the story of Saul's life as 100% accurate. Do we really know if the story given to us in the Bible - the same book that makes some very incredulous comments - is what happened? No, we don't. Obviously someone named Paul existed but is the story of his life as depicted in the Bible exactly what happened? I would argue that it wasn't. I don't see what Paul's theological views have to do with the existence of god. What do his positions on Gentiles, food and conversion have to do with anything? Again, I'm not sure what this is proving. A man who claims to see god and then tries to converts others? That's happened thousands of times in history. Today we call it mental instability. 'and the darkness did not comprehend the light.' |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Aug 9, 2007 7:03:04 GMT -8
'and the darkness did not comprehend the light.' "When one man suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." I can throw up quotes all day if you want me to. Or you can debate the subject at hand with your own words. |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Aug 13, 2007 5:19:40 GMT -8
Your quote is nonsense. It's possible that if one man sees something no one else does, he might be insane, however when many people see the same thing it's not called religion. It's called proof that something indeed has happened.
There has never been a case of mass delusion ever recorded. It doesn't exist.
I don't have to debate anything. There is absolutely no reasoning that would convince you of anything.
C.
|
|
