[Closed] Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ

... is a made up figure of fantasy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1543831119879192379#

For a scruffy, homeless, B'stid carpenter, he had alot of respect.

Jesus Christ is so old news. Its all about Zenu now.

Sandal wearing hippy.

Its all about Zenu now.

As a pastafarian, I object. It's all about the flying spaghetti monster.

Having talked about Michael McIntyre, then Piers Morgan...

I thought I'd just ask about Jesus Christ.

That's quite a leap.

boring fiction for other people.

Jesus Christ Superstar,
Came down from heaven on a Yamaha.
Did a skid, killed a kid.....
Knocked his head on a dustbin lid.

Jesus was a carpenter, well he could perform a miricle when he next goes into B and Q, and get a member of staff to serve him then.

I thought this was going to be about a longpigs track

No its just more stw tat

Consider an individual who does not believe in Scripture.

- How would they explain how the earth’s rock layers, fossils, mountains and valleys came to be?

- Answer: Through processes that take millions of years.

- The processes of erosion, sedimentation and plate tectonics that occurred in the past produced what we observe around us and those same processes are still working today.

- Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? What are you told about how it formed?

- ”The Colorado River through the slow process of erosion carved out the canyon over millions of years.”

(Even on a vacation you need to be ready to discern naturalistic presuppositions)

If these processes took millions of years, and recorded history only goes back thousands of years, how do they know how it happened?

- Many people are looking for ways to explain our world through natural processes eliminating the need for a Creator God. The Bible predicted this would happen.

My old RE teacher once said, "Jesus was who he said he was, or he was the greatest con artist who ever lived."

Assuming that he ever lived, I'm inclined to agree. Though I doubt my conclusion was what he was looking for.

Alpin > I'm probably being thick, but not exactly sure what point you're trying to make?

All very well, but who did he ever say he was?

Cougar - Member
Alpin > I'm probably being thick,

The Bible said you would be.

Many people are looking for ways to explain our world through natural processes eliminating the need for a Creator God. The Bible predicted this would happen.

reference please.

Romans

1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

....

1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

I don't give a shit.

Try reading the teachings of Jesus. If you can brush aside the coolness of atheism, you may find that what he reportedly said wasn't that outrageous really. Bit left wing for some on here, but there you go. You *will* find that what he said bears very little resemblence to the teachings of the established church(es).

Massive wealth for the church whilst millions die in poverty? If Jesus were around now, I think he would be pretty pissed off by that.

The African sub-continent, also known as "The Cradle of Civilisation", struggling to survive whilst God's representative on Earth rides around in a bullet-proof phone box? Can't see a guy who hung around with a very eclectic bunch of friends being terribly impressed by that at all.

i think that jesus never existed. i do believe that dinosaurs did exists. this is based on evidence and not a book.

HTH

Ah, but it just so happens the evidence is aligned with what you believe anyway. What have you done in the past when you have encountered evidence which is in direct opposition to what you believe?

I think its quite likely that there was a Jewish prophet that the story of Jesus is based on. Quite a lot of the new testament is in accordance with the history of that time and place IIRC

bollox

Clearly something you feel uncomfortable discussing alpin, sorry to have perturbed your bliss

Got any evidence to back that up TJ?

How about if you want to believe something then cool and great, go for it? We all have our own beliefs and they don't have to be based on any truth.

What's really the problem is when people decide that it's time their (unfounded) beliefs should start affecting other people. Those people need a good kick up the chuff.

it's me i walk amongst you even today.
tell you though i aint happy with what i see, to be honest i think your all going to hell...i will see about a waver for stw members cant promise out though.

samuri +1.
But why do all the non believers feel it their duty to bait the believers?
If it helps people with their lives, let em be I say.

[i]to be honest i think your all going to hell[/i]

Heaven would appear, according to those people still alive, to be filled with either millions of forelock tugging worshippers prostrating themselves before the mighty one, or blokes with big beards constantly shagging 72 virgins.

Would hell be worse than that?

There's nothing wrong with believing in a god or something, or whatever. It's what people do. It'd be nice if jesus popped round and dished out some magic fish and wine. Cheaper than going shopping.

[i]But why do all the non believers feel it their duty to bait the believers?[/i]

Well I'm guilty of this too but only when someone attempts to ram some doctrine down my throat. After that I consider them fair game.

If someone quietly thinks that not eating a pig makes them a better person I have no argument with them. If they knock on my door and start telling me that I'm off to hell unless I pay them money and declare war on the gay community then I have to admit, I've got an issue with them.

Organised religion is a terrible crime against humanity. I'm inclined to believe that joining a faith rather than accepting one is a bad step for all involved.

will you mediators and conciliators Butt Out!? I'm trying to have an argument here!

Kind of ironic that a carpenter was nailed to a plank. The bible would have ended very differently if he'd had his toolkit with him.

It was a bit long for me I'll stick with Thomas the tank engine. It has morals and everything.

Kevevs - Member

Got any evidence to back that up TJ?

Only memory 🙂

I think Herod was known to have been around and that there was a Roman census. Its that sort of stuff that I remember being in accordance with accepted history. I think there might even have been a comet that would be the star the magi followed.

I think it is reasonably likely that there was jewish prophet wandering around Galilee are at that sort of time being a ruddy nuisance to the establishment who eventually got himself crucified when they got really fed up with him

If they knock on my door and start telling me that I'm off to hell unless I pay them money

Are they doing that to you too samuri ? 😯

I had one last week, three the previous week, and two the week before that !
I've stopped giving them money now ...... it was getting a bit much really.

I thought perhaps I should call the police, what you reckon samuri ?

doesn't Chinese/Japanese recorded history go back further than the events in the bible, disproving Noah and all that stuff?

anyway, between 70 and 90% of the world are god botherers (mostly poor people and 'mericans) so it don't really matter what anyone on here thinks.

Kind of ironic that a carpenter was nailed to a plank. The bible would have ended very differently if he'd had his toolkit with him.

Have you got no consideration AT ALL!?!
This is absolutely disgusting - you should be ashamed of yourself - PLEASE put 'SPOILER ALERT' in the title if you're going to give away the ending - I dunno, some people, no consideration...........

I preferred the film anyway - Robert Powell's Salford accent somehow made it more 'real'.

I think there might even have been a comet that would be the star the magi followed.

was having this conversation with an aunt the other day...

the stars that form 'Orion's Belt' are, in some cultures, known as the 'Three Kings'. on Dec 24th the brightest star of the east aligns itself with the 'Three Kings'. if you were to draw an imaginary (straight) line through these four stars then the point where the line hits the horizon just happens to be the point where the sun rises on the 25th.
the morning of the 25th is also important as it is the first day when the rising sun begins to migrate back towards its summer solstice. 22nd being the shortest day along with 23rd and 24th.

Jesus = Sun God. or Sun God = Jesus.

there have been plenty of other Sun Gods before our current Sun God, Jesus.

the Egyptians had their Sun God (Horace), the Persians had one, as did the Acient Greeks. funnily the story of each is an almost exact copy of the last (or just a big coincidence).

the Egyptian Sun God, Horace (approx. 3000bc): born 25th Dec; virgin birth; eastern star guiding three kings; 12 diciples; betrayed; dead for three days before resurrecting.

the Greeks had their Sun God (approx 1400bc), whose CV reads much like that of Horace's.

the Persians had Mythra (GF's dad is Persian and will happily recount the similarities between the acient Persian beliefs and those of today), approx 1100bc, who was born 25th Dec, born by a virgin, had 12 diciples and was dead for three days before coming back to life.

the Indians had one too. in fact, many small and large religions/faiths had a messenger who's story matches closely that of Jesus's.

the story of Moses has been plagarised from religious texts that pre-date biblical texts by thousands of years. a lucky guy set adrift in a reed basket so as to be spared from infanticide and raised by a princess or queen who goes on to dish out the orders of god.
in fact, the Egyptian name for this comparable fellow was Mises... just one typo away from Moses.

you couldn't make this sh!t up...... oh.

and as for easter.... convinient (for Jesus/biblical authors) that the Romans decided to crucify him - and even more convinient that he should resurrect - at the time of year that life begins to bloom once again once winter loosens its clutches.

there's plenty of information out there that you can read. there is also a lot of information that argues the case for the Bible, but when presented with reasonable questions and their response is as follows:

"Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible."

.. then i have to baulk and laugh.

was having this conversation with an aunt the other day...

That's a proper conversation. Nice.

I do believe, and am happy to say I do. Equally I don't feel the need to "convert" anyone who doesn't. I will say that the catholic church is a piss poor way to have a relationship with God. (IMHO)

My views...

~ the person on whom the legend of 'Jesus' is based existed.
~ he was not the son of god, was not born by virgin birth and did not rise from the dead.
~ there is no god, we live in a scientific universe - we may never know all the answers but it is my [i]belief[/i] that we will never reach a point where the only remaining answer is a 'god' who acts outside science.
~ if others want to believe ingod, that's fine as long as they don't try to impose on me
~ any scientist who believes the world is 6000 years old is not a scientist.

Here we go again - it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Can anybody give a genuine example of folk on here attempting to 'ram doctrine down your throat'?. It's clearly bol****s, and just another excuse for the athiest members of the forum to prove their intellectual superiority over those who have perhaps foolishly admitted to a belief in God(s). Still, you can always continue with the 'it's about people's choices so it's not as serious as racism' argument.

Come on Barnsleymitch -its nothing like racism.

blokes with big beards constantly shagging 72 virgins.

I read recently that the 'virgins' may be a mistranslation of the word for 'white raisins' imagine how disappointing that would be, blowing yourself up for a bowl of sultanas.

[Christoph Luxenberg's book, Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran - "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris.

In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly.]

That's not what I was trying to say TJ, though in hindsight my argument was a bit clumsy. There have been some very offensive threads regarding religion on here, and it seems (IMO) as though it's one of the last available areas where people assume it's ok to have a go at people without fear of recrimination. I'm sure that the vast majority of forum members wouldnt dream of posting racist comments, I just want to know why it's seen as ok to patronise and insult people because of their faith.

Barnsleymitch - its not how I see it at all. Its people challenging the believers and taking them to task for the things they say. If they find that insulting then thats their problem but I think like racists believers should be challenged and I find their public pronouncements offensive.

Consenting adults in private is fine but I find the views of the believers insulting and offensive. They should keep them to themselves

Just to turn the argument on its head

You find the views of believers "offensive" and would like to censor their access to free-speech?

TJ - when you say 'believers' do you mean the church leaders, etc? In reality, there are millions of people world wide, who, whilst holding their own 'belief', dont attempt to force their views on others. I personally have no problem when folk on here condemn Ratzinger, etc - there's really very little I can offer in his defence. It's when those insults and comments are aimed personally at forum members that I become upset (bit of a crappy way of describing it I know, but in my defence, I have man-flu). I think this is yet another of those times that, in hindsight, I should have just kept my head down, as, oddly enough, I cant be arsed to argue.

Just turning the argument on its head barnsley mitch

The key thing is you have a choice about faith, you don't about skin colour. I find the views of the religious offensive.

Coyote - I have no wish to censor them - but if they put their views forward in the public sphere they must accept being challenged ( As I do on politics for example)

Personal insults aimed at forum members are bad, whether it's to do with wheel size, 'cheeky', support of football generally, support of specific football team, number of gears, ownership of a road bike etc etc.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss them on a discussion forum, even if many of these are areas on which people are not willing/able to change their opinion - why is religion any different?

Try reading the teachings of Jesus. If you can brush aside the coolness of atheism, you may find that what he reportedly said wasn't that outrageous really. Bit left wing for some on here, but there you go. You *will* find that what he said bears very little resemblence to the teachings of the established church(es).

[b]I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians - they are most unlike your Christ.[/b] [i]Mahatma Gandhi[/i]

No, you said "Consenting adults in private is fine but I find the views of the believers insulting and offensive. They should keep them to themselves". Now the English language is a wonderful thing with it's various nuances but that sounds like censorship to me.

Liking the quote three-fish. Not heard that one before.

All I've been trying to say is that I have never seen posts by the members of this forum who are religious either attempting to 'ram their views down people's throats' or purposely trying to offend other members. However, there are a lot of examples of this happening the other way around, and I was wondering why this was seen as ok?

barnsleymitch - Member

Can anybody give a genuine example of folk on here attempting to 'ram doctrine down your throat'?. It's clearly bol****s

Well if you bothered to read the posts barnsleymitch, you would have seen that samuri has them knocking on his door telling him that he's off to hell unless he pays them money ....... and I do too.

Is that not "ramming doctrine down your throat" ffs ?

Like racists should keep their views to themselves or Man U supporters should?

*failed troll has failed and disapered in a puff of logic* 🙁

Can I just say that nobody [u]on here[/u] has ever tried to ram anything worse than a pork pie down my throat?

I suppose I meant "should keep their views to themselves unless they are prepared to be challenged" Challenging a ridiculous idea will often mean ridicule perhaps

"Challenging a ridiculous idea will often mean ridicule perhaps"
I would have expected better from you TJ. And while were on it, I'd ask you (again) to provide me with any evidence that any religious (for want of a better word) members of this forum have done anything more than attempt to defend themselves against the overwhelming amount of piss taking and offensive posts from the usual suspects. You've already made your views on Catholicism clear, and you know what, I wouldnt want to comment or try and debate that with you, yet somehow, and this is the point I'm desperately trying to make, you seem to think it's acceptable to make patronising statements such as that one.

Just an observation, but there are far fewer spiritual opinions forcefully expressed on here than there are political ones.

Also, I'd like to know why it is deemed off limits to be contemptuous of a religious point of view but fair game to be contemptuous if not down right offensive towards a political point of view.

"I'd like to know why it is deemed off limits to be contemptuous of a religious point of view"
It isn't.

Ridicule and derision are appropriate methods of engaging the religious anything more serious engages in reasoned debate their beliefs do not merit.

I am aggressively atheist and make no apologies for it.

Also, I'd like to know why it is deemed off limits to be contemptuous of a religious point of view but fair game to be contemptuous if not down right offensive towards a political point of view.

I may have previously poked the boney finger of fun at the religious but I've poked it at various others too.

I don't understand the parallel with racism.

I'd like to know why it is deemed off limits to be contemptuous of a religious point of view but fair game to be contemptuous if not down right offensive towards a political point of view.

Because whether people choose to go to church on a Sunday, or mosque/synagogue on a Saturday, or temple on whatever day, or whether they choose to pray in their homes, or believe in whatever they choose to believe, does not in any way whatsoever, bother or affect me.

The way they vote does.

Not really that difficult to figure out ...... is it ?

Barnsley mitch - its all about your point of view - the posts I find patronising and offensive you will not.

I thought I had made it clear I was trolling at least in part but I find ALL religious views contemptible, ridiculous and offensive. If you express them you will find the piss taken from you.

I think there is no place for religion in the 21st century. The whole practice of religion is absolutely abhorrent to me. So keep quiet about it or face the ridicule

I suppose I meant "should keep their views to themselves unless they are prepared to be challenged" Challenging a ridiculous idea will often mean ridicule perhaps

You are very inconsistent. You claim to be for freedom of expression, free speech, fairness and justice for all. Yet you keep saying that if someone holds spiritual views or has faith in something *you* don't happen to believe in them they deserve to have ridicule and derision heaped on them until they conform with your view of the world. So how do you differ from the people "ramming" their religion down your throat?

Coyote - its the same as people feel free to ridicule my political views

Free and fair expression means the right to ridicule the ridiculous

Would you challenge a racists views? Would you challenge a communists views? Would you challenge a fruitarians views?

"So keep quiet about it or face the ridicule"
Is that supposed to be a reasoned response?

Because whether people choose to go to church on a Sunday, or mosque/synagogue on a Saturday, or temple on whatever day, or whether they choose to pray in their homes, or believe in whatever they choose to believe, does not in any way whatsoever, bother or affect me

The way they vote does.

So, if you were a single parent or gay and someones' religious viewpoint meant that they might make derogatory or offensive remarks towards you based on their faith, it wouldn't affect you so long as it wasn't a vote towards political election ?

Not really that difficult to figure out ...... is it ?

You seem to be struggling with it, yes.

To be serious for a moment, I think there are several reasons why people are currently more openly questioning and mocking of religious orthodoxy than they were even a few years ago.

Religion has often been used by the ruling classes in many societies as a means of control and oppression.
In the Western world, this has slowly been changing since the Enlightenment, but even if the formal link between religion and state has been abandoned many years ago in favour of a notional secularism, it is only now that the majority, the non-religious, feel able to openly treat religious belief/opinion the same as they would any other aspect of non-rational speculative thought.
Basically, people will mock the religious because they now can, without fear of oppression, ostracism or death. It's human nature to question, and within that spectrum of questioning behaviour will be mockery and abuse - it's what we do as a species.

Secondly, as Western orthodox Christian theology looses its grip on the majority of the European population, it throws our own increasing secularism into ever sharper contrast to those societies where religious belief still holds sway: We can see where we've come from and the majority of us have no wish to go back there.

As someone who was brought up in a Catholic household (albeit with a strongly atheist father, whose beliefs I shared from childhood) and who attended Catholic educational establishments until the age of 18, the questioning (and yes, occasional mockery) of religious belief is more in the way of a release than an attack. I'm sorry if mockery offends, but it's part of life in a secular society that promotes religious and (non-religious) tolerance.

Racist? Yes. They seek to actively do harm by believing that someone is inferior because they come from a different place.

Communist? I don't really know too much about communism so I'd be interested to discuss their point of view from a position of mutual respect and hope that they'd do the same.

Fruitarian? It's their body. If they feel they can survive purely on fruit then I'd be interesed to know more about it. It may not suit me but what harm are they doing?

Funny that on the top ten albums thread you express a liking for Bob Marley. Surely he should have derision heaped upon him from high and have his albums burnt in the street because of his Rastafarian faith.

Sometimes you do talk sense, I enjoy your political contributions. I may not agree with all of them but I respect your opinion. However in other ways you are an incredibly bigotted individual.

I find ALL religious views contemptible, ridiculous and offensive. If you express them you will find the piss taken from you.

You judgemental arrogant ****.

I have worked with and known people with a whole range of religious beliefs ..... Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, more obscure Christian denominations, etc. I have found talking to them about their religion absolutely fascinating.

I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of them.

And you have to be some sort of idiot if you think you have the right to do so.

coyote - you seem to be saying that religion deserves special consideration. To me it does not. I will treat it in the same way as I treat other things such as being a right wing swivel eyed nutter or a ufologist.

I personally consider religion to be a great source of harm and ill doing and as such should be resisted strongly.

Its perfectly reasonable to treat religion in this way. Its unreasoanble to suggst that it should haveve special status.

Look at the ridicule I get for my views? Look at the ridicule Iheap upon the more right wing on here. Should religion be excepmt from this?

So you are basically saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot?

Ernie - you take the piss from the rightwing. Why should the religous be excempt?

Coyote - Member

So you are basically saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot?

Not at all

What I am saying is that religion should be afforded the same treatment as any other subject for debate. No special protection.

Funny that on the top ten albums thread you express a liking for Bob Marley. Surely he should have derision heaped upon him from high and have his albums burnt in the street because of his Rastafarian faith.

but he smoked weed, so it's ok.... man.

they might make derogatory or offensive remarks towards you based on their faith

You really are struggling......aren't you mate ? Derogatory or offensive remarks are unacceptable, as common-sense dictates. If someone chooses to go to a temple to pray for example, then it is perfectly acceptable.

No you are not. You are saying that people with religious or spiritual views deserve treating with contempt.

Marley - I think the album is a fantastic piece of art - same as Dali's resurrection, same as some churches.

I personally feel very strongly about religion and feel very strongly that it should not be given special consideration and protection.

I don't go out of my way to offend religious people and I don't ask about their faith. But if you bring up your faith then why should I have to treat your belief with some special consideration?

this is the point - why do you think religion needs special protection?