There's no room for this. As C.S.Lewis said, Jesus was either mad, evil or the Son of God. I've no evidence that he was mad, nor could I possibly claim that he was evil, therefore he must be the Son of God.

Whilst I appreciate your defence of me, Jon, if people want to call my faith in Him delusional, let them. Hebrews 11:1.

 

Ok,let's not get in to the evidence argument, there is no evidence of God, and all the creation stuff is contrary to the evidence, and, contrary to other beliefs.

No, you saw a man swap some wine for water

The bible isn't pure fiction in so much as it has real places and some real people in it. I could claim Dracula is real on the same basis, I have been to Whitby, very nice too. Vlad Dracula was also real, but he wasn't a vampire (though a tad blood thirsty, I'll admit)

Jesus could have been lots of things, he could even have been real, but it seems unlikely.

 

On the face of it, just as you say you have no evidence that Jesus was mad and therefore could not have been, I do not see any evidence to prove that Jesus was the Son of God, son of a carpenter maybe, God, no.

 

I'm all for evidence and the observable and proveable and go by that. In the same light, just because there is no evidence (yet?) that is not proof that it doesn't exist. I believe in what I can see and observe. Who would have believed complex life could have existed thriving miles under water by a thermal vent in a place where there is no sunlight at temperatures hot enough to melt lead. No body did until they saw it with their own eyes.

 

'Observe' and 'see' are good ones, but what about 'feeling' things? Can we rule that one in or not? If yes, then why? If not, then why not?

 

For me a feeling or even intuition is completely subjective much like faith which is completely opposite to the objective approach I take for existance and nature. A subjective approach, I feel () is the reason why there are countless interpretatioin and iterations of god and religion. Which one of those it right one?

 

See, I had this post written on the 'subjective' bit in advance :

Or, shall we say, 'feeling' is subjective and therefore, that's the one not to be ruled in universally for every Tom, Dee or Harry of this world? Then again, if a sample group 'feels' one thing in almost similar way but the group members cannot see or make others see it. The question is, should we give their 'felt' experience some benefit of doubt? Or, should we call all those people mad because we do not identify with their 'unique' experience? I mean, I'm just thinking about things, and my questions are generic for anyone to answer, not particularly to you, jon. It's a very interesting discussion.

It may boil down to what exactly is being felt and how believable that 'felt' thing is, to the majority of the non-feeling ones, I suppose.

 

Hm, different interpretations of god and religion have caused so many conflicts world wide. Not sure if even Kant saw it coming. Perhaps he said to his questioners: "Sorry, I can't".

 

Then he must have been mad or evil.

 

Hodgy posted that on page 19 (#539) to meet such arguments:

 

For me I'll stick with son of a carpenter - Occam's razor.

 

Sorry to labour the point, Jon, but I'm afraid according to Lewis's trilemma, this simply isn't an option. A man who claimed to be able to forgive sins and heal and perform miracles and so forth was either mad, bad or God. The idea that he was the son of a carpenter leaves him as either mad or bad. If you feel He was neither of these things, then He must have been and is divine.

 

You have left out

It is simply because other attributed those actions to him falsely for their own ends (or more generously, mistakenly)

As above, but did not even exist, but an amalgamation of older myths to allow easier conversion to the new sect (let's not forget, even Christians admit that Christmas does not have its roots in Christ)

 

Well, okay then, did Jesus ever actually claim to be the Son of God?

 

This is more plausible than the idea that he was a great moral human teacher or biological son of a carpenter. If one accepts that Jesus did indeed exist (and you and I have been here before) then He could have only existed as a divine being. The vast majority of historians, both atheist and theist, Christian and non-Christian, accept Jesus of Nazareth as an historical figure.

When you talk of people attributing divinity for their own ends, it's worth remembering that the majority of Christ's apostles and followers were persecuted and martyred. Why would they have gladly walked that path?

The Christmas thing was a political move by the Romans. Christmas is a symbolic rather than historic birthday - an advent.

 

The Bible doesn't record Jesus as having explicitly stated that He was and is the Son of God. However, He did say that He "and the Father are One" and "I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!" and offered forgiveness and healing and miracles. Again, anyone who claimed these things and said the things that Jesus said can only be considered authentic or a fraud. It's much more honest and logical to say the latter or deny His existence completely than it is to claim he existed as a historical, moral man.

 

The Trinity thing is mostly the product of the writing of Saul who never met Jesus except in his temporal lobe epilepsy hallucinations http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/

Matthew 28:19 is post resurrection.

The gospels weren't even written until decades after the death of Jesus.

Lots of things get changed, added, altered. Oral tradition be damned.

 

#108

https://www.scoobynet.com/892736-is-...l#post10091638

#410

https://www.scoobynet.com/849424-ste...ml#post9588795

 

Absolutely not. This is only in your eyes and one hell of a claim. "Empirical claims require empirical evidence" of which not one single person has ever produced a shred of in any way, shape or form. Ever. Anywhere. (For blatantly obvious reasons).



No it's not. It's totally dishonest and highly illogical. It may well be your way of thinking and cleverly worded to lead people into thinking it but if he did exist he would have been a mere mortal. Nothing more, nothing less.

Absolute tosh. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

I think the jury's still out on that one and I'd like to see figures if there are any (or is this another one of those psychological 'lead people down the garden path' strategies?) But let's say they do. He's just 'another' historical figure just like thousands of others. No magical powers and certainly no divinity.

Even though mental delusion was widespread and seen as the norm back then, you can't fail to see humour in the irony. Mentally delusional folk persecuting other mentally delusional folk over whose imaginary being/s were the best. Still happens now. Worrying.

 

You've not understood Lewis's trilemma. Here it is:

Did Jesus exist? Yes or no? If yes see above, if no then your contention is with history, not with Jesus' divinity.

 

I understood it fully. I presumed (maybe wrongly) that you were of the same view as he. I don't have to agree with any of his limited (a, b or c) perceptions of it though. Not all questions have to be to multiple choice. Some are best answered 'in your own words'.

Did he exist? Contrary to any 'reliable' records or sources I think he possibly did. But not in the context that most people perceive upon hearing his name. In all honesty though, I couldn't care less either way. He would have just been another in a long line of competing, illegitimate, non-functioning entities.

 

Much like the whole idea of faith, let's believe a misfiring brain's hallucinogenic perceptions against evidence.

 

"So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."

Kim Jong Un whose birth on Baekdu Mountain was prophesied by a swallow and heralded with a double rainbow and a new star in the heavens, hailed as a diety with claims of miracles and healing illnesses and with many that follow him who believe he says is true. What's the difference?

 

Sounds suspiciously close to the lunatic/liar category to me.

 

One proclamation of divinity is true, the other false, with the North Korean's claim being commensurate with the latter.

 

Says who? I'm sure there are thousands of North Koreans would disagree. Who is right? You, because you believe it is to be so?

 

We should be wary of getting side tracked into who is “nice” or not – I am sure JT is, but then according to his friends so was Jihadi John, as where the 7/7 bombers – that in itself gets us nowhere

And anyone who thinks this whole thread is about some vague sense of religion = being “nice” needs to read it again. This thread is not about the fuzzy feeling that religion is aligned to basic human morals, the fuzzy feeling that there must be a “creator”

And the absurd techniques JT uses when making a point has been so crushingly exposed by the various videos myself and others have posted , the CS Lewis quote – simply childlike in its logic, the same basic technique used in the “cosmological argument”

If you haven’t noticed it is

Take a premise – assume without any further discussion it is fact, (jesus was either mad bad or the son of god,) and simply carry on – delusional

To think you can look up into the heavens, to try and conceive the Crab Nebula in all its astonishing beauty, 10 billion light years across, (and that just on tiny corner of the universe) and then pretend that any creator sent his son to Bethlehem – delusional

But then JT has no other option – in reality he has nowhere to go

Notice how when things get tough, when the blindingly obvious is pointed out – all we get is a quote from the bible

But logically JT has nowhere to go because religion is the end of the argument not the beginning, it after all is the truth

JT likes to portray it all as a simple binary choice good/evil

any decent into simple logic and evidence against simply belief and blind faith is labelled as “scientism”, again he has to, he has no real choice

In the early 17th and 18th centuries the early “geologist” (geology as an intellectual discipline had not been invented yet) wondered how fossils of sea shells and fish could end up high up in the rocks on the tops of mountains – it was a puzzle/mystery that was not solved for 250 years.


But science never believes it has the right answer unlike JT/Religion, in the case of fish fossils on tops of mountains it took years and a lot of “wrongs” on the way before humanity found the answer because science is a journey to try and find the truth – it is the beginning not the end


JT would have had the answer – and would have linked (if such a thing existed way back then) to a passage in the bible presumably talking about noahs flood – wrong then wrong now, religion is the end of the end not the beginning, and history has shown that to be a ridiculous position to take, and has been wrong since the dawn of time.

Science thrives on being wrong - ironically the opposite to Religion, and what has got humanity this far, versus what is dragging us back to the middle ages?????

it should have no place in humanity

 

Says Jesus. I am a Christian.

 

But you didn't hear him say it, you are only going on someone else's word (who didn't hear him say it either, the gospels were written long after his 'death').

So why do you say that one second hand account is any more valid than another? 'I am a Christian' doesn't really cut it. I realise why you say that, but you are an intelligent bloke, you understand logic, explain why one claim has more validity than the other.

 

You're asking me to explain why I think and feel the author of the Sermon on the Mount has more validity than the Kim dynasty?! It is self-evident to anyone who has a grasp of moral philosophy. To draw the comparison, like so many of the conflations by the anti-theists on this thread, is silly. It needs no commentary from me.