Christianity is based on the assumption that Jesus is pretty much God in human form. It's unarguable that Jesus existed and was a real person. But the argument is about WHAT he was. That doesn't sound much like a fairy tale to me; there's a heavy grounding in the truth, plus a extra leap of faith which all religions require.
-
Islam is based on the assumption that Muhammad is the High Prophet. It's unarguable that Muhammad was a real person and he went to a cave to meditate or something (I'm not educated in Islam history) and something happened. That something is the leap of faith. Again, a big grounding in indisputable facts, but needing a big leap of faith after that.
Not a fairy tale which is characterized as folklore, legend, and moral tales. Well...arguably religion is a legend but I believe legends more often than not take place in a slightly altered dimension or unrecorded era, for example Paul Bunyan. IIRC there are "natural" formations attributed to him
but no actual remains of him or his followers (like a giant ox or barn or axe) we can use to say he actually existed, much less do the incredible feats that legend says.
While it may be a fact that both Jesus (less likely) and Mohammed (more likely) actually existed as persons, all the rest is just bullshit. So, for me Carrot Top is gods son, cause I mean, look at him, he is not a normal person. He does exist for shizzle, and it juts takes a leap of faith to think is a higher being. Boom - new religion founded.
Pro tip: don't you ever try and rationalize a BELIEF.
Ok, so I was completely wrong in assuming religions were based solely on fairytales, when in fact they are based on some wack/epileptic dude who probably existed, telling or being connected to those fairytales. Glad we got that sorted out. "Heavy grounding" though? Good one...
Jesus was an actual person. Undeniable. Several unrelated sources verify this as well as his following among the common people, and miraculous deeds. Whether those deeds be tricks or real is the question. By heavy grounding I mean it's undeniable he existed and did SOMETHING.
Uhm, first of all: much evidence but surely no 100% proof. In fact, pretty far off 100%. Because second: how would you know these sources are completely unrelated? impossible to know as well. You got any idea how history as a science is working? Third: those miracles? Very, very, very unlikely. As close to impossible as it can possibly get. Because science and shit. So what are we really talking about here and why? Because by "did SOMETHING" you didn't mean he took a dump, rode a donkey and scratched his balls.
Oh for fucks sake. You're asking for a time machine to go back and shake Jesus' hand. You know Lucy? That common ancestor of all humans? Go back a few generations and I think there's still a missing section between humans and primates.
BUT WAIT PROFESSOR DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S NO MISSING LINK AND WE'RE ENTIRELY UNRELATED?
Holy fuck no. There's mounds of evidence, enough that it might as well be 100% certain that there IS a link, but WHERE AND WHAT IT IS we don't know.
-
Unrelated? Do you know how much the Romans and Jews didn't want anything to do with each other? And also a few decades of time difference between the various writings, but still close enough that anecdotal evidence was still accurate?
Dude, I know all that and more, thats why I am NOT the guy with the ridiculously bold statements getting all defensive when someone starts scratching their head. But it seems you are addicted to the idea religion and science are more or less the same, so I better leave it with this. What the actual fuck.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Nor are they inclusive. They neither support or deny each other. So I don't understand why you're so intent on debunking religion.
"Science and religion [...] neither support or deny each other"? Uhm, what?? I am pretty sure, you have a common misconception of science, that its dogmatic and antitheses are not tolerated. Actually when a scientist publishes a theory, it has an immanent request to prove his theory wrong if at all possible. I mean, how could that be any further from any given religion? Starting with the fact that religious belief cannot be falsified by definition. Scientists and supporters of a scientific view of the world are usually pretty intolerant though when it comes to clearly un-scientific ideas that people are trying to disguise in pseudo scientific terms in order to gain credibility and plausibility, that goes for all sorts of quackery as well. This however is totally different from religious dogmas.
Being a foreigner I probably don't get your sharp-as-a-knife irony. However, the synopsis would be: you have no idea what you're talking about. Go to the gym instead.
I don't have enough muscles to bother going to the gym to begin with.
-
My point is that Jesus was a real person. No more, no less. I don't care if he rolled around in pig slop or if he was "as clean as the earth after a cleansing rain". I just want you to acknowledge that he existed. In human form. Disregarding religious and/or spiritual status.
There is a reply button?
Not religious. Well...yes there are religious documents. But also some nonreligious ones. I believe there were some Roman guys with a fancy brain pedigree or something who took records of Jesus' actions also. They have no interest in advancing Christianity (or this offspring of Judaism); they're simply academics. Jewish philosophers also took note of him, and they're the ones who wanted him dead and gone and without a legacy. But there was a record of him existing. It's undeniable he existed. It's stupid to argue otherwise.
uhm, as various other people pointed out, it is actually not that relevant if these blokes really existed one way or the other, however, their existence is no proof at all for any of the higher being stuff they have postulated. L. Ron Hubbard did/does exist and what does that prove? How are Jesus and Mohammed more legit than him?
In this argument, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Jesus and Muhammad were. They could be gay eunuch prostitutes who worshipped Satan for all I care. I'm saying they were actual real people. Nothing more or less.
I get the sense you're talking to me, so I'd appreciate it if you replied instead of making a new comment thread.
Jesus was Jewish, but he was heretical because he claimed to be the Son of God. This claim in of itself is heretical because God doesn't have any direct relations. God is the One God. In Christianity, we have trinitarian monotheism: one god, three "parts" (father son holyspirit). In Judaism (and Islam), God is God, and there is nothing else like God. Saying you're the Son of God is a heavy implication that you're on God's level which of course is saying you're just as good as God. That's why the Jewish leaders didn't like him. Now the common majority thought he was going to relieve them of the Roman occupation, which is probably why most of them followed him.
Judaism has the concept of a messiah, and many sources refer to Jesus as this messiah, resp. have him state this. Other sources cite him as claiming to be gods son. Again here: its much less obvious and clear as you seem to wish it would be.
-
Islam is based on the assumption that Muhammad is the High Prophet. It's unarguable that Muhammad was a real person and he went to a cave to meditate or something (I'm not educated in Islam history) and something happened. That something is the leap of faith. Again, a big grounding in indisputable facts, but needing a big leap of faith after that.
Not a fairy tale which is characterized as folklore, legend, and moral tales. Well...arguably religion is a legend but I believe legends more often than not take place in a slightly altered dimension or unrecorded era, for example Paul Bunyan. IIRC there are "natural" formations attributed to him
Pro tip: don't you ever try and rationalize a BELIEF.
BUT WAIT PROFESSOR DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S NO MISSING LINK AND WE'RE ENTIRELY UNRELATED?
Holy fuck no. There's mounds of evidence, enough that it might as well be 100% certain that there IS a link, but WHERE AND WHAT IT IS we don't know.
-
Unrelated? Do you know how much the Romans and Jews didn't want anything to do with each other? And also a few decades of time difference between the various writings, but still close enough that anecdotal evidence was still accurate?
-
My point is that Jesus was a real person. No more, no less. I don't care if he rolled around in pig slop or if he was "as clean as the earth after a cleansing rain". I just want you to acknowledge that he existed. In human form. Disregarding religious and/or spiritual status.
Not religious. Well...yes there are religious documents. But also some nonreligious ones. I believe there were some Roman guys with a fancy brain pedigree or something who took records of Jesus' actions also. They have no interest in advancing Christianity (or this offspring of Judaism); they're simply academics. Jewish philosophers also took note of him, and they're the ones who wanted him dead and gone and without a legacy. But there was a record of him existing. It's undeniable he existed. It's stupid to argue otherwise.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
-
More stuff from various people...Flavius, Tacitus, Gnostic writings...
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
Jesus was Jewish, but he was heretical because he claimed to be the Son of God. This claim in of itself is heretical because God doesn't have any direct relations. God is the One God. In Christianity, we have trinitarian monotheism: one god, three "parts" (father son holyspirit). In Judaism (and Islam), God is God, and there is nothing else like God. Saying you're the Son of God is a heavy implication that you're on God's level which of course is saying you're just as good as God. That's why the Jewish leaders didn't like him. Now the common majority thought he was going to relieve them of the Roman occupation, which is probably why most of them followed him.