Something I think bares reading.

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe it is, but who cares? At the end of the discussion, you still think gods and goddesses don't exist.

Well, see, that's just it. There is a section of atheists (or agnostics, depending on who you ask) that have neither a belief that gods exist, nor a belief that gods don't exist. They are in some nebulous middle ground belonging to those who are reserving judgment, and to those who just can't be bothered to care enough to make a choice.

^-.-^

[guywithashovel]

This whole semantics thing is one of the reasons why I stopped talking about religion online. I don't see the point in spending so much time arguing over the definition of atheism, when most of the arguments are merely rewordings of the same definition.

Simply put, an atheist is someone who believes that deities don't exist. I've actually seen some people interject here and say, "No, no, it's not a belief that there's no god. It's an absence of a belief in gods." Maybe it is, but who cares? At the end of the discussion, you still think gods and goddesses don't exist.

[Eisa]

*blink blink* I've read this whole thread and now my head hurts.

Also Gravekeeper is awesome. Arguing over semantics is pointless. And why can't everyone just agree to live and let live? I don't like extreme theists OR extreme atheists. I don't like people who want to discredit the other side into not existing.

Also, I believe in dragons, unicorns, and faeries because they're AWESOME.

[Gravekeeper]

"His" ideas are just Mahayana Buddhism boiled down to something easy-to-swallow.

But yes, they are fascinating.

Very true, hence I tend to give Jesus a bit of a pass since he's suspiciously quoting Buddha here and there. -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

Then maybe the Protestants shouldn't use their own version of the Nicene Creed, if they don't believe in "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost".

Maybe they shouldn't. But some of them do anyway. What do you expect me to do about it?

[Ipecac Drano]

"His" ideas are just Mahayana Buddhism boiled down to something easy-to-swallow.

But yes, they are fascinating.

Some of it is a part of Gnosticism; also very fascinating.

[Boozy]

In a nutshell, God was the sum of everything as opposed to a distinct and separate being. However, it was possible for souls to become separated from God and that was what hell was - not a place, but a state of being.

I always found his ideas fascinating.

"His" ideas are just Mahayana Buddhism boiled down to something easy-to-swallow.

But yes, they are fascinating.

[Ipecac Drano]

And all Christianity is Catholic, is it? Or Episcopalian, I suppose... Not everyone believes in the trinity, you know.

Then maybe the Protestants shouldn't use their own version of the Nicene Creed, if they don't believe in "The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost".

[Hyena Dandy]

Considering that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are one, and God did some pretty nasty stuff in the Old Testament, one could consider Jesus as being evil.

And all Christianity is Catholic, is it? Or Episcopalian, I suppose... Not everyone believes in the trinity, you know.

[Andara Bledin]

I had a friend in high school that once explained his beliefs while a group of us were hanging out after school.

In a nutshell, God was the sum of everything as opposed to a distinct and separate being. However, it was possible for souls to become separated from God and that was what hell was - not a place, but a state of being.

I always found his ideas fascinating.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Not only that, but there are other historical references to him from completely unrelated individuals.

Such as?

I was not aware that a punishing afterlife was unique to Jesus.

It's not unique to Jesus; if one doesn't follow Mohammad's instructions, or even just God's way, they could be sent to Hell, too.

As for the sin of not believing he exists, I seem to recall, though I may be mistaken, that in Christianity, you CAN get out of hell. You have to accept God as your lord and savior to do it, and accept and repent for your sins. Then you get to heaven, even if you started out in hell. And I think if hell existed, and you ended up there, you would have good reason to believe God exists.

Bottom line, one could end up in Hell for not believing in God or accepting Jesus.

That said, its one thing to not be Christian, and dislike Jesus. But I think you can hardly call Him one of the most evil storybook characters. That seems less like simply not believing do to lack of evidence, and sounds more like petty spite.

Considering that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are one, and God did some pretty nasty stuff in the Old Testament, one could consider Jesus as being evil.

Sending someone to suffer eternal damnation for not accepting you is the most extreme form of "petty spite".

[Hyena Dandy]

But there's one reason, in particular, that Jesus tops my list of the most evil storybook characters: he introduced the concept of Hell as a real place of eternal torture, where people get sent for the "sin" of not believing in a God who has never given us any reason to think that he exists.

I was not aware that a punishing afterlife was unique to Jesus. As for the sin of not believing he exists, I seem to recall, though I may be mistaken, that in Christianity, you CAN get out of hell. You have to accept God as your lord and savior to do it, and accept and repent for your sins. Then you get to heaven, even if you started out in hell. And I think if hell existed, and you ended up there, you would have good reason to believe God exists.

That said, its one thing to not be Christian, and dislike Jesus. But I think you can hardly call Him one of the most evil storybook characters. That seems less like simply not believing do to lack of evidence, and sounds more like petty spite.

[Rapscallion]

Not only that, but there are other historical references to him from completely unrelated individuals.

Some commentary I read some time ago here.

In short, though the site is pretty blatant in its aims, it does raise doubts over the authenticity of the claims.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

But we can't have that, it doesn't sell well. Especially when Jesus basically says you don't need a church and spiritual fullfillment is a personal thing. ( I guess personal spiritual fullfillment doesn't have a collection plate. )

No kidding. Besides, supposedly Jesus made the distinction that he was the "son of man" just like the rest of us. If he didn't need the church, then neither do we. Now, if we want one, on the other hand...

He certainly existed in some form, else the gospels are a most intriguingly elaborate prank pulled off by a group of guys that couldn't even agree with each other over what the prank was.

Not only that, but there are other historical references to him from completely unrelated individuals.

As for the time being off, it's fairly well-established that the current year designation should have something like 50 years or so added to the number for it to be accurate. The cleric that established the current form and year was 500 years after the fact and either wasn't that big on accuracy or just didn't have the information he needed to get it right.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

But there's one reason, in particular, that Jesus tops my list of the most evil storybook characters: he introduced the concept of Hell as a real place of eternal torture, where people get sent for the "sin" of not believing in a God who has never given us any reason to think that he exists.

Every culture has a "Hell" mythos. Its a useful tool to make people behave themselves when you don't have the means to do so otherwise. It is not unique to Jesus in any way shape or form and predates him quite easily. Attributing it to Jesus is silly.

Besides, if anything, Matthew was the Hell fanboy. He talks the most about it. Him and Revelations. But Revelations is a total crack trip.

Assuming for the moment Jesus actually existed, how do you know what his original teachings were? I'm not being snarky, rather I know that the Church has suppressed documents that disagreed with Church doctrine. I also know that none of the surviving accounts of Jesus' life can be dated to the time when he supposedly lived, nor do we have anything written by Jesus himself. So how can anyone know what Jesus really said?

Well, the Gospels are basically all accounts of his life from the perspectives of different people and it certainly shows. They disagree on the exact things he said and what he was. John for example was all ra ra son of God and Matthew was into the whole heaven/hell judgement end of days stuff. Thomas, however, didn't make the cut but presents the most reasonable view of Jesus. Depicting him as just plain ol' Jesus and a teacher, rather than a prophet or divine being. But we can't have that, it doesn't sell well. Especially when Jesus basically says you don't need a church and spiritual fullfillment is a personal thing. ( I guess personal spiritual fullfillment doesn't have a collection plate. )

He certainly existed in some form, else the gospels are a most intriguingly elaborate prank pulled off by a group of guys that couldn't even agree with each other over what the prank was. Still, me thinks quite a bit has been attributed or made up about him to puff him up. People like their saviours to be divinely inspired, it makes them feel like they made the "right" choice. If they stayed with just plain ol' wise teacher Jesus I doubt it would have gotten as far as it has. SON OF GOD Jesus sounds much more impressive.