All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Davkaus]

I've never read much about the discussion off the historical Jesus, but I was last night based on this thread, and a lot of the arguments are just bollocks, IMO.

One of the arguments for the truth of the crucifixion is "he crucifixion of Jesus as a historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment, Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader."? 

That's just not right, is it. It's not "embarrassing", it's not a story the followers would be reluctant to invent. The whole point is that he sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity. 

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I've never read much about the discussion off the historical Jesus, but I was last night based on this thread, and a lot of the arguments are just bollocks, IMO.

One of the arguments for the truth of the crucifixion is "he crucifixion of Jesus as a historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment, Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader."? 

That's just not right, is it. It's not "embarrassing", it's not a story the followers would be reluctant to invent. The whole point is that he sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity. 

Yeah I guess that's true, but it has almost universal agreement amongst scholars that there was a crucifixion.

[sidcow]

14 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I've never read much about the discussion off the historical Jesus, but I was last night based on this thread, and a lot of the arguments are just bollocks, IMO.

One of the arguments for the truth of the crucifixion is "he crucifixion of Jesus as a historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment, Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader."? 

That's just not right, is it. It's not "embarrassing", it's not a story the followers would be reluctant to invent. The whole point is that he sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity. 

OK, no need to get cross about it.

[Chindie]

48 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I've never read much about the discussion off the historical Jesus, but I was last night based on this thread, and a lot of the arguments are just bollocks, IMO.

One of the arguments for the truth of the crucifixion is "he crucifixion of Jesus as a historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment, Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader."? 

That's just not right, is it. It's not "embarrassing", it's not a story the followers would be reluctant to invent. The whole point is that he sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity. 

The arguments are appalling. They essentially boil down to 'Christianity happened, and these things say this about it, therefore true. And if you don't agree, well you don't think X character from history didn't exist, so **** you'.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Jesus was said to be born during a census in Bethlehem.  The only possible census in that area was 6AD.  

But that census did not require people to return to the town of their birth.  

Herod is said to have heard of Christ's death and ordered the slaughter of newborns.  But Herod died 4BC.  

Whilst this does not disprove Christ's existence it does show that the Bible is (at best) a muddled and inaccurate version of history.     

 

[Stevo985]

8 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Jesus was said to be born during a census in Bethlehem.  The only possible census in that area was 6AD.  

But that census did not require people to return to the town of their birth.  

Herod is said to have heard of Christ's death and ordered the slaughter of newborns.  But Herod died 4BC.  

Whilst this does not disprove Christ's existence it does show that the Bible is (at best) a muddled and inaccurate version of history.     

 

I think that's a given

[mjmooney]

This is like the old gag "William Shakespeare didn't write all those plays - they were actually written by another man of the same name". 

All we actually know is that something happened that triggered a successful cult. The details are arguably irrelevant. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

49 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think that's a given

I wish it was.  But many religions believe their holy book over history.   Let's not forget that creationists say that fossils were put there by God to test our faith. 

[Stevo985]

16 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I wish it was.  But many religions believe their holy book over history.   Let's not forget that creationists say that fossils were put there by God to test our faith. 

Yeah I should have said that's a given on VillaTalk

 

[PussEKatt]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I wish it was.  But many religions believe their holy book over history.   Let's not forget that creationists say that fossils were put there by God to test our faith. 

So,Auswitch and WWII and the present war in Ukraine are not sent to test relegious peoples faith ?! the fossels are .I must write that down.

[mjmooney]

We're here because we're here. 

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Thats facilitating thanks. I think a universe always existed but because we know of time and abide by it. We just assume there must have been a start and we comprehend as no such thing as never not having a  start

And this is where the God argument fails. 

"Something must have created the universe, therefore God" 

But what created God? 

"Oh, God is eternal, didn't need to be created" 

Which is no more rational than 'the universe didn't need to be created' 

Even Richard Dawkins says (words to the effect of): "If you want to call the big bang 'God', that's OK with me - just don't overlay it with all the theological fictions". 

[sparrow1988]

30 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest as well as a physicist which I always find mildly interesting.

Probably his passion was being a physicist because that is what he probably believed in, but sometimes you just can't beat job security and a steady income.

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, sparrow1988 said:

Probably his passion was being a physicist because that is what he probably believed in, but sometimes you just can't beat job security and a steady income.

I guess being an atheist priest would be pretty much like being an actor. 

[limpid]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

I guess being an atheist priest would be pretty much like being an actor. 

All priests are atheists, they disbelieve in all gods. Except one.

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, limpid said:

All priests are atheists, they disbelieve in all gods. Except one.

If that

[PussEKatt]

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

And this is where the God argument fails. 

"Something must have created the universe, therefore God" 

But what created God? 

"Oh, God is eternal, didn't need to be created" 

Which is no more rational than 'the universe didn't need to be created' 

Even Richard Dawkins says (words to the effect of): "If you want to call the big bang 'God', that's OK with me - just don't overlay it with all the theological fictions". 

Here is something else that might interest people on this topic.

God killed every living thing in the cities of Soddom and Gommora,with fire and brimstone.

When someone`s wife looked at the destruction God turned her into stone.

When the Romans would not let the Isralites go,God unleashed 12 plagues.Common sence tells you that the very young/very old would die first.

Not a lot of difference between that and what Hitler did ?!  

[Rds1983]

You guys seem more obsessed with God and Christianity then the people I knew in the Catholic society at Uni. It's been multiple days and pages now.

[chrisp65]

[Xann]