You can't live without religion.

Well yes, any genuine, valuable religion is about becoming SELFLESS, which cures selfishness. Atheism is born of selfishness, for it is a belief created by the ego of man, his self image, and so on.

The point of most religions early on was all about transcending the ego, which creates all of the evil that ever existed. This was talked about in poetic language. There are different paths of this transcendence, but all lead to the same place. Yet orthodox Christianity does not lead there, for it lost the core of Christ teachings, to deny the SELF, take up the cross(symbolizing dying to the ego in each new moment) and to follow Him.

In essence, if one does not die, transcend the ego, so that it no longer rules existence, there is no salvation, there isn't any sons of god walking the earth. How do you know if one is a son of god? That is easy. We all know how ego filled people act, for we are surrounded by them. If you see someone who isn't all about himself, doesn't hurt others in a pursuit of pleasure, isn't a competitive person, doesn't create and hoard wealth for himself, you have just seen a son of god, a person who experienced salvation. For this is a consciousness changing event, the transcendence of the ego.

So, is it possible for a person to be an atheist, yet transcend the ego? No. But is it possible for a person to be a theist, and transcend the ego? No. For both are still of the ego, still ruled by it. And you will know both of these types by the fruits they bear forth, which means by their actions in relationship with others.

 

And yet some of the greatest philosophers to espouse compassion, selflessness and altruism were atheists -- Schopenhauer and Comte, for instance.

 

Debunking your premise was a done deal within the first few posts of the thread.

You most certainly have. It would behoove you to do a little research before you use terminology you're not familiar with.

Right, when your argument fails - pull out the trusted old "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" response.

 

Precisely. Therefore, what Cautiously Conservative is saying does not put reality much into perspective. However, I think we're getting off topic here.

 

Do you just refuse to do the research on this topic at all? I mean, if you're going to boldly say someone doesn't exist, at least make sure you're right about it.
Source: http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

 

I have YEARS of research under my belt. I'm aware of FF Bruce and his theories. Are you aware that Tacitus passages are known by experts as having been forged? Bruce never mentions that.

Nothing on your link is new or unknown to me and nothing at that link hasn't been debunked by historical scholars. Bruce had a bias - we all know that. We also know the Church throughout the centuries has been guilty of massive forgeries and coverups - all in quest for keeping the power of the Church over the unwashed masses.

I'm glad you're doing a little searching - but you'll have to come up with something a bit better than Bruce and the discredited Tacitus passages.

 

Your loss.

What else do you imagine I'm doing?

Of course not. What makes it helpful is the fact of its existence.

You think you challenge your own preconceptions? Really?

What you're forgetting is that financial responsibility requires you to follow rules not contrived by mortals.

Non sequitur, as the more cogitative effort you expend, the more susceptible you are to confirmation bias - never mind that anyone who thinks such effort can possibly be enlightening WRT moral issues is mentally ill anyway.

Sure he can, if his sense of direction is messed up.

I did no such thing.

Actually I'm afraid you are, in #78.

Sure, and maybe Einstein could have written his field equations so I could understand them; but alas, the ideas he needed to convey were to complex for me to understand, just as the ideas I need to convey are too simple for you to understand.

If anyone here is competent to render such a judgment, it sure as hell isn't you.

 

Do you have a link in regards to the Tacitus writings being forged, I had never heard that before.

 

I guess you don't see a lust for immortality and a personal relationship with the most powerful being in the universe as the height of vanity, then

And here I was thinking "I'm too special to just DIE!" is a little egocentric. Actually make that alot egocentric.

 

Here's one. There are many more but this covers the subject well.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Here's another you might like:
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

 

If your theory had any credibility, you would be defending it instead of attacking others.

 

Theories? Have you not examined the citation on the site? The information isn't "from" Bruce. Bruce is just quoted in the opening paragraph to make a point. You'll seriously have to deny every historical reference we have to say Jesus didn't exist. You'd have to deny Tacitus (which you just have), Pliny, Josephus, The Babylonian Talmud and Lucian. I'm trying to figure out where your sources come from for you to have such an opinion, but you're giving us nothing. For an anonymous guy on the Internet saying, "Jesus doesn't exist!" with such fervor and against serious evidence to the contrary, I expect something. Even skeptics admit that the historical Jesus existed, and they'll happily argue against him doing any sort of miracles whatsoever. You don't even agree with those guys.

What I'm hung up on is the "YEARS" you've said you've research this topic. You don't have any sources to point to. I've given you two sources. If a neutral party were to read our conversation, they'd be more apt to believe me than you, because I provided evidence while you've provided nothing.

 

The Babylonian Talmud? Excuse me? Didn't I explain to you that there are no "non-religious" references to Jesus? Plus, you don't know your religious history. Judaism REJECTS the idea that Jesus Christ was the messiah the Hebrews were looking for. And, if your honest, you'll admit that the Jesus of the NT did not fulfill the requirements set forth in the OT for the messiah.

Now, as to Pliny and Josephus. Neither one lived and recorded events in the days Jesus was said to have lived. Both of them wrote AFTER THE FACT, based on the stories in the religious texts.

That's what you're having a hard time discerning. There were NO historians who recorded Jesus as having lived or existing who were actually alive at that time.

You keep pulling out people who wrote about the religious texts they read AFTER the supposed death of Jesus.

Give me ONE - just ONE historian that lived during the time of Jesus and recorded anything about him. Just one.

Not someone who came later. And NOT a religious text. Give me an OUTSIDE and CONTEMPORARY account of the man called Jesus.

I'll tell you right now - it doesn't exist. Or, if it exists - it's unknown to biblical historians.

 

Doing the right thing is doing the right thing....religion can't claim it ( but it will because religion is arrogance personified)

 

1) I never argued on Jesus Christ being the messiah. I argued on whether he existed or not.
2) I didn't admit to Jesus of the NT not fulfilling the requirements set forth in the OT. I've never even mentioned it, and thus, never made an argument for or against it.

Does it matter if a historian lived during the days of the person they're writing history about? Many historians of today write about Abraham Lincoln. Are they automatically wrong because they weren't alive when he was? I mean, Jesus only died a few years before Josephus was born. Pliny, 30 years later. If Jesus didn't exist, then it wouldn't make sense for historian of that caliber to right about him.

Alright. Arguing past this point seem pointless. Especially if you have no factual data to back up any of your ridiculous claims. Even if you don't believe in a God, you have to acknowledge that a man named Jesus existed. It's been a proven fact by scholars far more certified than yourself. To argue against it would be like trying to run through a concrete wall.

 

It absolutely matters. There WERE historians of the day that WERE recording events that included Herod, etc. Those historians did not record anything about a man named Jesus, and yet, the bible story tells us that Jesus interacted with these people and caused quite a stir.

Consider this - suppose the Harry Potter books (which truly have a cult following) were suddenly taken as serious accounts by some writers. If the writers believed the events in the story happened, they could write about them - discuss them - and analyze them. But, when we pressed to find any contemporary writers who actually recorded these events as they occurred, we'd find that none existed. Without corroborating accounts from those who did NOT learn of the stories by reading the Harry Potter series, we can conclude that there is no outside evidence for their authenticity. While that is a stretch - that's what happened with the Jesus stories. They were recorded in religious texts and then - historians wrote about a person they'd never met.

It's a fact that the stories caused quite a stir and launched a worldwide following - a cult, if you will - but there was never any record that shows Jesus existed outside of the religious stories.

That's why it's important to point that out.

Again - you're wrong. Second-hand repetitions of religious stories are NOT proof that the man existed.

Nuff said.

 

Huh,...?

You said, "As I see it,"...
I merely told you how "I see it."
Seems fair.

The thread is about "You can't live without religion."
And for most people, especially kids, Religion sets up a sexually prudent life style in adult behavior and teaches the kids to marry, if they start sexual activities, not produce bastards kids.



"As I see it,...

.... it more likely lends itself to misunderstandings and accusations of deliberate misrepresentations. It is quite possible to discuss the psychological dynamic you mention, as well as other interesting things, but with arguments like this, people are just going to debate whether the word applies (or forget to debate that and just stick with their misconceptions)."

 

We have contemporary primary source material for Lincoln. No such evidence exists for Jesus.

 

The very famous Historian, Josephus, reported on Jesus specifically in his writings.
In one case, though there at least two incidents, many atheists try to say it looks like a fraud by the church with later came into being.
But the one is certified as authentic.

And the other, IMHO, is also true, too.

People here will tell you that there is no historical evidence of Jesus, but then will ignore Josephus totally or refer to the one case which I referred to here.
They will NEVER retract what they had said, nor will they stop repeating the lies over and again.Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Checkout Josephus on the google. and then apologize...

 

Religions, regard less of the name brand, all want sexually promiscuous behavior to disappear, including Gays and Slutty women practicing feminism for benefits as if sex ought be paid for by dinners, dates, and as many boy friends or husbands they could acquire.

This ONE thing is religiously universal and needed for the Kids to get the message.

 

Josephus is neither a primary source nor a contemporary one.

 

WRONG...

Josephus wrote in 92AD, while John of the Revelation, 90AD, was still alive.
He was an older Jew at he time, and certainly lived in the time of Jesus.

"Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

And you have exactly what evidence that a Jewish historian loyal to Rome spoke with a Jewish heretic (as Jews at the time saw Christians) imprisoned for sedition on an isolated island in the Aegean?

 

Oh, the kids in the Catholic Church got the message about how "pure" and "chaste" religious people( priests) are......

 

So?

John of Revelation wrote the cryptical last book of the NT. What does that have to do with Josephus? Josephus STILL did not record anything except after-the-fact stories that came from the religious texts. You're making my point - you're not opposing it.

My assertion is that there is NO record that Jesus existed OUTSIDE the religious texts.

First, scholars don't know exactly who authored the apocalyptic text, some think it was John of Patmos, but there is a lot of controversy on that. Second, this John, was to write down his vision, which became the Book of Revelation. What we do know is that the author of Revelation is not the Apostle John, so this author had no direct contact with the man called Jesus.

I'm not sure how you can say that just because Josephus and John of Patmos lifespans "might" have crossed that it is proof that Jesus existed. The Book of Revelation isn't even an account of the life of Jesus.