WOW! Atheists and the World's Religious Leaders agree on Jesus! Are they wrong?

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Ive always wanted to say this ... this thread is perfect....

"There are no Atheists in a fox hole"

BornPatriot!

God bless you, for the name you have.....


We need more like you.....


OT appreciates the time you took to read the original post....


Why do you think there "are NO atheists in foxholes!"

OT curious....


Is it TRUTH...or just a saying by religious folks.....an excuse, per se'????????

reply to post by OldThinker


Nice post OT.
Should be an interesting thread.

Originally posted by jon1
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Nice post OT.
Should be an interesting thread.

no doubt jon1!

Thanks for stopping by....


The skeptics are asleep for some reason...or all of them hit the IGNORE button on OT, earlier...????????

OT

Okay, this should be interesting. I'm an atheist so I'm the first to come out of the "fox hole". Now I might (most likely) be destroyed by Old Thinker in the evidence department, but I will give this a try.

first point, all that "evidence" you used comes from other RELIGIONS, in other words other groups full of mythological beliefs who already believe in some sort of powerful deity/deities. They decide to use jesus as an example of a good guy. this is assuming he existed. this is not evidence of anything.

second, you are under the assumption that the bible is true and therefore everything in it is historical fact. So followers in a book of mythology claim that Jesus was god, and this character also claims that he is god, and we are suppose to believe that?
third, there is no way of knowing who in reality wrote many of those books from the bible. Specially considering the fact they were written 60 or so years after the death of this supposed jesus.

so i am not in denial, i'm simply not going to believe that a guy who claimed to be god came back to life because a book that says that Earth was created in six days, two of every animal from all over the world managed to fit inside a ship, and that a boy managed to beat a giant with a slingshot is simply not a reliable source.

In addition, if we are going to use old, inaccurate text like the bible to prove a magical deity, then we can also use the same argument to prove the existence of Mama Ocllo and Manco Capac from Peruvian lore, the existence of a historical Zeus, and the existence of leprechauns.

also, simply because many people are delusional and claim their belief is true does not make it so.

Originally posted by newworld
Okay, this should be interesting. I'm an atheist so I'm the first to come out of the "fox hole". Now I might (most likely) be destroyed by Old Thinker in the evidence department, but I will give this a try.

nah, relax young man, OT's a nice religious dude...ok?

Appreciate the props in the research field/etc....

I try...travel alot/have time that's all....


I do agree with yur points...well-thot-thru, for sure.

Yes, OT does believe the Bible...sorry...


OT

PS: Central issue tho....you know you thought (until now) JC was a nice guy...love and all...right???




OT says you have to choose, no OPEN OPTION really....

God...

or a LIAR?LUNATIC? etc....


Chronicles of Narnia author...got us both man....

OT say LORD...prayin you will 2!

Guys, I have to leave for a while....

Dinner, etc....


Appreciate the responses...pls keep um comin'...and I'll get back in a few, ok?

OT honored

"c-ya!"

Originally posted by OldThinker


Are you saying you AGREE with the 10 "world religous leaders" i listed in the OP? JC, good guy, not GOD tho? ..... If so, how can you say you are agnostic?

Please think this thru....ok?

Agnosticism is simply saying that I, as an individual, do not pretend to understand that which is divine, or all of the secrets to life's existence here on planet earth. If I were to say that, with certainty, Jesus is God, or divine, then I wouldn't be an agnostic. The two mindsets conflict on their most basic of levels. I don't follow any religious ideology, because all religious ideologies were invented by man and are therefore subject to fallacy, and all of the negative traits associated with that fallacy (greed, control, misunderstanding, etc..). I should note that I feel the same way about Atheism, in that it is foolish to assume that there is absolutely no supernatural power behind existence simply because we cannot prove it.

But you see Old Thinker, the problem comes in when both parties (christians and atheist) have to agree that the bible holds some truth, which usually does not happen. second, both parties need to agree that Jesus existed. If these requirements are not met, then it is 100% possible to have the third option other than accept or denial- simply not believe.
Obviously you wouldn't believe in the existence of Thor or Osiris, the same way we atheist don't believe in the gods of the abrahamic faiths.

and now that you mention prayer, are you really sure such a thing works? it is just a method of wishing instead of taking action. you can pray all you want and that does not mean things will get better. you and an opponent can be playing russian roulette and both pray, does that mean god answered the prayers of the one who lived?

anyway, unlike most atheist who apparently block you (from what i gather from these posts) I will not do such a thing.

It's impossible to have debate or conversation when one side blocks their ears and ignores the opposing viewpoint

reply to post by OldThinker


Personally, I believe Jesus seems like a pretty good guy. But here's my problem. A lot can be said of a person that isn't true, when said by others. Especially after hundred or even thousands of years. Was he God? Don't know.

I've never met the man. All we have to prove such is a book that HE DIDN'T EVEN WRITE.

It's a long, endless game. Ultimately Jesus isn't around to be questioned, so how can I judge what he was?

I do agree with the points made at the begining of your OP. I don't deny that he existed and that he was a good man and that he was a spiritual leader and teacher. However:

Point 1- The difference between your analogy and the way the Tenakh and the New Testament were written is that the writers (after the first 5 books, the Pentateuch, which were written by Moses after being passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth) read the books that preceeded their own. If the writers in your analogy were to read the book(s) before theirs before writing their own, they would much more closely resemble each other.

Point 2- There are two possibilities here. One, the only references to Jesus refering to himself as the Messiah were from writers who never actually met him (although there are some claims that some books were written by some of the Apostles, there is no proof that they were), and then there was the Council of Nicea where the books that were to be included in the New Testament were decided upon and possibly edited to conform with the beliefs of those on the Council. Two, if he did make such a claim, as his mother was convinced that he was the Messiah (I will refrain from my theory concerning the angelic visit during conception actually being an alien abduction, but it does explain the ability to perform 'miricles'), she brought him up to believe he was and therefore he did his best to live up to prophecy set forth in the Tenakh. Leaving a third possibility to add to your list:

3) JC didn't know he wasn't telling the truth, but thought he was and was perfectly sane.

Point 3- They were executed for attempting to spread a religion in Rome that was not the state religion. Basically for heresy. Dare I bring up The Lost Tomb of Jesus here as well? Although it is not definitive proof that he remained in his tomb and did not rise from the dead, it is statistically compelling. Going back to my alien/human hybrid theory (which I admittedly lack any proof of, so I guess it's more of a hypothesis), the 'resurection' story could be the separation of his alien/astral form from his human remains. It could also shed light on how the Shroud of Turin was imprinted, if it is authentic. But again, I lack any evidence, so please don't 'crucify' me for it. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist the pun!)

I will admit that he definitely belongs in the Religious ‘Hall of Fame', but I do not believe in his divinity (at least in that he was more divine than any of us, as I believe we are all small sparks of the Divine).

For anyone interested in what I do believe in regards to Divinity, read the OP in the thread What is your definition of God? I would love your answer to that question, OT! Not the biblical view, but your personal feelings on the subject.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents!

When it comes to Jesus I notice it's really rare that anyone ever tries to debunk the things he says as being bad. It's always about did he exist and other things around or in the bible.

But I disagree on the bible being the word of god. The word of god is the word in which those who wrote things would hear. And that word is not a written language or a language of men. It is understanding. Understanding is how the father gives, and man can not give to each other in this way. What we can do however, is try to express the understandings we are given. And that is what the bible is, an expression of true understanding.

Proverbs 8

6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.


Proverbs 9

9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Fear actually means Respect, but I think the point is basically the same either way.

I like the bible alot, but it needs to be put in it's proper place. It is not the authority, and men are not to make such authorities of themselves either. Because when you are authority, then the people are expected to accept what they say as truth, or in the case of the bible, they are expected to accept what the bible says is true. Now, this may seem well and good on the outside, however there is a difference between accepting and understanding. Anyone can accept that 1+1=2, repeat it perfectly because authority told them so. But only the man who understands can add, see beyond the single expression and apply that to his life. Thus, it's all about the understanding, and not the literal word.

When we build a house, we put the foundation at the bottom and the roof at the top. If we put the foundation above the roof, then the house will fall. Not because either of those were wrong and don't belong in a house, but because they were not put in their proper places, and as a result they were unable to do their proper job.

Matthew 7

28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Scribes are those that write scripture. The people are the authority, not the scripture. So when you say the bible is the word of god and put it into authority, you are doing so in error.

Why are the people the authority? Because the father is within. That means that the father who is all knowing can be found within the person. As Jesus says - You already know. But we are taught to accept external things from men as the truth, rather than trusting that which is within us. And this causes confusion. We doubt ourselves, we doubt the father within us, and we look to other men for answers. When the true answers will be found within. And when they are found within, it's not like finding a book, it's not specific words, it is pure understanding. That understanding is universal and available to all.

Thus why so many of those religions you mention can see the truth in Jesus. They may have different ways of expressing that understanding, but when you see wisdom and understanding, you can bet the father is near. No matter what the culture is. When you see people going against "Jesus", it's almost always in terms of what I mentioned above, never on the understanding he gives. They can not touch that.




[edit on 7/2/2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by OldThinker


Are you saying you AGREE with the 10 "world religous leaders" i listed in the OP? JC, good guy, not GOD tho? ..... If so, how can you say you are agnostic?

Please think this thru....ok?

Agnosticism is simply saying that I, as an individual, do not pretend to understand that which is divine, or all of the secrets to life's existence here on planet earth. If I were to say that, with certainty, Jesus is God, or divine, then I wouldn't be an agnostic. The two mindsets conflict on their most basic of levels. I don't follow any religious ideology, because all religious ideologies were invented by man and are therefore subject to fallacy, and all of the negative traits associated with that fallacy (greed, control, misunderstanding, etc..). I should note that I feel the same way about Atheism, in that it is foolish to assume that there is absolutely no supernatural power behind existence simply because we cannot prove it.

fine points there drwizardphd,

I agree with them....

could you tell me what you thought/think... of the historical person of Jesus (if you believed he existed)....was he a good man? a positive figure?

and if so, can you reconcile the OP presentation?

Thanks again for the posts!

OT

Originally posted by newworld
But you see Old Thinker, the problem comes in when both parties (christians and atheist) have to agree that the bible holds some truth, which usually does not happen. second, both parties need to agree that Jesus existed. If these requirements are not met, then it is 100% possible to have the third option other than accept or denial- simply not believe.
Obviously you wouldn't believe in the existence of Thor or Osiris, the same way we atheist don't believe in the gods of the abrahamic faiths.

and now that you mention prayer, are you really sure such a thing works? it is just a method of wishing instead of taking action. you can pray all you want and that does not mean things will get better. you and an opponent can be playing russian roulette and both pray, does that mean god answered the prayers of the one who lived?

anyway, unlike most atheist who apparently block you (from what i gather from these posts) I will not do such a thing.

It's impossible to have debate or conversation when one side blocks their ears and ignores the opposing viewpoint

ok....

OT not sure if anyone blocks me...I certainly wish they would not...but there's now (4me atleast) no way to tell, right?

OT

Originally posted by newworld
first point, all that "evidence" you used comes from other RELIGIONS, in other words other groups full of mythological beliefs who already believe in some sort of powerful deity/deities. They decide to use jesus as an example of a good guy. this is assuming he existed. this is not evidence of anything.

did I present this as "evidence"?

Didn't mean to!

OT

Those (religious) guys said what they said....that's all....fair? there's a record, right?

OT

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Personally, I believe Jesus seems like a pretty good guy.

OK Miraj, you are agreeing with the religious leaders OT quoted n the OP right?

Still VERY ILLOGICAL to me, am I wrong???


OT

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


JaxonRoberts,

Hey, thank you for the time you have taken to join...

I have always respected your approach to this forum, although we disagree more than often....

Why is it that (names to remain deleted) do not debate constructively?????

Please review OT's profile....for details.

I have a LOOOOOOONG! history of the skeptics pouncing on OT....what's up with that?????

OT

PS: Let me see what all you posted , and I'll get back with you.......K?

Originally posted by Miraj
All we have to prove such is a book that HE DIDN'T EVEN WRITE.

If there was the 'Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth' (as in he was the author of said book), it would be much more compelling than what is available. Alas, such a book was never written. If it had, I suspect that it would be the only Gospel in the NT!

reply to post by badmedia


ATS Readers....lurkers, have you seen BAD MEDIA?

He is DA MAN!

What I mean by that is.....his posts are very Intellectual....

Practical....

etc....

OT

PS: It's late BM, and I'll get back on the specifics, ok?

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Ive always wanted to say this ... this thread is perfect....

"There are no Atheists in a fox hole"

BornPatriot, got back from dinner...

Just ... an aside....

OT noticed what an incredible amount of FLAGSyou have garnished in such a short time (since joining ATS)....

WOW! Good job.....

Maybe you can counsel OT, k?

reply to post by OldThinker


I fear it is because most have not mastered the art of debate. One does not need to use a sledgehammer to convey one's point (in fact, your position will be given more consideration if you don't use such tactics), but alas, so many feel compelled to use such tactics. To me, it shows weakness in the stated position of the debater. It's akin to denying that art exists while standing in the Louvre while tightly closing one's eyes. I am also leary of people who live in absolutes, especially in regards to spiritual matters, as only the Divine knows the absolute truth. It not only shows ignorance, but arrogance as well.

I enjoy both debating with you and reading your posts, because it is very apparent that you take the time to ponder the positions of others. You do not come here to preach, but to learn and it's very apparent in you posts! It is the same for me. I am always open to new possibilities and to learn a thing or two in the process.