I'm irreligious ...

[T]he only "god" which makes any shred of sense to me – consistent with all human knowledge of nature and lived experience – and does not insult my intelligence or undermine my dignity as a moral agent is the Pandeus. — 180 Proof

Irreligious. Because I don't think religions are a reasonable enterprise in any sense of that word, even as a social institution.

Is Atheism a religion?

Irreligious because spirituality and moral development are too important to be degraded by religion.

:up:

Irreligious. Because I have never found a religion that is plausible and matches my values.

I don't really think there are religious people active on this forum, besides some two or three members.

I was raised Catholic, and sometimes I tag along with relatives to go to Church if it is a special occasion. Catholic and Orthodox Churches are my favourite places to visit. I do not believe any of it is true however — I don't even believe Jesus was a real person.

I don't even believe Jesus was a real person. — Lionino

Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

I understand your scepticism towards his image and the Christian dogma, but we should not deny the existence of his persona.
He was a normal person, born and raised in Judaea. I have read some interesting books by Kazantzakis and after thinking about what this Greek intellectual purposed, I personally believe that Jesus existed, but the Church poisoned his image with lucrative aims.

Jesus of Nazareth did exist. — javi2541997

I have convinced myself this is not the case. See here, here, and here.

I respect your opinion. But I don't get what you mean by the second historical facts or circumstances. I mean this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/878630

Who is Mark or what is Mk 14.2?

Gospel of Mark. Gospel of Mark chapter 14 second verse.

Thanks. Interesting data and thoughts. :up:

Jesus of Nazareth did exist. — javi2541997

The evidence may not be so solid:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-the-son-of-god-story-is-built-on-mythology-not-history

My guess is that he did exist but that we know nothing about this man. It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah.

Unreligious. Anti-religious only when provoked.

I think Jesus was a composite figure put together to make a coherent story of the events chronicled in the NT, some of which were certainly true. The christian heresy did originate somewhere, from somebody, before Saul of Tarsus made much hay of it. The rebellion of 66AD had long, deep roots.

But that's beside the point. One can be interested in religions and mythology without buying into them. In fact, I find that the more you learn about their history, the less you believe their content.

There seems to be far far more compelling, objective evidence that, for example, dinosaurs had existed +65 million years ago than there is that an itinerant rabbi from Nazareth in Roman-occupied Judea named Yeshua ben Yosef (aka "Iēsus Chrīstus") had existed two millennia ago ... or, btw, that any g/G has ever existed. Just my two shekels.

It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah. — Fooloso4

In light of Yeshu ben Ananias, it is likely the case. It is said around that Jesus is a mix of Ananias, Mithras, and others. I think the article's comparison with Romulo is very apt. Thanks for the link.

Jesus of Nazareth did exist. — javi2541997

There's no good evidence of this but I think it is safe to say the myth came to us via one or two messianic preachers of the time. There were many doing the rounds. This plus borrowing miracle stories etc from other places. Even today we can find living gurus and religious figures who do 'miracles' and have exaggerated stories attached to them.



I don't follow or accept any religion and I'm not a believer in gods or goddesses. I've written here before that (aside from enculturation) I think theism is a preference people have, like their sexuality or an aesthetic appreciation, which may be back filled, ad hoc with reasoning. The notion of god has never supported any of my sense making, nor seemed coherent to me. I haven't 'felt' a need for it.

There's no good evidence of this but I think it is safe to say the myth came to us via one or two messianic preachers of the time. There were many doing the rounds. — Tom Storm

For sure, check this.

My guess is that he did exist but that we know nothing about this man. It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah. — Fooloso4

Exactly. This is what I attempted to say, but I didn't bother to keep debating because I understand that in this site religion is prosecuted and most of the members have baloney comments on theology. But I read your comment and your point is close to what Kazantzakis wanted to explain. Jesus of Nazareth did exist, but the people who surrounded him, poisoned his image with dogmatic purposes.
The last temptation by Kazantzakis is a very interesting book where the image of Jesus is humanized. There are even chapters where Jesus refuses to become a messiah or similar. As a very good comment I have read around the internet: Kazantzakis shows in this book a different image of Jesus than we are used to in the Gospels. This is probably what happened in reality.

I read Kazantzakis some years ago. I do not remember whether he addresses the following. For many Christians death and resurrection is of central importance. If Jesus was a man then the resurrection stories become problematic.

Given the alleged distortions in the gospel stories what if anything is unique about Jesus?

According to the Christian dogma, yes. The resurrection of Jesus, the trinity, and other aspects are key facts in the doctrine. As I said before, these are the patterns which build up the doctrine as we know today. This also happened to Asissi, for instance. We all agreed with the existence of St. Francis of Asissi, but it is obvious that he lived a very more complex life than we used to hear from partisans of Christianity. Did everything really happen what is typed in the Bible? What did exist? Jesus himself or the miracles?

Well, Kazantzakis wrote this in the novel: (The Last Temptation)

Jesus: Did you see resurrected Jesus of Nazareth? How did he look like?
Paul: He was a thunder... A thunder that was speaking.
Jesus: LIAR!
Paul: His disciples saw him. After the crucifixion, they were reunited in a garret, with its doors closed, and he showed up in font of them and said: May peace be with you!
Jesus: LIAR
Paul: A man wasn't born. Her mother was virgin. The Archangel Gabriel descended from the sky and said: I salute you, Mary! And his words fell down like a seed in her breast. This is how Jesus were born.
Jesus: LIAR! LIAR! I am Jesus of Nazareth. I never got crucified. I never got resurrected. I am the son of Mary and Joseph, not the son of God. I am the son of a man, like everyone else.

There is nothing unique about Jesus. :smile: He was a normal person like you and me. That's the key to understanding him.

There is nothing unique about Jesus. He was a normal person like you and me. That's the key to understanding him. — javi2541997

How are we to understand him? If there is nothing unique about him what does this mean for Christianity?

If the stories of Jesus are distortions then what are we to make of the teachings ascribed to him?

What do you mean by 'teachings'? As far as I know, Jesus was just a revolutionary. He tried to face the Roman Empire with a very basic dialectic. I imagine him as a person walking around Judae and reciting speeches. Some clever folks see him as a big opportunity and decide to misrepresent his beliefs and ideas. He maybe didn't even know how to write, but had everything a religion needs: Poverty, drama, guilt, sacrifice, etc. The people who surrounded him decided to exploit his image through his teachings. We have to consider that the we barely know about Jesus is thanks to the Gospels. But the latter is based on Jesus Christ, the sacred image, not Jesus the fisherman. I believe in his existence. I don't buy the resurrection and the dogma but the persona of Jesus.

How are we to understand him? — Fooloso4

As a legendary hero figure. (Hercules, Prince Yamato, Odin, Ta Kora, Maitreya, Boewulf...) A special human who is born to greatness, pursuing his assigned quest; his exploits exaggerated and embellished over time.

If there is nothing unique about him what does this mean for Christianity? — Fooloso4

There is something unique about all hero figures, but they also conform to an archetype: their culture's ideal of virtue, accomplishment and perseverance. What is means for Christianity is not at issue: Christian churches have made up their own version of the religion, in most of which Jesus hardly signifies at all, except as a conduit to heaven and a focal point for the major feast days.

If the stories of Jesus are distortions then what are we to make of the teachings ascribed to him? — Fooloso4

The stories have been edited, revised, Europeanized and abridged. If you're interested in the teachings, you'll find their essence in those texts, regardless of distortion.

What do you mean by 'teachings'?

... reciting speeches

The people who surrounded him decided to exploit his image through his teachings. — javi2541997

I mean such things as the Sermon on the Mount.

He maybe didn't even know how to write, but had everything a religion needs: Poverty, drama, guilt, sacrifice, etc. — javi2541997

How do you know he was poor? Perhaps the drama was part of the stories told about him. Why guilt? What would he have to be guilty about? Guilt inflicted on him by his Jewish mother? Was he either so sinful or thought himself to be so that Yom Kippur was not enough? What kinds of sacrifice?

How are we to understand him?
— Fooloso4
As a legendary hero figure. (Hercules, Prince Yamato, Odin, Ta Kora, Maitreya, Boewulf...) — Vera Mont

But there are no major religions worshiping these figures. Does this mean that Christianity is an enormous mistake?

If you're interested in the teachings, you'll find their essence in those texts, regardless of distortion. — Vera Mont

How do we distinguish between essence and distortion? What you might take to be essence others might see as distortion because it leaves out what they believe is essential.

ut there are no major religions worshiping these figures. — Fooloso4

That no current religions worship those ancient figures, or that I left Gautama off the list, has little to do with their archetypal similarity.

Does this mean that Christianity is an enormous mistake?

No. It's an enormous PR success. It was promulgated and sold in Roman format, under the auspices of a mighty empire with some pretty canny administrators. They had the missionaries, the architects and enforcers to cobble every pagan sect into some semblance of the Christian faith.

How do we distinguish between essence and distortion? — Fooloso4

Each according his sensibility. The accuracy of the original doesn't matter a damn: it was preached to different peoples in different times and is relevant to our lives only in the most basic points: be decent to one another.

What you might take to be essence others might see as distortion because it leaves out what they believe is essential. — Fooloso4

Yes, of course. How do you think all those different Christian sects came to exist? Why do you think they've made so many wars and persecutions over it? People are perverse: when they read "Love thy neighbour as thyself" they sometimes choose to understand it as "If thy neighbour is not enough like thyself, burn him at the stake for his own good."

At the risk of losing all respect and credibility in a world dominated by physicalistic, scientific discourse, I am a Catholic and believe in God.

To (maybe) salvage some credibility among so many non-believers, the God of all the philosophers has been such a hollow shell of a creature, mostly invented to fill an empty space on the chessboard of other doubtful pieces. The monad, the evil-genius who is the perfection of perfection, the "good" personified, the zeit-geist of history, or the prime mover - each one of us is more consequential than these concepts and would contain these phantoms in our minds, making them smaller than ourselves. Augustine admitted that all that he said was like a grain of sand on the beach of what there is to say, and Aquinas called all of his work like straw. They were right!

There is no God found in philosophy or science that has impressed me or influenced why I believe in God. Similarly, I am not impressed with any arguments that show God can't exist either.

The whole point of science and philosophy is to figure this experience out for ourselves. We start from scratch. No God, no nothing. And then, once we know something, we don't need anyone or anything else to explain it for us, we have it ourselves. God hasn't yet entered this picture and to stay scientific and philosophical, God need not enter the picture.

Since I do believe in God, God has a place in the ontology somewhere. Maybe we will one day reason our way to the presence of God, sort of sneak up on God from behind and say "Hey, we are made in your image because we just created you." But I also believe (more accurately think it is reasonable to assume) that there are individuals in the ontology, separate from God. We have our hands full enough trying to exit the confines of our own solitary minds and to find any meaning anywhere at all, so leaps that would include the concept of "God" to help us explain "identity" or "motion" or "math" seem to lack rigor and honest scientific inquiry.

But then, we don't just talk philosophy and science do we. We have to live. We don't skip breakfast because our senses could be deceiving us. We don't wonder about the metaphysics of identity or set theory when going to the bathroom to draw clear and distinct lines between the crap and our asses. And we enjoy deep conversations with the people we love, about all sorts of experiences, and about beauty or tragedy, without constantly reminding everyone how we can't know the thing-in-itself or that meaning is actually use.

God is experienced in those conversations, not scientific ones.

It's like this to me, when I'm doing math, the existence of God is irrelevant. All of science and philosophy is still in that place for me. God may be irrelevant to them. God and science are totally irrelevant when I go to bathroom and see there is no toilet paper. You can put that scenario in the context of science (needing an absorbent tissue to address the viscosity of the crap) or God (who says I am created in his image, here frantically looking for something to wipe my ass), but really who cares at that moment.

And I'm being gross on purpose. You don't cringe from one philosophical concept, ever. You might cringe if the crap accidentally touches your hands. God is way more wholistic an experience than just the concepts of philosophy.

So when I talk about God, I would be talking about revelation and my response to that revelation, which is really something hard to express to someone who has not already themselves had that response, that experience. I can't give anyone the experience of God all by myself. You have to respond in some way that would deliver that experience, that would lead you to say "Is that God?"

Something like revelation is here on this forum though. You can't know me at all without me revealing myself to you. You cannot come close to saying I exist or know who I am until I reveal myself. I reveal myself to you here, and you reveal yourselves to me, here on this forum. Otherwise, no one is there to consider. The existence of God starts like that. That's why people feel blessed that they believe in God, and why they say faith is a gift. It doesn't come from me, it comes from an experience of me with God.

And religion, and church and all the institutionalization and edifice, that's all hogwash unless you are interested in finding God in it. If you don't believe in God at all, I wouldn't recommend trying to analyze a church or a religion from the outside in. If you happen to find you God, and you were interested in keeping that new line of communication open, you might then be able to find uses in the religions and churches. Otherwise, they look like every other human institution - a place filled only with people and all of our limitations.

Long story short, if I’m reading it right you seem to be saying that you’re a Catholic because of a revelation. If that’s the case, did this revelation occur prior to becoming a Catholic?

That no current religions worship those ancient figures, or that I left Gautama off the list, has little to do with their archetypal similarity. — Vera Mont

I asked the question of how we are to understand Jesus against the background of how he is understood within Christianity. Put differently, what does Christian belief and practice look like to Christians who regard him as a moral man.

It's an enormous PR success. — Vera Mont

Right, but its success does not mean it was not a mistake.

be decent to one another. — Vera Mont

There is nothing particularly Christian about this. What, if anything, distinguishes Christianity?