Here is a little fact about myself and my own life experience.
After I had finished watching Cosmos by Carl Sagan and an RE lesson I had in year 1 in secondary school. I sat up in my bed in the dark at night after a bad dream. I was 'annoyed,' that the dream scared me (I was only 13). I sat for ages thinking about 'stuff.' I took a torch and shone it under my chin whilst looking in a mirrored wardrobe for effect. I then called god lots of bad names and challenged him to send his enforcer (satan) to come and 'sort me out.' I said I would even accept a clear warning (because I was scared, just in case!) and if I got such, then I would accept its existence. I eventually fell asleep and woke up in the morning as one usually does.
Since then, I have repeated this, especially during/after traumatic situations like the death of a loved one etc. There is nothing in the empty darkness except the fear we bring with us.
All the hallucinations reported by others including NDE stories are just 'interrupted and corrupted' info packets in the brain or bad wiring etc.
I request that all theists out there or those who are scared of the supernatural. Use all of the will power you have to call upon/pray for/invoke these forces now, to manifest the powers at their command and destroy me before 8 am tomorrow morning. If I post a message tomorrow then this does provide some evidence of that such forces do not exist. It doesn't count if I get 'sorted out' by a messed-up human who claims the supernatural is working through them. My destruction must be by supernatural means not natural.
I have agreed this with groups of individuals in the past btw and I am still here.
Gods have no power because they don't exist.
I don't want to post expletives on this site so just accept that in my mind I am using every expletive I can muster against all god fables and supernatural claims.
Why don't you try it for yourself, if you are not too scared to. Watch a really scary horror film based on the supernatural first. I've done that too, many times, especially after a few single malts!
Post to you tomorrow guys!! :naughty: :strong:

Perhaps I am just not following the 'irony' of your chosen handle or your choice of representative Icon.
You suggest a god that has no self-belief and you use a Hollywood actor in a bad film as your profile pic.
Then you seem to defend theism.
Go figure!

That must be why theism is on the wane in some of its traditional heartlands such as the USA.
The more educated people become, the more they will question the validity of supernatural claims.
It's a natural effect of increased intelligence. Very few scientists are theists.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.' I've certainly met a number of atheists who reached their position after reading the Good Book. — Tom Storm

Sooooo True. I have read both Old and New testaments twice(although I would call them bad rather than good books). I was atheist after watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos, when I was around 13. The Old Testament would make a better TV serial than Game of Thrones, when it comes to mass violence, intrigue, sex, and supernatural BS. But then this would probably be true for accurately depicted series on the Mahabharata (not the recent, cleaned up TV version) or the Iliad and the Odyssey.

I think that's another skewed view, the 'global' importance the West suggests the bible has. The Quoran, The Mahabharata, The shen manuscripts in china etc are just as important and influential within the cultures that created them.

The high god "El" from Ugaritic culture is one of the names of God in the Hebrew Bible — Fooloso4

Is it not also true that El also translates to 'the' in English. Like El Toro in Spanish is The Bull in English.

Then there are the torch bearers, Cautes and Cautopates, one with torch up, one with torch down. Representing sunrise and sunset? — Ciceronianus

An interesting point in itself from a 'scientifically rigorous' standpoint. This is the kind of 'mistake,' that we find all over religious fables, that helps confirm their status as folklore. There is no sunset or sunrise. It looks like there is to us but it's actually Earth's rotation that causes this effect.

Without death and suffering, life would be next to impossible. — Olivier5

A depressing view that I am glad I don't share. The Universe is vast and has plenty of space and resources for new life.

That made me laugh. Who could possibly be the "others" in this context? People without a culture? :-) Cultural diversity is not something confined to certain folks and not others. — Olivier5

Laughter is a very subjective emotion, isn't it? If a culture demands, for example, that women cannot hold positions of authority then that is not conducive with the notion of 'common good,' so it would not be allowed inside or outside of such a culture. Its nothing to do with the culture of others. It is about establishing basic human rights regardless of cultural imperatives.

I don't think so. Yours is a naïve messianic attitude longing for some perfect resolution of our contradictions, neglecting the value and dynamic utility of those contradictions — Olivier5

I understand your opinion but I think it's nonsense and in my opinion, your opinion makes your views part of our problems and not part of the solution. There is nowhere left to take our exchange so thank you for the exchange.

So no, I will not help to try and make a perfect world, but count me in for trying to make it a bit better — Olivier5

Mention of terms like Messianic has no relevance to my viewpoint. I am advocating teamwork, I never invoke 'hero' concepts as being part of the solution to the problems the human race currently have.
I am advocating practical solutions not 'perfection' or 'utopian' nonsense. These terms are used to distract the determined. They are presented as unobtainable goals.

Also, I am appreciative of cultural diversity, and would NOT like to contribute to an effort to erase it. I prefer a messy Darwinian system, with its in-built potential for conflict but creative, evolutive and adaptative, to a uniform, rational, central-command system where everybody is forced to fit the same mold. Because to me, these kinds of grand systems always fail in the long run. — Olivier5

I have no problem with cultural diversity but it should never overrule the common good of others.
If you prefer a 'messy Darwinian system,' then that suggests you approve of a 'survival of the fittest,' and a 'chaotic' approach to progress and development which in my opinion, aggravates our problems and is not part of the solution.

'

So no, I will not help to try and make a perfect world, but count me in for trying to make it a bit better — Olivier5

In my opinion, this is not the most harmful position I have heard of but it is also not going to help much.
You offer sticking plasters for gaping wounds.

Thanks, will you do your best to help?

I recognise the issues you describe but I don't agree with your conclusions.
The dilemmas you describe all happen because we got human interaction all wrong from the beginning.
This is the lesson we must learn.
We came out of a 'law of the jungle' situation and tried to create a better way.
Many individual humans started to work together for their common good.
But we could not maintain the harmony, the lessons, fears, traumas we experienced in the wild were too strong. So we were more driven by antagonism towards others compared to maintaining harmonious relationships.
We progressed mainly through chaos. Destroy and conquer and then rebuild better, stronger.
But we have learned since that this approach causes the imbalances you describe.
We cant change the past but we can do things differently in the future.
I want to focus on creating a better future. I don't want to ossify because of our 10000 years of tears and bloody slaughter.
No more kings, gods, rich, poor, nations, tribes, ethnicity, cultural divide, money, etc
One species on one planet, looking out towards the vastness of space, developing the technology needed to leave the nest we call Earth.
This must be our approach or we deserve to perish and the Earth will hopefully, eventually produce another sentient species who will take over our stewardship.
The Earth is perfectly capable of surviving us, as it did the dinosaurs.

It is true that the earliest surviving gospels are in Greek, but there is also purported to be evidence that earlier copies in Aramaic or Hebrew were the originals — Janus

But there are always such claims. As soon as someone produces an authenticated copy of the gospels, dated to a time before the Greek manuscripts and they are written in Aramaic or Hebrew. I will react accordingly. I think the Romans destroyed all Jewish literature before the Greek gospels were invented so as to remove all evidence that countered the content of their Gospels. According to Atwill, even the term Gospel in Rome meant 'good news of great victory,'
I think that's why the dead sea scrolls were found hidden in a cave in the desert, because the Romans were teaching future despotic regimes the important tactic of book burning.

Let me advocate, then, for indifference to religion in political matters and vice versa for religious institutions and theologians to leave politics alone — Olivier5

Such would be an 'assist,' an improvement on the status quo, in many countries. Although every citizen must be attentive to political matters regardless of their theological leanings.

Or like one of my favorite itinerant preachers once put it: to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God. — Olivier5

This I don't agree with as Caesar was a tyrant and a butcher and a criminal and does not deserve to be given anything.
If God does not exist then your suggestion is moot.
If it does exist then it must explain its horrific abuse of its own creation.

I’m saying none of that — Noble Dust

Well, I suppose there is some use in knowing what you are not saying.

The point of bringing in Stalin and Attila was to show that man never needed a theological excuse to kill man. Atheist regimes such as China are not less brutal than theocracies. — Olivier5

So let's campaign against both and advocate for something better!

Isn’t the point of ridding the human race of religious “fables” presumably to eradicate the types of suffering and injustice they’ve caused? Why pursue this when non-religious institutions result in the same atrocities? It’s no bizarre projection — Noble Dust

So are you saying that you just can't conceive of a society built and maintained by human beings within which millions of people are not slaughtered in the name of theistic doctrines or non-theistic dictatorial/totalitarian/aristocratic/monarchistic/autocratic systems?
If you do hold such dystopian views and see no hope for the future of the human race then you might just as well count yourself amongst the antinatalists.
I hope you do have hope for a better future for us.

:up:

Really? How do you know that those very same crimes wouldn't have been committed in the name of Jupiter or some other god, had not the Jesus character been invented by Josephus as you claim? — Olivier5

I cant and if what you suggest was actually the case then I would be discussing the crimes humans have commited, in the name of 'Jupiter or some other god,' and I would still be advocating that the human race has to rid itself of such fables.
I did not claim the Jesus character was invented by Josephus alone.

Stalin did not need a god to kill millions. Attila was not a saint either... — Olivier5

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that I complain about those slaughtered in the name of God does not mean I excuse non-theistic reasons for slaughtering millions of people either. It's a bizarre projection to suggest.

They may have been. As I said, though, I don't see Tacitus relying on any work by Josephus for the little he (Tacitus) writes about the person known as Christus. Why would he? He wasn't particularly fond of any emperor, and certainly not Domitian or the Flavians in general. I doubt he'd look to their favorite as a source.

I haven't read Atwill. Those Alexandrians certainly were a busy bunch, weren't they? Both Jews and Greeks — Ciceronianus

Maybe, I think knowing the mind of Tacitus or what his motivations were or why he did this or that can only be pure conjecture. But in the absence of proof, all we can do is turn to our own interpretation/opinion based on what we do know or have read about. Hopefully we remain willing to change position when any new stronger evidence is discovered and we don't simply ossify on even deeply held and treasured belief.

I think this is what annoys me; the irony of a sort of fundamentalist proselytizing against the Christian myth — Noble Dust

Again, I don't accept that I am doing what you suggest. I am airing and exemplifying work done by individuals who are well qualified in the field and have researched the area and absolutely disagree with the claims made by Christian theists. I don't think your annoyance level should interfere with other people being allowed to hear rebuttals against the Christian claims.

Bart being anti-theist has no bearing on my point. We were talking about how he views Jesus the man — Tom Storm

Yes, that's true and it's why I posted a correction on him. I have not heard him state that he believes that the Jesus Christ described in the bible, never existed. He may well have been based on a human teacher-like character. As you say, many people think so, Including many atheists.
There is no proof however. I have no problem with Jesus the man, the teacher, even the mystic whose life was used as the base mold for the Jesus portrayed in the gospels but none of the supernatural piffle happened and the majority, if not all of the narratives he spoke in the gospels were invented by others.
I am sure there were thousands of people called Jesus during the time, the version in the gospels is placed, some of whom may well have been teachers of some repute.

Why then focus on Jesus only? You might as well deconstruct Jeremy, Moses or Abraham... :-)
To me, the guy Jesus seems one of the best to come out of that tradition. He was certainly not the worst Jewish prophet ever. And to my mind, the Greco-Roman world did need a little injection of Semitic wisdom, which they got through him...
This little injection almost destroyed the Roman empire, as per Gibbons — Olivier5

Well this thread is titled 'Jesus Freaks,' not 'Please fill in your chosen Messianic character freaks.'
So my main focus for this thread has been Jesus.

As to your second point, I can only disagree and say that I think the influence of Christianity on Western Culture and the actions it performed 'in the name of' has been devastating.

Like all other corruptions, the Roman Empire was doomed as all such manifestations are for a myriad of reasons but they don't really fully die as long as their main tenets survive. The legacy of the Roman Empire is alive and doing well, in the guise of the Vatican.
The Roman empire was soon replaced by variants. Today we have the American empire, The Russian empire, The Chinese empire and various other smaller empire's within Europe etc. Some or all of these will probably object to the name empire but I don't see enough difference to call them something less emotive.

Ditto!

You sure seem to care — T Clark

Oh, I try my best not to give up on anyone, including you. Unless I am sure there is no space left to move within.

Yes, I agree!

I agree with Noble Dust's evaluation: — T Clark

:rofl: Please try not to be so infantile. Put your big boy trousers on and then you will perhaps understand that not everyone on this forum cares very much about who you agree with. I for one, certainly don't.

I'm not a theist, but the level of hatred for religion I see here on the forum bothers me. I think it calls into question the forum's claim of support for human rights and freedom of expression — T Clark

I have debated many theists. I cannot speak for others but I have never been accused by any of them as having a 'hatred for religion.' I argue against the 'lack of evidence,' for the claims preached in religious doctrine. I also suggest that it is a pernicious act to use such unreliable data as the basis of a moral code or for informing political or social policy. I understand the comfort some individuals get from the idea of god but I will protest vehemently against those who manipulate such human fear to line their own pockets. It may be fair to accuse me of hating those who abuse people by stealth using religion as their main tool but accusing me of hating religion or theists would be wrong. As I said I am only speaking for myself.

seems like you know him better than I.

I don't see why the fact that others had claimed to be the Messiah is relevant. — T Clark

Ok, You don't, I do.

But the statement from your post is not correct. That says nothing about the divinity or historicity of Jesus Christ. — T Clark

Yes it is and yes it does. If you want a panto exchange then I can provide one for you until I get bored doing so. You just make statements you offer no reasoning worth rebuttle.

Information I found on the web indicates the King James version of the Bible was a translation from Hebrew and Greek sources — T Clark

I have already told you that the oldest manuscripts of the gospels are in Greek.

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new. — Noble Dust

Well, I disagree with your analysis of me and I am sure if I knew more about you, I would find some of your positions 'unbalanced' and 'weird' and 'obsessive,' and others would agree with me and others would agree with you and.......who would prove correct in the end, would depend on consequence.
It has been ever thus. We all have our dissenters, who cares?

According to the web, Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf; Jesus - son of Joseph; which was a common name when he lived — T Clark

Another point you should consider is that Ben Yussuf goes against the immaculate conception claim.
If the virgin birth is true then calling the character 'son of Joseph.' would be incorrect.

Why is that relevant? — T Clark

Why is not relevant?
who do you believe was the true Jewish Messiah, prophesied in the old testament from the list available? I choose none of them, including the fabled Jesus Christ.

Yeshua is Hebrew. Translated through Greek to English it became Jesus — T Clark

This makes your original point meaningless as the gospels were written in Greek so the character's name in Hebrew is not relevant to the gospels. Barabbas on the other hand is not a Greek name but it does have meaning in Hebrew.

Carlo Rovelli posits that the observer will cause the system to collapse so that a measurement can occur but he thinks that this collapse is only localised to the interacting systems and nowhere else.
The system does not collapse from the standpoint of non-observers.
At least, I think that's his posit. I heard it in a podcast between him and Shaun Carroll

:up:

That's because the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and then translated into Latin. Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic? He might have known Koine Greek, but probably not. The oldest version of the OT is in Greek too (a more formal dialect). — Bitter Crank

Well, many people use this fact as evidence that the jews could not have written the gospels.
Why were the Gospels written in Greek? Perhaps because this was one of the main languages used in Rome and was used by the Flavians the Alexanders and the Herods.
As you say why are the Gospels not in Hebrew or Aramaic?
The dead sea scrolls are in Hebrew so why not the gospels?

But this is putting it all in a dismissive narrative about how all is lost and it is just up to us, and so forth. \

The matter gets interesting only when we examine what is there, in the ethical nihilism as a rejection of something. What is rejected, exactly? It is that there is an ethical foundation that lies in the deepest analysis of ethicality itself. What does this come to? One has to look at a given ethical problem, the anatomy of an ethical problem qua problem. This goes to the concrete circumstances of our prohibitions against causing others suffering through the many ways this can be achieved. At root, it is the pain itself, and the joy and pleasure: these rise to the surface of the discussion, for these are these existential foundations of ethics.
The question then is, what is pain? What is pleasure? What is falling in love? Being tortured?

A serious analysis of religion BEGINS here — Astrophel

I understand the majority of what you state here from the individual meanings of the words you use and the context within which you use them but I am not so interested in this type of analysis. It is a very valid analysis I'm sure and certainly belongs on this forum, more than my approach does but I would refer you to members like Garrett Travers or fooloso4 to name but a few, for better feedback on the points you raise, than any that I can offer you.

Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf — T Clark

A name not mentioned in the bible at all!

According to the web, Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf; Jesus - son of Joseph; which was a common name when he lived. Christ was not his name, it was the designation he gave himself — T Clark

Maybe true, but there were many others who also claimed such titles:
Dositheos the Samaritan, Simon bar Kokhba, Sabbatai Zevi, Simon the magician and that's before we look at all the other known leaders of the Sicari in the Ist and 2nd century CE. Most of them named, Jesus, Simon, Peter, John, Eleasar(probably the biblical Lazarus)

Even the first name of Barabbas was Jesus. In Hebrew, Bar means 'son of' and 'abba' means 'father.'
So the character Barabbas in the bible was a mockery/parody of Jesus son of the father.

I'd be surprised if Tacitus used him as a source for his comments about "Christus" — Ciceronianus

Tacitus suggested time was 56 AD - 120 AD
Josephus suggested time was 37 AD - 100 AD

I don't normally use AD and prefer BCE but based on the above, they may well have been contemporaries.

I'm not sure about him writing the Gospels and inventing Jesus — Ciceronianus

Joe Atwill and others do not claim he wrote the gospels and he invented Jesus, they claim he was likely involved in such along with many others. I think the current main suspect for writing the gospel of mark is the Egyptian, very powerful and very rich, Marcus Alexander.
A small intro to him is:
Marcus Julius Alexander, the son of Alexander the Alabarch and brother of Tiberius Julius Alexander, was a distinguished and wealthy Alexandrian Jewish merchant

Atwill's book Caesars Messiah is based on 10 years of research. I am not convinced by all he has written in this book but I certainly found his general thesis compelling.

I'm standing beside you Garrett, singing the same songs, determined to ensure a better way.
All power to you!
It was never about the ethnics, its always been about the ethics!!

The reason why we don't group, is because we have separate views of what constitutes ethics, and unless we can coalesce around the primacy of the individual human consciousness from whence all morality comes, we never will. — Garrett Travers

Well, we have had 10,000 years of tears to understand this freaking message.
I get it, I am ready to be called an Earthling, no more nations, no more ethnicity, no currencies, no rich. None of that BS.
Just us! as one species, looking out towards the vastness of space. Grown-ups AT LAST!