4 ms·

We base our beliefs in the teachings of Jesus, who was born as a human despite being divine; ministered to people he encountered, performed many signs, taught p

We base our beliefs in the teachings of Jesus, who was born as a human despite being divine; ministered to people he encountered, performed many signs, taught profound moral truths (e.g. through parables, small debates with the leaders of the time, or even breaking up angry lynch mobs), and then became a scapegoat who suffered, died, was buried and came back. Everything else follows from that, at least in Christianity. I suppose I believe in "other planes of existence" (is this supposed to be Heaven and Hell or something?), but those are contingent upon the truth of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. I guess I'd say I think we already exist in another "plane" which is immaterial and inaccessible in this life, but is nonetheless real. I suppose I also "believe in a deity," but not with the connotations you seem to be suggesting. God is not some component of existence or reality or the universe, independent of other things; He is the only source of what it means to exist. I would say I don't even believe that God exists, but that He is below or outside of existence, as He caused everything else to exist that exists. If someone believes in God as a sort of Santa Claus or Jinn granting wishes, then no, I don't believe in that kind of "deity" either. That's just silly nonsense.

nicoburns 6y ago
> We base our beliefs in the teachings of Jesus, who was born as a human despite being divine The teachings of Jesus are a collection of stories from ~2000 years ago. That Jesus is/was divine is something which there is very little evidence for. But even if he was, his teaching are a collection of stories from 2000 years ago.
- nonotreally 6y ago
  I think you've conceded too much ground here. There is no evidence for the divinity of Jesus. These are simply stories from ~2000 years ago.
  - gumby 6y ago
    There is no evidence the guy existed, either. They are most likely just stories meant to motivate a movement — nothing wrong with that in principle. Especially given that a lot of the message is “be kind”.
    - baryphonic 6y ago
      If you really believe that there's no evidence Jesus the man existed, then I wonder what you would consider evidence of any ancient person existing, or even evidence of any fact in general. The evidence does exist, and it is in fact convincing evidence, at least of historicity (even the Gospels are evidence, though several extrabiblical sources mention the historical Jesus as well, including ones opposed to Christianity like Josephus). IMO, the evidence of divinity is fairly strong, too, but can only be resolved as a matter of faith and not solely empiricism. Also, Jesus said quite a bit more, and quite a bit more often than "be kind," though admittedly that's sort of the Therapeutic Moral Deism version spewed out popularly and in a lot of churches today. I'd agree that Jesus' ultimate vision is humanity living in harmony with one another, but that this requires living in harmony with God, too. We're pretty terrible when we try to lean on our own understanding.
      - gumby 6y ago
        > then I wonder what you would consider evidence of any ancient person existing, or even evidence of any fact in general. Without opening up a broader epistemic discussion: the question of the existence of specific people is quite a reasonable question. Because Socrates rejected writing, there is some question as to whether he really existed or was a rhetorical invention of his student plato. On the other hand, say, Sophocles is described by various contemporaneous sources. Caesar, Augustus and Marc Antony pretty definitely existed -- there is a lot of surviving contemporaneous evidence. On the other hand the existence of a much more recent figure, Shakespeare, as the author of a body of work is still hotly debated in some circles (there is evidence that someone by his name was alive at the same time, but was that the person in question?) There are no contemporaneous accounts of the life or death of Jesus; even Josephus whom you mention was born after the events described in the gospels. > I'd agree that Jesus' ultimate vision is humanity living in harmony with one another, but that this requires living in harmony with God, too. We're pretty terrible when we try to lean on our own understanding. That's a particular stance that requires judging terrible people who claim to have religious backing to have not been in alignment with a god. Both sides in a war claim divine support, after all. It's quite possible to live in harmony without any gods.
      - 6y ago
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    I feel like the Bible constitutes some kind of evidence for the divinity of Jesus. Weak evidence for sure. But evidence none the less. As I see it, even "Jimmy down the bar told me..." constitutes evidence of some kind.
    - nonotreally 6y ago
      Isn't that just anecdote?
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  I'd go as far as Jesus being a collection of stories himself along with his teachings. There's no good evidence he even existed. None of the authors of the bible was even alive when Jesus supposedly lived. The youngest of the authors(cant remember which one) was born a couple of years AFTER Jesus supposedly was killed. Not even 1 text from any historian at the time has any mention of Jesus Christ.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    Beyond the narratives in the gospels, Jesus the man is attested to in several extrabiblical sources. See, for example, Eusebius and Josephus. We have more evidence that the historical Jesus was real than, say, Cicero. And of course the gospels themselves and the existence of the apostles (also real) who almost all went to their deaths proclaiming that this Jesus guy was real are in fact evidence that He was. Very, very few serious Bible scholars, even the atheist "textual criticism" ones, deny that the man Jesus of Nazareth existed. And almost all of them will acknowledge that, for example, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3 dates to within a few years (possibly months) of Jesus death. The denial of the historical Jesus is more a meme in New Atheist Internet forums, rather than a serious examination. It's about as serious as Ancient Aliens.
cogman10 6y ago
> If someone believes in God as a sort of Santa Claus or Jinn granting wishes, then no, I don't believe in that kind of "deity" either. That's just silly nonsense. Isn't that a teaching of Jesus? > 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:9-11) > He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20) So why don't you believe in that? I'm an atheist and can certainly see why it'd be silly to think that if you just pray hard enough god will grant your desire, but that's what the bible teaches. Otherwise, what's even the point of prayer? And before you say "Oh, it was metaphorical" I'd point out the Lord's prayer where Jesus specifically prays for food. (Give us this day our daily bread). What is more good than for god to give a starving person food? Yet plenty of Christians starve, is it because they didn't believe enough?
- baryphonic 6y ago
  If God is the source of all that exists, then wouldn't He be the source of "daily bread"? This doesn't imply that the bread magically appears (though admittedly the OT has manna in the desert), nor does it mean that sustenance doesn't derive from human labor. All it implies is that God is all-powerful, the creator of everything, and this is a request that He look after our material as well as spiritual well-being. Also, I won't concede that things in the Bible are not often rhetorical or metaphorical when they in fact are. The Gospels themselves are full of the disciples having no friggin clue what Jesus is talking about, and asking him to "speak plainly." I think for maybe a child who can only interpret things literally, the concept of God as wish-granter might make sense. Also, your own citation conditions the grant on "good" gifts. What are good gifts in God's eyes? Ultimately, this is a matter of faith whether you believe this or not. But I only ask that you reconsider your juvenile straw-man of what we believe.
  - cogman10 6y ago
    > though admittedly the OT has manna in the desert Didn't Jesus split the loaves and the fish to feed thousands? Didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Or were those also metaphors? Why was manna in the desert literal while Jesus miracles metaphors? The only reason you are saying "Oh, those were just metaphors" is because believing them literally is crazy. You have to insert meaning into Jesus's words because otherwise what he's told you is obviously false (and Jesus can't say something false, right?). And yet the bible is filled with miracles both in the old and new testament. Miracles that directly contradict the notion that "Oh, they were speaking metaphorically when they said god would do miracles!" Ultimately, this is a matter of reality whether you accept it or not. I only ask that you reconsider your juvenile beliefs.
jdhendrickson 6y ago
It's ALL silly nonsense.

nicoburns 6y ago

> We base our beliefs in the teachings of Jesus, who was born as a human despite being divine The teachings of Jesus are a collection of stories from ~2000 years ago. That Jesus is/was divine is something which there is very little evidence for. But even if he was, his teaching are a collection of stories from 2000 years ago.

nonotreally 6y ago
I think you've conceded too much ground here. There is no evidence for the divinity of Jesus. These are simply stories from ~2000 years ago.
- gumby 6y ago
  There is no evidence the guy existed, either. They are most likely just stories meant to motivate a movement — nothing wrong with that in principle. Especially given that a lot of the message is “be kind”.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    If you really believe that there's no evidence Jesus the man existed, then I wonder what you would consider evidence of any ancient person existing, or even evidence of any fact in general. The evidence does exist, and it is in fact convincing evidence, at least of historicity (even the Gospels are evidence, though several extrabiblical sources mention the historical Jesus as well, including ones opposed to Christianity like Josephus). IMO, the evidence of divinity is fairly strong, too, but can only be resolved as a matter of faith and not solely empiricism. Also, Jesus said quite a bit more, and quite a bit more often than "be kind," though admittedly that's sort of the Therapeutic Moral Deism version spewed out popularly and in a lot of churches today. I'd agree that Jesus' ultimate vision is humanity living in harmony with one another, but that this requires living in harmony with God, too. We're pretty terrible when we try to lean on our own understanding.
    - gumby 6y ago
      > then I wonder what you would consider evidence of any ancient person existing, or even evidence of any fact in general. Without opening up a broader epistemic discussion: the question of the existence of specific people is quite a reasonable question. Because Socrates rejected writing, there is some question as to whether he really existed or was a rhetorical invention of his student plato. On the other hand, say, Sophocles is described by various contemporaneous sources. Caesar, Augustus and Marc Antony pretty definitely existed -- there is a lot of surviving contemporaneous evidence. On the other hand the existence of a much more recent figure, Shakespeare, as the author of a body of work is still hotly debated in some circles (there is evidence that someone by his name was alive at the same time, but was that the person in question?) There are no contemporaneous accounts of the life or death of Jesus; even Josephus whom you mention was born after the events described in the gospels. > I'd agree that Jesus' ultimate vision is humanity living in harmony with one another, but that this requires living in harmony with God, too. We're pretty terrible when we try to lean on our own understanding. That's a particular stance that requires judging terrible people who claim to have religious backing to have not been in alignment with a god. Both sides in a war claim divine support, after all. It's quite possible to live in harmony without any gods.
    - 6y ago
- nicoburns 6y ago
  I feel like the Bible constitutes some kind of evidence for the divinity of Jesus. Weak evidence for sure. But evidence none the less. As I see it, even "Jimmy down the bar told me..." constitutes evidence of some kind.
  - nonotreally 6y ago
    Isn't that just anecdote?
Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
I'd go as far as Jesus being a collection of stories himself along with his teachings. There's no good evidence he even existed. None of the authors of the bible was even alive when Jesus supposedly lived. The youngest of the authors(cant remember which one) was born a couple of years AFTER Jesus supposedly was killed. Not even 1 text from any historian at the time has any mention of Jesus Christ.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  Beyond the narratives in the gospels, Jesus the man is attested to in several extrabiblical sources. See, for example, Eusebius and Josephus. We have more evidence that the historical Jesus was real than, say, Cicero. And of course the gospels themselves and the existence of the apostles (also real) who almost all went to their deaths proclaiming that this Jesus guy was real are in fact evidence that He was. Very, very few serious Bible scholars, even the atheist "textual criticism" ones, deny that the man Jesus of Nazareth existed. And almost all of them will acknowledge that, for example, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3 dates to within a few years (possibly months) of Jesus death. The denial of the historical Jesus is more a meme in New Atheist Internet forums, rather than a serious examination. It's about as serious as Ancient Aliens.

cogman10 6y ago

> If someone believes in God as a sort of Santa Claus or Jinn granting wishes, then no, I don't believe in that kind of "deity" either. That's just silly nonsense. Isn't that a teaching of Jesus? > 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:9-11) > He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20) So why don't you believe in that? I'm an atheist and can certainly see why it'd be silly to think that if you just pray hard enough god will grant your desire, but that's what the bible teaches. Otherwise, what's even the point of prayer? And before you say "Oh, it was metaphorical" I'd point out the Lord's prayer where Jesus specifically prays for food. (Give us this day our daily bread). What is more good than for god to give a starving person food? Yet plenty of Christians starve, is it because they didn't believe enough?

baryphonic 6y ago
If God is the source of all that exists, then wouldn't He be the source of "daily bread"? This doesn't imply that the bread magically appears (though admittedly the OT has manna in the desert), nor does it mean that sustenance doesn't derive from human labor. All it implies is that God is all-powerful, the creator of everything, and this is a request that He look after our material as well as spiritual well-being. Also, I won't concede that things in the Bible are not often rhetorical or metaphorical when they in fact are. The Gospels themselves are full of the disciples having no friggin clue what Jesus is talking about, and asking him to "speak plainly." I think for maybe a child who can only interpret things literally, the concept of God as wish-granter might make sense. Also, your own citation conditions the grant on "good" gifts. What are good gifts in God's eyes? Ultimately, this is a matter of faith whether you believe this or not. But I only ask that you reconsider your juvenile straw-man of what we believe.
- cogman10 6y ago
  > though admittedly the OT has manna in the desert Didn't Jesus split the loaves and the fish to feed thousands? Didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Or were those also metaphors? Why was manna in the desert literal while Jesus miracles metaphors? The only reason you are saying "Oh, those were just metaphors" is because believing them literally is crazy. You have to insert meaning into Jesus's words because otherwise what he's told you is obviously false (and Jesus can't say something false, right?). And yet the bible is filled with miracles both in the old and new testament. Miracles that directly contradict the notion that "Oh, they were speaking metaphorically when they said god would do miracles!" Ultimately, this is a matter of reality whether you accept it or not. I only ask that you reconsider your juvenile beliefs.

jdhendrickson 6y ago

It's ALL silly nonsense.