I will make my arguement after I find out some of your opinions. This is open to all and I encourage you to respond.

Myth

what is a myth?

David--Just how old are you anyway? You must be very very young. Use your dictionary. It will give you some practice and you'll learn to do a little bit of research.

I was asking him what he thought was a myth I know what the word means and I am seventeen and I am an active member of the model UN I know how to do research.

possibly myth, possibly a normal jewish guy, long dead.

The only *evidence* otherwise is the claim in the bible. You either believe the bible or you dont. Not much to debate

Come on Joemailman, give him a break.

Just because someone is young doesn't mean they should be instantly discredited and dismissed.

He asked an honest question. Do you have an honest answer?

Mike

To my way of thinking he was a radical of the time.
A man with an opinion and a following that saw things differently to the general populace of the time.
A man of the era that craved a change.

I have no doubt he existed.
Nor do I have any doubt that his existance and thoughts were recorded by his followers.

However I DO have major problems accepting the convoluted and flowery description recorded in the Bible.

He died, crucified because he caused a minor uprising to the forces of Rome as were many others.

Explain this to me...............
Why does Christianity hold dear the instrument of murder........the cross??.

Regards.....Alan

I think that the cross represents the "sacrifice he made for our sins" - to which Christians are expected to pay tribute.

I imagine that there is a "them" against "us" attitude attached to this symbol reminding Christians that "evil" - or "destructers of humanity" exist in this world, and that "humanity" is suffering under it.

jjirout

Yes the cross was the ultimate sacrifice. It proved that Christ loved us so much that He would lower Himself with the worst form of punishment for something that He did not even do. That is why Christians hold the cross so dear. Not because our Savior was murdered which he was, but because of His sacrifice that we did not deserve.

In order to go to heaven we must accept our Lord Jesus, as our Blessed Savior. The only son of our Lord God.

Unless you prefer the version where Jesus actually IS God in human form who allowed himself to be killed as a sacrifice to himself...for our sins.

Either version is cruel and makes no sense. Why did God have to kill anyone? And how does any of it erase past or future sin?

If you break it down :
God was really mad at his second batch of people and wanted to kill them. But, he made a promise last time when he killed the first batch that he wouldn't do that anymore. But, he needs blood from somewhere because they've sinned all over the place. So,he hatched a new plan. He decided to send his son (or was it himself?) down to live with the wretched ancient people and allow him (self?) to be killed so his blood could wash away all the sins and appease God (himself ?)

And this proves beyond a doubt that Jesus lived and loves me. The end.

Again, I don't know what I'm supposed to be thankful for. It's just some twisted logic on God's part that I had nothing to do with. And also, if death and heaven are so rewarding why isn't Jesus thanking MAN for sending him there?

Danya--Thank your parents, your teachers, your peer group and other people who have been in your life and have influenced you. The world is and has always been in a chaotic state because of the kind of ignorance that is manifest in a dependency on philosophies that are based soley on foolish interpretations of reality. Religion is only one example of the kind of ignorance that responsible for the constant state of war and chaos that has plagued mankind since humans first learned to depend on one another for survival.

The jesus story is just a story. There is much written on how it is that this character is only fiction. Go to the American Atheist web site for information and books on the subject of religious myths.

www.atheists.org

Thanks Joe. I really have no problem with people having faith in a creator or beliefs on what happens when they die. Some people find comfort in that and I cannot tell them what happens after death or why man is here. No one can know that until they die.

I only have a problem if those beliefs are used as an excuse to judge, restrict, or harm others or as a replacement for socially acceptable racism.

I believe Christian fundamentalism is really a danger to the freedom's we were given in the Constitution. That's why they are chipping away at them one by one. Their way is the only way and we will be forced to follow them or pay. Just like the Taliban. Amazing that they don't see the similarities between themselves and the Islamic fundamentalists. They are both giving the same message, only the culture and geography is different.

I believe the generalization implied by the use of the term "fundamentalism" is a problem for Christians and Muslims, and all religious people. It brings to mind the idea that there are "okay" Christians who are okay because they don't believe in all of their religious text. Then there are those "Jesus freaks" (or Islamicists, take your pick) whose total belief in their religion makes them irrational and dangerous. This is not true. It is a steryotype most often perpetuated by those unfamiliar with the religion they insult. Right now much of America is directing this kind of foolishness toward Muslims. There are some who turn it on Christians. It is all destructive, those confused about Christianity can ask, study, or forget it, but please be careful about thowing the f-word (fundamentalist) around.

I have many Christian friends. I do not throw the word fundy around casualy. When I use it, it describes the ones that try to impose god into every aspect of life, even when it will affect non believers or other religions. These are the excuses they give for being justified to impose their beliefs on others:

1. God believes in you even if you don't believe in God. In other words, they are right, everyone else is wrong, and whether or not they accept it doesn't matter. It's a non issue.

2. America has a majority of Christians and the minority should just shut up and accept it. (Which if carried to the extreme would no longer be a freedom of religion because we all are only limited to one religion you can practice without discrimination.)

3. They insist that the writers of the Constitution and First Ammendment were all Christian and really didn't mean that the church shouldn't be part of Governement.
(which, btw, is false. The intention is more clear if you read anything from Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin.)

These people are fundamentalists because they cannot accept the idea of a society free to practice or believe anything other than the Christian God.

Now, I am not confused at all about Christianity. And I think it's beneficial to point out the normal Christians and Muslims to the extrememist ones. If someone doesn't think they are an extremist doesn't necessarily mean they aren't one.

Previously you stated in the context of a Jesus freak being an extremist. I am a Jesus Freak but I am in no way an extremist. What exactly are you meaning by the word? That would be very interesting to me. Also in the United States Christianity is not the majority. Professing Christians maybe but true Christians definitely not. And when you say that you understand Christianity if you were referring to the quote above, I am sorry but you really do not know much about us at all.

Previously you stated in the context of a Jesus freak being an extremist. I am a Jesus Freak but I am in no way an extremist. What exactly are you meaning by the word? That would be very interesting to me.

I never used the term Jesus freak. As far as I'm concerned, an extremist is one that tries to force legislation that will allow the Bible in school or courtroom walls, and pushes to impose morality laws (like making homosexuality a criminal offense)

Those who simply disagree with homosexuality or the absense of the bible being in school are not because they are not trying to force their views on non believers.

Also in the United States Christianity is not the majority. Professing Christians maybe but true Christians definitely not.
Please tell me with some documentation which religion is the major one. I don't care which ones profess to it and which ones practice it. Christians are always pointing out that so-and-so isn't a real Christian and it's silly. If you follow the same Bible then you are Christian. If you force your beliefs on others you are a fundamentalist Christian.


And when you say that you understand Christianity if you were referring to the quote above, I am sorry but you really do not know much about us at all.
I know plenty.

Sorry about misquoting you I read someone else. Why is it wrong to try to force legislation to allow Bible in our courtroom (It is already allowed in schools check your documentation). That is just it just because you follow the Bible does not make you a Christian. You have to accept Christ and then live for Him. That is what makes you a Christian we do not follow anything we obtain a relationship with God who is my Father. So you obviously dont know what it is to be a Christian.

Why is it wrong to try to force legislation to allow Bible in our courtroom.
A better question would be why is it necessary in our courtroom? But the real problem is that it gives the impression that Government has endorsed one religion which it cannot do (with good reason).

If you are Muslim wouldn't you be afraid of being tried in a Christian court? Remember those girls in Ahfganistan that were being arrested for showing documentation about Jesus to people? How do you think Christians felt facing an Islamic court?
Justice is supposed to be blind and based on the laws of the state.

(It is already allowed in schools check your documentation)
It is not part of the lesson plan.. I don't care if someone carries in their backpack but they cannot force the schools to teach it as fact.

That is just it just because you follow the Bible does not make you a Christian. You have to accept Christ and then live for Him. That is what makes you a Christian we do not follow anything we obtain a relationship with God who is my Father. So you obviously don't know what it is to be a Christian.
I know enough. And if god is your father, good for you. But it has nothing to do with me and does not belong in my government institutions. Many people follow the Bible and do not consider themselves Christian. Some think it's a good historical reference for certain things, some think that it has good fictional stories, and some (even me) think it has some passages that have philosophical value. That does not make them Christians or mean they must accept God or Jesus as being true. I think a big misconception with Christians is that non-Christians refuse to read and understand the Bible. The truth is that many of them read and understand it and simply don't believe it's true. The fact that it was written thousands of years ago and the sources are unverifiable sometimes makes them question how someone can profess it to be all true.

I am strong supporter of the separation of church and state, however those who are not aren't extremists, misguided perhaps, but the Bible does not suggest making government conform to it's religion (the oft-used example of the ceremonials laws of Moses were discontinued later in the New testament). The fundementals of the Bible do not support(or oppose) theological laws, therefore those who do support religious laws are not fundamentalists.

I do not often use the term "fundamentalist", but Turnea has just mentioned one of the distinctions I would use to characterize someone as a fundamentalist. While Judaic ceremonial, social, and dietary laws were, indeed, thrown out in the New Testament, most fundamentalists tend to ignore this bit of their Christian dogma - or at least those parts that fit into their political agenda.

For example, fundamentalists will condemn homosexuality on the basis of two verses in Leviticus (which, in fact, refer to those who took part in Baal fertility rituals) or will condemn feminism on the basis of any number of spurious OT references, but ignore the fact that they should similarly be condemning seafood restaurants, oyster bars, barbecues, grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, any store that sells anything made of a cotton/polyester blend, and McDonald's.

In this regard, I think that the Christian philosophy (as attributed to Jesus, not his subsequent interpreters) is a distinct improvement on the Orthodox Judaism whose prophecies he was allegedly fulfilling. There seems to be scant historical evidence for his existence, but enough to imply that a similar rabble-rouser was preaching in the area at about the time of his presumed activity. Obviously there's no evidence of any of his miraculous behavior, including his own resurrection. Whether the man actually existed or not is, I believe, irrelevant (indeed, whether he rose from the dead or not is only relevant to the faithful). The philosophy attributed to him is a valid, even admirable one.

Sadly, very few - very, very few - of those who identify themselves as "Christians" actually practice what Jesus preached. Indeed, a majority seem to practice the direct opposite.

Wow, this thread has really STRAYED!



This is a very hard question to answer in isolation because you can't answer it without going into detail WHY you believe one way or the other. Here's a broader list of questions that will help you to delve deeper.

Is it plausible that there's a god?

If yes, then continue.

If no, then stop.

Is this god trying to communicate with me somehow?

If yes, then continue.

If no, then stop.

Is there anything that claims to be the revelations of a god?

If yes, then continue.

If no, then stop.

Which of these revelations are the most credible to you?

....

Answering these preliminary questions will ultimately help you to answer this Jesus question for yourself.

I am curious to know where you acquired this belief. There is solid historical evidence for both his existence and his miracles. For example, the following passage comes from the Babylonian Talmud:



The term "hanged" is another way to refer to crucifixion in early Hebrew sources, and "Yeshu," translated through Greek to English, is "Jesus."

This passage is very telling; it is a record of a heretical teacher named Jesus who was executed on the eve of Passover by the Jewish governing body (that is, the Sanhedrin). Also, the fact that it calls him a "sorcerer" indicates feats which witnesses interpreted as supernatural. All of this is very close to the Biblical account.

I think that's a stretch. People thousands of years from now could look upon history books and just as easily believe the Salemn witches actually performed spells (miracles) before being burned at the stake.

I believe the Salemn witches existed, I believe they were burned at the stake, but I don't believe they had supernatural powers. Because a religious group of people swear they did do you believe them?

"Solid historical evidence" is a bit tenuous in relation to the Talmud, Shild. First, if you are referencing Sanhedrin, the "Jewish revolutionary" is called Ben Stada or Ben Padira who came from Egypt, claimed to be a prophet, led his followers to Mount Zion, and was executed by the Romans - about 100 years after the time of Jesus. This prophet was alleged to be the son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute, but there is no reference to him being hanged on the eve of Passover as I've seen alleged at several Christian web sites. What's your source? And can you please cite the passage of the Talmud where this allegedly appears. I suspect it is spurious.

Even if this passage did appear in the Talmud (which it doesn't seem to), the same thing appears in the fourth Gospel. As the Talmud was written between 200 and 500 AD - even later than most of the Gospels - it would be quite likely to find St. John quoted in attempting to discredit the Christian movement. Remember, the Talmud was, in part, the Jewish reaction to the spread of Christianity - not a contemporary reference, but a reaction to a movement.

The only reference to Jeschu or Yeshu appears to be in the Toledath Jeschu, frequently associated with the Talmud, but not actually part of it. The work is a vulgar polemic written in reaction to attacks on Judaism in popular Christian teaching and writing and describes such incidents as Jesus and Judas having a fight with human excrement.

In any event, the Talmud is the historical equivalent of you, Shild, writing a critical "account" of the American Revolution, with only a couple of biased histories written by Americans as reference. This is your "solid historical evidence"?

One Nation Under God is a myth as of right now, but our beliefs guide us to where we stand on it. Is it proven there is a God? No, but does that mean we should take away faith just because we can't see it. The wind blows, but do we see it? No, but we feel it and the same is with God. Or I have often told my friends it might just be gas. The Bible isn't proven and people interpret it a million different ways. Sounds like a myth to me.