The mainstream scholarly consensus is that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE. The contrary perspective, that Jesus was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.
The only thing scholars agree on is that he was baptized and he was killed. Nothing in between is supported, it is all fairy tale. All the miracles, bullshit.
Who cares if some mentally ill man 2,000 years ago created some fucked up cult based on the lie that his mother didn’t cheat on his father and get pregnant. If I could go back in time I would murder Jesus to save us from the Christofascism we are facing today
A better way to put it is that the consensus is that a historical figure named Jesus, upon whom the biblical figure is based, did in fact exist. The actual details of his life are almost entirely unknown apart from, as you say, a few key events for which we have multiple credible sources. We have a better read on his teachings, but even that’s not entirely clear since a lot of the gospels contradict one another and can be interpreted in many different ways.
Jesus never said you have to follow his rules to the letter in order to avoid hell, just that you have to make a sincere effort. After all, he preached that sins could be forgiven if you repent, didn’t he?
Meanwhile, the alternative seems to be “just do whatever makes you happy, fuck what anyone else thinks”, but that always inevitably leads to violence and bloodshed. Is that really the world you prefer to live in?
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
So I guess it’s not “follow the rules or you go to hell,” it’s “believe in Jesus or go to Hell.” In other words, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are in Hell according to the Bible.
I think there is more to it than that. Many people have been killed because of that silly book and what it says. People go insane thinking all that stuff is true to the point they are willing to kill others. Also I don’t think the bible really says to stop being shitty to people. Only specific people. There is still mention of slaves and women being property. Rape was ok if you pay the girls father. You can’t just pick the good parts and ignore the rest like everyone who is religious seems to do.
You’re confusing the Old Testament with the New. Yes, there was slavery in the Old Testament, but Jesus never had any slaves nor did He tell people to keep them. He also didn’t tell anyone to kill people in His name. If people choose to call themselves Christians but don’t keep Christ’s commandments, you can’t really blame Jesus for that, can you?
Can I blame a being that claims to be all powerful, all knowing and all good for every bad thing that happens? Yes absolutely. And “mysterious ways” ain’t gonna cut it. That’s not an argument, it’s a cop out. Your god is either not powerful, not all knowing or evil. The reality of our existence proves that your god cannot be all three of those things. Or just maybe…
The truth is that your god doesn’t exist so we need to be good to each other and do the right things because they’re good and right. We need to do it for survival not because of the threat of hell or whatever. It’s not possible to be a moral person and be religious because in the end you’re only acting well based on being threatened or rewarded for your actions.
As long as someone is acting morally, does it matter whether they do it because they understand morality and can reason it through the way you did, or because they think an invisible man in the sky is going to send them to hell if they don’t?
It’s not moral to do something only because you are scared of punishment. Having morals would be knowing not to do something because it’s wrong and may hurt others and having empathy for those around you.
Look, clearly it would be preferable if people are moral because they have reasoned things through, because then they won’t be as likely to fall to temptation or be reasoned out of it. Now I don’t know about you, but, I would prefer someone who doesn’t murder me because they believe they’ll go to hell if they do to someone who does because he believes he’ll get away with it.
It’s not immoral to believe in Santa Claus, is it?
Of course it doesn’t matter why they do it on a case by case basis but minimizing suffering is a much more straightforward reason to be moral than a spiritual belief that causes cognitive dissonance at its core. To be a Christian you must believe that you’re a terrible person and that you can never be good. Even if you can be forgiven you’re still an awful sinner. This is told to children starting at 2 years old. Is it any wonder that Christianity has caused more pain and suffering than anything else in human history? If you tell people they’re awful then they’ll start to believe it. Religion and especially Christianity is rotten at its core which is why it’s impossible to be both a moral person and a Christian. There is too much baggage for the mind to deal with. You have to simultaneously love your neighbor while acknowledging that it was right and good for your god to order the slaughter of infant children and torture folks for eternity simply for not knowing about your god’s existence. Trying to parse these two stances creates psychosis.
Okay, let’s assume you’re right and that is indeed a terrible belief system. What’s your alternative? It seems to me that you are arguing that we should believe that we already ARE good people and we don’t need any forgiveness or grace in order to be good. If anyone disagrees with that and points out something we’ve done that hurt them, we can just tell them they’re wrong because God created us to be perfect and sinless and we don’t need to change a single thing. How does that attitude not lead to blatant narcissism in the long run?
If you don’t believe there is at least a chance that you might be wrong, there is no reason to ever listen to the complaints of other people, and no reason to ever try to find any compromise. It’s simply the law of the stronger. Whoever has the most power makes all the rules because God made them perfect and they don’t need to fix a single thing. Isn’t that exactly what you are accusing Christians of doing? How do you get morality out of that philosophy?
The academic consensus is that a guy probably existed who was a preacher whose teachings gave rise to the legend of this miraculous “Jesus”.
Everything that’s assumed to be real about Jesus is completely mundane. A preacher whose followers spread his teachings and fantastically embellished his achievements. Big deal! There are hundreds of guys like that. He’s L. Ron Hubbard without the trillion-year-old spaceships.
Except Jesus didn’t make millions of dollars from publishing his philosophy in book format, and L. Ron Hubbard didn’t willingly die in order to prove his belief in Xenu or whatever.
No, it’s true. It is the consensus among historians. This appears to upset a lot of atheists, not sure why. It has no effect whatsoever on my own atheism since whether or not the biblical figure has a historical basis doesn’t play into my lack of belief in god.
So is Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Yeshua of Nazareth possibly existed.
Jesus is the comic version of that.
What about supply side jesus?
The modern-day reboot by that ‘edgy’ writer that never read the original comics as a kid.
The only thing scholars agree on is that he was baptized and he was killed. Nothing in between is supported, it is all fairy tale. All the miracles, bullshit.
Who cares if some mentally ill man 2,000 years ago created some fucked up cult based on the lie that his mother didn’t cheat on his father and get pregnant. If I could go back in time I would murder Jesus to save us from the Christofascism we are facing today
A better way to put it is that the consensus is that a historical figure named Jesus, upon whom the biblical figure is based, did in fact exist. The actual details of his life are almost entirely unknown apart from, as you say, a few key events for which we have multiple credible sources. We have a better read on his teachings, but even that’s not entirely clear since a lot of the gospels contradict one another and can be interpreted in many different ways.
There’s really not much evidence that he existed at all. Likely just stories borrowed from another religion.
Removed by mod
Oh no, some guy said we should stop being shitty to each other and take care of the poor, and a lot of people agreed. This is literally fascism!
Did you forget the part that if you don’t follow the rules to the letter you get tortured for eternity? Sounds pretty fascistic to me.
Jesus never said you have to follow his rules to the letter in order to avoid hell, just that you have to make a sincere effort. After all, he preached that sins could be forgiven if you repent, didn’t he?
Meanwhile, the alternative seems to be “just do whatever makes you happy, fuck what anyone else thinks”, but that always inevitably leads to violence and bloodshed. Is that really the world you prefer to live in?
John 3:18
So I guess it’s not “follow the rules or you go to hell,” it’s “believe in Jesus or go to Hell.” In other words, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are in Hell according to the Bible.
Perhaps, but what does that matter? Is that a good enough reason to want to join them?
Seems like it was a good enough reason for Christians to spend the last 2000 years murdering non-believers.
So because people have murdered for thousands of years we should just continue murdering people, is that what you’re saying?
I think there is more to it than that. Many people have been killed because of that silly book and what it says. People go insane thinking all that stuff is true to the point they are willing to kill others. Also I don’t think the bible really says to stop being shitty to people. Only specific people. There is still mention of slaves and women being property. Rape was ok if you pay the girls father. You can’t just pick the good parts and ignore the rest like everyone who is religious seems to do.
You’re confusing the Old Testament with the New. Yes, there was slavery in the Old Testament, but Jesus never had any slaves nor did He tell people to keep them. He also didn’t tell anyone to kill people in His name. If people choose to call themselves Christians but don’t keep Christ’s commandments, you can’t really blame Jesus for that, can you?
Can I blame a being that claims to be all powerful, all knowing and all good for every bad thing that happens? Yes absolutely. And “mysterious ways” ain’t gonna cut it. That’s not an argument, it’s a cop out. Your god is either not powerful, not all knowing or evil. The reality of our existence proves that your god cannot be all three of those things. Or just maybe…
The truth is that your god doesn’t exist so we need to be good to each other and do the right things because they’re good and right. We need to do it for survival not because of the threat of hell or whatever. It’s not possible to be a moral person and be religious because in the end you’re only acting well based on being threatened or rewarded for your actions.
Okay, now that’s a very good point. Almost.
As long as someone is acting morally, does it matter whether they do it because they understand morality and can reason it through the way you did, or because they think an invisible man in the sky is going to send them to hell if they don’t?
It’s not moral to do something only because you are scared of punishment. Having morals would be knowing not to do something because it’s wrong and may hurt others and having empathy for those around you.
Look, clearly it would be preferable if people are moral because they have reasoned things through, because then they won’t be as likely to fall to temptation or be reasoned out of it. Now I don’t know about you, but, I would prefer someone who doesn’t murder me because they believe they’ll go to hell if they do to someone who does because he believes he’ll get away with it.
It’s not immoral to believe in Santa Claus, is it?
Of course it doesn’t matter why they do it on a case by case basis but minimizing suffering is a much more straightforward reason to be moral than a spiritual belief that causes cognitive dissonance at its core. To be a Christian you must believe that you’re a terrible person and that you can never be good. Even if you can be forgiven you’re still an awful sinner. This is told to children starting at 2 years old. Is it any wonder that Christianity has caused more pain and suffering than anything else in human history? If you tell people they’re awful then they’ll start to believe it. Religion and especially Christianity is rotten at its core which is why it’s impossible to be both a moral person and a Christian. There is too much baggage for the mind to deal with. You have to simultaneously love your neighbor while acknowledging that it was right and good for your god to order the slaughter of infant children and torture folks for eternity simply for not knowing about your god’s existence. Trying to parse these two stances creates psychosis.
Okay, let’s assume you’re right and that is indeed a terrible belief system. What’s your alternative? It seems to me that you are arguing that we should believe that we already ARE good people and we don’t need any forgiveness or grace in order to be good. If anyone disagrees with that and points out something we’ve done that hurt them, we can just tell them they’re wrong because God created us to be perfect and sinless and we don’t need to change a single thing. How does that attitude not lead to blatant narcissism in the long run?
If you don’t believe there is at least a chance that you might be wrong, there is no reason to ever listen to the complaints of other people, and no reason to ever try to find any compromise. It’s simply the law of the stronger. Whoever has the most power makes all the rules because God made them perfect and they don’t need to fix a single thing. Isn’t that exactly what you are accusing Christians of doing? How do you get morality out of that philosophy?
Yes I can. It’s his fault.
Fantastic, then I’ll blame you for all the people killed by atheists because you didn’t do anything to prevent it.
I don’t care what you do lol
Okay, I’m going to keep preaching the words of Jesus then.
The academic consensus is that a guy probably existed who was a preacher whose teachings gave rise to the legend of this miraculous “Jesus”.
Everything that’s assumed to be real about Jesus is completely mundane. A preacher whose followers spread his teachings and fantastically embellished his achievements. Big deal! There are hundreds of guys like that. He’s L. Ron Hubbard without the trillion-year-old spaceships.
Except Jesus didn’t make millions of dollars from publishing his philosophy in book format, and L. Ron Hubbard didn’t willingly die in order to prove his belief in Xenu or whatever.
But he didn’t perform miracles. The gospels were written centuries later.
Just so everyone knows, this “loving Christian” just excused Christians in Uganda putting LGBT+ people in prison for life.
https://lemmy.today/comment/3451312
Sure buddy XD
No, it’s true. It is the consensus among historians. This appears to upset a lot of atheists, not sure why. It has no effect whatsoever on my own atheism since whether or not the biblical figure has a historical basis doesn’t play into my lack of belief in god.