Do you believe in Jesus Christ ?

[8ace]

test

 

[brightn'ove]

12 pages

 

[bhafc99]

As the great Lord has risen. Do you believe in JC ?

Johnny Crumplin Football Genius? Yup.

 

[DTES]

People are to blame for their own acts. A religion gives guidance and helps people find a few answers in their own lives. All the atrocities that have happened in the name of religion re committed by people who are trying to justify their own misdeeds and desires. Religion has also been the base of basic laws such as not killing each other, etc. Hard to say nothing good has come from religion. If you look at many of the bigger religions and boil their ideals down to one general statement about life, you will appease many different gods by living the best life for yourself and for others.
Too many things can be seen as a bane of society if you only focus on the ways it can be used negatively.

While I do actually agree with much of your post, the bit in bold I absolutely disagree with and find more than a little bit offensive. I am atheist and am quite capable of having morals, thank you very much, as is the rest of the human race. To imply that were there no religion then murder wouldn't be illegal (and by an obvious extension we would have no civilised society) is absolutely ridiculous. Religion may have written it down in a book a long time ago, but to claim that it is the base for it? Rubbish.

 

[grummitts gloves]

Yes I believe in the great JC.......




Johnny Crumplin.

 

[Triggaaar]

What is the major thing that religion has given us that is a good thing?

Christmas?

 

[PC-Gull]

How so? Jesus's mother, Mary, was the virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit (stud) came upon (in) her?

A dirty slag is a willing participant, if anything Mary the mother was raped, But that is just arguing semantics. I do apologise; I thought you were confusing Mary the mother with Mary Magdalene.

 

[1959]

Well, i believe Jesus Christ did exist in the world. That is not is dispute, is it?

You're joking, right? There is absolutely no evidence that such a man ever existed. No grave, no documentation, no contemporaneous accounts at all, no Roman archives, nothing.

Pontius Pilate left no written evidence that such a man had been executed. This is unusual, to say the least, for a society like the Romans that kept meticulous records about everything that went on in its provinces and with its subjects, especially executions.

Plenty of non-biblical writing exists from that time and that place, but none of it mentions a man by this name, or any stories that we might recognise as being about such a person.

All accounts of the man known as Jesus originate from the four gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, of which Matthew, Mark and John's accounts of Jesus are essentially rehashes of Luke (I might have the order wrong there). All of these were written at least 150 years after the supposed death of this man.

The versions we have of these accounts have been translated umpteen times over the years by people with all kinds of political reasons for spicing something up, toning something down, censoring or adding something to. So, yes, in my opinion, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest it is in dispute.

 

[Surf's Up]

He existed, as someone has already suggested he was the informal political leader of the Jews, the Romans saw him as being subversive, his followers ascribed powers to him that he didn't have but they believed and belief (mind over matter) can be a powerful thing. He had an inner group who had a Roman snitch among their number and he was crucified for his anti-Roman behaviour. 30 years later some of his followers started to write about him and as is often the way with memories they became a bit rose tinted and they saw the opportunity to bolt a few chapters onto the old testament and so the myth was born. People believe because, as Kafka put it "the world is a cess-pit and the bible is a sanctuary", or words to that effect!!

 

[Muhammad - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

my eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord........

 

[beardy gull]

You're joking, right? There is absolutely no evidence that such a man ever existed. No grave, no documentation, no contemporaneous accounts at all, no Roman archives, nothing.

Pontius Pilate left no written evidence that such a man had been executed. This is unusual, to say the least, for a society like the Romans that kept meticulous records about everything that went on in its provinces and with its subjects, especially executions.

Plenty of non-biblical writing exists from that time and that place, but none of it mentions a man by this name, or any stories that we might recognise as being about such a person.

All accounts of the man known as Jesus originate from the four gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, of which Matthew, Mark and John's accounts of Jesus are essentially rehashes of Luke (I might have the order wrong there). All of these were written at least 150 years after the supposed death of this man.

The versions we have of these accounts have been translated umpteen times over the years by people with all kinds of political reasons for spicing something, toning something down, censoring or adding something to. So, yes, in my opinion, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest it is in dispute.

Bollocks.
You're in a minority here. Go join the chemtrails debate.

 

[PC-Gull]

While I do actually agree with much of your post, the bit in bold I absolutely disagree with and find more than a little bit offensive. I am atheist and am quite capable of having morals, thank you very much, as is the rest of the human race. To imply that were there no religion then murder wouldn't be illegal (and by an obvious extension we would have no civilised society) is absolutely ridiculous. Religion may have written it down in a book a long time ago, but to claim that it is the base for it? Rubbish.

I do not, in any way, believe that Atheists are immoral. Nor am I suggesting that the idea of killing people would have been legal had religions not deemed it wrong. But as you said yourself, it was written down thus taking the need for people to come across the idea themselves out of the picture. I am sorry you were offended by my post, as that was certainly not my intention. It was merely an example.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Sure he existed, but the religion...no... Pretty sure that if you taught people from birth that Rupert the Bear was god, people would grow up believing it. I can think of plenty of things that religion is responsible for and theres not many good things. What is the major thing that religion has given us that is a good thing?

I would like to think that it has given mankind longevity and an ability to be here today to type these words is proof-yes wars have been fought in the "name" of religion but all that ever was just another set of idea's clashing-

Religion can be said to have controlled the masses,but you do not need religion for that,just a set of ideas-200 years from now wars will still be fought, religion by that time may be non existent-then it will be down to in the main what wars have always and really been fought over,politics..

 

[Surf's Up]

Bollocks.
You're in a minority here. Go join the chemtrails debate.

Excellent tolerance of an alternative perspective here!!

 

[kevtherev]

Vicar chappy on the tv just said he has followed Jesus for 50 years and he has never let him down. Just as well he didn't chose to follow Man City or Newcastle.

 

[Triggaaar]

A dirty slag is a willing participant

Yes of course, and many fairly decent people that we all know do cheat, and cheating isn't half as bad a crime as you suggest she may have committed...

if anything Mary the mother was raped

That is a ludicrous post. I agree that rape might have been the cause (if not, it was voluntary), but I am an atheist. How can someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, also believe it's possible that Mary was raped? To acknowledge that she was raped is to acknowledge that she pretended hers was the worlds first immaculate conception and pretended that the unborn baby was the son of God, therefore accepting that it was a lie from the start and that Jesus wasn't the son of god.

I do apologise; I thought you were confusing Mary the mother with Mary Magdalene.

Not sure why you thought that, but no apology necessary

 

[PC-Gull]

Christmas?

The dates for Christmas and Easter were chosen because they were at the same time as Pagan holidays and the church wanted to make it easier for people to convert to Christianity. 'You can still celebrate this time of year just celebrate this instead of that,' sort of thing. This is why Easter is still based on the lunar calendar rather than the Christian Calendar.

 

[DTES]

I do not, in any way, believe that Atheists are immoral. Nor am I suggesting that the idea of killing people would have been legal had religions not deemed it wrong. But as you said yourself, it was written down thus taking the need for people to come across the idea themselves out of the picture. I am sorry you were offended by my post, as that was certainly not my intention. It was merely an example.

I realise you didn't intend to offend - maybe I overreacted a little there... However I still think it's stretching it. Yes, it was written the Bible however many years ago, but was that really the first time it was written down? Did civilisations older than the Bible really have no laws? I don't think that's the case, and I believe such laws would always have existed regardless of belief in any gods.

But maybe that's just me. Anyway, I realise these threads on NSC have a habit of descending into anarchy and personal abuse and that's not where I want to go... so maybe I'll just leave it at "I disagree with you" and wish you happy Easter anyway

 

[brightn'ove]

ill revise my estimate to 16 pages

 

[beardy gull]

Excellent tolerance of an alternative perspective here!!

You agree that there is "absolutely no evidence that such a man existed"?
No evidence at all?
If you do, fair enough, but to say it's anything other than a minority view is wrong. His existence is not a debate for most serious historians.