|
|
 |
|
WOW some people need to read into history more often. We know that a man named Jesus existed through
religious documentation and through recorded history of Monarchs and other rulers. We know that he
had a following and that a man named Jesus was crucified by Roman records, non-religious. There are
also links of a new religious sect of Judaism coming from this is historical writings. Later they
became titled as Christians. In 325ad Emperor Constantine held at a council session that the symbol
for this young religion be the Cross. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In theory a non-Christian could have conducted research into the historical reality of Jesus, become
convinced of it, and only then adopted the Christian religion. In that case, the faith has a
rational foundation and so its holder could participate responsibly in debates. However, in
practice, the number of such people must be infinitesimal, especially in relation to all the other
Christian cultists.
In the real world, the process is likely to work in the opposite direction. Those who learn more
about the historical origins of the Christian superstition are more likely to reject it. Bart
Ehrman, for example, is regarded as one of the world's foremost authorities on the early Christian
faith. He started out as a committed Christian, then when his researches uncovered how bogus the
whole thing was, how forgeries and bizarre internecine strife between different factions had warped
the original vision of Christianity, he abandoned it and became an agnostic.
In my experience, a magical belief system massively warps and deforms the judgement of anyone
subscribing to it, even on matters only indirectly related to the faith itself, rather than its core
tenets. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
By this logic no-one could debate on anything they felt passionately about. And maybe that is true
that we are all swayed by our beliefs when we look at evidence. But if you want to have a debate you
must accept that people can belief something and still use evidence to back it up.
If you believe in Jesus because of faith and not evidence then indeed you cannot debate on his
historical likelihood. But if you believe in Jesus because of evidence (and perhaps faith, why not
both?) then I see no reason why it is impossible for someone to carry out a reasonable debate. Maybe
many people do not, but that doesn't mean that no-one can.
For the record, I am an atheist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you have utter contempt for religion how can you debate objectively on a historical Jesus? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php
Jesus has been mentioned in numerous writings, as well as other mentions in religion. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
15 Jun 2008 17:46
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
