These are people who think anonymous hearsay claims that someone witnessed something magic, is eyewitness testimony. I’ve literally heard them make claims like this, and they’re stupefied when you disagree.
1 Like
The lineage given for Jesus in the gospels called Mathew and Luke.
3 Likes
I’m not asserting anything, only that the evidence, such as it is exists. You know I am an atheist, and I already stated the evidence that Jesus existed at all is scant at best. My point was that beyond the crucifixion and possibly the baptism narratives, it’s all pure hearsay, with no independent evidence to support any of it. Thus when posters say Jesus did X, or Jesus did Y, it’s pure hearsay.
This was the only point I was making. I made no comment on the veracity of the evidence, only that it was the only independent evidence for anything written about Jesus in the NT, I never claimed I thought it compelling, quite the opposite.
I suppose hearsay is a kind of evidence but then I can make up a story about the blue creator bunny walking on water too. Without external corroboration, I don’t see Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny The Younger, or anyone writing a story about the Jesus character as ‘evidence.’ Perhaps I’m just being pedantic about the issue. I regard it all and simply claims, and not evidence, but I know many who hold your opinion as well. As long as we attach little no importance to the claims, I’m comfortable asserting there were people who made claims. That does not mean the claims were true. If that is the best evidnece they can come up with… well, it’s pretty shallow. It’s about the same as telling me Santa Clause can fly down a chimney and its a fact because someone once saw him do it. I’m just not counting it as anything more than a story.
2 Likes
I’m still amazed people believe everything they hear. Every Sunday when a Theist goes to church, they’re being gullible because they believe everything their pastor quacks.
One million personal experiences do not equate to one data point.
1 Like
You’re fucking with me right? The dodgy evidence is not hearsay in the sense the gospels are, and that was my only point, that no one can claim to have any idea what Jesus did or said, even if he existed based on quoting the bible, and the independent “evidence” (NB not the babble) is scant evidence he existed at best.
External to what? I said independent because it isn’t part of the bible or Christian religion. You mean it’s not enough to establish the existence of Jesus, well I’m not convinced myself, never have been, AS I THOUGHT I’D MADE CLEAR.
What’s my opinion? I think you have completely misunderstood it tbh.
I neither said nor implied the independent evidence was true.
That’ll be why I described the independent evidence for an historical Jesus as scant at best, in my original post. The gospels are purely hearsay, again this was in my original post.
Knock yourself out, still not sure why you’re telling me all this? I think you may have entirely misunderstood my original post. So to clarify:
- The gospels are anonymous and unsubstantiated, the earliest records dating to decades after events they purport to describe, and therefore are hearsay by definition.
- Outside of the bible and the Christian religion, there is only testimonial historical evidence for the crucifixion and maybe the baptism of Jesus.
- I made no comment as to the veracity of that independent evidence for an historical Jesus.
- If Jesus existed I have no objective reason to believe he was anything but human.
Apologies for responding to an old post in this threat, but I was surprised to see nobody else pointed this out.
As a true believer, you are free to “do tons of fun sins” with zero risk to your mortal soul. You have the perfect safety net: acceptance of christ as the scapegoat for your sins.
In your faith, Jesus took the punishment for all sins due to all people who will accept it. Well, he did for all except one–but, don’t worry, it’s not one of the fun ones.
That’s why it’s the perfect religion for people who want to run around raping, killing babies, colonizing and converting heathens, and doing jello-shots. There is no moral imperative against any form of nastiness in the Christian faith other than committing blasphemy of the holy spirit. Those are Jesus’ words.
If you were to ask ask me, I’d say don’t do those things. But my moral compass comes from being a human living in a society with others and possessing empathy. Crazy, I know.
5 Likes
Welcome @c.m.allen … hope you enjoy your time on the boards. 
Thanks. Been here many years, took a couple years off while I was in the Middle East and I guess my account evaporated.
Most Christians just want a reward for their faith and worship from their Sky Father. That’s against their rules. From what I learned from my indoctrination and having read from the bible, If god is all knowing as the bible states, the biblical god would know that you’re a liar and a deceiver and would deny you the kingdom of heaven because you would act as an immoral savage if you believed this deity didn’t exist because your loyalty and faith were never sincere. I have morals. I don’t need to believe in the existence of gods to want to do right and be good to my fellow man. It’s pretty pathetic that a Christian like @JC1432 believes that behavior is acceptable outside of their religion.
Oh yea, naturally. That’s why I said they’re safe as a true believer.
1 Like
Welcome, c.m.alvin!
Edited for stunted post
All you do is evoke ye ole Christian apologetic; “No true believer would do those things.” It’s not worth the discussion to engage in the goal post moving and no ture Scotsman fallacies that follow.
What are you talking about? Who said no true believer would do those things? Scripture is full of amoral assholes who get saved.
They aren’t really saved if they continue the behavior. No real Christian would ever do those things. Just ask Jim Baker, Kenneth Copland, Ken Hamm, Joyce Meyer, Ray Comfort, Joel Ostene, Oral Roberts, or your local pastor.
Simply put, you don’t have to be a Christian to be a good person. It’s sad when someone thinks they need a religion to do good things. Christians really need to quit floating the idea that Morality can only be achieved through Christianity. It’s pretty embarrassing when a majority of prisoners who were raised in Christian families suddenly find religion again behind bars.
Thank you! Well said. I’ve been asked where I get my morals without gods, and I ask where they can find morality with them.
My whole point is that morality gleaned from Christianity is pretty terrible. They are allowed to be whatever monsters they want to be and then get saved and have eternal paradise. If one avers that a person, once saved, cannot sin again and then become saved again, then they are denying their own scripture. In the new covenant, Jesus stated there is no deadly sin save blasphemy of the holy spirit.
So salvation and eternal paradise are always in the offing, as long as they believe and accept the sacrifice before death. (Of course I wouldn’t call an eternity of being a sycophant to a jealous god much of a paradise.) And so, there is an underlying acceptance and tolerance of amorality in their beliefs.
We are local animals and our morality evolved with our understanding of the world. Put two people in a room, and they will invent rules and boundaries for their interactions. This is the origin of moral behavior. As far as I know, most animals on the planet have some form of moral practice. It’s not even a human thing.
I would argue that as far as we really know it is a human thing.
But yes, of course morals are a product of our environment (society, resources, etc.). I am not trying to say there is a universal moral Tao, innate or otherwise, to which we should all adhere.
The morality of the Roman empire c. 10 CE was different from neolithic Minoan, and both were wildly different from us. And “us” is only a cultural concept. I have lived in enough parts of the world to understand that there is no panhuman, homogenous morality. Well, not yet, anyway.
1 Like