Jesus Christ - Fact or Fiction?

Colin,

I'm from Benfleet, nice to talk to a fellow Essex boy.
 
scott-atkinson said:
Colin,

I'm from Benfleet, nice to talk to a fellow Essex boy.
Actually, I've only been in Essex 16 years so I'm still an outsider;)

Hope you enjoy the forums.

Col
 
Rich said:
why should we be any different from plants animals etc. etc., the nearest we get to afterlife or re-incarnation is our genes being passed on to our children.


Rich,

I would tend to agree with you if only for one thing, our brain!

We only use a third of our brain power that is proven, I would question what the other 2/3rds are for. Why would we have evolved with a brian the size we have if we were never intended to use it all.

Could it be said that the other 2/3rds of our brain starts to work at a sub consciuous perhaps omnipresent level after our physical being has died?
 
ColinEssex said:
Hope you enjoy the forums.

Col

Col,

It is good to have debates of this nature rather than working the capitalists dream 24/7, which most of us do at present.
 
I believe there was a person that the writings of the bible are based on. I think he was just a man who had some good ideas and whatnot. treat people how you want to be treated, dont kill etc. good rules to live by
 
scott-atkinson said:
Could it be said that the other 2/3rds of our brain starts to work at a sub consciuous perhaps omnipresent level after our physical being has died?

That's as ridiculous as nipples on men. Do you have a source on the two thirds unused statement? While you question what it's for, you may also reverse the question and ask what it was far. Natural selection can leave legacies which, in time, it will forget. Since our life is pretty much based upon electricity within the body, that extra two thirds could be nothing more than a battery. ;)
 
SJ McAbney said:
Do you have a source on the two thirds unused statement?

I thought that was common knowledge.

SJ McAbney said:
Since our life is pretty much based upon electricity within the body, that extra two thirds could be nothing more than a battery.


This is an interesting thoery that the unsued part is merely a power regulator.
 
SJ McAbney said:
While you question what it's for, you may also reverse the question and ask what it was far. Natural selection can leave legacies which, in time, it will forget.


What do you suggest it was used for then?
 
scott-atkinson said:
SJ McAbney said:
Do you have a source on the two thirds unused statement?
I thought that was common knowledge.

Christians seem to believe that God is common knowledge, without a shred of evidence. Saying we only use one third of our brain without a source is about as useless as the witticism that 90% of all statistics are made up.
 
scott-atkinson said:
What do you suggest it was used for then?

I don't know. I'm in no way an evolutionary scientist. I don't know much about the brain at all.
 
SJ McAbney said:
I don't know. I'm in no way an evolutionary scientist. I don't know much about the brain at all.


You do pose some interesting theories, but when questioned you tend to divert. Pity.

Even you if hypothesised it would be better than just outright diversion.

There are some theorists who believe that the parts of the brain not used are there to engage us to a higher plain, now be this a heavenly plain or perhaps something alien.
 
First, the folks who think global terrorism is a minor thing should remember that terrorism is an attention getter performed by people whose ideology is so weak, forlorn, or discredited. By its very nature, though, it will ESCALATE until the terrorists get attention. Whether they finally get what they want or what they deserive is another question. But the only way to prevent terrorisism from escalating is to keep it from growing by capturing (or if necessary, killing) the terrorists BEFORE they have the chance to escalate. THAT, my friend, is in history books and has been proven too many times to be seriously disputed.

Second, did Jesus exist? There are non-religious writings that suggest he did. The Romans noted his existence in several writings that have survived to this century. However, was he divine? There, I have more serious doubts. Enough people reported him that his existence must have been of SOME note, but the details... lost except in the Bible.

It is of considerable interest, however, that many "creation" myths contain similar themes including creation from chaos, various catastrophes visited on cities, and a great flood that washed away much of humanity. It is not uncommon for folks to write of events distant in location or memory as some great upheaval. The Greeks and Romans had started to stray to a more naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena, but the Dark Ages shut down critical thinking for a long time. So many of the writers - and thinkers - of that period were superstitious, unable to find any rational explanation for things they didn't understand and unwilling to leave it along. Hence, "divine intervention." If Jesus existed and enough strange things occurred around him, he might well have been the subject of that assumption of divinity.

We must remember that most of the writers of the Holy Bible (and many other holy works in other cultures) were literate but not terribly well educated in scientific issues. (Had to wait for Sir Francis Bacon and the scientific method, don't you know...?) So as historians, they might have been OK (not great), but when it came to investigating claims of divinity, they were just ordinary people.

As to how much of our brains we use, the catch is not that we do or DON'T use our entire brain. It is that we don't know the purpose of many parts of the the brain. The numbers I have seen range from 2/3 to 90% unused. Given some of the logic Rich sometimes uses when he's on a tear, I'm inclined to believe he uses even less than the 10% figure. When he starts talking rationally again, his usage rises accordingly.

Finally, Rich, somewhere in passing you made comments about the USA not being very religious. I've seen estimates that Europe isn't any better or worse than the USA, maybe a few percent at most, in differences in church attendance and claims of religious fervor. Surely not a situation where you could claim we are an irreligious people. That statement of yours was very likely made on MINIMUM brain power. (Don't THINK it can go negative, but you offer a tempting example sometimes...)
 
The_Doc_Man said:
.
Finally, Rich, somewhere in passing you made comments about the USA not being very religious.

Do point out where and then define religious.

But the only way to prevent terrorisism from escalating is to keep it from growing by capturing (or if necessary, killing) the terrorists BEFORE they have the chance to escalate.

I see, so the burden of proof required by your own legal system is thrown out of the window when it comes to funny looking Muslims?
America's methods are no better than the terrorists you claim to be ridding the world of.
I see you're only using 5% of the brain in your response, any chance for another 5?
Oh and by the way only 3% of the population now attend church here
 
Rich said:
I see, so the burden of proof required by your own legal system is thrown out of the window

Who give's a crap, we're going to win.

End of story.
 
First, the "fact" that we only use -insert arbitrary percentage here- of our brains is mostly a myth. While it may be true most people do not utilize their brains to its fullest potential, the vast majority of their brains are active and functioning. Saying we only use a portion of our brains is like saying we only use half our car's motor when the pedal is half way down.

Second, it struck me as fairly odd to casually toss out "after surviving the crucifixion" in regards to Jesus. While it's possible to survive after being let down, generally they didn't let people down until they were dead. So what's the explanation there?

Third, my personal belief is that Jesus existed and that he was no different than anyone else. I believe that, much like Buddha, Jesus was an ordinary man who realized his potential as a human being. Of course, this is simply my personal belief. I don't claim to have proof or certainty, it just fits my view on things.
 
Kraj said:
Third, my personal belief is that Jesus existed and that he was no different than anyone else. I believe that, much like Buddha, Jesus was an ordinary man who realized his potential as a human being. Of course, this is simply my personal belief. I don't claim to have proof or certainty, it just fits my view on things.
Christ I think we're in agreement on a topic:eek:
 
Sorry to jump in here...

I think differently - Jesus is the son of God and Christianiaty and Bible are true. There is life after death. Do you believe that we have souls? Our mortal body may crumble and die but our soul would live for ever -
 
In answer to the original post, I think Christ existed and was a remarkable individual, but I think he'd be pretty disgusted with what humans have done with what he was trying to say. As much as anything he was in the right place at the right time to participate in a social and metaphysical revolution without which modern societies could not function.

That Christ was at the center of a revolution is difficult to dispute. The nature and/or causes of that revolution are harder to establish. My supposition has been for some time that in the minds of the people, Christ provided as never before an ordered, and orderly, universe.

Before Christ the mythologies of the day provided many Gods who fought and argued and harrassed humanity for sport. Before Christ the universe was chaotic, arbitrary, devoid of compassion, and provided no acknowledgement of the value of the individual. Societies built on these pre-Christian realities were harsh.

Christ provides a structured religious reality that eliminates inter-deistic rivalries and proposes a God who cares about people. What could not be extremely appealing about this shift in philosophy? Furthermore, the Pax Romana is in full swing at the time, and people never had it so good. The world might have seemed calm, generous, ordered, structured, and providing value to the individual for the first time in history. So the new religion is a sort of technology on which future advances can be predicated.

I see a sort of chicken/egg paradox with Rome and Christ, since they are the cause and the effect of each other. Ordered societies can only arise when the fundamentatal nature of reality is ordered and reality can only look ordered when you live in an ordered society.

I suspect that Islam had a similar cause/effect relationship with social/political/economic advances in that part of the world. I don't know that history so well. Comments? It's monotheism, and solves the same essential social problems that Christianity does. Ordered universe, God who cares.

In terms of some significant historical function, the current tension between religions seems small to me. 9/11 was a theatrical coup that understandably grabbed a lot of attention, but weak leadership has now perpatrated a greater terror. There's nothing new about terrorism or its big brother, aggressive war. Side show really.

The next new or significant social revolution has to be environmentalism. That or the story pauses for a new dark ages.
 
Rich said:
I see, so the burden of proof required by your own legal system is thrown out of the window
jsanders said:
Who give's a crap, we're going to win.

End of story.
So, you support the (so-called) Patriot Act?
People being locked up indefinitely, and tortured, on just the suspicion of terrorism?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom