Does the same go for the Quran?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Does the same go for the Quran?
Which is a good point. But it's not really spending a lifetime, or couple of lifetimes, studying and then deconstructing the Quran like people have done with other books.
Evolution is a good place to start but there's so much more that can be done on that challenge front. At least some Muslims will begin to question things more if not the whole lot.
Great footy poster...but I'm sorry bish, I don't think you'll ever make Pope with views like that.
Ha. My mum will be gutted. She still hopes I'll become Arch Bishop of Canterbury one day.
I think noteable dissenters having very public fatwah's put out on them may be a point of discouragement. The Muslim world has not quite reached the level of secularness the West has, to begin to allow this kind of thing in open forums. We barely have. Blasphemy law still existed in the UK until 2008.
Notable dissenters are good too, but again too small a number to make a difference. Unfortunately, Islam is at a point of tyrannical and divisive rule (as the Qur'an predicted would happen, ha! 
) and there are fatwas left, right and centre.
But one thing is clear, the Qur'an itself has said to challenge it. Therefore, no fatwas can be issued if one serves their lifetime doing so. At least no fatwas that will hold any water with common Muslims.
And the forum (not necessarily on the internet) to be used has to avoid shrills, diverters, etc, from both sides. There are loads of sites like "Answering Islam" or "Answering Christianity" but they're just Redcafe or RAWK on heat really. Anyway, I think we've take this conversation as far as we can with my capabilities and on a footy forum. Ironically.
) and there are fatwas left, right and centre.But one thing is clear, the Qur'an itself has said to challenge it. Therefore, no fatwas can be issued if one serves their lifetime doing so. At least no fatwas that will hold any water with common Muslims.
And the forum (not necessarily on the internet) to be used has to avoid shrills, diverters, etc, from both sides. There are loads of sites like "Answering Islam" or "Answering Christianity" but they're just Redcafe or RAWK on heat really. Anyway, I think we've take this conversation as far as we can with my capabilities and on a footy forum. Ironically.
Doesn't the complete absence of contemporaneous evidence for the existence of JC seem more than a tad suspicious to believers?
As far as I understand it, historians have stopped questioning the existence of Jesus Christ and there's a near universal acceptance that he did exist.
Im not really sure what the burden of proof is with regards to proving the existence of historical figures, but apparently he meets it.
Edit: Saw this on that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
That article has been locked because there seems to be an organised campaign to overstate the evidence. The fact remains that there isn't a single contemporaneous mention of JC by anyone anywhere ever. Nothing at all for 40-100 years after his alleged death. A whole lifetime in that era and even then it was by some Greek bloke and not someone from the area of the alleged events. After that it looks like copying combined with chinese whispers.
Last edited:
I tend to believe there was a man. I think he was a great storyteller, a true writer of his time. I think his stories were used and manipulated and it confuses me but mostly intrigues me as to how all our lives are still affected today by these stories.
I don't believe a son of god came down here and died for our sins though, that's a fairytale. After all, we are all still sinners and we can all get to heaven anyway, so it seems a bit pointless. An omnipresent God could have just picked this moment and tweeted us.
I don't believe a son of god came down here and died for our sins though, that's a fairytale. After all, we are all still sinners and we can all get to heaven anyway, so it seems a bit pointless. An omnipresent God could have just picked this moment and tweeted us.
I always assumed that but looking at the lack of evidence I have come to doubt it. I'm sure parts of the bible come from real events and from other older stories but the lack of evidence for such major events strongly suggest to me that no such person existed at all. Or of they did they were a very minor player who was used to build the story that is now the Christian JC. A recent article I read summarised things nicely,
1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of JC.
2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life but later writers are much clearer as the myth firms up.
3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.
4. The gospels are our only accounts of a historical Jesus and they contradict each other.
5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different people.
1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of JC.
2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life but later writers are much clearer as the myth firms up.
3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.
4. The gospels are our only accounts of a historical Jesus and they contradict each other.
5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different people.
Well maybe he was just a normal storyteller who people used to push an agenda. That's how Christianity and most other religions seem to me to be anyway. I just can't see how they aren't control devices, I can't get my head round how some actually believe these stories.
That's not questioning faith, there's nothing wrong in believing in being good and wanting to find salvation. But I'd rather go with the 'interpretation' thing than the literal one when it comes to the bible.
I now think it is more likely that he didn't exist at all in any meaningful sense. Given the impact he allegedly made at the time causing the authorities to hunt him down and kill him plus him supposedly rising from the dead, supposedly the most historically certain part of the story, if this happened it seems almost impossible that it wasn't written about at the time.
Well that's all part of what I think is a myth. Built up over time as one of the many exaggerations.
Like any story, I think the whole thing is based loosely on a true person. I just think the stories were either deliberately manipulated or just spiraled. He might have told stories, he might just have had a refreshing outlook on life that people took notice of. Whatever, I think the basis is probably on a real man, but nothing like we come to think of him.
Maybe. Even Cargo Cults were probably very loosely based on a myth about a real person. That said I have seen no evidence that this wasn't pure invention.
I haven't really thought about the evidence base for a long time, though I had previously concluded he seemed almost certain to exist. I don't for a moment personally believe he did miracles or was resurrected, since that breaches my beliefs of how the world works. But certainly I took it as him being a person.
The trouble with Jesus is that he's such a significant figure that the level of proof for his existence is invariably going to be greater in the minds of sceptics, and lower in the mind of believers. If you believe he exists, any evidence is confirmation. If you believe he doesn't, even a fair amount of evidence might not be enough to change your mind, because of the other beliefs that might challenge. No-one worries about the lack of evidence for Pythagoras, because at the end of the day its neither here nor there whether he existed, so no-one's beliefs are really being tested.
Anyway, maybe I should revisit all of that because its a while since I looked into it.
It doesnt bother me if he did exist as a person because it is so obviously a lot of invented nonsense either way. However, having always assumed it was based on a bloke who said it might be a good idea to be nice to each other for a change it surprised me that there was literally zero mention of him by anyone contemperaneously. Which stretches credulity to its limits.
Tacitus mentions the existence of Jesus and his execution by Pontius. A thing to remember is that Jesus affect on the Roman world at the time of his existence when he would have been recorded would have been very small and not even news worthy. He was a small hippy with a few hundred followers in one of their colonies. They had the rest of their empire to deal with. He wasn't a Gandhi figure in his day affecting millions. This lack of recorded knowledge of the man fed the whole myth and legend side I believe.
In the context of there being Christians, mind. And quite a bit after the presumed date of his crucifixion.
I still think Jesus existed, it just doesn't really have any bearing on my views on Christianity. There were plenty of Messiah figures in that time period.
Josephus mentions Jesus (writing about 40 years after the crucifixion). The gist of his very limited comment was: 'they'd come up with another bleedin' wonder-worker down in Galilee'. The Tacitus passage is likely an interpolation by later authors
Last edited:
I've always thought there was a guy named Jesus Christ or something similar to that, who was an incredibly gifted or smart vagabond. Not a son of god, not a magician or anything of that ilk, just a clever man who had socialist, compassionate ideas and a tendency to hang around with hookers and hobos.
Ive always felt the point is that it helps people feel better and something to look forward to. Could be in this life, the next life, in heaven or wherever. And who am I to question somebody who is happy.
Its great if they're happy from their religious views but if they make you unhappy by trying to force them upon you, there has to be a line somewhere.
Yes, youre right. But in that scenario I dont question their decisions. They love by those. I just remove myself from that person.
I actually have a fanatical aunt who is always trying to force religion on any and all. If she starts her preaching, Im out of that room.
Check out Pete, the Cafs own New Testament scholar.
Last edited:
What does that have to do with non-Biblical contemporary sources for Jesus? I hope you don't think Tacitus is in the Bible.
This is a topic I've always found quite weird.
I respect the decisions of people to do as they wish and if they genuinely abstain until marriage, fair play, it is their choice (if it is fully their choice).
Yet again, many people don't actually abstain? I don't know about others but I know of a few Catholics and Muslims especially who see pre-marital sex as disgusting but see nothing wrong with a session of anal sex. After all, how will their future husband or wife ever find out? My son met a Southern Baptist a few years ago as well. Can't quite remember how it came up but he was telling her that he is pro-choice when it comes to abortion and that he is for women doing as they please. She looked at him with disgust. Turned out later on that she was quite partial to giving out blowjobs. Vaginal sex on the other hand....completely off the books until marriage. Not sure God sees them as that different to be honest....
The topic of sex and religion is a strange one.
Well I've actually read Josephus which is probably more than can be said for anyone else. And I'm still waiting for those rebuttals of the problem of evil, learned one.
Evil stems from disobedience to God.
So God provides no evidence for his existence and then punishes us for not believing in him and following his silly rules. Like Bill Hicks said, a 'prankster god' who runs around planting fossils in the ground to trick us into not believing in creationism. I would rather burn in hell for infinity than bow to such an evil creature. Whether it's the Christian God or Allah, he seems a disgusting individual.
God allows his servants on Earth to fiddle with children and not be punished. What an evil bastard.
I thought Hitchens had a decent point that the ham-fistedness of inventing a census in his year of birth that made Mary return to Bethlehem for it meant there probably is some historical basis to his existence, but he then just got retconned into the whole prophecy/messiah shenanigans. If it was complete invention, you'd think it would be far simpler to just say he was born, lived and did all his miracle shit there in Bethlehem.
Not sure where to post this, but since it is about religion and I wonder what the point of it all is, I post it here.
Ali A. Rizvi, ex-Muslim from Pakistan now living in Canada, on Pakistan: "[...] we also have a population largely in denial and drunk on religion."
Ali A. Rizvi, ex-Muslim from Pakistan now living in Canada, on Pakistan: "[...] we also have a population largely in denial and drunk on religion."
So innocents die from natural evil every day? Why? For what? The indifference of the universe.
We will never know until we die. And religion is simply a belief that gives millions of people comfort and it should be left at that. I personally believe in a greater being, whether that is God or anything else. However I believe that the stories in the bible are taken too literally, instead of being a ''moral guide'' to living a better life and being considerate of others and oneself. Do I make any sense? :S
If only religion was 'simply' that, there'd be no reason to have this discussion.