Agnostic.com

8 4

I hear too many people, even atheists, say things such as that Jesus was a good man, a teacher, but not a god. Come on people, I hope you know better. This is the Jesus of the Buybull.

The Jesus character cured the leper, but not leprosy. He cured the blind man, but not blindness. He fed the multitudes and yet billions of living creatures, human and non-human die of starvation. He raised his friend from the dead, but every living creature dies. He cursed an innocent fig tree, sent demons into a herd of innocent pigs (why were pigs in a Jewish country), and he suffered less than three days of an inconvenience, since he is not dead, according to the story. He stole 12 men from their families, advised the poor to be complacent and to give unto Caesar, and his story differs from gospel to gospel. This is a god who fathered himself, sacrificed himself to himself, in order to appease his blood lust, and yet those who cannot see any evidence are condemned to eternal suffering, despite the virtue of their lives. There is no biological, historical, anthropological, nor archaeological evidence of his existence. He knew nothing about refrigeration, antibiotics, or where the sun went at night. This is a man who knew nothing of running water or hygiene, even preaching against hand washing, and he and his mother shit in the street. This is the king of kings.

daddy4pugs 7 Nov 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Whether Jesus truly existed or not, surely there are actions and attitudes expressed in his story that are worthy of respect, admiration, and even emulation.
Regardless of a belief in god striving to better oneself is one of the highest goals anyone can pursue. To show an example of what that might look like is admirable, whether the tale is true or not.
Also, even a great example may be flawed. Humans are flawed and this so are or creations. What's worse is that we are still unable to agree on which aspects within ourselves are flawed. I think the only truly ignorant statement an atheist could make about Jesus would be to claim he was perfect (perfectly good or perfectly evil) because no human is capable of conceiving of such an example.

0

Would you mind if I copy/paste this? It would make a great Thanksgiving toast.

I'm sure people will love it. LOL

1

I am not convinced that an individual man named "Jesus" ever actually existed. I think he is likely an amalgamation of messiah figures, and beliefs about god men and dying and rising gods, that were prevalent at that time and in that extended area. That aside, there are some good teachings/behaviors attributed to this character; although not all of them totally original. And, there are behaviors/teachings that, by today's standards, are downright immoral. A big problem with the Jesus character is that he was elevated to God status. Because some (meaning most Christians) have given him that status, one can point out the facts that he was scientifically ignorant; said some terrible things (such as comparing Samaritans to dogs and upholding slavery); and was, apparently, limited in his powers. These all can be used to argue against his godhood. It is still possible, however, to argue that he was an overall good man--but one who was still limited by many of the cultural beliefs of his time; again--if he even existed. And, if he didn't, we can see how the Jesus character shows at least some positive evolution of ideas.

0

I think Jesus was most likely just a fictional story. The book of Mark, is attributed to the first story and there are no fulfilled prophecies, no virgin (sexless) birth, and no resurrections. It was the story of a man who was a "miracle worker" which was pretty common in that time period, who came to be believe that the was the messiah and he was crucified for it. End of story. However, it was a popular story.

When Cervantes wrote "Don Quixote", it was a popular story too, and there were no copyright laws to protect the writers rights, so there were many imitators using the same characters.

I think when the first story of Jesus came out, it was popular and spawned a lot of imitators, who used the same characters, but they incorporated known themes of the times from other religions, such as the virgin birth and resurrection, and added details to make it appear like he fulfilled prophecies (like the three wise men). They then added other miracles, such as changing watr into wine, walking on water and so forth.

It is estimated that there were at least three dozen versions of the story of Jesus and perhaps even more than sixty at one time. After the church took over 200 years to decide which "gospels" were valid, or creted a reasonable story line without too many contradictions and were left with "the four gospels," they ordered all copies of all other "gospels destroyed. They mostly succeeded, but some survived the purge.

So, anyway, I think of Jesus as a fictional character whom people believe to have actually been real, just like many people today think that Sherlock Holmes was a real person.

1

I always like your posts daddy4pugs. You have total agreement from me.

You are obviously a very smart man. LOL Thanks, I appreciate that.

1

INORITE. Like most christians don't read the damn book, they just focus on whatever quote someone else told them that week and what they were told it means.

So many of them have gotten their information from Hollywood movies.

Well, you know, oftentimes we don't even realize what we've taken to be true just because we've seen it on TV so much, i still catch myself sometimes.

2

I am more than a bit puzzled, @daddy4pugs Your original statement is directed against atheists who consider Jesus to have been a good man and teacher. Your argument, however, is directed against theists since it is a rather effective demonstration that Jesus was not a good god.

Come again? You are indicting a historic Jesus, a man, for not curing all leprosy and blindness, for not ending poverty, for harming trees and pigs with his words, for not staying dead, and for not knowing about things a man of his time and place had no occasion to know. You also "accuse" him of not existing - which, if he didn't, renders moot whether he is to be blamed for not doing things he couldn't have if he had been a man of his time.

The only case you've made against Jesus the man here - and that quite thinly - is that he "stole 12 men from their families, advised the poor to be complacent and to give unto Caesar." Since he did not employ force in calling his disciples, there was no "stealing", and paying taxes to imperial Rome was arguably prudent (besides which - taking him to task for that directive - is to ignore the context that the question about taxes was a trap intended to get him arrested by the Romans). I won't dispute that he encouraged docility among the poor vis-a-vis their oppressors (what do you expect of a man who seems to have been a pacifist?), but he also upset the social norms of his time by associating with outcasts like prostitutes, lepers, and tax collectors, describing a good-hearted Samaritan (also anathema), and calling out the hypocrisy of priests, scribes, and Pharisees. Given that he also encouraged people to help the poor, the sick, the weak, and the suffering, I fail to see that he falls so far short of the designation of a good man and teacher.

For the record, I have had no occasion whatsoever to comment on Jesus's goodness or lack thereof for decades. Goodness isn't a valid term of historical and social scientific inquiry, so it doesn't generally crop up in my mind professionally, and I don't look much at all at 2000-year-old teachings for ethical decisions in my personal life. So I'm not here to defend Jesus, who is long dead and won't care, but to (a) question a poorly constructed argument and 🍺 ask what's so wrong about atheists acknowledging that Jesus had some significant positive qualities as a man.

If you read my comment carefully, it is a combination of information. It addresses the character of the fictitious Jesus, showing that the character is not about goodness, as well as showing that the character did not exist, due to the lack of evidence. Why you would attack my comments in this forum is puzzling, since so many people not only appreciate the content, but apparently have no problem understanding my intent. I suggest some follow up research on your own. Many people, including some atheist, assume that Jesus was a historical person and that he was harmless. I made that very clear in my opening statement. It's unfortunate that you saw this as more of an attack, than an attempt to share and inform.

Friends, Romans, Jews, lend me your ears. I come to bury Jesus, not to praise him. The evil that men do live on after them but Jesus did no evil. He was a good man, of humble origins, and one whom I called friend (as I do you). As for bones, we can't find any. He seems to have vamoosed. Men have said he was a Deity. Men have also said that they did not rape young girls after putting a drug in their wine. Who believes men? Especially men who claim to have created that wine from water? It's impossible, I tell you. We know not what was in the heart of Jesus except a spear. That's all I need know. Goodnight.

1

Hi,

Excellent meme, by the way, I really liked it. I think your post hits the hammer on the nail regarding the historical accuracy of what is said in the gospels. There's definitely a distinction between a historical Jesus and a spiritual/theological/faith Jesus. As an atheist I personally think that there was a man named Jesus at some point in modern day Israel. but that's because even secular agnostic scholars of antiquity like Bart Ehrman generally agree that he existed as a person. Everything else is suspect to extreme scrutiny and need for evidence.

Some readings you may enjoy are the wikipedia articles on Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus

I have not read those particular articles, but I will reiterate that I have never seen any recorded history, nor biological, archaeological, or anthropological evidence of his existence. All evidence shows that the Jesus character was a Roman creation. Putting the hocus pocus aside, the passages in the four gospels which describe the life of Jesus, contradict each other, omit important information, and are less consistent than many fairy tales.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:3785
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.