 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 9/16/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Hey all-
I'm looking for the best arguments you've heard against Jesus from an atheist's perspective. The more persuasive the better.
Thanks,
Rickster | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 9/17/2003 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | One strong argument used against God in general (and not just Jesus) is that if there is IS only one God or gods, and if he/she/it/they know that humans have contradictory beliefs about them fighting over which is really true, why doesn't he/she/it/they do something about it?
Obviously some considered unbelievers are sincere enough as evidenced by willingness of some to blow themselves up.
This leads to a number of conclusions, one of which is that he/she/it/they are allowing this for some reason, which on the surface seems cruel.
However, the strongest argument though which diffuses this "If there is a God, then why..." complaint is that when Jesus was among the people, He performed miracles. He cured people of diseases, made food from nothing, even raised the dead. Yet those who needed the most convincing (the Scribes and Pharisees) STILL didn't believe. They ascribed it to Satan, tricks, whatever you call it. In fact in Jesus' story about Lazarus and the rich man, Abraham said that if they do not believe Moses and Prophets, they will not believe even if someone is raised from the dead.
Ironic isn't it then that after Jesus Himself was raised from the dead that those words hold true even today.
The Bible (and indeed most philosophers, Christian or not) agree in that there is some sort of written code (conscious, etc.) which humans have. It's what gives societies a universal support of values such as selflessness, and condemnation for the opposite (yeah, sign up for the army and then turn traitor killing your own men on the battlefield and deserting afterwards. Way to go, saving your own arse!).
Just about all historians (Christian or otherwise) accept that Jesus existed. Given this, is what was said about Him accurate? Then how did Christianity flourish? No body was turned up after the cruxifiction. And even if it was all a sham, accepting the tenents of Christianity back in that day was not to your advantage. Unlike religions such as Islam, it taught to submit to the authorities (which often meant jail or death), it brought upon ridicule and excommunication by the Jewish leadership (the first Christians were Jews), and it spoke of nothing regarding immediate gain. True, the same might be said for other religions as well, but examining the lives of Jesus and His disciples indicate something truly irrational, or just plain true.
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/22/2003 9:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul Eddy and I are writting a book on this right now (tentatively titled The Jesus Dilemma: Myth, History and Christ). The best arguments they have, I believe , are....
1) Judaism of the first century was thoroughly hellenized, hence open to myth-making.
2) Miracles are always so improbable that it is always more reasonable to assume there's a natural explanation than not.
3) there are parallels to the Christ-myth.
4) Paul says very little about the historical Jesus. He never quotes him, even in areas where doing so would help his cause. This suggest that Jesus was for Paul merely a heavenly savior figure, not a recent historical person.
5) no non-christian sources mention Jesus, and we would expect them to if Jesus was like the gospels portray him.
6) the gospels are anonymous, late, and unreliable.
In our book we take each of these claims to task. But, you didn't ask for that. You just wanted their[/ib] best arguments.
later
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 9/22/2003 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Boyd,
Interesting list.
1) The accusation that Christianity was based on popular myths of the time is a relatively weak arugment (Many Jews for example claim that the Virgin birth is a mirror of Greek mythology of gods impregnating humans). Mainly because MANY religions can have similar rituals or beliefs, yet that does not necessarily invalidate one or both of them. For example, animal sacrifices were an integral part of Judaism, yet many pagan religions did the same thing. And it's often been theorized that proverbs from Solomon were influenced by Egyptian culture since they have similar statements.
2) Define "natural explanation"? A miracle by definition (mine anyway) is one which does not follow the axioms (worldview) you accept as true. For one who adheres to strict classical science, it is a "miracle" for the dead to rise 3 days later on their own. Of course, it used to be a "miracle" to have Newton's equations not work.
3) Again, see 1). Just because there are similarites, doesn't mean it isn't true. Counterfeits are SUPPOSED to look like the original. That's why I like the answer to the question, "Why are there so many religions and they all seem the same?" Because if you were the Devil, wouldn't you want to make a false religion that was SIMILAR to the real thing? Of course, the trick now is determining the real from the counterfeit.
4) This is a much-attacked position (esp by Muslims who accept the Gospels as inspired and claim Paul perverted Jesus' identity). What was failed to mention though, was that it was not Paul alone who testified to Christ's ministry, but at least 11 others who had better firsthand knowledge. Unless Paul was somehow able to overshadow the testimony of these 11 (plus the women who saw Him after the resurrection, etc) I fail to see how this argument refutes the Gospels. Granted, you may attack the Paul's INTERPRETATION of Jesus' ministry and what His words meant in his Epistles, but to claim that He didn't believe Jesus was a real person? Why would the other apostles accept Paul then?
5) This sounds counter to what I've heard, even from historians who are not Christians or even religious at all. Just about all historians accept that there was a person called Jesus of whom the Gospels talk about, but just disagree on his claims and events in His life.
6) Then would so many other books of ancient history. You'd be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/23/2003 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Let us know, Doc, when the book is due out!
Thanks,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:35 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|