Pope Francis: Evolution is real

[Frodo]

The truth is that - we really do not know, and hence the debates on this existence. And even if this god exists, how do we know whether it cares or bothers about us? The concept of god is man made, and the biblical version happens to be the most ideal one, or at least more acceptable to our times than the Nordic, Greek, or Hindu versions. They are all man made to human perceptions of that era. It is not my thought, but that of our species, at least the thinking ones.

Cheers!

You keep saying we do not really know. But how do you really know that? On one had you keep talking about searching for the truth (thus pushing the issue to the indefinite future) and yet also say we do not really know. Is there really a point to searching if we really do not know? It is a strange kind of epistemology that you are holding on to! An evasive epistemology. We know that we do not really know!?!?!

 

[Agoraphobic]

Do be informed that I did not think up all of this, I read them from here and there, and also from a book titled "The Pagan Christ" written by Tom Harpur, an Anglican priest who also writes a weekly column on theology in the Toronto Star. In that book, it was stated that the story of Jesus was put together from earlier stories of divine beings from civilisations like the ancient Egyptians. The story of Jesus also highlighted the yearning of a saviour, a messiah, to free the Jews from Roman rule, who must have taxed them till it was unbearable. So a persona like Jesus of Nazareth was a figure the oppressed peoples could look to for spiritual and social strength. The stories of miracles, the Three Wise Men who appeared, all adds up to him being divine and lends support to his claim, that's all. Bro, this, is more likely to be truer than miracles, the resurrection, speaking in tongues and all that. I am not asking you to switch your faith, it just happens to be my reasoning.

One more word about the book The Pagan Christ, people who have read it, especially ex-Christians who have questioned their faith, have written to the author thanking him for the book saying it has reinforced their faith in Christ, the spiritual Christ, and not the historical Christ, because it makes sense. I do not know if the book is available in Sg, I bought and read it in Toronto, but you can google it for comments.

Cheers!

It seems to be that you may just be conjuring up arbitrary and ad hoc novel ideas that are more fantastic as it goes, just to prop up the claim that the Biblical Jesus did not exist! One question for you, why would the early Christians choose to die for a fake make-belief story? Or are you suggesting that ALL were deceived right from the start? That's even more unbelievable and illogical! I wonder if you have ever read the Bible, or the NT writings, did the writers put themselves as someone engaging in wishful thinking? And that the truth does not matter at all? An honest reading of the Bible will not lend itself to such a conclusion.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Yes. We really do not know, and are still searching, asking, questioning. This theme was depicted in a movie, I think it was called Prometheus. Sorry if it bothers you, but for the time being, that is the way things are.

Cheers!

You keep saying we do not really know. But how do you really know that? On one had you keep talking about searching for the truth (thus pushing the issue to the indefinite future) and yet also say we do not really know. Is there really a point to searching if we really do not know? It is a strange kind of epistemology that you are holding on to! An evasive epistemology. We know that we do not really know!?!?!

 

[Frodo]

Do be informed that I did not think up all of this, I read them from here and there, and also from a book titled "The Pagan Christ" written by Tom Harpur, an Anglican priest who also writes a weekly column on theology in the Toronto Star. In that book, it was stated that the story of Jesus was put together from earlier stories of divine beings from civilisations like the ancient Egyptians. The story of Jesus also highlighted the yearning of a saviour, a messiah, to free the Jews from Roman rule, who must have taxed them till it was unbearable. So a persona like Jesus of Nazareth was a figure the oppressed peoples could look to for spiritual and social strength. The stories of miracles, the Three Wise Men who appeared, all adds up to him being divine and lends support to his claim, that's all. Bro, this, is more likely to be truer than miracles, the resurrection, speaking in tongues and all that. I am not asking you to switch your faith, it just happens to be my reasoning.

One more word about the book The Pagan Christ, people who have read it, especially ex-Christians who have questioned their faith, have written to the author thanking him for the book saying it has reinforced their faith in Christ, the spiritual Christ, and not the historical Christ, because it makes sense. I do not know if the book is available in Sg, I bought and read it in Toronto, but you can google it for comments.

Cheers!

I have heard of it but not read it. So one question for you, which is of your own. How does the author really know what he wrote is true? How do YOU really know that what he wrote in The Pagan Christ is true? Or is it true simply because it is anti-Biblical? I hope you are not of such a persuasion! Anyway, for a detailed refutation see http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

 

[Frodo]

Yes. We really do not know, and are still searching, asking, questioning. This theme was depicted in a movie, I think it was called Prometheus. Sorry if it bothers you, but for the time being, that is the way things are.

Cheers!

But how do you really know that that is the way things really are? See how this line of reasoning backfires on you?

 

[Sinkie]

I have heard of it but not read it. So one question for you, which is of your own. How does the author really know what he wrote is true? How do YOU really know that what he wrote in The Pagan Christ is true? Or is it true simply because it is anti-Biblical? I hope you are not of such a persuasion! Anyway, for a detailed refutation see http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

I never sealed your forehead......so you're not one of the 144,000. Now, kindly step aside and fuck off.

 

[Agoraphobic]

It is the author's view. He is a highly regarded theologian and an ex-Anglican clergyman, but I read and noted his comments not because of his position, but because it makes sense, and is logical. By the same argument, how do you know that the Bible is true? Because it makes sense?

Cheers!

I have heard of it but not read it. So one question for you, which is of your own. How does the author really know what he wrote is true? How do YOU really know that what he wrote in The Pagan Christ is true? Or is it true simply because it is anti-Biblical? I hope you are not of such a persuasion! Anyway, for a detailed refutation see http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

 

[Agoraphobic]

Bro, I said we do not know, and are still searching. How does this backfire on me?

Cheers!

But how do you really know that that is the way things really are? See how this line of reasoning backfires on you?

 

[Frodo]

It is the author's view. He is a highly regarded theologian and an ex-Anglican clergyman, but I read and noted his comments not because of his position, but because it makes sense, and is logical. By the same argument, how do you know that the Bible is true? Because it makes sense?

Cheers!

Wait, why would the normal understanding of Jesus as presented in the Bible not make sense or is illogical, compared to what this Pagan Christ author wrote? What is your critera for "make sense and is logical"?

As for me, how do I know the Bible is true? Well, there are many lines of evidence that support the claim. In fact, right from the first verse the Bible is already correct when it speaks of a beginning to the universe, something that science has only lately verified to be so.

 

[Frodo]

Bro, I said we do not know, and are still searching. How does this backfire on me?

Cheers!

It backfires when on one hand you reject Christianity because you said "we do not really know", but then you apparently accept other claims critical of Christianity, as if "we do not really know" does not apply. It's a consistency thing. The "we do not really know" should apply to even what this Pagan Christ author wrote, and every other thing for that matter. In short, it really damages your own position because you simply have to give up knowing anything, unless you engage in special pleading.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Firstly, if you choose to believe in the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and all that, nobody can stop you, but to a thinking mind, those things are not possible, except in stories. The subject book did not go to prove itself with evidence, just approached the "story" from a more possible angle, and that is the story of Jesus was a compilation of earlier divine stories from earlier civilisations. It is plain and simple. The story of Jesus of Nazareth that present day Christians have come to accept that "happened" during the time of Caesar appealed to mankind during earlier times who were surrounded by mystical and superstitious beliefs, and the story of a good, fair, divine saviour is heartening and helpful to peoples especially during hardship, ruled by a brutal regime like imperial Rome, so Jesus was welcomed into the hearts and homes of peoples then, and over the centuries, cemented as actual events. Today, with science taking over much of out logic and senses, society has questioned the biblical stories and much of which just doesn't make sense, and hence the churches congregations in advanced countries are diminishing (not the same for backward or poorer nations), and this book published in these modern times helps explain the story of Jesus and puts it in a more acceptable position.

Cheers!

Wait, why would the normal understanding of Jesus as presented in the Bible not make sense or is illogical, compared to what this Pagan Christ author wrote? What is your critera for "make sense and is logical"?

As for me, how do I know the Bible is true? Well, there are many lines of evidence that support the claim. In fact, right from the first verse the Bible is already correct when it speaks of a beginning to the universe, something that science has only lately verified to be so.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I am not Christian because I do not attend church, do not belong to a parish, and do not recite the Apostles Creed (as I do not believe it.) But I am a Christian, in that I believe the preachings of Jesus in the story, his message, and try to follow his example of kindness, compassion, and where I can, be a little charitable to less fortunate. Whether you call me a Christian or not, does not matter to me, worship and idolising religious deities is a personal thing, and has nothing to do with being human, although as a free thinking human, we have a choice to embrace whatever religion/;belief we choose.

Cheers!

It backfires when on one hand you reject Christianity because you said "we do not really know", but then you apparently accept other claims critical of Christianity, as if "we do not really know" does not apply. It's a consistency thing. The "we do not really know" should apply to even what this Pagan Christ author wrote, and every other thing for that matter. In short, it really damages your own position because you simply have to give up knowing anything, unless you engage in special pleading.

 

[Frodo]

I am not Christian because I do not attend church, do not belong to a parish, and do not recite the Apostles Creed (as I do not believe it.) But I am a Christian, in that I believe the preachings of Jesus in the story, his message, and try to follow his example of kindness, compassion, and where I can, be a little charitable to less fortunate. Whether you call me a Christian or not, does not matter to me, worship and idolising religious deities is a personal thing, and has nothing to do with being human, although as a free thinking human, we have a choice to embrace whatever religion/;belief we choose.

Cheers!

Mere attendance in church services or recital of the Apostles Creed does not make one a Christian, nor do calling oneself a Christian means one is a Christian. Perhaps the label is too easily worn and many are misusing that label. But in all seriousness, being a Christian is not just being in name only, it implies many things. It starts with repentance from sin and accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour. So if you have not made that decision, then you should not wear that label as it would give a very misleading picture.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Not a problem, I am not a Christian then, because to me, this Jesus guy is a teacher, that is all, I am my own lord, and saviour then.

Cheers!

Mere attendance in church services or recital of the Apostles Creed does not make one a Christian, nor do calling oneself a Christian means one is a Christian. Perhaps the label is too easily worn and many are misusing that label. But in all seriousness, being a Christian is not just being in name only, it implies many things. It starts with repentance from sin and accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour. So if you have not made that decision, then you should not wear that label as it would give a very misleading picture.

 

[Frodo]

Not a problem, I am not a Christian then, because to me, this Jesus guy is a teacher, that is all, I am my own lord, and saviour then.

Cheers!

But the question is, Was Jesus just a teacher? Or did He claim to be more than that?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Jesus of Nazareth is a fictitious, made-up story. In that story, he was the messiah and saviour to the oppressed peoples, a rebel to the Jewish authority, a trouble-maker to the Romans rulers, the Son of God to Christians, a prophet in Islam. To me, a teacher. He can be anything you want him to be.

Cheers!

But the question is, Was Jesus just a teacher? Or did He claim to be more than that?

 

[Frodo]

Jesus of Nazareth is a fictitious, made-up story. In that story, he was the messiah and saviour to the oppressed peoples, a rebel to the Jewish authority, a trouble-maker to the Romans rulers, the Son of God to Christians, a prophet in Islam. To me, a teacher. He can be anything you want him to be.

Cheers!

That would be to disregard truth. Jesus either existed or He did not. The evidence does not support a fictitious Jesus concocted by power hungry Christians to enslave people. On the contrary, the historical facts are that Jesus was a real person who was killed under Pilate, and who had followers who believed He rose from the dead, and these followers were persecuted and killed for their beliefs. These are undeniable facts. Why would anyone want to die for what they know is a made up story? Can you give a credible reply to this question?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Truth? Historical facts? Where is the evidence? Like I said, no one is going to prevent those who wish to believe to do so. But solid physical evidence have not been found or produced. Some people have died for what they believed in because they have what we call faith, which to some others, is called stupidity.

Cheers!

That would be to disregard truth. Jesus either existed or He did not. The evidence does not support a fictitious Jesus concocted by power hungry Christians to enslave people. On the contrary, the historical facts are that Jesus was a real person who was killed under Pilate, and who had followers who believed He rose from the dead, and these followers were persecuted and killed for their beliefs. These are undeniable facts. Why would anyone want to die for what they know is a made up story? Can you give a credible reply to this question?

 

[Frodo]

Truth? Historical facts? Where is the evidence? Like I said, no one is going to prevent those who wish to believe to do so. But solid physical evidence have not been found or produced. Some people have died for what they believed in because they have what we call faith, which to some others, is called stupidity.

Cheers!

It's one thing to die for what you believe in, but quite another thing to die for what you know is a concocted story. So you still have not given a credible reply on why the early Christians would choose to die for what they know is a lie, going by your claim. Your reply have to be consistent with your claim.

 

[Agoraphobic]

That's easy - they stupid.

Cheers!

It's one thing to die for what you believe in, but quite another thing to die for what you know is a concocted story. So you still have not given a credible reply on why the early Christians would choose to die for what they know is a lie, going by your claim. Your reply have to be consistent with your claim.