32651 Atheists the religion

If the atheists say yes, they demand that we accept it existed, I'd like to see them produce a scientific evidence, but that they say they do not have to as religions were there first so they have to deliver the proof, and when that is done the Atheist says we do not accept this as proof. However if we then ask them to show their proof they still demand that we show the proof what we done already, but they do not accept but do not come up with their own proof, most logical as it does not exist. Si if the Atheist says no, then they demands that we accept that it does not exist; in short they lost the argument. Now, who's more delusional? The most atheists have problems with Jesus claim of divinity. Now, they are showing their ignorance in denial of his existence. How convenient way to dismiss him and refuse to confront his claims.

Even Richard Dawkins acknowledged the historical existence of Jesus, deluded as he is concerning religion, even he can go around the truth. He simply refuses to believe what he himself claims. Only idiots will say he didn't exist. It isn't important whether Plato and Aristotle existed, although man can have little doubt that they did. There is a consistent body of ideas and texts written by someone or several people in each case, which can be studied, analysed and debated. Which brings us back to Jesus, if you believe in the atonement, in the Incarnation, then he has to have existed for any of that to be happening. If you simply accept his words, you've obvious missed the point. For Christianity to be valid Jesus must have existed or there is no salvation. If Plato and Aristotle didn't exist, the work attributed to them stands on its own merits. As it happens, Christ's words do too, but Christians don't interpret his life in that way.

Jesus of Nazareth, wrote nothing himself, not so far we know, this is unfortunate, yet hardly cause to deny existence, esp. since 99.99% of the humans living at those time were illiterate and also left no written or personal records. All that we know about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle was written 1000 years after they died. Plato’s first document is dated 900 A.D. but he was supposedly to be alive in 400 BC. There are 7 epistles from Plato said to be from him as such why was it published 1300 years later. But people belief they did exist regardless although there is no actual proof, any proof. Maybe they were just part of Greek mythology. After all, what we know about Jesus the Christ was written after 100 years of His death and told within the following ten years after his death, and written by eyewitnesses such as John and Matthew, men who said they really knew Him and spoke to Him.

Atheists, the anti-Christ intellectuals as they call themselves make fun of Fundamentalists like me who hold to the fact that Christ ever existed and spoke the words he said to have spoken, raised the dead, turned water into wine, purged the Temple; and after he rose into heaven to prepare a place for those who believe in him, sent us The Holy Spirit who comforts and guides all of us who bend their knee and heart before Almighty Father God and His Son and Servant Jesus as our Master and Lord and Saviour. The time of Christ was from 00 B.C. until 33 A.D. We have 114 fragments of the New Testament dating back to 30-100 A.D., and 5366 Greek copies of parts of the New Testament, and over 19,000 manuscripts in other languages, including 250 books containing most of the N.T and 325 complete New Testaments within 225 years of their writing and less than 300 years from Christ’s Resurrection. More than 500 saw Jesus after his Death; and many of them died claiming the evidence of their own eyes and ears and hands.

In today’s Courts of law this would be overwhelmed by this sheer weight of ultimate conviction, and of course, the Jews and Romans never found the Body of Jesus, and make no doubt of it, Jesus is the greatest threat to human power both of Rome and the False and Pharisee farcical Religion of the Jewish, in that time, and if they had found Jesus body they would have paraded it through Jerusalem to show that he was not the Messiah, and Jesus had not risen to Heaven and the whole thing would have been seen as a fraud if they would had found it!

As such as it turned out Jesus was, by far, the most influential man that ever existed, I don’t even care if Plato existed or not, or who wrote his seven articles, he couldn’t hold a candle to Jesus or Paul or Luke or any child who knows the Truth that Jesus Loves Us so much that he died for us. OK I have to admit that sometimes the urge for finding Jesus is even for a person like me a little too much, even when I can look back at times that death was close but I was saved to fight another day. Even I have thoughts that should not be part of me, but if I hear a person saying that she was provided with a parking spot at the super market, and then later crashed into the metal bollards at the drive way out, then I think that God must have gotten tired of finding parking places for her and placed the bollard in her way, so that she could get the handicapped places.

As Nietzsche said it in The Anti-Christ: "that little hypocrites and half-crazed people dare to imagine that on their account the laws of nature are constantly broken. That such an enhancement of every kind of selfishness to infinity, to impudence, cannot be branded with sufficient contempt. And yet Christianity owes some of its triumph to this pitiable flattery of personal vanity indeed. The sacred is always present in societies, a basic elemental way of thinking about the world, identifying what is of greatest importance, and unifying groups of people together. Totems, taboos, territories, time, and so on are all tied in to what counts as sacred and how that is differentiated from the profane. Nothing is more important to social identities and solidarity than the sacred -- it is both the glue that binds individuals together and the source for profound and meaningful religious experiences that shape cultural values and ideals. Gods and spirits, texts and flags, animals and landscapes are only a few examples of sacred phenomena found throughout human history. While the sacred can unite groups around shared values and common rituals, unfortunately it can also divide people against each other and justify competition, conflicts, and killing. The engines of human history are fuelled by contestations over the sacred; because we can't agree about this elemental fact of social life and so much is at stake in protecting the sacred from threats and profanations, it has been a perennial force in establishing enemies and ensuring warfare.

It has to be said that the sad truth about religion through history is its centrality as a source for violence and bloodshed and hatred, where one religion does not accept another one and will fight till one of them is eliminated, similar as we see at the moment between the Western Christians and the Middle East Islam has been for hundreds of years and getting worst as in a end phase. History proves this point without a doubt, and anyone informed about current global conflicts knows this fact continues to be so.

On the other hand, religion is not all bad and can, at times, bring out the best in people as a force for social justice, individual transformation, and cultural regeneration. The sacred has long been a constant and powerful source in human societies that can heal and restore those who are sick and suffering; inspire leaders and artists to create new ways of seeing the world and its mysteries; and rally individuals to unite and overcome obstacles that threaten the social order. Look at the Gospels, which were written at least 30 years after Christ's death, and the newest of them might have been written more than 200 years after his death. These texts have been amended, translated, and re-translated so often that it's extremely difficult to gauge the accuracy of current editions, even aside from the matter of the accuracy of texts written decades or centuries after the death of their subject.

This was such an expanding problem that the Jesus Seminar, a colloquium of over 200 Protestant Gospel scholars mostly employed at religious colleges and seminaries, undertook in 1985 a multi-year investigation into the historicity of the statements and deeds attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. They concluded that only 18% of the statements and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus had a high likelihood of being historically accurate. So, in a very real sense fundamentalists, who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, are not followers of Jesus Christ; rather, they are followers of those who, decades or centuries later, put words in his mouth, he most likely never said. While leaving out the word he could have said but did not fit the idea they had as such we can only see the percentage for the Old Testament was seen as 5% of the history and 3% of the prophetic deeds.


Other pages:

This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page | Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com