Dear Atheists..

[johnny crossan]

Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God?

(A one word answer will suffice, but if you feel the need to expatiate, at least start the answer with yes or no).

Yes and as an Anglican the first two of the 39 Articles apply
I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, ever- lasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

 

[tonea2003]

It's extraordinarily depressing that a recent CoE survey found 22% of adults in England didn't believe Jesus was a real person. It is quite true as an obscure peasant there are no surviving archaeological artefacts for him. (Although last month - hey presto! https://catholicherald.co.uk/new-evidence-indicates-turin-shroud-not-a-european-forgery/).
Turin Shroud and the biblical record aside there is though abundant corroborating evidence about his life given in the near contemporary accounts of Roman and Jewish historians like Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger & Suetonius - who were all hostile to him. This is exactly what you would expect for a messianic figure at this period and no serious historian doubts Jesus' historicity these days.

never mentioned artefacts you did
obscure peasant..... have you read the gospels mate
if he were a obscure peasant then why being hailed the king of the jews and being in the trial of the century with the masses shouting free Barabbas???

you cant have it both ways

what's so "hey presto" just because it may not be a european forgery it might well be a middle eastern forgery

the biblical record has to be doubted, certainly the gospels do due what i've mentioned before

those you cite i know you say near but all were at least a generation away if not more before they reached adulthood

the josepehus reference to jesus is doubted you know that or should know it

you are are best being duplicitous or you are out and out lying to serve your point

and for the last time i never said he didn't exist but i find it strange

 

[johnny crossan]

never mentioned artefacts you did
obscure peasant..... have you read the gospels mate
if he were a obscure peasant then why being hailed the king of the jews and being in the trial of the century with the masses shouting free Barabbas???

you cant have it both ways

what's so "hey presto" just because it may not be a european forgery it might well be a middle eastern forgery

the biblical record has to be doubted, certainly the gospels do due what i've mentioned before

everyone you cite were not contemporary in fact none were even born
the josepehus reference to jesus is doubted you know that or should know it
you are are best being duplicitous or you are out and out lying to serve your point

and for the last time i never said he didn't exist but i find it strange

Whatever.

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

Yes and as an Anglican the first two of the 39 Articles apply
I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, ever- lasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

I just can’t square any of this. You stated about ‘God’:

of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness

And yet he chooses to do nothing whilst children are blown to pieces in wars not of their making, women are raped, battered and killed the world over, good people endure thoroughly miserable lives suffering daily in absolute poverty, even starving to death.

If he has infinite power, wisdom and goodness, then what does it say that he chooses to do nothing to alleviate any of it?

 

[tonea2003]

Whatever.

quite sad really

running away when presented with facts

 

[Lowtower]

Is this thread worth reading through?

 

[Damocles]

Why do you assume my post is limited to religion, you’re joining, incredibly, Damocles, in assumption levels.

If several people all got to the same assumption from your post then maybe it's your post at fault and not the other people?

I’ve never been presented with anything that’s convinced me of Jesus’ historicity.

I presume this is because you're not a historical scholar? Why would you have found this? There's very very few who doubt the historicity of Jesus. He's much more evidentially supported than Homer, Pythagorus, Sun Tzu, and many other that I presume you've never doubted

Not really, I understand science and biology. You’re dead or you’re not, there’s no going to dead and back again.May as well read about Vikings and Valhalla.

There are very literally thousands of accounts of people being "dead" and "coming back" again. I doubt your scientific understanding if this is the first you've ever heard of such a thing. Even the concept itself of "dead" has been redefined over and over and over again throughout history.

The majority of religious people (actually all, I would argue) follow their religion for purely social reasons. Intelligent people can believe in God, but no-one has ever actually come to belief in God intellectually. They may try to intellectualise it later on, but they're coming at it from an intense desire to believe for whatever reason (usually social or emotional). Intelligent people still believe in God for the same reason intelligent people still don't accept that their wife is cheating on them when it's obvious to everyone else.

We've got people on this thread boasting about how 85% of people 'believe in God.' And yet 85% of that 85% live in places where if they publicly denounced the prevailing religion, at best they'd end up ostracised from their community, and at worst, they'd end up dead. Which shows what a sham the whole thing is, based entirely on social belonging and control, and not at all on any kind of objective observations about the nature of the world.

Here's a question - on what basis are you drawing these conclusions? How do you know why "the majority" of religious people follow their religion? How did you become the authority on this to show this level of understanding of people's motives?

Just FYI, the sentence "but no-one has ever actually come to belief in God intellectually" might be the stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire life, and I read The Athletic.

 

[dronefromsector7G]

I just can’t square any of this. You stated about ‘God’:

of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness

And yet he chooses to do nothing whilst children are blown to pieces in wars not of their making, women are raped, battered and killed the world over, good people endure thoroughly miserable lives suffering daily in absolute poverty, even starving to death.

If he has infinite power, wisdom and goodness, then what does it say that he chooses to do nothing to alleviate any of it?

Because he loves us lol;

God allows suffering because it is a byproduct of sin. Sin happens because God gave us free will, even though he opposes sin and helps us overcome it when we are willing. God gave us free will because he loves us.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Is this thread worth reading through?

Not really.
It’s largely one lunatic evangelist spouting bullshit.

 

[johnny crossan]

I just can’t square any of this. You stated about ‘God’:
of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness
And yet he chooses to do nothing whilst children are blown to pieces in wars not of their making, women are raped, battered and killed the world over, good people endure thoroughly miserable lives suffering daily in absolute poverty, even starving to death.
If he has infinite power, wisdom and goodness, then what does it say that he chooses to do nothing to alleviate any of it?

The problem of evil has proved intractable for as long as Christianity has existed. I find Plantinga's free will defence is helpful in trying to understand the contradiction.

Theodicy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org