What are your opinions on this conversation, Christians, Atheists and everyone else?

Question

This was a conversation I recorded during one of my classes between two people.

Girl: Maybe if Jesus DIDN'T exist, someone wanted to bring humans closer together and make them friendlier through a fictional character.

Boy: Well, if that IS the case, they did a crappy job. Also, there is NO proof outside of the Bible that Jesus existed. For all we know, the Bible is the world's most popular fiction novel.

Girl: I know, but the way it is written MAKES people believe even if they did a crappy job, they tried. I believe in Jesus, and you do too, right?

Boy: I do. But even if he didn't exist, we should try to EMULATE, not IDOLIZE him. I believe in his teachings of love. And if Jesus wasn't real, the authors DID try--and with that kind of wisdom, they might as well have been Jesus themselves. And even if he, or even God, didn't exist, shouldn't those teachings of love be emulated anyway? Does the religion you practice really matter as long as you live by those principals?

Answers for the two questions on the end--in addition to opinions--would be nice too. =)

Answer 1

No, religion SHOULDNT matter as long as you try to live a life of peaceful love and compromise and cooperation. I believe Jesus, the man, was a great teacher, and that aspect got lost.

No matter what religion you subscribe to, or if you subscribe to none at all, if you are a good person, it shouldn't matter.


Blessed be.

Answer 2

It's that whole Kantian (is it?) notion that you should "act so as to make actual your ideals." It seems to me that it's about the only sensible way to look at the religion. Even if "Jesus" is just a symbol for all our personal ideas about what is "good," even if he never existed as a man, our concept of "goodness" isn't implicated in the fraud.

In modern times scientific research has laid the axe to the root of many quaint religious ideas about the universe - not because scientists are wicked satanists, but because scientific research isn't specifically geared towards proving religious ideas. It's not that geologists, e.g., are trying to blow up the Bible by determining that the Earth is over 4 billion years old; it's that they're unwilling to fudge the numbers to support the Bible. So "religious" people in the modern age have a choice: they can either go with the satanic science theory, or they can accept that not everything in the Bible should be taken "literally" (as if that were even possible), that Jesus himself may be just a parable, but that doesn't change the meaning of "The Message" - whatever that's supposed to be. Or, they can do what I think most people do, which is simply to leave the whole issue unexamined, maybe go to church once a week on routine, and otherwise live as atheists.

Answer 3

I believe Jesus existed and I believe that he was a very cool man. I have to respect a guy who travels in a circle of thirteen teaching love of self, love of others and was quite the healer. :)

He also taught through parables (SYMBOLIC STORIES, people) which I also relate to. Not once did he say that he was the direct descendant of deity through birth by a virgin mother. Most things in the bible are man-made stories (doesn't the cover say "King James' version? Hm...if you know a lot about King James, that should tell you something.)

I am all about everyone embracing the religion or spiritual path that they choose, (per the First Amendament) but I am really tired of people preaching fire and damnation if I don't agree with them. Some try to "prove" their views by quoting the bible. Not to be offensive, but to make a point: If I "proved" my theories by quoting from Janet and Stewart Farrar's 'The Witches' Bible', would that convince you that my way is the only true way? (By the way, I don't believe that any religion, including mine, is The One True Way. All religions are but different paths to a connection with deity and no one religion can be right for everyone.)

Answer 4

This conversation points out how damaging to the reasoning faculty is the philosophy that Jesus of Nazareth imparted.

Jesus preached that the highest possible value is the afterlife. This life is unimportant. So, he practiced what he preached. He was not interested in being productive, in bettering his life, in improving anything and he taught others that a life of poverty, a life in the service of God is the most moral way of living.

Now, I would say that his ideas would have not improved the world one bit. He himself lived off the product of those who believed in him and supported him with alms. A faith-based morality is not moral at all. Fundamentally, it is the cult of sacrifice. For Christians (those who really practice the philosophy of Jesus), the more one sacrifices, the more one suffers in this life, the more moral one is.

Rational ethics defines the good as that which helps each individual live and improve his life without requiring the sacrifice of anybody else. This type of ethics yields a really moral philosophy. People like Thomas Edison, for example, are better moral role models than Jesus. Edison practiced rational ethical values rather than the love for the afterlife. And look at what the results are! If it were for Jesus we would be living in caves. Thomas Edison did not pursue knowledge for the benefit of humanity. He did it to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, as most scientists and rational people do. What they produce, however, by pursuing their own interests without requiring the sacrifice of anyone else is highly moral and beneficial. In fact, the benefits that self-interested people provide to humanity far outweigh the benefits provided by any type of faith-based philosopher.

Jesus' ideas, as a matter of fact, are responsible for the rise of religious intolerance, abuse of power, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and every possible form of oppression and suppression of knowledge.

If you have to choose, follow the principles of reason, not of faith. Reason is the tool that allows you to distinguish the real from the unreal, the true from the false, the just from the unjust, and the moral from the immoral.

Answer 5

I think this conversation makes a good point, however ineloquently. I've always personally felt that Jesus's example is ultimately meaningless if a person believes him to be anything more than a human being, because his identity as a supernatural and/or divine entity makes emulation of his example at best unlikely, and at worst impossible.

Answer 6

Well, I believe the boy is right, But I know the Christians are going to say no way. See, there by the book people. But sometimes, it's time to throw away the book!

Answer 7

Living by His teachings is nice. But, His teachings were only part of His reason for being here.

His coming was foretold in many books in the Old Testament. The reason He came was to redeem mankind and make a way for man to come back to God. His death and resurrection were what finalized the path back to God.

All we need to do is accept Him, acknowledging that our best is not good enough to reach God, and repent of our sin. This is what matters - nothing I practice or emulate will do any more than make me a nice guy. But, what I know I need is a relationship with the Creator of the Universe. Now I know Him, because I follow Jesus.

Answer 8

You can have love without beliefs in any god, no matter how many christians claim that their god is love. A loving god would not allow his children to go to hell.

For evidence, look at all those asian and american (north and south) cultures that loved without knowledge of jesus.

Answer 9

I agree with the boy. The ultimate goal of religions is to create peace, not disharmony. Needless to say, they create war nevertheless.

Answer 10

No, the concept/practice of love is a farce/scam/lie/illusion, what it really means is your in heat and it's breeding time.
No religion is to control the population and not a single one of them has ever lived by or practiced those principals.