Do you have anything against Jesus?

Atheist love to talk down to Christianity.

But is there really anything wrong with Jesus himself? He was morally perfect in every way.

Also why is it that Jesus seemed so much different that the god of the old testament?

Even if Jesus was not the son of God, he said somethings that have been powerful enough to motivate the fate of entire civilizations. Even if he wasn’t the son of God, wasn’t he the best philosopher of all time?

And please, don’t deny his existence, I want to have serious responses here.

Posted: November 1st 2010

Mike the Infidel www

Jesus said absolutely nothing novel. The sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible are a tribalist rehashing of philosophy that had long previously existed.

Posted: November 5th 2010

See all questions answered by Mike the Infidel


I find Jesus a bore. And I find the people who worship and slobber all over him not only even more boring, but a veritable celebrity cult. We know very little about the real person, Jesus, and what we know, says he was a dime-a-dozen itinerant preacher. Color me unimpressed.

The only aspect that I find somewhat interesting is that it seems that he was trying to reform the religion in which he grew up, that is, Judaism. Of course, if Jesus was able to discover and set into motion the Enlightenment hundreds of years earlier, no reform would have been required, just the shelving of all religious beliefs into the private sphere. Now, that would have been admirable! Yet, I give the bloke a C minus for effort, but a F for his groupies.

Posted: November 5th 2010

See all questions answered by logicel

Blaise www

“And please, don’t deny his existence, I want to have serious responses here. “ — If you want serious responses, you can’t make ridiculous demands. Otherwise people just laugh at you, which isn’t particularly serious, unless you have a really overblown ego, I suppose.

Posted: November 5th 2010

See all questions answered by Blaise

flagellant www

You ask some questions, and you say you want “serious responses”. But just listen to youself: you make flat assertions about Jesus (morally perfect), the best philosopher of all time, and you instruct us: “don’t deny his existence”. Just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it so. You don’t leave much room for a proper response, do you? But let’s give it a try, shall we?

The earliest gospel, Mark, was written some forty years after the crucifiction and the latest, John, some thirty years further on. Imagine, if you will, with no documentary evidence available – no books, no films, and no recordings – trying to write a history of World War II, now simply from people who told you their recollections and things they had been told…. Pretty tricky to be accurate and comprehensive, I’m sure you’ll agree. Well, that’s a bit like the delay between crucifiction and the gospels. And Jesus apparently lived for thirty or so years; WWII lasted only five or six.

But it gets worse: imagine a group of enthusiasts, working over a period of 2000 years, copying and embellishing the gospels and the misogynistic writings of Paul. Ignoring the mistakes – and there’d surely be many, compounded – this embellishment was what we’d now call “adman’s hype”: trying to make something sound better than it really is. Therefore, can you really trust the accuracy of anything these manipulated texts now say?

So these are some of the reason for my scepticism. See here

Perhaps the biggest gap in our knowledge of Jesus, however, occurs in those years between 30 C.E. when Jesus’ earthly life came to an end and 70 C.E. when gospels began to achieve written form. Today, by lining up the gospels in chronological order with Mark first (ca. 70 C.E.), then Matthew (ca. 80 C.E.), Luke (ca 90 C.E.) and finally John (ca 100 C.E.), we can see how the miraculous was heightened; the details become more graphic and supernatural activity more pronounced. If the story could grow as dramatically as it did from 70-100 C.E., is it not reasonable to assume that it also grew from 30-70 C.E.? Yet with no written sources, entering that time of oral transmission is a problem.
You should read Jesus for the non-religious by Bishop John Shelby Spong. The passage above comes from his website . There are many atheists and religious people, Bishop Spong among them, who find the Christ myth difficult to take. It’s not that we all reject it without good reason: we doubt the provenance of the alleged evidence so we are justified in our scepticism. Please do the reading yourself, with an open mind.

Posted: November 5th 2010

See all questions answered by flagellant

brian thomson www

He was morally perfect in every way … the best philosopher of all time.

As far as you know, that is – since all your knowledge of Jesus comes from Biblical sources. To use a modern analogy: that’s like thinking you can learn everything you need to know about computers from Apple’s press releases. Sources other than the “in crowd” can offer a different perspective on events. Who was Mary Magdelene really, for example, and what was Jesus’s relationship with her? Some “gnostic” sources go much further than the four books making up the “Gospel”.

Assuming he existed (as you wish), I don’t have a basic problem with the philosophical side of Jesus as described in the New Testament. It might not be his fault that others took his ramblings literally, and we have no guarantee that his words were being recorded accurately. If he could come back and see all the harm that’s been done in his name, from fundamental misunderstandings of his philosophy, he would probably disown the religion called “Christianity” as foreign to him. “Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth” indeed.

Posted: November 5th 2010

See all questions answered by brian thomson

George Locke

I do have a few bones to pick. Jesus said a lot that I can agree with.

I can sum up my main beef with Jesus in one word: Hell. No infraction on this earth could justify eternal torment, period. Justice demands that a finite wrong be met with a finite punishment. Plus, some of the things that Jesus says send you to hell are pretty crazy. He was adamant that people who weren’t friendly to him and his followers would go to hell. His insistence that he is the only path to salvation (the alternative being hellfire) is the most incendiary aspect of his teaching.

One of the foundations of Christian ethics is the “golden rule”. Versions of the golden rule have cropped up all over the world, well before Jesus, but the version he proposes goes too far. Do to others as you would have them do unto you? It is unreasonable to demand that I love my neighbor as myself. I prefer the negative formulations: don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you. (This version is by far the more common, being found in ancient cultures of Egypt, Greece, China, India, etc.)

Posted: November 5th 2010

See all questions answered by George Locke


Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum