Jesus: Lord,liar, lunatic or...??
 

We have all heard Jesus was lord, liar or lunatic. It is known as the Lewisian trilemma, or as I like to call it the Lewisian false trichotomy.

What do you think Jesus was?

I think this belongs in Tilted Philosophy.

Oh, and I think this has been discussed before.

He's a mechanic I know. He pronopunces his name HEY SOOSE.

I can corroborate this; Jesus Built my Hotrod.

moved to Philosophy.

agreed.. I think this topic more belongs in philosophy.

In any event though, I voted for liar.

My views on this are rather simple. I'm not doubting the fact that, at some point in time, a man named Jesus Christ lived and walked the earth. I'm just doubting the fact that he walked on water and did all those miracle things.

Remember being a kid and playing Telephone with a bunch of people? You would start with the word "bike" and it would go around the circle until it came back to you as "psychosomatic stewardesses constructing carbon fiber pants"?

Same principle, just that the guy started the word 2000 years ago and now it's to us.

It has, once... briefly... more than 2 years ago.

you might want to read some of the responses in this thread from 11/04 to 4/05
Who do you believe Jesus was?

I don't see my choice up there. He was a man. Very probably a good man, but just a man.

I voted for cult leader that had stories made up about him after his death. Although cult isn't the word I would have chosen.

Probably a cult leader might be the best fit for you. That is what I chose. He was just a man. A man, who was probably a cult leader. And he was probably so beloved by his followers that the stories about him became more and more fantastic the farther it got from the actual events.

The poll smacks a little of bias - liar or lunatic seem to be much the same thing - you could ask the same question about Pythagoras, Plato, Richard Dawkins Shakyamuni, L.Ron Hubbard, Alistair Crowley, David Koresh(sp?), Joseph Smith Jr. or one of a hundred different religious or philosophical founders. I don't think the question asks anything new about these things. I'd rather ask whether the ideas and views that these people had have any validity or more interestingly, what things are in common with all of these views.

I didn't vote because of this reason. I don't doubt he lived, I don't think he changed water into wine, but I also don't think his followers were a "cult" either.

Actually, I have removed the bias of CS Lewis' LLL argument by adding realistic alternatives.

They aren't even close

If these religious leaders are regarded as a 'lord' in any sense, you are correct. When Lewis says "Lord, liar, or lunatic", he means "Lord" in a godly, universal sense.

Have you never heard of Lewisian apologetics? The question asks nothing new, yet it is asked daily by evangelists -- minus the realistic options that I added, of course.

it may have been helpful to cut and paste some of Lewis' text to give shape to your poll questions. if i remember correctly, Lewis spends several chapters establishing his logical grounds for eliminating all but the LLL possibilities.

as i, and others, have said before... it isn't really fair to compare the early gospel formations to a game of telephone. it ignores both the true nature of the source material and the social context of it being passed on in a society heavily reliant on the preservation of an accurate oral tradition.

No he doesn't. He barely touches on Jesus historicity at all. You may be thinking of McDowell, the hack-writer who co-opted the LLL argument from Lewis.

I believe what is meant by this is:
Liar - Jesus preached all these things and knew perfectly well he was taking everyone for a ride. (power hungry)
Lunatic - Jesus honestly believed in what he preached, even if in reality these thing were not true. (delusional, but otherwise good natured)

I vote cult leader w\ accompanying increasingly elaborate stories.

The only difference between a liar and a lunatic, is that a liar doesn't believe his own bullshit. I have absolutely no idea, nor any historical evidence to presume to know what what happening inside Jesus' head 2000 years ago. It just can't be done. I can't tell what someone across the room might be thinking, let alone a potential deity incarnate. If Jesus was Lord, then I guess it wasn't bullshit after all - again, I'm certainly in no position to say either way.

On the question of bias (not that it matters), they ask the same question i.e. Was Jesus a fake? That's two options for fake, a third suggests a cult leader (Also, what's the difference between a cult-leader and a lunatic or a liar?) which I'd suggest is also suggests fake, as does myth, and finally, a combination of lunatic or liar - i.e. another fake.

So, when you add it all up and the poll boils down to:
Was Jesus?
a) Not fake
b) fake
c) fake
d) fake
e) fake
or
f) fake

That's why it smells a little of bias - not a problem, we're not about to proove anything either way, here, just guage a range of opinions.

The option I would have liked would have been something to do with Jesus' words and deeds being altered and exaggerated in various aspects down through the ages - I certainly wouldn't suggest he was either liar, lord or lunatic - Rather, a particularly wise and gentle man with extraordinary compassion and understanding of his fellow men. But that's just my opinion.

it's a very false trilemma. i usually refuse to discuss it, on the grounds that it fundamentally mistates the nature of mental illness.

i am most certainly not thinking of McDowell. /shudders

looking at my well-thumbed copy of the Case for Christrianity (reprinted from Mere Christianity), I see a clear progression of ideas from the start of the book culminating in the 3rd chapter of the second part.

This is not my argument. I have mitigated the bias of the original arguement by adding options 4-6.

i believe that jesus is whatever u want him to be. since religion isnt concerned with fact, rather faith. Same goes for muhammed, joseph smith and anyone else claiming to be or know god(s) more personally than you.

But that's simply not true, at least in Christianity's case. If Christianity isn't true, that is, if Christ was not God and did not die and rise again from the dead, then "we are to be pitied above all people". And it doesn't make any sense to say that Jesus is whoever you want him to be. He was a historical individual, and so, just like any other historical individual, one can make true and false claims about him.

The point of the Lewisian trilemma is that it means to exclude the option "Good man, not God". I'd quote, but my copy of Mere Christianity is in a box. Lewis's point is that someone who said the things Christ said could not be merely a good man. Whatever else we might think about people who claim to be God, we don't think that it would be a good idea to think about them as an example.

I don't believe Christ ever alluded personally to being God - yes it's stated in the gospels, but I'd rather attribute the labels of liar or lunatic to the people (who by the way are unlikely to have actually been the disciples named) who wrote the history for the consumption of the Gentiles.

I do think people are often capable of determining the difference between good and crazy - and would be surprised if 2000 years of civilisation and culture can be ascribed to the ravings of either a lunatic or a scam-artist. At the same time, I'm not ready to accept the divine aspect of Jesus' life. I'm forced to lean towards the "Good Man, not God" whether it was meant to be excluded or not.

asaris...we are to be pited among all people if Christ did not rise from the dead, not if Jesus was not God.

You're quoting off 1 Cor 15, correct?

Zen Tom is right to note that there are sayings that make Jesus sound like he claims divinity. Most occur in John. For instance, i one is reading Mark alone, there is really no sign that Jesus claims to be God, rather that he claims to have a mandate from God. If the Gospels don't agree, then I think this is a point on which Christians can disagree in good faith.

I simply don't think that's true, Martin Guerre. Look, either Jesus claimed to be God or he didn't. But all of those people who knew him best, his close friends and followers, all believe that he did. What you claim to be disagreement between the gospels, I claim is just a later gospel filling out what was left unsaid in an earlier gospel.
Yes, I'm quoting from I Cor 15 (or whereever that is), but as far as I call tell, Christ's rising from the dead is generally adduced in the epistles as evidence for his divinity.

For the record, I'm not claiming that C. S. Lewis was correct in saying that to say "Christ was merely a good man" is to be confused. I think he was, but I don't know how to argue well for that conclusion. I AM going to stick to my guns and say that anyone who does not believe in the divinity of Christ is not a Christian. Christians have believed in his divinity from the very beginning -- what makes you so much smarter than these people to say "No, sorry, we've been mistaken for 2000 years"?

I have stayed out of this for obvious reasons.....but please....Lets not allow this to degrade further than it has. There is no reason to debase anyone elses belief, as everything in here is simply opinion.

And we All have at least one of those

I voted Lord.

The thread reads as one with a broad base of thought and consideration - and has references about writings and logicicians which I know nothing about. So I'll just say my bit then.

I am pretty sure that there are a lot of Jesus type characteristics and stories that predate his birth by many thousands of years. He lived a life that attracted that ancient mantle, and did it in a transfiguring way due to the fact that he was a gifted polymath with off-the-scale social and human interests, and he was one of the rare true charismatics that bend history around themselves.

So he was a Lord because he is the Phoenix of the wisdom of our forbears, brought through him and his legacy and textured by philosophers and political figures over the last 2000 years to fit our 21st century intellectual endeavours.

I don't think at this time he was lord...but I don't think he was a lunatic either. I think to an extent he is part myth and part enlightened. A great man whose legend was passed around so much that it grew into these huge stories.

He was a black sheep, an extrovert.. more seriously perhaps he was the first most self-actualised human.

Then I have to ask, what if the word and message of God was not directly whispered in his ear, perhaps there was a spiritual connection so strong as to 'tap into' or hear the message about life. I am amazed at the advice given in the bible that is still relevant to this day in regards to 'healthy living and perspective'... how does something like that come to be?

Son of God - perhaps..
Liar or Lunatic - I don't think so..
Myth - I think not..
A Cult Leader - perhaps..

What if perhaps he was an enlightened individual, and with the help of a God like essence, the followers perceptions were directed to give an overall view and story to the time and life of Jesus?

Interesting, yet eternally unknowable...

Yeah, pretty much what I think. But I just think that he was a myth. Just another character in the story.

True enough...

Not true. I don't read that message in Mark or Paul...and i'm not alone in that reading, either. Luke and Matthew are debatable...i only see an outright claim to divnity in John. The other epistles are basically silent on the matter, AFAIK...

Which is why reading John back on to Mark or Paul is problematic. Why prioritize John like that? Why not read John through the lens of Mark? What justifies your choice in making that call? John was nearly cut from the cannon on several occasions. What makes it *the* authority now?

Check the tenses on the verbs. Egeiro in Mark and Paul is usually indicating that he was raised. Passive voice hides the actor, and it indicates, IMO, that God is doing the raising, not Jesus.

Well, i'm quite sorry to hear that from you. But, honestly...it was a big fight back then...The writings of the Patriarchs make it clear that divinity and the nature of Christ/Jesus was a major point of contention. You're mistaken to claim that this has been the uniform belief of all Christians through all time. The reason why there is a creed to state this is that not everyone was toeing the line in the first place. Boundaries like that indicate that there was *already* an outside.

I'm not smarter...and for what it's worth, i happen to be a trinitarian. but your argument does not reflect the bredth and tension with in the Christianities of history or the present.

The tone of the discussion between perhaps the two most biblically erudite people on this thread is exactly what has turned me away from the church entirely. I cannot believe that a God of love would want us speaking to each other in this manner, and it saddens me to watch it play out on TFP.

And so, who was Christ? I used to call myself a Christian, a very strong one at that. Now, though, I suppose that I don't know whether or not Christ was/is divine, and because of that I cannot fit the evangelical mold. That's fine with me. I believe God, if he exists, would have me as I am, doubts and all. However, I don't think we can boil it down to a damned dichotomy... fake vs. non-fake. We are human. We have no clue. For all we know, Christ could be a manifestation of an incomprehensible (to us) being who spans time, fakeness and non-fakeness, existence and history... and blow us all away with how small we really are. And yes I read that Lewis book too, in my fervent Christian days... I practically worshiped Lewis. But he is just one voice. His perspective does not encompass all that Christ could possibly have been. Lewis was a human, just like the rest of us.

Personally, anyone who claims to know the answer to who Jesus was... I don't trust them. None of us has the authority to claim that "I" know (or at least, we can say that, but not to prove others wrong). And yet we start wars over this fact... in the real word, between whole nations, and even here on TFP.

what historical evidence is there for a historical jesus?

Well, I don't remember the case as well as I used to, but as I recall, there is enough evidence that, at the very least, there was an itinerant rabbi named Jesus during the first part of the first century CE that it's simply ludicrous to think that this isn't the case. Think about it -- there are several writings, with very good provenance, all written within 60 years of his death, and some written within 20-30 years of his death, that say, if nothing else, that there was a guy named Jesus wandering around. Why on earth would you think that, not only did the apostles make up Christ's claims to divinity, but that he even existed?

Martin_Guerre: I don't really want to argue the point with you, since, for one, you're obviously more familiar with the scholarship than I am, and for two, I've done it before here (that argument was inconclusive, btw). But I do think that, if the word "Christianity" is going to mean anything, it needs to refer to a core set of beliefs, otherwise it's going to go the way of 'gentleman'. I happen to think that a good core set of beliefs happens to be the Apostles' Creed, though you could very easily convince me that even a couple of those beliefs are not necessary to be a Christian. I don't equate being a Christian with being saved, however. I don't know who's going to be saved; God could save all of us, though given scripture, this is unlikely, or He could damn all of us, though given scripture, this is even more unlikely, and with neither option could any of us justly complain. So I don't know if someone who denies the divinity of Christ is going to be saved, but I want to reserve the right to think that they're not a Christian.

at the moment, to the best of my knowledge, the only written 'evidence' for jesus (not his real name by the way) having actually lived in the area that is modernday isreal during the first century AD is the new testament. of which none of it was written less than about 30 years after his death, and doubtfully written by anyone that actually knew him, by the people whom the gospels say they were written by. i think there's good reason to think that jesus never existed and is nothing more than a myth.

I'm curious, what is actually the point of reserving the right to think someone is not a Christian? What good does that actually serve anyone?

I do not ask these questions polemically... I am genuinely interested in this, because I was quite fervent about categorizing people in my Christian days... mostly to determine whether or not I needed to "witness" to them or not. I couldn't see them as just being human, same as me. These days I care much more about a person's character overall now, not about what label they are under.

Well...not quite.

There is evidence outside of the NT. Josephus writes of Jesus in his work Antiquities.

Paul writes 1 Thessalonians in the late 40's, early 50's. That's about 20 years after Gogoltha. Granted, it's a hearsay account, but he does create a working record of there being a Christian community at that time for whom it is meaningful to talk of a man named Jesus.

We can argue over whether or not any of the Gospel writers knew Jesus directly. Mark is written shortly after the revolt in 70-2 AD. Frankly, i think its quite likely that the author knew Jesus directly...

Simply, i don't think that it's a very tenable position to deny that Jesus existed. beyond that, it's certainly more contested. but it seems to me to be a pretty thin argument to claim that he did not exist at all.

josephus wasn't born until a few years after jesus's death. to my knowledge, there are <b>zero</b> contemporary references to jesus. during the time he supposidly lived there were others (with contemporary documentation of their lives) who claimed to be the messiah, rise from the dead, perform miracles, etc.

considering what the world was like back then, it doesn't surprise me that people would be able to be convinced that jesus was real and did what he did. i think to believe in him based on teh current references we have is a pretty thin argument. i see no reason to believe in him just as you see no reason to believe that hercules once lived on earth.

my current personal belief is that he may or may not have existed. if he did, he was a normal man, maybe preached a bit. but that what was written about him is about as true as the harry potter books are.

Ahh, now this brings up something interesting... can Truth be communicated through fiction? A similar idea has been proposed regarding the Lord of the Rings books (before the craze from the movie made everything a bit cheesy). And especially Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia books.

For me, I see a great deal of Truth in story... even something like Harry Potter. And that is why for me, it is almost irrelevant whether there was a historical Jesus... (I am not a Christian in this sense), because a fictional narrative can have as much power as fact. Thoughts?

we are talking about antiquity here...we've got a much broader body of texts, evidence, etc... for Jesus than we do for a great many historical figures. i won't say the record isn't complicated. it is. but i think the major distortion of this argument is that it does not acknowledge context. the subtle hint to claiming Jesus did not exist is that his memory has been entirely conjured, and that conjuring may have been willful.

certainly, the process and politics of memory have been at work in this case. i would be a fool to deny that. but it staggers my imagination to try to concieve of a "he didn't exist" movement forming. so too does it defy my powers of creativity to think of another historical figure that would be subjected to the same level of doubt. the NT is a self-interested text. and?

So is Josephus. So is Seneca. So is Homer. So is Thucyidides. So is every other "history" that is written then. Hell, so is every history now. All evidence from that time period is difficult to analyze, and contains different assumptions about what truth, history, bias, and authorship means. This is not a good reason to throw it all out, or cast universal aspersions over the scholarship on that era.

well said,i think he was pure myth.......a composite of older religious icons and ideas.

He was a lunatic and believed what he said so he counld not be a liar. Yet his condition was inspired by God so he wans't crazy either. He went on to create the cult of Chistianity which became a religion and christians called him their Lord. History being rather vague from the those years past turned his story into something mythical.

It is sad that your views on individuals being hypocrites have turned you and many others away from the church. But one must understand that to be a Christain is to be a hypocrite. Only God is good and perfect. We Chirstians are humans who are inspired to be like Jesus and God, but as we are not perfect, we are bound to be hypocrites. Would God want us speaking to each other in that manner? Certainly not. But it is bound to happen due to not being perfect, even if Christian. Also, on deciding who is and who is not Christian, many claim to be Christain yet don't practice the values and beliefs which it entitles. Thus many claim to be Christain who are not in their hearts.
[Prayer]May the Lord have mercy on them and cast the Holy Spirit upon them so that their hearts may be filled with the love and joy of Chirst, and change their ways to show the love of God rather than the hate of Satin. Amen.[/Prayer]

That is incorrect. It is quite likely that they were the same desciples who witnessed the acts of which they write about due to the detail of which they are written. Plus there is the fact that some were written in as short as 15 years after Jesus rose from the dead, which makes it more likely that it was written by the desciples who were with Jesus when He did such works. Which brings me to a question that needs to be considered on determining if the writings were truth or myth: Had it not been true at the time it was written, wouldn't the people have disregaurded it rather than embrace it? For example, if someone today in 2005 were to write a historical book which stated that in 1990, a single alien visited Washington DC, destroyed congress, attempted to united the world under one puppet government to turn us into slaves, and was only stopped by the firing of fifty nuclear warheads at his spaceship, or stated another story of spectacular events, would we not throw it out as garbage? Certainly we would! We would think back and say, "I was around in 1990, and I don't recall hearing of anything like that ever happening..." So in the case of Jesus, so many of the witnesses embraced the works that is shows they are the truth and that Jesus actually existed, thus was not a myth.

If anyone has any questions about Chistianity, Jesus Christ the Lord, and God, then I suggest you direct them towards your local Christian or Catholic church. You are likely (but not guaranteed) to get a far better answer from the Priests and those who work for the Church than from anyone here.

I think Jesus was an ordinary man mythized after his death.

not to hijack the thread, but...

could this question not be asked about any significant religious figure?

What about Moses? Was he a real person?
Muhammad?
Paul?

Is historical proof necessary for the message to be valid?

If the writings of the faithful are the basis for all belief in a certain religion, subsequent followers naturally add their belief systems as they adopt the faith.

Did Adam and Eve exist? No contemporaries existed...

Did Jesus' birth and death actually occur on the now-accepted dates, or were these dates co-opted to coincide with pre-existing festivals/holidays?

To study religion soley with a historian's eye requires the closing of the other eye... the eye that attempts to study the faith and its effect on the faithful.

I now return you to the original thread.

Forgottten: No. Its called fiction. People write enchanting tales of miracles and fantastical situations all the time, and they are not disregarded because they don't match the facts. People embrace them because they like the ideals and emotion that they evoke, not because they're factually correct. I didn't disregard Star Wars or LOTR because I didn't believe a place called Middle Earth or Tattoine could exist.

Star Wars and LOTR aren't religions. There's a huge difference. I'm saying that had it nont been true, then it wouldn't be accepted. Istead it would have naturally died (without some sort of brainwashing technique as Sciencology uses, which was and is not used in Christianity).

I have to say that I am extremely dissapointed in how so many of you refuse to accept that Jesus is Christ the Lord, savior of our souls, forgiver of sins, son of the one true God, and a real person who existed in history. It's sad for me to see so many lost souls.

Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the genre of fiction not exist when the gospels were written?

you are correct that star wars and LOTR aren't relgions. but if those stories had been told 2000 years ago, they very well may have been. things which are not true are accepted all the time. just look at conspiriacy theorists. think about how many people believe that the roswell crash was actually an unidentifed flying object. all it would take for that to be 'true' is for teh govt. to say it was a UFO (even if they were lying).

a better example would be scientology. do you think there's any truth to it? probably not. for an intents and purposes, right minded people think it's a cult. and guess what? for the first 200-300 years of christianity, it was essentially considered a backwoods cult. it wasn't until constantine became emperor of rome that it was able to really spread. give scientology an ounce of that kind of credibility and in a thousand years (especially in a 'primative' time) it could become as big as christianity is.

but scientology was just made up, you say! well, so was christianity. i have yet to see any proof that jesus was definatly a real person, let alone that he performed those miracles associated with him. i've said taht before (and think i may have forgotten to reply to a post), but i'd love to see some primary sources. some sort of proof given by people were contemporaries of jesus. it's really easy for someoen to start a cult and then have another write about him 30-60 years after his death.

i have to say that i'm very disappointed that you feel the need to patronize us. i'd say that if ti weren't so sad that this is your real opinion, this would be trolling.

have you ever heard of homer's illiad and oddessy? oedipus rex? greek drama was pure fiction (although i'm sure some of the stories were believed to be true or based on truth). science fiction i would think would be another issue. but telling stories, made up stories, are probably as old as language itself.

i don't know if the greeks understood drama as "pure" fiction. it was often didactic...intended to convey a message or teaching.

i think asaris points out something very smart.

but how would this be different than the bible? made-up stories meant to convey a message, a teaching.

The difference is that the Bible makes obvious claims towards its historicity. The one which most immediately comes to mind is when Paul states that if Christ has not risen from the dead, then we are fools. The Greek tragedies either also claim to be historical (for example, the Iliad), and are generally accepted to be based in historical fact (at least, since that one German guy excavated Troy); or, they make no real claim towards historicity.

well...you're using made up as perjorative. frankly, i think the gospels are a supremely creative effort to relate and record the work of God through Christ Jesus. i say creative because they are at times ahistorical...not to state that they are in express disagreement with facts or known histories...but that they operate outside of that realm. their power is not in their ability to record a sequence of events, but help recreate for the reader the experience of being present at a revelation.

to be honest...i don't think the reality of the ressurection has a whole lot to do with what we moderns would call history. some people start asking questions about "if there was a video camera in the tomb...what would it show?" and it's at that point i realize that i'm not in the same conversation. asaris...i guess i'd say that i'm not sure that we're using the word historicity in the same manner. i mean it as "grounded in certain context, events, and recalled expereience." i don't think the reality of the ressurection depends on emprical certainty...

By historical, I just mean something like "Actually happened at some point in the past, in the same sense in which my eating yogurt for breakfast also happened in the past". Here, at least, I'm just using 'historicity' as a noun-ified version of historical.

while the bible does make claims that it is true, the old testament doesn't match up very well with any other records/evidence of the past. the new testament may be a bit better, but as (again, someone correct me if i'm wrong) there are no contemporary primary sources that even mention jesus, the bible's historical value is suspect.

just because it claims to be true doesn't make it so.

i'm not seeing how your reference to what paul said is relevant. the only thing i get from it is that he's telling us 'hey, stupids! look what we tricked you into believing!!! suckers!!!!'

yikes--yet another philo thread that i dont think can be coherently added to in a message board. so i'll revert to teaching form and do things like say go read a book.

1. on the question of anachronism at the level of starting assumptions for interpreting texts like teh gospels--this is tricky because you have lots of transpositions in the intervening 200 years or so, not least of which is in the meaning of belief, the definition of history, the redefinition of myth--paul veyne's book "did the greeks really believe their myths" is short and quite good on all these questions. so for example to think about history in its contemporary form--which is rooted in particular protocols for treating the factoid base of interpretations, particular ways of legitimating arguments, particular assumptions as to quasi-scientific status--as if this conception applied in the 1-2nd century ad is folly. you simply are not dealing with the same kind of texts--the question of "historical accuracy" in the contemporary sense is moot when it comes to them.

2. the various jesus stories often get situated in the context of a genre of semi-mythical travelling wise man/magician stories--i think this was mentioned earlier--for example, apollonius of tyana. these travelling wise men/magicians probably constitue a genre template for the jesus stories.

3. the question of divine inspiration is confusing as well--you had lots and lots of alternative texts about jesus, etc. generated by gnostics--all equally legit in their claims to divine inspiration until the council of nicea came along and the folk who were there decided that divine inspiration had already stopped at some arbitrary previous point. well because if it hadnt, you woudlnt really need a church, now would you? what would it mediate?
anyway, the select criteria for whcih gospels were and were not included in the canon that alot of folk now take as necessary and eternal was rooted not in any conception of "historical accuracy" (see point 1) but in considerations of theology--the texts selected tended to be more hierarchically organized at the philosophical level.
they certainly are not the most entertaining, however.
give me the gospel of the teenage jesus any day--thomas i think.

I second that. Jesus probably was one of the most philanthropic people of ancient days. He helped the poor, and tried to teach some type of goodness towards others. However, the whole religion and son-of-god thing...well, that's another story.

The Bible is a collection of natural and cultural events that have most likely happened in the past, then romanticized and painted together as if they actually had some meaning.

And I'd have to think that if your consistant anti-christian views weren't your real opinion they would be trolling as well. I think we've reach the point where no matter what I say, you're going to say it's wrong, and no matter what you say, I'm going to say it's wrong. So I think we all need to stop trying to prove each other wrong when we know that neither of us is going to budge in our position.

i'm not anti-christian. i'm anti-religion in general. i'm anti-asshats (which unfortunatly, living in america, i've found from my personal experience that most of the major asshats i've met indentify as being 'christian'). and i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm saying give me some sort of proof, some sort of evidence. but you seem unable. i'm not trolling, i questioning your position based on the lack of proof that you or anyone else has shown me. big difference. crying 'whoah, pity all the poor lost souls' is nothing more than patronizing.

Evidence
 

^....You have lumped two things together that cannot be lumped together..evidence and proof. If you want evidence for the *Bible then there is an exorbitant amount...but if you want proof, that is a different story. There really isnt any "proof" of anything. People like to think that science provides proof but it does not..it only provides evidence. Pure science is based on theory and evidence; what scientists give us is simply their interpretation of the two things.

That being said..I think Christians are usually placed on the defensive side of this issue so i'd like to turn the tables here and ask you to provide me with proof (keep in mind the aforementioned concept), and then you will find yourself in quite the same quandry that christians are in.

A myth, a fictional character for the weak to follow.

Mel Gibson should be crucified! Jesus Rules! :D