Jesus?

Chill out guys, healthy debating

I can't believe Jet tattled lol...

some of us are chill, others are in here trying to start ***for no reason, although Tsu and I were having some mild misunderstanding, it's all good.

I personally had always viewed any form of atheism as the dismissal of the claim of gods and superstitions. Without theism, I wouldn't even have to dismiss the claims it has.

In reality everyone is agnostic because knowledge of existence or nonexistence of deities isn't something that is knowable, so yes it is a bit redundant to use the term along side atheism because it's dishonest to claim gnosticism.

my definition of the word progressed over time, it took major dissecting to get to where it is, in fact I used to have a different view of it, and several other viewpoints I have, some old threads and youtube cleared a lot of that up awhile ago though.

I used to be rather "meh" about it all, until about 5 years ago.

I just think it's a bit redundant to use the term at all in that context, in the context people typically refer to it as (the term athiest is really used for) is what people use when they're trying to find a way to be superior to both what they consider atheists and theists alike.

We as humans though feel the need to label and self label ourselves.

People don't realize that if you aren't actively believing then you're automatically an atheist. I don't know where all this fence sitting ***comes from.

I still wouldn't be making a claim, though.

Atheism requires no claims because it's not a belief system. People all think that atheism requires believing in no gods, but all it takes to be an atheist is lack of belief. That's why this whole being neutral between theism and atheism idea is a joke.

^ What you are saying here I agree with. Even if it is a logical 180 from what you were saying earlier.

It's not a 180 at all. You'll understand what I meant earlier if I explain it like this. I have no belief because my atheism is just lack of a belief, but if you take the stance of knowing there are no gods, that is no longer lack of belief. That is an assertion of knowledge which brings burden of proof. I have no burden of proof for my atheism because I claim no knowledge. Some atheists are responsible for proof depending on their stance.

I see now. I totally wooshed on your point. When you said "claim there is no God" I took it to mean the same as "not believe in God", hence my confusion. Thanks for clarifying yourself and hopefully next time we can get to this point without the swearing and insults.

I need to reflect on the philosophical difference between "not believing in (Zeus)" and "believing there is no (Zeus)" if I am the only party involved...

Yeah, it's easy to get confused over. One is a belief and one is claiming knowledge. Claims of knowledge required burden of proof. It would be the same for saying " I believe in God". That has no burden of proof, but "There is a god" is a claim of knowledge and requires proof.

Where do you feel the position "I believe god is real" falls?

Since it's belief and not knowledge, it's still exempt from burden of proof. Burden of proof isn't required until statements of knowledge are made.

I didn't find Jesus until I moved to florida. Now I say hi to him every Thursday morning as he cuts my grass.

*backreads*
Hempel's ravens flying all about.

This statement is fine as it is presented as an opinion.

The statement "God is real" falls as it is presented as fact, yet there exists no credible evidence to support it.

Okay...Since it seems nobody is actually taking the time to watch the video, I'm going to pull this back over here...


It's actually worth watching, and more thought provoking than the predictable and nauseatingly cyclical atheist/theist pissing contest that everyone loves to hate and hates to love on here.

I could get down with the idea that Jesus spent the unaccounted for years of his adolescence at a Buddhist monastery. It might be "cherry picking", but it's an interesting thought.

I highly doubt that Jesus was the son of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. How many rulers of the ancient world declared themselves Earthly gods? Come on. Caesar had two previous Roman wives, Cornelia and Pompeia, that were legally recognized marriages. Pretty sure the rules of succession were just the same as they have been in succeeding centuries throughout European history. Legitimate heirs only have a right to the reign. Cleopatra's son with Caesar was a ***.

Also, Judaism and Christianity put such emphasis on the genealogical legacy of God, Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, King Solomon, etc., but by the time Jesus was conceived (I, personally, don't believe in immaculate conception, but whatever.) it's not as though Mary and Joseph had a grandiose, regal status. If it were Cleopatra and Caesar, two people of incredible power in the Mediterranean, why would they choose these two randomly to entrust the "son of God" to? How would they have any knowledge of the existence of Mary and Joseph?

Any instance of cloak and dagger, fleeing the town with your "blue-blood" family in the dark of night throughout history has involved a network of people who had money, social/political standing, or aristocratic, etc. (Example: Marie Antoinette to mother, Maria Theresa of Austria, "Hey mom! ***just got real in France! Ummm...Yeah...I need to get the kiddos out of here. I need a bit of cash, and can you get a hold of a few buddies for me?" Or something like that.) If you need a more current example, the current Queen of England's husband's family has some interesting stories from WWII. Actually, the exile of the Greek royal family is interesting.

I can't remember, but I think that Julius Caesar only had a daughter, and/or that his other kids died at birth. At least legitimate children. But as for "why Mary and Joseph?" if the video is true, they (or just Cleopatra?) was looking for a place to hide Caesarion, so a random or semi-random, normal, family seems like a smart place to me, if a little poor. I didn't get the impression that the video was saying they chose Mary and Joseph because they were Mary and Joseph - just cause they were convenient. But I really don't know, just a couple thoughts.

Oh, and that the succession of Roman Emperors wasn't so clear cut - they may have put a lot of value on heritage, but in practice all kinds of wonky things happened.

Yeah...His daughter took his namesake, and was married off for political reasons, if I remember correctly, and died in childbirth. Roman succession does get a little nitty-gritty...Octavian versus Marcus Brutus, for example. LOL!

I just brought up Mary and Joseph because I think it would be all so coincidental that Jesus would just simply end up in the hands of two people who were supposedly descendants of this Judeo-Christian divine ancestry, you know?

wouldn't that be assuming it wasn't entirely made up?

or documents altered? as obviously there isn't really dna testing.



edit: still doesn't distract one from thinking it could be neat though.

It would totally be an epic story, that's for sure. Even if not true, it's kind of a shame that it's such a touchy subject - a lot of retelling and re-imagining of other historical stories are a lot of fun. I'd totally watch this reboot of Jesus' story on HBO.


Oh yeah, I see now! I guess I always considered (and never knew a lot about it, either) their lineage sort of unremarkable - that a lot of people would have similar paths "all the way back." But I never really thought about it much.

Get to it, Jet.


I'm not going to write a damn thesis if people can't even watch a nine and a half minute video. That's just a "TL;DR" waiting to happen. I'm already aware that there is only a handful of us on AH that geek-out to history.

By the way, Sparth. Your atheism is a commendable and respectable type. At least you take courses in theology to get an all encompassing legitimization of your own personal truth.

As for "courage", like someone else said, that is completely up to interpretation. I'm with Slip and Eugene on this one. Sometimes it can be courageous just to admit to yourself and unabashedly admit to others that you do not and might never have all the answers for everything. At least you're still willing to learn and absorb everything continually.

'Seven Years in Tibet' meets 'The Passion of Christ'? Well, maybe not 'Passion' because that was simply dismal.

Haha, yeah pretty much. And the expanded idea of this version of the story covers a lot - all the political intrigue, the drama of hiding your child for fear of his life, an adolescent coming of age story, scenic... scenes all over the ancient world. All that before he even comes back from India.

OMG! If they even tapped into Alexander the Great and the paths forged for the Silk Road I would lose my mind!

That would be an awesome series!

Did you ever watch 'Rome' on HBO, by chance?

The extended video talks about some of this.
It was Cleopatra alone who sent him out, as Ceaser was dead.
'Mary and Joseph' we're just servants entrusted with the care of little ceasar.

For the sake of Jesus's new religion, he could not be born of a King and Pharaoh, therefore, his guardians became his peasant parents to fit the story.

Same as the idea that, even though his half brothers and half sister we're still royalty, they dropped their heritage to try to avenge their nation's take over by Octavius.

They also suggest that mary magdelene(sp?) was Jesus's half sister. The daughter of Marc Anthony and Cleopatra.

Even more interesting, is a belief this bloodline is still in control. Note: Statue of liberty facial design matches statues of cleopatra's daughter. And she wears isis' headdress like cleo and her daughter. Other than being a gift from French Free Mason's, we know little else about this statue we praise.

get to what?

I was just talking to my boss earlier (who's also a history nerd, or was) about how my biggest disappointment is that I could never devote myself to one subject, even if I spent my life studying such things.