Why does everything has to turn out to be christian?
Why do all of the usual christian god-botherers spend so much time attacking people (mainly atheists) who quite rightly ridicule the naive essentially childish, even infantile nonsense that they promote.

We dont even know what we are. We cant even account for our own appearance here, or the appearance of a single "thing" too.
And yet all these christian true-believers presume to "know" so much Jesus and what he supposedly did and said 2000 years ago - whenever and wherever that was.
And which of the now over 30,000 christian denominations, sects and sub-sects competing for market share in the market place of whats-in-it-for-me consumerist religiosity is true?

So what if someone called Jesus did or did not live approximately 2000
Does any of the nonsense and illusions associated with that name enable anyone to live with Real Intelligence in the "21st century"?

Meanwhile, The Very Divine Person Who is the supposed subject that "theologians" have been prattling on about for forever and a day (by necessity) spent 50 years doing the most profound deeply considered exploration of the fabricated origins of the "New" Testament, and of the complexities of Christian dogma and truth claims, every single one of which is essentially untenable.
These closely reasoned references summarize his summary findings. Christians are of course very big on what they call "reason" - or at least when it suits them!

http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity

Speaking of the ABC Religion & Ethics website, it currently features a very long essay by Alan Jacobs titled We Have Seen Our SALVATION.
The trouble is Salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that Alan writes about, or belief in "Jesus" - as this brief essay points

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/salvationdestiny.html

Also this radical essay: http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm

The emphasis on belief is itself questionable. If one believes in a set of unprovable propositions then one is accounted as righteous by those who believe in the same set of unprovable propositions. It seems to me far more important what one does than what one believes. The history of missionary religion is littered with the bodies of those who believed differently.

However, the article implies that the opposite of Christianity is atheism. Many non-Christian religions such as Judaism, Islam and Baha'i believe in God without his having a quasi-human sidekick. Buddhism and Hinduism are non-monotheistic religions. The opposite of Christian is non-Christian. The opposite of atheism is theism.

Oh dear, what next an article about the flood?

The author can only cite one piece of evidence that there was a Jesus. How is it any more relevant the say the Buddhism equivalent or what about that guy from Mecca? Arguing points about someones biography that was written many years after they died is pointless.

The important point for the author is not whether the was a Jesus, was he God.
In the same way that none of the religious claims of any other religions should be taken seriously nor should Christians.

The problem with Christians is not with their belief in the existence of Jesus. The problem is the belief that he is some sort of divine being with a connection to a non-existent God to whom they have given all kinds of qualities. It is appropriate at this time of year that we reflect on the absolute nonsense that is sung in many of the popular carols as well as the drivel delivered from the pulpit about Jesus bringing peace into the world. Spare me please.

There is nothing wrong with the ideals to which Christians aspire, but the basis on which these ideals are founded is just so implausible.

David

Mike. A well written and interesting article. I, like you, are at time "flabbergasted" that "academics', with reams of literature at their disposal, the skills and knowledge in historic research and a wealth of resources at their disposal can, with a strait face, publish what can only be described as 'balderdash'.... Where do these universities find these people?

Of far more interest is the scholarly works by some German historians questioning the existence of Mohammed.

I must, however, take issue with your comment that "They are the equivalent of climate change deniers". There are many many eminent scientists, published (barely), that question the accepted climate change meme. Dr Richard Linzen, Tim Ball, Dr Jennifer Marohasy plus some 30 000 other eminent experts in the field, submitted to the US senate, arguments that dispute the 'settled' notion of climate change.

However, this is 'off topic' and I would not want to diverge the commentary from the sensible paper (replete with understandable frustration you express) from your primary arguments. Your analogy with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is cogent to your argument.

Have you any thoughts on the veracity of Mohammed as a genuine historical figure I wonder?

Cheers Pete.

its not unusual for the secularist to get it totally wrong. Whether it be the gw scam, the denial of a Lawmaker in a universe full of laws or the revision of Australian history. With moral relativism as one of their mantras who says truth matters anyway. Its no wonder they deny the Truth personified. Well I suppose they can always justify their stand with pseudo science whether it be the something from nothing fantasy, the failed climate models or just plain arrogance. 'Theologians' are often pretty good at this nonsense also.