Galen,

<<I don’t need to acknowledge let alone believe in a ‘Jesus’ or God to be a good person with strong morals and values. These traits long predate your religion and it’s (sic) mantra. You can’t claim these traits solely when they are clearly evident in other societies and religions.>>

To my knowledge, the only religion that would predate the Judeo-Christian worldview would be Hinduism, but it is not a monotheistic religion.

'Judaism is the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, dating back nearly 4,000 years', http://www.history.com/topics/religion/judaism

Buddhism dates back 2,500 years: http://www.ancient.eu/buddhism/

Hinduism started about 4,000 years ago. 'Because the religion has no specific founder, it’s difficult to trace its origins and history', http://www.history.com/topics/religion/hinduism. It is suggested it is the oldest religion.

Jainism started about 2,600 years ago. 'Jains believe that their tradition does not have a historical founder', http://www.britannica.com/topic/Jainism

Confucianism started 2,500 years ago, http://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism

Islam started about 1,400 years ago, http://www.history.com/topics/religion/hinduism

I agree that many people can be good and have strong morals without God, but when it comes to deciding what is absolutely right or wrong, we need an absolute standard. Otherwise, we set our own standards. Thus, paedophiles would consider their ethics good for them.

You seem to miss the difference between the right of relativism and right of absolute standards.

<<Your beliefs are just that ‘yours’ don’t try to push them onto others, it’s hypocritical and arrogant and additionally, who gave you the moral authority to do so?>>

You defeat your own views with that claim. You push your own values regularly on OLO, as you've done here by debunking NNS.

To Galen.

Having a strong moral compass is not as strong in the era of moral relativism. I'm not silent about my convections, and I don't think they should be silenced. You say it's pushing my views on others. But if they are good convictions is there any harm in holding them as well as voicing them?

On the other hand, here's a direct question. You quoted someone suggesting that Jesus is a myth. My question for you is: do you think Jesus actually existed, or was he a myth?

No need to acknowledge Jesus or not. But since you already gave acknowledgement to Jesus in a un-referenced quote from an un-referenced pope, you might as well be honest on your stance on it. No reason to give a quote then duck from the topic.

My view is that
1) people can have their own sets of values without religion. However, most people got their values because of the values instilled in their society and culture through a religion.
And
2) that by finding God regardless of our moral standards, people become better then they were before. (This is a comment for Christians to rededicate their love and focus to God, as much as it's a comment for non-Christians to find God). By looking for God and by finding Him it will help any person's values.

NNS, there is, I believe, a reasonable probability of a ‘Jesus’ as you infer. However it is much more likely he was a man just like any other except he was a polarising figure, a man more into political and social shenanigans than any esoteric deeds or mystical wonders.

He was more of an ancient freedom fighter, of which some evidence, if I recall correctly, had previously been discovered. His deeds found him most likely counter to the prevailing mood and politics of his time, ultimately leading to his death on the cross, a quite regular form of execution during his time.

As to his rising from the dead, being the son of a god, and the other childish magic attributed to the Jesus of the bible, any rational mind would realise this is just superstitious jumbo jumbo written into a story book long after his death.

OzSpen, I believe what I stated earlier stands. You are referring to known organised religion. I include religion in the broad sense, whether a small sect, with a set of beliefs in a certain geographical area to large more widespread beliefs held by ancient people’s the world over. I would argue the Papuan ‘Cargo Cult’ as a more modern iteration of a religion as implied above.

The bible story has only survived because of sheer good fortune and the brutality of those supporting its promotion in most cases, for dubious and selfish aims.
Galen

"A religion is a cultural system of designated practices, morals, prophecies, or organisations that connects humanity to supernatural, transcendental or spiritual elements."

And most importantly, but omitted, this system must direct its followers towards God, otherwise it is not a religion!

«It is also disturbing to realise that religions are based around a mistaken belief in the supposed existence of one, or more, supreme beings»

The author is disturbed by a false notion of religion.
I too would be disturbed had I believed that this is what religion is about!

For the rest of the article the author is being tortured by his confusion between religion and "a religion", simply for failing to understand that not all recognised "religions" (as defined at the top) are in fact religious. Finally, like Michelangelo's finger-of-God, relief and salvation come in the form of "spirituality", as if it was ever different from religion.

Though synonymous, in common modern speech "religion" somehow tends to relate to the earlier stages of spiritual-evolution whereas "spirituality" tends to relate to the later stages of religion, yet they are one and the same.

---

Dear Ttbn,

«I don't understand that at all. How does one experience God?»

You are in excellent company: nobody can understands that. You either experience God or you do not. Nevertheless, scripture and religions teach methods by which one's chances to experience God are increased.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«...genuine Christians are good. That's a lot more then I've heard for a while from non-Christians in OLO. (The only ones outspoken enough to talk about Christianity or about Christians never acknowledge anything good coming from Christians or Christianity).»

Have I not always encouraged you to remain a good Christian and strong in your faith?

---

Dear Individual,

«I accept responsibility for what I do but not for how I was made!»

You were never made, you are.

Yes your body (which you mistakenly call "I") was made, by God, yet your true self is God, so no point in blaming others for your own makings.

---

Dear OzSpen,

Hinduism IS monotheistic and about 7,000-9,000 years old.

To Galen.

It's been my observation that when a person says "he (or she) is much more likely to..." then this is going in the direction of unfounded opinion. This trades events and quotes for theories of a person. Explaining them without talking in what subject actually does or says. This is what the theories of Jesus do by saying "he's more likely to be ______________," while ignoring the only source of material we have today that wrote about him. Even while holding doubt, be careful of deceptiveness in your reasoning. If Jesus existed but everything wrote about him is a lie, then there is no "he's more likely to be..." claim. There's no context to say who he really was if all the historical content is tossed.

On that note though there are reasons to believe the texts about Jesus in the gospels. Though I think OzSpen has gone into more study validating the bible as a historical document then I have, so if you want direction on the historical accuracy that historians look for, talk to him. For me, my trust in the bible stems directly from my trust in God. My reasoning for you is that if I can find God in my life, (from a few events of my life identify that God did one thing or another), then anyone else should be able to do the same too. You should be able to find God on your own too.

If you do find Him then this next reasoning is of value for trusting the bible. If 1) God exists (which you already confirm before continuing the logic), and 2) God wants to communicate with us or be part of our lives, (the ways to confirm about God being real through answered prayer also confirm active communication), then 3) God would have the ability to communicate to us through a written text, as well as the power to protect the texts throughout time. The task from there is trying to discern what is from God, and what religious texts aren't.

To Yuyutsu. You asked:

<<Have I not always encouraged you to remain a good Christian and strong in your faith?>>

No honestly you haven't. But I get your point refuting me that nonChristians only say negative things about Christians and Christianity. No my criticism for you is still on a different thread. It's worth keeping in mind and being aware of it. The Christianity you want to support, seems to be something that isn't real Christianity. Instead more often then not you try to correct the perspectives within a Christian mindset to fit your own world view. To me it feels more manipulative then encouraging. Trying to make Christianity fit into a Hinduism belief.