Dear NNS,

I would like to help you to be freed from your delusion that there is a supernatural entity. There is actually no evidence that such a being exists. it is simply a delusion shared by many.

.

Dear Not Now Soon,

.

You wrote :

« The Historic Jesus theories are a copout … The same is true of the Jewish scholar's retelling of Paul … »
.

That comes as something of a surprise, Not Now Soon. I was (apparently mistakenly) under the impression you believed that Jesus really did exist, that he was, indeed, an historical figure – not simply a myth. You add that the same goes for Paul (Saul of Tarsus). That’s really is a surprise !

Admittedly, in the absence of falsifiable evidence for most of the bible narratives, much is left to conjecture – but I had no idea you denied their historical authenticity.

While it is true that the existence of Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost has never been established beyond all reasonable doubt, I, personally, consider that Jesus probably did exist – but not so the other two. In fact, I suspect that there were several Jesus born and bred in Nazareth at the time. Jesus was as about as common a first name then as John is today.

As for Saul of Tarsus, so far as I am aware, I don’t think any reputable historian has ever expressed any doubts about his existence as an historical figure.

There are three non-Christian sources which are typically used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus — two mentions in Josephus and one mention in the Roman source, Tacitus. Apart from that, it seems there are no independent eye-witness accounts of Jesus nor of any of the events mentioned in the New Testament relating to his life. I understand, there is no trace of him ever having written anything either.

It seems to me that if anybody’s life depended on such flimsy “proof” it could only be judged insufficient. As for “proof” of a God, Holy Ghost, angels, arch-angels, devils or other nebulous entities … I’m afraid there’s nothing much to go on – apart from what religious believers declare has been “revealed” to them in some mysterious fashion, as related in the bible.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I have full respect for your religious beliefs, Not Now Soon, whatever they may happen to be, but I cannot see how the object of those beliefs could possibly be deemed to correspond to objective reality in the absence of falsifiable evidence of such reality.

Until such falsifiable evidence is forthcoming, I think one should content oneself with the idea that they are simply beliefs – nothing more and nothing less.

Naturally, if you consider that there is such falsifiable evidence for your beliefs, Not Now Soon, I should be pleased to hear of it.

In the meantime, I, personally, am willing to examine all and any theories relating to the narratives of the bible as well as their authors (supposed or real), with interest and without prejudice – on the contrary – with an open mind.

.

Dear NNS,

Since there is no reliable evidence to support your beliefs you may have doubts in their veracity. Rather than accept that fact you may try to involve others to share your delusions. The fact that you have delusions does not mean you are of unsound mind. Many people believe things for which there is no proof. They may be good parents, reliable workers and good citizens. As long as their beliefs do not result in violations of the law or cause them to be a nuisance they may believe what they like. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Baha'i, Shintoists, animists and others have beliefs unsupported by evidence. In a free society any belief is allowed, but illegal actions are not allowed. I prefer not to believe anything for which there is no evidence although I am sure I believe some things which are unsupported by fact. It is not worthwhile and impossible to check out all assertions one is subjected to. However, others may have what beliefs they like. The problem is that some who have beliefs for which there is no evidence will try to get others to join in those beliefs and may feel affronted that others refuse to support those beliefs. My neighbor is a nice old lady who subscribes to New Age magazines. She passed some on to me. When I showed no interest she stopped passing them on to me. You, on the other hand, get annoyed that I don't share your unsubstantiated beliefs. Since you don't investigate the unsubstantiated beliefs of others why should you expect me or anybody else to investigate yours?

To Banjo Peterson.

I believe that Jesus and Paul were both historic people and really did exist. My complaint is the differentiation between Jesus as described in the bible, and recreating who people say Jesus was and calling it the historic Jesus. It's poppycock to think after 2000 years past Jesus living on earth, that anyone will have anything reliable to add to who Jesus was, or correct any source of who Jesus was. The bible itself is a reliable source of information regarding Jesus.

I wish I could believe you when you say you have respect for Christianity. Before this conversation, I thought that you did have respect for it even if you disagreed with it. However on a topic of marriage and divorce, you've made the conversation your soap box against the Catholic Church. Your actions speak differently then your words regarding any respect to Christianity.

To David F.

This is going to sound harsh, but bare with it. The question is genuine.

Why should I trust your view? Or trust you?

Based on you comments in just this conversation, you made a drastic switch of perspective from you've studied more then I know to you couldn't be bothered to even look into it. You've said earlier you came to talk about marriage, divorce, and civil law. But when I challenged that that and called it out as a lie, as well as encouraged to talk about the topic of divorce, you moved on. Divorce was not even pretended to be approached. Even with those criticisms you and Toni pat yourselves on your backs for (falsely) finding out my true reason for the criticism. Apparently to be manipulative and make you look bad.

With this kind of dissuasion going on, trying to say you're on my side and want to help is a far cry to believe. Trust usually comes from either being reliable, or having someone's back (often a combination of the two). With this conversation in mind why should I trust you? With past conversations in mind, why should I trust you?

(Continued)