863
Gospel of love (europe.pub)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

[Jesus sits on a rock, speaking]
A new command I give you:
Love one another

[an angry character talks back to Jesus]
What if they're something bad like gay, trans, brown, or communist though?

[Jesus is facepalming on his rock]
I don't want to be a messiah anymore

https://thebad.website/comic/gospel_of_love

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was

I absolutely were.

This is a silly denial. I was the one who told you. You are the one who claims I'm making it up and are disbelieving in the existence even of a wikipedia article without lifting a finger to check for yourself. And you expect me to believe you've given any serious look into this historical question of existence when you didn't even google?

You can’t just quote “wikipedia” you have to give the link to the page, so others can see the context. For all I know those quotes could be from a page about things stupid people believe.

This also is a silly thing to be skeptical about or debate, when google exists. I knew (from having looked it up in the past) that the consensus of historians was that Jesus was a real historical figure but that the claims about him in the Bible were religious rather than historical. So I googled "Is there evidence that Jesus was a real historical person" or something like that, scrolled past the religious links and clicked on the wikipedia entry which was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

All the arguments of the existence of god in the bible are based on ignorance

I might be wrong, but I'm not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it. I think it's just a bunch of stories told with that included as an assumption. All the arguments about existence or not are from the philosophers, mostly much much later on. And I think they're silly too.

Like I said, feel free to doubt the religious claims in the Bible, or any other religious text you have negative feelings about, but it's silly to disagree with historians about the simple existence of Jesus the man, once you know you're on the wrong side of that question compared to the experts whose day job it is to examine and more to the point, evaluate historical evidence!

You present yourself as the scientific mind who decides on the basis of evidence, whilst dismissing, with obvious prejudice, those who have examined the evidence. You clearly believe what you believe because it feels right to you, not because you learned anything about it.

I notice that you didn't answer whether your (presumed) disbelief in Islam caused you to disbelieve in the existence of Mohammed, or your (presumed) rejection of Buddhism caused you to think that the Buddha himself was invented?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    This is a silly denial.

    Yes because you can read my mind. 🤣🤣🤣
    I have known this since the 90's, where in philosophy at University we debated whether religiosity is a kind of insanity.
    You are a fool that base your opinions based on insufficient information and lack of evidence, so no wonder if you are religious.

    I might be wrong, but I’m not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it.

    Again a claim based on ignorance. The Bible claims the 10 commandments are from god, and that god created the world, essentially making the claim that the existence of the world is evidence for god.

    I notice that you didn’t answer whether your (presumed) disbelief in Islam caused you to disbelieve in the existence of Mohammed,

    There is very little logic rationale for this, since the two situations are very very different, Mohammed is an actual historic figure with lots of evidence. The god however is the same, and no matter how many new books are written about Harry Potter does not make it a reason to believe he exist without evidence. The same goes for god.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    who wasn’t aware what the consensus of historians was

    I absolutely were.

    This is a silly denial

    Yes because you can read my mind.

    No, it was a silly (and ungrammatical) denial, not because I can read your mind, but because it was clear from the evidence of the text of your claims to me today, right here in this thread, that you had no idea that there was independent evidence and that historians largely agree that Jesus was a real historical person.

    I might be wrong, but I’m not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it.

    Again a claim based on ignorance.

    Hehe. Unlike you, I admitted I might be wrong when I hadn't checked (and I have no intention to read the whole Bible just to check if you're wrong).

    On the other hand, you didn't even believe there was a wikipedia page about the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus! And you claim I was arguing from ignorance?

    The Bible claims the 10 commandments are from god, and that god created the world, essentially making the claim that the existence of the world is evidence for god.

    Sounds to me like "essentially" is doing all the work in that sentence. I think this is yet another silly philosophical argument about the existence of God that someone else wrote that's just based on some Biblical text that it's trivial to doubt and is therefore pointless because it can't convince anyone either way who isn't already convinced.

    I don't believe you can link me to where the Bible says that because the commandments came from God (for which you already have to believe the story), and because God created the world (for which you also already have to believe the story), the existence of the world proves God exists (which I believe isn't even in the story, unless you can prove me otherwise. Right back atcha with the "link or it didn't happen". Again, there's so much in the Bible that youth might have chosen to criticise and yet you pick something that isn't really there?! There's still much in the Bible that you might have chosen to claim was invented and you pick the simple existence of Jesus the person?!)

    And even if that silly argument came from the Bible instead of some silly philosopher trying to prove via silly logic the existence of God, it was such a weak argument with so many logical holes I'm surprised your philosophy teachers gave it the time of day to teach you it.

    At least I see where you learned to make circular arguments where you have to believe the consequent before you can accept the antecedent. You argued that Jesus never existed because there's no evidence, and also you argued that there can't be any evidence because he never existed. Surely if you've studied any philosophy at all, you must recognise that this is about as far from a syllogism as it's possible to be.

    I'm well aware that some philosophers regularly dismiss Christianity and Marxism in the same sentence as deluded nonsense, but I think that you have adopted that prejudice wholesale, and that prejudice has led you to lack knowledge about the historical evidence and consensus for the bare existence of Jesus the historical person.

    Can I advise you in the future to (a) check your facts, (b) argue where you're strongest rather than weakest and (c) be prepared to admit you didn't realise something. It undermines your position otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    I admitted I might be wrong when I hadn’t checked (and I have no intention to read the whole Bible just to check if you’re wrong).

    So you knowingly made an argument from ignorance? And didn't even bother to check!

    I don’t believe you can link me to where the Bible says that...

    Romans 1:20: since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”.

    That's it I'm out, you just continue to talk nonsense on things you know nothing about, and I honestly don't care to waste more of my time on you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    Love how you deleted all the bits of your original nonsense about what the commandments story says and substituted something from the other end of the Bible to prove me wrong, when I said that the commandments story doesn't argue what you said it did. And you were claiming that someone else was moving the goalposts?!

    Romans 1:20: since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”.

    Sounds to me that that's a claim about God's qualities rather than a logical argument for his existence. Again, I don't think there are logical arguments about the existence of God in there, and I think you're looking for that silly ontological argument some much later philosophers made (that God must exist because God is perfect and not existing is an imperfection or some such nonsense). I don't think it's in the Bible, and I don't think philosophical arguments for the existence of God are in the Bible, because like I said hours ago, it's an underlying assumption in the whole thing, not something presented as a logical argument, just a bunch of stories, poems and letters, some of them second or third hand, about how people perceived the events they experienced or heard of, through the perspective of their religion. The fact that you think their religion is hocum should not blind you, as a thinking person who claims an education and adherence to the evidence, to the historical existence of the real historical person Jesus, about whom those stories were written.

    I admitted I might be wrong when I hadn’t checked (and I have no intention to read the whole Bible just to check if you’re wrong).

    So you knowingly made an argument from ignorance?

    Admitting you might be wrong when you're not sure is the opposite of ignorance. Ignorance is refusing to learn and insisting you're right when you're worried you're wrong. The stupidest things are said by people who can't believe they might be mistaken.

    For example, (and of course I might be wrong about this), I personally find it plausible that St George, Patron Saint of England, was a real historical figure who was killed in 303CE or thereabouts, but I strongly disbelieve that he fought or killed a dragon. You seem pathologically unable to emotionally and intellectually separate the existence of the person from the stories about them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •