Jesus of Nazareth

 

I found this on the Amorality of Atheism Facebook website page. I don’t endorse the idea that all atheists are amoral though.

Read an article in the Belfast Telegraph recently which said that “Today religion remains a popular historical hobby but not, thankfully, something we take seriously any more”. But whilst the narrow circle of people the author knows might not take religion seriously, there is one person they cannot afford not to take seriously.

He lived millennia ago, travelling by foot, with no car or horse, never leaving a rural area only slightly larger than Northern Ireland. He was a tradesman most of his life, and taught for only three years, spending most of his time with small crowds, and dying in his early thirties. He left behind no children, no army, or political lobby group, to trumpet his cause.

Yet today He is the central figure of the world’s best-selling book, and the subject of millions more. His name is known all over the globe, and spoken in hundreds of different languages. His followers are the most persecuted people on Earth, yet increase by 25 million every year, and his message has outlasted kingdoms, empires, dictators, revolutions, ideologies and religions.

He is arguably the most influential, lauded, loathed, misunderstood, controversial and quoted man to ever walk the face of the Earth. You can write him off as a liar, cast him aside as a lunatic, or look on Him as Lord, but one thing you cannot do is ignore Him. — Andrew Kirke

I’d also add that contrary to what some rags or magazines or online sites put out today of all days, or in prior Easters (Raw Story, CNN, Huffington Post) that no serious historian has ever seriously believed that Jesus did not exist. Only historical illiterates do. Christ was mentioned in Jewish, Greek, and Roman writings. For historians of the 1st century that is more than enough to prove he lived. Keep in mind that what we know of Alexander the Great or Aristotle depends on one source or sources written hundreds of years after their life as in the case of the former.

My faith in Jesus often wavers. I have a doubters’ mind. Nevertheless when I see atheists or non believers rubbish the man’s existence it is as if my faith is renewed again. For in doing so I am confronted not with reasoned belief but blind ignorance. An ignorance at its heart rooted in the desire of the accusers a wish for him not to exist. After all if Christ did exist the onus becomes on the modern unbeliever to take more seriously his words. This can be problem for them, indeed for any soul.

But their refusal also forces me to re-look the evidence for Christ. It also causes me to learn more things about the man. In a weird way it strengthens my faith. Christianity is after all a faith which is soaked in contradictions. It’s also one grounded in the search for Truth. Ecce homo — Behold the man. A man whose life changed humanity.

Published in History, Religion & Philosophy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 215 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Western Atheist morals are all based on a Judeo-Christian morality. Period.

    Are Christian morals ex-nihilo?

    Not really. “Ex-nihilism” is usually used to describe God’s work of creation, something from nothing.

    I know, but that’s not what I was getting at.

    My point is that Western morals and philosophy are as Greco-Roman as they are Judeo-Christian (and they are both). Moses, Jesus, and Paul are essential to our civilization, but so are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

    The 2nd part of my comment is still relevant. True morals are a reflection of God’s character.  They are revealed in his written word, and to a lesser extent through general revelation.

    • #31
  2. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Western Atheist morals are all based on a Judeo-Christian morality. Period.

    Are Christian morals ex-nihilo?

    Not really. “Ex-nihilism” is usually used to describe God’s work of creation, something from nothing.

    I know, but that’s not what I was getting at.

    My point is that Western morals and philosophy are as Greco-Roman as they are Judeo-Christian (and they are both). Moses, Jesus, and Paul are essential to our civilization, but so are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

    The 2nd part of my comment is still relevant. True morals are a reflection of God’s character. They are revealed in his written word, and to a lesser extent through general revelation.

    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    • #32
  3. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    And what is morality, Jamie?

    If you have no God to serve as foundation, you have no way for objective morality to exist.  It is all cultural and arbitrary.  There is literally no way to justify an absolute “right” or “wrong.”  It’s all about what you feel–and what your culture arbitrarily teaches you–in that moment.

    • #33
  4. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Western Atheist morals are all based on a Judeo-Christian morality. Period.

    Are Christian morals ex-nihilo?

    Not really. “Ex-nihilism” is usually used to describe God’s work of creation, something from nothing.

    I know, but that’s not what I was getting at.

    My point is that Western morals and philosophy are as Greco-Roman as they are Judeo-Christian (and they are both). Moses, Jesus, and Paul are essential to our civilization, but so are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

    Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not working in a Pagan intellectual ghetto.  They were aware of ideas from the east.  They undoubtedly were aware of ideas from the Jews.

    Socrates and Plato were noted and prized by the Christian Fathers precisely because they were exploring the roots of our ideas of what is good.  The idea that the Pagan tales of the gods described capricious, sometimes mean, spirits with powers, left them hungry for a spiritual framework that established what is good.  That is what led to the “Forms.”

    There was a religion that taught that G_d is good.   It was not so far off as the East.  Ideas traveled.

    So don’t be so quick to assume that western morals owe as much to Paganism as to Jewish (and Christian) thought.  I do  not think the case for ‘Pagan roots of our moral code’ is solid.

    • #34
  5. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Western Atheist morals are all based on a Judeo-Christian morality. Period.

    Are Christian morals ex-nihilo?

    Not really. “Ex-nihilism” is usually used to describe God’s work of creation, something from nothing.

    I know, but that’s not what I was getting at.

    My point is that Western morals and philosophy are as Greco-Roman as they are Judeo-Christian (and they are both). Moses, Jesus, and Paul are essential to our civilization, but so are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

    The 2nd part of my comment is still relevant. True morals are a reflection of God’s character. They are revealed in his written word, and to a lesser extent through general revelation.

    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    That’s not what I’m saying. People who don’t believe in God may come up with some other basis for a moral position. Many moral issues are self-evident. Most people know it is wrong to steal or murder without having a solid philosophical basis for it. When they do get it right they are reflecting God’s character even if they don’t recognize it.

     

    • #35
  6. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    MJBubba (View Comment):

     

    Socrates and Plato were noted and prized by the Christian Fathers precisely because they were exploring the roots of our ideas of what is good. The idea….left them hungry for a spiritual framework that established what is good. That is what led to the “Forms.”

    It was not so far off as the East. Ideas traveled.

    So don’t be so quick to assume that western morals owe as much to Paganism as to Jewish (and Christian) thought. I do not think the case for ‘Pagan roots of our moral code’ is solid.

    I would not either, in light of the fact that a moral suspicion of violence itself is at the core of the modern Western moral code, which is its most profoundly and characteristically Christian element. The Roman, the Greek, the Viking, would (and did) find the idea of *not* wreaking bloody, disproportionate revenge on one’s enemies to be a species of cowardice.  In short, to them, the injunctions of the Sermon  on the Mount relating to violence seemed, at first, to  variously to be moral taunts, foolishness, cowardice or  sheer stupidity. See also the fate of the Eerie Indians. It took centuries for the message to make headway in these cultures.

    • #36
  7. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens .

    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    That’s not what I’m saying. People who don’t believe in God may come up with some other basis for a moral position. Many moral issues are self-evident. Most people know it is wrong to steal or murder without having a solid philosophical basis for it. When they do get it right they are reflecting God’s character even if they don’t recognize it.

    This is a point both William Craig and Ravi Zacharias have emphasized, and it’s good to make it here.  The question is “can man be good without God” not “can man be good without believing in God.” The answer to the former is negative, while the answer to the latter is positive.

    • #37
  8. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    And what IS morality, Jamie?

    If you have no God to serve as foundation, you have no way for objective morality to exist. It is all cultural and arbitrary. There is literally no way to justify an absolute “right” or “wrong.” It’s all about what you feel–and what your culture arbitrarily teaches you–in that moment.

    I do not buy the Prager line on this. Suffice to say that I believe morality can exist without God.

    • #38
  9. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    And what IS morality, Jamie?

    If you have no God to serve as foundation, you have no way for objective morality to exist. It is all cultural and arbitrary. There is literally no way to justify an absolute “right” or “wrong.” It’s all about what you feel–and what your culture arbitrarily teaches you–in that moment.

    I do not buy the Prager line on this. Suffice to say that I believe morality can exist without God.

    Then you don’t understand the meaning of the word “God”.

    • #39
  10. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    And what IS morality, Jamie?

    If you have no God to serve as foundation, you have no way for objective morality to exist. It is all cultural and arbitrary. There is literally no way to justify an absolute “right” or “wrong.” It’s all about what you feel–and what your culture arbitrarily teaches you–in that moment.

    I do not buy the Prager line on this. Suffice to say that I believe morality can exist without God.

    Then you don’t understand the meaning of the word “God”.

    No I just don’t share your faith. There’s a difference.

    • #40
  11. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    And what IS morality, Jamie?

    If you have no God to serve as foundation, you have no way for objective morality to exist. It is all cultural and arbitrary. There is literally no way to justify an absolute “right” or “wrong.” It’s all about what you feel–and what your culture arbitrarily teaches you–in that moment.

    I do not buy the Prager line on this. Suffice to say that I believe morality can exist without God.

    Then you don’t understand the meaning of the word “God”.

    No I just don’t share your faith. There’s a difference.

    There is, by definition, no God-independent standard of morality. Being the source and standard of morality is part of what makes God, God. Saying otherwise is akin to saying one can have  light without photons.

    • #41
  12. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    And what IS morality, Jamie?

    If you have no God to serve as foundation, you have no way for objective morality to exist. It is all cultural and arbitrary. There is literally no way to justify an absolute “right” or “wrong.” It’s all about what you feel–and what your culture arbitrarily teaches you–in that moment.

    I do not buy the Prager line on this. Suffice to say that I believe morality can exist without God.

    Then you don’t understand the meaning of the word “God”.

    No I just don’t share your faith. There’s a difference.

    There is, by definition, no God-independent standard of morality. Being the source and standard of morality is part of what makes God, God. Saying otherwise is akin to saying one can have light without photons.

    That’s just not true. I know you believe to to be so but there are other ways to derive moral precepts other than God given revelation.

    • #42
  13. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Just as an example: neither Kantian ethics nor Utilitarianism require a deity for morality.

    • #43
  14. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    I do not buy the Prager line on this. Suffice to say that I believe morality can exist without God.

    Then you must explain how.  

    • #44
  15. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Kantian ethics

    Also, appealing to ethics via the categorical imperative to keep society functioning does not really define “good” and “bad” in any objective way.  A society can rationalize how genital mutilation for women is the proper thing to do.  In fact, this is expected in certain cultures, so some might say it’s quite reasonable to perpetuate the practice.  It’s justified in all sorts of ways, after all.

    Yet… this does not make this practice moral.

    Without an objective reality, this isn’t true because morality is arbitrary and… well… Someone said this was fine, so.  (Shrug)  ;)

    • #45
  16. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Just as an example: neither Kantian ethics nor Utilitarianism require a deity for morality.

    Both depend on presuppositions about human beings and ethics that are at the core derived directly from Judeo-Christian morality. This is especially true of Kant, who routinely paraphrases the Bible in Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten  and even in Kritik der reinen Vernunft. One could argue that this is just an inescapable result of his having grown up in a Lutheran household in the heyday of the Pietist movement, but he could have thrown metaphysics out and moved toward a completely materialistic philosophy, but he quite consciously chose not to because such a philosophy is inadequate to describe reality.

    • #46
  17. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    It doesn’t do any good to say that morality requires God as its source unless you can show how the revelation of that morality or its appearance among humans would have been impossible without a higher non-human intelligence as its origin. The problem with that is that the origin of everything in Judeo Christian morality, and every other morality, can be explained without positing such a higher intelligence. Humans naturally understand and live by moral rules, and none of the moral rules we know of is unexplainable without a supernatural origin.

    • #47
  18. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Bob W (View Comment):
    the origin of everything in Judeo Christian morality, and every other morality, can be explained rationalized without positing such a higher intelligence.

     

    • #48
  19. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    MJBubba (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    the origin of everything in Judeo Christian morality, and every other morality, can be explained rationalized without positing such a higher intelligence.

    What is religion if not a rationalization?

    • #49
  20. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    I am having this conversation with a dear friend of mine who is an atheist.   We have gone back and forth over philosophy, history, science.  It’s always an interesting exercise for me because an untested faith is no faith at all, and even the Bible says in Isaiah, if I recall correctly, “come let us reason together”.

    Religion does involve some rationalization.  Sure.  Religion doesn’t get it all right, and we don’t understand God in full.

    This doesn’t mean that He doesn’t undergird the universe.

    As said earlier by someone else, moral action is often a reflection of God’s character, as it cannot all be explained by evolution.

    Without God, it’s all biological firing of synapses, and any structure we create for “good” is fairly arbitrary.

    That is not morality.

    That is nothing but instinct.

    In that world, nothing is “good” or “bad.”

     

    • #50
  21. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    MJBubba (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    the origin of everything in Judeo Christian morality, and every other morality, can be explained rationalized without positing such a higher intelligence.

    What is religion if not a rationalization?

    With G-d, life is a life of faith.

    Without G-d, life is a life of rationalization.

    Rationalize yourself to your heart’s content.  Just be advised that sin is real and there are eternal consequences.

    • #51
  22. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    You know this because you were there?

    Well, now. We weren’t there for a lot of events that no one disputes. While we should always test and question every story–I believe–it is okay to come to a point in which we decide a story is true.

    Absolutely, but the claim that “the Gospel that was preached by the eyewitnesses has been faithfully handed down to us” is not one that no one disputes.  You, or MJ, are entitled to believe it, but to simply assert it as if it were beyond question as he did merits an objection.

    • #52
  23. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    That some people arrive at morality through god does not necessitate that all people do.

    And what is morality, Jamie?

    If you have no God to serve as foundation, you have no way for objective morality to exist. It is all cultural and arbitrary. There is literally no way to justify an absolute “right” or “wrong.” It’s all about what you feel–and what your culture arbitrarily teaches you–in that moment.

    It’s turtles all the way down.  God doesn’t solve that problem.  The god hypothesis just moves that problem to a lower level of turtles.

    • #53
  24. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    You know this because you were there?

    Well, now. We weren’t there for a lot of events that no one disputes. While we should always test and question every story–I believe–it is okay to come to a point in which we decide a story is true.

    Absolutely, but the claim that “the Gospel that was preached by the eyewitnesses has been faithfully handed down to us” is not one that no one disputes. You, or MJ, are entitled to believe it, but to simply assert it as if it were beyond question as he did merits an objection.

    I am not really arguing for Christianity when talking about absolute right and wrong even though I am also a Catholic.  Rather there is in this thought an acknowledgment of A god with hopes to learn about THE God later.

    Does that make sense?

    “Good” and “bad” exist in the world, but these concepts are meaningless–or arbitrary–without a creator.

    One can believe different, but one should explain how moral terms are then defined.

    Of course, you are referring to a statement about Christ specifically.  It simple seems fair to point out that we have to assess evidence all the time and come to all sorts of beliefs as a result.

    • #54
  25. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Lois, my comment to MJ was in response to a very specific historical claim he made.  It had nothing to do with your comments about the grounding of moral philosophy.

    As to the latter question, as an agnostic with what I consider a coherent moral code, it is one I struggle with.  “God said so” is a very convenient answer to a lot of questions that don’t have very obvious answers, including but not limited to “where does morality come from?”  Its only real competitors as a hypothesis, to my knowledge, are “morality is an intuition context specific to and co-evolved with the rest of human nature which provides survival benefits to members of the species” and “my parents told me so, and so that’s just what I believe.”

    I honestly suspect that at least in my case, the parent hypothesis is as like as either of the others to be the actual, proximate cause of my moral code.  Whether either of the other two hypotheses really play a role is, like I said, something I struggle with.

    • #55
  26. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    Lois, my comment to MJ was in response to a very specific historical claim he made. It had nothing to do with your comments about the grounding of moral philosophy.

    As to the latter question, as an agnostic with what I consider a coherent moral code, it is one I struggle with. “God said so” is a very convenient answer to a lot of questions that don’t have very obvious answers, including but not limited to “where does morality come from?” Its only real competitors as a hypothesis, to my knowledge, are “morality is an intuition context specific to and co-evolved with the rest of human nature which provides survival benefits to members of the species” and “my parents told me so, and so that’s just what I believe.”

    I honestly suspect that at least in my case, the parent hypothesis is as like as either of the others to be the actual, proximate cause of my moral code. Whether either of the other two hypotheses really play a role is, like I said, something I struggle with.

    Fair enough.

    Btw, while I don’t struggle much at all with the idea that God is the foundation for morality at this point in my life, I also struggle with how we  discern His objective “good” and “bad.”

    These are, in my mind, quite different questions: from where does morality come? and how do we understand/live moral lives?

    • #56
  27. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    It’s turtles all the way down.

    Once again, the Atheist mantra.   ‘Turtles all the way down.’

    This complaint comes because Atheists are unwilling to let Christians define G-d.   It is a push-back against the “Prime Mover” argument that G-d exists.

    If we let G-d be G-d, then there is no need to go further.   He is sufficient.

    If you think you are sufficient for yourself, then you are fooling yourself.   If you think there is no spiritual aspect to human life, you are taking your chances in eternity.

    • #57
  28. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    MJBubba (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):
    It’s turtles all the way down.

    Once again, the Atheist mantra. ‘Turtles all the way down.’

    This complaint comes because Atheists are unwilling to let Christians define G-d. It is a push-back against the “Prime Mover” argument that G-d exists.

    If we let G-d be G-d, then there is no need to go further. He is sufficient.

    If you think you are sufficient for yourself, then you are fooling yourself. If you think there is no spiritual aspect to human life, you are taking your chances in eternity.

    Of course then you need proof of God’s existence and proof that the morals handed down to you over thousands of years of retelling and rewriting are an accurate reflection of God’s will. You can assert that faith is all that’s needed, not proof, but then we are back to the turtle problem. Your faith is no more authoritative than reason.

    • #58
  29. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Western Atheist morals are all based on a Judeo-Christian morality. Period.

    Are Christian morals ex-nihilo?

    Not really. “Ex nihilo” [FIFY] is usually used to describe God’s work of creation, something from nothing.

    I know, but that’s not what I was getting at.

    My point is that Western morals and philosophy are as Greco-Roman as they are Judeo-Christian (and they are both). Moses, Jesus, and Paul are essential to our civilization, but so are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

    Not all Christians would deny this influence or reject its insights out-of-hand, btw…

     

     

    • #59
  30. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Hoping Good Friday was fruitful – and that Eastertide will be a blessing, @paddysiochain!

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.