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. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I don’t think theists realize how arrogant and condescending this is to agnostics or atheists.

    Basically mind your own soul and we’ll mind ours.


    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment)
    :
    That’s hardly atheists “showing up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc.

    Matt, you’re correct that Jamie used the words “arrogant” and “condescending” and I think I missed that at the time.

    Regardless, I was responding to MJB’s comment that “the Atheists show up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc., &tc. the Christians are for having faith in G-d.” As I read Jamie’s comment, he was not denigrating MJB’s faith, but a particular way of expressing his faith (i.e., the quip about Cato being liable to be zapped by God).

     

    • #211
  2. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I don’t think theists realize how arrogant and condescending this is to agnostics or atheists.

    Basically mind your own soul and we’ll mind ours.


    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment)
    :
    That’s hardly atheists “showing up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc.

    Matt, you’re correct that Jamie used the words “arrogant” and “condescending” and I think I missed that at the time.

    Regardless, I was responding to MJB’s comment that “the Atheists show up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc., &tc. the Christians are for having faith in G-d.” As I read Jamie’s comment, he was not denigrating MJB’s faith, but a particular way of expressing his faith (i.e., the quip about Cato being liable to be zapped by God).

    That’s some amazing parsing there.

    • #212
  3. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen (View Comment):

    Matt White (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I don’t think theists realize how arrogant and condescending this is to agnostics or atheists.

    Basically mind your own soul and we’ll mind ours.


    Tom Meyer, Ed. (View Comment)
    :
    That’s hardly atheists “showing up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc.

    Matt, you’re correct that Jamie used the words “arrogant” and “condescending” and I think I missed that at the time.

    Regardless, I was responding to MJB’s comment that “the Atheists show up to tell the Christians how wrong, arrogant, condescending, boorish etc., &tc. the Christians are for having faith in G-d.” As I read Jamie’s comment, he was not denigrating MJB’s faith, but a particular way of expressing his faith (i.e., the quip about Cato being liable to be zapped by God).

    Tom,  you defended Atheist involvement by citing the comments by yourself, Jamie and Cato on the first page as being civil.  Those comments got respectful replies.   But you are overlooking the snark which began at #19.   I replied with a straightforward but snippy rejoinder, which then was treated to a scoffing, condescending #25 that I took to be insulting.

    Then the exchange between Hartmann and Jamie from #39 – #42, where Jamie insists that Christians must use Jamie’s definitions for “G-d” and “morality.”   That is sort of a belligerent position for an Atheist to take who came barging in on a Christian Easter post.  I pushed back against the Atheist insistence that they get to define terms at #57, which Jamie responded to at #58 with demands that I must convince him (using his definitions) that G-d exists, before I can say Christian things.

     

    • #213
  4. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Tom,  you obviously also missed “arrogant, condescending and obnoxious” at #62, which were tossed at me for stating a Christian doctrinal position in a way that implied personal application.

    You must have missed #71, where another Christian was criticized for saying Christian things.   Perhaps you also missed #75, where an Atheist complained about a Christian talking about faith, evidently forgetting that faith was the thrust of the original post.  Of course, followed up with an extra helping of snark at #77.

    Through all this, Christians were civil and patient with cogent replies.  Even the aggressive challenge at #92 was met with a respectful reply at #98.

     

     

    • #214
  5. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Tom,  surely you did not miss Cato’s complaint at #99, where he took great offense at remarks I made that simply set forth traditionalist Christian teachings and expressed concern for him as a Ricochet friend.  It seems sort of bad form to come to a Christian Easter post, hijack it with demands for logical arguments that must use Atheist re-definitions of Christian terms, and then get all mad at finding Christians saying Christian things.

    The more I look back over this discussion, the more I am convinced that my characterization, which you brushed off, is actually a generous reading of the way your Atheist pals conducted themselves here.

    • #215
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.