Christians - What would you do if it were discovered Jesus never existed?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Ok, so now what you seem to be saying is that regardless of what hypothetical evidence is being put forward and what it says about Jesus, your "personal experience" with Gaud would lead you to ignore that evidence entirely. Interesting...

Uh.. yeah. Duh..
You want to trivialize the 'hypothetical evidence' as if it were a fore gone conclusion past any and all scrutiny. when the fact of the matter is the 'hypothetical evidence' is a logical impossibility just short of time travel. you can not dismiss a logical impossibility to witch hunt for what you perceive to be a logical fallacy. I ask you who is making a greater leap of blind stupid faith here? The one who has witnessed and experienced God and with ever fiber of their being know what they witnessed and experienced to be more true than any other truth one can experience, or the one wanting to play out a 'logical senerio' that involves time travel? because as I point out that would be one of the only ways we could have absolute proof, and even then it is only proof of the documentation provided/faith in said time travler.

I'm sure you've been told that personal revelation/"experience" (read: imaginings) are not actual evidence, and I'm pretty confident you can't be convinced of the veracity of that fact, so I'm not really sure what else to say here. What you're basically saying is that even if you were hypothetically convinced, you still wouldn't be convinced, so you can't imagine what you'd do. Such a copout.

Personal experience only validates one's own experiences. But, don't be so quick to dismiss what we experience on a personal level. How do you validate your love for your wife? Kid or 'other?' if not through personal experiences with them.
Now, what if God offered you pinky something as real to YOU as any other relationship you have?

God is not interested in mass worship. Everything that was done was done so we could connect on a personal level. For those who do, this connection is as real as anyother.

Try this: what would you do if there were enough written, historical evidence to confirm that the human version of Jesus was definitely based on another, purely celestial version of the character who lived and died in the spirit realms, and that this version definitely predates the human story by at least a few decades (suggesting, at minimum, that the human-Jesus story is a complete work of fiction based on an earlier story with no human characters).

See my last post. You guys are working on the assumption that I have no other source for validation that what you are willing to acknowledge. Let pretend for a minute everthing the bible says is true. and that God will reach out to those who truly humble themselves before him and follows His program. If and when this happens "Gawd shows up." Now given that experience what philosophical bit of reasoning could possibly unseat you from what you knew to be absolutely true?

If I was as foolish as you all pretend all Christians are and did everything I did and said here to you all based on the historical account of Jesus found in the bible and in other historical points of references then I would have no recourse than to change my reasoning, because my source material would have been found to be in error.

But again that is not the case. God validates the bible by being found right where the bible says look. But again my belief (not faith anymore) is not based just on the bible. I have faith in the bible because of what I have witnessed and experienced in my life. no 'fancy man logic' will ever change that.

Would you ignore this earlier version and figure God must have just been giving them a preview of the human story? Would you realize that both characters are probably fictional? Would you abandon human Jesus and start worshiping the original version? Most importantly, would your morals change? If so, how?

---

Asked and answer. Except the morals bit.
Yes it would. I am not who I am by nature. I am who I am out of love and respect for God. Therefore I strive to change what I want to what He wants for me. I do a lot out of site of others because it is what God would have me do. 9 times out of 10 it is the hard choice the one that does not benfit me. I Made one of those choices this morning, and it was like a kick in the teeth. what's more no one will ever know, and I do not believe I'll ever benefit from it, but because Jesus said "don't muzzle the ox while treading out the grain." I did what I did. that one hurt. So No God=Muzzling the Ox, because they/this one eats a lot of grain.

Did you redeem your donkey's neck with a lamb?  If you didn't you're going to have to break the donkey's neck.  God wants you to obey the Fourth Commandment.  So show your love and respect.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ok, so now what you seem to be saying is that regardless of what hypothetical evidence is being put forward and what it says about Jesus, your "personal experience" with Gaud would lead you to ignore that evidence entirely. Interesting...

Uh.. yeah. Duh..
You want to trivialize the 'hypothetical evidence' as if it were a fore gone conclusion past any and all scrutiny. when the fact of the matter is the 'hypothetical evidence' is a logical impossibility just short of time travel. you can not dismiss a logical impossibility to witch hunt for what you perceive to be a logical fallacy. I ask you who is making a greater leap of blind stupid faith here? The one who has witnessed and experienced God and with ever fiber of their being know what they witnessed and experienced to be more true than any other truth one can experience, or the one wanting to play out a 'logical senerio' that involves time travel? because as I point out that would be one of the only ways we could have absolute proof, and even then it is only proof of the documentation provided/faith in said time travler.

I'm sure you've been told that personal revelation/"experience" (read: imaginings) are not actual evidence, and I'm pretty confident you can't be convinced of the veracity of that fact, so I'm not really sure what else to say here. What you're basically saying is that even if you were hypothetically convinced, you still wouldn't be convinced, so you can't imagine what you'd do. Such a copout.

Personal experience only validates one's own experiences. But, don't be so quick to dismiss what we experience on a personal level. How do you validate your love for your wife? Kid or 'other?' if not through personal experiences with them.
Now, what if God offered you pinky something as real to YOU as any other relationship you have?

God is not interested in mass worship. Everything that was done was done so we could connect on a personal level. For those who do, this connection is as real as anyother.

Try this: what would you do if there were enough written, historical evidence to confirm that the human version of Jesus was definitely based on another, purely celestial version of the character who lived and died in the spirit realms, and that this version definitely predates the human story by at least a few decades (suggesting, at minimum, that the human-Jesus story is a complete work of fiction based on an earlier story with no human characters).

See my last post. You guys are working on the assumption that I have no other source for validation that what you are willing to acknowledge. Let pretend for a minute everthing the bible says is true. and that God will reach out to those who truly humble themselves before him and follows His program. If and when this happens "Gawd shows up." Now given that experience what philosophical bit of reasoning could possibly unseat you from what you knew to be absolutely true?

If I was as foolish as you all pretend all Christians are and did everything I did and said here to you all based on the historical account of Jesus found in the bible and in other historical points of references then I would have no recourse than to change my reasoning, because my source material would have been found to be in error.

But again that is not the case. God validates the bible by being found right where the bible says look. But again my belief (not faith anymore) is not based just on the bible. I have faith in the bible because of what I have witnessed and experienced in my life. no 'fancy man logic' will ever change that.

Would you ignore this earlier version and figure God must have just been giving them a preview of the human story? Would you realize that both characters are probably fictional? Would you abandon human Jesus and start worshiping the original version? Most importantly, would your morals change? If so, how?

Asked and answer. Except the morals bit.
Yes it would. I am not who I am by nature. I am who I am out of love and respect for God. Therefore I strive to change what I want to what He wants for me. I do a lot out of site of others because it is what God would have me do. 9 times out of 10 it is the hard choice the one that does not benfit me. I Made one of those choices this morning, and it was like a kick in the teeth. what's more no one will ever know, and I do not believe I'll ever benefit from it, but because Jesus said "don't muzzle the ox while treading out the grain." I did what I did. that one hurt. So No God=Muzzling the Ox, because they/this one eats a lot of grain.

Drich, ALL you're doing is dodging the question. Forget the evidence. Forget about it. It's confusing you and giving you a place to turn to dodge the question.


The question (the only relevant one for this thread, the one you refuse to even entertain) is this: what would you do if you believed Jesus did not exist? It does not matter why. Play pretend. Fast forward through that. We're not asking what would convince you. It does not matter for the question being asked. What would you do if you didn't believe Jesus was a real human? For whatever reason.


I know you're still not going to answer...honestly, I don't know why I even try sometimes.

[Angrboda]

I ask you who is making a greater leap of blind stupid faith here? The one who has witnessed ... God and with ever fiber of their being know what they witnessed and experienced to be more true than any other truth one can experience, or the one wanting to play out a 'logical senerio' that involves time travel?

What exactly did you witness? Did you see Him?

[Pizza]

I ask you who is making a greater leap of blind stupid faith here? The one who has witnessed ... God and with ever fiber of their being know what they witnessed and experienced to be more true than any other truth one can experience, or the one wanting to play out a 'logical senerio' that involves time travel?

What exactly did you witness?  Did you see Him?

Drich is talking about religious experiences, I think. The funny thing is Christians have no way of ruling out causes ranging from scientific explanations to demons and rival gods as being unlikely.

[Pyrrho]

What exactly did you witness?  Did you see Him?

Drich is talking about religious experiences, I think. The funny thing is Christians have no way of ruling out causes ranging from scientific explanations to demons and rival gods as being unlikely.

Yes.  There are people of all types of religion (e.g., muslim, hindu, etc.) who report religious experiences, and it is logically impossible for all religions to be true (or even any two of them).  Consequently, religious experience cannot prove the truth of any religion at all.

[Minimalist]

No act of penetration is ever implied in the nativity accounts in the Bible.

You are exceedingly naive.  They may have been ancient goat herders but they understood the concept of fucking.

[vorlon13]

*Mormons assert a physical act of sexual congress occurred to impregnate Mary.


(yeah, they're weird that way)

[vorlon13]

If the Holy Ghost had impregnated Mary, Jesus would not have been born with a physical body.

It's an interesting conjecture for the 'regular' Christers to ponder. Or for us to imagine them pondering.

[GrandizerII]

No act of penetration is ever implied in the nativity accounts in the Bible.

You are exceedingly naive.  They may have been ancient goat herders but they understood the concept of fucking.

[Angrboda]

What exactly did you witness?  Did you see Him?

Drich is talking about religious experiences, I think.

I would prefer Drich's words to your uninformed speculation, thank you.