Do you atheists/nonbelievers see Jesus Christ as a hero? (preaching, vain)

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Nunnor

I asked if you consider him at least as an hero because of his speech, quotes and other great things he has done as a human.

And we answered. I can repeat it though: No I do not think he is any more a "hero" than any other man or woman who spoke out on social and moral issues that they personally strongly believed in. Such people are great and I praise them all but I am not aware of any reason to elevate this ONE man that this thread is about over all the others. Are you?

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by Nunnor

Yes, there are enough historical evidence that a person named Jesus Christ existed. Now, we cannot proof that he was Son of God just like we cannot proof that God exists 100% (Even though we believe in Him) and nobody could proof that God does not exists either.

But we can prove that any possible God is NOT the Biblical god. The historical and archaeological evidence alone is enough to show the human origins of Bible god.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Nunnor

I did not ask you to agree and believe that Jesus Christ was son of God, a God or performed the miracles that is written in the Bible.

I asked if you consider him at least as an hero because of his speech, quotes and other great things he has done as a human. I'm sure other people both past and present could be considered heroes, but his thread is about Jesus Christ.

NO, for the source of what you base your questions on, your bible, is highly suspect in it accuracy of anything. While there is a correlation between some of the stories and real events we have evidence of, the same can be said about every novel or fictional tale of any period in time.

Sorry, I can't take any of it seriously because of the absurdities also attributed to JC, the walking on water, water into wine, etc., etc., The "source" of your admiration for JC is soooooooooo filled with impossibilities, contradictions, absurdities, atrocities and lies that nothing in it should be given any consideration.

Want to talk about real hero's, how about the firefighters that ran toward their death on 9/11, or the average people that took the plane down over PA on 9/11, or the soldier that covers a grenade with his body to save his fellow soldiers.

You have been sold on this JC guy, and that he is the end all, be all of hero or role model, to which I say BS, real or fictional, he doesn't hold a candle to real hero's and role models. JC gets a whole lot of mileage about the fact he is rumored to be the son of a god, unearned and undeserved mileage.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by mordant

Yes and no. I get your archetype approach but the dark side of trying to be like Jesus is embodied in the statement, "s/he has a Jesus complex". Jesus came to save mankind. People who try to save others are, at best, giving themselves short shrift and, at worst, are impertinent busybodies. Saviors know what's best for you and rather than teach you how to save yourself, want to swoop in and be the hero and have you in their eternal debt.

Since Jesus was supposed to have been fully god as well as fully man, it's odd that he created dependent, incompetent beings incapable of caring for themselves and then had to go to the trouble to save them. It would have been no more trouble for an omnipotent being to create us in the first place with what we need to function and of course, it would have avoided a lot of suffering for us which should have been incompatible with his alleged omnibenevolence anyway.

Much of the perceived nobility in emulating Jesus is the selfless giving of oneself to others ... but for what purpose and to what end? To HELP them, which is entirely driven by suffering, ignorance, poverty and want in people. Given that this is the human condition, helping others is both necessary and laudable. Yet ... we're talking here about the creator or at least his prime representative and it begs the question of why this Rube Goldberg arrangement when it is totally unnecessary. Christians will claim it's necessary for character development and some sort of "heaven-ready skillz" development or that god's hands are tied because of "free will" but yet claim that their god is all-powerful, all-knowing and totally benevolent. It just doesn't add up. God basically creates us as beings unworthy of a safe, rewarding, fulfilling existence, "saves" us from this condition but confers none of the needed relief until after death, and we're supposed to be grateful for the favor?

Fair enough, though I should clarify something.

When I think of Jesus, I think of the character portrayed in the 4 gospels and nothing more. At least 70% of what people think Jesus is/represents comes from other people trying to explain/guess and just plain make up what the significance of Jesus really was after that... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a very small proportion of the bible after all.

That's where the character goes from a good (yet still human) guy who happens to have supernatural powers and tried to make his own small corner of space and time a better place to the infinite savior of the world who is the lord of all the universe and knows us all individually. It's quite the exaggeration, really!

[Green Onions]

Originally Posted by Nunnor

Prove us.

There are plenty and enough of evidence that Jesus Christ existed.
I mean common sense; why would hundreds of people write about Jesus Christ if that person never existed?!
Why would 2.2 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims believe and follow Christ? (Muslims believe he was an important prophet and are awaiting for his second coming and is mentioned much more in the Quran that Muhammad).

OK, I don't expect you to believe that he performed miracles, walked on water, turned water into wine - but you should still believe he existed.

So, you think that 2+ billion believing Jesus Christ existed is compelling, but you admit that 2+ billion believing Jesus Christ performed miracles is not compelling.

Nice logic there...

Denying Christ existence is same as denying Hitler existed in 2,000 years from now.

Yes, of course, because thousands upon thousands of still photographs, countless videos and voice recordings, untold number of contemporary accounts of his existence even by disinterested parties, not to mention foes, is the same as a complete lack of contemporary accounts and nothing but decades-later accounts, most of which are as unbiased as asking Lenin whether or not the dictatorship of the proletariat is leads to solid economic policy...

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Green Onions

So, you think that 2+ billion believing Jesus Christ existed is compelling, but you admit that 2+ billion believing Jesus Christ performed miracles is not compelling.

Nice logic there...

To me it just proves that PT Barnum was way off in his estimation that "there's a sucker born every minute"

The birth rate of suckers is much much higher

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a question (though it should have been considered answered by now) not only whether Jesus ever existed but whether the Bible Jesus is much like the real Jesus.

The attempt to make Jesus as probable as Washington or Lincoln (let's keep Hitler out of this? ) will not work even without the absurd attempt to argue that there is no more 'proof' for Washington or Lincoln than for Jesus.

There is a point, of course. Is Jesus less to be believed than Caesar or Alexander? or more than Arthur or the Homeric heroes?

Then again. While Mykenae seems to be real enough, even if the names of the kings of Mykenae (1)and Troy are remembered or the name of the commander of the post - roman militia was indeed Arthur, are the stories true? Even partly?That is indeed open to doubt.

Jesus, miracles aside, seems actually better reported than that and by contemporaries, too. Seems, I say.

But even that is not the subject of the thread. It is about whether the gospel Jesus is the sort of person to have a hero or role - model even if the gospel figure is nothing like the actual historical Jesus. Rather like the Maoist worker heroes or the Napoleonic Nico Chauvin, if such a person didn't exist it would have been necessary to invent him. (Which is what the gospel - writers dd, I cannot be prevented by wild horses from stating).

It does seem that whether one accepts him as a hero or role model depends rather on whether one accepts Christianity as a role -model. The entrenched position picks either the nice stuff like let the littel children...no, scrub that...love your neighbour...no, let that one go too...turn the other cheek..damn' ... be generally nice and give to the poor (that should be safe enough) and the goddless satanspawn will pick the snarling, berating and longing for everyone to burn Jesus, because it suits their prejudice.

all right...OUR prejudice.

(1) to be confused with what actors reading the script for 'The world of the Homeric Heroes' documentaries call 'Mysceney'.

[irish_bob]

absolutely not , i dont even consider his death a big deal and certainly in the happeny place compared to what soldiers who fought on D - DAY etc sacraficed , they hadnt the top dog as thier daddy or the certainty of what was to follow

like superman taking a bullett , no great achievment

[Carneades-SkepticGriggsy]

I find him an objectionable cult leader who demands his sheep to love him more than others and to practice logicide. He has an impracticable- silly and dangerous ethic.
Ti's the scam of the ages as Miklos Jako notes in " Confronting Believers" to find him a source of morality!

[tjarado]

Nope.