What are you claining jesus to be? I don't understand your question unless you define the terms.

@Snert If you make a claim about Jesus then you have to prove it.

@xenoview define Jesus, please. that is what I am asking of you. Ahistoricity is the default postion.

@Snert We have no evidence that jesus ever exist. So you can't describe someone who doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence.

@xenoview yeah the evidence points to myth, what else do you want?

Matias is ahead of the curve; not behind it. He’s not having trouble letting go. He not only let go of his identity as believer (if he even ever was) but has gone the next step to let go of his identity as nonbeliever, which very few are able to do. That does not mean he has returned to being a believer. It means he has developed beyond the need for identity, such that he is able to see truth where it exists, without worrying about identity risks. The heart of authentic religion is not belief. It is practice. It’s like weightlifting for the mind.

@skado

I respectfully disagree. Matias has brought up the atheist vs agnostic argument more than once in his posts, arguing the flaw in one position over the other.

Now about Jesus and how some state the denial of his existence. He speaks about how these people come across.

How does he think HE comes across?

@Athena
Right, but he’s not talking about all people who have stopped believing in Jesus as a literal, but supernatural, divine being. If he were still clinging to belief in that creature he would be targeting all disbelievers.

The subject of this post is, rather, that smaller group of disbelievers who have become fanatical believers in the non-existence of historical Jesus, even when such a position is impossible to prove, and, as Matias points out, completely unimportant, which no believer, struggling or otherwise, said ever.

He apparently isn’t concerned about how he comes across, which supports my guess that he has moved beyond the identity pressures that most believers and non-believers are still captive of; at least as regards his religious identity.

He’s not making a case for the existence of historical Jesus; he’s pointing out the ironic silliness of it mattering one way or the other.

@skado
I'm very clear regarding all you've said. He is pointing out that some people are emphatic about the idea that Jesus did not exist. So? And I understand he's not making a case for his existence.

Why go there? I'm always baffled by these points made about what people believe, i.e. I don't believe it, vs I'm sure he doesn't exist (regarding a biblical God or Jesus the man). There is no solid evidence that he did exist. What is the point of stating that some people are dogmatic about his non existence? Matias is free to do so, of course, but I wonder why the continued interest in these observations? I don't believe it's a statement that falls ahead of the curve. I see it as an attachment to people having to see it his way. Why?

@Athena

Matias usually responds in the earlier hours, so it might be best to wait for his answer tomorrow morning, on such a personal question. But generally, he and I share an interest in what lies beyond the dichotomy of belief vs. non-belief in a literal god-person.

So, speaking strictly for myself here, a reason to keep visiting the finer points of the various shades of attitude toward religion, might be to bring attention to the “baby” that is continually thrown out with the bathwater by the hardcore, identitarian, disbelievers.

That baby is the, often, mostly subconscious, symbolic, artistic and literary content of religious traditions, which illuminate an aspect of human nature which is very real, in the scientific sense, but very difficult to study. It may be of interest only to anthropologists, psychologists, and a handful of interested amateurs like myself, but it is firmly in the territory of legitimate intellectual inquiry, and has nothing to do with any struggle over personal belief.

@skado

I truly understand. I am honestly crystal clear about this. I will let Matias answer then. This is not a question of belief. I stated in my original comment that this was a display of attachment. Not to belief, in his case, but inquiry.

I too have questions about life, and have often been accused of analyzing too much, by former acquaintances. I take no issue with inquiry or analysis, as I've studied and have always held an interest in psychology, philosophy and neuroscience. What I question, and have done so previously here, is the judgment of people's belief. Non belief, and freedom from dogma is why we are all here. You may disagree, but the frequency of these questions is a quest for validation, regarding a viewpoint that not everyone will share.
I question why this validation is required. Whether he answers or not is of no importance to me. I'm truly indifferent.

@Athena

My understanding of the intended purpose of this site is to provide a place for people to explore ideas surrounding non-belief. It’s to be expected that there will be travelers in various stages of confidence in whatever worldview they’re currently assembling for themselves. What would be the harm in leaving them to their own developmental pace, if that were indeed to be the case here?

@skado

No harm. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

@Matias

I appreciate your reply, but now find myself confounded. The discovery that Jesus, as a fictional character, would not dismantle Christianity? Jesus, the man, is at the very foundation of Christian belief.

And you ask a good question. What IS the fuss about? Why does it matter if someone believes with certainty that the lack of evidence is enough to warrant disbelief? What bothers you about that?

Do you believe similarly that someone emphatically denying the existence of Tinkerbell is equally unreasonable?

@Matias

It's the same question then. If it's impossible to know then why does it matter?
For those who are skeptical he ever existed, because we will never know, why go after them for their non belief, even if it's dogmatic?
The position of non belief doesn't come with instructions on how to punish for one's sins.

You have yet to answer my question and you're under no obligation to. I've asked why this is so important to you.. what skin do you have in this game to the extent that "there is no god" or "there is no jesus" is not acceptable to you? Why do you care?

With all the dogma around God belief, this could be a knee jerk reaction from people who are sick of the claim from those say they know a God exists.

-there is a god
-no there isn't
-yes there is
-there isn't... etc.

@Matias

Crickets?

You are welcome to your personal struggle, but your inability to answer my questions, followed by yet another post (yesterday) exhibiting this struggle, makes the denial of it more difficult.

No, you're not answering them.

You don't owe us any explanations, but I find this utterly dishonest of you.

Boom! And theres the most logical comment of the thread...

@ronnie40356 Thanks.

It's because he was a very naughty boy

This.

wait a minit, I recognize this guy! Where ya been?!

@skado Hello, mate. I thought shaving the beard off was an effective disguise but you're too smart for me.

Absolutely!!!

Actually Jesus is mentioned in one text. The Koran. Mohammed refers to him as a great Prophet and there it ends

@Matias Interesting. Ben Okri once wrote,"The parables of Jesus have more power than Jesus". I think Okri was right. The stories go on forever, are interpreted and re-interpreted, and still serve as convenient illustrations of the alleged power of the alleged Jesus. I think there is more meat in a story than an argument about whether its central figure existed. Perhaps our problem as atheists/agnostics is that we quote scientific fact to people who reject science. Personally, I find more wondrous things in nature than in fantasy, but many will, I believe, never agree.

Genius! Amen!

Nobody fucks with the Jesus

Other than Gabriel Jesus the Man City striker!