Opinion of Jesus Christ

[The Mikado]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

[The Mikado]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

Are you disputing that fictional characters that last thousands of years like Achilles or Iphigenia or Arachne or Niobe or Laocoön or Oedipus haven't had a far greater impact on the human consciousness than your average person who is not remembered 50-75 years after his/her death?  These larger-than-life figures grasp our imagination and their tales still exist long after "real" people who were their contemporaries have totally and utterly vanished.  Treating fiction as if it's somehow inferior to reality is one of the biggest mistakes many people make today: Laocoön's famous line "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" is still quoted today, as well as his gruesome end, swallowed by sea serpents sent from the gods.  Would one of Laocoön's "real" contemporaries ever be able to have that much impact?

The idea that just because something didn't happen or someone didn't exist, it or s/he is somehow less valuable to know and study is one of the most poisonous and repellent notions of modernity.  In many ways, the fictional, the supernatural, and the metaphysical are far more important than the "real" and deserve respect as such.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

Snow White is, in a very real sense, really a great deal more real than, for instance, Louie Gohmert. Likewise Princess Kaguya and her suitors are more real than almost the entire Japan Restoration Party and Movimento 5 Stelle combined. At this point it's an open question whether or not Vasilisa the Beautiful and Finist the Falcon are more real than Vladimir Putin.

[afleitch]

Well no, fictional characters are not real but they may be disproportionally more influential than those who have lived. They may even be more influential than the minds from which they came. Just as my great grandfather Gilbert was very real but probably wasn't influential. I have no qualms that Odysseus has a greater educational merit than Gilbert Leitch.

[The Mikado]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

Snow White is, in a very real sense, really a great deal more real than, for instance, Louie Gohmert. Likewise Princess Kaguya and her suitors are more real than almost the entire Japan Restoration Party and Movimento 5 Stelle combined. At this point it's an open question whether or not Vasilisa the Beautiful and Finist the Falcon are more real than Vladimir Putin.

In all seriousness, the line between "real" and "imaginary" or "fictional" is blurry at the best of times and more or less meaningless.  People create the reality that they need to help comprehend the world and that's not a bad thing.  Is a fictional character any less real than a dead person you never met and will never meet, or a celebrity you've followed in the press for ages but is totally out of your realm of reference?  To you, there's no real distinction that matters in a practical sense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The temptation is to take all of this and wonder what is really 'real' anyway, but that's the point at which people start to look at you as if you're crazy or something.

[Beet]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

Snow White is, in a very real sense, really a great deal more real than, for instance, Louie Gohmert. Likewise Princess Kaguya and her suitors are more real than almost the entire Japan Restoration Party and Movimento 5 Stelle combined. At this point it's an open question whether or not Vasilisa the Beautiful and Finist the Falcon are more real than Vladimir Putin.

In all seriousness, the line between "real" and "imaginary" or "fictional" is blurry at the best of times and more or less meaningless.  People create the reality that they need to help comprehend the world and that's not a bad thing.  Is a fictional character any less real than a dead person you never met and will never meet, or a celebrity you've followed in the press for ages but is totally out of your realm of reference?  To you, there's no real distinction that matters in a practical sense.

Well I think the criticism from the anti-religious standpoint would be that there's a distinction between the honestly fictional (like Snow White) and the fictional which tries to pass itself off as real (such as religions based on the testimony of miracles). You're essentially desiring the masses to live their lives according to a particular truth, all the while thinking that it is a lie in your heart.

[Maxwell]

HP, just like anyone else who lead a cult.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

Snow White is, in a very real sense, really a great deal more real than, for instance, Louie Gohmert. Likewise Princess Kaguya and her suitors are more real than almost the entire Japan Restoration Party and Movimento 5 Stelle combined. At this point it's an open question whether or not Vasilisa the Beautiful and Finist the Falcon are more real than Vladimir Putin.

In all seriousness, the line between "real" and "imaginary" or "fictional" is blurry at the best of times and more or less meaningless.  People create the reality that they need to help comprehend the world and that's not a bad thing.  Is a fictional character any less real than a dead person you never met and will never meet, or a celebrity you've followed in the press for ages but is totally out of your realm of reference?  To you, there's no real distinction that matters in a practical sense.

Well I think the criticism from the anti-religious standpoint would be that there's a distinction between the honestly fictional (like Snow White) and the fictional which tries to pass itself off as real (such as religions based on the testimony of miracles). You're essentially desiring the masses to live their lives according to a particular truth, all the while thinking that it is a lie in your heart.

One could say that all systems of morality are particular to the cultural and historical context in which they are located. But that doesn't mean they aren't relevant for those contexts.

[Beet]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

Snow White is, in a very real sense, really a great deal more real than, for instance, Louie Gohmert. Likewise Princess Kaguya and her suitors are more real than almost the entire Japan Restoration Party and Movimento 5 Stelle combined. At this point it's an open question whether or not Vasilisa the Beautiful and Finist the Falcon are more real than Vladimir Putin.

In all seriousness, the line between "real" and "imaginary" or "fictional" is blurry at the best of times and more or less meaningless.  People create the reality that they need to help comprehend the world and that's not a bad thing.  Is a fictional character any less real than a dead person you never met and will never meet, or a celebrity you've followed in the press for ages but is totally out of your realm of reference?  To you, there's no real distinction that matters in a practical sense.

Well I think the criticism from the anti-religious standpoint would be that there's a distinction between the honestly fictional (like Snow White) and the fictional which tries to pass itself off as real (such as religions based on the testimony of miracles). You're essentially desiring the masses to live their lives according to a particular truth, all the while thinking that it is a lie in your heart.

One could say that all systems of morality are particular to the cultural and historical context in which they are located. But that doesn't mean they aren't relevant for those contexts.

Well certainly, and apologies for being so crude here, but the fact that most people would have a problem with dishonesty is still floating contemptously beneath the surface of this discussion.

I'm summarizing the anti-religious standpoint here because it actually seems less disrespectful to simply reject religious claims than to consider them not even worth discussing.

[fezzyfestoon]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

My problem is the very fact that they are characters. There is no truth, just interpretation. That leaves the door wide open to abuse. The very impact Jesus has had as a character is why I have a distaste for the idea of deriving a heavy amount of moral and societal value from a character that can represent anything their audience stands for. Especially when there are so many pockets of bigotry littering the bible in the name of an indisputably dominant cultural figure. But I do agree that the distinction between fictional and nonfictional historical figures is weak. It all depends on their impact as a cultural mainstay. Jesus has had a horrendous impact on the world as both.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can understand the concerns that lead people to have a somewhat negative view of Jesus.  I think these are mostly misunderstandings, but then again it's not hard to see that Jesus has been misunderstood from the very beginning, and perhaps his style of teaching lends itself to that at some level. 

On the other hand, I tend to think that many who see Jesus' impact in mostly negative terms aren't putting their alternate history thinking caps on and/or are taking a great many things for granted that they shouldn't be.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

My problem is the very fact that they are characters. There is no truth, just interpretation. That leaves the door wide open to abuse. The very impact Jesus has had as a character is why I have a distaste for the idea of deriving a heavy amount of moral and societal value from a character that can represent anything their audience stands for. Especially when there are so many pockets of bigotry littering the bible in the name of an indisputably dominant cultural figure. But I do agree that the distinction between fictional and nonfictional historical figures is weak. It all depends on their impact as a cultural mainstay. Jesus has had a horrendous impact on the world as both.

But you are blantatly ignoring all the positive impact he had.

[fezzyfestoon]

Negative for the same but opposite reason I think highly of Michael Vick. Despite Vick's obvious negatives, I think he's had an overall positive impact on the people who derive value from the things he does and says and the people they impact. The exact opposite could be said of the cult of character surrounding Jesus Christ.

For the third time, no I'm not...

[fezzyfestoon]

On the other hand, I tend to think that many who see Jesus' impact in mostly negative terms aren't putting their alternate history thinking caps on and/or are taking a great many things for granted that they shouldn't be.

Like what? What am I taking for granted that Jesus has given me?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

On the other hand, I tend to think that many who see Jesus' impact in mostly negative terms aren't putting their alternate history thinking caps on and/or are taking a great many things for granted that they shouldn't be.

Like what? What am I taking for granted that Jesus has given me?

I don't know about you specifically, but some people might appreciate the existence of widely available hospitals.  Those who are not thoroughly post-Christian might also appreciate the idea that unwanted or disabled newborns shouldn't be exposed to the elements -  which is a subset of the larger Christian contribution to the concept of universal human dignity.

[fezzyfestoon]

It's striking how low of an opinion Christians have of humanity.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Threads like this make me wonder why I browse this board...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's striking how low of an opinion Christians have of humanity.

A low opinion of humanity seems quite reasonable on the evidence collected so far.

Of course what you say isn't true, or isn't entirely true. Christianity has both an extremely low and an extremely high opinion of humanity, and holds both views at exactly the same time. Children of God (and made in His image, etc) but sinners as well, capable of grotesque acts of wicked depravity and the like.

[Beet]

Christianity has both an extremely low and an extremely high opinion of humanity, and holds both views at exactly the same time.

Precisely. The idea that humans are worth the son of God's death puts us on one of the biggest pedestals possible, but on the other hand, the idea that it was necessary due to our sinful nature is, IMO, also realistic.

[Famous Mortimer]

I hate when people say "I don't think he was (the son of) God but he had some nice ideas."

That's basically just an atheist trying to be a moderate hero.

Take out the miracles, and what you're left with really isn't that impressive as philosophy.

"Be nice to each other" like he was the only person who ever said that.

Beyond "be nice to each other" most of the other stuff has no relevance to life on Earth. It was stuff about how you won't be with your family when you're in heaven and how the apocalypse is going to come.

If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, just own it.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

okay ideas but the effects left ended up being overall negative so... very minor hp

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

If he in fact did exist as a person, and we assume we at least got his message down, then HP.  Anyone, in this day and age, who goes around claiming divinity and salvation through them is seen as a crackpot and parasite.  Why should I extend a different standard to another of their ilk just because he is given such a benevolent caricature?  This guilt-trippy aspect to Christianity is one of it's worst and most disgusting features. 

HP.

[The Mikado]

Anyone, in this day and age, who goes around claiming divinity and salvation through them is seen as a crackpot and parasite. 

The Dalai Lama claims to be the 14th incarnation of a bodhisattva who continually returns to help guide people on the path to Enlightenment, Nirvana, and the end to suffering, renouncing his personal qualification to end the cycle for himself and achieve Nirvana himself.  Tens of millions worldwide accept his claim and many that don't view him as a great teacher and spiritual leader, to the point where he regularly is flocked by politicians and celebrities worldwide.  I don't think that claiming divinity and supernatural powers is all that uncommon today, nor does it instantly make someone a pariah.