Atim's Comment

Submitted by iasius (India), Nov 28, 2005 at 04:30

"Conclusive" claims are theological (a.k.a. illogical) necessities of ‘religions'. In full knowledge that very little of what they state as ‘truth' can ever actually be verified (frankly, that those claims might be disproved and debunked is the greater possibility), their entire approach is necessarily, feverishly and fiercely dogmatic, needing political and religious power to keep it ticking. While that is beside the immediate point Atim broaches, let me emphatically state that I am NOT concluding anything, much less that ‘Jesus Christ' never existed. I am merely expressing doubts based on available evidence that is qualitatively different from, and immensely more reliable than, the Gospels.

The gospels DO NOT "PROVE" he was a man of peace, because accepting Gospels as evidence would be tantamount to engaging in ‘circular' debate. Obviously the doctored writings are going to portray him in a manner most conducive to the concoction. Of course, this is NOT to say he MAY NOT HAVE BEEN. But, going by evidence of reliable sources, it is unlikely he could have been, and for a good reason. There is no evidence in Jewish scripture to say that the messiah was anything of a world-savior as claimed by the Gospels (I would like to hear of any you may have found). He was one who would liberate the Jewish nation and rule over them according to Mosaic Law – nothing more, nothing less. And the Gospels rely squarely and completely on Jewish scripture for authority of Christ's (IESAPL) role as the prophesied messiah, don't they? It would be foolish to expect Romans to relinquish their political hold over Palestine without a fight, the scope and intensity of Christ's (IESAPL) vaunted ‘love' notwithstanding! And War, by its very nature, is a violent act. So, even assuming he detested violence, he just had no choice. That is what I am trying to get across, despite a million verses from a fabricated document saying he even excelled his divine father in love, compassion and non-violence.

Each one of us is as ‘divine' or ‘devlish' as the next man. Also, it is as difficult for a rational being to believe that any book authored, printed and published in heaven made its way to sublunary regions as it is to believe in heaven itself. No one has seen it, no one can verify it and no one can vouch for it. The only way is by coercing people by issuing mental and physical threats to pretend it is true. That is what religion is all about. The ultimate aim is really NOT ‘salvation' for the faithful nor lolling around in an eternity of sensual pleasure in the company of equally eternal virgins. It is essentially very mundane commerce for those who strut around as god-substitutes. So, whether it is the Islamic doctrine or the Christian, the aim of their game is the same! There is hardly anything really to choose between the two. Both are equally perilous because both aim at subversion of human intelligence.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".