Raggy asks: 2. Is there actual evidence of Jesus's existence or, if he did exist, his death.

Well, yes, there are four Gospels, although three seem to come from a common source. There are also numerous non-canonical gospels, along with canonical and non-canonical epistles. None of these documents conform with modern standards for historical accuracy. But then, no documents of the time conform with modern standards.

You also have the fact that a significant number of people claimed to have known this Jesus, and they passed on their experiences to numerous others who considered them to be credible.

If it's true that Jesus never existed, then the body of literature that has built up around him would be the most humongous conspiracy ever known.

Either that, or the denial of the existence of Jesus must be a conspiracy theory.

I choose the latter, although I readily agree that there is actually very little that we know or can document about Jesus, other than that which is written in the Gospels.

---

Joe tells Jim Carroll: "I'll ignore the rest of your remarks"

Jim replies: Pity - I would like to have had them seriously challenged by somene who I have a fair mount of respect for - but then again, I do have history and logic on my side.

Here's why, Jim. You and Steve Shaw and others have created a caricature of religion, and I can't argue with a caricature. It's like trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with Donald Trump.

I readily admit that religion is rife with corruption, stupidity, and evil. I am willing to discuss specific instances of corruption, stupidity, and evil in religion - and you will most likely find that I will agree with you in most instances. However, logic and my own experience tell me that no human endeavor can be so uniformly corrupt, evil, and stupid as what you describe. I have studied many different religions and the history of unbelief over my lifetime, and I have found both good and bad in all. The one thing I have not found, is uniformity.

Therefore, it is impossible for me to argue against your blanket condemnations, because you cannot apply any single accusation to all people in all religions. And most religious groups are diverse within themselves, so it is also usually impossible to apply any blanket statement to any particular religious group.

So, rather than attempting to apply generalizations to groups, it is far better to discuss issues and incidents - with the realization that within any given group, there will be a wide variety of opinions, actions, and responses.

So, if you speak of the Catholic Church, are you speaking of it as Pope Francis would like it to be, or as John Paul II would want; or maybe are you looking at it through the eyes of Pius IX, lamenting his loss of political power? Or shall we go back to Alexander VI Borgia, the most notorious of all Popes? Or is it better to stay away from Popes and view from the perspective of the people of the Catholic Church? Which people?

See what I mean, Jim? It's impossible to take your broad statements and make any sense of them. And even when discussing issues, I have to give an answer from a number of perspectives to give any semblance of accuracy.

I don't defend the Catholic Church and I cannot defend the Catholic Church - because there is so much wrong within it that I simply cannot defend. But there are many, many Catholics who love their church and openly acknowledge and oppose its faults. I'm one of them.

---

Jim says: The ongoing thread throughout the history of religion is that you may squabble among yourselves as much as you like, but yu never question the motives of god - he's in charge!
Religion has produced nothing new that resembles evidence - it never really did - it is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspense of logic.

Again, Jim, your generalizations are too broad to discuss. You say that God is in charge, and I say that God (no humanizing pronoun) acts through humans and other creatures that have varying amounts of free will and that are also governed by the laws of nature and coincidence and natural/logical consequence. Your description of God is far too anthropomorphic and monarchic. I define God as essence and spirit, and come to vague but very different conclusions.

And while you say that religion is entirely based on unquestioned faith and the suspension of logic, that's not my experience at all. The people I respect for their genuine faith, are those who constantly question their own faith and challenge it with brutal logic. The others are robots.

-Joe-

P.S. And I would really like to more deeply explore the mystery of the missing noses on Egyptian statues.