Again you avoid the question. Why?
Because you are naively trying to trap me into saying something ridiculous so you can throw up your hands and go "oh, look at that superstition! HAHAH GOT YOU!" and as such you are phrasing your questions in incredibly contrived and idiotic ways which mean any direct answer I give will be misrepresent my beliefs.
Do you believe that there was a Jesus son of God?
In fact, I know a fellow called "God Thompson" and he named his son Jesus...
But no, I do not believe God was Jesus's father in any literal (genetic) sense. The idea that God has "genes" which can be passed on to a "son" strikes me as ludicrous. So, now you know my opinion on that; so what? Are you going to use that information to flirt with me? Does it have any bearing on anything I've said
There is no evidence for its plausibility at all.
Whether you find something plausible or not is a matter of personal opinion; evidence doesn't come into it. However, unless you are arguing that Judea was a deserted wasteland through which no groups of Jews travelled; or else that the name Jesus is so impossible to pronounce that there couldn't possibly be anyone of that name walking through ancient Judea; then you'll have to come to the conclusion that it is possible.
I don't think there is anything special about the name Jesus that would make it implausible there would be Jews called that in ancient Judea, nor that a man with that name might walk around to various cities and end up being crucified at the province's capital.
The reality of someone being ignorant enough to kill themselves over a mistaken belief has nothing to do with the reality of that belief.
No fucking shit, Sherlock. Now I wonder what my point was... Oh yes, exactly that very thing right there. That arguing about the literalism of events "has nothing to do with the [theology] related", as you point out; and as such is a totally pointless exercise that can only be relevant to fundamentalists and atheists who want to limit themselves to arguing with other simple-minded fools.
You seem to want to claim that at least "some" of the magical nonsense in the bible is real but you want to pick and choose from it with the usual magic decoder ring.
Answered time and again. The decoder ring argument only works if you've got Aspergers and renounce scientific doubt. Put that shit away, it's as tired as I am of rebutting it.
Again, what you refuse to answer is telling.
I did answer, you just didn't get it.
You appear to have no better reason to think what you prefer is real than any theist would of any stripe.
Of course I don't, just like you don't have any "better" reason. Cogito Ergo Sum, everything else is PREFERENCE, dumbass - that includes and scientific theories / hypotheses you choose to put your faith in.
Really? Can you show me some that do not believing that they must literally take Jesus as their savior and believe in his father God, ones that don't believe in John 3?
Ok, me. Here we go, I now not believe that. Proved you wrong? Good. Now I believe it again. Wait, are you looking this way again? Stopped believing it.
But seriously:Barack Obama
do you? He claims he doesn't believe people have to take Jesus as their saviour and believe in his father God.
I know that there are some Christians who don't think God and Jesus are the same being but any that totally think that God and Jesus are just metaphor?
Do you know any that literally think Jesus is a sheep
? But seriously, now it comes down to semantics. Is a Christian who doesn't believe in the literal existence of any God or Jesus beyond metaphor (a very different proposition from stating that God / Jesus *as portrayed in the bible* are metaphors - the point I was making, apparently we were at odds) still a Christian? Who has the authority to say?
Now, if you are taking anyone who agrees with the basic "golden rule" that Jesus supposedly advocated as "Christians" you are bastardizing the word to fit your claims. I could be a Christian under those qualifications.
What would your definition of Christian be? If you are going to limit it to the evangelist's preference for some passages of Paul's, then we are going to disagree and then we can both throw around accusations of bastardisation and co-opting the term for our own agendas.
I was merely stating that I know some individuals who identify themselves as Christians, attend Christian functions (and go to church regularly), and consider the bible to be a manual as to how to lead their lives, do not believe that the "historical" accounts of Jesus in the gospels are true, merely metaphors, and that God, as a monotheistic creator-entity, is a nonsense because thinking of something like God as being like "a really awesome super-dad" is stupid; and that I do not believe for a second that I coincidentally happen to live on the fringes of a reactionary group of radical Christians who are limited to my personal sphere of acquaintance.
You want names and addresses? Bill, Bob, Frank, and Martha, that do you? What about my Canadian girlfriend? Jeez, this is like freaking playschool.
The whole mythos of Jesus the Christ seems predicated on the belief of his divinity/supernaturalness.
Well yeah, of course it is. So naturally if you buy into the mythological aspects of it, of course you're going to buy into that too. So?
The problem is that all thesits disagree on the "message".
Not *all* theists. Of course there are individual interpretations of the import of schools / bodies of thought; but that's exactly the same as in the secular world. No scientist can have exactly the same view of any theory as another one; everyone's understanding is naturally going to be nuanced due to processing by their own individual mind, even if they are broadly in agreement to the main principles at work and how they influence the world. And of course there are schisms of thought on all manner of scientific topics.
Also, what exactly is this "problem"? Is the problem merely that your mind has trouble coping with the idea that a God giving his message to creation wouldn't do it in off-the-peg fortune-cookie-sized soundbites?
If the narritive has nothing to do with what the theist claims as what he "knows God really meant", why bother? It seems that theists must claim that the narrative is different from the "message" because they don't like what the narrative says.
Yah, and people watching Waiting for Godot
read more into it than the physical events because they find two guys standing around talking for two acts to be boring; I'm such a bone-head, why didn't I just write that on my A-level coursework?
They must conjure a new "message" to agree with what they want.
Indeed, and that is very credible given that you've simply stated it as fact within the context of an Internet forum without any evidence to back up that claim. Thank god we have a qualified professor of psychology, conducting polygraph tests on every single theist on the planet, to prove that to us.
Indeed? Please show me how it is a "massive leap of logic" rather than just claiming it is.
Harry Potter is a narrative
Harry Potter is not "metaphor by humans trying to understand their world"
Some narratives are not attempts to understand our place in the world.
As I pointed out, the assertion was irrational, and it didn't require me to construct a syllogism to point it out, did it?
It is a story with no evidence that it was ever true same as other myths.
You forgot the word "literally" in there; and there is some historical evidence of key figures such as Saul of Tarsus, etc being present at that time. Is that proof? No, but it isn't the same as there being "no" evidence.
All religions make the claim that their deity was the one and only that did the common mythological acts, creation, punishment, contests with other entities, etc.
What about pantheistic religions? What about sikhism which specifically states there are multiple paths to God? What about Buddhism which eschews creator gods? What about all the exceptions to your ignorant generalisations?
The one common thread is that all of these myths are created by humans
So you were there when Genesis was being penned to see precisely who provided the creative elements? No? Then restrict your assertions to probabilistic statements and statements of opinion. And, to the point in hand, so what? Who did you expect to write it down? Dolphins?
no deity-writ stories emblazoned on the sides of mountains,
Why would God do that? To conform to your expectations? I'm sure that was any nominal God's prime concern, your personal preferences.
There's a lot more to any text than "just" the narrative, just as there's much more to the bible than "just" a creation myth trying to explain how we got here.
So what is that "much more" that you claim is in the Bible? The bible works as any other mythos. There is nothing special about it.
What's more to the bible than creation myth? Have you read it? There's a whole lot of social instructions and laws in there for starters. And "special" is subjective and thus meaningless in this context; are you trying to convey that there is nothing 'unique' about the bible / Christianity? I am sure there are plenty of theologians who would be keen to point out the nuances.