How seriously should we take what jesus said?

In fact, many schools are already teaching creationism.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-map-showing-which-u-s-public-schools-teach-creationi-1515717148

Gotta love reality.

 

Reality? From Slate? How about something from the State government? The Federal government?

You're a hack.

 

http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578

You're delusional. Name calling is fun, not surprised you took to it first.

 

Read the arch code (or cove, I never saw it in writing) volumes. It takes a secular view of Jesus.

 

That was damn near incoherent. In the article you cited, it provided examples of people referencing Jesus in the bible, not outside of it.

 

Looking over this list I saw that the last one was 11 years ago. I am surprised you didn't bring up the inquisition.

 

I'm glad you grew up in an environment where that was the case; however, the fact is that some schools have pushed religion, and that there plenty of Christians who are hothouse orchids and can't stand being told that they shouldn't be preaching in public schools. Evangelical churches regularly teach that the separation of church and state is a myth and that they have the legal right to preach in public schools. Hell, a school near where I grew up got busted for letting evangelists in to hand out Bibles, promoting prayer and attempting to convert Mormon students. And it isn't always the atheists who are complaining. This school got busted when a Mormon and a Catholic brought them to court.

 

Actually they don't need to. There is no law banning the teaching of creation nor are there any laws prohibiting the reading of the Bible. There are only laws prohibiting mandatory teaching of creation and the Bible and trying to convert children.

 

Ok. Back to my original point most scholars think that the four gospels are the best sources of Jesus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

 

Of course, because that's where this myth was created, yet there's scant outside evidence, someone named Yeshua was crucified.

 

Then why do most scholars believe he exists?

 

Because of course Christian scholars will believe he exists, they have to.

 

I thought secularists are the ones that make up the majority of scholars?

 

You haven't cited secular scholars, so your strawman is just that.

 

http://y-jesus.com/is-there-any-evidence-from-secular-sources-that-jesus-even-existed/

 

Re-posting the same link doesn't prove your case.

 

I didnt re post the same link.

 

Howard Marshall

In his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few "authorities" to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia. He then goes on to discuss the work of GA Wells which was then recently published.

Michael Grant

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

Will Durant

Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea (the non existence of Christ) in Caesar and Christ (the third volume of his Story of Civilisation)

Rudolf Bultmann

Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, questions the reasonableness of Jesus Mythers themselves in Jesus and the Word.

'Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.'

Richard Carrier

It remains for each reader to determine what weight to give such a broad consensus of experts from such diverse perspectives. However, amateurs to the field of history generally and New Testament history in particular should consider the comments of Richard Carrier, co-founder of the Secular Web, made on their discussion board:

Amateurs often disregard the crucial importance of field-familiarity, i.e. that one must have a long and deep acquaintance with a particular time and culture in order to make reliable judgments about the probable and improbable, the expected and unexpected, and all the other background assumptions necessary to understanding the significance of any particular fact or claim--in short, one must be cognizant not merely of the literary context of a statement, but its entire socio-historical context as well. And that is no easy thing to achieve.

 

All I meant was in this country we have a right to be for or against whatever we choose is right.

I could care less if they banned pork, they should ban fast food too while they're at it.
Seriously...no I wouldn't like it. No group (religious or not) should have too much power.