Do you believe that Jesus was an actual person?

Thoughts about Christianity aside, do you believe that Jesus was an actual person?

I believe he preached to not take life seriously, 'cause it's going to end.

Is there good evidence that he was real?

There is good evidence He was indeed real. I think there was a historian, Jairus or something, that recorded Him.
Whether or not He was divine is up to you.

I haven't read or researched anything on the subject personally, so I don't really know.

There is good evidence He was indeed real. I think there was a historian, Jairus or something, that recorded Him.
Whether or not He was divine is up to you.

links or bullsh*te

There is good evidence He was indeed real. I think there was a historian, Jairus or something, that recorded Him.
Whether or not He was divine is up to you.

How does an ordinary man somehow take on mythical proportions of being divine? OH WAIT, OBAMA.

There is good evidence He was indeed real. I think there was a historian, Jairus or something, that recorded Him.
Whether or not He was divine is up to you.

This is the best troll I have ever seen. 10/10, it doesn't make you rage, but the set up is superb. I'm going to keep this thread open in a tab and wait for the other shoe to drop

he was a real person
he was also an arab
god is of course, fake

I think he was a real guy who started a cult. Not a mischievous, greedy or evil cult, but a cult nonetheless. He probably did A LOT of drugs and was like the Charles Manson of his time period, only thing is, people believed him. Hence the religion. I also believe that the "Miracles" were all staged. I believe Jesus was a bit of a magician.
All in all, I think Jesus was a cool dude. Sucks that Christianity had to get all fire and brimstone and raping kids and all that.

Yeah, I expect he was a real person. For that matter, he was so real that he was probably at least two people.

I think he was a real guy who started a cult. Not a mischievous, greedy or evil cult, but a cult nonetheless. He probably did A LOT of drugs and was like the Charles Manson of his time period, only thing is, people believed him. Hence the religion. I also believe that the "Miracles" were all staged. I believe Jesus was a bit of a magician.
All in all, I think Jesus was a cool dude. Sucks that Christianity had to get all fire and brimstone and raping kids and all that.

Yes, i'm sure he did lots of drugs.

This is the best troll I have ever seen. 10/10, it doesn't make you rage, but the set up is superb. I'm going to keep this thread open in a tab and wait for the other shoe to drop

there is some evidence he existed some of it very good and some of it not so much. the prevailing view between historians versed in this era is that he was a real person.

Him along with the six other men around that time that called themselves messiah and went around and did "miracles"
Of course when the romans killed them off, they staid dead.

Thoughts about Christianity aside, do you believe that Jesus was an actual person?

he was real, no doubt about it.
Whether you wish to believe in his message is another matter entirely, but Jesus of Nazareth the man existed.\
TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

I think 90% of the information surrounding him is bullsh*t, but I do believe that Jesus Christ was some guy who raised some hell at some point.

he was real, no doubt about it.
Whether you wish to believe in his message is another matter entirely, but Jesus of Nazareth the man existed.\
TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Secondary source. By the time that Tacitus was alive and writing, Christianity was already off the ground. So the myth of Jesus existed by then.
I'm not arguing against Jesus' existence, there just needs to be a better source.

he was real, no doubt about it.
Whether you wish to believe in his message is another matter entirely, but Jesus of Nazareth the man existed.\
TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

you see guys? this is the way that information should be posted in debates. Clear, concise source, just enough to verify the validity of it, and then the source speaks for itself.
Well done poster.
Yes, well done me.

there is some evidence he existed some of it very good and some of it not so much. the prevailing view between historians versed in this era is that he was a real person.

The only 'evidence' was from Josephus. Try and mention his name in the midst of a bunch of historians with a straight face without getting laughed out of the f**king room.

jesus is a 14000 year old caveman

Secondary source. By the time that Tacitus was alive and writing, Christianity was already off the ground. So the myth of Jesus existed by then.
I'm not arguing against Jesus' existence, there just needs to be a better source.

Jesus died around 30AD... Or was it 33AD? I think it was 33AD.
Anyways, Christianity was certainly around, however at that time it wasn't nearly popular, it was mainly an underground thing.

he was real, no doubt about it.
Whether you wish to believe in his message is another matter entirely, but Jesus of Nazareth the man existed.\
TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Except this is not what the source says. It just says Christians, misspelled, and refers to a Christos, which was also misspelled. That's it.

FUN FACT: The Romans (and Jews too, to some extent) considered Christians as atheists
I find that concept mindblowing

There are no secular records of his existence. However, I do believe there was a man behind the myth. He was most likely some disgruntled man who wandered from israel to india, picked up on hinduism and even buddhism then brought them back to israel. He was an in your face, loud and aggressive proponent of his ideologies and a few people followed him around for a few years before his big f**king mouth got him killed.
I dont think he ever claimed or held supernatural powers, and I dont think he ever actually claimed to be the son of god. That sh*t probably got started a few hundred years after his death.

he was real, no doubt about it.
Whether you wish to believe in his message is another matter entirely, but Jesus of Nazareth the man existed.\
TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)
Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Closer then the last one i heard, but sofar all the evidence i have seen have been aprox 70 after his death.

Secondary source. By the time that Tacitus was alive and writing, Christianity was already off the ground. So the myth of Jesus existed by then.
I'm not arguing against Jesus' existence, there just needs to be a better source.

I however am. Or well, it doesnt matter since wether or not he existed is a moot point if nobody wrote it down until it passed a generation or two of the broken-phone game. Nor does it change anything about how things turned out today.

FUN FACT: The Romans (and Jews too, to some extent) considered Christians as atheists
I find that concept mindblowing

sure you dont mean "Heathen"?

The only 'evidence' was from Josephus. Try and mention his name in the midst of a bunch of historians with a straight face without getting laughed out of the f**king room.

Why would this happen?

sure you dont mean "Heathen"?

Nope. I really can't remember where I read it but it wasn't uncommon for the Romans to consider these Christian upstarts as jokers and atheists.
I sh*t you not.

Does anyone have a source of Jesus's existence that was written WITHIN the timeframe of his alleged lifespan?
I know nothing about this topic, and am not going to bother polishing and fact checking my argument. But I heard somewhere that in the town Jesus lived (Nazereth?) Historians found countless records of the most insignificant things.
Cattle trade documents, shop receipts, yadayada but no actual documentation of Jesus Christ.
So I heard from the source I can't remember nor link to, there is no existing historical source just jesus that wasn't created after his death.

>OP's pic
Really Mel Gibson, a popped collar? Really?

Why would this happen?

Because the little paragraph Josephus supposedly wrote on Jesus was not written by Josephus, but added by translators and copiers in the 11th century or so.

Why would this happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
"The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. This discussion generally falls into three camps of:
Those who defend the authenticity of the entire passage;
Those who reject the entire passage;
Those who believe the passage has an authentic core but also includes later embellishments by Christian scribes.
Recent scholarly discussion has favoured partial authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".

proof!
jesus teaching in the temple as a 12 year old.

At the time of Jesus, there were many many 'Messiahs' who were all normal people who either claimed to have powers or who their followers claimed had powers. Of course, none of them did but Jesus was just one that got picked up on and the ball kept rolling and got bigger and bigger and created what we have today.

Does anyone have a source of Jesus's existence that was written WITHIN the timeframe of his alleged lifespan?
I know nothing about this topic, and am not going to bother polishing and fact checking my argument. But I heard somewhere that in the town Jesus lived (Nazereth?) Historians found countless records of the most insignificant things.
Cattle trade documents, shop receipts, yadayada but no actual documentation of Jesus Christ.
So I heard from the source I can't remember nor link to, there is no existing historical source just jesus that wasn't created after his death.

>Does anyone have a source of Jesus's existence that was written WITHIN the timeframe of his alleged lifespan?
No.

Gnosticf** here.
Suggesting that there was a literal Jesus detracts from the spiritual importance of the Christ, and is thus heretical.

Nope. I really can't remember where I read it but it wasn't uncommon for the Romans to consider these Christian upstarts as jokers and atheists.
I sh*t you not.

The problem was that Roman religion had a tendency to include all other religions and gods into their pantheon and for all intents and purposes attempted to worship them all, or build an all inclusive religious system around them. Christians believe(d) that their God was the one and only God, and that all others were false gods. They would not blend in with the typical Roman trend of just throwing the Christian god and messiah into their pantheon, and as such they viewed these Christians as weird, and in a way as heathens that refused to take part in Roman religious practices.

There are no secular records of his existence. However, I do believe there was a man behind the myth. He was most likely some disgruntled man who wandered from israel to india, picked up on hinduism and even buddhism then brought them back to israel. He was an in your face, loud and aggressive proponent of his ideologies and a few people followed him around for a few years before his big f**king mouth got him killed.
I dont think he ever claimed or held supernatural powers, and I dont think he ever actually claimed to be the son of god. That sh*t probably got started a few hundred years after his death.

>> who wandered from israel to india, picked up on hinduism and even buddhism then brought them back to israel.
evidence?

The problem was that Roman religion had a tendency to include all other religions and gods into their pantheon and for all intents and purposes attempted to worship them all, or build an all inclusive religious system around them. Christians believe(d) that their God was the one and only God, and that all others were false gods. They would not blend in with the typical Roman trend of just throwing the Christian god and messiah into their pantheon, and as such they viewed these Christians as weird, and in a way as heathens that refused to take part in Roman religious practices.

Totally
Though the thing was too that the Romans valued tradition and process above the Gods themselves. That's why they were tolerant of the practices of their dominions who highly revered their own Gods enough to honour them elaborately.
The Romans even had a great admiration for the Jewish religion because of their sacraments etc. and that it had been around for a clearly long time.
The Christian religion was, by comparison too new, radical and immature and lacked the structure regularly associated with their (and other) religions, which the Romans thought (and hoped) would eventually bowl over and die. Obviously this didn't happen.

>> who wandered from israel to india, picked up on hinduism and even buddhism then brought them back to israel.
evidence?

These kinds of myths about Jesus are plenty, and mostly to be ignored.
There's even a myth in his undocumented years that he and his father (or friend(s), the details differ) sailed to Britain. There's even an old colloquial figure of speech in England that goes something like "I'm as sure as Jesus was in Jarrow", Jarrow being a town in England.

There are no secular records of his existence. However, I do believe there was a man behind the myth. He was most likely some disgruntled man who wandered from israel to india, picked up on hinduism and even buddhism then brought them back to israel. He was an in your face, loud and aggressive proponent of his ideologies and a few people followed him around for a few years before his big f**king mouth got him killed.
I dont think he ever claimed or held supernatural powers, and I dont think he ever actually claimed to be the son of god. That sh*t probably got started a few hundred years after his death.

no he was a mild mannered history professor named john just watch the movie the man from earth it explains everything

Totally
Though the thing was too that the Romans valued tradition and process above the Gods themselves. That's why they were tolerant of the practices of their dominions who highly revered their own Gods enough to honour them elaborately.
The Romans even had a great admiration for the Jewish religion because of their sacraments etc. and that it had been around for a clearly long time.
The Christian religion was, by comparison too new, radical and immature and lacked the structure regularly associated with their (and other) religions, which the Romans thought (and hoped) would eventually bowl over and die. Obviously this didn't happen.

The problem was that Roman religion had a tendency to include all other religions and gods into their pantheon and for all intents and purposes attempted to worship them all, or build an all inclusive religious system around them. Christians believe(d) that their God was the one and only God, and that all others were false gods. They would not blend in with the typical Roman trend of just throwing the Christian god and messiah into their pantheon, and as such they viewed these Christians as weird, and in a way as heathens that refused to take part in Roman religious practices.

The more you know
Rome was awesome

The only 'evidence' was from Josephus. Try and mention his name in the midst of a bunch of historians with a straight face without getting laughed out of the f**king room.

Yeah Josephus was what I was thinking of!

There is good evidence He was indeed real. I think there was a historian, Jairus or something, that recorded Him.
Whether or not He was divine is up to you.

That is me.

Thoughts about Christianity aside, do you believe that Jesus was an actual person?

Yes, just like there was an l ron hubbard or an ayn rand.

>> who wandered from israel to india, picked up on hinduism and even buddhism then brought them back to israel.
evidence?

um, there's a f**kton of it in his writings and teachings. it's obvious that they had an eastern influence. Lots of books have been written on this subject.

This thread is full of gentlemen

These kinds of myths about Jesus are plenty, and mostly to be ignored.
There's even a myth in his undocumented years that he and his father (or friend(s), the details differ) sailed to Britain. There's even an old colloquial figure of speech in England that goes something like "I'm as sure as Jesus was in Jarrow", Jarrow being a town in England.

> These kinds of myths about Jesus are plenty, and mostly to be ignored.

wrong. there is a big block of time missing in Jesus biographies (the gospels) The idea is that he spent that time in India learning the ways of Buddhism. His Sermon on the Mount which was f**king radical back in the day has a remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Buddha.
We can never be certain of this of course. But where did Jesus get these ideas from? These ideas that closely resemble eastern religions...

um, there's a f**kton of it in his writings and teachings. it's obvious that they had an eastern influence. Lots of books have been written on this subject.

Isn't it more plausible to assume he picked it up from traders and merchants rather than actually ambling Eastward for enlightnment?
Or even that he came up with it himself? Mayans and Babylonians had maths and calenders, but that doesn't necessarily mean they borrowed from one another.

Jesus was probably the L. Ron Hubbard of his day. I can see in 2000 years Scientology being a massive religion will billions of followers.

> These kinds of myths about Jesus are plenty, and mostly to be ignored.

wrong. there is a big block of time missing in Jesus biographies (the gospels) The idea is that he spent that time in India learning the ways of Buddhism. His Sermon on the Mount which was f**king radical back in the day has a remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Buddha.
We can never be certain of this of course. But where did Jesus get these ideas from? These ideas that closely resemble eastern religions...

>hurr durr only buddhism can come up with peace love and understanding, herp great wisdom must come from the orient derp

>implying Jesus wasn't Horus

>implying Jesus wasn't Horus

Oh no, please, no sh*tstorm

> These kinds of myths about Jesus are plenty, and mostly to be ignored.

wrong. there is a big block of time missing in Jesus biographies (the gospels) The idea is that he spent that time in India learning the ways of Buddhism. His Sermon on the Mount which was f**king radical back in the day has a remarkable resemblance to the teachings of Buddha.
We can never be certain of this of course. But where did Jesus get these ideas from? These ideas that closely resemble eastern religions...

The thing about the eastern religions is that all roads lead to them. Anyone in any true discipline who diligently pursues perfection of mental focus and concentration comes to the realizations of the Eastern philosophies. Athlete, musician, craftsman, first-person shooters...if you use it as a way to practice concentration, and practice with the intention of pursuing perfection, you will come to the palace of wisdom at the end of your journey. There are a near infinitude of starting points, but only one road, and one palace at the end, and in that palace, you find God.

Isn't it more plausible to assume he picked it up from traders and merchants rather than actually ambling Eastward for enlightnment?
Or even that he came up with it himself? Mayans and Babylonians had maths and calenders, but that doesn't necessarily mean they borrowed from one another.

> Isn't it more plausible to assume he picked it up from traders and merchants rather than actually ambling Eastward for enlightnment?

There were no trade routes between the middle east and India back then. The Silk Route didnt extend to the Mediterranean until the 1st century

> Isn't it more plausible to assume he picked it up from traders and merchants rather than actually ambling Eastward for enlightnment?

There were no trade routes between the middle east and India back then. The Silk Route didnt extend to the Mediterranean until the 1st century

>There were no trade routes between the middle east and India back then.
Do f**king ho. The Roman empire traded with the Chinese for f**k's sake.

I truly believe that there really was a guy named Jesus back then. Maybe he taught a form of Buddhism, or at least he had the same idea. Nevertheless, a lot of people taught it was a good idea and started following him, and eventually he became larger than life until he became the son of God. Maybe the religious element stems from him adapting some Jewish traditions to help draw in the crowds. Maybe he got really big because what he's preaching was so radically different from everything else, and it somehow made sense.
Maybe, Jesus was really just a guy who had a lot of sense. If he was alive today and he knew what happened to him, he would be f**king laughing.

>There were no trade routes between the middle east and India back then.
Do f**king ho. The Roman empire traded with the Chinese for f**k's sake.

> Do f**king ho. The Roman empire traded with the Chinese for f**k's sake.
They did, ALONG THE SILK ROAD. As I said, that didnt extend to the Mediterranean until the 1st century.

> Isn't it more plausible to assume he picked it up from traders and merchants rather than actually ambling Eastward for enlightnment?

There were no trade routes between the middle east and India back then. The Silk Route didnt extend to the Mediterranean until the 1st century

No I know, but surely bit by bit something would have been accumulated.
It is very unlikely the Israelites did not do business with the Persians, who in turn traded with the Indians or the like.
Or maybe I'm just talking sh*t.
Anyway, Jesus was, if we are to trust the Bible, a fastidious disciplinarian, with such self-control and restraint it is difficult not to find parallels with the tenets of Eastern wisdom. Hell, even Gautama's own life was not unlike Jesus'. Such asceticism does not need any particular acquaintance with Buddhism or Hinduism.

>There were no trade routes between the middle east and India back then.
Do f**king ho. The Roman empire traded with the Chinese for f**k's sake.

Yeah but not during the time of "Jesus's" lifetime.

Thoughts about Christianity aside, do you believe that Jesus was an actual person?

I think he was delusional.
He thought he was the son of God.
He thought noting of turning himself into the Romans and believed that God would come down from heaven to save him on the cross.
When that didn't happen, Peter decided to spin it another way.

>implying Jesus wasn't Horus

Horus was the son of the Emperor, Jesus clearly was the Emperor of Man himself.
Of course, Hitler was also the Emperor. Cleansing the unclean, Unifying mankind under one ruler, saying Germany wasn't ready for him when he's losing... How does it feel that we missed out on the Imperium of Man because Hitler didn't win?

Horus was the son of the Emperor, Jesus clearly was the Emperor of Man himself.
Of course, Hitler was also the Emperor. Cleansing the unclean, Unifying mankind under one ruler, saying Germany wasn't ready for him when he's losing... How does it feel that we missed out on the Imperium of Man because Hitler didn't win?

>Achieving the Imperium of Man by wiping out the Emperor's people
Yeah, no.

>Achieving the Imperium of Man by wiping out the Emperor's people
Yeah, no.

>implying filthy kikes were the emperor's people

I think he was delusional.
He thought he was the son of God.
He thought noting of turning himself into the Romans and believed that God would come down from heaven to save him on the cross.
When that didn't happen, Peter decided to spin it another way.

1. God brought Him back to life three days after he was crucified.
2. What's wrong with considering yourself the son of God? Indeed, if God is and is in the entire universe, then we are all God's sons and daughters. The children of the universe.

There is good evidence He was indeed real. I think there was a historian, Jairus or something, that recorded Him.
Whether or not He was divine is up to you.

1. God brought Him back to life three days after he was crucified.
2. What's wrong with considering yourself the son of God? Indeed, if God is and is in the entire universe, then we are all God's sons and daughters. The children of the universe.

Capitalizing all Pronouns which refer to Your chosen Deity is tremendously Annoying. It serves no useful purpose other than to cause people to place gratingly Incessant halting Emphasis on inconsequential Words.

Capitalizing all Pronouns which refer to Your chosen Deity is tremendously Annoying. It serves no useful purpose other than to cause people to place gratingly Incessant halting Emphasis on inconsequential Words.

I'm sorry that you are so easily offended. When you type your sentences, you are free to capitalize whichever words you wish, and when I type my sentences, I am afforded the same courtesy. If you think that I am going to change my sentence structure to please your pathetically delicate atheist sensibilities, then you can go f**k yourself. It's never going to happen. Deal.

I'm sorry that you are so easily offended. When you type your sentences, you are free to capitalize whichever words you wish, and when I type my sentences, I am afforded the same courtesy. If you think that I am going to change my sentence structure to please your pathetically delicate atheist sensibilities, then you can go f**k yourself. It's never going to happen. Deal.

> If you think that I am going to change my sentence structure to please your pathetically delicate atheist sensibilities, then you can go f**k yourself.
> go f**k yourself
If only you took the same care in avoiding pointless outbursts of profanity that you do with your capitalization. Great witness you have there.
You certainly don't have to be an atheist to find the construction awkward and unnecessary, either. If lower case pronouns are good enough for the NASB they should be good enough for anyone.
Not that it would make any difference to you, but I found reverential capitalization grating even when I believed as you do.

> If you think that I am going to change my sentence structure to please your pathetically delicate atheist sensibilities, then you can go f**k yourself.
> go f**k yourself
If only you took the same care in avoiding pointless outbursts of profanity that you do with your capitalization. Great witness you have there.
You certainly don't have to be an atheist to find the construction awkward and unnecessary, either. If lower case pronouns are good enough for the NASB they should be good enough for anyone.
Not that it would make any difference to you, but I found reverential capitalization grating even when I believed as you do.

I wrote the sentences of descending length in a half-assed attempt to be somewhat artful in the arrangement of my rhetoric. Also, "go f**k yourself" is the most concise way that I could express my sentiment.
You see, "shove it up your ass" is five words, two longer than "go f**k yourself", and "My attitude towards your offense at my grammatically acceptable reverential capitalization could best be described as disdainfully uncaring" is a profligate eighteen words.
I used profanity because, in that case, it was the best way to describe how I felt. I didn't use it because I lacked the intelligence to formulate a more cogent sentence, indeed...that sentence was the most cogent sentence that I could have written for the occasion. If you are going to be annoyed enough at the capitalization of the word "God" that you feel that a written complaint is warranted, then go f**k yourself. You see?

Capitalizing all Pronouns which refer to Your chosen Deity is tremendously Annoying. It serves no useful purpose other than to cause people to place gratingly Incessant halting Emphasis on inconsequential Words.

Okay then let's stop capitalizing everyone's names.
Dolt.

Okay then let's stop capitalizing everyone's names.
Dolt.

The capitalization of names and other proper nouns is a long standing convention in English. The capitalization of deific pronouns is a very recent, distinctly American phenomenon. You may consult the nearest King James bible for evidence of this, if you like.

I wrote the sentences of descending length in a half-assed attempt to be somewhat artful in the arrangement of my rhetoric. Also, "go f**k yourself" is the most concise way that I could express my sentiment.
You see, "shove it up your ass" is five words, two longer than "go f**k yourself", and "My attitude towards your offense at my grammatically acceptable reverential capitalization could best be described as disdainfully uncaring" is a profligate eighteen words.
I used profanity because, in that case, it was the best way to describe how I felt. I didn't use it because I lacked the intelligence to formulate a more cogent sentence, indeed...that sentence was the most cogent sentence that I could have written for the occasion. If you are going to be annoyed enough at the capitalization of the word "God" that you feel that a written complaint is warranted, then go f**k yourself. You see?

Re-reading your post, it seems to me that you fail to understand the difference between nouns and pronouns. There is nothing wrong with capitalizing the word "god" or "lord", provided you are referring to a particular deity, especially if said deity is the center of a monotheistic religion. The noun is inferred to be proper because the God in question is a unique entity.
What I was objecting to is your capitalization of /pronouns/ that refer to a deity, e.g. "Him", "His", etc. This is a rather extraordinary usage that has no currency outside of recent American English. It introduces all manner of problems in judging the speaker's intent, and we would do well to be rid of it.

Re-reading your post, it seems to me that you fail to understand the difference between nouns and pronouns. There is nothing wrong with capitalizing the word "god" or "lord", provided you are referring to a particular deity, especially if said deity is the center of a monotheistic religion. The noun is inferred to be proper because the God in question is a unique entity.
What I was objecting to is your capitalization of /pronouns/ that refer to a deity, e.g. "Him", "His", etc. This is a rather extraordinary usage that has no currency outside of recent American English. It introduces all manner of problems in judging the speaker's intent, and we would do well to be rid of it.

It is used all the time in poetry, I have seen it used in poetry from the 1800s, such as William Blake, and many times elsewhere as well. I am not the guy who invented that, or came up with it on my own, if that is what you mean.

Re-reading your post, it seems to me that you fail to understand the difference between nouns and pronouns. There is nothing wrong with capitalizing the word "god" or "lord", provided you are referring to a particular deity, especially if said deity is the center of a monotheistic religion. The noun is inferred to be proper because the God in question is a unique entity.
What I was objecting to is your capitalization of /pronouns/ that refer to a deity, e.g. "Him", "His", etc. This is a rather extraordinary usage that has no currency outside of recent American English. It introduces all manner of problems in judging the speaker's intent, and we would do well to be rid of it.

>This is a rather extraordinary usage that has no currency outside of recent American English
This is completely wrong. It's actually a very very old usage that goes back to the 16th century at least.

>This is a rather extraordinary usage that has no currency outside of recent American English
This is completely wrong. It's actually a very very old usage that goes back to the 16th century at least.

It also wasn't "popularized" by Americans or anything ridiculous like that. It was the standard until the ~1950s or so. Before that point it was in all the prescriptive grammars etc. People dropped it to avoid giving offense.
I don't particularly like it either (and I'm a Christian too), it startles the eyes and gives off a "holier-than-thou" vibe, but it's definitely not a "recent american invention".