The Jesus myther nonsense

[hackenslash]

Certainly more productive.

[jamest]

I for one applaud Stein's input. So there.

Which isn't to say that I agree with any of it.

[hackenslash]

If Stein is sensible, that should cause him (?) to examine his position very carefully.

So there.

[jamest]

Cheeky cu upstart.

[hackenslash]

Call me a cunt all you like, mate, though I wouldn't advise doing it to anybody else. It's like water off wossname, innit?

[Stein]

I for one applaud Stein's input. So there.

Which isn't to say that I agree with any of it.

What do you find yourself disagreeing with*, then? No, I am interested.

Truly,

Stein

*

I notice two things.

i. Stone's literary style, such that it is, is very similar to Stein's.
ii. Whether Jesus was a historical figure or merely a composite myth token has no relevance to Stein's reply to my question, and no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

I also think that any Christian assertion that the acceptance of Jesus as a de facto historical figure is foundational to all contemporary thinking on human rights is completely undermined by the Christina doctrine of vicarious redemption - in as much as this pernicious doctrine is fundamentally and necessarily antithetical to both the principle and implementation of universal human rights. I'm with Hitchens on that one I think.

As am I. In addition, the Eastern Orthodox tradition apparently does not accept the grisly atonement doctrine either. And that certainly is not in the earliest textual strata (courtesy of modern philological analysis) of both the apologetic and non-apologetic Yeshua data. In both, including Tacitus and Antiquities XX, Yeshua the rabbi is simply a human being who became an agitator for the marginalized and was executed. Period.

The extensive readout which I submitted (in a bit of exasperation, I admit, which I still think was partly warranted) is useful because it shows that, even though nothing happens in a vacuum, it still takes individuals to start ripples going anyway. While general adaptation processes may inevitably render some trends more enduring -- and inevitable -- than others, that inevitability, once any species is going to evolve and survive at all, doesn't subtract from the interest and importance inherent in those individuals who may (however inevitably) arise. Adaptational pressures may create conditions that are generally hospitable for individuals such as a Confucius or a Gotama or a Franklin, etc., who initiate new proposals for society that eventually stick (if not immediately). But that which makes those individuals _choose_ to be that inevitable catalyst in the first place, rather than their neighbor across the street or someone else, is not inevitable. Instead, that is completely individual and of lasting fascination for anyone who is a humanist. How come figure A and not figure B? What goes into the type of human being who "evolves" the social/cultural patterns versus the type of individual who "regresses" it instead (an Al-Baghdadi, say)? That is not an idle question. That question is central to knowing just how fragile and prone to ultimate extinction the human species may or may not be.

Finally, I keep thinking of Margaret Mead's remark: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Cheers,

Stein

[jamest]

I for one applaud Stein's input. So there.

Which isn't to say that I agree with any of it.

What do you find yourself disagreeing with*, then? No, I am interested.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, either. The point is that I appreciate your scholarly approach and therefore see the value of your opinion/work. I simply lack the theological knowledge to participate.

On the other hand, my theism derives from philosophy, not theology. For my money, there are too many unknowns, assumptions and subjective interpretations, within the field of theology to enable much if any progress. Though most here would say the same about philosophy.

[Brian Peacock]

A five-hour Halo binge!

I attempted to respond as straightforwardly to your previous as seemed possible, to me anyway. --

The comment above was not addressed to you. I read you 'straighforward' assertions and was not inclined to comment. You have your theory, which is you're own, and to which you are entitled of course...

I notice two things.

i. Stone's literary style, such that it is, is very similar to Stein's.
ii. Whether Jesus was a historical figure or merely a composite myth token has no relevance to Stein's reply to my question, and no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

I also think that any Christian assertion that the acceptance of Jesus as a de facto historical figure is foundational to all contemporary thinking on human rights is completely undermined by the Christina doctrine of vicarious redemption - in as much as this pernicious doctrine is fundamentally and necessarily antithetical to both the principle and implementation of universal human rights. I'm with Hitchens on that one I think.

As am I. In addition, the Eastern Orthodox tradition apparently does not accept the grisly atonement doctrine either. And that certainly is not in the earliest textual strata (courtesy of modern philological analysis) of both the apologetic and non-apologetic Yeshua data. In both, including Tacitus and Antiquities XX, Yeshua the rabbi is simply a human being who became an agitator for the marginalized and was executed. Period.

The extensive readout which I submitted (in a bit of exasperation, I admit, which I still think was partly warranted) is useful because it shows that, even though nothing happens in a vacuum, it still requires individuals to start ripples going anyway. While general adaptation processes may inevitably render some trends more enduring -- and inevitable -- than others, that inevitability, once any species is going to evolve and survive at all, doesn't subtract from the interest and importance inherent in those individuals who may (however inevitably) arise. Adaptational pressures may create conditions that are generally hospitable for individuals such as a Confucius or a Gotama or a Franklin, etc., who initiate new proposals for society that eventually stick (if not immediately). But that which makes those individuals _choose_ to be that inevitable catalyst in the first place, rather than their neighbor across the street or someone else, is not inevitable. Instead, that is completely individual and of lasting fascination for anyone who is a humanist. How come figure A and not figure B? What goes into the type of human being who "evolves" the social/cultural patterns versus the type of individual who "regresses" it instead (an Al-Baghdadi, say)? That is not an idle question. That question is central to knowing just how fragile and prone to ultimate extinction the human species may or may not be.

Finally, I keep thinking of Margaret Mead's remark: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Cheers,

Stein

Is it too much to expect a reasonably succinct response in kind, instead of "A five-hour Halo binge!"?

Stein

...but it only suggested to me that societies are in a state of constant flux, which I knew already, and that 'enlightened' individuals generally hope that it gets better (fairer, less violent, more equal, more tolerant, better educated, etc etc), or at least no worse, as it progresses - even if sometimes we need reminding of the common benefits of a better society.

Still has nothing to do with whether Jesus was a real guy or just a cobbled together mythological token for an idolating death cult. For me a real Jesus Christ is no more necessary to a functioning society that a real Vishnu, Hermes, Odin, or that-one-with-the-head-of-a-bird-whatever-he's-called.

[Svartalf]

As Laplace said that God was unnecessary to comprehend the solar system, a real jesus is unnecessary to the history of christianity and the abominations against reason that ensued

[jamest]

As Laplace said that God was unnecessary to comprehend the solar system, a real jesus is unnecessary to the history of christianity and the abominations against reason that ensued

One could argue that the history of christianity, etc., were the consequence of people not comprehending the 'real Jesus'. That the abominations against reason were a consequence of the bastardisation of Jesus' actual testament. Of course, one would have to reach for sources outside of the bible to make such an argument, primarily the gnostic gospels.

[Svartalf]

Which makes more sense if there never was a "real jesus" to comprehend in the first place...

[Brian Peacock]

...and, regardless of Jesus Christ's historical existence )or not), does not account for the fact that much of THE HORROR perpetrated in the name of God and Christianity was explicitly justified by scripture and declared to be in full accord with the 'teachings' of the Gospels and of Mosaic law etc.

[jamest]

...and, regardless of Jesus Christ's historical existence )or not), does not account for the fact that much of THE HORROR perpetrated in the name of God and Christianity was explicitly justified by scripture and declared to be in full accord with the 'teachings' of the Gospels and of Mosaic law etc.

NOTHING justifies horror inflicted by men in God's name. So, the question is whether God is to blame, or men.

[Brian Peacock]

No it's not - and besides, the more convinced one is of the existence of Jesus, and of one's own piety, the more the commandment 'Thou shall not kill' becomes conditional on who's doing the killing and who's being killed.

But the actual question to Stein is how a real, historical Jesus is relevant to the history of human rights or necessary to their implementation. We're just shooting the breeze until he divis up.

[JimC]

It doesn't get more succinct than 'a five-hour Halo binge'. It's only five words, after all.

"Have you tried wanking?" would have been even more succinct and just as apposite.

For Stein, surely that is identical to "have you tried posting"?