The Jesus myther nonsense

[JimC]

...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.

For those of us unconvinced as to the very existence of a god or gods, this is a meaningless question.

What would be more to the point is whether a religious institution or particular members of that institution are to blame.

In the case of catholic pedophile priests, for example, surely the answer is both...

[Brian Peacock]

I'm with jamest, that NOTHING justifies the horrors perpetrated in God's name in principle, but in practice we know that's a different matter entirely.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Yeah,

This is one of the stranger threads I've read in my time..

[laklak]

Well, it's pretty simple, rEv. If you don't believe Jebus existed then you want kittens and babies to starve.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well, it's pretty simple, rEv. If you don't believe Jebus existed then you want kittens and babies to starve.

Starve? Surely cancer?

[laklak]

Like me Gran always said, starve a cancer, feed Ebola.

[Seth]

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

Um, first of all, Laplace was an idiot because while God may be "unnecessary" to comprehend the solar system, that says nothing whatever about the existence, or non-existence of God. God is not "necessary" to understand that if you drop a rock on your foot you might break a toe. God is not "necessary" to comprehend that leaping off a cliff without a parachute is very likely to result in your demise due to sudden deceleration.

But this says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists, and whether or not God set things up so that gravity leads to those two results.

You are simply stating an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy, in which one must presume that some things claimed by theists are correct in order to formulate a premise for claiming that nothing theists claim is true. It's a sophisticated form of the fallacy of Begging the Question, in which "the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true."

As for Jesus and the history of christianity (sic), there's a strong argument that says that the "abominations" you are presumably referring to (but being quite vague about) are not part of the history of Christianity because acts by individuals claiming to act in the name of Christ that are not in harmony with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ are not "Christian" acts and therefore do not constitute "Christianity" or its history.

If I support apartheid in South Africa and invoke the name of Nelson Mandela as the origin of my beliefs, does that make me a "Mandelan" who is acting in harmony with Mandela's philosophy, teachings and ideals? Of course not. It makes me a fraud who is misusing and misinterpreting Mandela's philosophy and teachings for my own ends.

The same reasoning applies to "Christians" who commit atrocities or wrongs that do not comport with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ.

To say therefore that Christians advocate the stoning of adulterers is false because that is not what Jesus taught. In fact, when faced with just such a situation, Jesus is quoted as saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The origin of this hoary old Atheist canard is the deliberate and often calculatedly mendacious conflating of the Old Testament with the New Testament and the false claim that what applied to the former also applies to the latter, which is not the case. It's either intellectual sloth or calculated evil for Atheists to ignore the simple fact that the coming of Jesus and his teachings, life and death changed all the rules established by the Old Testament, thus rendering them null and void.

According to Christian theology the entire purpose of Jesus' coming and his sacrifice was precisely and exactly to expiate all of the sins of mankind against God, for which God, in the past, levied some serious penalties. The whole point of Jesus' suffering and death was to take upon himself, as a human being, all the punishments God intended for a sinful and corrupt world. God did this rather than do what he had done in the past, which was to wipe out entire populations who had sinned against God, using all manner of mechanisms to do so. Jesus' sacrifice paid not only for all the sins of mankind in the past, but all the sins of mankind in the future, pending the Second Coming and the sorting of the sheep. The only condition required for forgiveness of sin and entry into heaven is that one must genuinely accept Jesus as one's Lord and personal savior.

No sacrificing of sheep, goats or little children. You don't even have to get down on your knees and pray for forgiveness, because to forgive is to "fore give" or "give before." In this case, what's being given is absolution for sin, and that absolution was "given" "before" by Jesus and his sacrifice. All one has to do to get that forgiveness is accept it by accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and savior. Nothing else.

However, one must actually and genuinely do so, not merely mouth the words, and Jesus (and God his father) know what's in your heart, even if you don't or you refuse to admit it.

If one does not accept the gift of forgiveness, when the end of days occurs, those who have done so will get all the goodies and everybody else, who refused the gift, will be pretty thoroughly screwed for eternity.

...according to Christian theology of course.

The point being that condemning Christians based on what others (not Christians) did prior to the coming of Christ and his sacrifice, or what others do in the name of Christ that does not follow his philosophy, teachings and commands, is both a logical fallacy, because they are not actually Christians because they aren't behaving as Christians are supposed to do, and it's a lame-brained and ignorant distortion and deliberate twisting of the entire New Testament and its actual message.

Quite simply, if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you don't live according to his teachings and principles, you're not a Christian no matter how much you may protest that you are or try to weasel around the truth.

Such people are not Christians, they are frauds and tricksters who, as in my example using Nelson Mandela, are misusing and distorting the teachings and philosophy of Christ for their own nefarious, self-serving and sinful purposes, not because they are actually Christians. They aren't.

So when you speak of the Spanish Inquisition and condemn all of Catholicism because of what a small number of Spanish Catholic priests did a thousand years ago, you are merely demonstrating your own ignorance, bias and disdain for truth, reason and logic.

Christians are as Christians do. If they don't act like Christians, they aren't Christians and it's wrong to lay the blame for the malfeasance of others at their doorstep.

So, to say that a "real Jesus" is not necessary is completely wrong, because abominations done in his name are not Christian acts, and without a "real Jesus" Christians have no forgiveness and no salvation.

Now, you are free to believe that there is no forgiveness or salvation, or no need for either, because in your view God does not exist and neither did Jesus, but that doesn't change anything for Christians, it just means that they will weep with sorrow when they get to go commune with Jesus and God for eternity and you don't.

[piscator]

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

Um, first of all, Laplace was an idiot ...

^^^ That's where I stopped reading. 10:1 I quit winners.

[pErvinalia]

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

Um, first of all, Laplace was an idiot because while God may be "unnecessary" to comprehend the solar system, that says nothing whatever about the existence, or non-existence of God. God is not "necessary" to understand that if you drop a rock on your foot you might break a toe. God is not "necessary" to comprehend that leaping off a cliff without a parachute is very likely to result in your demise due to sudden deceleration.

But this says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists, and whether or not God set things up so that gravity leads to those two results.

You are simply stating an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy,

And you are simply blinkered by your usual biases. Where does Svartalf say that Laplace said whether God existed or not? The only atheist religion we see on these boards is your obsession with beating a strawman that doesn't exist - namely that atheists claim definitively that God doesn't exist.

As for Jesus and the history of christianity (sic), there's a strong argument that says that the "abominations" you are presumably referring to (but being quite vague about) are not part of the history of Christianity because acts by individuals claiming to act in the name of Christ that are not in harmony with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ are not "Christian" acts and therefore do not constitute "Christianity" or its history.

This logic only works if Jesus existed. So in a sense you are employing a "begging the question" fallacy, Mr Fallacy-man.

If I support apartheid in South Africa and invoke the name of Nelson Mandela as the origin of my beliefs, does that make me a "Mandelan" who is acting in harmony with Mandela's philosophy, teachings and ideals? Of course not. It makes me a fraud who is misusing and misinterpreting Mandela's philosophy and teachings for my own ends.

The same reasoning applies to "Christians" who commit atrocities or wrongs that do not comport with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ.

Except that you are using the "begging the question" fallacy. Mandela existed. We don't know if Christ existed. That's what we are debating. You are assuming the answer as part of your "reasoning".

The origin of this hoary old Atheist canard is the deliberate and often calculatedly mendacious conflating of the Old Testament with the New Testament and the false claim that what applied to the former also applies to the latter, which is not the case. It's either intellectual sloth or calculated evil for Atheists to ignore the simple fact that the coming of Jesus and his teachings, life and death changed all the rules established by the Old Testament, thus rendering them null and void.

No, the origin of it is your mixed up biased head. Atheists deal with facts. Not biases.

Couldn't be bothered reading the rest of your affront to logic and reasoning...

[Seth]

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

Um, first of all, Laplace was an idiot because while God may be "unnecessary" to comprehend the solar system, that says nothing whatever about the existence, or non-existence of God. God is not "necessary" to understand that if you drop a rock on your foot you might break a toe. God is not "necessary" to comprehend that leaping off a cliff without a parachute is very likely to result in your demise due to sudden deceleration.

But this says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists, and whether or not God set things up so that gravity leads to those two results.

You are simply stating an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy,

And you are simply blinkered by your usual biases. Where does Svartalf say that Laplace said whether God existed or not?

It's implied.

The only atheist religion we see on these boards is your obsession with beating a strawman that doesn't exist - namely that atheists claim definitively that God doesn't exist.

Hardly. There's many sects of religious Atheism.

As for Jesus and the history of christianity (sic), there's a strong argument that says that the "abominations" you are presumably referring to (but being quite vague about) are not part of the history of Christianity because acts by individuals claiming to act in the name of Christ that are not in harmony with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ are not "Christian" acts and therefore do not constitute "Christianity" or its history.

This logic only works if Jesus existed. So in a sense you are employing a "begging the question" fallacy, Mr Fallacy-man.

Does anyone really exist? I think you're just a particularly unpleasant figment of my imagination. But you're still wrong. If a person acts as a Christian should act, then that person is a Christian, and if he doesn't, he's not.

If I support apartheid in South Africa and invoke the name of Nelson Mandela as the origin of my beliefs, does that make me a "Mandelan" who is acting in harmony with Mandela's philosophy, teachings and ideals? Of course not. It makes me a fraud who is misusing and misinterpreting Mandela's philosophy and teachings for my own ends.

The same reasoning applies to "Christians" who commit atrocities or wrongs that do not comport with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ.

Except that you are using the "begging the question" fallacy. Mandela existed. We don't know if Christ existed. That's what we are debating. You are assuming the answer as part of your "reasoning".

Did Mandela exist? Prove it. According to your own logic, your condemnations of Catholicism are false because you don't know if the events of a thousand years ago attributed to Catholics actually occurred. The core question is what degree of evidence is sufficient to conclude that any historical personage actually existed and is not merely a figment of some documentarian's imagination?

Did James Madison exist?

Did Tutenkamen exist?

Did Mohammed exist?

Do you exist?

The sort of pettifoggery you're displaying neither proves nor disproves anything. It's mere sophistry intended to dance around the actual issues involved because you don't want to face them full on. Instead you have to niggle and evade and try to find a way to dismiss the subject by setting a standard of evidence that you don't apply to anyone or anything else. It's patently dishonest.

The origin of this hoary old Atheist canard is the deliberate and often calculatedly mendacious conflating of the Old Testament with the New Testament and the false claim that what applied to the former also applies to the latter, which is not the case. It's either intellectual sloth or calculated evil for Atheists to ignore the simple fact that the coming of Jesus and his teachings, life and death changed all the rules established by the Old Testament, thus rendering them null and void.

No, the origin of it is your mixed up biased head. Atheists deal with facts. Not biases.

That's one of the primary biases Atheists have...they mistakenly think they only deal with facts when most of the time they are trading in hyperbole and opinion, not facts.

Was incapable of Couldn't be bothered reading the rest of your affront to logic and reasoning...

[Hermit]

The origin of this hoary old Atheist canard is the deliberate and often calculatedly mendacious conflating of the Old Testament with the New Testament and the false claim that what applied to the former also applies to the latter, which is not the case. It's either intellectual sloth or calculated evil for Atheists to ignore the simple fact that the coming of Jesus and his teachings, life and death changed all the rules established by the Old Testament, thus rendering them null and void.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." [Matthew 5:17-18]

[Seth]

The origin of this hoary old Atheist canard is the deliberate and often calculatedly mendacious conflating of the Old Testament with the New Testament and the false claim that what applied to the former also applies to the latter, which is not the case. It's either intellectual sloth or calculated evil for Atheists to ignore the simple fact that the coming of Jesus and his teachings, life and death changed all the rules established by the Old Testament, thus rendering them null and void.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." [Matthew 5:17-18]

Fulfill what?

[laklak]

Well, yeah, that's all true, at least according to Christian theology. Plenty of people believe all sorts of whacked out shit, some based on completely imaginary entities and some on actual humans. Mormons think Joseph Smith was a prophet of God Almighty, for instance, and wear funny underwear to church. Rastas think Haile Selassie was the messiah. Real people, whacked out shit. Scientologists believe a guy named Xeno or Zero on something flew their ancestors here in intergalactic DC-8s. Imaginary entity, whacked out shit. The end result's the same whether it's based on total bollocks or rather tenuously on a real person. It makes not a whit of difference whether Jesus existed or not, we're still saddled with the whacked out shit. We'd still be dealing with it if it could be proved, completely and without question that Jesus never existed.

So I am still puzzled why this is so contentious, because to me (at least) it has about as much significance as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My concern is with the whacked out shit, how much more whacked out it might get, whether it's going to get whacked out enough that I'm in actual physical danger, and how much more 5.56 should I have in the bunker if they all go completely off the rails at the same time. That goes for all the whack jobs, BTW, not just Christian nutters, I look at Habib down at the corner shop with a jaundiced eye too.

[Hermit]

The origin of this hoary old Atheist canard is the deliberate and often calculatedly mendacious conflating of the Old Testament with the New Testament and the false claim that what applied to the former also applies to the latter, which is not the case. It's either intellectual sloth or calculated evil for Atheists to ignore the simple fact that the coming of Jesus and his teachings, life and death changed all the rules established by the Old Testament, thus rendering them null and void.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." [Matthew 5:17-18]

Fulfill what?

The law of the prophets, or as you put it, all the rules established by the Old Testament.

[pErvinalia]

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

Um, first of all, Laplace was an idiot because while God may be "unnecessary" to comprehend the solar system, that says nothing whatever about the existence, or non-existence of God. God is not "necessary" to understand that if you drop a rock on your foot you might break a toe. God is not "necessary" to comprehend that leaping off a cliff without a parachute is very likely to result in your demise due to sudden deceleration.

But this says absolutely nothing about whether or not God exists, and whether or not God set things up so that gravity leads to those two results.

You are simply stating an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy,

And you are simply blinkered by your usual biases. Where does Svartalf say that Laplace said whether God existed or not?

It's implied.

Where is it implied?? This is your problem. You see strawmen everywhere. Saying that God is unnecessary says absolutely nothing about whether he definitively exists or not.

The only atheist religion we see on these boards is your obsession with beating a strawman that doesn't exist - namely that atheists claim definitively that God doesn't exist.

Hardly. There's many sects of religious Atheism.

The problem for you is that you have zero evidence to back this vacuous claim up. You can't produce a single piece of evidence to show that there is a group of atheists here that definitively claim that God doesn't exist.

As for Jesus and the history of christianity (sic), there's a strong argument that says that the "abominations" you are presumably referring to (but being quite vague about) are not part of the history of Christianity because acts by individuals claiming to act in the name of Christ that are not in harmony with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ are not "Christian" acts and therefore do not constitute "Christianity" or its history.

This logic only works if Jesus existed. So in a sense you are employing a "begging the question" fallacy, Mr Fallacy-man.

Does anyone really exist? I think you're just a particularly unpleasant figment of my imagination. But you're still wrong. If a person acts as a Christian should act, then that person is a Christian, and if he doesn't, he's not.

You are defining Christianity as the teachings of Jesus Christ. If he didn't exist, then this is clearly a nonsensical thing to say. So you ARE basing your argument on the assumption that he existed. And THAT is a begging the question fallacy.

If I support apartheid in South Africa and invoke the name of Nelson Mandela as the origin of my beliefs, does that make me a "Mandelan" who is acting in harmony with Mandela's philosophy, teachings and ideals? Of course not. It makes me a fraud who is misusing and misinterpreting Mandela's philosophy and teachings for my own ends.

The same reasoning applies to "Christians" who commit atrocities or wrongs that do not comport with the philosophy, teachings and ideals of Christ.

Except that you are using the "begging the question" fallacy. Mandela existed. We don't know if Christ existed. That's what we are debating. You are assuming the answer as part of your "reasoning".

Did Mandela exist? Prove it.

What mental retardation are you gripped by now?!? What's the fucking point debating you if you come out with spastic "rebuttals" like this?

According to your own logic, your condemnations of Catholicism are false because you don't know if the events of a thousand years ago attributed to Catholics actually occurred. The core question is what degree of evidence is sufficient to conclude that any historical personage actually existed and is not merely a figment of some documentarian's imagination?

None of this changes the fact that you are employing a begging the question fallacy.

Did James Madison exist?

Did Tutenkamen exist?

Did Mohammed exist?

Do you exist?

Does your brain exist?

The sort of pettifoggery you're displaying neither proves nor disproves anything.

It clearly proves that your argument is a fallacy. That's all I'm intending to do. I couldn't give a fuck whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't have an opinion on it either way.

It's mere sophistry intended to dance around the actual issues involved because you don't want to face them full on. Instead you have to niggle and evade and try to find a way to dismiss the subject by setting a standard of evidence that you don't apply to anyone or anything else. It's patently dishonest.

No, it's called debating, Seth. If you employ logical fallacies, then your argument can be dismissed due to that. What I do or don't believe has nothing to do with whether your argument is logically valid or not.