~M~

Belief commitment.

Brother Daniel

I won't argue with the point about credentials, or who's in the establishment, etc.

But it appears to me that there is at least one important respect in which the analogy breaks down. (I'm not adamant about this, and I would be perfectly happy to be shown to be wrong.)

Proponents of evolution are often able and willing to explain, in terms understandable to someone who (like me) lacks relevant expertise, why evolution makes sense and is well supported by the evidence, and why ID/creationism is thoroughly bogus (not merely wrong).

Proponents of HJ don't do anything analogous to that. Sure, they can find some errors in the works of the MJ-ers, but that isn't the same as explaining why the evidence supports the HJ overall. When it comes to that, I just get reminded that I lack relevant expertise (which is true), and advised to trust the experts.

See the difference?

It doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the HJ "consensus" is truly a meaningful scholarly consensus -- as opposed to a bit of leftover baggage from the days when any deviation from Christian orthodoxy would be hazardous to your health.

Again, I'm not sure that I'm right about this. Comments, anyone?

Toto

Is your question whether there was a historical Jesus, or a historical Messiah who died for your sins and who will throw you into a lake of burning fire if you do not believe in him? There is NO scholarly consensus for the latter.

The only scholarly consensus is that there was a guy named Jesus (or something else) who inspired the Christian church. There is no scholarly consensus that it makes any difference at all whether you believe that this person existed or not.

There is also no scholarly consensus about what the guy named Jesus said or what he wanted you to do.

Campus Crusade for Christ recruits people into its cult-like organization by starting with the proposition that scholars agree that Jesus existed. But then they switch gears without telling you, and talk about their supernatural Jesus, who bears little or no relationship to the Jesus that those scholars agree on.

If you are being confronted by these sales tactics, ask the CCC recruiter what scholars actually agree on about Jesus? Bart Ehrman thinks that Jesus was a looney, like David Koresh. Are you supposed to follow David Koresh, even after he committed suicide by federal agent? Is that what he wants?

But if you are not in this situation, I can't think of any reason for you to be forced to make a decision.

~M~

I never actually said consensus but the majority opinion. Furthermore, this is not what i am asking.



I feel it makes a difference to me.



I am not being confronted with such things. Irrelevant.

Toto

But you haven't come up with a good reason for making this decision without investigating it yourself, instead of relying on a few "experts" - when you won't even learn enough about the subject to evaluate their expertise.

~M~

Ergo....?

Toto

Ergo you are wasting our time and our bandwidth.

~M~

I do not think that follows, Toto.


The question was simple and your incessant protests are irrelevant to what the question asks. If you do not like the question, then feel free not to respond. There is no loss on my part.

alienrodeoclown

curiosity.

Did Einstein face any consequences for deciding whether or not the theory of relativity was true?

Toto

Seemingly simple questions do not always have simple answers.

If there is no serious BCH question here, I can close this thread or move it to a more appropriate forum.

Einstein promoted his theory of relativity, and as a consequence achieved fame, a Nobel Prize, and other good things.