stephan huller

Was, leading a more interesting life at one time. Now merely consolidating and managing inherited spoils of myth-making.

EarlDoherty

I don't know about you, but I need no myths to potentially live a happy life. I live my life according to the best evaluation of reality I can bring to this world and my place in it. Myths too often come with very negative baggage, which hardly enables one to live a happy life. Christianity is one of the best examples of that. I once heard a radio interview with an evangelical Christian mother (somewhere in the American south) who was talking of her 9-year-old daughter. She was saying that she felt that the world was so evil that she hoped that Jesus would return tomorrow, even if it deprived her daughter of any further life. Do you think that woman was happy with her myths? Do you think the daughter was being allowed to look upon the world as a potentially happy place, in which she could aim toward having a happy life?

And if the whole Christian world-view is simply poppycock, what were they, or would they be, getting in return for subscribing to it?

Crazy.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce

You can continue to tediously waste space.

EarlDoherty

Do you believe in demons, s.v.?

I meant other than the Pope.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I can continue to waste space, or else you can start giving us postings which are something other than your own convoluted theobabble.

Or else, you can answer my question. Do you believe in demons? That would give us material to potentially have a significant discussion (though no doubt you would be quite capable of choreographing them on the head of your pin).

Give us the word, s.v. Do Satan and his minions haunt your dreams?

Earl Doherty

Tom Sawyer

Am I the only one who read the thread title and thought it was saying the Aniversary of Batman's death and was wondering when the hell Batman died?

stephan huller

i just don't likw people attacking Roger. he does a lot of good

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I was thinking to myself this morning about the general question of why worry or think about whether Jesus was an historical man or purely myth. In one sense, it is a purely aesthetic question. It isn't going to change my daily public activity of teaching Philosophy and Humanities classes very much, nor my private activities, such as watching old movies on Netflix.

Sometimes when I watch an old movie on Netflix, I see an interesting and/or excellent acting performance. I look up the actor or actress on IMDB. Sometimes I see that this was the only or one of the few movies the actor/actress made. Sometimes I see that they made many movies and I become interested in seeing more of them. Besides the movies they appeared in, it is also interesting to me what kinds of lives they led. Some are short and quite tragic and others are long and quite glorious. Sometimes I find that the actor or actress is still alive, and I'm glad to be able to write them a little note of appreciation for their performance. This also applies to movie writers and directors.

Now, in some ways, the Historical/Mythological Jesus question is a little like looking up the actor or actress of an interesting performance in an old movie. However with Jesus, whatever the resulting answer to the question might be, I won't be able to write him a little note of appreciation, if found to be historical. Also, I won't be able to write that note of appreciation to the writers/editors of the New Testament, whomever they might be.

So for me, for the most part, the issue is a purely aesthetic one, very little different than finding out more information about an old movie or old movie role.

Yet, although I know for me personally, it is not a question that goes beyond intellectual curiosity, I understand that the answer to it may have a profound affect on many institutions, cultures, and countless millions of people living in the present world. This also has kept my interest and investigations into the question going for more than 15 years now. Like everybody else I have what I perceive as my friendly and my unfriendly forces in these areas.

Still, I think it is important to keep the two investigations separate.

One is the question, "Was Jesus an historical man or social/literary invention?" and the other is "Since Jesus was an/this historical man/social- literary invention, what should people do?"

My answer to the second question does not depend on the answer to the first question. I would still think the same institutions and practices are unhelpful-hepful regardless of what answer we come up with to the first question.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

EarlDoherty

Are you saying that no one should find fault with Roger's interpretation of the New Testament? Which by extension, leads to finding fault with his beliefs which produce that interpretation?

If he interprets the Gospels as indeed recording that Jesus communicated with and expelled demons, which leads to him believing in the existence of demons in his life in the 21st century, which may lead to deleterious effects on his family and social circles, is he not to be criticized? (This sort of thing, by the way, is called "enabling".)

What do you have in mind as the "lot of good" that he does? And why does it preclude criticism?

Earl Doherty