Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 05-15-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Robert Price is quite conservative on political and social issues. There is clearly no relation between politics and an opinion on the historical Jesus once you get beyond political ideologies.

Feminism also started as a child of the Left but in time developed strains on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Besides, in today's world it becomes increasingly difficult to categorize left and right (;e.g. Andrew Sullivan, the leading advocate of gay marriage believes himself to be a conservative Catholic). Bottom line - in most cases JM theorizing attaches itself to beliefs that Christianity, or religion in general, are socially and politically noxious and should be supressed in the name of Reason. Sometimes, this manifest takes a tortuous form, like in Tom Harpur's writing (Pagan Christ), which seems to be saying that for Christianity to survive, it has to adapt to postmodernism and morph into the mythoid fog in which steadfast and principled ethical commitment gives way to "reality of human experience" and genuine soul-searching is drowned in a sea of pagan God's unconditional love.
For what it is worth, I am not a Christian; I only believe that our civilizational edifice in the West is inextricably enmeshed with Christian outlook and values, which (in wider, and properly adapted secular forms) are necessary and without which we would be lost as a distinct, humane culture.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 05-15-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo in post 45 of this thread

I think you will find on closer inspection that the MJ-ers recruit almost exclusively from the left, and tend to the dogmatic varieties of the political left. There is no shame in being "leftie", btw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Besides, in today's world it becomes increasingly difficult to categorize left and right....

It seemed easy enough to categorize left and right when you were the one doing it.

Ben.

No Robots · 05-15-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I can see that Price is now finally stating openly that he is a mythicist:

Careful now. The statement you quote is from his review of Acharya S.'s book. He has withdrawn that review from his website. The version I linked to is on the Wayback machine.

Toto · 05-15-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

. . . Bottom line - in most cases JM theorizing attaches itself to beliefs that Christianity, or religion in general, are socially and politically noxious and should be supressed in the name of Reason. . . .

I don't think this is true outside of Soviet Russia.

Here in the US, atheists have all been indoctrinated in the First Amendment as interpreted by liberal constitutional scholars. Most atheists believe that religious beliefs are protected absolutely.

No Robots · 05-15-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think this is true outside of Soviet Russia.

Here in the US, atheists have all been indoctrinated in the First Amendment as interpreted by liberal constitutional scholars. Most atheists believe that religious beliefs are protected absolutely.

And each year that the Christian Right digs at the foundations of the United States, the number of ahistoricists will grow, because it is the natural response of people like me who were once willing to live and let live -- you blot out our democracy? Fine! We're going to destroy your Jesus. Doherty himself is an excellent example of how these two ideas cross-fertilize, for not only does he work on ahistorical Jesus theories, he also works with groups that oppose the Christian Right.--from here.

Sounds almost like Kruschev to me.

Solo · 05-15-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

It seemed easy enough to categorize left and right when you were the one doing it.

Ben.

Ben, most of the time I can still tell a leftie - even when he cross-dresses.

Jiri

Solo · 05-15-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think this is true outside of Soviet Russia.

From Earl Doherty's site:

Quote:

The Bush administration is incapable of bringing the country together because it insists on moving backward instead of forward. The American nation is polarized between the reactionary and the progressive, between the incompatible poles of Religion and Rationality. Following the election, Republican commentators warned the Democrats that they could never hope to gain power until they addressed the issues "dear to the hearts and minds" of so many American voters. But we all know what those issues of heart and mind are: depriving women of their reproductive rights, keeping gays and lesbians a sub-class in the population, promoting anti-science in the classroom, introducing faith and bible-based principles into social programs, and generally dismantling the wall between church and state. It is to be hoped that the Democratic Party is incapable of surrendering so much of its integrity. The Republican Party has done so because it has been hijacked by the Christian Right, whose spirit is now firmly ensconsed in the halls of government, both in the Administration and Congress; the Judiciary will come next. Like the government they have installed, these religious fundamentalists have no desire for compromise, indeed they are incapable of it. A liberal-minded writer interviewed the next day lamented that the Republicans had made no effort to approach or win over people like himself, the liberals, the centrists, those who might not have agreed with all of their agenda; they had proven that they didn't need anyone beyond their own ranks, that they could do it on their own. The writer's comment was that the future of the country looked "scary." This is probably an understatement.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/AgeOfReason.htm

Quote:

Here in the US, atheists have all been indoctrinated in the First Amendment as interpreted by liberal constitutional scholars. Most atheists believe that religious beliefs are protected absolutely.

I live in Ottawa, Canada. Most atheists I know here believe what Earl (in Ottawa also, btw) believes. They are not philosophical atheists of say Russell's or Ayer's ilk. Our constitution (proclaimed in 1982) weighs the freedom of belief against other "group" rights but don't ask what happens in Vancouver, when a Knights of Columbus hall is refused to be rented out for a same-sex marriage reception. But to the atheists here the world is under siege by the 8% of Americans who are conservative Christians.

Jiri

Toto · 05-15-2007, 03:45 PM

Hi Solo - I don't know what your argument is. Lots of people are opposed to the Religious Right in America who would be equally opposed to the idea that "Christianity, or religion in general, [is] socially and politically noxious and should be supressed in the name of Reason."

The American concept of Freedom of and from Religion is that the government does not tell people what to believe. This has allowed atheism whatever breathing room it has in this country.

Solo · 05-15-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Solo - I don't know what your argument is. Lots of people are opposed to the Religious Right in America who would be equally opposed to the idea that "Christianity, or religion in general, [is] socially and politically noxious and should be supressed in the name of Reason."

Look, Toto, I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I just showed you what I believe is an agenda, a simple worldview of four-legs-good-two-legs-bad that Earl Doherty goes by. I also sent you recently a link (on another thread) to Richard Dawkins' 'visit' with Ted Haggard, comparing him, without any provocation, to Goebbles and his vacuous but relatively harmless Church gatherings to Nuremberg rallies. Take it, leave it, make of it what you will.

Jiri

Vinnie · 05-15-2007, 08:00 PM

FYI, this work is sort of an abridgement of his longer work Jesus and Judaism. Crossan produced one as well with Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. With the rise of public interest in this field both scholars felt making less technical versions of their works would be a good idea. Possibly a marketing/money thing.

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2007, 03:45 PM	#88
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Solo - I don't know what your argument is. Lots of people are opposed to the Religious Right in America who would be equally opposed to the idea that "Christianity, or religion in general, [is] socially and politically noxious and should be supressed in the name of Reason." The American concept of Freedom of and from Religion is that the government does not tell people what to believe. This has allowed atheism whatever breathing room it has in this country.

05-15-2007, 08:00 PM	#90
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	FYI, this work is sort of an abridgement of his longer work Jesus and Judaism. Crossan produced one as well with Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. With the rise of public interest in this field both scholars felt making less technical versions of their works would be a good idea. Possibly a marketing/money thing. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.