Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-04-2012, 07:20 AM | #221 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 59
|
Quote:
Matt |
|
04-04-2012, 07:24 AM | #222 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
|
Just to provide a bit of balance I would say that there are a large number of Jews who subscribe to or are at least open to the MJ point of view. Not Christians but surely not atheists either. I don't know if the same is true of people of other religions but it is true of Jews.
Steve |
04-04-2012, 07:34 AM | #223 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
|
||
04-04-2012, 07:49 AM | #224 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Can we put this fake issue to rest? |
||
04-04-2012, 08:56 AM | #225 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
|
04-04-2012, 09:00 AM | #226 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
Maybe the church could use a few atheists... |
|
04-04-2012, 10:34 AM | #227 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Quote:
I believe that some non-Christians hold onto an historical Jesus because even if he is not the son of some non-existent personal God, he can nevertheless be someone who was in touch with that higher power or inner state of being, and so are we vicariously through him. But it's all neuronal impulses jumping our synapses. Why not celebrate what it is really like to be human, and how much evolution has accomplished? Myths like the historical Jesus only get in the way of truly understanding ourselves and the universe we're a part of. And stop labelling anything "God". Earl Doherty |
|
04-04-2012, 10:55 AM | #228 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
(1) That there is no evidence that mythicists are motivated by an anti-religious agenda, and (2) it is a fake issue that doesn't matter. You switch to position #2 after you lose the argument for position #1. At least position #2 is subjective and easy to stand behind, but there are helluva lot of debates that go on in this forum that don't matter to me, and here is how I deal with my ambivalence: I stay out of those debates. Not only are those debates irrelevant to me, but I don't even care whether or not they take place. |
|
04-04-2012, 10:57 AM | #229 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
|
||
04-04-2012, 11:07 AM | #230 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
Abe, when Galileo or Copernicus researched the heavens and came up with the theory that instead of an earth-centered universe we lived in a sun-centered universe (at least in our own neighborhood), did they have an anti-religious agenda? After all, they were destroying the reliability of the Bible in its recounting of how Joshua made the sun stand still in its course around the earth so he could conquer Jericho. Did they hate Christianity because they proved the Church to be wrong and the Bible to be false in its geocentric views?
Or could they see that, regardless of the effect it would have on the Church and Christian faith in the Bible, it was better to understand the workings of the world we live in than to continue to model our thinking and our culture on something they concluded was false? If you had lived in the 16th-17th centuries, would you be dumping all over Copernicus and Galileo on the FRDB, and dismissing their theories as anti-Christian hatred, appealing to the longstanding authority of Ptolemy? I bet you would! Earl Doherty |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|