Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 09-27-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The whole idea that God himself can relate to humans because he became human (however that is accomplished) is highly appealing. More specifically, the idea that God himself accomplished what man could not do--resurrection of the human body--which enables the resurrection of all man, is the cornerstone of orthodox Christian faith.

More appealing is that God is in every human. To limit the divine to one special human distances people from God rather than bring them closer(a strategy that works in favor of authority figures). As myth, however, it's a much more powerful idea. Because it's no longer a historical event, but a living event.

Perhaps that is why the Holy Spirit appeared. Actually I think the idea of a distant authority-figure God is more accessible to people because of our typical upbringing by authority figures. The idea of God within us seems harder to grasp because few of us (some exceptions here on the board) feel Godlike. It takes more effort to buy the idea that God lives within us than outside of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If one can only see God in HJ, one can't see him anywhere, AFAIC.

Well, it's hard for me to say. I had doubts beginning at age 14 based on what I perceived to be flawed material in the bible. I moved to a belief in God only--perhaps a 'God is love' concept, etc.. , but in recent years that seems harder to balance with all the suffering in the world, and it feels more like 'God doesn't care about anybody'.

Jedi Mind Trick · 09-28-2011, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

I guess I don't care because even if he is really the god of the universe and exists I'd think there is every reason to think that he is a flawed god and not worth my time to worry about.

Maybe that would be even more reason to worry...it is for me. What kind of God makes a world with so much suffering that seems unjust? What kind of God will I face after I die? Sure would prefer a loving, kind, God than one who is flawed.

Perhaps "worry" was a poor choice of words. What I really meant is "care for/love/worship."

But, even worry is a waste of time if he is real and flawed. What can anyone do about it?

gurugeorge · 09-28-2011, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is there any real life issue that would change if Jesus existed, or if he didn't?

Yes, there would be blood on the streets if there was conclusive proof that not even a human Jesus existed, and that the Church has either been deluded or hoaxing, and in either case telling porky pies and getting millions of people to devote themselves to something that's just a woo-woo fantasy. Fortunately, conclusive proof isn't ever likely, but you never know ...

Quote:

Does the historical Jesus even have anything to do with Christian origins, or how to live a good life?

Only to the extent that prescriptions about how to live the good life are more likely to be obeyed by hoi polloi if they come from the mouth of a "magic person". The historical Jesus would be the least viable fallback "magic person" (a wise human being - a great come-down from a walking god, but still some "magic" about him).

Quote:

Why do Christians keep the issue open? Why do atheists care?

Christians keep the issue open because a historical Jesus is one of the few ways left to save even a shred of relevance for a religion that's suffered many almighty blows in the past few centuries from rationalism.

Further, even if the world won't accept a god-man, if at least a man-type thing is provable, then there's a sort of "wedge" left for believers to imagine secretly in their hearts that maybe, possibly, he was a god-man after all.

As I've observed from these boards, the atheists who keep the issue alive, in the sense of debating strenuously with mythicists, seem to do it because they have the notion that mythicism is such a bizarre idea that it sheds disrepute on atheism and rationalism. This is a shameful petitio principii from people who pride themselves on rational thinking.

All the above are the murkier rationales. I think on the whole they're mixed in with more honourable rationales such as love of truth, etc. We all have mixed motives to some degree.

2-J · 09-28-2011, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why do atheists care?

I think it is a very interesting historical 'mystery', one of the reasons it stands out is that Christianity has been a huge part of western (and world) history. Many of us were raised on the Jesus stories even if we weren't raised religiously.

But it's true that beyond that, it doesn't matter. The far larger issue in terms of impact on one's personal life is to decide whether he was the Son of God / God, or not.

maryhelena · 09-28-2011, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is there any real life issue that would change if Jesus existed,

For millions of Christians JC did exist as a historical figure. Thus, the world we live in, the Christian world, the Christian world view/mindset, is a reflection of that belief in a historical gospel JC. So, the question then becomes - are we happy with that Christian world?

Quote:

or if he didn't?

Ah, big question that involves a complete overhaul of the social/political environment of the Christian West. And no, that topic is a topic for another time and place....so will not be taking it further...

Quote:

Does the historical Jesus even have anything to do with Christian origins,

There was no historical gospel JC. What was there was real history, political history and political figures. Whether one goes with 70 c.e. or 37 b.c. as being the spark that lit the theological/philosophical awakening, the importance of social/political events is paramount.

Quote:

or how to live a good life?

The answer to that depends upon how one reads the NT - taking things literally produces the Christian world, mindset, that we have today. Taking things allegorical, taking things philosophically - well, possibilities for living the good life, personally and within a social/political environment, open up.

Quote:

Why do Christians keep the issue open?

Many reasons: From belief in god to a belief in personal salvation and life in a hereafter. The historical JC is that one time in history that god sent his son to earth. (And that, actually, is the big problem with a historical JC - a once off event frozen in time. Stagnation is the result, intellectual stagnation.)

Quote:

Why do atheists care?

Speaking for myself - I care because the assumption of a historical JC is the roadblock to a better, more moral, social political environment. Theology, kept to a personal belief system, might get a pass - but when theology infiltrates into philosophical and political thinking - it’s then that atheists need to mount the barricades. That JC figure on the cross, viewed as a historical gospel JC, viewed literally as a model for human interaction, action between man and man, is an abomination.

Quote:

John 15:12-14

New International Version (NIV)

12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command.

Solo · 09-28-2011, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But I don't understand why non-Christians spend their time attacking mythicism.

Maybe what some of us are not attacking mythicism per se, but the stifling group-think that some forms of it represent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo's blog

The earliest of my troubles is worth while recounting: I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia where Jesus was Myth and that was the state-enforced wisdom. As a student at the Economic Institute, I tried to probe the Communist Party dogma in a philosophy seminar, not because I was religious, but because I was curious. Mind you, I was not curious but not yet to the point of reading the Bible. As a matter of fact, I was as good a commie atheist student as a senior in a Jesuit college would be a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic. My mom was a Catholic herself but she gave up on proselytizing me. My father and I hated it when she became devotional, because it was a sure-as-hell sign that she wanted to be sick and suffering; a martyr to an obscure cause. For my dad that meant no sex, for me no TLC. So, if I had believed in God and Freud, my Oedipus would have been partly to the father in heaven and his outlaw son to whom my mom clinged when she had the blues.

But as I said, I became curious. What ignited my curiosity was a remarkable film by an Italian communist by the name of Pier Paolo Pasolini. When I saw his Il vangelo secondo Matteo (Gospel according to Matthew) I was instantly converted - not to Christianity, mind you, but to Pasolini's ethos of seeing Christianity not as an ideological rival but a part of what our civilization is made of. When I say Christianity I mean the religion stripped off of the psychobabble and intimidation. Pasolini showed it could be done. It was a remarkable vision transcending silly cliches and worn out dogmas - the Church's and the Party's.

So, when a while later I was spoon fed the final word on JC by dialectical materialism in my philosophy class, I had a dissenting point of view essentially arguing it was quite possible that Jesus in fact did exist and the religious humbug was hung on him later. This of course was contrary to the teachings of Bruno Bauer and Frederick Engels, who my skripta said proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a literary invention. My argument, which was somewhat naively spun around the miraculous powers of the Slovak highlander hero Juro Janosik, who was a historical figure and whose trial and execution in 1713 was properly documented, was dismissed as uninformed. Further, my obstinacy earned me a pohovor (an interview) in the dean’s office - essentially an attempt to bring back a stray bolshevik sheep by barking at it. Luckily for me, the assigned sheep dog was himself inclined to communist reformism (this was 1967, the year that brought in Dubcek as a party leader and Zdenek Mlynar as his chief ideologue, the latter a roommate at the Moscow Party Cadres School to a Stavropol party boss by the name of Mikhail Gorbachev). As an added stroke of luck, he ran out of cigarettes, and was in debt as he smoked mine. The interview went well. As I freely admitted I had no research interest in the matter, and read no Greek, my deviationism was classed as harmless: I never saw his report, but I imagine it said something to the effect that comrade S. would not be fooled by superstitious nonsense; he simply keeps his mind open as every smart svazák (young communist) should.

Note the music in the Matthew's clip. Pasolini chose Soviet revolutionary songs as background to the gospel recitation.

In the clip from "Janosik, a True Story" : at the start, one of the soldiers dragging the condemned brigand seem to be doing a quisk-step to the traditional highlander music of ''hajduchy'. This relates to the legend that Janosik was granted a request to dance under the hook and then jumped to hang himself on it. In the Polish 2009 movie, brutal realism won the day.

Best,
Jiri

archibald · 09-28-2011, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is there any real life issue that would change if Jesus existed, or if he didn't?

For an atheist, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does the historical Jesus even have anything to do with Christian origins, or how to live a good life?

Possibly not very much. It's almost impossible to know anything about him with any certainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why do Christians keep the issue open?

Gotta be because if he didn't exist, it would be quite a blow. Not that some don't find a way of thinking around this. Not sure how this makes any sense at all, to me, but there you go. Seems to me without a certain someone, they are just 'ians'. :]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why do atheists care?

The juicy question.

I can only answer for myself (as best I can, since one can never even be sure in that regard) and speculate about others based on what I see.

1. Me.

(a) Irrationally excessive curiosity in the Jesus character, borne of having been brought up in a Christian hegemony and a Christian home, even though I do not recall ever believing. But there must have been a time which I can't remember, when I was very, very small......

(b) Distaste for non-rationally sceptical hypotheses tarring atheism with an unhelpful brush. Mythicism is easily countered, and can act as a decoy for theists (not that I am particularly anti-theist, but I am pro rat scep) who might otherwize have to defend trickier matters, such as, 'why the blooming heck do you believe so much of the mythical embellishments , in fact, what good reason do you have to believe anything supernatural at all...). If I want to defend a rational position I strongly prefer 'dud prophet'.

(c) I like a good barney. :]

(d) One gets sucked in. I call this the 'X factor factor'. One knows that watching 'The X Factor' on TV is a waste of time which could be better spent on other things, but if one catches the first episode......

(e) Possible addictive personality tendencies. :] In this sense, the OP is an excellent suggestion. Send help.

2. Others (other atheists I mean)

I will only generalize.

Excluding (b), same as above?

In my defense, I have not (yet) spent decades investing myself in this. It is true that when I get into it, I lose sight of other threads I was posting in.

I can't understand why any atheist would devote so much to it. Perhaps one such can explain? Not that it matters, I wouldn't disparage anyone for doing it. I might be interested to hear if they admit that for an atheist, it is slightly odd. :]

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....Perhaps that is why the Holy Spirit appeared....

What!!! Are you claiming that there is an "historical Holy Spirit"?

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...Does the historical Jesus even have anything to do with Christian origins, or how to live a good life?

Possibly not very much. It's almost impossible to know anything about him with any certainty.....

Well, you have inadvertently destroyed the "historical Jesus" argument. The "historical Jesus" is hardly likely to be maintained if it is ALMOST impossible to know his "history".

You cannot argue for history WITHOUT any historical data.

archibald · 09-28-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yes, there would be blood on the streets if there was conclusive proof that not even a human Jesus existed, and that the Church has either been deluded or hoaxing, and in either case telling porky pies and getting millions of people to devote themselves to something that's just a woo-woo fantasy. Fortunately, conclusive proof isn't ever likely, but you never know ....

I do think that 'the Church' is guilty of not telling the truth however.

They don't preach an HJ more often. And they should. Many of the ministers know fine well what academia admits, and have done for a very long time. Why are they still roping little kids into nativity plays, for example? This may seem like a churlish example (it can be a fun thing) but there is a very serious point about not distinguishing fact from fiction, and the issue doesn't end with nativity plays.

This is another reason I think rationalists should stick to HJ. Asking 'the church' to admit MJ is too much, since it's much more in the realm of unfalsifiable speculation.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.