aa5874

And you are FROM the JESUS MOVEMENT.

FathomFFI

When did this discussion become about atheism? Do you see that as a title? If you want to discuss that, start a new thread.

matthewthomas

(1) You do yourself no favours with your choice of definition of religion. There are plenty of decent definitions on the page you linked, yet you chose "the life or condition of a person in a religious order". Surely in the context of the page you linked, 'religious order' means something like the Bendictines, or the Franciscans, or some other similar order, where order means an organisation, not a manner. It cannot mean in a religious way, or else the definition becomes self-referential, and therefore useless. Further up the page you linked, a very similar definition is given from another dictionary: "the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.", making it very likely that this is what is meant by the definition you chose.

Given that, could you please show us all where Doherty et al. are attempting to explain the life or condition of a person in this kind of religious order?

If you try to counter that you mean that 'attempting to explain the life or condition of a person' who is religious makes someone religious themselves then you are making the definition of 'religious' encompass such a broad church as to be of no use as a definition. It makes every historian or sociologist or anthropologist or archaeologist who happens to study how religious people live/lived into a religious person, whatever their own personal beliefs may be.

Please could you explain why trying to provide an historical account of the early days of a religious organisation is itself a religion?

(2) From what I have read of Doherty, he is attempting to reconstruct Paul's philosophy, as a way of explaining Christian origins. Some people here agree with his reconstruction; others disagree strongly. Perhaps he is entirely wrong, and uses unlikely or obscure definitions and so on. How does that make what he is doing a religion? How can attempting to figure out someone else's philosophy be a religion? It might be done from (anti?)-religious or other philosophical motivations, which might even cloud his reading of the evidence, but it does not make his endevour a religion in itself.

Please could you show us - specifically - where Doherty uses his Jesus-myth theory as a religious tool, or as the basis of a religious movement or idea? If he doesn't do any of these, then how is his Jesus-myth theory a religion?

Mt

ChuckE99

One of the reasons atheists (and/or scientists, for that matter) discount things like Creationism and Christianity is because they are RELIGIONS and are faith, not evidence, based. We say to them that they believe what they believe not because of evidence but because they accept what they read in a book as literal truth. Explained, it's a pretty damning accusation: If you come at me in a factual argument with nothing but "religion" as your evidence, then get lost.

I think that's why they (the Creationists/Fundamentalists, etc.) throw back the, "Oh yeah? Well, Darwinism is a RELIGION TOO!" statement. They want to suggest that we only believe what we read in books too. (And probably, are goaded on by the Devil to do so.) That we are fundamentalist in our allegience to the opinions, not facts, of godless atheists.

It's a knee-jerk response, and I think the OP just buys into its perceived effectiveness.

FathomFFI

No problem, you can begin at the following link and read my critique of Earl Doherty's work:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=247125

Sure.

Earl Doherty is actually creating a Pauline philosophy. He's removing verses out of context, and assigning a completely inaccurate meaning to them while they are out of context.

He is developing a Pauline philosophy which he believes represents the view of early Christianity, and then selling this view in a book with hopes that people will believe his views.


It's a religion because it creates a philosophy which he expects people to believe as the true philosophy of early Christianity. It Doherty didn't believe his position represents the truth, then what's his point?

For further information, go to the link previously provided.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think this thread is better off elsewhere. Please remain seated until the thread comes to a complete stop.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

matthewthomas

But presumably Doherty doesn't believe what he thinks Paul believed, i.e. he is trying to reconstruct Paul's philosophy - correctly or incorrectly doesn't matter in this thread - not trying to create a philosophy for himself and others in the world today. So I don't see why you label him as making a religion, not writing an history. In your view, what am I missing?

That he believes his own view to be correct is surely not a sign of it being a religion for him? I would have thought that almost all scholars would only put forward a theory if they thought it was correct. If they thought it was nonsense, they wouldn't put it forward. Further, if he thinks it is correct, then of course he will hope to persuade others that it is correct as well.

At present, this discussion is providing a useful digression from what I'm meant to be doing, which is writing up some of my research for submission to a journal. I happen to think that my data are accurate and that my interpretation of them is also correct. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be writing the paper but would be still researching and interpreting. When (or perhaps if?) my paper is published, I hope that those who read it and uderstand it will agree with my interpretation. Am I forming a new religion?


In that thread (which I had been on-off following anyway) I found evidence that Doherty is trying to explain the philosophy of the early Christians. He puts forward evidence that it was as he says it was. Some people disagree, of course. All he seems to be doing is to try to explain early Christianity (well or otherwise). I still can't see how his explanations of are themselves a religion, not just an explanation of a religion. I have not seen any evidence that he uses his theory as a religion.

Mt

+or-1

This is old news. Ancient even. It's suddenly a movement?

FathomFFI

Just lock it, because I never posted a thread that belongs in this forum. It deals with religious philosophies pertaining to Christianity, and it belongs where it was.

No longer interested in this thread.

BriAnna

I don't see that it needs to be locked.