Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 03-07-2010, 11:28 PM

Update re the debate...

Quote:

Further explanation concerning “mythicism”.

By neilgodfrey

And we just might end up with a more rational and natural explanation of a core element of our cultural heritage. Imagine an explanation that does not fall back on “something that historians cannot examine must have happened at Easter” in order to account for Christianity; or “this is so incredible or embarrassing it must be true”; or people could not have gone out and persuaded thousands so quickly or given their lives if there were not some good reason to think the story true.” All of these are apologetic rationalizations required to maintain an unrealistic model that we have inherited.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/03/...red/#more-5830

mountainman · 03-08-2010, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The OP and HJ supporter in James McGrath states above ....

In order to conclude that these stories are most likely not historical, we need some further argument. In short, there needs to be a willingness to discuss the designer(s).

What do you think he means?
..

He means to insult mythicists by comparing mythicism to Intelligent Design.

Yet at the end of the day many people in this forum appear to be reasonably convinced that the new testament has been designed. In terms of the intelligence behind the design, we (MJers) are required to come up with a theory about how this "design" of the NT was initiated, implemented and then (obviously) covered over. The above need not be regarded as an insult but a challenge.

ApostateAbe · 03-08-2010, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He means to insult mythicists by comparing mythicism to Intelligent Design.

Yet at the end of the day many people in this forum appear to be reasonably convinced that the new testament has been designed. In terms of the intelligence behind the design, we (MJers) are required to come up with a theory about how this "design" of the NT was initiated, implemented and then (obviously) covered over. The above need not be regarded as an insult but a challenge.

Yep.

mountainman · 03-08-2010, 05:53 AM

Thus the pivotal involvement of this Roman Emperor Constantine and his faithful scribe Eusebius.

Toto · 03-08-2010, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He means to insult mythicists by comparing mythicism to Intelligent Design.

Yet at the end of the day many people in this forum appear to be reasonably convinced that the new testament has been designed. In terms of the intelligence behind the design, we (MJers) are required to come up with a theory about how this "design" of the NT was initiated, implemented and then (obviously) covered over. The above need not be regarded as an insult but a challenge.

The gospel of Mark and other parts of the NT are literary compositions and therefore are "designed." Everyone knows this, including McGrath. There has been quite a bit of work on this design, mostly by scholars who are not explicitly mythicists.

Nevertheless, I see this as part of McGrath's campaign of insulting mythicists by comparing them to ID'ists. And mountainman is riding his hobby horse again, asking for someone to take his thesis seriously.

mountainman · 03-08-2010, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Yet at the end of the day many people in this forum appear to be reasonably convinced that the new testament has been designed. In terms of the intelligence behind the design, we (MJers) are required to come up with a theory about how this "design" of the NT was initiated, implemented and then (obviously) covered over. The above need not be regarded as an insult but a challenge.

The gospel of Mark and other parts of the NT are literary compositions and therefore are "designed." Everyone knows this, including McGrath. There has been quite a bit of work on this design, mostly by scholars who are not explicitly mythicists.

Most scholars in the field who are not mythicists are essentially riding the hobby horse of the Historical Jesus. You may not see the HJ as a hobby horse, but I and others in this discussion forum do.

Quote:

Nevertheless, I see this as part of McGrath's campaign of insulting mythicists by comparing them to ID'ists. And mountainman is riding his hobby horse again, asking for someone to take his thesis seriously.

It is true that I have mounted up my own hobby horse to ride out and challenge the hobby horses of the HJ proponents, but the reason that I have done so is to explore the open possibilities of the field other than to blindly follow along after, or lay palm leaves in front of, the HJ hobby horse.

Of course I am asking for people to take my thesis -- that the Emperor has no authentic clothes --- seriously. But I do so with the rules of hobby horse engagement in mind -- I respect other peoples opinions, I am not trying to shove the idea down peoples throats, I am willing to admit that I could be quite wrong about the idea, and I am ready to be completely arbitrated by the evidence being presented.

The idea is certainly unorthodox and new, but that does not make it wrong and neither does this provide grounds for rejecting the idea. There has been fashioned no silver bullet of firm evidence whereby --- as far as I am able to gauge --- this particular hobby horse has been brought down to its death throes. I simply reject the HJ hobby horse, and am trialing an alternative one.

show_no_mercy · 03-08-2010, 04:09 PM

What's really ironic in this whole exchange is that Creationists use the same historical methodology that HJs use to arrive at their beliefs. :huh:

If it weren't for thinking that Genesis has historical truth or "some" historical truth, then there would be no Creationism.

Toto · 03-08-2010, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The gospel of Mark and other parts of the NT are literary compositions and therefore are "designed." Everyone knows this, including McGrath. There has been quite a bit of work on this design, mostly by scholars who are not explicitly mythicists.

Most scholars in the field who are not mythicists are essentially riding the hobby horse of the Historical Jesus. You may not see the HJ as a hobby horse, but I and others in this discussion forum do.

We have had some HJ hobby horsemen here.

Quote:

...

It is true that I have mounted up my own hobby horse to ride out and challenge the hobby horses of the HJ proponents, but the reason that I have done so is to explore the open possibilities of the field other than to blindly follow along after, or lay palm leaves in front of, the HJ hobby horse.

Of course I am asking for people to take my thesis -- that the Emperor has no authentic clothes --- seriously. But I do so with the rules of hobby horse engagement in mind -- I respect other peoples opinions, I am not trying to shove the idea down peoples throats, I am willing to admit that I could be quite wrong about the idea, and I am ready to be completely arbitrated by the evidence being presented.

Sorry, those are not the rules of engagement, and you are not following them. You are not an effective counter to the HJ factions.

mountainman · 03-09-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We have had some HJ hobby horsemen here.
....

You are not an effective counter to the HJ factions.

I am not addressing the converted but the evidence itself.

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

03-08-2010, 05:53 AM	#494
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Thus the pivotal involvement of this Roman Emperor Constantine and his faithful scribe Eusebius.

03-08-2010, 04:09 PM	#497
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	What's really ironic in this whole exchange is that Creationists use the same historical methodology that HJs use to arrive at their beliefs. :huh: If it weren't for thinking that Genesis has historical truth or "some" historical truth, then there would be no Creationism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.