Freethought & Rationalism Archive

worldling · 12-02-2002, 07:22 AM

Before St Paul sat down to write his epistles, the story was going round that Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. It was up to St Paul and later church fathers to explain exactly what this was supposed to mean.

That is all Christianity is: a hypothesis about a rumour. Unfortunately for Christianity, when we examine the hypothesis we see that it contains several logical contradictions and absurdities (Jesus being both mortal and immortal, "dying" but being alive etc etc). Therefore the rational thinker must reject the hypothesis.

All talk of biblical historicity is quite interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The story cannot be true because it does not make sense.

In debates Christians often resort to deep philosophical discussions of comparative epistemologies. This is absurd, because they are arguing in support of a hypothesis about a rumour, not an epistomology.

Ojuice5001 · 12-02-2002, 08:34 AM

Have you ever read The Everlasting Man by Chesterton? It basically says that the mythologies are rumors about god(s), and theistic philosophies are theories about god(s), while Christianity, according to Chesterton, is neither, but a piece of data. But to me Christianity seems like little more than, as you say, finding a rumor, creating a theory about it, and deciding that this is definititive knowledge.

(Which is kind of what I have done with the rumor that Jupiter and Quirinus were the founders of Rome, the differences being that my rumors and theories are good ones, while those of the Christians are crazy. Worldling, do you think that "the rational thinker must reject [Roman polytheism]"?)

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

worldling · 12-02-2002, 08:47 AM

Thanks OJ. I have never read, or even heard of, the Chesterton book. While I knew my thoughts couldn't be original (they are too obvious for that), it is always interesting to learn who had them before me.

As to whether a rational thinker would have to reject Roman polytheism, I'm afraid I am highly ignorant of Roman polytheism so I can't give you a sufficiently educated answer (if you have a source where I could educate myself, I'll have a look). But my initial hunch would be, yes, probably.

Wizardry · 12-02-2002, 11:09 PM

I'm going to send this over to Biblical Criticism, where hopefully, it'll recieve more knowlegeable responses.

12-02-2002, 07:22 AM	#1
worldling Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: UK Posts: 156	Christianity: a hypothesis about a rumour Before St Paul sat down to write his epistles, the story was going round that Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. It was up to St Paul and later church fathers to explain exactly what this was supposed to mean. That is all Christianity is: a hypothesis about a rumour. Unfortunately for Christianity, when we examine the hypothesis we see that it contains several logical contradictions and absurdities (Jesus being both mortal and immortal, "dying" but being alive etc etc). Therefore the rational thinker must reject the hypothesis. All talk of biblical historicity is quite interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The story cannot be true because it does not make sense. In debates Christians often resort to deep philosophical discussions of comparative epistemologies. This is absurd, because they are arguing in support of a hypothesis about a rumour, not an epistomology.

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

12-02-2002, 08:34 AM	#2
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	Have you ever read The Everlasting Man by Chesterton? It basically says that the mythologies are rumors about god(s), and theistic philosophies are theories about god(s), while Christianity, according to Chesterton, is neither, but a piece of data. But to me Christianity seems like little more than, as you say, finding a rumor, creating a theory about it, and deciding that this is definititive knowledge. (Which is kind of what I have done with the rumor that Jupiter and Quirinus were the founders of Rome, the differences being that my rumors and theories are good ones, while those of the Christians are crazy. Worldling, do you think that "the rational thinker must reject [Roman polytheism]"?) [ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

12-02-2002, 08:47 AM	#3
worldling Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: UK Posts: 156	Thanks OJ. I have never read, or even heard of, the Chesterton book. While I knew my thoughts couldn't be original (they are too obvious for that), it is always interesting to learn who had them before me. As to whether a rational thinker would have to reject Roman polytheism, I'm afraid I am highly ignorant of Roman polytheism so I can't give you a sufficiently educated answer (if you have a source where I could educate myself, I'll have a look). But my initial hunch would be, yes, probably.

12-02-2002, 11:09 PM	#4
Wizardry Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 363	I'm going to send this over to Biblical Criticism, where hopefully, it'll recieve more knowlegeable responses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.