What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?

Cypress said:
I never said it was crazy. I said denial of expertise and scholarly consensus is a sign of someone making conclusions based on emotion at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.

I am going to assume anyone who outright rejects the scholarly consensus on the historical Jesus is also a climate denier and anti-vaxxer.

The fact they really, really, really wish it were true that a historical Jesus never existed is the hallmark of an emotion-based fealty to the Church of Militant Atheism
Click to expand...

I'm curious -- what difference does it make if it turns out that the Jesus worshiped by millions is a fictitious character? They won't stop believing. It won't change anyone's life. It won't create new atheists or converts to a non-Christian religion.

The discussion on "militant atheists" is amusing. According to Pew Research* only 3.1% of Americans claim to be atheists. The vast majority of these people don't discuss it, post on social media about it, or worst of all try to change U.S. laws to suit their lack of belief in religion. In other words, unlike the in-your-face dominionists, Xtian fundies, and more vocal evangelists, they have no power or voice.
 
History is always at the mercy of current social struggles, and it's been said, truly I think, that it is essentially the propaganda of the victors. On the other hand, the denial of historical figures clearly depends on evidence. Was there a King Arthur, for instance? Almost certainly no, though there was probably a military leader called Arthur around the right time. Kings and princes had their own poets to record their activities - we can just say that the name starts cropping up in royal pedigrees from about the right time. There is very little evidence for those who aren't part of a governing class, but some people are so striking as to break through, and some have advantages. Socrates, for instance, was far too sympathetic with those the Athenian democrats called 'the fat' to be forgotten, and Jesus clearly produced a very large number of followers, who remembered his words, as well as a propagandist called Paul, who confused matters rather. The existence of these persons, however, is so powerfully part of history that it is simply daft to try to deny their existence.
 
rjhenn said:
It's you who has the "emotion-driven agenda". You are desperate to have something to support your irrational beliefs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is emotional for me to defer to the consensus of the world's most reputable historians of antiquity?

Surely you jest.

Accepting the probability of a historical Jesus is the reasoned and rational position, based on the existent record and expert consensus


I have expressed an opinion only on the historicity of Jesus. I have expressed no opinion on the miracles attributed to him.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'm curious -- what difference does it make if it turns out that the Jesus worshiped by millions is a fictitious character? They won't stop believing. It won't change anyone's life. It won't create new atheists or converts to a non-Christian religion.

The discussion on "militant atheists" is amusing. According to Pew Research* only 3.1% of Americans claim to be atheists. The vast majority of these people don't discuss it, post on social media about it, or worst of all try to change U.S. laws to suit their lack of belief in religion. In other words, unlike the in-your-face dominionists, Xtian fundies, and more vocal evangelists, they have no power or voice.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter at all if you were into 'worship', I think, but if you felt the ideas he expressed were historically important, it would matter quite a lot.
 
Last edited:
StoneByStone said:
But if someone thought it was likely that Socrates didn't exist, would you say it was emotion-based fealty?
Click to expand...

I would say they are intellectually dishonest and or irrational. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To deny the historicity of Socrates flies in the face of centuries of scholarship
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It would defy logic.

Using radiation to identify structures has been around for almost a century. One way it was described was as having a tent with an anvil inside. The position and shape of the anvil is suspected but unseen, therefore unknown. A machine gun is set up and shoots bullets in a logical pattern across one side of the tent then the shooter goes to the opposite side of the tent. Even though the existence and sight of the anvil are still unknown, an anvil shape is seen on the other side of the tent thus giving evidence of existence without ever actually seeing it.

The same goes for Homer, Socrates and Jesus. Their actual existence is indicated by the impact they had on others even if we understand our view of them is as limited as identifying an anvil by bullet holes in a tent.
Click to expand...
Homer and Socrates were not the object of religious beliefs. Jesus is the center of religious beliefs. He has been molded by those beliefs as much as He has molded them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'm curious -- what difference does it make if it turns out that the Jesus worshiped by millions is a fictitious character? They won't stop believing. It won't change anyone's life. It won't create new atheists or converts to a non-Christian religion.

The discussion on "militant atheists" is amusing. According to Pew Research* only 3.1% of Americans claim to be atheists. The vast majority of these people don't discuss it, post on social media about it, or worst of all try to change U.S. laws to suit their lack of belief in religion. In other words, unlike the in-your-face dominionists, Xtian fundies, and more vocal evangelists, they have no power or voice.
Click to expand...

I do not know if it matters to other people, I only speak for myself.

I believe facts, evidence, and expertise matter. Denying the historicity of Jesus flies in the face of a century worth of scholarship by the world's most reputable historians of antiquity. As a student of history, I believe expertise and scholarship matter.

I make no case regarding the obviously embellished parts of the NT.

I challenge ignorance when I see it. The ignorance of young earth bible thumpers is a frequent target of my derision. But I have not seen any bible thumpers in this thread. Atheists don't bug me in principle, I don't care what they believe.

But there are aetheists in this thread who maintain that all religious people should be mocked, and who make the extraordinary claim that historical scholars have it wrong - the historical existence of Jesus was a hoax. Those are two assertions I feel are open to challenge.
 
Cypress said:
I never said it was crazy. I said denial of expertise and scholarly consensus is a sign of someone making conclusions based on emotion at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.

I am going to assume anyone who outright rejects the scholarly consensus on the historical Jesus is also a climate denier and anti-vaxxer.

The fact they really, really, really wish it were true that a historical Jesus never existed is the hallmark of an emotion-based fealty to the Church of Militant Atheism
Click to expand...

Purest paranoid delusion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
Purest paranoid delusion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
rjhenn said:
Their "factless beliefs" are simply a lack of belief in the "factless beliefs" of the militant theists.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input.

Sent from something that isn't an Apple product
41ozqy.jpg
 
rjhenn said:
Homer and Socrates were not the object of religious beliefs. Jesus is the center of religious beliefs. He has been molded by those beliefs as much as He has molded them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You obviously do not get this, but many agnostics, philosophers, students of history believe studying Jesus, Muhumed, Confucius, Zarathustra, Siddhattha Gotama , Augustine are worth it because of the insights gained into history, metaphysics, and epistemology. These individuals are important to history, scholarship, and the human condition in ways beyond worship and adoration.
 
Cypress said:
You obviously do not get this, but many agnostics, philosophers, students of history believe studying Jesus, Muhumed, Confucius, Zarathustra, Siddhattha Gotama , Augustine are worth it because of the insights gained into history, metaphysics, and epistemology. These individuals are important to history, scholarship, and the human condition in ways beyond worship and adoration.
Click to expand...
None of which requires that Jesus actually existed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
Especially given the high probability that Christians altered historical texts to support their religion. They've altered the Bible.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Common ground although I would say "cherry-picked historical texts" not "altered historical texts" since the first is a choice and the latter is dishonest.

Sent using 100% recycled electrons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top