TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Aidonaian Soviet Republic]

And we don't have concrete evidence in every field of philosophy, like Epistemology or Ethics.

Yes, well I don’t think we’ll be helping matters by throwing in an old Jewish book and propaganda made up for them by the Romans. Might as well listen to Ayn Rand harp on about being objective while she engages in subjectivism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And we don't have concrete evidence in every field of philosophy, like Epistemology or Ethics.

Yes, well I don’t think we’ll be helping matters by throwing in an old Jewish book and propaganda made up for them by the Romans. Might as well listen to Ayn Rand harp on about being objective while she engages in subjectivism.

Um, what?

[The New California Republic]

And we don't have concrete evidence in every field of philosophy, like Epistemology or Ethics.

Sure, but we can cite various precedents in Philosophy that cumulatively fill the role of concrete evidence.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And we don't have concrete evidence in every field of philosophy, like Epistemology or Ethics.

Sure, but we can cite various precedents in Philosophy that cumulatively fill the role of concrete evidence.

Yes, that happens in theology as well.

[The New California Republic]

Sure, but we can cite various precedents in Philosophy that cumulatively fill the role of concrete evidence.

Yes, that happens in theology as well.

But it should be said it only goes as far as the limits of its purview, i.e. if it starts making claims about other matters that are influenced by other fields too then it may need to "bend the knee" as it were to the other field, if there is more compelling evidence from it; and that's one of the problems with philosophy in general: it is always in the spaces between things. That's not to say that I don't value philosophy, quite the opposite in fact; as I wouldn't have a MA and MLitt in it otherwise...

[Aidonaian Soviet Republic]

Yes, well I don’t think we’ll be helping matters by throwing in an old Jewish book and propaganda made up for them by the Romans. Might as well listen to Ayn Rand harp on about being objective while she engages in subjectivism.

Um, what?

https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html

[Proctopeo]

I can interpret the Bible just fine and put it where it belongs: the wastebasket of history.

Come on, I personally hate the Papacy on principle but Jesus Fucking Christ, is this "Stereotypically Edgy Athiest" hour?

Besides if you hate the Bible you'll absolutely despise the Quran

[United Muscovite Nations]

Um, what?

https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html

I hope you realize that this is a very fringe historical idea that few if any historians take seriously. The days of Jesus Mythicism as part of the historiographic discussion of the historical Jesus are long gone and have been since the 1960's. Almost all historians now accept that the Gospels were in-part inspired by historical events and were written down by Jewish followers of Jesus at some point between 66AD and 200 AD.

[Tarsonis]

Um, what?

https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html

You realize that essay pretty much uses Ancient Aliens logic right?

[Aidonaian Soviet Republic]

Can you refute it? As hominem is not an argument.

[Aidonaian Soviet Republic]

Almost all historians now accept that the Gospels were in-part inspired by historical events and were written down by Jewish followers of Jesus at some point between 66AD and 200 AD.

ORLY

[United Muscovite Nations]

Can you refute it? As hominem is not an argument.

I mean, it's easily refutable by any of the dozens of books published on the historical Jesus or academic Biblical criticism. If you want a particular thing that refutes it, semiticisms do a pretty good job of proving that it was actually written by Jews, but there are (according to Polkow), over 20 methods for determining the historical authenticity of the gospels.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Almost all historians now accept that the Gospels were in-part inspired by historical events and were written down by Jewish followers of Jesus at some point between 66AD and 200 AD.

ORLY

Yes, really, I could find you sources from multiple academic books and articles acknowledging that Christ mythicism is a fringe theory.

[Aidonaian Soviet Republic]

I mean, it's easily refutable by any of the dozens of books published on the historical Jesus or academic Biblical criticism.

There is no historical Jesus, he was made up by the Romans.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Um, what?

https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html

-2/10

This is Time Cube tier stuff lmao. Talk about starting your time on NS from rock bottom.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, really, I could find you sources from multiple academic books and articles acknowledging that Christ mythicism is a fringe theory.

You could say the same thing about denying his divinity.

https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html

If I ever need to convince someone that I need to be committed I'll set up a website exactly like that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean, it's easily refutable by any of the dozens of books published on the historical Jesus or academic Biblical criticism.

There is no historical Jesus, he was made up by the Romans.

Most historians specializing in the field would disagree with you. Who should I believe? People who dedicated their professional careers to studying it, or some guy on the internet? Hmm.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, really, I could find you sources from multiple academic books and articles acknowledging that Christ mythicism is a fringe theory.

You could say the same thing about denying his divinity.

No, you really couldn't, because Christ's divinity doesn't fit with the academic portraits of Christ.

[Des-Bal]

No, you really couldn't, because Christ's divinity doesn't fit with the academic portraits of Christ.

Sure you could because they're both based on a total absence archaeological evidence, sparse evidence people living in the same century believed it, and a whole lot of wishful thinking.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, you really couldn't, because Christ's divinity doesn't fit with the academic portraits of Christ.

Sure you could because they're both based on a total absence archaeological evidence, sparse evidence people living in the same century believed it, and a whole lot of wishful thinking.

There's plenty of archaeological evidence that people at the time believed he existed, including non-Christians living at the time, and he's mentioned by Josephus, who was one of the most respected historians of his day.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This is the TDT, not the CDT

[Luminesa]

This is the TDT, not the CDT

For once we agree. In fact, you took the words out of my mouth. Thank you. This is not the Christian Discussion Thread.

[Crockerland]

Not at all; Queer theology is a serious endeavor, and has been around for decades, both in affirming congregations and in academia.This book by professor Marcella Althaus-Reid is a good starter.

How do you reconcile queer theology with the Bible stating multiple times that homosexuality is immoral?

The Bible simply does not state that it is immoral to be gay at any point, old or new testament.

When I point this out to people they usually cite some verse totally out of context from a translation skewed to be anti-gay, and when I point out that it can be easily shown that the original Hebrew/Aramaic text states nothing close to what they want it to say, they evacuate from the thread or refuse to reply to me further.

[Auze]

Faulty theological understanding aside, the Vatican is upholding what it has always believed in and expecting it to adopt an unbiblical perspective is silly.

I remember when Christian conservatives accused transgender people of pushing invasive surgeries on children, but now the Vatican is wanting doctors to do exactly that.

I mean, conjoined twins and those with similar birth defects are separated and have defects removed all the time. Considering intersex people by and large have characteristics that are closer to and will identify as one sex or the other, how is it any different?

[Torrocca]

I remember when Christian conservatives accused transgender people of pushing invasive surgeries on children, but now the Vatican is wanting doctors to do exactly that.

I mean, conjoined twins and those with similar birth defects are separated and have defects removed all the time. Considering intersex people by and large have characteristics that are closer to and will identify as one sex or the other, how is it any different?

Let them choose on their own fucking accord then, instead of having it forced on them against their will by an institution like the Vatican or whatever.