But still. Unless this means that he'll stop using the No true Scotsman fallacy in other threads, I'm not sure I see the point here.
Advertisement
by Dakini » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:06 pm
by Aesthetica » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:12 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:So you're a Christian atheist?
by Farnhamia » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:14 pm
Aesthetica wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:So you're a Christian atheist?
Gah, atheists 'believing' in a religion based on a 'son of god' when they don't believe in that god, but only in the non -god parts of the message (which ain't a hell of a lot) all of it apparently based off two books by modern pseudo-intellectuals?
It's just a splinter of the old message-not-man" christianity that lost the debate at the council of nicea in 325 ad, with god removed.
However since the message-not-man christianity centered around the message being FROM a god, without a god there is no message...
A Semantic null, an exercise in deliberate confusion for the purpose of appearing intellectual and being smug about it.
by The Alma Mater » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:16 pm
Aesthetica wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:Can you define what you mean by "christ", since the literal meaning of "annointed" or "messias" can be used by anyone who has once used deoderant ?
See there is another problem I have with Bluthianity...
Christ - from latin Christus - from greek Christos, a literal translation of hebrew Messiach, "Anointed King" or just "Anointed"...
The original usage implies anointed by the hebrew god, but Bluthianity leaves that out so, what anointed by who, with what, when and for how much, and what makes that worthy of being the founder of a religion, least of all a non-theistic religion...
"some bloke who wasn't important said some stuff that didn't matter, bow before the altar of a nobody..."
Makes even less sense to this Atheist than good old theistic-as-hell Pauline Christianity...
by Aesthetica » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:18 pm
by Threlizdun » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:26 pm
by Farnhamia » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:28 pm
Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.
by The Alma Mater » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:28 pm
Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him.
by Farnhamia » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:32 pm
The Alma Mater wrote:Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him.
Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.
by New New York » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:34 pm
Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.
by Farnhamia » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:36 pm
New New York wrote:Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.
Historians (Or at least one historian) do place a man named Jesus - believed to be a miracle worker by his followers - in Judea. Jesus existing was not a later 'revision'.
by Aesthetica » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:37 pm
New New York wrote:Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.
Historians (Or at least one historian) do place a man named Jesus - believed to be a miracle worker by his followers - in Judea. Jesus existing was not a later 'revision'.
by Threlizdun » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:37 pm
The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".Farnhamia wrote:Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.
What's your timeline here? I mean, the "three Jesuses" and Paul's writing and all. Just want to be sure.
Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.The Alma Mater wrote:Threlizdun wrote:This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him.
Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.
by New New York » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:40 pm
Farnhamia wrote:New New York wrote:
Historians (Or at least one historian) do place a man named Jesus - believed to be a miracle worker by his followers - in Judea. Jesus existing was not a later 'revision'.
Josephus? The Testamonium Flavianum is widely held to have been tampered with by a later Christian editor.
by Aesthetica » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:41 pm
Threlizdun wrote:The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".Farnhamia wrote:What's your timeline here? I mean, the "three Jesuses" and Paul's writing and all. Just want to be sure.Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.The Alma Mater wrote:
Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.
by Threlizdun » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:44 pm
I only called it questionable due to it being a documentary with a specific objective, rather than say, "Planet Earth". It certainly will incorporate some facts, though you should always question some of the materials presented to you from a biased source.Aesthetica wrote:Threlizdun wrote:The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".
Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.
documentaries are not always 'questionable' even if they poke holes in cherished myths, depends on who made them and why...
The Discovery channel in America however does have a tendancy to commission 'questionable' documentaries that it knows will cause outrage, especially if they are produced on the cheap, lots of stock library footage of the pyramids etc intercut with a few stuffed shirts from a university doint talking-head bits in a hotel room...
Lot's of people tune in even if it's only to scream abuse at their tv's and throw bricks through the screen, and high viewing figures means Disco can charge more for the advertising slots...
by The Alma Mater » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:44 pm
by Farnhamia » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:45 pm
Threlizdun wrote:The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".Farnhamia wrote:What's your timeline here? I mean, the "three Jesuses" and Paul's writing and all. Just want to be sure.Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.The Alma Mater wrote:
Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.
by Farnhamia » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:46 pm
by The Alma Mater » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:47 pm
by Farnhamia » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:48 pm
by Aesthetica » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:51 pm
New New York wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Josephus? The Testamonium Flavianum is widely held to have been tampered with by a later Christian editor.
It's also generally held that the passage originally mentioned Jesus, even before the likely tampering.
EDIT: Also, it is only the one passage that shows signs of later additions.
by Robert Magoo » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:53 pm
by Mount Shavano » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:00 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:Because it often tends to turn into a threadjack, several have requested that I start a thread explaining what I mean by Christianity, so that the matter can be discussed without distracting from the main substance of the thread.
Essentially, my belief is that Paul and his followers corrupted the message of the Christ (manifested, but only imperfectly, in the person of Jesus). For whatever reason (Tolstoy offers a plausible and sympathetic explanation in The Gospel in Brief), they chose to emphasize the constructed myth of the divinity of Jesus's person over the truth of the divinity (in a non-theistic sense, such as we might say "this chocolate is divine!" though obviously with much more import) of the Christ's teachings, as transmitted (sometimes with errors) through the life and person of Jesus.
So the Christ is merely an abstraction, an ideal human being that serves as an example for all of us in living our own lives. Jesus came very close to this ideal--though not perfectly, as we shall see--and is the originator of the particular tradition (however corrupted it may have been by the Paulinists) in which I learned the teachings that will help me reach this ideal. Other traditions exist and are of course equally legitimate.
Now, the Christ is the example we should follow because it is the means by which we will be saved from destroying ourselves. The Christ shows us how to build a better world and live among one another peacefully and happily. Thus, any beliefs which conflict with this goal are literally incompatible with Christianity. Since there is in fact no god, supplication to a deity can do nothing towards building a better world--and it is a distraction from work that will actually have an effect. Thus, belief in a god is incompatible with being Christ-like; so atheism is not a part of Christianity. Of course, individual Christians may still fall short in this are as they do (myself included) in other areas. But ultimately, atheism is something a Christian should strive to embrace just like he should strive (whether or not he necessarily actually succeeds) to embrace the other attributes of Christness.
Now, it's pretty clear that Jesus was a theist. This is but one example of what I mean when I say that Jesus was only an imperfect manifestation of the Christ. He had his flaws, as do the rest of us. Jesus's imperfection indeed is one of the thing that makes him such a compelling teacher. Even if his imperfections aren't necessarily the same as my imperfections, I can certainly relate to the basic fact of being imperfect.
The Epistles are not part of Christianity because they are written under the presumption that the divinity is found in the person rather than in the teaching. Similarly, the Old Testament is not relevant to Christianity because it is simply the national mythology of the Hebrew people. It provides cultural context for understanding Jesus's specific actions, but it has no universal significance in and of itself. Finding Christianity requires focusing solely on the Gospels, edited to (a) remove the parts that are clearly physically impossible (e.g. the miracles) and (b) removing the parts where Jesus was not being the Christ.
I'm glad to answer whatever questions you may have. You might even ask a question that forces me to reconsider some things (others have in the past), or even everything.
by Threlizdun » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:00 pm
It is an ideology focusing on Jesus and the lifestyle he lived though. It's argueable whether or not it could be classified as Christianity, as it is not religious in nature, but it still certainly does have a focus on the Christ figure. Perhaps Christianism would be a more appropriate term?Robert Magoo wrote:Your christianity isn't Christianity.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bagong Timog Mindanao, Google [Bot], Marcmen, Perchan, The Xenopolis Confederation, Xind
Advertisement