SairB Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Once again, I find myself resolving (and we'll see how long this lasts) never again to dip into the quagmire of obfuscation and pseudoprofundity that is the Catholic Answers Forum. Yes, there are some interesting discussions going forward, and some thoughtful posts from nonChristians and unbelievers, but there's also a whole lotta bullshit passing itself off as "sensible" commentary from people so firmly entrenched in Catholic theology that an excavation team armed with bulldozers couldn't dig them out. To one of my recent posts, in which I remarked that early Christianity had to compete in the marketplace of ideas amongst other religions and philosophies in the world of the first-century Mediterranean, I received the inane response that Christianity would never have had to "compete" because the "truth" shines forth for all to see. ::headdesk:: Read some fucking history, people!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I recently read a fundy apologist that said, yes, Christianity used concepts similar to paganism (and while I find his argument convincing that there was no real borrowing) he went into absurdoland when he said Christianity did used paganish concepts to help explain Christianity but still did that with historical accuracy. While yes there is a big difference between borrowing and influencing, and influencing is all you need to potentially distort historical events. A resurrection, even if not particularly pagan in the case of christianity, is still a common concept know to most people, for example. Its sort of amazing, how far the stupid goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SairB Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 The other thing that comes up is that if you so much as acknowledge the possibility that Jesus existed as a real individual (as opposed to a pastiche of charismatic preachers, an elaboration based on a real individual, or a mere fabrication) who was crucified as a criminal by the Roman authorities, that somehow means you've opened the way to believing all the fantasy guff about the resurrection and Christ's divinity and so forth. We can have one without the other - it's perfectly possible to believe Jesus existed historically, even to admire him as a man who had the courage of his convictions, without investing in the dogma. I just don't get how people can say, "Oh, but the evidence that Jesus existed is irrefutable!" as if the mere historical circumstance of Jesus existing as a man somehow proves everything else that is claimed about him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The other thing that comes up is that if you so much as acknowledge the possibility that Jesus existed as a real individual (as opposed to a pastiche of charismatic preachers, an elaboration based on a real individual, or a mere fabrication) who was crucified as a criminal by the Roman authorities, that somehow means you've opened the way to believing all the fantasy guff about the resurrection and Christ's divinity and so forth. We can have one without the other - it's perfectly possible to believe Jesus existed historically, even to admire him as a man who had the courage of his convictions, without investing in the dogma. I just don't get how people can say, "Oh, but the evidence that Jesus existed is irrefutable!" as if the mere historical circumstance of Jesus existing as a man somehow proves everything else that is claimed about him! Yeah, its a bit like, using the existence of dorothy to prove the wizard of oz. Even if you could prove, dorothy, scarecrow, tin man, and the yellow brick road existed, that doesn't logically guarantee the existence of the wizard of oz. If there is a good reason to doubt the existence of the wizard of oz (god) then all you got is a dorothy, scarecrow, tin man and the yellow brick road. And that could be could be potentially anything, but the wizard of oz(the christian god). I hope the analogy between the wizard of oz and the gospels is clear here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SairB Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 The other thing that comes up is that if you so much as acknowledge the possibility that Jesus existed as a real individual (as opposed to a pastiche of charismatic preachers, an elaboration based on a real individual, or a mere fabrication) who was crucified as a criminal by the Roman authorities, that somehow means you've opened the way to believing all the fantasy guff about the resurrection and Christ's divinity and so forth. We can have one without the other - it's perfectly possible to believe Jesus existed historically, even to admire him as a man who had the courage of his convictions, without investing in the dogma. I just don't get how people can say, "Oh, but the evidence that Jesus existed is irrefutable!" as if the mere historical circumstance of Jesus existing as a man somehow proves everything else that is claimed about him! Yeah, its a bit like, using the existence of dorothy to prove the wizard of oz. Even if you could prove, dorothy, scarecrow, tin man, and the yellow brick road existed, that doesn't logically guarantee the existence of the wizard of oz. If there is a good reason to doubt the existence of the wizard of oz (god) then all you got is a dorothy, scarecrow, tin man and the yellow brick road. And that could be could be potentially anything, but the wizard of oz(the christian god). I hope the analogy between the wizard of oz and the gospels is clear here. I like the analogy, actually, precisely because the 'wizard' was not a 'real' wizard at all. Terribly fitting, in my opinion. My favourite analogy thus far has always been the one with the Emperor's New Clothes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Emperor's new cloths.....also....fitting.... In Real Life the Emperor would have started a new trend. Which in real life, he did. Despite his name though, there was very little consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailBlazer Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 ooo I had a xian friend try to convince me that other religions were similar to xianity because all religions stemmed from the same truths that are found in the bible, (but "the evil one" corrupted the message and led billions of people astray to follow false religions that were very similar to the truth that can only be found in Christ). *Gag* I've also heard an answer that if Jesus existed it points to the truth of his message because why would all the fathers of xianity lie about something like that and risk their lives if they didn't have it on very good authority that it was 100% true? To that I ask- why would the Jewish leaders deny Jesus' "truth" and risk eternal damnation from G-d if they didn't have it on very good authority that it was hogwash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts