Posts: 3395
Threads: 43
Joined: February 8, 2015
Reputation:
33
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 1:01 pm
(June 26, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Nestor Wrote: (June 26, 2015 at 11:37 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Correct. But he did not think the historical Jesus mattered. At least, that is what he wrote. He didn't think the historical Jesus was relevant to theology. And I would agree. Which is why, Rob, the attempts of mythicists to paint any historical quest as propagandistic, wishful, and religious in nature is desperate, dishonest, and irrational, to say nothing of politeness.
No. Not every Christian takes the approach of Albert Schweitzer. Many want to get theological mileage from an historical Jesus. Whether that is reasonable or not is irrelevant to them making an attempt.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Err... OK.
So, he thinks the historical Jesus isn't important? That's difficult to get my head around. Well it's all apples and almonds really. Oh well, these whacky biblical scholars, what will they think of next?
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Quote:politeness.
So we're supposed to buy your bullshit on the basis of "politeness?"
Fuck you.
Posts: 3395
Threads: 43
Joined: February 8, 2015
Reputation:
33
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 2:23 pm
(June 26, 2015 at 1:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: Err... OK.
So, he thinks the historical Jesus isn't important? That's difficult to get my head around. ...
That is because you are not an expert theologian.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Posts: 452
Threads: 13
Joined: March 17, 2013
Reputation:
8
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 3:00 pm
On the subject of Jesus historicity:
Rationale says: show me proof.
Conformity says: everyone pretty much believes he existed so I do to. It's dumb not to!
It's really that simple. Weak minded people accept what is socially and commonly accepted without ever effectively questioning it. It's actually a rare individual that dares to question such things.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 3:51 pm
(June 26, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: (June 26, 2015 at 1:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: Err... OK.
So, he thinks the historical Jesus isn't important? That's difficult to get my head around. ...
That is because you are not an expert theologian.
Touché. I'll get right on it!
Posts: 3395
Threads: 43
Joined: February 8, 2015
Reputation:
33
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 3:59 pm
(June 26, 2015 at 3:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: (June 26, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: That is because you are not an expert theologian.
Touché. I'll get right on it!
On a more serious note, if you believe that God is directly communicating with you in some way, what some historical figure did long ago isn't going to matter very much.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 4:01 pm
I guess so. Probably nothing is going to mean very much to you in fact...
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 4:45 pm
(June 26, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: (June 26, 2015 at 1:06 pm)robvalue Wrote: Err... OK.
So, he thinks the historical Jesus isn't important? That's difficult to get my head around. ...
That is because you are not an expert theologian.
Fuck theology.
Quote:“What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?
-Richard Dawkins
Posts: 452
Threads: 13
Joined: March 17, 2013
Reputation:
8
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 26, 2015 at 7:30 pm
(June 26, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: (June 26, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: That is because you are not an expert theologian.
Fuck theology.
Quote:“What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?
-Richard Dawkins
Best post of thread. Good shit, man.
![[Image: earthp.jpg]](https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/209/earthp.jpg)
|
![[Image: earthp.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/photos/my-images/209/earthp.jpg/)
