Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 1, 2026, 3:16 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Does Jesus Mythicism give atheism a bad name?
|
Pat Mustard
God! Theresa, I forgot me fecking trousers!  Religious Views: the Disc's first ligthning proof atheist  RE: Does Jesus Mythicism give atheism a bad name?
May 11, 2016 at 4:30 am
(This post was last modified: May 11, 2016 at 4:30 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.  RE: Does Jesus Mythicism give atheism a bad name?
May 11, 2016 at 8:17 am
(This post was last modified: May 11, 2016 at 8:20 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Yes..mythicism, YEC, and anti-vaxxing are so similar...you've convinced me, Jesus was really real. That's what most people say, which adds to it's truthiness.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
If you take out all the woo Jesus did, not even Christians would be interested in the man behind the myth.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.  
The mythicist position is demonized because it is threatening to their beliefs. It's just a hypothesis, like any other hypothesis about folklore, yet it attracts an intense amount of ire. Why? Because if it's true, then all of Christianity is false. That's enough to give it a bad name, regardless of the merits of the hypothesis. Anti-mythicism is about the politics of religion. It's not about the position itself.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg?rlkey=x1nmxbwrp...pouidnfvtl]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/scl/fi/a6a72vica8gsyddmkhtxp/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg?rlkey=x1nmxbwrpk9dzrupouidnfvtl) 
By spawning a movement that schismed 78,000+ times, Jesus gave Christianity a bad name.
'Atheism' isn't indicted by its then asking WTF. The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
 (May 8, 2016 at 7:46 am)Irrational Wrote:(May 8, 2016 at 1:56 am)Minimalist Wrote: Because he wrote his own...for a different audience. A Greco-Roman audience who didn't give a flying fuck about Herod or Moses but who might relate to real Roman figures like Augustus and Sulpicius Quirinius. There are several other obvious incidents where he did exactly that. As for why? If you can figure out who he was, why don't you ask him? Good luck with that. P.S. - "Luke" first appears as Marcion's "Gospel of the Lord," c 140 AD if Tertullian and Irenaeus can be trusted ( big if there.) The earliest extant fragment we have of "Luke" dates to the late 2d/early 3d century (175-225). The church mucky-mucks claimed that Marcion "edited" an existing version of Luke but there is no evidence that there was a version of "Luke" prior to Marcion and, let's face it, the church fathers were generally full of shit. My guess is that while they thought Marcion had to go they liked the idea he came up with of a written "canon" and edited his to make it conform to the particular bullshit story they were putting out at the time....which includes the alleged epistles of fucking 'paul.' |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
