In my mid Life I was an actively engaged Christian

Meh. I've never seen a good reason to believe any god claims. They all seem to be ancient attempts at morality.
And even the story of Jesus "sacrificing" himself -- I mean, he didn't "die" he just became god again. What an amazing sacrifice. Its incredible what people can be convinced to believe through indoctrination. That's all well and good. Believe what you want. But when people pass laws to subject me to their bronze age beliefs that's when I get really annoyed.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
Meh. I've never seen a good reason to believe any god claims. They all seem to be ancient attempts at morality.
And even the story of Jesus "sacrificing" himself -- I mean, he didn't "die" he just became god again. What an amazing sacrifice. Its incredible what people can be convinced to believe through indoctrination. That's all well and good. Believe what you want. But when people pass laws to subject me to their bronze age beliefs that's when I get really annoyed.
Click to expand...
Religions are all cults. All of them. A cult gets called a religion when it reaches a critical mass of subscribers and societal acceptance. Heck some religions are even called 'great' religions. I grew up Catholic, mass every Sunday, CCD courses, confirmed, etc, but I never saw anything great about Christianity.

1756500876332.png
 
The New Testament is the Holy Grail of Christianity-right? We are not even sure who wrote some " chapters". We do know most-all?-were written long after Christ died-word of mouth memory stuff...Maybe not all . We also know the New Testament was literally edited 10s of thousands of times . Monks scribed the new copies-Monks who frequently "changed" things-on their own or at the instruction of their Bossman
In Forged, Ehrman posits that some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers..He highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and his belief that Christian doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity were later inventions.
I am no scholar-but I think I know enough that the minimalization of women was some mumbo jumbo made up by a Pope (at one point there 4-5 Popes at the same time) maybe hundreds of years after Christ died.
My point in all this is not to disparage Christianity as a movement, as a religon. I would be happy if folks all lived life thinking WWJD.
My point is that any literal interpretation of select portions of the Bible to prescribe the "proper role " of Women or Homosexuals or transubstantiation---any literal interpretaion is baloney
It is what bothers me the most about minimally trained Preachers who point to a paragraph in the Bible as if it was The Word of God . It isn't
 
mpaer said:
The New Testament is the Holy Grail of Christianity-right? We are not even sure who wrote some " chapters". We do know most-all?-were written long after Christ died-word of mouth memory stuff...Maybe not all . We also know the New Testament was literally edited 10s of thousands of times . Monks scribed the new copies-Monks who frequently "changed" things-on their own or at the instruction of their Bossman
In Forged, Ehrman posits that some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers..He highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and his belief that Christian doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity were later inventions.
I am no scholar-but I think I know enough that the minimalization of women was some mumbo jumbo made up by a Pope (at one point there 4-5 Popes at the same time) maybe hundreds of years after Christ died.
My point in all this is not to disparage Christianity as a movement, as a religon. I would be happy if folks all lived life thinking WWJD.
My point is that any literal interpretation of select portions of the Bible to prescribe the "proper role " of Women or Homosexuals or transubstantiation---any literal interpretaion is baloney
It is what bothers me the most about minimally trained Preachers who point to a paragraph in the Bible as if it was The Word of God . It isn't
Click to expand...
The consensus among scholars is pretty clear the 4 gospels were anonymous, non-eyewitnesses written between 70-100 CE from oral tradition. Despite Matthew and Luke copying large portions of Mark into their own books word-for-word there are contradictions all over the gospels which means they can't all be correctly describing history. Its a mess, frankly.

Christians today would not accept this poor standard of evidence about any other supernatural claim in the world except for their chosen religion. There have been "miracle" makers in the modern world (like Sathya Sai Baba) that have millions of followers and thousands of eyewitnesses that provide MUCH better evidence than anything in the bible yet no one cares. Its hard to break the psychological grip of the religion you were raised in.
 
Milk and Cookies said:
The consensus among scholars is pretty clear the 4 gospels were anonymous, non-eyewitnesses written between 70-100 CE from oral tradition. Despite Matthew and Luke copying large portions of Mark into their own books word-for-word there are contradictions all over the gospels which means they can't all be correctly describing history. Its a mess, frankly.

Christians today would not accept this poor standard of evidence about any other supernatural claim in the world except for their chosen religion. There have been "miracle" makers in the modern world (like Sathya Sai Baba) that have millions of followers and thousands of eyewitnesses that provide MUCH better evidence than anything in the bible yet no one cares. Its hard to break the psychological grip of the religion you were raised in.
Click to expand...

I agree with this skepticism, but I also think it misunderstands details about Christianity and, judging from another one of your posts, ancient religion.

Three things come to mind.

First, I don't think it's the consensus that the gospels exclusively come from oral tradition. That conclusion denies the "creativity," shall we say, of the gospel writers. And the solution to the synoptic problem that you cite--Mt. and Lk. share Mk. and the hypothetical source "Q" and don't share proto-"M" and proto-"L"--reinforces those claims about oral tradition. In short, that solution to the synoptic problem posits some chain of unbroken oral tradition (or, if you prefer, telephone) going back to Jesus's actual life.

But other solutions such as the Farrar hypothesis, which has come back into vogue (see the work of Mark Goodacre at Duke), actually move us away from oral tradition towards the creative license of gospel writers: Mt. had Mk. and Q and changed Mk to fit his own theology; Lk. had Mk. and Mt. and Q and made more changes still. In short, what we often forget is that the gospels were not, in fact, regarded as capital-S scripture (scribal corruption aside) until sometime in the 2nd c., which is exactly why Matthew had no problem changing Mark and Luke had no problem changing Matthew and Luke and, if you find Goodacre persuasive, even John had no problem putting aside Mark, Matthew, and Luke. If you don't like scholarship by Anglicans working at Duke, try Hugo Mendes's new book on John. He's a UNC professor.

Second, ancient historiography does not pretend to be modern historiography. To correctly describe history, particularly in an ancient biography like the gospels, is not to necessarily get any detail absolutely correct, but to capture the essential "character" of the protagonist from the jump. In short, Jesus was always Jesus, and his biography is thus not a story about his personal development to become Jesus. I don't bring up this point to defend Christian fundamentalist perspectives on the gospels, but to suggest that the gospel writers did not share those particular perspectives.

Third, it does not make historical sense to compare the development of the Jesus movement and early Christianity to a modern cult because the wider social conditions are so utterly different. Cultish behavior--slavish devotion to some charismatic leader--makes sense as a criticism in a world that presumes liberal individual freedoms and conscience as a baseline. Elsewhere, you likewise wrote that religions just try to police morality. Well, that's a point that makes sense according to contemporary standards, but struggles to make sense of life in the ancient near east where considerations of the gods thoroughly embed virtually every sphere of human activity. Religion (the term is anachronistic when applied to the ancient world) was definitely about more than individual morality: it was about keeping goddamn cosmic fucking order.
 
Last edited:
breepf said:
I agree with this skepticism, but I also think it misunderstands details about Christianity and, judging from another one of your posts, ancient religion.

Two things come to mind. First, I don't think it's the consensus that the gospels exclusively come from oral tradition. That conclusion denies the "creativity," shall we say, of the gospel writers. And the solution to the synoptic problem that you cite--Mt. and Lk. share Mk. and the hypothetical source "Q" and don't share proto-"M" and proto-"L"--reinforces those claims about oral tradition. In short, that solution to the synoptic problem posits some chain of unbroken oral tradition (or, if you prefer, telephone) going back to Jesus's actual life.

But other solutions such as the Farrar hypothesis, which has come back into vogue (see the work of Mark Goodacre at Duke), actually move us away from oral tradition towards the creative license of gospel writers: Mt. had Mk. and Q and changed Mk to fit his own theology; Lk. had Mk. and Mt. and Q and made more changes still. In short, what we often forget is that the gospels were not, in fact, regarded as capital-S scripture (scribal corruption aside) until sometime in the 2nd c., which is exactly why Matthew had no problem changing Mark and Luke had no problem changing Matthew and Luke and, if you find Goodacre persuasive, even John had no problem putting aside Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

Second, ancient historiography does not pretend to be modern historiography. To correctly describe history, particularly in an ancient biography like the gospels, is not to necessarily get any detail absolutely correct, but to capture the essential "character" of the protagonist from the jump. In short, Jesus was always Jesus, and his biography is thus not a story about his personal development to become Jesus.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with your critiques about oral tradition vs. gospel writer creativity. I wasn't meaning to put that fine of a point on that one sentence. And it doesn't impact what I was saying.

My larger point is that the bible is completely insufficient to warrant belief in any of the supernatural claims. I don't think any one book is enough to justify belief in these kinds of claims -- but ESPECIALLY not this book. The gospels are anonymous. They were written decades after the character lived. They have numerous contradictions. They have numerous errors. We have no external confirmation of any of the miraculous claims. The later the gospel the more grandiose the claims about Jesus, just as you would expect from an evolving myth. Our earliest copies are from hundreds of years later. The mythology heavily borrows from earlier myths.

However you want to label this collection of writing, it is the sole basis and underpinning for a god that people actually believe exists. And its clear its written by men in an ancient time trying to make sense of their world and convince others of their mythology. There is no reason to believe their claims about an omni being.

(ETA: I misspoke when I said the older the gospel the more grandiose the claims...I meant the later gospels and especially John are more grandiose)
 
Last edited:
Milk and Cookies said:
I have no issue with your critiques about oral tradition vs. gospel writer creativity. I wasn't meaning to put that fine of a point on that one sentence. And it doesn't impact what I was saying.

My larger point is that the bible is completely insufficient to warrant belief in any of the supernatural claims. I don't think any one book is enough to justify belief in these kinds of claims -- but ESPECIALLY not this book. The gospels are anonymous. They were written decades after the character lived. They have numerous contradictions. They have numerous errors. We have no external confirmation of any of the miraculous claims. The older the gospel the more grandiose the claims about Jesus, just as you would expect from an evolving myth. Our earliest copies are from hundreds of years later. The mythology heavily borrows from earlier myths. There's just no reason to put stock into any of these stories. Its so weak.
Click to expand...

When it's all said and done, I do not disagree with the upshot of what you're arguing.

But as long as the conversation is academic, I think the details are important. To wit, I edited the previous post to make a point about the "cult" charge vis-a-vis Christianity. And, I'd add, I think John is the gospel with the most grandiose claim (preexistent Word!!), and it's the latest. But I agree with the sense in which the gospels are putting a historical figure through his generic, scriptural, and mythological paces.

As an aside, what I consider one of the most uncredible moments in the gospels comes in Mark's passion narrative. Jesus is on the cross with two other Jews. Jesus is being humiliated and insulted. And, would you believe it, the two other crucifixion victims pause their own agony and suffering for long enough to talk shit to Jesus too.
 
Batt Boy said:
both transformational for me as well. still, as I've aged, I find myself returning to the ritual of church, at least traditional worship service. Can't really explain it, but I like the cadence. For 50 min only.
Click to expand...

Ehrman once told me that if he ever did get back into church, he'd pick one that just had a lot of rituals in it. Just shut up and walk around the cracker 3 times or whatever.
 
Bobfripp said:
Religions are all cults. All of them.
Click to expand...

I think that's either a really pinched definition of "religion," or a very wide definition of "cult"

Most ancient cultures didn't even have a separate word for "religion." And it's just really too hard for me to equate Australian aboriginal songlines with whatever David Koresh was doing at Waco.
 
I believe in God and I believe the teachings of Jesus are a good thing. Not a fan of organized religion, though. I don't go to church now because it's the same thing all the time. I figured I got the gist after all those years and really the only reason to go anymore would be for tradition and socializing.
 
Carolina Fever said:
I believe in God and I believe the teachings of Jesus are a good thing. Not a fan of organized religion, though. I don't go to church now because it's the same thing all the time. I figured I got the gist after all those years and really the only reason to go anymore would be for tradition and socializing.
Click to expand...
Rituals?
 
finesse said:
I never was much for standing on ceremony.
Click to expand...
I hear you I grew up Catholic was A Whiskeypalian for years
The berable part of service was the predictable rhthym
Throw in the music and it gets you in the Groove
Take communion-gets you all tingly lol
 
The whole Jesus story just never made any sense to me. Why did God not just come down suffer for our sins? Why send your son? I’d be pretty pissed if I was Jesus. “What the heck, dad?”

We still have to ask for forgiveness to get to heaven and believe. Seems like that’s a requirement with or without Jesus.

I have no issue believing it as part of your spiritual journey. Just didn’t resonate with me at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top