Robert Tulip wrote:. . . it is worth going back to the beginning of Christianity to ask how the myth of a historical Christ gained such momentum.

From what I’ve read on the subject, the biblical Jesus was very likely a composite image of a concept, depicted by dozens of authors who often disagreed about the facts. There were books of the bible literally thrown out because they were thought to be too radical by the religious politicos who finally decided to write it all down. Some had him flying like Superman, and others had him doing things probably considered too radical to be believed. Even the Gospels disagree on the facts and times and words of Jesus, which leads me to think he was just a necessary creation of a paternally inclined society, meant to insure male domination for centuries to come. If so, it certainly worked.

The fact is that, in the actual "Time of Jesus," there was little reason to write anything down at all, because the "End of the World Was Near." Why write stories for future generations to read if there were to be no future generations? Only after several decades, perhaps centuries, was the thought even conceived that these things should be written down--by then it had become obvious that the end of the world was not quite as close as people thought.

How accurate the bible is should not be an issue. Nor should true Christians tolerate the turning of one or another verse into dogmatic rhetoric in order to found yet another financially independent religion. The bible is inaccurate because it is not fact; it is poetry, and poetry is generally not intended to convey literal truth--it hopes to convey a concept, a feeling, those things that cannot be literally described. The creation of a “savior” who is the manifestation of god on earth, seems to have been a necessary thing in order to give the concept substance and clarity.

Well, I’m sure I’ve gotten in over my head here, and that there will be others who find my observations either incorrect or simple-minded. But I’ve been reading a lot of these debates here, and I figured it was time to go out on a limb and say a couple of things.

welcome to the rumble, Avid Reader!

Avid Reader wrote:I’m sure I’ve gotten in over my head here, and that there will be others who find my observations either incorrect or simple-minded.

I disagree. I think this is a pretty well-devised condensation of the events that may have taken place.

Well, I’m sure I’ve gotten in over my head here, and that there will be others who find my observations either incorrect or simple-minded.

I second what LeBeaux said.

The humility you express has a lot to do with how objective you are. Don't ever let it morph into something more self-serving. If you suddenly think you're right, change your mind. Explore the idea, but explore it from both sides.

Interbane wrote: If you suddenly think you're right, change your mind.

Can't get much more wishy washy than that Interbane. Hey, maybe the solar system doesn't really exist :Unimpressed: :laugh2:

Avid Reader wrote:Even the Gospels disagree on the facts and times and words of Jesus, which leads me to think he was just a necessary creation of a paternally inclined society, meant to insure male domination for centuries to come. If so, it certainly worked.

That is partly true, but not completely. The story of Jesus is complex, containing a message that subverts how he was interpreted by the church. For example, Jesus is reported as saying 'blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth' and 'the last shall be first'. These ideas have been largely ignored or mutilated by the church, but they are central to the identity of Christ.

Part of the problem is that these subversive ideas contain a message of human liberation that was not compatible with the patriarchal alliance between the church and the state. To a large extent the church rejected the gospel and went back to the patriarchal vision of Moses and Abraham.

This whole area of analysis is suppressed because the church sees human liberation as impossible. But it is legitimate to see Jesus as a supporter of women's liberation. Just saying that invites scorn from those who are entirely acculturated with paternal assumptions. The idea of men supporting women's equality is widely supported, but tends to get ignored and mocked by conservatives. But it is entirely Biblical.

Even Paul said 'in Christ there is neither male nor female'. It was mainly the fraudulent Pauline letters, such as Ephesians and Timothy, that were used to suppress women's rights and that give rise to the pervasive image of Paul as a misogynist.

Your description of Jesus as 'a necessary creation' echoes Voltaire's observation that if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. But there is a difference between the degraded Christ of the church and the visionary Christ of the Bible, even if we accept that both are fiction.

Even the debate around atheism is colored by sexism. There is a pervasive view that what women say does not matter. So the leading atheists are all men, and the transformative vision that is presented by feminist scholars gets ignored in the public domain.

Interbane wrote:Let's say there are infinite universes that are approximations of our own. Some things in history are different, some things are the same. In each and every one of these infinite universes, humanity believes the planets are in a very specific order. There is almost no room for doubt. Now, out of these infinite universes, what are the chances that just a single universe got the answer wrong? Some incredible series of mistakes and circumstances that have lead people to the wrong answer about the order of the planets.

This one has been bugging me. I am now reading a book called Is God a Mathematician? by an astrophysicist, Mario Livio. He says mathematics is the grammar of science. This is a very profound statement, based on the immense predictive consistency and power of mathematical models of the universe. It really is ridiculous and wrong to entertain the hypothesis that science may be wrong in its core knowledge where this matches to and emerges from mathematical logic. We have a modern paradigm that provides an excellent description of reality. Talk of infinite universes is just a new version of the demon who Descartes said might have been deceiving him into believing the world was real. Except as a refuted thought experiment, such idle speculation is nihilistic and ignorant.

It really is ridiculous and wrong to entertain the hypothesis that science may be wrong in its core knowledge where this matches to and emerges from mathematical logic.

I'm open to ridicule, pile it on me.


I think it's a core concept in the philosophy of science that scientific findings may be wrong. Yes, even where they emerge from mathematical logic. Because both science and mathematics are abstractions of reality, with all the faults that abstractions have. An axiomatic shift, as an example.

We have a modern paradigm that provides an excellent description of reality.

What I'm antagonistic towards isn't our modern paradigm, or science, or philosophy. I love these things, and believe I am defending them against the last vestiges of magical or religious thinking. Having certainty is not a scientific position. It is a religion position. When such certainty is applied to science, it's like you're placing a little teeny Masterlock on the idea, refusing to allow recombination style thinking in producing alternative explanations, or in integrating a rival hypothesis.

Certainty, no matter how you spin it, is as problematic as denial, because they are the same thing. The denial of science is on the other side of the same coin as being certain about the words in the bible. To deny something usually indicates that some other rival explanation is held very tightly.

Let's not be certain, nor be in denial. Let's hold the findings of science confidently, not with religious certainty.

Interbane wrote:Explore the idea, but explore it from both sides.

I try my best.

I have many Christian friends, and I listen closely to their opinions. In fact, I actually envy them, so I can tell them that without reservation. What I envy is the peace of mind that comes with an absolute belief (faith) in concepts like salvation, eternal life, forgiveness of their sins, and so on. I sincerely wish that I could dump all my troubles and sins into some bottomless well called Jesus Christ. And I sometimes see my own need to know, not speculate, to see, not believe, as a burden.

The Christian life would be so easy compared to a life of questions with no ultimate answers. I could waltz through my life saying, "Oh, well, I screwed up there, but what the hell, Jesus will take the rap for me." I don’t say these things to my friends who are “true believers,” however, I guess here on Booktalk I can say, “Pardon me, but give me a break!” I think one of the reasons we have so much crime, war and hatred and their resultant human devastation, is because so many people think they can be forgiven for what they do in this life and go on to everlasting peace (or 72 virgins). Other than some ritual “penalties” (like saying a few Hail Marys), there doesn’t seem to be much of a price to pay for being a dirtbag in this life if you are a Christian.

The fact is that we live in the here and now; what we do every moment of every day counts! There may or may not be an afterlife, but that shouldn't influence the way we conduct this one. Even if all the myths are true, wouldn't it be best to conduct your life on the earth the best way you know how? And wouldn't it be detrimental to the moral and ethical conduct of your life if you were assured of an eternity in heaven, regardless of your sins? The idea that atheists or agnostics will behave badly because they have no moral Christian compass, seems to be a serious contradiction, since the consequences for their bad behavior are immediate and are usually detrimental to their long-term happiness. Unlike Christians, whose antisocial activities are only a momentary problem, because they know they will be forgiven. If you look at it logically, which group do you think would be more inclined to behave badly?

Anyway, thanks for all the responses and nice words. I’m still reading and thinking and trying my best to look at both sides, even if I am burdened with a mind that requires real (as opposed to faith-based) answers.

Interbane wrote:Certainty, no matter how you spin it, is as problematic as denial, because they are the same thing. The denial of science is on the other side of the same coin as being certain about the words in the bible. To deny something usually indicates that some other rival explanation is held very tightly.

Let's not be certain, nor be in denial. Let's hold the findings of science confidently, not with religious certainty.

That is something that I had to experience on my own to understand it. I was in denial of science as a YECist and felt certain about the bible stories. Then I realized that the stories were myths and not real history. The religious certainty I had been nursing was immediately applied to science instead. I was looking at BB cosmology as absolute and certain beyond doubt, just like I had previously considered the Genesis myth. And over time I began to realize that not even the standard model and BB cosmology is certain beyond doubt. And it was slightly awkward for a while. It was uncomfortable having to face the fact that there's really no firm ground to stand on in the grand scheme of things. And then I began to ease in to the situation and began getting more comfortable with the ground not being completely firm. I was getting my "sea legs" in tune.

I agree with taking a confident position without getting to any point of dogmatic certainty. I'm not certain that we have the age or size of the universe figured out absolutely. I know that we don't have so much as the matter that we're made out of figured out absolutely. I'm very comfortable with all of this now. But I also reject New Age knee jerk reactions to uncertainty such as described in "What The Bleep Do We Know" and other such nonsense. There are plenty of fallacies going around in these mystical circles that play too hard on the dogmatic results of post modern philosophy.

As for the insult of disbelief, I think it really boils down to something simple. If someone else doesn't believe that you are right then it opens the possibility that you could be wrong. It brings up an unavoidable factor of doubt to the table. That's really why atheists are so hated among believers. I remember a time in my life where I really hated atheists. And I think that's why. Eventually the doubt got the better of me and if I couldn't beat them, I joined them instead...