How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Why?

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5372
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:02 pm

.
Mike Moore called it ages ago -

...I gave it to you straight last summer when I told you that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. And now I have even more awful, depressing news for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November. This wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to be our next president. President Trump.

Here are the 5 reasons Trump is going to win:

1. Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states – but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat). In the Michigan primary in March, more Michiganders came out to vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States.

2. The Last Stand of the Angry White Man. Our male-dominated, 240-year run of the USA is coming to an end. A woman is about to take over! How did this happen?! On our watch! There were warning signs, but we ignored them. Nixon, the gender traitor, imposing Title IX on us, the rule that said girls in school should get an equal chance at playing sports. Then they let them fly commercial jets. Before we knew it, Beyoncé stormed on the field at this year’s Super Bowl (our game!) with an army of Black Women, fists raised, declaring that our domination was hereby terminated! Oh, the humanity!

That’s a small peek into the mind of the Endangered White Male. There is a sense that the power has slipped out of their hands, that their way of doing things is no longer how things are done. This monster, the “Feminazi,”the thing that as Trump says, “bleeds through her eyes or wherever she bleeds,” has conquered us — and now, after having had to endure eight years of a black man telling us what to do, we’re supposed to just sit back and take eight years of a woman bossing us around? After that it’ll be eight years of the gays in the White House! Then the transgenders! You can see where this is going. By then animals will have been granted human rights and a fuckin’ hamster is going to be running the country. This has to stop!

3. The Hillary Problem. Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? ....

Let’s face it: Our biggest problem here isn’t Trump – it’s Hillary. She is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage. Young women are among her biggest detractors, which has to hurt considering it’s the sacrifices and the battles that Hillary and other women of her generation endured so that this younger generation would never have to be told by the Barbara Bushes of the world that they should just shut up and go bake some cookies.

4. The Depressed Sanders Vote. Stop fretting about Bernie’s supporters not voting for Clinton – we’re voting for Clinton! The polls already show that more Sanders voters will vote for Hillary this year than the number of Hillary primary voters in ’08 who then voted for Obama. This is not the problem. The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what’s called a “depressed vote” – meaning the voter doesn’t bring five people to vote with her. He doesn’t volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked why she’s voting for Hillary. A depressed voter. Because, when you’re young, you have zero tolerance for phonies and BS. Returning to the Clinton/Bush era for them is like suddenly having to pay for music, or using MySpace or carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They’re not going to vote for Trump; some will vote third party, but many will just stay home.

5. The Jesse Ventura Effect. Finally, do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit ....

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5372
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:05 pm


Friends,

Donald Trump never actually wanted to be President of the United States...

Trump was unhappy with his deal as host and star of his hit NBC show, “The Apprentice” (and “The Celebrity Apprentice”). Simply put, he wanted more money. He had floated the idea before of possibly running for president in the hopes that the attention from that would make his negotiating position stronger. But he knew, as the self-proclaimed king of the dealmakers, that saying you’re going to do something is bupkus — DOING it is what makes the bastards sit up and pay attention.

Trump had begun talking to other networks about moving his show. This was another way to get leverage — the fear of losing him to someone else — and when he “quietly” met with the head of one of those networks, and word got around, his hand was strengthened. He knew then that it was time to play his Big Card.

He decided to run for President.

Of course he wouldn’t really have to RUN for President — just make the announcement, hold a few mega-rallies that would be packed with tens of thousands of fans, and wait for the first opinion polls to come in showing him — what else! — in first place! And then he would get whatever deal he wanted, worth millions more than what he was currently being paid.

So, on June 16th of last year, he rode down his golden escalator and opened his mouth. With no campaign staff, no 50-state campaign infrastructure — neither of which he needed because, remember, this wasn’t going to be a real campaign — and with no prepared script, he went off the rails at his kick-off press conference, calling Mexicans “rapists” and “drug dealers” and pledging to build a wall to keep them all out. Jaws in the room were agape. His comments were so offensive, NBC, far from offering him a bigger paycheck, immediately fired him with this terse statement: “Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBC-Universal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.” NBC said it was also canceling the beauty pageants owned by Trump: Miss USA and Miss Universe. BOOM.

Trump was stunned. So much for the art of the deal. He never expected this, but he stuck to his plan anyway to increase his “value” in the eyes of the other networks by showing them how many millions of Americans wanted Him to be their Leader.

And then something happened ... Trump, to his own surprise, ignited the country, especially among people who were the opposite of billionaires. He went straight to #1 in the polls of Republican voters. Up to 30,000 boisterous supporters started showing up to his rallies. TV ate it up. He became the first American celebrity to be able to book himself on any show he wanted to be on — and then NOT show up to the studio! From “Face the Nation” to “The Today Show” to Anderson Cooper, he was able to simply phone in and they’d put him on the air live. He could’ve been sitting on his golden toilet in Trump Tower for all we knew –and the media had no problem with any of that. In fact, CBS head Les Moonves famously admitted that Trump was very good for TV ratings and selling ads — music to the ears the NBC-spurned narcissist.

Trump fell in love with himself all over again, and he soon forgot his mission to get a good deal for a TV show. A TV show? Are you kldding – that’s for losers like Chris Harrison, whoever that is (host of “The Bachelorette”). He was no longer king of the dealmakers — he was King of the World! His tiniest musings would be discussed and dissected everywhere by everybody for days, weeks, months! THAT never happened on “The Apprentice”! Host a TV show? He was the star of EVERY TV SHOW — and, soon, winning nearly every primary!

http://michaelmoore.com/TrumpSabotage/

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5372
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:35 pm


May 2016
Democracies end

when they are too democratic.

And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.

By Andrew Sullivan
As this dystopian election campaign has unfolded, my mind keeps being tugged by a passage in Plato’s Republic. It has unsettled — even surprised — me from the moment I first read it in graduate school. The passage is from the part of the dialogue where Socrates and his friends are talking about the nature of different political systems, how they change over time, and how one can slowly evolve into another. And Socrates seemed pretty clear on one sobering point: that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.” What did Plato mean by that? Democracy, for him, I discovered, was a political system of maximal freedom and equality, where every lifestyle is allowed and public offices are filled by a lottery. And the longer a democracy lasted, Plato argued, the more democratic it would become. Its freedoms would multiply; its equality spread. Deference to any sort of authority would wither; tolerance of any kind of inequality would come under intense threat; and multiculturalism and sexual freedom would create a city or a country like “a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues.”

This rainbow-flag polity, Plato argues, is, for many people, the fairest of regimes. The freedom in that democracy has to be experienced to be believed — with shame and privilege in particular emerging over time as anathema. But it is inherently unstable. As the authority of elites fades, as Establishment values cede to popular ones, views and identities can become so magnificently diverse as to be mutually uncomprehending. And when all the barriers to equality, formal and informal, have been removed; when everyone is equal; when elites are despised and full license is established to do “whatever one wants,” you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy. There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise.


The very rich come under attack, as inequality becomes increasingly intolerable. Patriarchy is also dismantled: “We almost forgot to mention the extent of the law of equality and of freedom in the relations of women with men and men with women.” Family hierarchies are inverted: “A father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents.” In classrooms, “as the teacher ... is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers.” Animals are regarded as equal to humans; the rich mingle freely with the poor in the streets and try to blend in. The foreigner is equal to the citizen.

And it is when a democracy has ripened as fully as this, Plato argues, that a would-be tyrant will often seize his moment.

He is usually of the elite but has a nature in tune with the time — given over to random pleasures and whims, feasting on plenty of food and sex, and reveling in the nonjudgment that is democracy’s civil religion. He makes his move by “taking over a particularly obedient mob” and attacking his wealthy peers as corrupt. If not stopped quickly, his appetite for attacking the rich on behalf of the people swells further. He is a traitor to his class — and soon, his elite enemies, shorn of popular legitimacy, find a way to appease him or are forced to flee. Eventually, he stands alone, promising to cut through the paralysis of democratic incoherence. It’s as if he were offering the addled, distracted, and self-indulgent citizens a kind of relief from democracy’s endless choices and insecurities. He rides a backlash to excess—“too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery” — and offers himself as the personified answer to the internal conflicts of the democratic mess. He pledges, above all, to take on the increasingly despised elites. And as the people thrill to him as a kind of solution, a democracy willingly, even impetuously, repeals itself.

And so, as I chitchatted over cocktails at a Washington office Christmas party in December, and saw, looming above our heads, the pulsating, angry televised face of Donald Trump on Fox News, I couldn’t help but feel a little nausea permeate my stomach. And as I watched frenzied Trump rallies on C-SPAN in the spring, and saw him lay waste to far more qualified political peers in the debates by simply calling them names, the nausea turned to dread. And when he seemed to condone physical violence as a response to political disagreement, alarm bells started to ring in my head. Plato had planted a gnawing worry in my mind a few decades ago about the intrinsic danger of late-democratic life. It was increasingly hard not to see in Plato’s vision a murky reflection of our own hyperdemocratic times and in Trump a demagogic, tyrannical character plucked directly out of one of the first books about politics ever written.

Could it be that the Donald has emerged from the populist circuses of pro wrestling and New York City tabloids, via reality television and Twitter, to prove not just Plato but also James Madison right, that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention … and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”? Is he testing democracy’s singular weakness — its susceptibility to the demagogue — by blasting through the firewalls we once had in place to prevent such a person from seizing power? Or am I overreacting?

Perhaps. The nausea comes and goes, and there have been days when the news algorithm has actually reassured me that “peak Trump” has arrived. But it hasn’t gone away, and neither has Trump. In the wake of his most recent primary triumphs, at a time when he is perilously close to winning enough delegates to grab the Republican nomination outright, I think we must confront this dread and be clear about what this election has already revealed about the fragility of our way of life and the threat late-stage democracy is beginning to pose to itself.


Part of American democracy’s stability is owed to the fact that the Founding Fathers had read their Plato. To guard our democracy from the tyranny of the majority and the passions of the mob, they constructed large, hefty barriers between the popular will and the exercise of power. Voting rights were tightly circumscribed. The president and vice-president were not to be popularly elected but selected by an Electoral College, whose representatives were selected by the various states, often through state legislatures. The Senate’s structure (with two members from every state) was designed to temper the power of the more populous states, and its term of office (six years, compared with two for the House) was designed to cool and restrain temporary populist passions. The Supreme Court, picked by the president and confirmed by the Senate, was the final bulwark against any democratic furies that might percolate up from the House and threaten the Constitution. This separation of powers was designed precisely to create sturdy firewalls against democratic wildfires.

Over the centuries, however, many of these undemocratic rules have been weakened or abolished. The franchise has been extended far beyond propertied white men. The presidency is now effectively elected through popular vote, with the Electoral College almost always reflecting the national democratic will. And these formal democratic advances were accompanied by informal ones, as the culture of democracy slowly took deeper root. For a very long time, only the elites of the political parties came to select their candidates at their quadrennial conventions, with the vote largely restricted to party officials from the various states (and often decided in, yes, smoke-filled rooms in large hotel suites). Beginning in the early 1900s, however, the parties began experimenting with primaries, and after the chaos of the 1968 Democratic convention, today’s far more democratic system became the norm.

Direct democracy didn’t just elect Congress and the president anymore; it expanded the notion of who might be qualified for public office. Once, candidates built a career through experience in elected or Cabinet positions or as military commanders; they were effectively selected by peer review. That elitist sorting mechanism has slowly imploded. In 1940, Wendell Willkie, a businessman with no previous political office, won the Republican nomination for president, pledging to keep America out of war and boasting that his personal wealth inoculated him against corruption: “I will be under obligation to nobody except the people.” He lost badly to Franklin D. Roosevelt, but nonetheless, since then, nonpolitical candidates have proliferated, from Ross Perot and Jesse Jackson, to Steve Forbes and Herman Cain, to this year’s crop of Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and, of course, Donald J. Trump. This further widening of our democracy — our increased openness to being led by anyone; indeed, our accelerating preference for outsiders — is now almost complete.

The barriers to the popular will, especially when it comes to choosing our president, are now almost nonexistent. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote and won the election thanks to Electoral College math and, more egregiously, to a partisan Supreme Court vote. Al Gore’s eventual concession spared the nation a constitutional crisis, but the episode generated widespread unease, not just among Democrats. And this year, the delegate system established by our political parties is also under assault. Trump has argued that the candidate with the most votes should get the Republican nomination, regardless of the rules in place. It now looks as if he won’t even need to win that argument — that he’ll bank enough delegates to secure the nomination uncontested — but he’s won it anyway. Fully half of Americans now believe the traditional nominating system is rigged.


Many contend, of course, that American democracy is actually in retreat, close to being destroyed by the vastly more unequal economy of the last quarter-century and the ability of the very rich to purchase political influence. This is Bernie Sanders’s core critique. But the past few presidential elections have demonstrated that, in fact, money from the ultrarich has been mostly a dud. Barack Obama, whose 2008 campaign was propelled by small donors and empowered by the internet, blazed the trail of the modern-day insurrectionist, defeating the prohibitive favorite in the Democratic primary and later his Republican opponent (both pillars of their parties’ Establishments and backed by moneyed elites). In 2012, the fund-raising power behind Mitt Romney — avatar of the one percent — failed to dislodge Obama from office. And in this presidential cycle, the breakout candidates of both parties have soared without financial support from the elites. Sanders, who is sustaining his campaign all the way to California on the backs of small donors and large crowds, is, to put it bluntly, a walking refutation of his own argument. Trump, of course, is a largely self-funding billionaire — but like Willkie, he argues that his wealth uniquely enables him to resist the influence of the rich and their lobbyists. Those despairing over the influence of Big Money in American politics must also explain the swift, humiliating demise of Jeb Bush and the struggling Establishment campaign of Hillary Clinton. The evidence suggests that direct democracy, far from being throttled, is actually intensifying its grip on American politics ...


Were Trump to win the White House, the defenses against him would be weak. He would likely bring a GOP majority in the House, and Republicans in the Senate would be subjected to almighty popular fury if they stood in his way. The 4-4 stalemate in the Supreme Court would break in Trump’s favor. (In large part, of course, this would be due to the GOP’s unprecedented decision to hold a vacancy open “for the people to decide,” another massive hyperdemocratic breach in our constitutional defenses.) And if Trump’s policies are checked by other branches of government, how might he react? Just look at his response to the rules of the GOP nomination process. He’s not interested in rules. And he barely understands the Constitution. In one revealing moment earlier this year, when asked what he would do if the military refused to obey an illegal order to torture a prisoner, Trump simply insisted that the man would obey: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse, believe me.” He later amended his remark, but it speaks volumes about his approach to power. Dick Cheney gave illegal orders to torture prisoners and coerced White House lawyers to cook up absurd “legal” defenses. Trump would make Cheney’s embrace of the dark side and untrammeled executive power look unambitious ...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5224
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by Peter Kirby » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:39 pm

Secret Alias wrote:Thoughts on the connection here?
The sample size is too small to make a connection (even if the sampling were random / scientific).

Anyway... there is more to this story... Robert Price had so much backlash on his politics on Facebook that he threatened to quit FB the day before the election.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:15 pm

No I think that was more as a result of what was perceived as his lackluster performance against Ehrman. Haven't seen the video myself.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

neilgodfrey
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by neilgodfrey » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:17 pm

Secret Alias wrote:Clearly Richard Carrier is not allied with this movement and this is not meant to tarnish the reputations of any or all mythicists. But it is incredible to me when I look at Facebook how many mythicists are active in the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant movement afoot in the world. Robert Price, Hermann Detering, Ralph Lataster all are cheering on the victory in the US Elections. Am I missing any one? Thoughts on the connection here? Is there a pattern dating back to Wells?

What I find odd is that the backbone of the election victory in the United States was rural evangelical Christians. This group swung the election for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (and almost in Minnesota and Virginia). To my understanding the connection is support for the continued white hegemony. In the minds of the mythicists (save perhaps for Lataster who is an anarchist) white is right. Am I missing something?
Where does Hermann Detering cheer the victory? (Not doubting your statement - just want to know.)

I don't think Raphael Lataster's FB comment (at least the one I've seen on his own FB page) is unequivocal cheering for Trump. He concedes Trump could destroy us all. He (Raphael) is commenting on the raw fact, I think, that we have witnessed a popular reaction against neoliberalism.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5224
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by Peter Kirby » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:32 pm

Secret Alias wrote:No I think that was more as a result of what was perceived as his lackluster performance against Ehrman.
Then I question your judgment (if you think the election had little to do with it and it was more about the Ehrman debate), and it's beside the point. A large number of the myth-i-fans of Robert Price disagree with his politics. This has been a recurrent "issue" between him and his fanbase for a long time, with a lot of comments making criticism (with varying degree of hostility) regarding Price's politics.

If the myth-i-movement were a "right" movement, you wouldn't expect such a deep split in politics between Price and his fans.

Price reappeared on Facebook after his candidate won, with lots of people encouraging him to stay. Both posts had lots of comments regarding the election, so apparently that is the way they are interpreting it.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by toejam » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:02 am

The two most prominent mythicist scholars lie on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It may be that there are slightly more 'right' sided mythicists than 'left', but I don't think it means much.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2359
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by DCHindley » Sun Nov 20, 2016 8:00 am

toejam wrote:The two most prominent mythicist scholars lie on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It may be that there are slightly more 'right' sided mythicists than 'left', but I don't think it means much.
Hmmm,

Thought I had made a reference to the old FRDB discussion list, NKA Talk Freethought, but apparently never sent the message I had composed.

http://talkfreethought.org/forumdisplay ... 8b4052b214

That list is, and always was, heavily populated by Libertarians (many of whom have no religious affiliation, hence their participation in a FRDB or FreeThought forum, although not all are/were "mythicists") who tend to be quite conservative in their political views and sometimes scathingly critical of "Liberals" (big "L"). One post gleefully declares that Trump (US President-Elect) is "starting to deliver" on his campaign rhetoric.

FWIW, it is possible to doubt the historical factuality of the existence or crucifixion, much less a literal resurrection, of a flesh and blood Jesus, and still find social value in Christian ethical teachings. This belief that this "social gospel" (as I call it) has superior ethical value over all competitors, was originally a "liberal" (small "l") theological concept adopted by a large number of moderate-liberal, moderate, even moderate-conservative, Christians of the 19th century, and has left its legacy in religious thinking even today.

While many, including my orthopedic surgeon, are confident that Trump will "step up" and act like a professional in running the government, the combination of his picking of right wing firebrands for key cabinet positions and the fact that he does have a number of obvious "hot buttons" as revealed over the course of his campaign, suggests to me that someone (maybe Putin, maybe a Muslim extremist, maybe non-violent protests and product boycotts in the USA) will push those buttons to the point that he will melt down like a Japanese nuclear reactor and seriously overreact, causing huge national and international problems for our country.

We'll see ...

DCH

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: How Many Mythicists Identify With the White Right and Wh

Post by Blood » Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:52 am

Secret Alias wrote:Clearly Richard Carrier is not allied with this movement and this is not meant to tarnish the reputations of any or all mythicists. But it is incredible to me when I look at Facebook how many mythicists are active in the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant movement afoot in the world. Robert Price, Hermann Detering, Ralph Lataster all are cheering on the victory in the US Elections. Am I missing any one? Thoughts on the connection here? Is there a pattern dating back to Wells?

What I find odd is that the backbone of the election victory in the United States was rural evangelical Christians. This group swung the election for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (and almost in Minnesota and Virginia). To my understanding the connection is support for the continued white hegemony. In the minds of the mythicists (save perhaps for Lataster who is an anarchist) white is right. Am I missing something?
This sounds like Ehrman, who seeks to understand "mythicism" by searching for ulterior motives, since (to him) no one can seriously believe that Jesus didn't exist, because the Bible says he did. So he says that "mythicists" must be atheists who are trying to make a slam-dunk argument for removing Christian influence in American society by stating that Jesus didn't exist.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

Post Reply