Mythicists: Promoting religious agendas?

[Ulan]

This fight over the word "religion" doesn't lead to anything, at least as long as it's fought with loaded cards. In principle, you can call football, hockey or consumerism a religion nowadays, and everyone knows what you mean. In this sense, it's extreme dedication to one specific purpose, and of course there may be a few very combatant atheists where this specific use of the term "religion" may fit. Note that this meaning has nothing to do with "belief". It's about practice and dedication.

However, on this board, we are more interested in the traditional meaning of "religion", which combines "belief in the supernatural" and "cult observance". On both these tests, atheism fails to qualify.

[Leucius Charinus]

Having skimmed this thread using the simple heuristic of skipping all mentions of the outside toilet, what we in Australia call a dunny, I would like to confess that I consider myself a religious mythicist. Neil Godfrey has expressed aghast alarm at this confession, but I maintain it is a purely logical and evidence based response to the available information on Christianity. The idea that humanity could do without religion is itself a religious idea, a cosmic theory of meaning and purpose.

My view is that a new Christian reformation is required that will reconcile faith and science. The old idea that Jesus Christ is the mediator between time and eternity, between earth and heaven, can readily be interpreted in scientific terms, as long as we understand that Jesus Christ was a modus vivendi, a symbolic means of depicting the ideal man, the messiah who had to be invented because he did not exist, to paraphrase Voltaire’s comment on God. The supernatural dross was introduced by the popularising orthodoxy, while the original high enlightened gnostic vision was entirely natural.

Mythicism is an extension of the high Calvinist principle that when science and faith conflict, we should go with science. The point is to understand what Calvin in the TULIP acrostic called Total Depravity, the recognition of the fall from grace. A central result of the fall was the need to invent Christ as a saviour, to escape from the slough of despond. As with the invention of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc, Christ was invented on Anselm’s principle that a real God is far better than an imaginary one. So claiming that your God is real gives political traction, and creates a groupthink doublespeak crimestop revulsion towards the thoughtcrime of exposing the invention. Orwell’s Big Brother was modelled on the Pope.

We should keep Christian ritual and ceremony and worship, while recognising that its literal content is built upon a Big Lie. The emotional comfort of baptism and eucharist have a perfectly legitimate social and intellectual role, but these ritual observances lack ethical value while their devotees maintain the delusion that Jesus Christ actually existed.

The religious agenda I promote is to make scientific evidence and reason the highest values. The ineluctable result of this ethical stance is to recognise that Christ did not exist. But Christianity is more than capable of recovering from this insight, and in fact needs it to obtain any credibility and legitimacy.

Hi Robert,

I think we might all agree that science is not a religion in the traditional definition of the term religion, which to me - in this forum - means "Book Religion". The largest religions on the planet at the moment are based upon holy writs - Hebrew Bible, Christian Bible, Islam Quran, etc. They represent some form of "political experiments" which were conducted in antiquity and which are essentially "frozen" in time by virtue of their claimed date of original and "divinely inspired" authorship.

OTOH science can become a religion for some people. Anything can become a religion. But setting aside the extremes, as I see it, the mythicists are not promoting an religious agendas (in the way I have defined [book] religions).

The OP title .... Mythicists: Promoting religious agendas? is a question that has no real meaning since the mythicists are essentially trying to revise history, and to explain the appearance of the NT Bible without the need to postulate an historical Jesus. This is not a religious task, it is one in the field of history. Evidence and not theological arguments is essential to the historical method.

What the OP title should have said was IMO this ... Mythicists: Promoting anti-religious agendas?

This question suggests that mythicists are guilty of being anti-Christian or in general anti-religious. In my own experience I have seen quite frequently that the agenda of most if not all mythicists (Jesus did not exist in history) is viewed - by some segments of all the people - as being anti-religious. Mythicists have also been publically compared to holocaust deniers, which is probably an even stronger judgement than just "anti-religious".


But anyway, is not the OP supposed to be a quote from JT that was supposed to be from Bart Ehrman?

Maybe I missed it, but what is the original reference from Ehrman?


Anyway, thanks for your comments with which, for the most, I agree.

LC

[cienfuegos]

Having skimmed this thread using the simple heuristic of skipping all mentions of the outside toilet, what we in Australia call a dunny, I would like to confess that I consider myself a religious mythicist. Neil Godfrey has expressed aghast alarm at this confession, but I maintain it is a purely logical and evidence based response to the available information on Christianity. The idea that humanity could do without religion is itself a religious idea, a cosmic theory of meaning and purpose.

My view is that a new Christian reformation is required that will reconcile faith and science. The old idea that Jesus Christ is the mediator between time and eternity, between earth and heaven, can readily be interpreted in scientific terms, as long as we understand that Jesus Christ was a modus vivendi, a symbolic means of depicting the ideal man, the messiah who had to be invented because he did not exist, to paraphrase Voltaire’s comment on God. The supernatural dross was introduced by the popularising orthodoxy, while the original high enlightened gnostic vision was entirely natural.

Mythicism is an extension of the high Calvinist principle that when science and faith conflict, we should go with science. The point is to understand what Calvin in the TULIP acrostic called Total Depravity, the recognition of the fall from grace. A central result of the fall was the need to invent Christ as a saviour, to escape from the slough of despond. As with the invention of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc, Christ was invented on Anselm’s principle that a real God is far better than an imaginary one. So claiming that your God is real gives political traction, and creates a groupthink doublespeak crimestop revulsion towards the thoughtcrime of exposing the invention. Orwell’s Big Brother was modelled on the Pope.

We should keep Christian ritual and ceremony and worship, while recognising that its literal content is built upon a Big Lie. The emotional comfort of baptism and eucharist have a perfectly legitimate social and intellectual role, but these ritual observances lack ethical value while their devotees maintain the delusion that Jesus Christ actually existed.

The religious agenda I promote is to make scientific evidence and reason the highest values. The ineluctable result of this ethical stance is to recognise that Christ did not exist. But Christianity is more than capable of recovering from this insight, and in fact needs it to obtain any credibility and legitimacy.

Hi Robert,

I think we might all agree that science is not a religion in the traditional definition of the term religion, which to me - in this forum - means "Book Religion". The largest religions on the planet at the moment are based upon holy writs - Hebrew Bible, Christian Bible, Islam Quran, etc. They represent some form of "political experiments" which were conducted in antiquity and which are essentially "frozen" in time by virtue of their claimed date of original and "divinely inspired" authorship.

OTOH science can become a religion for some people. Anything can become a religion. But setting aside the extremes, as I see it, the mythicists are not promoting an religious agendas (in the way I have defined [book] religions).

The OP title .... Mythicists: Promoting religious agendas? is a question that has no real meaning since the mythicists are essentially trying to revise history, and to explain the appearance of the NT Bible without the need to postulate an historical Jesus. This is not a religious task, it is one in the field of history. Evidence and not theological arguments is essential to the historical method.

What the OP title should have said was IMO this ... Mythicists: Promoting anti-religious agendas?

This question suggests that mythicists are guilty of being anti-Christian or in general anti-religious. In my own experience I have seen quite frequently that the agenda of most if not all mythicists (Jesus did not exist in history) is viewed - by some segments of all the people - as being anti-religious. Mythicists have also been publically compared to holocaust deniers, which is probably an even stronger judgement than just "anti-religious".


But anyway, is not the OP supposed to be a quote from JT that was supposed to be from Bart Ehrman?

Maybe I missed it, but what is the original reference from Ehrman?


Anyway, thanks for your comments with which, for the most, I agree.

LC

The title of this thread is a quote of JohnT who accused mythicists of promoting a "religious agenda." It is a fact that many theists argue that atheism is a religion, sometimes even a dogmatic religion.

[Leucius Charinus]

The title of this thread is a quote of JohnT who accused mythicists of promoting a "religious agenda."

Hi Cienfuegos,

Above somewhere I asked JohnT where the quote came from and I think he said it was from Ehrman.
If it was originally from an Ehrman book and not from JohnT I was interested in the book quote.

It is a fact that many theists argue that atheism is a religion, sometimes even a dogmatic religion.

OK. Thanks for this explanation. I am beginning to see some reasons for some misunderstandings on this thread.

LC

[cienfuegos]

John T says that he is not an inerrantist, holding as he does that biblical Inerrancy is a modern misconception of scripture. But his comments over some months now reveal him to be what strikes me as a "high view of scripture" ideologue. It doesn't surprise me that he expends a lot of effort to shoehorn those who disagree with him into the category of ideologue.

John, if you'd like to cut out the disparaging rhetoric and the heavy reliance on assertion and engage in the sort of textual analysis that these forums aim to promote, that would be very welcome.

What is the topic of the O.P.?
Geeze, give me a break!

Did you bother to look at any of the links I provided to back up my claims?

As far as textual analysis, that is why I joined the forum. I hoped this was a forum for both 'high and low criticism'.

Also, I would be happy to explain how atheism is a religion. However, I have been told that doing so is considered offensive/confrontational and would get my post yanked and possibly banned. Yet, there are a lot of people here that do little more than Christian bashing and/or promoting atheism.

Do you not see it?

Now, I'm pretty much done with exposing Carrier and his hidden agenda and look very much to getting back to textual criticism. After all, that is why I joined the forum.

There are some very knowledgeable people here that I can learn a lot from.



Respectfully,
John T

I did look at your links and found them wanting. In fact, I would say you fraudulently mischaracterised your evidence (or maybe you are so blinded by your bias that you can only view Carrier with hostile intent.) Carrier obviously is interested in historical research, he completed a doc program (have you done that? I am doing that right now--I'm abd as it is, and this has been the most trying period of my life, one does not go through a doctoral program at a respectable university to promote hidden agendas), he publishes in peer reviewed journals (have you done that? It is not easy, it generally involves one or more rejects with comments and resubmission, etc. Until you have gone through the process, I would question your assumption that Carrier has no interest in conducting historical research). He has stated that as far as the Jesus Myth theory is concerned, he has no axe to grind here (have you read the quotes I posted by Carrier?).

To say that Carrier is only interested in selling books is poisoning the well. you could say that about TJ Jakes, Bart Ehrman, or any other player in the popular press. Maybe Brian Greene isn't really interested in science or the theory of everything and just wants to sell books. Whatever, you still have to assess the ideas on their merits not on imputed motives.

[John T]

cienfuegos posted: "In fact, I would say you [John T] fraudulently mischaracterised your evidence (or maybe you are so blinded by your bias that you can only view Carrier with hostile intent.)"...cienfuegos

**************************************

In fact?

Please provide the facts/evidence I provided that was fraudulent, so that I can correct/retract them.

Or maybe you cienfuegos are so blinded by your bias that you can only view Carrier has having purely altruistic intent.

I wish you a brighter tomorrow,

John T