Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Okay, he's made up. Simping for a made up character is and always has been cringe as fuck. Worst fanbase ever.
The consensus among anyone educated is that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. The comprehensive sources we have on His life also claim that He is God.
Yeah that's a load of shit and everyone "Educated" knows it.
See, I can make bold baseless claims as well.
The Christ myth theory is rejected by mainstream scholarship as fringe:
James D. G. Dunn (1974) Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus in Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Robert Banks, ed., Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, pp. 125–141, citing G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971)): "Perhaps we should also mention that at the other end of the spectrum Paul's apparent lack of knowledge of the historical Jesus has been made the major plank in an attempt to revive the nevertheless thoroughly dead thesis that the Jesus of the Gospels was a mythical figure." An almost identical quotation is included in Dunn, James DG (1998) The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D.G. Dunn, Volume 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., p. 191, and Sykes, S. (1991) Sacrifice and redemption: Durham essays in theology. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36.
Grant (1977, p. 200) Classicist-numismatist Michael Grant stated in 1977: "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus', or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Weaver (1999, pp. 71): Walter Weaver, scholar of philosophy and religion: "The denial of Jesus' historicity has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles, nor did it in the first part of the century."
Robert E. Van Voorst, New testament scholar:
Van Voorst (2000, p. 16), referring to G. A. Wells: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."
Van Voorst (2003, p. 658): "debate on the existence of Jesus has been in the fringes of scholarship...for more than two centuries."
Van Voorst (2003, p. 660): "Among New Testament scholars and historians, the theory of Jesus' nonexistence remains effectively dead as a scholarly question."
Tuckett (2001, pp. 123–124): "[F]arfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."
Burridge & Gould (2004, p. 34): "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."
Wells (2007, p. 446) G. A. Wells, mythicist admitted "by around 1920 nearly all scholars had come to regard the case against Jesus's historicity as totally discredited"
Price (2010, p. 200) Robert M. Price, former apologist and prominent mythicist, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars to the point that they "dismiss Christ Myth theory as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings."
Johnson (2011, p. 4) Paul Johnson, a popular historian: "His life has been written more often than that of any other human being, with infinite variations of detail, employing vast resources of scholarship, and often controversially, not to say acrimoniously. Scholarship, like everything else, is subject to fashion, and it was the fashion, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for some to deny that Jesus existed. No serious scholar holds that view now, and it is hard to see how it ever took hold, for the evidence of Jesus's existence is abundant."
Martin (2014, p. 285) Michael Martin, skeptic philosopher of religion: "Some skeptics have maintained that the best account of biblical and historical evidence is the theory that Jesus never existed; that is, that Jesus' existence is a myth (Wells 1999). Such a view is controversial and not widely held even by anti-Christian thinkers."
Casey (2014, p. 243) Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."
Gray (2016, p. 113–114) Patrick Gray, religious studies scholar, "Christian and non-Christian scholars alike now almost universally reject the "Christ myth" hypothesis. That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty. [Note 4:] Although it remains a fringe phenomenon, familiarity with the Christ myth theory has become much more widespread among the general public with the advent of the Internet."
Gullotta (2017, pp. 312, 314), historian of religion: "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." "In short, the majority of mythicist literature is composed of wild theories, which are poorly researched, historically inaccurate, and written with a sensationalist bent for popular audiences."
Hurtado (2017) Larry Hurtado, Christian origins scholar: "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn't have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."
Marina (2022) Marko Marina, ancient historian: states that Richard Carrier's mythicist views have not won any supporters from critical scholars or the academic community and that mythicist theory remains as fringe
I'm not reading some giant block of text that supposedly supports your ridiculous position that some magic man once existed and it's for real, trust me bro.
Grow up. Help people make real change in the world that isn't based on mythology.
> Grow up. Help people make real change in the world that isn't based on mythology.
If there is no God, then what do I do? Why? What's the point?
Do you really not see how pathetic of a viewpoint that is to take?
If there's not a skywizard who loves me and a promise of INFINITE WEALTH FOREVER then why do anything AT ALL. WAAA
This is why I told you to grow the fuck up.
No, it's moreso who dictates to me what's wrong and right? The government? I hate the government. The media? I hate the media. The logical solution would be to move out of society somewhere and become self sufficient and hoard as much resources as possible to preserve myself (not even my family, because there's no real reason to have family values if this is the case)
You are incapable of creating your own moral code? So you're a sociopath, not surprising considering how much you're trying to sell religion right now.
If I create my own moral code, what should I base it on? Why does my moral code have to be the same as yours?
I never claimed that your code had to be the same as mine, but that's a great question. Why should I have to follow your religion and your EXACT same moral code? (Hint: Most christians don't follow christian values anyway) Your morality should be based on your perceptions of right and wrong, not what some dirty ass cave dweller from 2000 years ago thought was right.
Unfortunately too much lead got in the water and the air in the last century and destroyed the logic centers of so many peoples brains that even in an age of science and medicine you dipshits are still looking to sky daddy to make changes in your daily lives instead of leveraging all of human knowledge (available in your hand) to help you.
You truly are a sad individual if you have to rely on others to perceive the world for you and tell you what to do, because you simply can't fathom it on your own.
Irrelevant
So if my perceptions were something horrible like believing in eugenics or zoophilia, that would be okay?
Comparing apples and oranges. What has Christianity got to do with science and medicine? No idea where you got the thought that believing in Jesus of Nazareth being God was an alternative to these things.
LOL at your first point. It's 100% relevant. Christians don't even follow their own written set of values and morals, why should anybody respect them when they can't even do the things they're trying to get everybody else to do?
That morality would be okay as long as you still followed the LAWS of the society you live in. I don't care what you believe so long as you aren't actually harming other people. So definitely not christian since they rape children and protect the rapists.
You're right, christianity has NOTHING to do with science or medicine, which is a big part of the problem with it. Christians are the most anti-science group I can think of. You shouldn't be allowed to even use a computer based on your backwards ideologies. People who deny science shouldn't be allowed to benefit from it. You've literally been brain washed to try to collect followers for a seat of power that you DON'T EVEN SIT IN. Probably a fucking republican too since you're so interested in working against the common good.
Politicians do the same
Laws are arbitrary, and it was law in Nazi germany not to employ Jewish people.
Okay, so do broadcasters, teachers and police officers among others. Doesn't mean that all broadcasters and teachers condone rape nevermind do it themselves.
So, taxi drivers, bus drivers, artists, etc shouldn't be able to benefit from medicine or science because they deny it apparently because their lifestyle has nothing to do with science? Catch a grip
The Bible doesn't tell anyone how to vote.
I'd like to think I'd be sooner caught dead than being a republican
Just out of curiosity, what do you find so repugnant about republicans? I'm eager to point out the unlimited number of parallels between them and "Christians".
Their mass terror campaign and manipulating Americans into supporting them. They are prone to easily destroy their democratic system over a charismatic leader as well to suddenly elect as a head of state.
Damn that first sentence is bang on. Except you could replace "Americans" with just "people."
Well, republics exist across the world. Some are okay, but Türkiye is another example of one that failed. Although no system is perfect.
Did you get bored defending your position, or did you forget that I was comparing christians to (American) republicans? Seems like you're just trying to change the subject now that you realize none of your idiotic arguments are going to change my position or get me to back down from my assertion that organized religion is specifically a control and money making scheme and useful idiots like you are the only way they perpetuate themselves.
What? You asked me about republicans more. American republicans aren't much better. They are looking towards getting rid of free school meals for children, not dealing with American health care crises, etc.
I have barely put money towards organised religion, and the Bible scarcely talks about finances, constantly rebukes the rich also, so if Christianity is simply to make money, it's a pretty rubbish money making scheme.
You're just so dense there's no point in continuing trying to educate you on your stupid positions. Good luck with life, you're going to need it.