If you strip away all the miracle stories, the basic claim here is that the Jesus of the Gospels is descended, with some garbling, from an actual religious teacher named Yeshua. As both religious teachers and the name Yeshua were common as dirt, that seems a perfectly reasonable belief, and really should be seen as more reasonable than the notion that this person was invented from whole cloth. The only argument against it is to demand a grossly unreasonable amount of evidence given both the time period and this hypothetical preacher's status.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Muhammad was a Feminist
Collapse
X
-
-
I hope that, in 2000 years, society has not become so utterly debased as to consider the drivel on here worth looking at. Or even saving.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berzerker View Postthen dont attach the baggage, the time and place only strengthens the article's argument... apparently he walked into the lion's den to preach for women's 'rights'
I did not know that about him
Comment
-
Oh geez. Sorry if this ends up as my third consecutive post, but I just looked up the guy who wrote that article GC posted. He's a doctoral student who self-published two books and a bunch of articles. Great expert ya got there.
EDIT: One of his articles goes on at great length to argue that Richard Dawkins is not anti-religious, apparently by trying to redefine the word "religion." Too bloody boring and pedantic to wade through and be sure, but at one point he quotes Dawkins saying, verbatim, in an interview they held specifically for the article: "I think I would think of myself as anti-religious, yes." Somehow he manages to continue to argue that Dawkins didn't mean it.
Last edited by Elok; November 1, 2016, 23:03.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostI hope that, in 2000 years, society has not become so utterly debased as to consider the drivel on here worth looking at. Or even saving.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostOh geez. Sorry if this ends up as my third consecutive post, but I just looked up the guy who wrote that article GC posted. He's a doctoral student who self-published two books and a bunch of articles. Great expert ya got there.
EDIT: One of his articles goes on at great length to argue that Richard Dawkins is not anti-religious, apparently by trying to redefine the word "religion." Too bloody boring and pedantic to wade through and be sure, but at one point he quotes Dawkins saying, verbatim, in an interview they held specifically for the article: "I think I would think of myself as anti-religious, yes." Somehow he manages to continue to argue that Dawkins didn't mean it.
http://www.raphaellataster.com/artic...-interview.pdfClick here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld
Comment
-
I'm kind of puzzled; did he include the bit about his old professor calling him a dumbass over his WaPo article out of a sense of fairness, or did his old professor insist on putting it in because he wanted everybody to know what a dumbass this kid is? I can't think who else would put that in.
EDIT: anyway, here's the full text of his old professor calling him a dumbass.
Last edited by Elok; November 1, 2016, 23:59.
Comment
-
That was a ****ing op/ed article. It gives an opinion on the matter. That is all it is and all I presented it as. The fact you have a chip the size of the grand canyon on your shoulder is immaterial.
I didn't realize you were such a religious fundamentalist. I take it you are the sugarcoated version of Ben.
Here is another op/ed piece that discusses the matter:
Oh and before you go on a post rampage about how bright you are, the above article is corroborated by various sources and authors. They cite many people.
There is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of Jesus.
Giblets, stfu.Last edited by Giancarlo; November 2, 2016, 01:07.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostYou can't detach the baggage. Words have connotations, and a man who endorsed polygyny (but not polyandry) and the sexual use of female slaves is hard to swallow as a "feminist." Such a use of the term does violence to both the man and the concept.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostI hope in 2000 years, no one believes we were real. I mean, with access to all our emails, social networking, and forum posts ... it would be hard to live down otherwise.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostYou can't detach the baggage. Words have connotations, and a man who endorsed polygyny (but not polyandry) and the sexual use of female slaves is hard to swallow as a "feminist." Such a use of the term does violence to both the man and the concept.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Giancarlo View PostThere is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of Jesus.Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld
Comment
Comment