God as the ultimate child abuser

[Agathon]

If you must read about the world's favourite carpenter, this is quite interesting.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8810342.html

[Dracon II]

We should probably remember that Jesus was no child... and that he was given the option to compromise himself and refused. He was also cognizant of what he had to do.

I would consider myself an atheist, or at least an agnostic... but I'm not one to take cheap shots at religion such as the "God is a child abuser" argument. God didn't kill Jesus, the crowd did. We did. Maybe that's the point the scriptures are trying to make.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Agathon


Well, my job consists of poking through ancient texts written in dead languages, many of which mention people whose existence is dubious, and many of which have been continuously vandalized throughout history by people attempting to make them more favourable to their own point of view. I have a healthy scepticism born of much experience.

That's my job.

From what I can gather from your posts, you are some kind of janitor, possibly on furlough from prison.

Now be quiet.

You teach philosophy, right? Janitors are more practical, even if I were one at least I would not be sucking myself off every day behind a comfy podium.

[Dracon II]

Janitorial work is quite practical yes. I'm not sure what relevance that has for the worth of philosophy. Or for the worth of janitorial work for that matter... anyone can mop a floor. Not everyone can dedicate their life to working on and thinking about fundamental matters of human existence... and certainly not many understand why people do so... your snarky remark is testament to that. I wonder if those people who like to attack philosophers and academics in general aren't themselves the one's engaging in autoerotic gratification.

[Wiglaf]

No, it's pretty clear who is high on his own ass here:

A: Tells me his job, without being asked

Well, my job consists of poking through ancient texts written in dead languages, many of which mention people whose existence is dubious, and many of which have been continuously vandalized throughout history by people attempting to make them more favourable to their own point of view. I have a healthy scepticism born of much experience.

That's my job.

B: immediately derides manual labor:

From what I can gather from your posts, you are some kind of janitor, possibly on furlough from prison.

Now be quiet.

[Wiglaf]

I wonder if those people who like to attack philosophers and academics in general aren't themselves the one's engaging in autoerotic gratification.

Philosophy is bull****. Mopping a floor accomplishes something that isn't useless.

[Dracon II]

Yes... it wasn't fair of Agathon to suggest that janitors can be identified by a defect in their character. Given that pretty much anyone is capable of such work... it's just as likely that nice, even intelligent, people, are janitors. Many liberal arts graduates, for example, are probably employed in the industry.

There is no need to deride manual labour... but I don't see anything wrong with Agathon pointing to his experience in the examination of ancient texts as formative of his scepticism regarding the historicity of Jesus' life.

[Wiglaf]

He just says some ancient historical texts are BS.

Denying Jesus even existed is completely different and entirely ridiculous. As is typical of people who enjoy the smell of their own flatulence, Agathon feels his every whim is fact, and presents it as such.

[Dracon II]

Philosophy is bull****

Oh... okay. No need for silly concepts like "justice" or "civil rights" or "truth". Hell, we should burn the constitution, given that its founded on bull****!

Just because you don't know about something, because you don't care to know about something, doesn't license you to declare that it is bull****. You may think that a mopped floor is more useful to you than philosophy... but that's your own opinion... and many, many people have, do, and will disagree with you on that point. You think you've found the truth... when all you've done is stopped thinking. Philosophers don't stop thinking... that's their job. I guess I can't expect you to understand that.

[Dracon II]

Agathon feels his every whim is fact, and presents it as such.

Philosophy is bull****. Mopping a floor accomplishes something that isn't useless.

Takes one to know one, I guess eh?

[Wiglaf]

The latter is my opinion. I am not denying a basic historical truth.

[Dracon II]

And I've no doubt that Agathon too, is expressing an opinion. Like many people, he chooses to base his opinion upon his experience. It is unfortunate that a legitimate question ("what evidence is there for the historical existence of Jesus, and what is the quality of such evidence?") has been sidelined by an argument over the relative worth of menial and intellectual labour (an argument for which admittedly Agathon was responsible with his ad hominem aside). I would suggest that the proper response at this point would be to be philosophical, play Socrates, and challenge Agathon to account for his opinion. It is probably best to respond to the proposition itself, rather than to the snarky asides that we humans are wont to use to avoid a fair argument by defaming our opponent's character. I admit I got carried away with it too... but I feel that I must, in this day and age especially, defend philosophical endeavour, albeit not in a way that degrades other pursuits.

[Alexander's Horse]

there isn't much in the written record about Jesus, primary source material-wise, so Aggie's on a safe bet there, and knows it...

of course it all hinges on dismissing the scriptures and other religious writing as a primary source, and of course the sacred sites, and the oral tradition on which the scriptures were based,

that's all quite a big elephant in the room to ignore I'd say....

especially when you consider that modern archeology and science is verifying many oral claims, even things thought myth, the city of Troy for example was once considered probably mythical

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Philosophy is bull****. Mopping a floor accomplishes something that isn't useless.

Your bad temper indicates that I hit the mark. You are a janitor and you're on parole.

My prestidigitatory skills know no bounds!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
there isn't much in the written record about Jesus, primary source material-wise, so Aggie's on a safe bet there, and knows it...

I think one of the few non-religious sources is Josephus, but there is some dispute over whether the remarks are his, or the additions of a later editor.

of course it all hinges on dismissing the scriptures and other religious writing as a primary source, and of course the sacred sites, and the oral tradition on which the scriptures were based,

that's all quite a big elephant in the room to ignore I'd say....

Not from a scholarly point of view. The case of Jesus is similar to the case of Socrates. We only know of Socrates' opinions via the work of other authors, each of whom interpreted Socrates as agreeing with him. Plato's Socrates is the one that people believe is the "real" Socrates, even though trying to extract a true "Socratic" philosophy from the platonic dialogues is a dubious enterprise at best, but one which, nevertheless, as convinced a great many commentators.

That a person called "Jesus" existed, is a matter for debate, not a certainty. But, more importantly, even if he did exist, it is extremely unlikely that most of the things attributed to him were actually true. Much of what is written about Jesus simply attempts to fit him in to long established religious ideas, like a virgin birth and a resurrection. Paul can be understood as equivalent to Plato. Most people who are Christians believe in some version of the Pauline Christ, but it is a huge assumption to believe that Paul accurately reflected the beliefs of a historical Jesus, rather than pursuing his own agenda. Other agendas, such as Gnosticism lost out, and were expunged from the canon. None of this is likely to have had anything to do with the historical Jesus, if he existed.

What we call "Christianity" has almost certainly very little to do with the actions and beliefs of a postulated Jewish carpenter from the first century.

especially when you consider that modern archeology and science is verifying many oral claims, even things thought myth, the city of Troy for example was once considered probably mythical

That's true, but the Biblical archaeology movement has a habit of discovering inconvenient truths IIRC. And the provenance of various relics is always amusing. I read somewhere that there are so many teeth claiming to have been those of Jesus that he would have had to have had multiple mouths.