Muhammad was a Feminist

[Elok]

Re: thread in general, both Jesus and Muhammad had very complicated beliefs, and it's a bit silly to try and fit either into a simple twenty-first century analogue like "hippie," "socialist," or "feminist." You can say that Muhammad envisioned a different role for women than his followers have subsequently given them, but "feminist" has a lot of baggage attached that seems ridiculous when you stick it on somebody from seventh-century Arabia.

[Giancarlo]

Re: thread in general, both Jesus and Muhammad had very complicated beliefs, and it's a bit silly to try and fit either into a simple twenty-first century analogue like "hippie," "socialist," or "feminist." You can say that Muhammad envisioned a different role for women than his followers have subsequently given them, but "feminist" has a lot of baggage attached that seems ridiculous when you stick it on somebody from seventh-century Arabia.

I was saying by today's standards. But I doubt this Jesus guy even existed. It is a story and that is all. You missed the point entirely.

[Jon Miller]

All secular evidence is that Jesus existed, so your doubt is pretty irrational.

JM

[Giancarlo]

All secular evidence is that Jesus existed, so your doubt is pretty irrational.

JM

And so you claim. There is a serious lack of evidence, so you are being irrational.

[Elok]

It is far more reasonable to assume that Jesus existed but was distorted than to assume Jesus never existed at all. The latter would be a somewhat reasonable assumption for, say, King Arthur, because he isn't attested until centuries later, and purportedly lived in a time of enormous upheaval from which basically no records have survived. Palestine in the First Century was very civilized and ordered by comparison, and as many a scholar has noted, radical street preachers were a very common phenomenon. And Joshua/Yeshua was a very common name. Moreover, the "myth" of Jesus solidified quite quickly after His purported lifetime.

[Jon Miller]

Including attestations of His existence by his contemporaries. There is similar level of support for the existence of most people of history, including Socrates and Pilate.

Here is an article by a leading critic of Christianity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html about the rediculousness of the belief that Jesus did not exist.

JM

[Giancarlo]

Again that is based on speculation. You don't have any real evidence that this guy even existed.

Edit: Forgot the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

By the way, to compare the alleged existence of Jesus to Socrates is quite wrong.

[Elok]

"This guy" was a street preacher. He did get a lot of people hot and bothered, but that was not all that uncommon in the period; Judaea rose in revolt less than fifty years after He died. There would have been nothing particularly remarkable to record from the perspective of anyone but His followers--who did indeed leave copious records, and grew at an explosive rate. Nevertheless Jesus did earn a mention in the writings of a couple of near-contemporary historians.

What kind of "evidence" would you expect for such a person? He didn't conquer, destroy, or build anything tangible.

[Proteus_MST]

I actually think that the existence of an actual preacher Yeshua ben Joseph is a rational assumption.
After all there must have been a reason for the existence of (jewish) christians firsthand.

But likewise rational is the assumption that the stories were distorted/embellished after his death (and maybe also were mixed with stories of other prophets) in order to make their sect more attractive.

The big question, of course is, to what percentage the stories and teachings are genuine from some preacher Yeshua, to what percentage they are embellishments and to what percentage they are pure inventions and/or plagiarism from other preachers
(I for my part would (aside from wo9nder stories) cast especially the stories about his appearance after his alleged death onm the cross in doubt ... and even more so any appearances of god/Jesus to someone named Saulus of Tarsus )

[Elok]

That's a fairly standard, and defensible, atheist position. I see no reason to doubt that Saul/Paul had a vision, even if one doubts that the vision was of divine origin. Plenty of people throughout history are said to have had visions (Joan of Arc, Muhammad, Teresa of Avila, etc.). You can ascribe it to hysteria or schizophrenia if you like. As to people suddenly undergoing a complete reorientation of their values, we have examples near at hand in this thread.

[Kidlicious]

Again that is based on speculation. You don't have any real evidence that this guy even existed.

Edit: Forgot the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

By the way, to compare the alleged existence of Jesus to Socrates is quite wrong.

Glad you think so, since that is evidence that he does.

[Giancarlo]

[Berzerker]

Re: thread in general, both Jesus and Muhammad had very complicated beliefs, and it's a bit silly to try and fit either into a simple twenty-first century analogue like "hippie," "socialist," or "feminist." You can say that Muhammad envisioned a different role for women than his followers have subsequently given them, but "feminist" has a lot of baggage attached that seems ridiculous when you stick it on somebody from seventh-century Arabia.

then 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

[Berzerker]

You need to read verses in context. It isn't an instruction manual, rather a story. Christians (and non-Christians) who treat it as an instruction manual will be disappointed.

In context:
25 Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, 26 “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace. 33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

In greater context:
Jesus had been healing and preaching and was under assault by the Pharisees (The Jewish spiritual leaders, not the state church but the 'authentic' spiritual leaders). The neighboring verses tell about the importance of humility and not putting people first who might advantage you (like your family or the wealthy), but rather putting first the people who are poor, outcasts and sick. After the teaching is that those who claim to follow God but don't follow Him are not part of His kingdom.

JM

I dont see how the context helps...one must hate everything to follow/love Jesus? I suspect I'm missing his point.

[Elok]

GC, minus the "these stories are religious and religious stories are prima facie false through and through" hooey, the arguments of the author from that article would work equally well for Socrates, or most anyone else from ancient times who was not extremely prominent during his own lifetime. I'm not sure if that standard would allow us to believe in the existence of, say, Boudicca.

I mean, seriously, I can't read that with a straight face. "They don't describe their qualifications." Because all reputable ancient writers included an "about the author" section in their manuscripts, you know?