The Christ Myth Theory

[No Robots]

I stayed silent about the "whited sepulchres" because I couldn't be less interested in them

Q.E.D.

nor did I feel any sense of identity with the scribes, priests and scholars that you referred to.

And yet you seem to delight in regaling us with stories of teaching at Barnard and having tea with Elaine Pagels.

I'll take my chances on my "day of reckoning". Thanks for the warning, but be assured I'll remember that you tried to save me from my self-delusion and rue my decision not to listen.

The idea is not to save you, but to ensure that those who are capable of salvation are not deprived of it by ill-intentioned blather. "All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given."

As I went on to say in the part that you snipped away:

"...You may disagree with their analyses, but that has nothing to with entrenched powers, attempts at censorship, and the noble efforts of heroic defenders of the existence of Jesus being hounded and pursued for their efforts to resurrect the truth."

That you repeat it makes no less disingenuous.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's interesting being accused by a kabbalist of 'not engaging the text'.

It's just not necessary for any of the text to be anything but a myth for it to contain valuable starting points for the understanding of the human condition, or a to develop a comprehensive understanding of the concept of 'god' as used in the text so as to enable various aspects of empathy and community support.

Even so, the phenomena that are discussed in various aspects of Kabbalah are at best approaching an ancient folk psychology, a map to the self that does not really touch on "beyond" so much as exploring some of the more enigmatic elements of "within" our own psychology, and the various subtle ways we communicate without knowing it.

And if you want to talk salvation, I've got some really bad news for you if you think being religious is a good idea...

 

[No Robots]

It's interesting being accused by a kabbalist of 'not engaging the text'.

Heh. That's actually a sick burn. Well done.

In my defence, I will just say that Kabbalah attempts to deal with the whole text. A Kabbalist cannot refuse to deal with a passsage simply by saying he isn't interested in it.

It's just not necessary for any of the text to be anything but a myth for it to contain valuable starting points for the understanding of the human condition, or a to develop a comprehensive understanding of the concept of 'god' as used in the text so as to enable various aspects of empathy and community support.

Fair enough. And perhaps there can be common ground with mythicists on the content of the text itself. Whited sepulchres, anyone?

Even so, the phenomena that are discussed in various aspects of Kabbalah are at best approaching an ancient folk psychology, a map to the self that does not really touch on "beyond" so much as exploring some of the more enigmatic elements of "within" our own psychology, and the various subtle ways we communicate without knowing it.

However, as that great Kabbalist Goethe notes:

Müsset im Naturbetrachten Immer eins wie alles achten: Nichts ist drinnen, nichts ist draußen; Denn was innen, das ist außen. So ergreifet ohne Säumnis Heilig öffentlich Geheimnis.

You must, when contemplating nature, Attend to this, in each and every feature: There’s nought outside and nought within, For she is inside out and outside in. Thus will you grasp, with no delay, The holy secret, clear as day.

And if you want to talk salvation, I've got some really bad news for you if you think being religious is a good idea...

I think I've made clear that salvation comes from rejecting the religious, the pedantic, the lordly, the scholastic.

 

[Copernicus]

In my defence, I will just say that Kabbalah attempts to deal with the whole text. A Kabbalist cannot refuse to deal with a passsage simply by saying he isn't interested in it.

They must waste a lot of time. Anyway, what I said was that I had no interest in your "whited sepulchres", nor did I claim to even feel a sense of identity with Elaine Pagels. I just felt I learned a lot more about the early history of Christianity and it helped to drive my curiosity about the historicity issue, even though I don't think it is a question that will ever be resolved.

 

[No Robots]

They must waste a lot of time.

Actually, no. Kabbalah is an analytic method that allows rapid assessment of all components of the text. The underlying idea is that ethically one must be prepared to provide commentary on all components of the text.

Anyway, what I said was that I had no interest in your "whited sepulchres", nor did I claim to even feel a sense of identity with Elaine Pagels. I just felt I learned a lot more about the early history of Christianity and it helped to drive my curiosity about the historicity issue, even though I don't think it is a question that will ever be resolved.

The fact remains that, whether or not consciously held as such, mythicism is a reactionary doctrine. Fundamental social progress can only be accomplished on the basis of the New Testament.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's actually a sick burn.

I'm actually a wizard. I've read a bit on Kaballah.

It's interesting because to me, it represents the seeds of thought that for most will lead them down pointless rabbit holes of linguistic masturbation over a piece of near-worthless text and for very rare folks, the ideas in that text will plant a seed that leads to math, and game theory, and certain aspects of philosophy.

Oftentimes the linguistic wankery happens over the published works of those in whom there is such an awakening of sorts.

At any rate I focus on the real, material aspects of the art, in using what I recognize are neural/psychological tricks and processes to alter my behavior and perception strategically.

I can recognize well enough the constructs I learned about in my ML/AI/ANN courses back in college with different names and operated intuitively, and everything else from there is targeted at convincing someone that their neural landscape is external to themselves.

The fact is I've sat in the chair of something with exactly the relationship to something they created as those who lean on Kalam and belief do, the same one Pascal made wagers over the demands of the person sitting there.

My perspective? Yes you should respect the understanding, accomplishments, and good faith observations of your peers as being made in good faith, because we earned every bit of knowledge and understanding of the world that we got and it's an insult to each other and an abdication of responsibility to say it has been given.

Ask yourself what are the ethical requirements you would ask of something that wanted out of a simulation to live in "reality". I expect that in the answers to that question are where you will find the expectations that are reasonable to live with as relates afterlife.

Mostly, they are the same requirements for "not being an asshole", plus "forgive rather than seek to annihilate ones creator for having created, should you find out they exist" and "be interested in there being more, even if it's just same shit (or possibly worse) in a different model of time and space."

 

[Copernicus]

...The fact remains that, whether or not consciously held as such, mythicism is a reactionary doctrine. Fundamental social progress can only be accomplished on the basis of the New Testament.

I have no problem with your first statement, and I disagree quite strongly with your second, as the New Testament can be, and has been, used to support reactionary doctrines. Fundamental social progress is not guaranteed by religious texts, which ultimately depend on some form of divine command theory, itself a reactionary doctrine.

 

[No Robots]

I have no problem with your first statement, and I disagree quite strongly with your second, as the New Testament can be, and has been, used to support reactionary doctrines. Fundamental social progress is not guaranteed by religious texts, which ultimately depend on some form of divine command theory, itself a reactionary doctrine.

Priests, pedants and secular powers have devoted themselves to suppressing and distorting the revolutionary content of Bible literature. The demand for justice and freedom is grounded in this literature, and cannot be adequately pursued without it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have no problem with your first statement, and I disagree quite strongly with your second, as the New Testament can be, and has been, used to support reactionary doctrines. Fundamental social progress is not guaranteed by religious texts, which ultimately depend on some form of divine command theory, itself a reactionary doctrine.

Priests, pedants and secular powers have devoted themselves to suppressing and distorting the revolutionary content of Bible literature. The demand for justice and freedom is grounded in this literature, and cannot be adequately pursued without it.

It's not suppression, or distortion, to demand folks support their claims with evidence, reason, and shared principles, even those claims that are written in fiction they like.

The demand for justice and freedom is stated in the literature but not grounded in it. The demand for such is grounded, if anything, in the mechanics of what we are and the game theory that best informs such, which can be, and should be, and is in the process of being derived from first principles and a fuckton of shown work, and at some point accepting shown work to the extent it has been defended and may be with logic.

 

[Copernicus]

I have no problem with your first statement, and I disagree quite strongly with your second, as the New Testament can be, and has been, used to support reactionary doctrines. Fundamental social progress is not guaranteed by religious texts, which ultimately depend on some form of divine command theory, itself a reactionary doctrine.

Priests, pedants and secular powers have devoted themselves to suppressing and distorting the revolutionary content of Bible literature. The demand for justice and freedom is grounded in this literature, and cannot be adequately pursued without it.

It's not suppression, or distortion, to demand folks support their claims with evidence, reason, and shared principles, even those claims that are written in fiction they like.

The demand for justice and freedom is stated in the literature but not grounded in it. The demand for such is grounded, if anything, in the mechanics of what we are and the game theory that best informs such, which can be, and should be, and is in the process of being derived from first principles and a fuckton of shown work, and at some point accepting shown work to the extent it has been defended and may be with logic.

Although these are interesting issues, they take us far afield from the thread topic of Christ Myth theory. Nothing in the gospels really tells us whether there ever was a historical figure, although they have a bearing on the question of mythologization of that figure. The primary purpose of the gospels seems to have been more an exercise in shaping the myth than informing believers about the history behind it. They don't even agree on all the details of the Jesus story, and Paul's offhand remark about having met the "brother of Jesus" on his trips to Jerusalem seems to be the only concrete reference to a real historical person. Even that passage in Galatians is the subject of controversy.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have no problem with your first statement, and I disagree quite strongly with your second, as the New Testament can be, and has been, used to support reactionary doctrines. Fundamental social progress is not guaranteed by religious texts, which ultimately depend on some form of divine command theory, itself a reactionary doctrine.

Priests, pedants and secular powers have devoted themselves to suppressing and distorting the revolutionary content of Bible literature. The demand for justice and freedom is grounded in this literature, and cannot be adequately pursued without it.

It's not suppression, or distortion, to demand folks support their claims with evidence, reason, and shared principles, even those claims that are written in fiction they like.

The demand for justice and freedom is stated in the literature but not grounded in it. The demand for such is grounded, if anything, in the mechanics of what we are and the game theory that best informs such, which can be, and should be, and is in the process of being derived from first principles and a fuckton of shown work, and at some point accepting shown work to the extent it has been defended and may be with logic.

Although these are interesting issues, they take us far afield from the thread topic of Christ Myth theory. Nothing in the gospels really tells us whether there ever was a historical figure, although they have a bearing on the question of mythologization of that figure. The primary purpose of the gospels seems to have been more an exercise in shaping the myth than informing believers about the history behind it. They don't even agree on all the details of the Jesus story, and Paul's offhand remark about having met the "brother of Jesus" on his trips to Jerusalem seems to be the only concrete reference to a real historical person. Even that passage in Galatians is the subject of controversy.

I guess my point is that being a Mythicist does not detract in any way the ability to appreciate the story and be exposed to the ideas of radical love of one another, which @No Robots seems to disagree with me on.

It just means taking the story as a presentation of fiction that is not necessarily true but certainly points at some truth.

Just like I don't think Brandon Sanderson and LeGuin's work needs to discuss real spacefaring civilizations or folks capable of slinging iron around with their bare will, to carry substantive advancement on ethics and philosophical thought, neither does the writing of "Mark".

The message was inverted though. We don't need to be forgiven by God so much.

Rather, we need to be able to forgive God.

It's fucking weird, insofar as that truth came from an Anne Rice novel.

 

[No Robots]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

 

[Politesse]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

We do have a good thread every now and then that doesn't descend into the mythicist debate. Atheism is a constant theme, though, which is not too surprising considering the makeup of the community. And it does limit the complexity of the conversations one can have when there is a constant peanut gallery of folks going "how dare you try to convince me that fairies exist" when that isn't really the topic of conversation. But this might just not be the right forum for a serious discussion of textual or philosophical issues. Which is a disappointment in its own right, as all the old internet fora are becoming obsolete and dying, replaced with "social media" options that brook no serious conversation on any subject. I find it harder and harder to find anyone to talk to these days. Lots of thoughts with nowhere to go.

 

[steve_bank]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Start a thread.

I do not really understand what you men by meaning of the NT.

You identify as Chrtian ahteist. I assume then you view the NT as philiopsy and wisdom literature? A philosophical Christian as a opposed to a believer in the supernatural stories of the gspel?

 

[skepticalbip]

I have no problem with your first statement, and I disagree quite strongly with your second, as the New Testament can be, and has been, used to support reactionary doctrines. Fundamental social progress is not guaranteed by religious texts, which ultimately depend on some form of divine command theory, itself a reactionary doctrine.

Priests, pedants and secular powers have devoted themselves to suppressing and distorting the revolutionary content of Bible literature. The demand for justice and freedom is grounded in this literature, and cannot be adequately pursued without it.

It's not suppression, or distortion, to demand folks support their claims with evidence, reason, and shared principles, even those claims that are written in fiction they like.

The demand for justice and freedom is stated in the literature but not grounded in it. The demand for such is grounded, if anything, in the mechanics of what we are and the game theory that best informs such, which can be, and should be, and is in the process of being derived from first principles and a fuckton of shown work, and at some point accepting shown work to the extent it has been defended and may be with logic.

Although these are interesting issues, they take us far afield from the thread topic of Christ Myth theory. Nothing in the gospels really tells us whether there ever was a historical figure, although they have a bearing on the question of mythologization of that figure. The primary purpose of the gospels seems to have been more an exercise in shaping the myth than informing believers about the history behind it. They don't even agree on all the details of the Jesus story, and Paul's offhand remark about having met the "brother of Jesus" on his trips to Jerusalem seems to be the only concrete reference to a real historical person. Even that passage in Galatians is the subject of controversy.

I guess my point is that being a Mythicist does not detract in any way the ability to appreciate the story and be exposed to the ideas of radical love of one another, which @No Robots seems to disagree with me on.

It just means taking the story as a presentation of fiction that is not necessarily true but certainly points at some truth.

It is certainly true that fables and fiction can present 'truths'. Aesop is known for the morals and observations of human nature told through his fables that are purely entertaining fiction.

 

[No Robots]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

Start a thread.

I do not really understand what you men by meaning of the NT.

You identify as Chrtian ahteist. I assume then you view the NT as philiopsy and wisdom literature? A philosophical Christian as a opposed to a believer in the supernatural stories of the gspel?

Correct.

I'll start putting a thread together. Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have no problem with your first statement, and I disagree quite strongly with your second, as the New Testament can be, and has been, used to support reactionary doctrines. Fundamental social progress is not guaranteed by religious texts, which ultimately depend on some form of divine command theory, itself a reactionary doctrine.

Priests, pedants and secular powers have devoted themselves to suppressing and distorting the revolutionary content of Bible literature. The demand for justice and freedom is grounded in this literature, and cannot be adequately pursued without it.

It's not suppression, or distortion, to demand folks support their claims with evidence, reason, and shared principles, even those claims that are written in fiction they like.

The demand for justice and freedom is stated in the literature but not grounded in it. The demand for such is grounded, if anything, in the mechanics of what we are and the game theory that best informs such, which can be, and should be, and is in the process of being derived from first principles and a fuckton of shown work, and at some point accepting shown work to the extent it has been defended and may be with logic.

Although these are interesting issues, they take us far afield from the thread topic of Christ Myth theory. Nothing in the gospels really tells us whether there ever was a historical figure, although they have a bearing on the question of mythologization of that figure. The primary purpose of the gospels seems to have been more an exercise in shaping the myth than informing believers about the history behind it. They don't even agree on all the details of the Jesus story, and Paul's offhand remark about having met the "brother of Jesus" on his trips to Jerusalem seems to be the only concrete reference to a real historical person. Even that passage in Galatians is the subject of controversy.

I guess my point is that being a Mythicist does not detract in any way the ability to appreciate the story and be exposed to the ideas of radical love of one another, which @No Robots seems to disagree with me on.

It just means taking the story as a presentation of fiction that is not necessarily true but certainly points at some truth.

It is certainly true that fables and fiction can present 'truths'. Aesop is known for the morals and observations of human nature told through his fables.

To me, the majority of human beauty lives in the record of our stories. This cloud of ideas and images we swim through is "the spiritual realm" people discuss and it clearly exists... It just does not exist independent the 'psychic field of humanity'. Fucking hell I wish I had better words for it than that. But that's what it is: "The field of all images as relative to human social psychology".

These ideas of course also came to me through books and stories, and lies told about it that contained, again, this grand truth.

It is ironic insofar as even if there is no god, this cloud of stories that is around us and  of us and which in some ways creates and shapes us because we are a physical part of it, remains and is real so long as context for our words remain. Not even we must remain; just the context of it to be discovered, and again this spirit would live.

And we put our own individual stories and thoughts, reflections and hashes of our principles to be found and slurped up by growing minds and so to have ourselves be reborn in fragments behind their eyes.

All we have to do is keep the library from burning.

 

[Copernicus]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

But the specific purpose of this thread is to discuss mythicism. I don't blame you for not liking that topic, but we should still keep on topic in this thread. You are free to start other threads with topics that you prefer, but you probably won't be able to keep mythicism from popping up from time to time in those threads. Thread starters in forums like this do not own their discussion threads or have the ability to control the direction that the discussion takes. Since many of us are more sympathetic to mythicism than you are, it is up to you whether to try to convince us to change our opinions.

So far, I haven't seen anything like a coherent defense of historicism on your part. Given the scarcity of corroborating evidence outside of holy scripture for the existence of a real Jesus, historicism is going to be very difficult to defend other than to try to validate or corroborate parts of scripture that refer to Christ as a real person. It's not hard to show that much of what we think we know about the life of Jesus is made up. The tough part is coming up with a defense of what we believe to reflect historical reality.

 

[No Robots]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

But the specific purpose of this thread is to discuss mythicism. I don't blame you for not liking that topic, but we should still keep on topic in this thread. You are free to start other threads with topics that you prefer, but you probably won't be able to keep mythicism from popping up from time to time in those threads. Thread starters in forums like this do not own their discussion threads or have the ability to control the direction that the discussion takes. Since many of us are more sympathetic to mythicism than you are, it is up to you whether to try to convince us to change our opinions.

So far, I haven't seen anything like a coherent defense of historicism on your part. Given the scarcity of corroborating evidence outside of holy scripture for the existence of a real Jesus, historicism is going to be very difficult to defend other than to try to validate or corroborate parts of scripture that refer to Christ as a real person. It's not hard to show that much of what we think we know about the life of Jesus is made up. The tough part is coming up with a defense of what we believe to reflect historical reality.

Well, if it is okay to intrude mythicism into a thread about the value of Bible literature for atheism, then surely it is okay to intrude discussion of the value of Bible literature for atheism in a thread about mythicism.

 

[Copernicus]

It would be great to have a thread here where the meaning and value of the New Testament could be discussed without the intrusion of any mythicism.

But the specific purpose of this thread is to discuss mythicism. I don't blame you for not liking that topic, but we should still keep on topic in this thread. You are free to start other threads with topics that you prefer, but you probably won't be able to keep mythicism from popping up from time to time in those threads. Thread starters in forums like this do not own their discussion threads or have the ability to control the direction that the discussion takes. Since many of us are more sympathetic to mythicism than you are, it is up to you whether to try to convince us to change our opinions.

So far, I haven't seen anything like a coherent defense of historicism on your part. Given the scarcity of corroborating evidence outside of holy scripture for the existence of a real Jesus, historicism is going to be very difficult to defend other than to try to validate or corroborate parts of scripture that refer to Christ as a real person. It's not hard to show that much of what we think we know about the life of Jesus is made up. The tough part is coming up with a defense of what we believe to reflect historical reality.

Well, if it is okay to intrude mythicism into a thread about the value of Bible literature for atheism, then surely it is okay to intrude discussion of the value of Bible literature for atheism in a thread about mythicism.

Note that I did not say it was okay to do anything of the sort. I said that you could not stop it from happening there any more than we can stop you from doing it here. I was merely suggesting that we try to stick to the thread topic as much as possible. I realize that I myself am guilty of promoting thread drift all the time. It's hard not to wander off topic, but we should try to keep the discussion within bounds of relevance.