Thanks, but I still hold what I said. Even if you only mean it as a parody, it's not quite working out that way. "Taste of your own medicine" parodies tend to come off as more than just a parody.
I understand this point. You're probably right.
And if you were really sorry for the sarcastic bullshit, maybe you should change the post. Or wait, maybe try and take back your assumption, the very thing you so righteously leapt upon Nillia for.
I don't edit out something I said after the fact because that is a dirty thing to do. It has driven me crazy to no end in the past when people post something and then try to cover it up after the damage has been done. I leave what I said originally because I can live with the things I say, as hasty as they may be.
That's fine. There are scholars that also believe Shakespeare was not real. Others do think Shakespeare was real. Does it really matter in the end? There was still somebody out there that wrote those things.
Whoever wrote about Jesus, whether he was real or not, was just a Jewish guy looking for some social and moral changes to happen within Judaism. There is nothing about seeking to start a new religion--although that's what ended up happening over time.
Personally, I figure that a guy named Jesus did exist, but you're welcome to disagree. I also think that arguing any further about it would be really pointless.
There's actually very little evidence even of that. At best, "Jesus" was an amalgamation of several similar figures from the general time period. The Jews in the area at the time were rising up periodically, and there were numerous "I am teh Christ!" leaders popping up all over. The Jesus writings don't appear until long after this period, and are very very likely revisionist at best.
Outside of Christian literature, there is basically zero evidence that any such man existed.
Whoever wrote about Jesus, whether he was real or not, was just a Jewish guy looking for some social and moral changes to happen within Judaism.
Social and moral changes can be pursued without conflating them with the supernatural. We understand the world well enough today to fight for good social change without resorting to mystical explanations for anything. There's really no point in turning to a pseudo-historical religious figure for moral guidance when science and philosophy can provide the same without all the voodoo and invisible sky men.
I'm not taking any stance whatsoever on the "Jesus: Real or Fictional" debate other than to bring up the possibly tired idea that, hundreds of years from now, people might be arguing about whether Sherlock Holmes was real or fictional.
I'm not taking any stance whatsoever on the "Jesus: Real or Fictional" debate other than to bring up the possibly tired idea that, hundreds of years from now, people might be arguing about whether Sherlock Holmes was real or fictional.
That's just stupid, of course Sherlock Holmes existed.
Whoever wrote about Jesus, whether he was real or not, was just a Jewish guy looking for some social and moral changes to happen within Judaism.
Social and moral changes can be pursued without conflating them with the supernatural. We understand the world well enough today to fight for good social change without resorting to mystical explanations for anything. There's really no point in turning to a pseudo-historical religious figure for moral guidance when science and philosophy can provide the same without all the voodoo and invisible sky men.
Of course social and moral change can come from other methods and sources!
But the key phrase there is, "We understand the world well enough today." They didn't understand the world as well back then. Moreover, "We" includes only some of the modern population. A lot of people today still don't understand. It's hard to grasp these things, for many people. It's much more sensational to a simple mind if you add magic. Blind faith in something bigger than you is easier than taking it upon yourself.
And on the Jesus real or not bit, I really don't know for sure if he was one guy or 50-- but it came from somewhere. We could call the authors Jesus for all I care. I don't care who it really was, or how many there were-- just as I don't care who was really Shakespear, or how many men he may have been. I really think it's pointless. It is historical, however, that those pages were written, and written with a goal, by somebody. Jesus represents a number of ideas that undoubtedly became a huge phenomenon, and eventually twisted into modern religion. It's really pointless to argue about a technical issue like that when it won't change the result at all. Either way, the religious population won't believe either of us because they're convinced that he's part of some triad of God. It is pointless to argue on that, and I'm done on that topic after this post.
And on the Jesus real or not bit, I really don't know for sure if he was one guy or 50-- but it came from somewhere. We could call the authors Jesus for all I care. I don't care who it really was, or how many there were-- just as I don't care who was really Shakespear, or how many men he may have been. I really think it's pointless. It is historical, however, that those pages were written, and written with a goal, by somebody. Jesus represents a number of ideas that undoubtedly became a huge phenomenon, and eventually twisted into modern religion. It's really pointless to argue about a technical issue like that when it won't change the result at all. Either way, the religious population won't believe either of us because they're convinced that he's part of some triad of God. It is pointless to argue on that, and I'm done on that topic after this post.
Wow. Just wow. You've managed to dismiss about two hundred years of historical and literary biblical studies with an assertion of proud ignorance. Way to go!
As someone who actually enjoys studying this and other questions regarding the Bible and early Christianity, the only honest position I can take is Jesus-agnosticism. Someone may have existed call Jesus, or maybe not. However, with the evidence we have now it is impossible to prove one way or another, and it doesn't look like more evidence is on its way. Thankfully, due to not being a Christian, I have no horse in this race. However, this doesn't mean we should just close down the debate, nor should we let assertions either way stand unchallenged.
More specifically, I find the debate among atheists about this kind of topic happens at such a low level. For a start, the debate is always framed by the religious view of the matter, and the discussion moves on from there. For example:
I think he's historical, but mortal and long dead. I think that the stories about him stretched into miracles over time.
What the hell? Mortal? Long dead? Why are these factors even mentioned? And stories being stretched into miracles over time? How about the fact that in the writings attributed to Paul, Jesus was never portrayed as a person who even existed on our Earthly realm at all?
The best way is to start with the text. Then work out when the individual texts were written, the background of each passage, with what agenda, and by what kind of person they were written. At that stage we can start looking at the contents of the text itself, and try to tease out any pieces which may refer to real people. Some people in the New Testament were real, probably, although even then it is very hard to see who is who, due to names and locations and even genders being changed.
If you start with the "facts" and work towards what is in the text, you are going about the whole exercise wrong. Of course none of the four Gospels were written by anyone with even a passing knowledge of Judea at the time of Jesus. Jesus is called a Rabi, when Rabi didn't exist until after the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora, circa 70-80 CE. Also Jesus is said to be from Nazareth, when the town didn't exist at the time of his life, and only became established after that same diaspora event...
Man, I could do a great TED talk about this topic...
That's fine. There are scholars that also believe Shakespeare was not real.
Actually, no. Scholars dispute if he authored all of the plays credited to him, but no scholars dispute that he was "real". Moreover, any scholars that are looked upon with any merit within the field do not dispute that he did write some, if not most of the works attributed to him. Your argument, on this particular point fails for two reasons. 1) It is factually unsound. 2) You are pointing to another, completely unrelated circumstance that has no bearing on your case. There are many more points to be addressed in your argument, but as someone that has studied Shakespeare in depth, including studying at the new Globe, I felt I had to weigh in on this particular point.
That's fine. There are scholars that also believe Shakespeare was not real.
Actually, no. Scholars dispute if he authored all of the plays credited to him, but no scholars dispute that he was "real". Moreover, any scholars that are looked upon with any merit within the field do not dispute that he did write some, if not most of the works attributed to him. Your argument, on this particular point fails for two reasons. 1) It is factually unsound. 2) You are pointing to another, completely unrelated circumstance that has no bearing on your case.
I think Nillia was positing an analogy that didn't require 100% correlation. I think that she was saying that the doubts cast on Shakespeare's authorship are similar to doubts cast on Jesus' historical existence.
Wow. Just wow. You've managed to dismiss about two hundred years of historical and literary fantastical beast studies with an assertion of proud ignorance. Way to go!
As someone who actually enjoys studying unicorns and other questions regarding dragons and early belief in unicorns, the only honest position I can take is Unicorn-agnosticism. Something may have existed call Unicorn, or maybe not. However, with the evidence we have now it is impossible to prove one way or another, and it doesn't look like more evidence is on its way. Thankfully, due to not being a believer in Unicorns, I have no horse in this race. However, this doesn't mean we should just close down the debate, nor should we let assertions either way stand unchallenged.
More specifically, I find the debate among those who don't believe in Unicorns about this kind of topic happens at such a low level. For a start, the debate is always framed by the Unicorn-enthusiasts view of the matter, and the discussion moves on from there. For example:
I think that unicorns were pink, and sparkled. I think that the stories about them stretched into miracles over time.
What the hell? Pink? Sparkled? Why are these factors even mentioned? And stories being stretched into miracles over time? How about the fact that in the writings attributed to the Serendipity Books, Unicorns were never portrayed as creatures who even existed on our Earthly realm at all?
The best way is to start with the text. Then work out when the individual texts were written, the background of each passage, with what agenda, and by what kind of person they were written. At that stage we can start looking at the contents of the text itself, and try to tease out any pieces which may refer to real horses. Some horses in the "The Unicorn and the Lake" were real, probably, although even then it is very hard to see who is which horse, due to horseshoes and grazing spots and even mane length being changed.
If you start with the "facts" and work towards what is in the text, you are going about the whole exercise wrong. Of course none of "The Last Unicorn" was written by anyone with even a passing knowledge of magic horses at the time of Unicorns. The Unicorn is called a human female, when human females didn't exist until after the destruction of the forest and the Unicorn Kingdom, circa 70-80 CE. Also Unicorns are said to be from Honalee, when the town didn't exist at the time of their lives, and only became established after that same Unicorn Kingdom event...
Man, I could do a great TED talk about this topic... I'm so cool.
You all are toting research, came to a conclusion, and are completely positive that you are right. I have seen research from many places and sides, came to an educated guess, but admit that I have no way of knowing what is really the truth because the research is, at most, logical guesswork based on only a handful of facts. I think he probably existed, but I can't know for sure, and you're welcome to think what you want. I was always under the impression that it was wise to admit when you can't be sure of something, rather than staunchly declaring yourself right. It is not proud ignorance, but admitted doubt upon the validity of my guess. There is no way to prove any of it at this point-- so I don't want to waste time researching others' research when I could be researching educational technology, or something else pertinent to my life and goals.
I'm not even religious, and yet some of you are still ganging up and questioning my intelligence. I take back what I said about one side being less pushy. People are prone to being pushy whether religious or atheist, if you happen to mention an opinion that they disagree with. Some of you have even been blatantly insulting, and I don't care to subject myself to that. I've learned my lesson. Your majority is authority and I'll keep my mouth shut next time I have a very slightly different take on xyz.
@Kate I never said I didn't believe Shakespeare existed. I think he was real. Nonetheless, I'm sorry I may have upset you by getting my statement about some scholars partially wrong.
*EDIT* @Judith -- You just made this thread awesome. Everything is better with Pink Unicorns. I DO believe they sparkled, after all. I hope that doesn't upset anyone....
I'm not even religious, and yet some of you are still ganging up and questioning my intelligence. I take back what I said about one side being less pushy. People are prone to being pushy whether religious or atheist, if you happen to mention an opinion that they disagree with. Some of you have even been blatantly insulting, and I don't care to subject myself to that. I've learned my lesson. Your majority is authority and I'll keep my mouth shut next time I have a very slightly different take on xyz.
I never said I didn't believe Shakespeare existed. I think he was real. Nonetheless, I'm sorry I may have upset you by getting my statement about some scholars partially wrong.
I'm not taking any stance whatsoever on the "Jesus: Real or Fictional" debate other than to bring up the possibly tired idea that, hundreds of years from now, people might be arguing about whether Sherlock Holmes was real or fictional.
That's just stupid, of course Sherlock Holmes existed.
Speaking of which, I recently just finished reading every single canon Sherlock Holmes novel and short story and I gotta say it was well worth it. I still contend that my three favorite stories are The Speckled Band, The Red-Headed League, and The Final Problem.
Look, my point wasn't that you were being stupid, or lacking intelligence. Nor was I saying you haven't done research or that you were wrong in your conclusion. What I WAS picking up on was this kind of thing:
It's really pointless to argue about a technical issue like that when it won't change the result at all. Either way, the religious population won't believe either of us because they're convinced that he's part of some triad of God. It is pointless to argue on that, and I'm done on that topic after this post.
I believe that research CAN and WILL change results. Just saying "Well, it's all pointless because we'll never know for sure" is just lazy.
The fact is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people simply presume Jesus to be a historic figure, and some then look into it further and find out he might not have been. If we keep bringing this topic up, and keep the discussion going, and bring the question into the mainstream, maybe the next generation will grow up with their views on certain questions of ancient history untainted with the (to put it bluntly) lies that come packaged with our Christian heritage.
To admit defeat, and to let the entire debate be shaped by those who are wrong, isn't something I'm interested in.
Man, I could do a great TED talk about this topic... I'm so cool.
Man, I could do a great TED talk about this topic... I'm so cool.
You know what? Fuck you!
My sentiments exactly. ^_^Ah...a little harsh. Do you also have this scathing an opinion of people who do research on, say, whether or not Robin Hood was fictional or historical? Is this just because the figure in question happens to have a tie with Christianity?
I have no problem with people who do research. I have a problem with arrogant bitchcakes.
I'm sorry but I have to agree. In my opinion, saying that you could do a great TED talk about any topic kinda places you in the set of people who are arrogant bitchcakes.
I was making a reference to another thread where someone said I should do a TED talk and I admitted I didn't have a topic to talk about.
Fair enough. IMHO, if you're invited to do a TED talk, that's outstanding; but, if you say, "Man, I'm so smart, I should do a TED talk about X", your statement puts you in a class with Kilarney.
@Kate I never said I didn't believe Shakespeare existed. I think he was real. Nonetheless, I'm sorry I may have upset you by getting my statement about some scholars partially wrong.
Oh, I am not upset at all. I am sorry if I came off that way. I am just a bit of a Shakespeare buff. No worries, m'dear.
Hey, I'm a professional entertainer. I make my living doing live shows, and I get invited to events to give lectures and workshops. I know I could do a presentation just as good as many people who do TED talks. That isn't arrogance, that's just honesty. Of course, nobody is about to ask me to do a TED talk, and even if asked I wouldn't know what to talk about. However, if I picked a subject, I know I could do a great talk on that subject. It's what I do.
Comments
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2260956154287964220
There are scholars that also believe Shakespeare was not real. Others do think Shakespeare was real. Does it really matter in the end?
There was still somebody out there that wrote those things.
Whoever wrote about Jesus, whether he was real or not, was just a Jewish guy looking for some social and moral changes to happen within Judaism. There is nothing about seeking to start a new religion--although that's what ended up happening over time.
Personally, I figure that a guy named Jesus did exist, but you're welcome to disagree. I also think that arguing any further about it would be really pointless.
Outside of Christian literature, there is basically zero evidence that any such man existed.
But the key phrase there is, "We understand the world well enough today."
They didn't understand the world as well back then.
Moreover, "We" includes only some of the modern population. A lot of people today still don't understand. It's hard to grasp these things, for many people. It's much more sensational to a simple mind if you add magic. Blind faith in something bigger than you is easier than taking it upon yourself.
And on the Jesus real or not bit, I really don't know for sure if he was one guy or 50-- but it came from somewhere. We could call the authors Jesus for all I care. I don't care who it really was, or how many there were-- just as I don't care who was really Shakespear, or how many men he may have been. I really think it's pointless.
It is historical, however, that those pages were written, and written with a goal, by somebody. Jesus represents a number of ideas that undoubtedly became a huge phenomenon, and eventually twisted into modern religion. It's really pointless to argue about a technical issue like that when it won't change the result at all. Either way, the religious population won't believe either of us because they're convinced that he's part of some triad of God. It is pointless to argue on that, and I'm done on that topic after this post.
As someone who actually enjoys studying this and other questions regarding the Bible and early Christianity, the only honest position I can take is Jesus-agnosticism. Someone may have existed call Jesus, or maybe not. However, with the evidence we have now it is impossible to prove one way or another, and it doesn't look like more evidence is on its way. Thankfully, due to not being a Christian, I have no horse in this race. However, this doesn't mean we should just close down the debate, nor should we let assertions either way stand unchallenged.
More specifically, I find the debate among atheists about this kind of topic happens at such a low level. For a start, the debate is always framed by the religious view of the matter, and the discussion moves on from there. For example: What the hell? Mortal? Long dead? Why are these factors even mentioned? And stories being stretched into miracles over time? How about the fact that in the writings attributed to Paul, Jesus was never portrayed as a person who even existed on our Earthly realm at all?
The best way is to start with the text. Then work out when the individual texts were written, the background of each passage, with what agenda, and by what kind of person they were written. At that stage we can start looking at the contents of the text itself, and try to tease out any pieces which may refer to real people. Some people in the New Testament were real, probably, although even then it is very hard to see who is who, due to names and locations and even genders being changed.
If you start with the "facts" and work towards what is in the text, you are going about the whole exercise wrong. Of course none of the four Gospels were written by anyone with even a passing knowledge of Judea at the time of Jesus. Jesus is called a Rabi, when Rabi didn't exist until after the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora, circa 70-80 CE. Also Jesus is said to be from Nazareth, when the town didn't exist at the time of his life, and only became established after that same diaspora event...
Man, I could do a great TED talk about this topic...
Your argument, on this particular point fails for two reasons. 1) It is factually unsound. 2) You are pointing to another, completely unrelated circumstance that has no bearing on your case.
There are many more points to be addressed in your argument, but as someone that has studied Shakespeare in depth, including studying at the new Globe, I felt I had to weigh in on this particular point.
There is no way to prove any of it at this point-- so I don't want to waste time researching others' research when I could be researching educational technology, or something else pertinent to my life and goals.
I'm not even religious, and yet some of you are still ganging up and questioning my intelligence. I take back what I said about one side being less pushy. People are prone to being pushy whether religious or atheist, if you happen to mention an opinion that they disagree with. Some of you have even been blatantly insulting, and I don't care to subject myself to that. I've learned my lesson. Your majority is authority and I'll keep my mouth shut next time I have a very slightly different take on xyz.
@Kate
I never said I didn't believe Shakespeare existed. I think he was real. Nonetheless, I'm sorry I may have upset you by getting my statement about some scholars partially wrong.
*EDIT*
@Judith -- You just made this thread awesome. Everything is better with Pink Unicorns. I DO believe they sparkled, after all. I hope that doesn't upset anyone....
The fact is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people simply presume Jesus to be a historic figure, and some then look into it further and find out he might not have been. If we keep bringing this topic up, and keep the discussion going, and bring the question into the mainstream, maybe the next generation will grow up with their views on certain questions of ancient history untainted with the (to put it bluntly) lies that come packaged with our Christian heritage.
To admit defeat, and to let the entire debate be shaped by those who are wrong, isn't something I'm interested in. You know what? Fuck you!