FSTDT Forums

Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on April 27, 2014, 05:05:22 pm

Title: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on April 27, 2014, 05:05:22 pm
I feel like "fundamentalist" is a bit of an inaccurate term for Christian extremists. The fundamentals of Christianity are "believe in Jesus and you're saved eternally". "Fundamentalist" Christians are the ones who reject those fundamental ideals, saying that you have to go through all sorts of extra things or else you won't be saved. There's a reason why al-Qaeda are referred to as "extremists": they take simple guidelines to their logical extremes, outright rejecting other ones. That's essentially what fundamentalist Christians do, but for some reason they get a different label.
Title: Re: Should Fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on April 27, 2014, 05:05:56 pm
Sorry, accidentally posted this on the wrong board.  Could a mod please move this to the religion forums?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: fancy_kitten on April 27, 2014, 05:20:31 pm
I did always find it a little weird that the term 'fundamentalist' just sort of stuck when referring to the more crazy/harmful members of various faiths, and I can see why the kinder, more level-headed members of religious groups would be kind of offended that being a dick is apparently seen as being fundamental to their faith.  I don't know, maybe we should propose a new term for them.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 27, 2014, 06:21:02 pm
We used to distinguish between "fundie" and "fundamentalist" but then that kinda fell by the wayside (it was more because fundies describe themselves as fundamentalists, hence why we turned that word into a negative word)

A better word I've heard was "rigorist", coined by someone who wanted to refer to the fundamentalists of spiritualities that didn't have "fundamentals" to begin with.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Id82 on April 27, 2014, 08:02:52 pm
It is kind of true. Seeing as a lot of Christians tend to follow the words of Paul instead of Jesus.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: fancy_kitten on April 27, 2014, 08:05:10 pm
Even then, they tend to do a pretty shoddy job of it.  Verses like "God gave us faith hope and love, and the greatest of those three things is love P.S. Kitten doesn't feel like looking up the exact verse but come on you know it's in there" don't exactly lend themselves well to the "God Hates Fags" movement.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on April 27, 2014, 10:09:07 pm
It is kind of true. Seeing as a lot of Christians tend to follow the words of Paul instead of Jesus.
Actually, they may not even be following Paul's words.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are three short books included in the New Testament.  They're purportedly written by St. Paul, but nearly 100% of scripture scholars doubt that - the writing style doesn't match Paul's other work (lots of writers at the time signed their work with well-known names so that it would get read).  However, it appears that the three books were composed by the same guy, who was writing with the objective of establishing a male-dominated hierarchy in the early church.  It's some deeply misogynist shit.

Throw out those books, and the New Testament is remarkably egalitarian on gender given that most of it was written in the first century.  If only they hadn't ended up in the canon...
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: fancy_kitten on April 27, 2014, 10:14:29 pm
I wish the Gospel of Thomas had ended up in canon, it was so cool.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Sigmaleph on April 27, 2014, 10:18:05 pm
I feel like "fundamentalist" is a bit of an inaccurate term for Christian extremists. The fundamentals of Christianity are "believe in Jesus and you're saved eternally". "Fundamentalist" Christians are the ones who reject those fundamental ideals, saying that you have to go through all sorts of extra things or else you won't be saved.

See, the problem is that there is no general agreement on what  the fundamentals of Christianity are. Can you really say that it is "believe in Jesus and you're saved eternally" when the Catholic Church (i.e. the  institution which in theory determines dogma for about half of all Christians) doesn't accept sola fide?

Fundamentalists originally called themselves that because they believed they were the ones going back to the true fundamentals of Christianity, which were under attack by modern liberal Christians. And I'm sure liberal Christians think that's all backwards and they are the ones who really understand the fundamentals, and either group could've claimed the name. But it's the other group that did, and now the phrase "fundamentalist Christian" has come to be associated with them. Language is shaped by that sort of historical accident all the time.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 27, 2014, 10:28:36 pm
It is kind of true. Seeing as a lot of Christians tend to follow the words of Paul instead of Jesus.
Actually, they may not even be following Paul's words.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are three short books included in the New Testament.  They're purportedly written by St. Paul, but nearly 100% of scripture scholars doubt that - the writing style doesn't match Paul's other work (lots of writers at the time signed their work with well-known names so that it would get read).  However, it appears that the three books were composed by the same guy, who was writing with the objective of establishing a male-dominated hierarchy in the early church.  It's some deeply misogynist shit.

Throw out those books, and the New Testament is remarkably egalitarian on gender given that most of it was written in the first century.  If only they hadn't ended up in the canon...

It's interesting to note that, aside from Acts (which was written by a different author as well), it becomes apparent that Paul (the real one... supposedly) didn't believe in a literal Jesus Christ, and instead was a proponent of Gnosticism, which was a prevailing... I wanna say "cult" during the time period, if only to refer to the size of the constituents rather than the mentality.

And also, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John were written by vastly different people who lived long after the eponymous apostles.  Matt/Mark/Luke were based off of one supposed account, and John was based off of a different account.

And a lot of things in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) are more like annotations of what was already written there, that ended up being rolled into what was actually written.

In short, half the book is a clusterfuck upon clutserfock.  And then the other half was stolen from Judaism, so... yeah.

Apologies if I offended, but I've done some hefty research on the subject myself.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Barbarella on April 27, 2014, 10:51:07 pm
That's why I stopped using "Fundie" and started using "Frummer" or variations thereof (Frum, Frummie, Frumster, etc.). Frummer is yiddish for "Overly religious fanatic nutso".

Likewise, I invented terms like "ethnicist" & "ethnibigot" to replace "racism/racist". Race is a stupid term. "Ethnicity" is more accurate & needs to have it's meaning expanded. "Race" only adds division & implies "different species" or "subspecies". There's only one human race.....HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: fancy_kitten on April 27, 2014, 11:42:28 pm
It is kind of true. Seeing as a lot of Christians tend to follow the words of Paul instead of Jesus.
Actually, they may not even be following Paul's words.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are three short books included in the New Testament.  They're purportedly written by St. Paul, but nearly 100% of scripture scholars doubt that - the writing style doesn't match Paul's other work (lots of writers at the time signed their work with well-known names so that it would get read).  However, it appears that the three books were composed by the same guy, who was writing with the objective of establishing a male-dominated hierarchy in the early church.  It's some deeply misogynist shit.

Throw out those books, and the New Testament is remarkably egalitarian on gender given that most of it was written in the first century.  If only they hadn't ended up in the canon...

It's interesting to note that, aside from Acts (which was written by a different author as well), it becomes apparent that Paul (the real one... supposedly) didn't believe in a literal Jesus Christ, and instead was a proponent of Gnosticism, which was a prevailing... I wanna say "cult" during the time period, if only to refer to the size of the constituents rather than the mentality.

And also, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John were written by vastly different people who lived long after the eponymous apostles.  Matt/Mark/Luke were based off of one supposed account, and John was based off of a different account.

And a lot of things in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) are more like annotations of what was already written there, that ended up being rolled into what was actually written.

In short, half the book is a clusterfuck upon clutserfock.  And then the other half was stolen from Judaism, so... yeah.

Apologies if I offended, but I've done some hefty research on the subject myself.

Huh, I never heard that before but that's really interesting.  Where did you learn all that?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 27, 2014, 11:51:59 pm
It is kind of true. Seeing as a lot of Christians tend to follow the words of Paul instead of Jesus.
Actually, they may not even be following Paul's words.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are three short books included in the New Testament.  They're purportedly written by St. Paul, but nearly 100% of scripture scholars doubt that - the writing style doesn't match Paul's other work (lots of writers at the time signed their work with well-known names so that it would get read).  However, it appears that the three books were composed by the same guy, who was writing with the objective of establishing a male-dominated hierarchy in the early church.  It's some deeply misogynist shit.

Throw out those books, and the New Testament is remarkably egalitarian on gender given that most of it was written in the first century.  If only they hadn't ended up in the canon...

It's interesting to note that, aside from Acts (which was written by a different author as well), it becomes apparent that Paul (the real one... supposedly) didn't believe in a literal Jesus Christ, and instead was a proponent of Gnosticism, which was a prevailing... I wanna say "cult" during the time period, if only to refer to the size of the constituents rather than the mentality.

And also, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John were written by vastly different people who lived long after the eponymous apostles.  Matt/Mark/Luke were based off of one supposed account, and John was based off of a different account.

And a lot of things in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) are more like annotations of what was already written there, that ended up being rolled into what was actually written.

In short, half the book is a clusterfuck upon clutserfock.  And then the other half was stolen from Judaism, so... yeah.

Apologies if I offended, but I've done some hefty research on the subject myself.

Huh, I never heard that before but that's really interesting.  Where did you learn all that?

Oh shoot, I forget his name...

He's a researcher who did a lot of research on the history of Christianity, how it formed, the likelihood of Jesus' existence, etc.  He's also an atheist who voluntarily attends an episcopal church because he enjoys it.

Truth be told, it was all awhile ago, so take what I said with a grain of salt.

Which you should be doing anyways.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Vypernight on April 28, 2014, 04:46:03 am
I just call them all Cultists.  It fits better.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Rime on April 28, 2014, 07:31:20 am
The term Fundamentalist arose from a movement in 1920's America which set about the "Five Fundaments of the Christian faith"

Quote
FIVE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH
There are five fundamentals of the faith which are essential for Christianity, and
upon which we agree:
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
(John 1:1; John 20:28;Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7;Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians
15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4;2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).

And those who disagree with any of the above doctrines are not Christians at all.  Rather, they are the true heretics. So disagreements are perfectly acceptable within the confines of Christianity, because our salvation does not hinge upon doctrines other than the above five.
But if some deny even one of the five fundamentals mentioned above, they have departed from the faith, "giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils"

That last sentence is the place where Fundamentalist takes on a whole new meaning.  Because the Scriptures are inerrant, they can be used to justify anything as long as there's a Scripture to support it.  Ironically, making a Fundamentalist look a whole lot more like a Pharisee than a crazy rabbi who broke a bunch of dogmas because the Law was used to oppress as supposed to assist.  Or more bumper-stickery:

The Law was intended to give power to people, but it became power over people.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: mellenORL on April 28, 2014, 11:15:03 am
Biblical Literalists, or, Scriptural Dogmatists? Mostly because the word "Christian" is left out of either term. "Biblical" automatically infers Christianity, since the term "Bible" is exclusive to Christianity, so I like the first term for being specific and indicative, yet it tacitly also avoids implying a taint against non-fanatical Christians by not using the term "Christian" or "Christianity" overtly. Anyway, that's my outsider opinion, as an atheist.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 28, 2014, 01:31:25 pm
I just call them all Cultists.  It fits better.

Too much baggage, I prefer to just call them morons.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Old Viking on April 28, 2014, 03:28:44 pm
@Magus Silveresti: Bart Ehrman may be your source. 
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 28, 2014, 05:41:40 pm
@Magus Silveresti: Bart Ehrman may be your source. 

That sounds familiar, thanks.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on April 29, 2014, 07:45:07 pm
Does anyone really believe in Biblical Literacy anymore?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: fancy_kitten on April 29, 2014, 08:02:00 pm
Biblical literacy or Biblical Literalism? 
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on April 29, 2014, 08:16:27 pm
Biblical Literalism (and no-one believes in my literacy anymore)
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 29, 2014, 08:26:39 pm
Does anyone really believe in Biblical Literalism anymore?

In the past month I've argued with four different fundies that believe in a literal Word of God, and that it's the KJV version of the Bible, and no other.

So... yes.  Yes they do.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on April 29, 2014, 09:07:41 pm
How do they determine what stories are parables?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: mellenORL on April 29, 2014, 09:52:59 pm
They don't. Their world view is; holy magic! And miracles happened in Bible TimesR
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on April 29, 2014, 10:00:06 pm
I find that they still arent complete literalists because they inavariably havent given all their money to the poor and consider Mark 10.25 and Matthew 19.24 - That it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter heaven - as a metaphor.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 29, 2014, 10:39:14 pm
I find that they still arent complete literalists because they inavariably havent given all their money to the poor and consider Mark 10.25 and Matthew 19.24 - That it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter heaven - as a metaphor.

Then perhaps I should amend my statement to say: "They believe in a literal Bible (as told to them by their pastors)"
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Sigmaleph on April 30, 2014, 04:52:26 pm
I find that they still arent complete literalists because they inavariably havent given all their money to the poor and consider Mark 10.25 and Matthew 19.24 - That it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter heaven - as a metaphor.

It's one of those cases where it's important to distinguish levels of belief. If you ask a Biblical literalist whether the Bible is literally true, they will honestly* answer "yes". If you then ask them some obscure detail about the number of warriors slain at the Battle of Fill-in-the-blanks, they might give you an answer that doesn't correspond to scripture. It might be that any answer they could give you doesn't correspond with scripture because the Bible is self-contradictory on that point. If you want to argue that they are not really biblical literalists because they have beliefs inconsistent with a literal bible, I'd probably shrug and say "meh, semantics" (or, depending how much I want to argue, I'd make some sort of comment about how humans in general will often have beliefs that are inconsistent with other beliefs because we are not logically omniscient).

*This is one of those times where "being honest" and "telling the truth" don't mean the same thing.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on April 30, 2014, 07:25:27 pm
I find that they still arent complete literalists because they inavariably havent given all their money to the poor and consider Mark 10.25 and Matthew 19.24 - That it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter heaven - as a metaphor.

It's one of those cases where it's important to distinguish levels of belief. If you ask a Biblical literalist whether the Bible is literally true, they will honestly* answer "yes". If you then ask them some obscure detail about the number of warriors slain at the Battle of Fill-in-the-blanks, they might give you an answer that doesn't correspond to scripture. It might be that any answer they could give you doesn't correspond with scripture because the Bible is self-contradictory on that point. If you want to argue that they are not really biblical literalists because they have beliefs inconsistent with a literal bible, I'd probably shrug and say "meh, semantics" (or, depending how much I want to argue, I'd make some sort of comment about how humans in general will often have beliefs that are inconsistent with other beliefs because we are not logically omniscient).

*This is one of those times where "being honest" and "telling the truth" don't mean the same thing.


Apart from the fact that this is not something which appears to be directly contradicted by anything else in the bible. Nor is it something which is obscure, it is one of the best known passages in the Bible. The reason I used it is because I have often seen people who were otherwise Biblical literalist who believed in the inerrant word of God, and who also believed that they were abiding by it and not in sin. However once you bring up this passage they always say its an allegory, or is to show that with God anything is possible. It is a passage clearly misread so that they can accumulate wealth without feeling in Sin.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 30, 2014, 07:31:34 pm
Fundies tend to be hypocrites.  Is that surprising?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on April 30, 2014, 07:45:01 pm
No but it still gives me the irrits. I would just like it if there was more to their motivation than simply ignoring the bit that stops them getting rich. In any event I think Biblical Literalism (and Biblical Inerrancy) are the province of the intellectual lazy, dishonest or incapable. I really don't see why you can't have your Religion (be it Christianity or Islam or whatever) without believing in an inerrant and literal Bible. But then again I have trouble conceiving of a Omnisicient, Ominipotent AND benevolent Deity. Some fundies come pretty close to dispensing with the benevolence by basically asserting because he's God (I use he because these fundies invariably make god male) Whatever he does is good and he can do what he wants.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on April 30, 2014, 08:07:20 pm
No but it still gives me the irrits. I would just like it if there was more to their motivation than simply ignoring the bit that stops them getting rich. In any event I think Biblical Literalism (and Biblical Inerrancy) are the province of the intellectual lazy, dishonest or incapable. I really don't see why you can't have your Religion (be it Christianity or Islam or whatever) without believing in an inerrant and literal Bible.

There are plenty that are Christian without believing in a literal/inerrant Bible, but even they aren't immune to being intellectually dishonest (especially when they start using No True Scotsmen arguments)

Quote
But then again I have trouble conceiving of a Omnisicient, Ominipotent AND benevolent Deity. Some fundies come pretty close to dispensing with the benevolence by basically asserting because he's God (I use he because these fundies invariably make god male) Whatever he does is good and he can do what he wants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpaRouocBes

"I can do no wrong, for I do not know what it is."

From what I've heard, the story that this was based on was, basically, Mark Twain criticizing the Christian God, but calling him "Satan" to drive his point home.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 01, 2014, 09:11:19 pm
One thing I have been thnking of is do you believe that there was a historical Jesus Christ. Is it necessary to believe in the Historicity of Jesus to be a Christian?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 01, 2014, 09:15:21 pm
One thing I have been thnking of is do you believe that there was a historical Jesus Christ. Is it necessary to believe in the Historicity of Jesus to be a Christian?
That's a good question.  Or at least it would be if there was any debate about Jesus's historicity.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 01, 2014, 09:36:40 pm
So you take the view that the Historicty of Jesus has been conclusively resolved? 

Here is an interesting article from rationalwiki - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ)

While it is definitely in the minority position there is still plenty of scholars who believe in ahistoricity.

Here are some interesting excerpts:

"I often read that most scholars think Jesus existed

What most historians and scholars think (as stated above) is that a human named Jesus was the seed for the Christian myths. But, it would be factually wrong to suggest that "most scholars think the Christ existed" — a seed is not the same as the myth.

The term "scholar" can be a weasel word. It's worth asking the question "Who is this scholar, and what are his investments in the issue?" If he is a theologian, then it is worth asking "Would this theologian ever be able to even say that the Christ did not exist, or would his theological underpinnings prevent him from saying that?" When apologists quote scholars or 'experts' of Jesus' historicity, they are often quoting theologians whose focus is theology, and whose vestment in the argument is clear.[185] Further, those who have a bias towards not challenging the theology as they know it have often preselected the texts that are "canon" and "authentic"[186]

Hector Avalos details the differences between the seminary and secular streams of Bible-related study in his 2007 book The End of Biblical Studies, which had some impact on the field.[187] It should be noted that some apologists for a historical Jesus are fundamentalists such as Lee Strobel who are rarely taken seriously in mainstream academia. Others are liberal Christians such as Marcus Borg, or flat-out agnostics such as Bart Ehrman and Robert Grant who are more respected in mainstream academic circles (there are also quite a few Jewish New Testament scholars such as Amy Jill-Levine or Geza Vermes). Even taking scholars like Ehrman into account, mythicists such as Richard Carrier believe that the methodology of Jesus-related historical studies is of a much lower standard than the methodology of other historical study of comparable periods.[6]

Historians who are skeptical of the historicity of Jesus are often painted by theologians and apologists as fringe lunatics. However, these arguments rarely go beyond ad hominem attacks.[188][189] However, secular historians can also be critical of the mythicist position. In his recent book Did Jesus Exist?, Bart Ehrman distinguishes between mythicists whom he regards as flat-out pseudo-historians (such as Tim Freke) and those he regards as responsible mythicists such as Robert Price or Richard Carrier. He regards the latter as playing by the proper rules of historical inquiry, while the former simply make up facts to support wild surmises. However, Ehrman regards even Price's views as ultimately unconvincing and as therefore "fringe" in the sense of being believed by a very small percentage of scholars. "

And this highlights the problem of defiining what is meant by Historicity:

"American historian Richard Carrier writes:
One could say that Jesus was an insignificant, illiterate, itinerant preacher with a tiny following, who went wholly unnoticed by any literate person in Judaea. However, this would not bode well for anyone who wished to maintain he was God, or did any of the more amazing things attributed to him. It is very implausible, for instance, that a biography would be written for the obscure itinerant philosopher Demonax in his own lifetime (by Lucian), yet God Incarnate, or a Great Miracle Worker who riled up all Judaea with talk, should inspire nothing like it until decades after his death. And though several historians wrote on Judaean affairs in the early 1st century (not just Josephus and Tacitus, but several others no longer extant), none apparently mentioned Jesus (see the Secular Web library on Historicity). Certainly, had anyone done so, the passages would probably have been lovingly preserved by 2nd century Christians, or else inspired angry rebuttals.

For instance, the attacks of Celsus, Hierocles, and Porphyry, though destroyed by Christians and thus no longer extant (another example of the peculiar problem of Christian history discussed above), nevertheless remain attested in the defenses written by Origen, Eusebius, and Macerius Magnes. But no earlier attacks are attested. There is no mention of Christians in Plutarch's attack On Superstition, nor a rebuttal to any attack on Christianity in Seneca's lost work On Superstition (which ruthlessly attacked pagans and Jews, as attested in book 10 of Augustine's City of God), so it seems evident Christians got no mention even there, in a text against alien cults, by a man who would have witnessed the Neronian persecution of 64 CE (alternatively, the fact that this is the only work of Seneca's not to be preserved, despite the fact that Christians must surely have been keen to preserve an anti-pagan text by a renowned pagan, might mean it contained some damning anti-Christian material and was suppressed, though Augustine clearly had access to the work and says nothing about such content). All of this suggests a troubling dichotomy for believers: either Jesus was a nobody (and therefore not even special, much less the Son of God) or he did not exist.[199]"

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Besides which most people writing about Jesus are still Christian Theologians, most of whom have a somewhat obvious interest in affirming his Historicity and most of the arguments devolve into - the Argument from Silence is not a good argument.

Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 01, 2014, 09:43:15 pm
Really?  I'd always assumed that Jesus's existence was pretty firmly established.  Shows what I know.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 01, 2014, 10:00:07 pm
There is a mystifying absence of non-biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. There are some forgeries and interpolations (Like that to Josephus) and there are reference to Christian sects but significantly after when Jesus is meant to have lived and died.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 01, 2014, 10:11:06 pm
There is a mystifying absence of non-biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. There are some forgeries and interpolations (Like that to Josephus) and there are reference to Christian sects but significantly after when Jesus is meant to have lived and died.
Really?  Well, in antiquity, the Romans never bothered to deny Jesus's existence.  You'd think that would have been a major tactic used.  And while Josephus's reference to Jesus may not be authentic in its entirety, most believe that he really did reference Jesus.  Tacitus also referenced Jesus.  The Talmud, which attempts to discredit Jesus, does not even try to pretend Jesus never existed.

Besides, why would Christians imagine such an undignified death for their greatest figure?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 01, 2014, 10:19:08 pm
Why not read the article I posted in its entirety? Contemporary Romans may not have denied his existence as they did not even know that he existed. Nor would they have felt a particular need to deny one messiah or miracle worker when the mediteranean of antiquity abounded with them. Why does Paul never mention any acts of a historical person or refer to his sermons  -even after apparently meeting with Jesus's brother James. Paul's epistles are the earliest dated writings of the New Testament and Paul expressly gains his knowledge of Jesus from mystical revelation.




Tacitus writes generations after Jesus is meant to have died. And as for his reference to Chrestus :

The assumption that "Chrestus" must refer to Jesus and "Chrestians" to his followers is a prime example of the Miner issue on the historical Jesus side of the argument. Not only was "Chrestus" a familiar personal name meaning "good" or "useful",[20][21], but it was also a name of the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis,[22] who had a large following in Rome, especially among the common people.
Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians (Chrestians), and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ (Chrestus) are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian (Chrestian) presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ (Chrestus). They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle.[23][24]

Hence pagan references to "Christians" or "Chrestians" may be to followers of the pagan god Serapis (Chrestus) and not Jesus.

The only real argument against this letter is that it appears in Historia Augusta which "In modern times most scholars read the work as a piece of deliberate mystification written much later than its purported date, however the fundamentalist view still has distinguished support. (...) The Historia Augusta is also, unfortunately, the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution."[25] So the source is of questionable quality but it is basically all the historian has to work with so they are stuck with it.

However, it should be mentioned that in Panarion 29 Epiphanius in the 4th century expressly states "this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but Natzraya." a term that was applied to all followers of Jesus. He then relates that they were even called Jessaeans for a time. Compounding matters is that Tiberius in 19 CE expelled Jewish and Egyptian worshipers from Rome[26] which would have logically included worshipers of Serapis (Chrestus). Moreover early Christian authorities like Tertullian go to great pains in explaining that Christian and Chrestian were two different words with entirely different meanings and were not variants of each other[27], a claim supported by the evidence.[28][29]

It has also been suggested that "Chrestus" refers to a would-be messiah unrelated to Jesus.[30]

Another issue is Chrestos had been used as an adjective and even a title going back to the 5th century BCE and appears on tombs before, during, and after the supposed time of "Christ"[31][32]

Finally no Bible contains the actual term Christian (ie quite literally anointed men) until near the midpoint of the 5th century in the Codex Alexandrinus. Before that the term is Chrestian (or quite literally good men) a generic term used by many other groups and yet the term Christ is used.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nor is the Talmudic reference to Jesus contempory. It is dated to the 2nd Century CE.

Edit: As to the dignity of his death perhaps as part of a Mystical Revelation cult it was just a modern updating for the death of the Attis/Adonis figure. As for dignity at least he wasn't castrated, like Attis or Cronus. Yet they were chosen to worship.

Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 01, 2014, 10:28:30 pm
I understand your points, and the article's.  However, I have to say I disagree.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on May 01, 2014, 10:50:27 pm
One thing I have been thnking of is do you believe that there was a historical Jesus Christ. Is it necessary to believe in the Historicity of Jesus to be a Christian?

Depends on who's defining "Christian", I suppose.  Most would say "Yes, it is absolutely necessary", even many of the liberal ones, while only the most liberal would say "No, it is not necessary."

Meanwhile, in Greekland and Norseland, asking if the requirement is believing that the myths have to be literally true will get you a majority of "Hah, fuck no, they're stories told by bored men around campfires."

(And to no one's surprise, this doesn't solve a lot, if any, of the problems that come with those religions.)
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 02, 2014, 12:08:13 am
I understand your points, and the article's.  However, I have to say I disagree.


That's fine. There would be no contraversy if people were in furious agreement. The fact that you can't say why you disagree would suggest that it is because it conflicts with your belief as a Christian. But part of the problem with the field is that there is such an investment (really on BOTH sides of the debate). Putting it aside, if your belief were in a purely mystical Jesus could you still be a Christian?

Funnily enough it would appear that Zeus was originally the title for a sacred king which was sacraficed each year. Which is the origin of the saying "The cretans are liars" - the balance of the quote is "as they say you die oh lord Zeus".

Magus - that might be true of 'modern' pagans but was it true of pagans in antiquity?

Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on May 02, 2014, 12:17:42 am
Magus - that might be true of 'modern' pagans but was it true of pagans in antiquity?

I'm unsure.  I've heard it for ancient Greeks, but I cannot verify the source so it could be just bullshit.  The idea goes is that the Greeks loved stories and plays and such, and loved to use the gods as characters in their stories.

As far as the Norse go, we don't even know what their original mythology truly was before Christians came along and messed stuff up.  Ragnarok and Loki being a Satanic figure seem to be the monk Snorri's way of saying "Your gods are dead, our God came back from the dead, join us," but even then, that itself is speculation.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: fancy_kitten on May 02, 2014, 05:57:51 am
My understanding of the historicity of Jesus was always that He was barely known during His actual lifetime, which is why we've got so little empirical evidence.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 02, 2014, 07:50:43 am
My understanding of the historicity of Jesus was always that He was barely known during His actual lifetime, which is why we've got so little empirical evidence.

Which is why I quoted the Carrier quote which ends thusly:

"All of this suggests a troubling dichotomy for believers: either Jesus was a nobody (and therefore not even special, much less the Son of God) or he did not exist."
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Canadian Mojo on May 02, 2014, 09:41:18 am
My understanding of the historicity of Jesus was always that He was barely known during His actual lifetime, which is why we've got so little empirical evidence.

Which is why I quoted the Carrier quote which ends thusly:

"All of this suggests a troubling dichotomy for believers: either Jesus was a nobody (and therefore not even special, much less the Son of God) or he did not exist."

A believer would probably be quick to reply with this quote: "Mighty oaks from little acorns grow."

...of course, that tends to lead directly into a discussion about biblical embellishment vs. its inerrancy.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 07, 2014, 08:57:58 pm
The problem is also that the Gospels portray him as making a big impact. There was an earthquake and an eclipse of the Sun. He had thousands of followers streaming about Judea. So to the extent that there was any itinerant preacher it seems difficult to accept that the Gospel accounts actually reflect his existence at all. What is more is that there is so little to Christianity that is original. The things which I considered to be innovative aren't so at all. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Rabbi Hillel circa 100 bc. The Eucharist meal , take this as it this bread is my body and drink this as this wine is my blood. - Mithraic Eucharist possibly 1000 years before christ.

You have to wonder what actual beliefs did Jesus inspire that weren't already kicking around the judeo-mediterranean world.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 07, 2014, 10:25:22 pm
On the other hand, you also have to take into account the fact that Jesus was almost completely different from what everybody expected the Messiah to be.  They thought He would come in the form of a great earthly king who would deliver them from the Romans.  Instead, He was a peacefully rebellious carpenter who died a humiliating death.

Also, I'm pretty sure the ideas of "blessed are the meek" and "love your enemy" are Christian originals.  Unless you have some sources to show me otherwise.

Speaking of which, I'd like some sources for the other things you just said.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on May 07, 2014, 10:38:34 pm
The best account for Jesus I've read is that the "Jesus of the Bible" is more likely a combination of the various self-proclaimed prophets of the age, all mixed together with some classic "bigger than mythology" stuff sprinkled into the mix.  Ta-da, instant self-contradicting "messiah".
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 07, 2014, 10:51:08 pm
The best account for Jesus I've read is that the "Jesus of the Bible" is more likely a combination of the various self-proclaimed prophets of the age, all mixed together with some classic "bigger than mythology" stuff sprinkled into the mix.  Ta-da, instant self-contradicting "messiah".
I have to disagree.  Just about every organized religion that puts real importance on Earth had a living, breathing figurehead at one point.  Muhammad, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Haile Selassie, the list goes on and on.  Sociologists have noted this.  So it stands to reason that at some point, there was a historical Jesus.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on May 07, 2014, 10:56:56 pm
No offense, but considering how badly Christian archaeologists distorted the facts of what they found, I'm not likely to believe there is a historical Jesus.  Not to mention the, you know, lack of evidence.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 07, 2014, 10:57:56 pm
No offense, but considering how badly Christian archaeologists distorted the facts of what they found, I'm not likely to believe there is a historical Jesus.  Not to mention the, you know, lack of evidence.
Could you please elaborate on these "distortions"?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on May 07, 2014, 11:07:55 pm
No offense, but considering how badly Christian archaeologists distorted the facts of what they found, I'm not likely to believe there is a historical Jesus.  Not to mention the, you know, lack of evidence.
Could you please elaborate on these "distortions"?

Namely, they fall into the classic trap - they decide to look for something biblical, then declare that it's related to the bible as soon as they find the closest thing that fits.

Instead of looking for something, then doing research to find out what it really is.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 07, 2014, 11:09:19 pm
On the other hand, you also have to take into account the fact that Jesus was almost completely different from what everybody expected the Messiah to be.  They thought He would come in the form of a great earthly king who would deliver them from the Romans.  Instead, He was a peacefully rebellious carpenter who died a humiliating death.

Also, I'm pretty sure the ideas of "blessed are the meek" and "love your enemy" are Christian originals.  Unless you have some sources to show me otherwise.

Speaking of which, I'd like some sources for the other things you just said.

I provided you links before and I sincerely doubt that you read them. Which sources do you want? Rabbi Hillel or the Mithraic Eucharist. Or the various dates?

If you posit that there must be someone real behind it are you suggesting that there was a real Cronus, Zeus, Centaur, Dionysis, Hercules, Lycurgus, Mithras, Isis, Osiris etc?

Which would suggest that there needs to be a charasmatic figure behind it, not necessarily that the figure is the focus of the religion needs to have existed. Which gives you Paul, who never physically met Jesus, quoted any of his sayings and states that he receives his knowledge through divine revelation. Who just happens to have the earliest extant Christian writings. So perhaps there need not be a historical Jesus but there would need to be a historical Paul.

As for the humilating death, well actually the idea of an 'Atoning death' had been around for possibly a millenia prior to Christ, Astarte and Tammuz, Attis, Mithras, Adonis etc.

UP, you identify as a Christian, if there was no historical christ would that affect your faith? As it is you can only know a spiritual christ anyway. Does it really matter whether Mark (who if he was who he was meant to be) wrote down the recollections of Peter or whether he was divinely inspired, as I assume you believe Paul was?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 07, 2014, 11:21:57 pm
No offense, but your arguments seem rather weak.  Borderline negationism, in fact.

Maybe Jesus's history was twisted by his disciples.  On the other hand, Plato probably made his own alterations to the work of Socrates, either by accident or on purpose.  Does that mean Socrates didn't exist?

I agree, we should not take it for granted that Jesus existed.  However, a lack of hard evidence doesn't mean it's not true. 

Honestly, I think a lot of Jesus-doubters have the opposite problem.  Remember the James Ossuary scandal?

On the other hand, you also have to take into account the fact that Jesus was almost completely different from what everybody expected the Messiah to be.  They thought He would come in the form of a great earthly king who would deliver them from the Romans.  Instead, He was a peacefully rebellious carpenter who died a humiliating death.

Also, I'm pretty sure the ideas of "blessed are the meek" and "love your enemy" are Christian originals.  Unless you have some sources to show me otherwise.

Speaking of which, I'd like some sources for the other things you just said.

I provided you links before and I sincerely doubt that you read them. Which sources do you want? Rabbi Hillel or the Mithraic Eucharist. Or the various dates?

If you posit that there must be someone real behind it are you suggesting that there was a real Cronus, Zeus, Centaur, Dionysis, Hercules, Lycurgus, Mithras, Isis, Osiris etc?

Which would suggest that there needs to be a charasmatic figure behind it, not necessarily that the figure is the focus of the religion needs to have existed. Which gives you Paul, who never physically met Jesus, quoted any of his sayings and states that he receives his knowledge through divine revelation. Who just happens to have the earliest extant Christian writings. So perhaps there need not be a historical Jesus but there would need to be a historical Paul.

As for the humilating death, well actually the idea of an 'Atoning death' had been around for possibly a millenia prior to Christ, Astarte and Tammuz, Attis, Mithras, Adonis etc.

UP, you identify as a Christian, if there was no historical christ would that affect your faith? As it is you can only know a spiritual christ anyway. Does it really matter whether Mark (who if he was who he was meant to be) wrote down the recollections of Peter or whether he was divinely inspired, as I assume you believe Paul was?
I did read them, and I took them into account when providing my arguments.

As for the other figures, you're missing my point.  Those religions did not have a major earthly "central figure" to them.  It would make more sense if you brought up the Buddha, Zoroaster, or somebody along those lines.

Would it affect my faith?  I honestly don't know.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 08, 2014, 12:23:11 am
So which part did you want a source for? Rabbi Hillel and the Golden Rule?

I still fail to see how Paul does not fit as the human being responsible? It was your argument that sociologists find that there is a real person behind the religion, please explain why it could not be Paul and his revelations? The writings of Paul are generally accepted as the earliest Christian writtings.

Honestly I don't know enough about Buddha to say whether or not there was a real Siddhartha. As for Zoraster, as far as I understood there was real doubt about whether or not there was an actual Prophet Zoraster in the same way there is a real doubt whether there was an actual human Moses or Abraham, Lao Tzu. Certainly I don't believe that anyone accepts that Moses authored the Pentateuch. The distance in time between when the stories were commited to writing and when the events were supposed to have happened in these cases are staggering.

Your suggestion that apart from the lack of evidence your arguments are weak reminds me of "what have the Romans ever done for us".  The fact is that the existence of a historical Jesus hinges on the Gospel of Mark (the other cannonical gospels being derivative of Mark). At best Mark was written decades after the death of Jesus and was recorded by a person who never met Jesus. If it attributes things to Jesus that we know come from elsewhere doesn't that rather suggest that Mark was basing at least that part of the story on something else? Does that not throw doubt on the entire work. Allegorical and fictional accounts were common at the time? Could not Mark  have been something in the same vein?

One of the great dificulties of determining the evidence of Jesus is the fact that from very early on Christians were destroying each others records and accusing each other of heresy. We know of many books which have not survived either because they were deliberately destroyed or because they were not copied. Even without there intentional destruction if a book was out of favour it would not be copied and would disappear.

Edit: As for the James Ossuary that seems to me just an indication of how frought this area is, apart from people having agendas to push there is the prospect of making substantial (I mean metric fucktons) amounts of money.


Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on May 08, 2014, 12:44:30 am
Honestly I don't know enough about Buddha to say whether or not there was a real Siddhartha.

Incidentally, from what I've read, Buddhists don't necessarily believe there was a real Siddhartha.  Or if there was one, they don't necessarily believe that all the mystical things that happened to him actually happened.

There's also supposedly tales of Siddhartha welcoming transpeople and homosexuals into his group, but like Siddhartha himself, those tales are up in the air about their legitimacy.

Buddhism is kind of a cool religion/philosophy, but like all religions and all philosophies, it has its fundies.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Canadian Mojo on May 08, 2014, 08:41:57 am
Which would suggest that there needs to be a charasmatic figure behind it, not necessarily that the figure is the focus of the religion needs to have existed. Which gives you Paul, who never physically met Jesus, quoted any of his sayings and states that he receives his knowledge through divine revelation. Who just happens to have the earliest extant Christian writings. So perhaps there need not be a historical Jesus but there would need to be a historical Paul.

Paul - the L. Ron Hubbard/Joseph Smith of his day. <snicker>
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 08, 2014, 02:06:32 pm
So which part did you want a source for? Rabbi Hillel and the Golden Rule?

I still fail to see how Paul does not fit as the human being responsible? It was your argument that sociologists find that there is a real person behind the religion, please explain why it could not be Paul and his revelations? The writings of Paul are generally accepted as the earliest Christian writtings.

Honestly I don't know enough about Buddha to say whether or not there was a real Siddhartha. As for Zoraster, as far as I understood there was real doubt about whether or not there was an actual Prophet Zoraster in the same way there is a real doubt whether there was an actual human Moses or Abraham, Lao Tzu. Certainly I don't believe that anyone accepts that Moses authored the Pentateuch. The distance in time between when the stories were commited to writing and when the events were supposed to have happened in these cases are staggering.

Your suggestion that apart from the lack of evidence your arguments are weak reminds me of "what have the Romans ever done for us".  The fact is that the existence of a historical Jesus hinges on the Gospel of Mark (the other cannonical gospels being derivative of Mark). At best Mark was written decades after the death of Jesus and was recorded by a person who never met Jesus. If it attributes things to Jesus that we know come from elsewhere doesn't that rather suggest that Mark was basing at least that part of the story on something else? Does that not throw doubt on the entire work. Allegorical and fictional accounts were common at the time? Could not Mark  have been something in the same vein?

One of the great dificulties of determining the evidence of Jesus is the fact that from very early on Christians were destroying each others records and accusing each other of heresy. We know of many books which have not survived either because they were deliberately destroyed or because they were not copied. Even without there intentional destruction if a book was out of favour it would not be copied and would disappear.

Edit: As for the James Ossuary that seems to me just an indication of how frought this area is, apart from people having agendas to push there is the prospect of making substantial (I mean metric fucktons) amounts of money.
I have to give you credit: you make some damn good points.  However, I have to disagree with you about Paul.  Paul was very important, but he was never the central figure of any movement, in the way that Martin Luther and John Calvin were.  He was a major figure in Christianity, but he did not fit the profile.  If he did, he would have raised himself to a paramount position, or been raised there by others.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 08, 2014, 02:29:40 pm
Maybe Jesus's history was twisted by his disciples.  On the other hand, Plato probably made his own alterations to the work of Socrates, either by accident or on purpose.  Does that mean Socrates didn't exist?

Interesting choice of analogy, because "the historical Jesus" has its own version of the Socratic problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem)

For those that don't want to click that link, the Socratic problem is the difficulty in figuring out what Socrates' actual ideas were and separating them from those of Plato (and other sources). As far as I know there's no controversy over whether there was a person named Socrates who was sentenced to death in Athens in the year whatever BCE, which we might call a "historical Socrates". Then there's the character in Plato's dialogues, who is also named Socrates and was also sentenced to death, but this Socrates has some specific beliefs and makes some specific arguments, etc. Both Socrates were philosophers, but we only know the philosophy of Socrates-the-character. We can imagine it would be similar to that of the historical Socrates, but we don't actually know that.

So if I start talking about the philosophy of Socrates, am I talking about a real person or about a character in Plato's writings?

Analogously with Jesus. Let's say for the sake of the argument that everyone agrees that there was a guy named Jesus who founded Christianity around the first century CE, and call that person the historical Jesus. Great. But the figure of Jesus in the Bible also works miracles and teaches disciples and curses fig trees and whatnot. When people talk about Jesus nowadays, they are usually talking about a deity or a prophet or a religious teacher, and none of those things necessarily correspond to the historical character. If the words of Jesus in the Bible were wholly or partially made up by the gospel writers, then when you quote him and say "love your enemies", are you quoting Jesus-the-character or the historical founder of Christianity?

If it were the case that there was a Jesus-the-founder-of-Christianity, but he worked no miracles, was not the son of a god, and his teachings were not accurately reflected in the New Testament, is it still meaningful to call him "the historical Jesus"?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 08, 2014, 03:10:21 pm
Maybe Jesus's history was twisted by his disciples.  On the other hand, Plato probably made his own alterations to the work of Socrates, either by accident or on purpose.  Does that mean Socrates didn't exist?

Interesting choice of analogy, because "the historical Jesus" has its own version of the Socratic problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem)

For those that don't want to click that link, the Socratic problem is the difficulty in figuring out what Socrates' actual ideas were and separating them from those of Plato (and other sources). As far as I know there's no controversy over whether there was a person named Socrates who was sentenced to death in Athens in the year whatever BCE, which we might call a "historical Socrates". Then there's the character in Plato's dialogues, who is also named Socrates and was also sentenced to death, but this Socrates has some specific beliefs and makes some specific arguments, etc. Both Socrates were philosophers, but we only know the philosophy of Socrates-the-character. We can imagine it would be similar to that of the historical Socrates, but we don't actually know that.

So if I start talking about the philosophy of Socrates, am I talking about a real person or about a character in Plato's writings?

Analogously with Jesus. Let's say for the sake of the argument that everyone agrees that there was a guy named Jesus who founded Christianity around the first century CE, and call that person the historical Jesus. Great. But the figure of Jesus in the Bible also works miracles and teaches disciples and curses fig trees and whatnot. When people talk about Jesus nowadays, they are usually talking about a deity or a prophet or a religious teacher, and none of those things necessarily correspond to the historical character. If the words of Jesus in the Bible were wholly or partially made up by the gospel writers, then when you quote him and say "love your enemies", are you quoting Jesus-the-character or the historical founder of Christianity?

If it were the case that there was a Jesus-the-founder-of-Christianity, but he worked no miracles, was not the son of a god, and his teachings were not accurately reflected in the New Testament, is it still meaningful to call him "the historical Jesus"?
That's a good question.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Barbarella on May 09, 2014, 10:58:49 am
I see it this way, all scriptures are mythology. Mythology does not mean "not true". Mythology are fictitious stories that are written to provide various spiritual and/or ethical lessons or illustrations. Each character is a metaphor of something. Their actions & words are meant to reflect how the various forces of the universe or whatever work.

I approach it all like a lot of people approach Eastern Mythologies like Hinduism. The Deities are not literal superbeings floating around somewhere, they're simply archetypes of cosmic forces & principles meant to illustrate this sort of thing in a manner that people understand.

So, this Jesus character is a mythical figure meant to represent something or impart some higher knowledge. Whenever he was a real person or not is trivial. If he did exist, he probably had a different name. If any of these tales are highly embellished & mythologized takes on actual events, it's likely that most characters are actually written in pseudonyms. Their names changed to reflect their nature & as a plot point. Notice how a lot of Bible names describe the characters & their circumstances (even future ones)? I'll bet Jesus was loosely based on one or more of the various Jewish itinerant rebel/prophet types roaming the countryside at that time (with stuff from Mithras & whatnot tossed in).

In the end, to paraphrase The Book of Ecclesiastes, "It's all vanity". Hence why I'm an Eclectic NeoPagan. Scriptures are best seen as ahistorical myths & fables meant to impart Divine truths. But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book. Scriptures might provide some ideas & insight but they shouldn't be adhered to. I could care less.

Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 09, 2014, 08:40:14 pm
But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book.

I know what you mean, but my contrarian side just wants to invent the religion of bibliotheism and call that a heresy.

It's surprising how often my immediate reaction "invent a new religion just to make a point"
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: pyro on May 25, 2014, 02:51:52 pm
But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book.

If you don't know what it is, how can you know whether it can be put into a book or not?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on May 25, 2014, 03:22:17 pm
But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book.

If you don't know what it is, how can you know whether it can be put into a book or not?

I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "I may not know what the divine is, but I know what it isn't."
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Barbarella on May 26, 2014, 10:35:07 am
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 26, 2014, 12:15:02 pm
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.
Well said.  I doubt anybody really fits the idealized image people have of them, except for Mr. Rogers.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Barbarella on May 26, 2014, 12:36:17 pm
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.
Well said.  I doubt anybody really fits the idealized image people have of them, except for Mr. Rogers.

Indeed. Even an episode of The Simpsons agrees with me on this with the "Jedediah Springfield" episode.
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: davedan on May 26, 2014, 08:09:40 pm
Apart from the fact that no one goes around telling you to (renounce all pretence of knowledge/ regard our reality as a shadow of the true paradigmic truth - insert whatever here) because there really was a (socrates/ plato -insert person here). Apart from which an idea of whether a religion is based on mystery revelation or a charasmatic leader is essential not only for those who wish to understand the faith but those who are part of it. The whole idea changes a person's approach to that religion (not necessarily for the worse).

As for heroes not living up to their reputations, well that is because we are all human and we are all different. People give Jefferson a hard time because he fucked his slaves. The implication being that he was a rapist because they could not as a slave withold their consent. While it certainly doesn't paint a rosy picture of him it is now impossible to know the state of the relationship he had, unless of course we find something authentically from the slaves which gives their view.

Ghandi seemed to have a weird repressed sexuality which involved him liking to hang around teenage girls.  I don't think you can discount or should ignore everything else they have said or done because of this. The same way Clinton was still a very good president despite getting a blowjob.


There is some suggestion that Mother Teresa was in fact a fraud and did very little to help anyone while jetting around the world. Which would be a different category. But essentially the fact that a person is flawed, even terribly, just makes them human.

Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on May 26, 2014, 08:16:59 pm
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.
Well said.  I doubt anybody really fits the idealized image people have of them, except for Mr. Rogers.

Indeed. Even an episode of The Simpsons agrees with me on this with the "Jedediah Springfield" episode.
Is there anything The Simpsons hasn't done?
Title: Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
Post by: pyro on May 28, 2014, 09:38:22 pm
Apart from which an idea of whether a religion is based on mystery revelation or a charasmatic leader is essential not only for those who wish to understand the faith but those who are part of it. The whole idea changes a person's approach to that religion (not necessarily for the worse).

One of the most irritating religious ideas, almost as bad as the idea that everybody knows that the fundies are right and just won't admit it, is the idea that believing the supernatural claims of Christianity is harmless if you're wrong. People act on this stuff, and if you're not acting on it, you don't actually believe it. You will know the quality of a tree by the fruit it produces.