Is the Christian story a myth?

[Mystic]

What does a discussion about mythology as applied to Christian/Jewish sacred texts have to do with atheism? Never mind some amorphous single philosophy known as atheism. @Mendalla, dear philosophy major, do enlighten Berserk with some of the highlights of historical non-theistic BS?

Duh, in post 104 ninj. inserted into the "discussion of myth" the polemical claim that teaching religion as a coping mechanism isn't helpful in the world now," adding the ludicrous claim, "Not sure if Jesus existed--pretty sure he didn't." So a response to these claims is warranted.

And intellectual integrity? Let's all submit our posts to some sort of on-line religious forum journal review process shall we? You go first (and let us know when/where you find it, and whether they have a category called "pompous ancient wrinkly ass")

You need your penchant for such shrill mindless bluster to try to compensate for your lack of intellectual rigor in theological debate.

 

[ninj]

I expressed opinions. Opinions I stand by. I have no need to be considered correct by an internet troll about to implode from hubris..

 

[ninj]

In other words, "I (an atheist) have my deeply entrenched beliefs; so please don't confuse me with relevant facts."

Yup.

 

[Redbaron]

Well, there is the little matter of the intellectual integrity of atheistic philosophy, especially if one presumes to make critical claims about Christian theism.

Ah, I see. If they were bodyslamming Buddha, it wouldn't matter. But since it's Christian theism, then suddenly your "intellectual integrity" dander is raised. Other traditions, feel free to critically think about. MY traditions, hands off. Got it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Simply because there are no fundamentals to atheism, it is nothing more than being unconvinced a god exists. I have no believes either way, when it comes to a god/gods existence. I'm just not convinced. Because no one has ever met their burden in that regard. As said in post #83 whether one does, I could not possibly know. But that does not mean that one does. Not until the burden has been met. And I'm still waiting?
Oh and deist are theist too, (They have a god belief.) who haven't met their burden either.
You can only call them over zealous atheists. Nothing else is correct. Unless of course you are rewriting the dictionary?

In the case of non existentialism ... would that be on the other side of a barrier unseen to the conscious mind that by creed reduces the value of consciousness through degrading those that are of WOKE nature. Such characters cause a line between the absolutely sure of them selves and those that would ultimately question a great deal ... especially if the great deal was proposed by emperors of the monstrous kind that have sacred (hidden, Gnostic) agendas that the common folk shouldn't be aware of ... and thus the phoque are lored over and into where they shouldn't go ... but the did due to unknowing what was available ... thus folk lore'd eis? (the I before E rule being upended when at Zae)!

Some say there is no unconscious domain of mind ... then something was displaced and disassociated ... thus it goes!

 

[Luce NDs]

When I referred to correct belief, I was referring to the belief that nothing exists beyond the reality we know, a belief sometimes called scientism. Their fundamentalism extends beyond there is no deity to there is nothing other than the reality we know.

Thus no ide=AL beyond us and the De ist is contained by code, creed, or whatever! Maybe d' eist is out on the IE rule as something other ... in the way it is said ... thus alternates to absolutism! Generates a great zone of mystery that appears, or incarnates as black after Sundown (Lightfoot tune). It rolls along ...

Imagine if something is out there beyond that ... would that be a detached sensation or mere OBI? So much that bothers mys sense that I know very little of what is beyond me ... obviously not an enigma to those with hubris in what they know as all there is, then Neigh Misses appears as bated ... wind ... just the bare breath thereof ... rye in the open spaces?

 

[Luce NDs]

Without delving in deep to what you've been discussing with Jim, the fundamentalism comes when one rejects any thought or approach different from your own and insist that your way is how the world should be run. That's the pattern you see with fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam.

I am not sure I have ever really seen that in an atheist school of thought (atheism itself is just an idea found in many streams of philosophy), but some atheists certainly start heading that way when they start talking about bans on religion or specific religious traditions. If atheists expect their ideas to be accepted and respected by the religious, it has to be a two-way street. Dialogue rather than diatribe is what will give us a better world.

I do intimate that MP suggests the ultimate question is being posed for reaction ... a type of Rae bate 'n ... as the original was taken ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Yup.

Relevant is the fundamental activity of alchemist ... made rogue by the alternate perspective and this runs deep! (yawohl in my rough Yiddish). It is a monster word indeed ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Ah, I see. If they were bodyslamming Buddha, it wouldn't matter. But since it's Christian theism, then suddenly your "intellectual integrity" dander is raised. Other traditions, feel free to critically think about. MY traditions, hands off. Got it.

That is the rule, guide or other accrued creed accepted for a good time ... by destruction of the neighbouring surrounding atmosphere ... an Eire ... a near virtue?

 

[Luce NDs]

That another one. Hebrew, NT Greek, Aramaic. You could probably do a whole university degree just learning the languages used in Jewish and Christian scriptures. Add Arabic if you want to get Islam into the mix.

Transliteration etude? G Fenestra and I had great discussions of where that translates as well or just deep and mute ... thus transcendental thoughts go ... left!

 

[Luce NDs]

Ah, I see. If they were bodyslamming Buddha, it wouldn't matter. But since it's Christian theism, then suddenly your "intellectual integrity" dander is raised. Other traditions, feel free to critically think about. MY traditions, hands off. Got it.

Cause a mole ology in pact? Thus the dig ends ...

 

[jimkenney12]

If anyone is interested in a close examination of "how to tease out what we believe from what our cultural myths are", check out Daniel Quinn. His first book, Ishmael, is probably the simplest and clearest of his writings (and he's very methodical about getting to the innermost philosophical questions). He gets murkier in the next two books of the trilogy, and some of his novels are, from my limited exploration of a fairly small output, a bit wyrd and dissociative.

One of my favourite books is "Newcomers Guide to the Afterlife" by Quinn and another author. It is wyrd, but delightfully wyrd. I did not not know there was a third book to the Ishmael series. I loved Ishmael.

Ishmael helped me look at the Hebrew myths differently.

 

[paradox3]

One of my favourite books is "Newcomers Guide to the Afterlife" by Quinn and another author. It is wyrd, but delightfully wyrd. I did not not know there was a third book to the Ishmael series. I loved Ishmael.

Ishmael helped me look at the Hebrew myths differently.

Will give Ishmael a try. I just placed a hold on it at the library.

Glad to see the thread back on topic. I was getting worried.

 

[paradox3]

Here's a question for anyone still following this thread.

Which of the Gospels do you think is the most mythologized? How about the least?

 

[jimkenney12]

I was going to pick John but what I first thought of as myth may be just theology. In that case, I think I would pick Matthew. Just not sure where the line is between myth and theology.

 

[paradox3]

I was going to pick John but what I first thought of as myth may be just theology. In that case, I think I would pick Matthew. Just not sure where the line is between myth and theology.

Very good point. It is generally agreed that John's Gospel contains the highest Christology and the most theology.

When John puts words into Jesus's mouth, is this mythology? Using story to explain theology?

(I recognize there are some Christians who view John as historical.)

 

[paradox3]

What about the parables? Do you think they are authentic teachings of Jesus?

 

[Mendalla]

When John puts words into Jesus's mouth, is this mythology? Using story to explain theology?

Most of Plato's dialogues involving Socrates have him putting his own ideas into Socrates mouth (there's, I think, maybe 4 or so that are considered truly representative of Socrates himself). That's not so much mythology as a literary technique. Using your mentor/ideal as your mouthpiece to give your ideas more credence sort of thing.

 

[Redbaron]

I'd choose Mark's Gospel for the least mythologized. He doesn't include a lot of parables or quotes, and at times it seems he's trying to tell the whole story in a breath. I think also, being likely the earliest written of the 4 canonical Gospel, it might have been put together before a lot of the stories and parables of Jesus were widely-s[read.

For most mythologized, it would be John, with the extensive speaking of Jesus. John is also the only one who, at the feeding of the 5,000, mentions a child's offered lunch.

 

[paradox3]

@Redbaron
Also the early ending of Mark has no post resurrection appearances. Perhaps those stories started circulating later as well?