That article doesn’t dispute FriarTed’s claim that every academic history department believes that Jesus existed, though. It only shows that there are some isolated individuals who don’t believe he existed.
Among modern skeptics, there are a tiny number of popular “scholars” who hold that view. Most (if not all) of them are not historians, though. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German, and Acharya has a lower degree in the classics. (Earl Doherty does a history degree, but he appears to be the only one, and he quotes G. A. Wells extensively.) This doesn’t make them automatically wrong; however, it does suggest that we shouldn’t be quick to accept their word. It certainly does mean that we can’t use their “scholarship” to any academic history departments reject the notion that Jesus existed!
Fair enough. I think the idea that you’re subservient to someone in terms of your own life would cause people some resentment - even in cases where they don’t believe Jesus exists, it could be seen as a sort of hypothetical insult (if that makes sense). I could see it being a primary resentment among Christians, as after all they are more likely to agree with Christianity than non-Christians (though of course that’s not always true). But really I would say that the majority, even the vast majority of non-Christians have a better reason, a more primary reason to resent Christianity than just an unwillingness to hand oneself over to the control of another. After all, as you point out, it’s not something that stops one from being a Christian. Would you care to make even a total guess as to the amount of people who have it as a primary resentment? How about in comparing Christians to non-Christians?
What some people think Christianity teaches. But yeah, you’ll find people like that in any school of thought.
Edit: i’m reminded of something else i’m not too big a fan of. The tendency to ignore Christians with a totally different perspective to them. Again, happens in all schools of thought.
Yes, I suppose you can find people like that everywhere. But for some reason, I find people like that amoung the religious much much more often than I find it amoung the non-religious. Athiesm isn’t a belief, there’s no faith involved, and so there’s no need to try to defend it on non-logical grounds. Arguing faith vs logic never seems to work, and it seems to be the faith side that gets upset about it. I have yet to see an athiest be reduced to screaming obscenities and threats about the afterlife in a religious discussion, but I’ve seen this happen multiple times to religious people.
Shrug, how many Christians can quote this passage, or even know it exists? I certainly wouldn’t put any money on a high percentage. I’ve had less discussions that ended with ‘gentleness and respect’ than ended with ‘anger and arrogance’. Just because you can point to it in the bible doesn’t mean it’s being followed everywhere.
Have you ever heard of the Incas? Short, simplified version: Friar Vicente de Valverde presented the Inca leader with the Bible. But Atahualpam had no concept of books or how to open them, thrust the Bible away and knocked it to the ground. Valverde was appalled by this action (bibliolatry, anyone?) and immediately declared war.
The Spanish fired cannons into the Inca soldiers, and captured Atahualpa. While imprisoned, Atahualpa plotted an escape plan, and he was sentenced to be burned to death unless he converted to Christianity. Horrified by the prospect (Incas believed that the body need to remain whole for passage into the next life) Atahualpa agreed to be baptized, so his captors were kind enough to lessen his sentence to mere strangulation. After which, they burned his body anyway.
JThunder, the idea that evangelism can and has destroyed cultures is not a new one, and this argument not original or limited to the handful of people here who are wary of religious missionary work. Look over the website Crusade Watch-you will find worldwide examples of religious intolerance and human rights violations committed in the name of spreading religion.
I can see your point and somewhat agree. The kind of discipline and the degree of surrender that is required is beyond most people, and living an average day to day life makes it seem an unrealistic requirement.
I think the way in which “Jesus is Lord” is presented has a lot to do with it. As Hunter noted. Jesus has become more of an icon than a living presence. Those who toss his name around while excusing their own bad behavior don’t help the cause.
If Jesus is seen primarily as the way to get into an after life reward system , which is the way he is presented all too often, then I understand the resentment. The message to the outsider is “You must believe what I believe or God will reject you”
If Jesus is presented as a way to enrich our lives in the here and now, accompanied by a testimony of actions rather than words then it carries a bit more meaning.
Well, who says? You might think “Christianity” means one thing and includes one set of teachings, but someone else is just as right if they say they are a Christian and they believe another set.
It seems to me, that this thread is mostly about Jesus vs. pauline Theology. paul IS the dominant character of the NT-his views and ideas are more than half of the NT writings. yest, paul is unique because he was not an original desciple, nor had he ever met Jesus. Jesus never wrote anything, se we are dependent upon the authors of the Gospels. So the question is: did Paul alter the message of Jesus (in any important way)? That is the real question.
I say that because the Bible makes it perfectly clear. There is simply no room for alternative interpretations of 1 Peter 3:15.
If we’re going to claim that Christianity (or Buddhism, or Islam, or atheism) is whatever people want it to be, then that way lies madness. There may be some room for disagreement on certain matters, but certain things are central and basic. I would challenge anyone to find a single passage in the Bible which explicitly says (i.e. without requiring creative interpretation) that believers are under no obligation to defend their beliefs. If people are going to ascribe that philosophy to Christianity – or any religion – then they need to back it up. Simply saying, “Well that’s what some of their followers do” simply doesn’t cut it.
Great point. I believe he did. The other thing we must look at is the competing theories and beliefs after Jesus by groups like the Gnostics. Even with Paul’s writings there were several schools of thought about what Jesus “really” taught. With Constantine gather some folks together and that group of men decided what would be the official state sanctioned form of Christianity, and which writings would be sanctioned as canon. People have been struggling with their * version of Jesus’ teachings ever since. So much is built on the dangerous assumption that they* got it right. What if they didn’t?
I’m responding to the OP - I stopped believing in 1st grade, St. Pascal Baylon School when taught that “pagan babies” go to “limbo”, not heaven, as do all who are not baptised in “the church”.
Basically it’s the eliteism of just about every sect I’ve visited - WE go to heaven - you don’t.
Once again though, that doesn’t prove your point. Was there some religious motivation involved in this warfare? Certainly. Now, how does it prove that missionary work in general results in the disappearance of native cultures? Quite simply, it does not.
Heck, to say that religion itself was the cause of the Incan disappearance is a gross oversimplification – anecdotes like the one you cited notwithstanding. And even if that were the case, you can’t use a few incidents like these to draw grand, sweeping conclusions about proseyltization in general. As I pointed out earlier (taking great pains to do so, I might add), one could use such “logic” to condemn, science, technology, atheism, or any number of factors, beliefs, worldviews or whatnot.
One more thing, Beaucarnea… Throughout this whole discussion, you have expressed outrage that missionaries urge people to abandon their religous beliefs and practices. Why? Because these beliefs and practices constitute part of their culture, and you find such change to be distasteful. At the same time though, you insist that Christians should stop their missionary efforts – even though such proselytizing is part of their own beliefs and practices, and thus, part of their own culture! Why is it wrong for Christians to urge others to abandon their religious practices, yet perfectly acceptable for you to tell Christian missionaries that they should stop following the tenets of their beliefs?
Whether atheism is a “belief” or not is irrelevant (and inaccurate, as it depends on which flavor of atheism one expounds). The point is that there’s frequently a difference between what people believe and what the tenets of their religion/worldview/philosophy actually hold. It’s unfair to condemn a religion when its proponents act in disobedience to its tenets.
Whether they know it or not is irrelevent. Most people who believe in physics are unaware of quantum effects; in fact, if confronted with them, they would likely dismiss such notions. Yet physics holds these effects to be real.
By the same token, if someone is unfamiliar with 1 Peter 3:15, then that’s their fault. It’s not the fault of Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or even Christianity as a whole.
A single biblical passage is not a tenet. If that were the case then 1 Timothy 2:11-14 or Proverbs 20:30 would be tenets too. There are tons of biblical passages that modern society doesn’t follow, why aren’t they considered just as important as your passage? The majority doesn’t follow them because they aren’t tenets, and they probably aren’t even told about them. I went to Catholic grade school & high school, and reasoning was not really big on the religious ciriculum.
What? Why would you ‘believe’ in physics? That makes no sense.
And those central and basic things probably change according to the sect.
There’s no one definition of Christianity, so saying who is or isn’t is just a drawn out game of “Whack-a-Scotsman.”
I don’t consider you to be more of an authority on “What Christians do/believe/teach” than any other Christian is. Saying, “But it’s in the bible!” isn’t useful. Lots of things are in the bible.
I will define a Christian as anyone who claims to be a Christian. I will define Christian beliefs as those held by people who claim to be Christians.
And lots of people who say they are Christians will also insist that you prove god wrong
The conquering and destruction of the Incan culture was precipitated by a thirst for gold and Christian conversion, and justified by divine decree. I find the brutal methods that Friar Vicente de Valverde used to exact revenge on the man who dared reject Christianity disgusting and disturbing. I don’t know why you don’t.
I have* not * claimed that missionaries urge people to abandon their religious beliefs and practices. My claim is that missionaries have been known to bribe, frighten, and threaten some people to abandon their religious beliefs and practices. To urge someone to convert is to hand them a pamphlet, not execute him and burn his corpse.
The help that missionaries have provided to impoverished areas is tarnished by the underlying motivation to add new members. A selfless act would be to reach out and lend a hand without expectations. Are Christian missionaries capable of performing good works without forcing cultural change?
I have *not * insisted that missionaries stop their efforts. I have expressed a desire that the hardcore conversion and assimilation at all costs stop. I should think that you would know that membership drives are not the sole purpose of Christianity. If that is the limit of your own beliefs, then open that Book. You will find that that the Christian faith has much more to offer practioners than simply bullying the planet to join a club.
At this point, JThunder, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I feel strongly that Christians can follow the teachings of Jesus and help their fellow man without homogenizing the planet- without forcing primitive cultures to become dependent on technology, without bullying, without bribery, and without intimidation.
Well don’t worry so much ! I’m still posting there as well and I explained to askeptic what I said to him. You’ll have a much better time over there anyway. It’s the pit . You can sort me right out, right quick .
You missed my point. I pointed to the other founders/leaders of common religions in the world–and none of the ones I mentioned take Jesus as Lord. Why would they? They aren’t Christian. To tell these people that they are wrong/misguided/evil/going to hell etc is arrogant–and that is what Xians have been doing for centuries (when not actively persecuting/burning/invading and killing them that is).
No, actually I agree with** AHunter** for the most part–I think Jesus was a great teacher and strategist and role model (for lack of a better term). I think He has been twisted and warped to serve other people’s needs for centuries.
I think ralph124c–is correct. The argument (for me) is between Christ’s teachings and Paul’s. I tend to be cynical about Paul and the men who came after him. How is it we go from women priests to women are to blame for Sin in the world? Funny, that. To observe modern Christianity through a woman’s eyes is to see many missed opportunities. But that’s another thread.
I agree with all of this, and that walking the walk and even talking the talk is harder than many people can imagine.
Cosmodan–thank you for your very sane and thoughtful remarks in this thread.