Skip Navigation
Political Memes @lemmy.world ZeroCool @slrpnk.net

The Party of Christian Values

215

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
215 comments
  • It’s really clear that you aren’t interested in learning. The scholars on JSTOR do not believe that someone named Mark wrote Mark. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further. I think you are likely to reflexively dismiss any scholarship that isn’t “Christianity is a hoax.” Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis. When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.

    “Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.

    I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.

    • . I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further.

      Lay off the personal attacks. I own a copy of the Oxford annotated Bible and studied the semetic languages as well as Greek. I planned to be a biblical scholar before I learned that God was a lie. Says so very much that you can't produce evidence of your claim that Jesus was real instead you are reduced to basic logical fallacies and personal attacks while dismissively hinting that I don't know anything. Give me any page of the OT and I can reliably translate about 80% of the words and tell you where it is from. Since we are apparently using knowledge as a weapon instead of evidence I am going to ask you if you can do the same.

      See how crap this argument is? Am I right because I know Hebrew and Aramaic and a bit of Greek? Am I wrong because I don't live on JSTOR? Stop with the no True Scotsmen and Argument from Authority. Produce your evidence for your god existing if you can't I can dismiss him. On my side I see absurd claims told by liars that are inconsistent and so far the only fucking evidence you have produced is someone else said 20 centuries later on what they thought.

      Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis.

      I am happy to do critical analysis. Go right ahead and make your point.

      When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.

      I won't apologize for caring about the truth.

      Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.

      Why? I am sorry but why? If I disagree with scholars on one thing does that mean I must on all things? Do I have to sit here with serial killer obsession levels building up thousands of claims of consensus and rate them on how much I agree with them and why? Tell me the reason. I won't to know the exact reason why I am required to do that. Maybe some biblical scholar can answer it for you.

      Christianity has hell which letters of Paul are forgeries and which are not is independent.

      I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.

      He is alright. Listen to his podcast and have almost all of his books. Not sure what name dropping is doing for you but whatever.

      • Once again, I am not religious.

        I suspect that you attended a fundamentalist Bible college and have had little exposure to mainstream academic scholarship. I do find it hard to believe that you are fluent in Greek, because you don’t appear to be fluent in English (forgive me if it is not your first language). I have at multiple points explained that I am not religious for example. I do not believe in God.

        We would laugh if a creationist claimed that citing scientific studies was an “argument from authority.” By arguing against mainstream historical consensus, you make it easy for Christians to dismiss everything you say. If you “care about the truth” you should be aware that it is very hard to come to the truth if you have strong emotional biases.

        I generally avoid using podcasts for historical research :) Ehrman’s books have awesome footnotes, reading one of his books usually adds ten to my TBR list.

        I understand being angry at Christianity. I’m a queer person and live in a very religious place. I can’t use the fucking bathroom legally because of Bible thumpers. But we have to do better than Tony Evans when we study history.

        • Once again, I am not religious.

          Fair.

          I suspect that you attended a fundamentalist Bible college and have had little exposure to mainstream academic scholarship.

          Wrong again. I gave it up in high school. Went for engineering at a state school.

          do find it hard to believe that you are fluent in Greek, because you don’t appear to be fluent in English (forgive me if it is not your first language).

          Nice personal attack. At least nice try. I am not fluent in Greek. I was very careful in what I claimed. I sucked at Greek and I am confident I suck even more now. Self-trained so yeah you get what you pay for. Decent at the semitic languages, probably because I studied them first. I had this idea in my head that I was going to learn the Bible in its original starting from page 1. I still remember the point when I could read the Book Of Job with very little struggle and how proud I was. Left Christianity when I was a late teen and was working on Matthew.

          We would laugh if a creationist claimed that citing scientific studies was an “argument from authority.

          False comparison for two reasons

          1. I have as much evidence of evolution as I want and we are constantly discovering more. There hasn't been a new discovery of a major text since the 1940s.

          2. Science doesn't depend on arguments from authority. It has data. Claims about the Bible almost always come down to arguments from authority, such as you are using.

          you make it easy for Christians to dismiss everything you say.

          Don't care.

          If you “care about the truth” you should be aware that it is very hard to come to the truth if you have strong emotional biases.

          Still waiting on the evidence instead of the debate tips. Let me know when you have some for your son of god.

          I understand being angry at Christianity. I’m a queer person and live in a very religious place. I can’t use the fucking bathroom legally because of Bible thumpers. But we have to do better than Tony Evans when we study history.

          Right so being mad at that belief system doesn't mean it is true. You can overcompensate as well as compensate. There is no good evidence that Jesus existed and a pile of evidence that he did not.

215 comments