The Shroud Of Turin

[Jonathan H]

I gave an even-handed opinion.

That a majority of historians do believe that Jesus of Nazareth is an historical figure.

Yet a strong arhument can be mounted that Christ is a figure who exists only in secondary sources.

That the Turin Shroud, whether fake or real, is incidental to such beliefs, one way or the other.

Some on the boards accept that these are opinions trying to be based on a reasoned and reasonable interpretation of the data. That does not make them correct.

Yet, a minority of reactionaries scream blaspheme. They labels us, attack us, attack my parents, attack anybody who dissents from their sacred wisdom, and then -- to use Freud -- project their own arrogant smugness onto those dissenters.

In character and tactics it is no different from the way they 'argue' about Jack the Ripper.

[Ally]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I know me a bit better and the core of me is god-free definitively.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, your 'smug' presumption that my own parents were cruel is simply despicable.

I'm sorry, but I figured an intellectual such as yourself would appreciate the Freudian slip in how you inserted 'cruel' before parents, when I had inferred no such thing.

Being an atheist does not dictate who I am at my core, the core of me dictates that I be an atheist

It's sad you feel that way, because I don't believe for a second that you are Godless at your core.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

I agree with Ally.

Tom, your 'smug' presumption that my own parents were cruel is simply despicable.

Ally, here Down Under, anecdotally speaking I know plenty of Christians who are rational, who see that 'Jesus Christ' is a flimsy historical figure -- in terms of historical methodology -- yet have a faith, one which does not preclude debate, without rancor.

Some are Catholics, some are Church of England [Anglicans] and just one is a Protestant fundamentalist. None are smug, or judgmental about either themselves, their faith, or what Christianity has, and has not done, to and for the world. All believe in practical action to help people.

[Ally]

I could come up with a similar ad hominem argument about people of faith and talk about how smug christians do x, y and z , blah blah blah. But all blanket characterizations like that make it impossible to have a rational discussion. You have now blanketed both Belinda and Jonathon H with the idea that only smug intellectuals are atheists as if there is no other reason for being so.

I am a smug intellectual, I am also an atheist, but one has nothing to do with the other. Well I suppose as I am really a skeptic at heart, I must profess to being an agnostic, but I have ruled out all god mythologies that I have heard of or studied.

I base my decision on logic, and it has nothing to do with smugness or superiority. I have found there are very many intelligent christians who can argue their faith rationally, but I have yet to find one fundamentalist, who accepts the Bible as literal truth, who is able to do so. These tend to be the ones who get absolutely livid when their version of Faith is questioned, because their views leave no room for honest questioning. They are crippled by faith instead of supported by it.

The Bible was assembled by men. The books, the chapters, the verses were selected and rejected based on the biases and principles that are inherent in all men. How can it be the absolute Truth when parts of it contradict other parts, when the Gospels themselves differ one from the other, especially John, and when we don't even know who John was or what role he played in the tale at all and all we can speculate is that he was the unnamed beloved disciple, but we have no real idea? And the gospel of John, the one book there is the least known about its origin or authorship, this is the SOLE gospel that says Christ is the only path to salvation. So basically a good part of Christian dogma is based on a book of somewhat questionable origin and NONE of the other gospels say anything of the sort.

I do not consider questions such as these to be smug intellectualism. I consider them how I conduct my daily life in all things, I ask the obvious questions, search for the logical answer and conduct myself accordingly. This is not conducive to being a person of faith.

It is often hard for an atheist and a person of faith to have a reasonable discussion on the topic of religion because for most people of faith, that faith determines the core of them and questions on the faith is therefore perceived as being an attack on their core. Being an atheist does not dictate who I am at my core, the core of me dictates that I be an atheist, so I (and most atheists) are more able to have a removed conversation about our beliefs than the average Christian.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sorry to hear your parents were cruel, Jonathan, but that has no bearing on my statement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

It is heroic and principled for a child to say 'no' to a cruel parent.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally,

Read Jonathan's post to understand what I mean when I say that smug intellectuals, or pseudo-intellectuals, feel it is 'enlightenment' to believe there is no God, and that such ideas fill them with a misguided sense of being 'in the now' and 'up with the times'. It just makes them feel powerful, in the way that a small child feels powerful when he first tells his parents 'no'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

The majority consensus amongst historians is that Jesus of Nazareth, stripped of any supernatural pretensions, existed at the time of Pilate and was a minor figure when he was crucified by that Roman thug -- alone. The movement he inspired was major, and retrospectively, inevitably enlarged their founder's impact at the time he walked the Earth.

To say it is blaspheme to hold the opinion that Jesus Christ never literally existed is a narrow, sectarian point of view with no place in an historical, secular debate.

Goo see 'Monty Python's Life of Brian' to learn something about the cult mentality.

It comes down to which side are you on?

The Age of Enlightenment or the Dark Ages.

[Tom_Wescott]

It makes me feel sexy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Oh? Does Christianity make you feel stupid?

[Tom_Wescott]

Belinda seems to take great pride in her atheism. No doubt it makes her feel smart.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Hi Jukka,

Jesus hair is an interesting question...

Remember Paul who said it's a shame for a man to have long hair...

Curiously enough, Muhammad was said to have long hair at the beginning of his predication, according to Muslim sources - but this detail has been quite forgotten, while Jesus hair, in the meantime, seems to have grown...

Amitiés,
David

[Archaic]

Hi Jukka.

Yeah, I bet Jesus didn't have curly blonde hair and blue eyes like in the artwork we see.

We have a family joke because years ago my Uncle Jimmy was such a cherubic baby that my Grandmother's friends who were Catholic Nuns all raved how he "looked just like The Christ Child!!"... we still tease him about it to this day.

Cheers, Archaic

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Archaic!

But Jesus has changed in time;

For example; in the catacombs Jesus is presented as a 25-year-old shepherd without a beard and with a short hair!

The Jesus we know by outlook was a compromise to the Roman gods one to my knowledge!

All the best
Jukka