[Disclaimer] - I am not an American and I consider myself atheist, I am Caucasian and born in a pre-dominantly Christian country.

Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.

And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn’t make them hypocrites?

For them the mortal enemy are the lefties who are all about social justice, helping the vulnerable and the not so fortunate and peace.

Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Almost no one respectable in the scholarship, including atheist scholars, thinks that’s the case.

      And it would be the only instance I’m aware of where someone at the nascent stages of a cult made up a leader and immediately had major schisms around what that made up leader was saying.

      Literally the earliest Christian documents we have are of a guy who was persecuting followers of Jesus suddenly going into areas where he had no authority to persecute, literally “if you can’t beat them, join them,” and then telling people not to pay attention to a different gospel “not that there is a different gospel” or to listen to him over alleged ‘super-apostles.’

      The next earliest document is a gospel that’s constantly trying to spin statements allegedly said in public by Jesus with secret teachings that only a handful of their own leaders supposedly heard.

      Not long after that is a letter from the bishop of Rome complaining his presbyters were deposed in the same place Paul was complaining about them receiving a different gospel, and how young people should defer to the old and women should be silent (so we know the schism was supported by the young and women, who just so happen to be at the center of a competing tradition which has extensive overlap with Paul’s letters to Corinth).

      For all of the above to have occurred within just a few decades of a made up person would be even less believable than that said person walked on water. Personally, I don’t believe either of those scenarios.

      P.S. Carrier is a history PhD, not a biblical studies PhD, and a bit of a pompous moron. For example, he managed to miss one of the most interesting elements of early Christianity regarding the Gnostic references to cosmic seeds because his head was so far up his own rear that he couldn’t see past a (straight up bizarre) theory they were talking about a cosmic sperm bank. Nope - it has to do with Lucretius’s “seeds of things” but that’s a long discussion for another comment. Point is, I’d be wary of taking anything he says too seriously.

      • jobby@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The point he makes about the only evidence for JC’s reality as a person is other people much later pointing at each other and saying “he said so”.

        If, as he said, any real evidence beyond hearsay can be produced it might he credible.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          They aren’t much later on. A number of the texts are composed within decades of his death. It’s much later in that we have copies, and they definitely had some edits along the way, but they are pretty early.

          There’s arguably much better evidence a historical Jesus existed than a historical Pythagoras, for example. Do you doubt Pythagoras existed?

          Or even Socrates - we only have two authors claiming to have direct knowledge of events around what he said, and the earliest fragments of their writings comes from the same collections of texts as early Christian writings, and the only full copy of Plato is centuries older in production than the earliest full copies of both canonical and extra-canonical texts.

          What evidence for Socrates or Pythagoras do we have beyond hearsay?

      • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Anyone attempting to make the ‘everyone agrees’ argument about a religion instantly loses all credibility, like if you can’t understand why that’s a fallacious argument then you’ve got zero chance understanding the evidence.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          “Most credible scholars, including most secular scholars agree” is different from “most people agree.”

          You might want to actually look into why they agree before talking about understanding evidence.

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            For very obvious historical reasons there has long been a huge bias in this field of study, it’s currently very clearly still a hot water issue with most scholars not wanting to cause problems for themselves.

            Regardless the old consensus is rapidly changing, even the faithful are having to accept that more and more of the Bible is clearly not based in history for a multitude of reasons. You can try and be snarky all you like but I’ve looked at a lot of the debates and the reality is the argument for a historical Jesus is very weak and the argument for a mythic creation is pretty good.

    • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, and even if he was to some degee based on a real person every single detail recorded about him is clearly false as can be demonstrated to be literary devices, copied from somewhere else, or just clearly impossible. It makes a lot more sense he was invented whole cloth, if early Christians believed he was a real person they sure made up a lot of stories about him - and the most devout Christian will have to agree with that because of the endless apocrypha and insertions.

      • jobby@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        He was like Santa Claus for the masses at the time.

        Look, there are some basic precepts of New Testament Christian thought (don’t be an asshole) that are good things. It gets rather muddled quickly after you mall be away from that.

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, like how scientology has some good stuff in it like try to improve yourself and the world but then they force a path that doesn’t lead in that direction and use it all as an excuse to take money from you.

          The first thing we really know about the early church is Paul walking around collecting money and telling people things they wanted to hear, like you don’t need to chop off your foreskin to get saved - and saved from the horrors of an event they very clearly taught was coming in their lifetime.

          How they managed to keep such an obvious scam going for almost two thousand years is honestly the most impressive miracle