[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.

    • @VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      34 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
        link
        24 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
          04 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

      • @watson387@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        There are no mentions of Jesus outside of the bible until a lot years after his supposed death. Complete invention.

    • @kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      4 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.

      • @uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The historicity of Jesus is that there was a Christian movement that was suppressed by Rome. But I’m not sure we can verify, even, it was led by an apocalyptic prophet. There were no texts before Mark, as the movement was entirely word of mouth, and as per all games of telephone, evolved with each retelling.

        What scholarly consensus does assert is the scripture is not univocal, inspired or inerrant, and the narrative bends with every era to affirm the morality of the time. This is to say, it’s not a source for right or wrong, but a tool used to give authority to external beliefs. Whether that is to justify charity and compassion or to justify genocide against gays and Palestinians is up to the individual.

        • @kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          But I’m not sure we can verify, even, it was led by an apocalyptic prophet.

          I completely agree - Paul is certainly apocalyptic, but something like the Gospel of Thomas has very different ideas, such as:

          The disciples said to Jesus, “Tell us, how will our end come?”

          Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.

          Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

          Jesus said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being.

          • Gospel of Thomas saying 18-19a

          You see a similar notion opposed in the Epistles:

          As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.

          • 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2

          Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying resurrection has already occurred. They are upsetting the faith of some.

          • 2 Timothy 2:17-18

          (It’s worth noting that while 2 Timothy is classically considered to be forged, it is the only disputed letter to have the same relative amount of personal reference as Paul’s undisputed letters - he happened to talk about himself a lot like a covert narcissist is prone to, and that may offer another perspective on authenticity that’s been missed by scholarship to date.)

          There were no texts before Mark, as the movement was entirely word of mouth, and as per all games of telephone, evolved with each retelling.

          That’s a spurious claim based on an argument from silence and at odds with Papias’s description of a sayings work we don’t have, as well as a number of scholars estimating the date of a early core for the Gospel of Thomas, which Paul even seems to quote from as among the collection of resources in Corinth, potentially even as a written document.

          Even an earlier form of Mark probably predated the version of Mark we have today. And the Pauline Epistles are documentary evidence that predate Mark (and likely even informed it).

          What scholarly consensus does assert is the scripture is not univocal, inspired or inerrant, and the narrative bends with every era to affirm the morality of the time.

          While the first part is true, the second is a gross oversimplification. The morals of some people at the time. For example, there was a massive women’s speech movement going on in the first century that the church was opposing, including regarding women’s speech in early Christian circles. So the scriptures that are misogynistic in the NT don’t necessarily reflect the broader morals of the time so much as the reactionary morals of a select few controlling that version of the narrative.

          Same with how Jesus was suddenly talking about marriage being between a man and a woman in a gospel whose extant version is dated after 70 CE, relevant to gay marriage having become an institution in Rome after Nero married two men in the 60s CE, but much less relevant in the 30s CE when he was allegedly saying it.

          So keep in mind scripture only reflects morals of a select few of the time (and at the time of various edits).

      • @jobby
        link
        34 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
          1
          edit-2
          4 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?

          • @jobby
            link
            14 months ago

            Ok that’s fine, but please examine the differences in motivation.

            Let’s say Plato etc are indeed made up. There’s little money to be made or social control gained via their fictitious being.

            Let’s go further down that path.

            The ideas and examinations of nature, and the basic sciences of understanding our universe, even if done by one or more people under the guise of some fictional characters are still incredible foundations for rational thinking over the next two and a half thousand years. Again: advancing understanding and what we know as ‘science’, not direct social control and making money off the punters.

            Religion… well… That’s something else.

            There are huge profits to be made from telling people stuff about how various magical creatures can inflict punishments, heal illnesses and forgive bad behaviour.

            The motivations are clear. Humanity hasn’t changed a crumb in several thousand years.

            Follow the money.

      • @VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        -24 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
          04 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
            04 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.