Skip to main content

View Diary: Correction on historical Jesus diary (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Why sugarcoat it? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, Joieau, semiMennonite

      The truth is what's important.  And the truth is that it's a fool's errand to think that we're going to so conclusively disprove the existence of one man who lived 2000 years ago that every believer on the planet is going to say, "Yep, I'm totally convinced!"  

      (As it's been a fool's errand to think that we're going to find proof of any of the miracles in the Bible or Noah's Ark or any of the other silliness designed to establish or disprove Christianity.)

      And it's probably not logical to believe that if/when Christianity wanes in 500 or 1000 or 2500 years, that there Islam and Hinduism or some new faith pops up in the dominant culture and we get to start the whole process all over again.

      We could learn to distinguish people who do bad things under the guise of religion from religion and put the blame on the former instead of the latter.

      •  Well, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, Darmok

        it's been my observation and experience that a diplomatic approach sometimes yields a useful outcome.

        I had hoped to draw out the diarist in a way that I thought might be helpful for future community interaction.

        If I were the diarist, I would probably interpret some of these comments in ways that would make me less inclined to open up. For me, then, these comments seem to undermine something I had hoped to accomplish.

        Since I did not express my intent explicitly, I can't really complain. I had hoped to steer the conversation more subtly. Didn't work, I guess.

        That was my thought process. Time, now, to get some lunch and get on with the day.


        •  This diarist hasn't shown that kind of openess (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          In the past few days.  And if anything, opinions have hardened considerably after the back and forth recently in the meta diaries. So, because hope springs eternal, a different tack seemed appropriate.

          •  yeah (0+ / 0-)

            after being called a bigot, I objected. and then when people like you started ad hominem attacks, I objected. not that it matters. ad hominem attacks are particularly effective.

            this diary is my attempt to stick to the facts and to call out the blogger who sensationalized her Raw Story publication to get more eyes.

            meanwhile, why don't you stick with rule#1 eh?

      •  wuh? (0+ / 0-)

        > The truth is what's important.

        er, I thought you just went all smug on me about wanting truth?

        as to the "silliness" you reference, there are some historical documents (Josephus and Tacitus in particular) as well as other references of gnostic critics who were criticizing christians (Irenaeus, the orthodox Bishop of Lyons around 180CE)...

        whether they prove anything or whether they are faked is being hashed out by scholars. but you think them "silly" to study such stuff apparently.

        you but have to read to see the issues in this discussion. then maybe you can better wax philosophic. or not. it's a free country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site