I didn't say communist, I said Marxist. You can be the 1st without the 2nd. But you can't be a Marxist and reject everything Marx said. Sort of like you can't rightly call yourself a Christian if you think Jesus was wrong about everything, or a Platonist while rejecting the ideas of Plato.
american christian fundamentalist hours
Religion is not the same as religious people.
Eh, Paris is worse.
Mental compartmentalization can be a wonderful thing.
My mom and sister went to Paris, they said they preferred London.
Not remotely. Okay, so a guy writes a book detailing an ideology. If you do what he says in the book and believe what he says in the book, you are following that ideology whether you say you are or not. Conversely if you say you follow that ideology but do and think things that directly contradict that ideology you are not following it.
Yes, there have been arguments.
There are historical mentions about the fact that Christians exist, and they believe in this dude called Christ, yes.Actually there are Jewish historical sources that mention him (skeptically), when they get around to writing stuff up decades later. Heck, there's even an obvious and clumsily Christian-written section added on that does not actually fit into the language of the historian in a way that makes it unlikely that the section that does (and which is pretty skeptical of Jesus in general) was some sort of clever forgery vastly superior to any in human history before the invention of modern linguistics.
The arguments that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist are tenuous and absurd, starting with the fact that Christians had to work around the fact that the savior was supposed to be born in Bethlehem by making up an obviously false and nonsensical census story... because they had to work with an actual historical figure who was famous for, guess what, not being from Betlehem.
It'd be the most nonsensical thing in the world if Christians formed an entire religion, made up their religious founder (as opposed to him being some minor religious figure that got on the wrong side of the authorities)... and then made him up to not actually fit the specifics of the myths and legends about a Messiah that they were trying to shove him into.
My point about Muhammad is that I find this ideological, ahistorical atheist movement for the non-existence of Jesus to be absurd, and more than that, silly, because it doesn't actually connect with a real criticism and rejection of Christianity, which doesn't require carefully ignoring all possible historical evidence because it makes you feel bad, as if the existence of some random cult leader (or one of the many religious rebels of that age, or however you want to label him) named Jesus from around who had a few followers somehow proves the Gospel true.
There wouldn't have been much of a movement, he was one of dozens of itinerant jewish preachers at the time. Indeed, some of the theories suggest that he's a composite of several.
I know of the theory, i used to believe it myself.
Not all religions are Christianity, or even anything much like Christianity. If you mean Christianity, just say Christianity. If you don't just mean Christianity, maybe don't describe attributes of Christianity as though they apply to every other religion just as well. Because the things you list as being fundamental to religion? Aren't, unless your use of "dogma" goes against every definition I am aware of.
Yes, thank you, you found me out, i'm just lying out of my ass...Again, that's a silly lie? Atheists, for no apparent actually good reason, have just been pushing a narrative that doesn't fit, even though the true narrative is not particularly friendly to Christian Gospel versions of the Jesus' life.
Yes, thank you, you found me out, i'm just lying out of my ass...
