Jesus

[Nearly Sane]

It depends what his purpose is in telling us, I suppose. If your going to say it publicly then you should expect interest in why you've said it.
A "clearly myth to me" sets me thinking about his definition of myth and clarity.

Why didn't you answer the question?

[Sriram]

Inspired to do what? In some instances it's clearly a generally good thing; charity, compassion, loving thy neighbour etc. Some might even argue these are the majority of the results. As I said, i can speak more to the effects of Christianity, but God/Jesus has been used to justify homophobia, misogyny, slavery, wars, sectarian violence, and all sorts of hatred, and not just historically. On the Hindu side there's a well-documented anti-Muslim sentiment in the ruling Nationalist parties interpretation of Hinduism in India, from what I can see.

It's less what that motivational elements are, and more what the traits and ethics we want to inspire people with are. Part of the problem with the mythic figures is that their purported divine nature risks the lesson crossing the line from 'inspiration' to 'edict' - divinely mandated expectations, things that can't be questioned by their nature, are dangerous.

O.

People get inspired by different messages depending on their basic personality and motivations. It is not just about mythic figures but is true of historical ones too.

The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people. So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.

[jeremyp]

The gospels are clearly myth,

I think it's pretty well demonstrated that the gospels are myth, or, at least contain many mythical elements. They've got dead people coming alive again in them, for example. In any context other than that of your religion, you'd happily put that story in the myth bucket.

[jeremyp]

Do you see no difference between 'The gospels seem clearly myth to me' and 'The gospels are clearly myth'?

Why are you hedging your bets in this way? There's plenty of evidence that the gospels contain stories that are made up. Or are you going to argue the fine line between "the gospels are myth" and "the gospels contain myths"?

[Outrider]

People get inspired by different messages depending on their basic personality and motivations. It is not just about mythic figures but is true of historical ones too.

That's debatable, but a slightly different issue. What is clearer is that we have a better understanding of the specifics of most of the real people who are seen as inspirational because they're typically more recent and the accounts we have are broader and more reliable. That reduces the capacity of people to reinterpret to suit their own agenda.
 

The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people.

The problem isn't so much with the 'mythic' part - people could take their inspiration from the Arthurian Knights and it would be less problematic than Jesus or Krishna. The problem is the religious nature of these figures which, to some ways of thinking, puts questioning the inspired somehow beyond the pale - it's the unquestionable nature of the inspiration, the religious fervour itself which is problematic.

So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.

Yes and no. Jesus being considered by mainstream historians to probably be a real person (albeit one on whom any amount of magical myth-making may or may not have been layered after the fact) makes it more difficult to counter that sort of religious-inspiration thinking. It's easier to dismiss Krishna as purely created idea in the absence of claims of it being real person.

O.

[Sriram]

We can't clearly outline what effects mythical or historical persons will have as categories. God himself is just a belief but has tremendous effect on peoples mind and emotions.

It is about the authoritative nature of the person or being (real or mythical) as viewed by the people in that culture. Emotional vulnerability is a factor.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people. So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to whom? One of the defining characteristics of followers of Jesus isn’t just that they like the inspiring quotes that are attributed to him – it’s that he’s (supposedly) a man-god too and so his (supposed) pronouncements have an authority and irrefutability that brooks no disagreement or counter-argument.

Now contrast that with the pronouncements of Aristotle or Plato whose merits stand on their content, not on the (supposedly) divine status of their authors.

That’s why it does matter in practice – one set of inspirational quotes comes freighted with (faux) authority while the other doesn’t, and so often people will apply them very differently.   

[Outrider]

We can't clearly outline what effects mythical or historical persons will have as categories. God himself is just a belief but has tremendous effect on peoples mind and emotions.

It is about the authoritative nature of the person or being (real or mythical) as viewed by the people in that culture. Emotional vulnerability is a factor.

Yes, absolutely. That's why we should be hesitant about feeding into that 'emotional vulnerability', we should be cautious about the baggage that comes with some myths and legends, and should therefore be selective in which figures we advocate as inspirational.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

Irrelevant to whom? One of the defining characteristics of followers of Jesus isn’t just that they like the inspiring quotes that are attributed to him – it’s that he’s (supposedly) a man-god too and so his (supposed) pronouncements have an authority and irrefutability that brooks no disagreement or counter-argument.

Now contrast that with the pronouncements of Aristotle or Plato whose merits stand on their content, not on the (supposedly) divine status of their authors.

That’s why it does matter in practice – one set of inspirational quotes comes freighted with (faux) authority while the other doesn’t, and so often people will apply them very differently.

I don't think either Plato or Aristotle fit the bill of atheist though.
Is Jesus a philosopher or a moral teacher? Are you in fact, then, comparing like with like?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think either Plato or Aristotle fit the bill of atheist though.
Is Jesus a philosopher or a moral teacher? Are you in fact, then, comparing like with like?

Yes - they all (reportedly) said things that some have found to be inspirational. That's the relevant commonality here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That’s why it does matter in practice – one set of inspirational quotes comes freighted with (faux) authority while the other doesn’t, and so often people will apply them very differently.

faux authority? Looks like a positive assertion to me...you know what you have to do in that case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

faux authority? Looks like a positive assertion to me...you know what you have to do in that case.

Yes - keep waiting for those who claim that Jesus was a mad-god hybrid and therefore infallible in his statements to justify that claim with a sound argument. Until and unless that finally happens, there's no reason to think the claimed authority isn't faux.   

You really do have the most remarkable ability always to miss the point.

[Alan Burns]

People get inspired by different messages depending on their basic personality and motivations. It is not just about mythic figures but is true of historical ones too.

The point of the OP is that it doesn't matter whether Jesus or Krishna are historical or not as long as they inspire people. So...the argument that so and so may not be historical, is irrelevant.

The historical facts are entirely relevant.  Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.

[Maeght]

The historical facts are entirely relevant.  Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.

Not true. Just needs someone to believe in a resurrection, to convince others and so on until it becomes a wide spread belief.

[Gordon]

The historical facts are entirely relevant.  Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.

The resurrection claim isn't a historical fact: it's a religious belief that lacks any justification and, as such, it is easily rejected: as is the Christianity which is dependent on it.

As far as I can see your precious Christianity is based on just smoke and mirrors.

[Nearly Sane]

Why are you hedging your bets in this way? There's plenty of evidence that the gospels contain stories that are made up. Or are you going to argue the fine line between "the gospels are myth" and "the gospels contain myths"

Because I'm not commenting on the gospels at all in my post. I was highlighting that Vlad had turned Outider's comment that the gospels seemed clearly mythical to him, to a blanket statement atheists on here said the gospels are mythical.

Now I can't say exactly why Outrider phrased it that way, but I suspect it's because contextually he was drawing a difference between someone seeing them as myth, and someone seeing them as fact in order to have a discussion about what difference that might make to how someone behaves without getting into the discussion about what is actually true because it's not relevant to the wider idea.

[Nearly Sane]

The resurrection claim isn't a historical fact: it's a religious belief that lacks any justification and, as such, it is easily rejected: as is the Christianity which is dependent on it.

As far as I can see your precious Christianity is based on just smoke and mirrors.

Just for clarity, if we are saying a 'historical fact' is something that happened , the resurrection may or may not be a historical fact. If however, anyone wanted to claim that it was they would then need to provide a method for establishing a supernatural claim as true. In the absence of such a method, and as fans of the show will know it has been asked for multiple times, then the claim is meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The historical facts are entirely relevant.  Without the resurrection there would be no Christianity.

Actually, without just the conviction that a resurrection happened. There are many reasons such a conviction may have been in place despite there being no resurrection at all though. Your problem here if you want to assert your faith to rest on the resurrection being a historical fact is that the evidence for that being the case is woefully inadequate.

Worse yet, if nonetheless you decide to drop the evidential bar so low that it allows for the non-contemporaneous hearsay that supports the resurrection story then you have no basis to deny any other mythical or folkloric truth claim that rests on equally flimsy evidence.     

[Sriram]

Yes, absolutely. That's why we should be hesitant about feeding into that 'emotional vulnerability', we should be cautious about the baggage that comes with some myths and legends, and should therefore be selective in which figures we advocate as inspirational.

O.

I am not sure if any one person or a group of people can position themselves as the judges and guides who decide what is (or should be) inspirational and what is not.  Different individuals get inspired by different people and different images and ideas all the time. Part of this could be myth and part historical.

What we consider as historical today could turn out to be a myth and vice-versa. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just for clarity, if we are saying a 'historical fact' is something that happened , the resurrection may or may not be a historical fact.

I agree but your statement does suggest therefore that history has no philosophical bias except that something has had to have happened

however, anyone wanted to claim that it was they would then need to provide a method for establishing a supernatural claim as true.

Having taken philosophical bias out , you seem here to be reintroducing it through the back door. If a resurrection happened it would present itself naturally I.e. in the physical form of whoever was resurrected. What might not be apparent is an explanation, but given your original definition of history that isn’t so important. An explanation doesn’t conjur an event.

[Outrider]

I am not sure if any one person or a group of people can position themselves as the judges and guides who decide what is (or should be) inspirational and what is not.

And yet you posted a video of someone doing exactly that, implicitly supporting their stance. Every time we recommend something we are putting ourselves in the position of judging that - all I'm saying is that we need to be cautious with our recommendations.

Different individuals get inspired by different people and different images and ideas all the time. Part of this could be myth and part historical.

And when we make recommendations, when we repost or reiterate or advocate, we need to take responsibility for those actions, and the implications of them.

What we consider as historical today could turn out to be a myth and vice-versa.

Possibly, yes. Whether Jesus or Krishna are in any way actually real is sort of beside the point here, though - this isn't about whether it's true, this is about how people will react to the stories, how people will take advocacy of their chosen story and run with, how people will utilised well-meaning but benign commentary and use it to reinforce their 'holy' stance. It's not about Jesus, it's about Christians; it's not about Krishna, it's about Hindus. And, unfortunate though it is, it's not really about the majority of those groups, but about the loudest and most obnoxious of the groups.

O.

[Spud]

I am not sure if any one person or a group of people can position themselves as the judges and guides who decide what is (or should be) inspirational and what is not.  Different individuals get inspired by different people and different images and ideas all the time. Part of this could be myth and part historical.

What we consider as historical today could turn out to be a myth and vice-versa.

1 Peter 3 is useful: it encourages the reader to keep a clear conscience, saying that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Then it says, "for Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God".
I would say that if we take inspiration from a fictional story about someone suffering for doing good, then it can't really motivate us to do the same unless the story reminds us of an actual historical occasion when someone has done that.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree but your statement does suggest therefore that history has no philosophical bias except that something has had to have happened

Having taken philosophical bias out , you seem here to be reintroducing it through the back door. If a resurrection happened it would present itself naturally I.e. in the physical form of whoever was resurrected. What might not be apparent is an explanation, but given your original definition of history that isn’t so important. An explanation doesn’t conjur an event?

It's quite difficult to work out what you are trying to say here. So let's start with:
Are you saying the resurrection was not a supernatural event?

[Outrider]

1 Peter 3 is useful: it encourages the reader to keep a clear conscience, saying that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Then it says, "for Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God".
I would say that if we take inspiration from a fictional story about someone suffering for doing good, then it can't really motivate us to do the same unless the story reminds us of an actual historical occasion when someone has done that.

That's the 'Peter' and 'Jesus' who are so beloved of the Christian Nationalist right-wing American nutjobs who prop up Trump's borderline theocratic bid for the Presidency, right? You might argue that you're not aligned with them (although you're also aware that I, and others, disagree with the benificence of your own interpretations), but you have to accept that they find their inspiration in the same writings that you do.

O.

[jeremyp]

Just for clarity, if we are saying a 'historical fact' is something that happened , the resurrection may or may not be a historical fact.

It's not a historical fact. It didn't happen. I am as certain of that as I am as certain that Rome was not founded by two twins who were raised by a wolf or that St George didn't fight a dragon.

If however, anyone wanted to claim that it was they would then need to provide a method for establishing a supernatural claim as true.

The term "supernatural" is incoherent. As soon as somebody provides a method for establishing as supernatural claims, those claims become natural.

Conversely, if somebody says "for God, all things are possible", then all history immediately becomes meaningless. We would no longer be able to reliably investigate what happened in the past because God, could have made up everything.