Sunday, June 1, 2014

More Jesus related foolishness

I came across a handful of article this past week that just seemed so patently ridiculous even by the low standards of religion. I've picked just two to name; "The miracle of Jesus is not needing a miracle at all" on and "Who, What, Why: What language would Jesus have spoken?" from BBC's blog Magazine Monitor.

Reread those and take a few moments to spot why the titles (the content is actually worse) are so idiotic.

If you strip away the Jesus figures supernatural elements what is left? This, of course, assumes you didn't pick up on the semantic issues. Miracle - miracle = nothing. Without the miracles doesn't that make Jesus just another wandering preacher? The world has always had plenty of them.

Why would the language matter that much? Even after you make the huge assumption that the guy ever existed most of the claims about him would make his preferred language a rather trivial point. It is also problematic since it is an assumption in itself that he would have a favored language or be limited to a specific language(s). Isn't he supposed to be divine? Isn't one of the main points of his preaching to pass on his/God's teaching? If a divine being can't communicate their message effectively how impressive can that being really be?

And theists wonder why non-theists mock and ridicule their beliefs.

No comments:

Post a Comment