Diegetics

Tinker,

Thanks, I'll take a look, despite the 70 bucks. I've been thinking about writing a secular bible of sorts myself. I'd be happy if this book has spared me the work. Will let you know what my impressions are.

i think the athiest/theist split is overrated - the real split is centralisation/decentralisation... conformity/diversity

plenty of theists and atheists who rather work out life for themselves and build their own relationships with the community, plenty of both who want to be spoon fed "truth" from elites and be told what to do.

some folks are scared shitless of difference and think nothing of forcing the other into being them, other folks.. not so fear driven and enjoy meeting difference.

millitant athiests always smell a bit too much like fundie theists to me.. so i will have to read this thing aswell and see what its on about.

dont like the word bible either, "thoughts or ideas" would be more secular and atheist friendly ;P

"At a difficult point in my life, I tried to become a Roman Catholic. I went on an induction course at the local RC cathedral.

There were about 15 new ‘recruits’ and it was pretty clear that each of them had some issues which had driven them to this place. Mine was bereavement. From the start it was obvious that the course leaders were prepared for the usual questions about historical accuracy etc. We talked about our lives and when I said to the group that I had two philosophy degrees the Catholics actually fell about laughing! Philosophy did not impress them.

It became obvious that this was not going to be about the ancient stories or trappings of their religion. These Catholics were selling something deeper, it was never openly stated but the good on offer was ‘brotherhood’. Everything in their discussions and body language came back to this sense of closeness and belonging, both to their God and to their group. Admittedly, for someone suffering emotional pain, brotherhood and belonging are potent attractions.

Right at the end of the course, after many weeks, I bridled and pulled out. The excuse I gave was that I didn’t believe Jesus was the son of God. This was honest, but was that the only reason? I had enjoyed the architecture of the cathedral, the incense, the repetitive stories, the cups of tea, the weekly routine, the friendly handshaking; so why back off? Looking back, I think it was the very core of their offer that turned me. Even at my lowest point, I didn’t want to belong to them. I didn’t want to sell what little emotional energy I had to their ‘brotherhood’.

...

Well, yes. I didn't leave with overly strong feelings, maybe a little sad that I was paddling my own canoe again, but also a feeling of light relief which counteracted that. Being honest was probably the best feeling..."

What would compel a group of fishermen whom were hiding for fear of prosecution to go out and preach a message of love and redemption to a world that destroyed all of them. These men could have walked away after Jesus was crucified. They could have all made a pact to never speak of it again and to go back to just catching fish and living normal lives. They founded churches and ministered to people whom they did not share any benefit from proclaiming a strange message. What would change these men...

Even more so , you have to explain how legendary development could have taken such a rapid turn within 20 years , when Paul was writing the Epistles. If it's made out of whole cloth, it's some pretty goddamn amazing cloth .

That people cling to a myth is no statement of its factuality.


http://www.sathyasai.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How many works of fiction- that you are in a place to know whether they are fiction are not- are you willing to die for ?

See , that's the thing. For them , it did. It is their witness - their fact - that undergirds later faith. Everybody else after them is in an entirely different epistemologic position.

I am in a position to know for certain if Santa comes to my house or not. In light of that sure knowledge , it would be very odd to risk stoning over the matter. The first century types did. Either they saw somebody squeezing down the chimney or decided to die for a lie.

The " legend" thing doesn't fit. You'd have to be Jesus to come up with such an atypical character in that time and place.

No , it's the limited viewpoint of his argument. And the fucking jazz .