You can sort of see it with Jesus too; Jesus is the paragon of passive-aggressive trolling after all.
I don’t quite buy that. I don’t think Jesus deserves the reputation for passive aggression that the sermons told about him give us. The actual (probably fictional character) of Jesus as portrayed by the descriptions of his behavior are worthy of more respect than that. This is the guy who smashed up a church, ran around with whip and gave rather brutally direct denunciations straight to the face of the orthodoxy. I may never have been able to escape my religious beliefs if religious culture was actually modeled remotely upon that guy.
Really? You and muflax say that but I thought lukeprog leaned the other way, and I always figured that it was more likely that Jesus was for real. I haven’t looked at the literature. It seemed that arguments could easily go either way but that the prior suggested historicity for various reasons, and if you hadn’t done a lot of research then historicity was the safer provisional bet. E.g. it seems like it’d be hard to figure out which historians to trust; I’ve discovered that even highly-recommended books about Christianity can have errors that look conspicuously politically motivated.
This is the guy who smashed up a church, ran around with whip and gave rather brutally direct denunciations straight to the face of the orthodoxy.
Jesus was pretty multidimensional though, a la Paul’s “I have become all things to all men that I might by all means win some”. He definitely wasn’t afraid of fucking shit up, but even so, his killing of the fig tree, alleged self-martyring choice to hang on the cross, &c. strike me as passive aggressive.
(I think I admire passive aggression and trolling more than you do, I wonder why that is.)
Really? You and muflax say that but I thought lukeprog leaned the other way, and I always figured that it was more likely that Jesus was for real.
In that context the position I was assuming was that the details of the stories told about Jesus and the character conveyed were most likely heavily fictionalized. Not so much anything about the possibility of a man behind the myth.
It seemed that arguments could easily go either way
I had been under the impression that it was generally believed Jesus existed as a historical figure but when prompted I was rather surprised that the evidence was scant. I’m not especially attached to a position either way and accordingly have only investigated briefly.
(I think I admire passive aggression and trolling more than you do, I wonder why that is.
I admire passive aggression—when done well. The sort encouraged in churches does not seem to be of this kind. It can be a powerful tool to use against enemies and rivals and in particular anything that can be done to claim the moral highground from the enemy—to make them look like the bad guy—is usually a good idea.
I most certainly don’t admire it as a primary means of conflict resolution in my friends. In terms of what benefits and what I find convenient to tolerate it ranks far below straightforward aggression. Mostly because I’m not very good at dealing with it. I don’t mean I can’t reciprocate effectively and mitigate damage. I just can’t deal with them in a way that makes them useful to me as friends. Passive aggressive friends resolve in my mind to ‘enemies’.
As for why you like trolling more than I do—many would attribute that sort of thing to bad parenting but from what I understand it is actually genetics and peer influence that are the dominant factors. ;)
I don’t quite buy that. I don’t think Jesus deserves the reputation for passive aggression that the sermons told about him give us. The actual (probably fictional character) of Jesus as portrayed by the descriptions of his behavior are worthy of more respect than that. This is the guy who smashed up a church, ran around with whip and gave rather brutally direct denunciations straight to the face of the orthodoxy. I may never have been able to escape my religious beliefs if religious culture was actually modeled remotely upon that guy.
Oh yeah, I was primed by muflax’ recent tweet:
Really? You and muflax say that but I thought lukeprog leaned the other way, and I always figured that it was more likely that Jesus was for real. I haven’t looked at the literature. It seemed that arguments could easily go either way but that the prior suggested historicity for various reasons, and if you hadn’t done a lot of research then historicity was the safer provisional bet. E.g. it seems like it’d be hard to figure out which historians to trust; I’ve discovered that even highly-recommended books about Christianity can have errors that look conspicuously politically motivated.
Jesus was pretty multidimensional though, a la Paul’s “I have become all things to all men that I might by all means win some”. He definitely wasn’t afraid of fucking shit up, but even so, his killing of the fig tree, alleged self-martyring choice to hang on the cross, &c. strike me as passive aggressive.
(I think I admire passive aggression and trolling more than you do, I wonder why that is.)
In that context the position I was assuming was that the details of the stories told about Jesus and the character conveyed were most likely heavily fictionalized. Not so much anything about the possibility of a man behind the myth.
I had been under the impression that it was generally believed Jesus existed as a historical figure but when prompted I was rather surprised that the evidence was scant. I’m not especially attached to a position either way and accordingly have only investigated briefly.
I admire passive aggression—when done well. The sort encouraged in churches does not seem to be of this kind. It can be a powerful tool to use against enemies and rivals and in particular anything that can be done to claim the moral highground from the enemy—to make them look like the bad guy—is usually a good idea.
I most certainly don’t admire it as a primary means of conflict resolution in my friends. In terms of what benefits and what I find convenient to tolerate it ranks far below straightforward aggression. Mostly because I’m not very good at dealing with it. I don’t mean I can’t reciprocate effectively and mitigate damage. I just can’t deal with them in a way that makes them useful to me as friends. Passive aggressive friends resolve in my mind to ‘enemies’.
As for why you like trolling more than I do—many would attribute that sort of thing to bad parenting but from what I understand it is actually genetics and peer influence that are the dominant factors. ;)