Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's so special about Jesus?

leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 4:09:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 4:06:02 PM, iixis wrote:
I haven't a clue. Tell me and if I disagree I'll let you know why.

He had a gnarly beard. And he walked on wine and turned water into gravy. He also won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry when he invented LSD in the 50s.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 4:22:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 4:06:02 PM, iixis wrote:
I haven't a clue. Tell me and if I disagree I'll let you know why.

He proposed a new way of looking at the world within the Judaic paradigm: a morality that existed separate and apart from rules and authoritarian structures. His revolutionary way of separating what was right from what was done helped pave the way for modern society, primarily by encouraging people to break down their sense of duty into discrete categories and recognize the conflicts that could arise in them(basically God /= human authority, nor was He necessarily supportive of or responsive to such authority). Every nation that was founded by Christian forebears and that has found some measure of freedom owes that freedom to Jesus's assertion that authority may be challenged when it does not live up to the standards of its purported principles.* He really was quite a nice, libertarian guy,** and I for one have nothing against him.

*This is an oversimplification, not taking into account how Christianity was used by rigid authoritarian regimes as a form of justification for the right to rule or how the subjectivity of moral principles throughout the ages allowed people to set some ridiculous standards of right and wrong, but as an abridged accounting goes I think it is accurate.

** For his times.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 4:22:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 4:09:05 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 6/1/2009 4:06:02 PM, iixis wrote:
I haven't a clue. Tell me and if I disagree I'll let you know why.

He had a gnarly beard. And he walked on wine and turned water into gravy. He also won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry when he invented LSD in the 50s.

There's also that. That is a much niftier way of explaining it.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
iixis
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 6:04:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 4:22:04 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/1/2009 4:06:02 PM, iixis wrote:
I haven't a clue. Tell me and if I disagree I'll let you know why.

He proposed a new way of looking at the world within the Judaic paradigm: a morality that existed separate and apart from rules and authoritarian structures.

A morality that exists separate from rules? All that does is give unstable people the conviction to commit crimes in God's name, because their morality is from an assumed higher power. Apart from authoritarian structures? Like laws? Again, that's not a good thing. It's a conviction to go against democracy. "In the name of my interpretation of a higher power's law!" That's simply scary.

It's also not special or unique. Hinduism brought divine morals too, apart from democracy (you can't vote on whether or not eating cows is OK in Hinduism).

The rest of your post is all over the place. Can you reexplain it more plainly?
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 7:03:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 6:04:33 PM, iixis wrote:
At 6/1/2009 4:22:04 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/1/2009 4:06:02 PM, iixis wrote:
I haven't a clue. Tell me and if I disagree I'll let you know why.

He proposed a new way of looking at the world within the Judaic paradigm: a morality that existed separate and apart from rules and authoritarian structures.

A morality that exists separate from rules? All that does is give unstable people the conviction to commit crimes in God's name, because their morality is from an assumed higher power. Apart from authoritarian structures? Like laws? Again, that's not a good thing. It's a conviction to go against democracy. "In the name of my interpretation of a higher power's law!" That's simply scary.

It's also not special or unique. Hinduism brought divine morals too, apart from democracy (you can't vote on whether or not eating cows is OK in Hinduism).

The rest of your post is all over the place. Can you reexplain it more plainly?

I can try. Jesus was working out of a theological background where God contracted with his people, offering them blessings and continued existence in exchange for proper devotion. There was no sense of good as not hurting people or bad as hurting people (in Judaism). There was good as obedient to the law and bad as disobedient to the law, even if that law might ask you to kill, or maim, another human being. Jesus was a reductionist. He took (almost) all the laws that came before and melded them into one 'golden rule' that required simply that people be kind to each other. Because the laws at that time called for people to be cruel to each other, Jesus' teachings were against the law. This created a conflict of theology with authority.

Prior to this, theology was authority. Rulers were divinely appointed. Leaders were clergymen. Admittedly, during Jesus' time, the government was foreign and secular, but in the everyday lives of his people, the law of God, as interpreted by the high priests, was absolute.

Had it not been for this divide Jesus introduced between divine morality and mundane authority, the United States would likely have been founded as a theocracy, if it would have rebelled at all, instead of the awesome place it is today. Arguably, any Christian who makes the mistake of melding earthly laws with divine mandates is actively working to undo the good that Jesus did.

That good was the ability for people of the Jewish (and eventually, Christian) faith to perceive of a state comprised of faithful individuals that did not demand that those individuals conform to the faith in order to live lawfully. In other words, by encouraging a distinction between morality and authority, Jesus actually created a worldview whereby authority could exist in a Judeo-Christian nation without the laws being derived from religion. No doubt this was not his intent, as he probably would have preferred a reform in the laws to match his morality. It doesn't matter, he still undid the link between authority and morality in Judaism. As a result, Christian morality became very beneficial to the causes of democracy and equality.

To sum it up: he kept the crazy people from ruling over the sane people. The cost is a crazy person now and again seeking to impose his beliefs on other violently. Imagine what it would be like if it was the Inquisition all the time.

Hinduism actually brought divine morals as part of authority and never particularly separated the two. In fact, morality in Hinduism, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is primarily duty based. That's why things like a caste system could exist in India, where as the same kind of system had to become outright slavery in the Western world (which was worse I leave open to debate).

Now, you want to know why I think he was a Pretty Cool Guy, right? Well, a few reasons: a) he was one of the few religious leaders in history to accept outcasts, including prostitutes, beggars, lepers, and members outside his ethnic group not only as followers but as people equally deserving of compassion. Although he was clearly an ethnocentrist, he was not against considering the needs of other people, and even animals (he argued against animal sacrifice), b) he was willing to die for his beliefs. While it may or may not be true that he rose from the dead (just as it may or may not be true that somewhere, there are unicorns), it is clear that he was a man of conviction who was not merely leading others on for personal glory. In fact, he shunned attention, c) he spoke out for the weak and the oppressed, and although he did make efforts to avoid capture (the real reason he kept moving everywhere) he never stopped speaking out, even at a cost to himself, and finally, d) he forgave everyone at his death. Wow. Son of God or no, that's a person I can respect, because it is an ideal I don't think i could bring myself to meet.

All this having been said, I'm not a Christian. So if you're expecting to respond to the rant to save your soul, it isn't coming.

Note: I can't get into all of the reasons why what Jesus did was relevant to the development of the Western world and modern society, so this explanation is as complete as it can be for now. There's a lot left out, but I only have so many characters to use, and so much patience for typing long-winded essays in defense of Christianity's founder.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
iixis
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 8:11:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 7:03:41 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/1/2009 6:04:33 PM, iixis wrote:
At 6/1/2009 4:22:04 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/1/2009 4:06:02 PM, iixis wrote:
I haven't a clue. Tell me and if I disagree I'll let you know why.

He proposed a new way of looking at the world within the Judaic paradigm: a morality that existed separate and apart from rules and authoritarian structures.

A morality that exists separate from rules? All that does is give unstable people the conviction to commit crimes in God's name, because their morality is from an assumed higher power. Apart from authoritarian structures? Like laws? Again, that's not a good thing. It's a conviction to go against democracy. "In the name of my interpretation of a higher power's law!" That's simply scary.

It's also not special or unique. Hinduism brought divine morals too, apart from democracy (you can't vote on whether or not eating cows is OK in Hinduism).

The rest of your post is all over the place. Can you reexplain it more plainly?

I can try. Jesus was working out of a theological background where God contracted with his people, offering them blessings and continued existence in exchange for proper devotion. There was no sense of good as not hurting people or bad as hurting people (in Judaism). There was good as obedient to the law and bad as disobedient to the law, even if that law might ask you to kill, or maim, another human being. Jesus was a reductionist. He took (almost) all the laws that came before and melded them into one 'golden rule' that required simply that people be kind to each other.

So God got it wrong the first time?

Because the laws at that time called for people to be cruel to each other, Jesus' teachings were against the law. This created a conflict of theology with authority.

God called for people to be cruel to each other and then changed his mind?

Prior to this, theology was authority. Rulers were divinely appointed. Leaders were clergymen. Admittedly, during Jesus' time, the government was foreign and secular, but in the everyday lives of his people, the law of God, as interpreted by the high priests, was absolute.

Had it not been for this divide Jesus introduced between divine morality and mundane authority, the United States would likely have been founded as a theocracy

That's an incredibly audacious statement. Christian theocracies existed for many many years after the gospels. I think you're way out of place. The United States is not a theocracy because it was trying to ESCAPE a Jesus Christ-theocracy.

if it would have rebelled at all, instead of the awesome place it is today. Arguably, any Christian who makes the mistake of melding earthly laws with divine mandates is actively working to undo the good that Jesus did.

This brings us back to my original reply which you haven't addressed.

That good was the ability for people of the Jewish (and eventually, Christian) faith to perceive of a state comprised of faithful individuals that did not demand that those individuals conform to the faith in order to live lawfully. In other words, by encouraging a distinction between morality and authority, Jesus actually created a worldview whereby authority could exist in a Judeo-Christian nation without the laws being derived from religion. No doubt this was not his intent, as he probably would have preferred a reform in the laws to match his morality. It doesn't matter, he still undid the link between authority and morality in Judaism. As a result, Christian morality became very beneficial to the causes of democracy and equality.

To sum it up: he kept the crazy people from ruling over the sane people. The cost is a crazy person now and again seeking to impose his beliefs on other violently. Imagine what it would be like if it was the Inquisition all the time.

How is he keeping crazy people from ruling? Just look around.

Hinduism actually brought divine morals as part of authority and never particularly separated the two. In fact, morality in Hinduism, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is primarily duty based. That's why things like a caste system could exist in India, where as the same kind of system had to become outright slavery in the Western world (which was worse I leave open to debate).

Now, you want to know why I think he was a Pretty Cool Guy, right? Well, a few reasons: a) he was one of the few religious leaders in history to accept outcasts, including prostitutes, beggars, lepers, and members outside his ethnic group not only as followers but as people equally deserving of compassion.

He was a good person? That's not incredibly special, many "messiahs" living today boost their miracles using the sick and poor.

Although he was clearly an ethnocentrist, he was not against considering the needs of other people, and even animals (he argued against animal sacrifice), b) he was willing to die for his beliefs. While it may or may not be true that he rose from the dead (just as it may or may not be true that somewhere, there are unicorns), it is clear that he was a man of conviction who was not merely leading others on for personal glory.

In fact, he shunned attention, c) he spoke out for the weak and the oppressed, and although he did make efforts to avoid capture (the real reason he kept moving everywhere) he never stopped speaking out, even at a cost to himself, and finally, d) he forgave everyone at his death. Wow. Son of God or no, that's a person I can respect, because it is an ideal I don't think i could bring myself to meet.

Very respectable, if he existed and his biographies are accurate. One of the key elements of prophets and messiahs have been inspirational depictions of their character. It's not that special. It's not what I'm asking for.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 9:59:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not interested enough in the topic to add to the discussion in any meaningful way, but I thought the OP should know the title "What's so special about Jesus?" made me laugh out loud. Carry on.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2009 10:01:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 8:11:04 PM, iixis wrote:

So God got it wrong the first time?


God probably doesn't exist. People kept making stuff up, on a whim, to support their power structure. They still do, only now they have to contend with the fact that people are encouraged to figure out right and wrong for themselves instead of taking it on authority that it is so. One figure who contributed to this movement, if inadvertently, was Jesus.


God called for people to be cruel to each other and then changed his mind?


No, God probably doesn't exist. Religious leaders constantly reinterpreted their religious laws to strengthen their power base. See the above statement.

Audacious statements:
Yes ... but in the past, in the history of JUDAISM, no one thought to challenge theocracy because the authority was assumed to be right due to the fact that it was the authority and not because it was a 'good' authority. Had the tenets of Judaism continued on unchanged, and spread to the Western world, theocracies might not have been as readily challenged for their 'misinterpretations'.

This brings us back to my original reply which you haven't addressed.


?? What makes him special? How many people die in the pursuit of any novel cause? Just because I don't think he's maaaaagic! doesn't mean I can't respect what he set out to do, and what his actions ultimately achieved.

How is he keeping crazy people from ruling? Just look around.

Crazier. We're not being ruled by the Taliban, for example.

He was a good person? That's not incredibly special, many "messiahs" living today boost their miracles using the sick and poor.


A truly good person is extraordinarily special. I have met maybe two in my whole life. How many people do you know who would even try what he did? (Note his message, push aside the magic mumbo-jumbo ... you're arguing with an agnostic, not a true believer ... I'm not going to tell you how many rabbits he pulled out of his hat, just why his message was radical for his time and important to history and the development of Western value systems).


Very respectable, if he existed and his biographies are accurate. One of the key elements of prophets and messiahs have been inspirational depictions of their character. It's not that special. It's not what I'm asking for.


So what are you asking for? Let's say he doesn't exist ... fine. Santa Claus doesn't exist, but most people will at least concede that the concept of Santa Claus is special because it gives people hope. Maybe that's what his image was meant to do. Let's say he did exist and his biography is inaccurate ... fine. Dig into the background of any historical figure and you find some dirt, because they're human. At least he was one of the humans who accomplished a positive change in his little region of the world. That's more than most ever get.

A lot of people are special and do not claim to be the Messiah. In all likelihood, Jesus didn't even claim it for himself. If you're angry at Christians, that I can understand. Most of them use Jesus as a bludgeon when he wanted to be a balm, and frankly there was never a plan on Jesus' part (or so it would seem from reading the Bible) to replace Judaism with a new faith. But even for a person who's lived through the idiocy of organized Christian religion (and Catholic, at that!) it's impossible to say that the message of the man wasn't important, even if the magic was all just hocus-pocus.

As a side note, I also like Siddhartha Gautama, Zarathustra (for his dichotomy, if not his faith), and Lao Tzu, among others. That doesn't make me Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Taoist. These are great thinkers in their own right, who lived in times when great thought came with a lot of superstitious gobbledygook. That doesn't mean that they were no more than the nonsense.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 1:18:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Whether or not he existed, eventhough i wholeheartedly believe that he does exist, lexicaholic is correct, if i am taking what he is saying by what he actually means,

in that without christianity, (God) the system of morality would be baseless and unfulfilled.

eventhough i'm sure someone will argue against me that we need not god to say that killing another individual is wrong, however if what science and evolution says is correct, in that we all descended from the same thing, than killing others is perfectly natural as animals still do it today.

Yes in our society we know morality, however God is the base.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 3:11:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 1:18:30 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Whether or not he existed, eventhough i wholeheartedly believe that he does exist, lexicaholic is correct, if i am taking what he is saying by what he actually means,

in that without christianity, (God) the system of morality would be baseless and unfulfilled.

eventhough i'm sure someone will argue against me that we need not god to say that killing another individual is wrong, however if what science and evolution says is correct, in that we all descended from the same thing, than killing others is perfectly natural as animals still do it today.

Yes in our society we know morality, however God is the base.

I'm actually quite sure an individual can abandon the concept of God and remain moral, just as Jesus was able to abandon the concept of conduct morality (do this and you are good, do this and you are bad- actions matter) and replace it with intent morality (Want this good thing and seek to achieve it-action and intent matters). It was this very discrete difference between Christianity and Judaism that enabled the Protestant Reformation to occur (Martin Luther wanted to ignore the action part altogether and make morality a matter of intent. He did this response to Catholic practices that focused overmuch on action and not enough on intent). The idea of an action/intent coupling for one to claim credit for or merit responsibility for one's actions actually still guides modern law and morality.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
iixis
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2009 7:44:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 10:01:39 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/1/2009 8:11:04 PM, iixis wrote:

So God got it wrong the first time?


God probably doesn't exist. People kept making stuff up, on a whim, to support their power structure. They still do, only now they have to contend with the fact that people are encouraged to figure out right and wrong for themselves instead of taking it on authority that it is so. One figure who contributed to this movement, if inadvertently, was Jesus.

Almost every messiah in history has shaped a previous form of a religion. For instance, even today, Sathya Sai Baba is arguably an extension of Hinduism.

At the time, I'm sure "figure out right and wrong for themselves instead of taking it on authority that it is so" seemed like a good idea. But, it didn't work, at least not compared to the new friction and violent evangelism it brought. Christianity was just a new toy to base more authority off of. Now, we have a working democracy with mostly sensible laws while still harboring people who have the ultimate source of conviction to break these laws for God.

And, to clarify, by "what's so special about Jesus," I'm comparing this to other prophets and god-men. How does Jesus stand apart, and how does this give him more credence. I understand you're not a Christian, though.

Audacious statements:
Yes ... but in the past, in the history of JUDAISM, no one thought to challenge theocracy because the authority was assumed to be right due to the fact that it was the authority and not because it was a 'good' authority. Had the tenets of Judaism continued on unchanged, and spread to the Western world, theocracies might not have been as readily challenged for their 'misinterpretations'.

And how did that did change when Jesus came around? Can you bring up some examples? To my knowledge, history was a conversion fest for the churches of Jesus Christ for millennium. Democracy was a reaction to the pressures of these ruling churches.

?? What makes him special? How many people die in the pursuit of any novel cause? Just because I don't think he's maaaaagic! doesn't mean I can't respect what he set out to do, and what his actions ultimately achieved.

It wasn't novel and I have yet to see your point on what the introduction of this religion achieved.

How is he keeping crazy people from ruling? Just look around.

Crazier. We're not being ruled by the Taliban, for example.

How is he keeping crazier people from ruling? I attribute this, if it's true, to easing times. The further back in history you go, times were harsher and people were poorer and less educated. I still don't see how Jesus helped.

A truly good person is extraordinarily special. I have met maybe two in my whole life. How many people do you know who would even try what he did? (Note his message, push aside the magic mumbo-jumbo ... you're arguing with an agnostic, not a true believer ... I'm not going to tell you how many rabbits he pulled out of his hat, just why his message was radical for his time and important to history and the development of Western value systems).

Heh, I'm an intern at a mental hospital. I know a few people that think they're Jesus or messengers of God and try to behave accordingly.

I don't deny that Jesus was a good man and beyond his time, but compared to other prophets and god-men? Eh. There are even historical traces of multiple people during Jesus' time that preached morals but never "caught on".

So what are you asking for? Let's say he doesn't exist ... fine. Santa Claus doesn't exist, but most people will at least concede that the concept of Santa Claus is special because it gives people hope. Maybe that's what his image was meant to do. Let's say he did exist and his biography is inaccurate ... fine. Dig into the background of any historical figure and you find some dirt, because they're human. At least he was one of the humans who accomplished a positive change in his little region of the world. That's more than most ever get.

I keep bringing up other religious leaders because I'm comparing them. Imagine if there were hundreds of Santa Claus type myths, I'd be asking what's so special about your Santa Claus compared to all the hundreds of other Santa Clauses.

A lot of people are special and do not claim to be the Messiah. In all likelihood, Jesus didn't even claim it for himself. If you're angry at Christians, that I can understand. Most of them use Jesus as a bludgeon when he wanted to be a balm, and frankly there was never a plan on Jesus' part (or so it would seem from reading the Bible) to replace Judaism with a new faith. But even for a person who's lived through the idiocy of organized Christian religion (and Catholic, at that!) it's impossible to say that the message of the man wasn't important, even if the magic was all just hocus-pocus.

lol, I'm not angry at Christians. I only have one close friend that's an atheist.

And, what part of his message was important? The most significant moral teaching, in my opinion, was the Golden Rule and that was around way before Jesus. And separation between authority and personal moral searching, like you've mentioned, didn't actually work. History shows so much friction because of this. Additionally, the United States is a reaction to the religious tension and "one true Jesus" type persecution / theocracy. Jesus had nothing to do with the United States unless you want to propose that he ignited violence and conflict enough to beg for a secular miracle.

As a side note, I also like Siddhartha Gautama, Zarathustra (for his dichotomy, if not his faith), and Lao Tzu, among others. That doesn't make me Buddhist, Zoroastrian or Taoist. These are great thinkers in their own right, who lived in times when great thought came with a lot of superstitious gobbledygook. That doesn't mean that they were no more than the nonsense.

We have no disagreement there.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 2:06:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Jesus walked on water. However, Chuck Norris swam through land. All hail the almighty Chuck Norris.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 4:49:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/1/2009 4:06:02 PM, iixis wrote:
I haven't a clue. Tell me and if I disagree I'll let you know why.

All things were created through Him and are being completed in Him.

He was born of a virgin, Fathered by the Holy Spirit.

He is the only begotten Son of the Living God.

He was fully human, wholly God.

For three years He performed countless miracles all day every day.

He was tried, sentenced and crucified for a crime He did not commit.

This crucifixion payed the price (atonement) for the sins of all who accept Him as the Son of God.

After 3 days He rose from the dead with the keys to death and hell in His hands.

He's coming back.

Colossians 2:8 (The Message)

8-10Watch out for people who try to dazzle you with big words and intellectual double-talk. They want to drag you off into endless arguments that never amount to anything. They spread their ideas through the empty traditions of human beings and the empty superstitions of spirit beings. But that's not the way of Christ. Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him. When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.

The Cross.. the Cross.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 6:47:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 1:18:30 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Whether or not he existed, eventhough i wholeheartedly believe that he does exist, lexicaholic is correct, if i am taking what he is saying by what he actually means,

in that without christianity, (God) the system of morality would be baseless and unfulfilled.

eventhough i'm sure someone will argue against me that we need not god to say that killing another individual is wrong, however if what science and evolution says is correct, in that we all descended from the same thing, than killing others is perfectly natural as animals still do it today.

Yes in our society we know morality, however God is the base.

That's because the thing that throws the wrench in the plans is the actual formation of a society.

In the animal kingdom, the only type of inter-species killing occurs either via accident or fighting for mates. Killing for a mate leads to stronger evolutionary outcome.

When humans decided to form a society, the strength of the species no longer relied so much on the strength of the individual contributing to the strength of the whole. Instead, it began to rely on the connection between each other. Communication, interaction, etc. This is why murder is pretty much immoral no matter what social group you go to.

Another problem I see with your statement is that you have a false reductio ad absurdum. Yes, if there is no God it leads to moral relativity, and moral relativity can be described as baseless and unfulfilled.

First of all, even if morality is baseless and unfulfilled, it does not automatically become an absurd statement because things need not be so. It is just that people tend not to be able to grasp the notion of meaning and purpose not being inherent to the universe. Any scientist worth his weight in salt understands that meaning and purpose come from the observer and are the result of bias, and that the universe is uncaring.

Secondly, even in this situation, morality would neither be baseless nor unfulfilled completely. There are logical reasons why moral rules seem to exist across the board. Human societies are similar, therefore, moral rules are similar. However, none of them are absolute, just like how no human society is the one true society.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 7:34:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Read Nietzsche's "On The Genealogy of Morals" and you'll see exactly what's so special about Jesus. He is just another excuse for people to rule over others, make themselves wealthy, and kill each other.

Religious ascetic ideals have been used throughout history, as Lex said, to enhance the power structures of those who already have power. They made up God. Is it really so hard to believe they made up Jesus too?
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 3:16:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
@iixis: There is nothing new under the sun. Jesus was not novel if you compare him to every person ever or even during his own time, but within his culture, he most certainly was.
@panda: You make a convincing argument, but I find it hard to believe that the eyes of a ranger are upon me. Surely, he must sleep?
@kleptin: Well said.
@JCMT: If Jesus was a purely mythological figure (and certainly a lot of his and his 'father's 'story was ripped from then existing mythology*) he was at least created to incite rebellion rather than to continue the current oppre... social control mechanism. So it depend on who you mean by 'they.' I'm fairly certain that early Christians (the disciples, Paul) were not disingenuous in their belief, but it seems likely that Paul's followers did consider the religion as a tool rather than an end in itself.

*http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Christian aesthetics
http://en.wikipedia.org...(god) --> Judeo-Christian god number one (Regional). Yamm (Yahweh, Yahwah, etc. is god number two (Jewish tribal). Arguably Hadad is god number three (Jesus, see how Astarte parallels Mary)) Yes, Judaism begins with shared multiple gods. http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org... --> angels and demons Hilariously, which is which depends on your value system.

I apologize in advance for the state of those wikipedia articles, not that I edit them. ;)
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 3:34:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/3/2009 4:49:06 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

He was born of a virgin, Fathered by the Holy Spirit.

He was fully human, wholly God.

For three years He performed countless miracles all day every day.

He was tried, sentenced and crucified for a crime He did not commit.

After 3 days He rose from the dead with the keys to death and hell in His hands.

He's coming back. For YOU!

~horror music plays~
Jesus Christ- The Rapturing II, Return of the Bloodied Lamb. In theaters June 15th. This film not yet rated.


Sorry, I just had to do it.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2009 11:34:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 3:11:48 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/2/2009 1:18:30 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Whether or not he existed, eventhough i wholeheartedly believe that he does exist, lexicaholic is correct, if i am taking what he is saying by what he actually means,

in that without christianity, (God) the system of morality would be baseless and unfulfilled.

eventhough i'm sure someone will argue against me that we need not god to say that killing another individual is wrong, however if what science and evolution says is correct, in that we all descended from the same thing, than killing others is perfectly natural as animals still do it today.

Yes in our society we know morality, however God is the base.

I'm actually quite sure an individual can abandon the concept of God and remain moral, just as Jesus was able to abandon the concept of conduct morality (do this and you are good, do this and you are bad- actions matter) and replace it with intent morality (Want this good thing and seek to achieve it-action and intent matters). It was this very discrete difference between Christianity and Judaism that enabled the Protestant Reformation to occur (Martin Luther wanted to ignore the action part altogether and make morality a matter of intent. He did this response to Catholic practices that focused overmuch on action and not enough on intent). The idea of an action/intent coupling for one to claim credit for or merit responsibility for one's actions actually still guides modern law and morality.

One may be able to abandon the concept of of God and remain moral, however; thats like buying a peach, and abandoning the pit, you still have the fruit however the base, and the source of reproduction is gone.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 4:31:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/3/2009 11:34:20 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
At 6/2/2009 3:11:48 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/2/2009 1:18:30 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Whether or not he existed, eventhough i wholeheartedly believe that he does exist, lexicaholic is correct, if i am taking what he is saying by what he actually means,

in that without christianity, (God) the system of morality would be baseless and unfulfilled.

eventhough i'm sure someone will argue against me that we need not god to say that killing another individual is wrong, however if what science and evolution says is correct, in that we all descended from the same thing, than killing others is perfectly natural as animals still do it today.

Yes in our society we know morality, however God is the base.

I'm actually quite sure an individual can abandon the concept of God and remain moral, just as Jesus was able to abandon the concept of conduct morality (do this and you are good, do this and you are bad- actions matter) and replace it with intent morality (Want this good thing and seek to achieve it-action and intent matters). It was this very discrete difference between Christianity and Judaism that enabled the Protestant Reformation to occur (Martin Luther wanted to ignore the action part altogether and make morality a matter of intent. He did this response to Catholic practices that focused overmuch on action and not enough on intent). The idea of an action/intent coupling for one to claim credit for or merit responsibility for one's actions actually still guides modern law and morality.

One may be able to abandon the concept of of God and remain moral, however; thats like buying a peach, and abandoning the pit, you still have the fruit however the base, and the source of reproduction is gone.

Only if you think that morals emanate from or are regulated by God. If you think they are derived from another source, such as survival pressure, then they will remain valuable so long as they have rational ends to meet.

As for why one should be moral if God doesn't exist, this leads to a fundamental question of theosophy: Does a man wicked at heart who is only as good as he needs to be out of fear of God deserve the same recognition/reward/encouragement as a man kind at heart who is as good as he is out of compassion for others?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 7:34:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/3/2009 7:34:00 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Read Nietzsche's "On The Genealogy of Morals" and you'll see exactly what's so special about Jesus. He is just another excuse for people to rule over others, make themselves wealthy, and kill each other.

Religious ascetic ideals have been used throughout history, as Lex said, to enhance the power structures of those who already have power. They made up God. Is it really so hard to believe they made up Jesus too?

And what if He's "just another excuse for people to rule over others, make themselves wealthy, and kill each other." AND Who He says He is?

Matthew 16:15 (New King James Version)
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"


The Cross.. the Cross.
iixis
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 10:57:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/3/2009 3:16:08 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
@iixis: There is nothing new under the sun. Jesus was not novel if you compare him to every person ever or even during his own time, but within his culture, he most certainly was.

lol, and you don't think that's a problem for Christianity? That Jesus was a repeat cookie cut wondering preacher out of hundreds and hundreds? How many people have been said to perform magic tricks, share secrets of the unknown, and have a few respectable ideas under a mountain of bad woo woo ones? Like I said, even during his own time, he was one of many traveling moral teachers. The Golden Rule was not unique, the resurrection story was not unique, his miracles are not unique, and yet we still have people waving their celebrity god men around like pokemon cards.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 12:39:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/4/2009 10:57:19 AM, iixis wrote:
At 6/3/2009 3:16:08 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
@iixis: There is nothing new under the sun. Jesus was not novel if you compare him to every person ever or even during his own time, but within his culture, he most certainly was.

lol, and you don't think that's a problem for Christianity? That Jesus was a repeat cookie cut wondering preacher out of hundreds and hundreds? How many people have been said to perform magic tricks, share secrets of the unknown, and have a few respectable ideas under a mountain of bad woo woo ones? Like I said, even during his own time, he was one of many traveling moral teachers. The Golden Rule was not unique, the resurrection story was not unique, his miracles are not unique, and yet we still have people waving their celebrity god men around like pokemon cards.

I choose you Jesuchu!
Hehe, was a funny analogy. Yes, it's a problem for Christianity to the extent that Christianity claims to be the one true way. No, it's not a problem for Jesus to be considered special, as his good ideas paved the way for better ones within his faith structure. The telephone was invented thanks to the work of several different people at the same time. Only one moved quickly enough to spread the technology by getting a patent. Now that technology is obsolete, but it paved the way for better technology. Alexander Graham Bell is still remembered as the inventor of the telephone, and for that considered special. It's much the same case here, except that the science being improved is the understanding of morality, rather than communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
iixis
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 1:40:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/4/2009 12:39:49 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/4/2009 10:57:19 AM, iixis wrote:
At 6/3/2009 3:16:08 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
@iixis: There is nothing new under the sun. Jesus was not novel if you compare him to every person ever or even during his own time, but within his culture, he most certainly was.

lol, and you don't think that's a problem for Christianity? That Jesus was a repeat cookie cut wondering preacher out of hundreds and hundreds? How many people have been said to perform magic tricks, share secrets of the unknown, and have a few respectable ideas under a mountain of bad woo woo ones? Like I said, even during his own time, he was one of many traveling moral teachers. The Golden Rule was not unique, the resurrection story was not unique, his miracles are not unique, and yet we still have people waving their celebrity god men around like pokemon cards.

I choose you Jesuchu!
Hehe, was a funny analogy. Yes, it's a problem for Christianity to the extent that Christianity claims to be the one true way. No, it's not a problem for Jesus to be considered special, as his good ideas paved the way for better ones within his faith structure. The telephone was invented thanks to the work of several different people at the same time. Only one moved quickly enough to spread the technology by getting a patent. Now that technology is obsolete, but it paved the way for better technology. Alexander Graham Bell is still remembered as the inventor of the telephone, and for that considered special. It's much the same case here, except that the science being improved is the understanding of morality, rather than communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sure, but what has Jesus paved the way for? You've brought up many things for which I've given my rebuttals. Do you have a reply to them?
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 6:23:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/4/2009 1:40:58 PM, iixis wrote:
At 6/4/2009 12:39:49 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/4/2009 10:57:19 AM, iixis wrote:
At 6/3/2009 3:16:08 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
@iixis: There is nothing new under the sun. Jesus was not novel if you compare him to every person ever or even during his own time, but within his culture, he most certainly was.

lol, and you don't think that's a problem for Christianity? That Jesus was a repeat cookie cut wondering preacher out of hundreds and hundreds? How many people have been said to perform magic tricks, share secrets of the unknown, and have a few respectable ideas under a mountain of bad woo woo ones? Like I said, even during his own time, he was one of many traveling moral teachers. The Golden Rule was not unique, the resurrection story was not unique, his miracles are not unique, and yet we still have people waving their celebrity god men around like pokemon cards.

I choose you Jesuchu!
Hehe, was a funny analogy. Yes, it's a problem for Christianity to the extent that Christianity claims to be the one true way. No, it's not a problem for Jesus to be considered special, as his good ideas paved the way for better ones within his faith structure. The telephone was invented thanks to the work of several different people at the same time. Only one moved quickly enough to spread the technology by getting a patent. Now that technology is obsolete, but it paved the way for better technology. Alexander Graham Bell is still remembered as the inventor of the telephone, and for that considered special. It's much the same case here, except that the science being improved is the understanding of morality, rather than communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sure, but what has Jesus paved the way for? You've brought up many things for which I've given my rebuttals. Do you have a reply to them?

He or belief in him provided a primary act of rebellion and punishment for it as the highest expression of faith. As such, Christians, even early Christians, felt that it was more important to abide by their beliefs than to abide by the most dominant belief backed by authority.

This is why Christianity split along so many denominational lines in comparison to Judaism. The early British colonists who fled persecution were not deists, but rather persecuted branches of Christianity like the Puritans and the Quakers. The need for such factions (or their descendants, at the least) to get along in the face of the greater adversary (Britain) during the Revolutionary War and unite against other potential adversaries afterward is what led to the adoption of the concept of Freedom of Religion, which became the more modern concept that included freedom from religion, if one so chose. So in the course of the history of the western world, Christ's example of rebellion against authority as an act of faith developed into the ability to discard faith as an act of conscience. That is the improvement he paved the way for.

As for your rebuttals, I've been replying throughout these posts, and you've been countering, and here we are now. We wouldn't still be doing this forum song and dance routine if there wasn't some point on which we kept missing each other on along the way. So, without intending to sound rude, would you please explain to me:

1. What it is you mean by special? Are you looking for what sets Jesus as a person apart from other persons in history, or what makes his beliefs better than other people in history?
2. Do you believe that what makes people special is what makes them relevant to others or what they achieve for others? If you think it is one and not the other, how do you differentiate the two?
3. To be a truly special person, must one be utterly unique in action, i.e. dissimilar in some aspect from all other persons? All over the world or within one's community? All throughout history or at one moment in time?
4. To have a truly special viewpoint, must one's viewpoint be utterly unique in concept, i.e. dissimilar in some aspect from all other persons'? All over the world or within one's community? All throughout history or at one moment in time?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
iixis
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 8:10:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/4/2009 6:23:29 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/4/2009 1:40:58 PM, iixis wrote:
At 6/4/2009 12:39:49 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/4/2009 10:57:19 AM, iixis wrote:
At 6/3/2009 3:16:08 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
@iixis: There is nothing new under the sun. Jesus was not novel if you compare him to every person ever or even during his own time, but within his culture, he most certainly was.

lol, and you don't think that's a problem for Christianity? That Jesus was a repeat cookie cut wondering preacher out of hundreds and hundreds? How many people have been said to perform magic tricks, share secrets of the unknown, and have a few respectable ideas under a mountain of bad woo woo ones? Like I said, even during his own time, he was one of many traveling moral teachers. The Golden Rule was not unique, the resurrection story was not unique, his miracles are not unique, and yet we still have people waving their celebrity god men around like pokemon cards.

I choose you Jesuchu!
Hehe, was a funny analogy. Yes, it's a problem for Christianity to the extent that Christianity claims to be the one true way. No, it's not a problem for Jesus to be considered special, as his good ideas paved the way for better ones within his faith structure. The telephone was invented thanks to the work of several different people at the same time. Only one moved quickly enough to spread the technology by getting a patent. Now that technology is obsolete, but it paved the way for better technology. Alexander Graham Bell is still remembered as the inventor of the telephone, and for that considered special. It's much the same case here, except that the science being improved is the understanding of morality, rather than communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sure, but what has Jesus paved the way for? You've brought up many things for which I've given my rebuttals. Do you have a reply to them?

He or belief in him provided a primary act of rebellion and punishment for it as the highest expression of faith. As such, Christians, even early Christians, felt that it was more important to abide by their beliefs than to abide by the most dominant belief backed by authority.

This is why Christianity split along so many denominational lines in comparison to Judaism. The early British colonists who fled persecution were not deists, but rather persecuted branches of Christianity like the Puritans and the Quakers. The need for such factions (or their descendants, at the least) to get along in the face of the greater adversary (Britain) during the Revolutionary War and unite against other potential adversaries afterward is what led to the adoption of the concept of Freedom of Religion, which became the more modern concept that included freedom from religion, if one so chose. So in the course of the history of the western world, Christ's example of rebellion against authority as an act of faith developed into the ability to discard faith as an act of conscience. That is the improvement he paved the way for.

All you're doing is describing more friction. Friction brought about by yet another opposing religion. This has been my problem with your argument since the beginning. Jesus has had nothing to do with peaceful democracy in history. Is this something you agree with?

1. What it is you mean by special? Are you looking for what sets Jesus as a person apart from other persons in history, or what makes his beliefs better than other people in history?
2. Do you believe that what makes people special is what makes them relevant to others or what they achieve for others? If you think it is one and not the other, how do you differentiate the two?
3. To be a truly special person, must one be utterly unique in action, i.e. dissimilar in some aspect from all other persons? All over the world or within one's community? All throughout history or at one moment in time?
4. To have a truly special viewpoint, must one's viewpoint be utterly unique in concept, i.e. dissimilar in some aspect from all other persons'? All over the world or within one's community? All throughout history or at one moment in time?

My post two days ago:
"And, to clarify, by "what's so special about Jesus," I'm comparing this to other prophets and god-men. How does Jesus stand apart, and how does this give him more credence. I understand you're not a Christian, though."

Is Jesus a Charzard in a pile of Charmanders? They all look the same in impressiveness, and none of them have any attributes that give them credence over each other.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 9:03:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/4/2009 8:10:34 PM, iixis wrote:

All you're doing is describing more friction. Friction brought about by yet another opposing religion. This has been my problem with your argument since the beginning. Jesus has had nothing to do with peaceful democracy in history. Is this something you agree with?

I believe that Christianity did have something to do with the development of modern democracies, yes, but introducing the idea of personal morals trumping moral authority. As for the friction: friction is simply of consequence of the evolution of human civilization (or the drive behind it, depending on how you look at it). Without that friction, society can never improve.

My post two days ago:
"And, to clarify, by "what's so special about Jesus," I'm comparing this to other prophets and god-men. How does Jesus stand apart, and how does this give him more credence. I understand you're not a Christian, though."

Is Jesus a Charzard in a pile of Charmanders? They all look the same in impressiveness, and none of them have any attributes that give them credence over each other.

Ah, I see. So the question really is "Were the actions and teachings of Jesus any more miraculous or divine in nature than any other religious teacher's?" The answer to that is "no."
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 9:05:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/4/2009 9:03:51 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:

I believe that Christianity did have something to do with the development of modern democracies, yes, by introducing the idea of personal morals trumping moral authority. As for the friction: friction is simply of consequence of the evolution of human civilization (or the drive behind it, depending on how you look at it). Without that friction, society can never improve.

fixed
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 6:20:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
John 14:6 (New King James Version)
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


Not a way or a truth or a life.. THE.
The Cross.. the Cross.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2009 9:45:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/2/2009 1:18:30 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
Whether or not he existed, eventhough i wholeheartedly believe that he does exist, lexicaholic is correct, if i am taking what he is saying by what he actually means,

in that without christianity, (God) the system of morality would be baseless and unfulfilled.

I'm sorry, but thou shall not worship any other god before me, is not moral by any means. It's jelousy. What makes you think that's moral?

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat