Atheists -Skeptics and Jesus [Archive]

Nyarlathotep

9th May 2003, 12:18 PM

Upchurch

9th May 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by S&S

When you write :"I think" and "I don't think so": are you trying to say that you are not sure? That's just a figure of speech. But no, how could I be? I wasn't there.

Samus

9th May 2003, 12:19 PM

9th May 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's just a figure of speech. But no, how could I be? I wasn't there.

According to your reply also Socrates , Plato , Da Vinci and similars , since you were not there, make you not to be sure of their existence.

Well, well.

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

9th May 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by S&S

According to your reply also Socrates , Plato , Da Vinci and similars , since you were not there, make you not to be sure of their existence. True. I'm not even sure of your existance. :eek:

Actually, there is some general doubt about whether Socrates actually existed or if he was just a literary creation of Plato. Again, I think he probably did exist but probably didn't do or say everything attributed to him, much like Jesus.

Incidently, if Jesus was the Jewish messiah, how come all the Jews aren't now Christians?

Peter Jenkins

9th May 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by S&S

According to your reply also Socrates , Plato , Da Vinci and similars , since you were not there, make you not to be sure of their existence.

Well, well.

Thanks,
S&S

That's true S&S, But people don't make claims for Socrates Plato and Da Vinci which defy rational explanation. People don't live their lives trying to realise another persons interpretation of the Exact words that Da Vinci may, or may not, have used.

If you want someone to agree that Jesus, or Yeshua, was a nice person who lived 2000 years ago. OK. I'll play along. Why not? I have no need to prove that one way or another, so, I'll let you have the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to suggest that person was 'the Christ', THE son of God (or A son of God, or a Prophet of God, depending on which religion you sunscribe to), then I have to say "No, I don't believe that. Show me some evidence".
Peter

SimonJohnMorgan

9th May 2003, 12:52 PM

Same opinion as the previous people I'm afraid.

Was the myth of Jesus based upon someone who really existed? Almost certainly.

Did the person in question having anything supernatural, God-like, etc about them? No.

Proof or evidence... as other people said, we have nothing to prove. You might as well ask someone to prove that you haven't won the lottery 10 times in a row. They shouldn't have to, the onus is on you.

Dancing David

9th May 2003, 01:47 PM

Did Jeshua exist: probably.

Does it matter: No.

Should it matter: NO.

I don't have to believe in Jesus to benefit from his wisdom. Just as I don't have to believe in Einstien to think that relativity is cool.

If someone was to suddenly prove to me tomorrow that goddesses are all just products of my demented imagination, I will continue on my merry way.

Peace
Yall

Upchurch

9th May 2003, 01:47 PM

Off topic but within the spirit:

How many of us believe in King Arthor or Robin Hood? I mean, our knowledge of them comes from written versions of older folk legands, right? But our knowledge of Jesus comes from written versions of older, spoken stories. Why do we believe that Jesus was real and not King Arthor or Robin Hood?

hgc

9th May 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Off topic but within the spirit:

How many of us believe in King Arthor or Robin Hood? I mean, our knowledge of them comes from written versions of older folk legands, right? But our knowledge of Jesus comes from written versions of older, spoken stories. Why do we believe that Jesus was real and not King Arthor or Robin Hood?
Not too far off your off-topic, but I believe in Beowulf and Grendel. But, I don't know which is the son of God, and which is just a son of a b*tch.

Frostbite

9th May 2003, 01:56 PM

I don't think there's any reason to believe Jesus never existed. However I think Jesus's life was more of a political debate which was deified by the writers of the time, much like King Arthur or Gilgamesh. Serious people need to understand that stories get twisted and weird over time, especially when it's oral tradition or when the sources were translated a lot or passed from one culture to another.

Lord Emsworth

9th May 2003, 02:03 PM

Personally I firmly believe in the existence of a person Christianity originates from. And that would be Jesus then.
Proof? No, but there are a lot of coherent clues.
But it does not really matter, because I neither believe in the Christion god nor in any other god or divine being. Furthermore, does it not matter to me if L. Ron Hubbard exists (or is he late already) or Guru Whatever, who tell us of this and that of which I am going to have none anyway.

Questions to S&S:

Now what about you?
Are you an Atheist or anything else?
And which?
What is your opinion of this whole Jesus-believe-Atheism business?

You keep on asking other people, but shirk from telling us about your opinion.

triadboy

9th May 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by S&S
At this forum it seems to be a dualism about the existence or not of Jesus ( references : almost 2003 years ago)

I am not trying to complain or debate here about Christianism as a religion or a beleif.

I am asking the Atheist -skeptics if they think , beleive or are not sure if Jesus existed or not , and if they can put proofs or evidences of their claims.

In some others threads some members just refused to answer this question while they were mockering about christianism.

I hope Athiest-skeptics now have the chance to answer a direct questiom to them.

Thanks,
S&S

Yeshua certainly wasn't the 'son of god', since the dying god-man concept had been around for centuries. It was nothing new and it wasn't supposed to be believed as history. It was a story overlayed onto a man.

The real creator of Christianity is Paul. Paul doesn't delve into Yeshua the man - he is more interested in Yeshua the spirit. This is keeping in line with the mystery religions. Gnosticism was the Jewish mystery religion and Paul was "the Great Gnostic". Christianity sprang from Gnosticism, but without benefit of the teachings of the 'inner mystery'. Christianity is one-half of a mystery religion - the half that is for the layman! The early church fathers knew this and squashed Gnosticism out of existence. (But they didn't get them all - i.e. Gospel of Thomas)

It doesn't matter who Yeshua was - the religion could have just as easily been supplanted onto someone else.

9th May 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins

That's true S&S, But people don't make claims for Socrates Plato and Da Vinci which defy rational explanation. People don't live their lives trying to realise another persons interpretation of the Exact words that Da Vinci may, or may not, have used.

If you want someone to agree that Jesus, or Yeshua, was a nice person who lived 2000 years ago. OK. I'll play along. Why not? I have no need to prove that one way or another, so, I'll let you have the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to suggest that person was 'the Christ', THE son of God (or A son of God, or a Prophet of God, depending on which religion you sunscribe to), then I have to say "No, I don't believe that. Show me some evidence".
Peter

Hi Peter:
Your posture : Jesus existed but he is not the son of God.

I remind you and the members that my opening post refered :"is not a debate about Christianism as a religion or a beleif."

About his name : languages can change and adopt different spelling . You Peter is Pedro in Spanish. I Carlos :Charlie or Chuck.
Is not important at all , we are debating about the same person.

I am asking a direct question to Athiests -Skeptics: the same Jesus , ( that Christians beleive is a God), were a real person who lived , predicated his words and died in a cross?

About his atributed words: many religions , including Jews and musulmans (...) also name and refer to him as a real good man , not necesarilly God or the Mesias ..

I am not a confessed religious man, maybe pantheism is more according to my philosophical way of life. My wyfe is catholic, and we don't have problems with that.

I studied different cultures , religionsand philosophys
Jesus the man and his atributed words are really an example of Philosophy.
The interpretations are just an excuse for the formation of the Christian religions.

But when I see mockery related to the man Jesus , it seems that those members had not studied philosophy at all , and are in a confussion in their minds for "thinking" they are Skeptics and should act that uncivil way.

If you had read Nietzche (atheist), the Philosopher, you will notice how he separate Jesus from Christianity. There is not a single word against Jesus itself. You are able to ananlyze how , between lines, Nietzche is in agreement to Jesus atributed words, he is only angry how the religion missinterpretated Jesus's words.

About the confortable position of Athiest -Skeptics of don't presenting proofs of their own beleifs or non-beleifs it is a little unfair or lazy . Is a position debated and not unanimous inside the Skepticism. They are expecting someonelse to present the proofs. Are not they able to research , study , investigate for their own? Proofs of what ? Of God existence?
What about the proofs of the non-existence of God as a Philosophy of Skepticim?

Why this forum is about Philosophy if a debate can not be handle in a philosophical way?
Is just the mockery the only option for the Athiest -Skeptics to show their aparent intelligence?

I thank you Peter for being honest with your beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S

hgc

9th May 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by S&S

...

If you had read Nietzche (atheist), the Philosopher, you will notice how he separate Jesus from Christianity. There is not a single word against Jesus itself. You are able to ananlyze how , between lines, Nietzche is in agreement to Jesus atributed words, he is only angry how the religion missinterpretated Jesus's words.

...

Thanks,
S&S
I, for one, do not separate Jesus the man from the religion(s) based on him. The reason for that is that the only information about him comes from sacred texts. I don't think it's important (unless you are a believer) whether he actually existed or not, whether he died on the cross, etc. If you want to draw conclusions from Jesus the man who was NOT God in human form (if you are not a believer), then go ahead and extrapolate what you want from Christian ("new testament") texts. What's interesting to me is why the mythology that exists around the person is so compelling to so many people, was able to become the totally dominant religion of Europe, what connection that has to Europe becoming politically dominant over the entire world, etc.

hgc

9th May 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by S&S

...

But when I see mockery related to the man Jesus , it seems that those members had not studied philosophy at all , and are in a confussion in their minds for "thinking" they are Skeptics and should act that uncivil way.

...

Thanks,
S&S
The use of mockery does not prove that the mocker hasn't studied philosophy or doesn't know what he's talking about. Why should study of philosophy erase a sense of humor?

9th May 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by hgc

I, for one, do not separate Jesus the man from the religion(s) based on him. The reason for that is that the only information about him comes from sacred texts.

For the same reason Atheist -Skeptics need to investigate about History and Philosophy.

If you do it , you will find that , accordinf to the culture, almost all th literature about those ancient periods are based in religion and /or Philosophy. Is not a rule applicated just to Jesus.
Sacred texts that are against the figure of Jesus as God , never denied his actions and Philosophy.
Most of the basic laws that are in western society now are a product of ancient-religions laws . Is the way society need to be protected. And has a religious source.

Socrates never wrote a book . Plato recolected all his speechs and Philosophy. Plato also separate himself from the original Philosphy of Socrates and contibuted with another Philosophy.

Remember is a matter of Philosophy around the Philosopher.
In this particular case is Jesus.

Religions on primitive men appeared as a Philosophy itself , looking for answers to their questions and fears.
For cavern men the first religion or God must be sex.

Philosophy and religion were conected so tight in ancient times , and are still conected in this searching for the answers to the questions we are not able to solve yet.

Thanks,
S&S

c4ts

9th May 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
True. I'm not even sure of your existance. :eek:

Actually, there is some general doubt about whether Socrates actually existed or if he was just a literary creation of Plato. Again, I think he probably did exist but probably didn't do or say everything attributed to him, much like Jesus.

Incidently, if Jesus was the Jewish messiah, how come all the Jews aren't now Christians?

There was another thread about this.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18065&highlight=Socrates+exist

Peter Jenkins

9th May 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Peter:
Your posture : Jesus existed but he is not the son of God.

Basically, Yes. I'll allow that someone called Jesus probably existed. I don't accept the gospels as true accounts of 'his' life.

I remind you and the members that my opening post refered :"is not a debate about Christianism as a religion or a beleif."

OK

About his name : languages can change and adopt different spelling . You Peter is Pedro in Spanish. I Carlos :Charlie or Chuck.
Is not important at all , we are debating about the same person.

I realise that you are educated enough to understand this. I realsie that 'Jesus' may be used as a 'christian name' in your part of the world. I think the point was originally made for the benefit of some other people, who may not have realised that jesus/yeshua was a common name in the new testament era

I am asking a direct question to Athiests -Skeptics: the same Jesus , ( that Christians beleive is a God), were a real person who lived , predicated his words and died in a cross?

you're asking three different things there.
1) person named jesus existed & inspired new testament - probably

2) said some/most/all of the things accredited to him in the gospels - maybe some things inspired ther writers of the gospels

3) died on the cross - maybe, but it is a bit too much like the other mystery religions where a god is sacrificed - did the legend inspire the death account or did the death inspire the legend. I don't think there's enough information to judge

About his atributed words: many religions , including Jews and musulmans (...) also name and refer to him as a real good man , not necesarilly God or the Mesias ..

as above,

I am not a confessed religious man, maybe pantheism is more according to my philosophical way of life. My wyfe is catholic, and we don't have problems with that.

I studied different cultures , religionsand philosophys
Jesus the man and his atributed words are really an example of Philosophy.
The interpretations are just an excuse for the formation of the Christian religions.

well, I guess you and me are pretty close in that respect

But when I see mockery related to the man Jesus , it seems that those members had not studied philosophy at all , and are in a confussion in their minds for "thinking" they are Skeptics and should act that uncivil way.

People are people and see humour where they will. If you remove the religion from Jesus, he is just another man, and as liable to be used as an object of humour as George W Bush or Saddam Hussein.

If you had read Nietzche (atheist), the Philosopher, you will notice how he separate Jesus from Christianity. There is not a single word against Jesus itself. You are able to ananlyze how , between lines, Nietzche is in agreement to Jesus atributed words, he is only angry how the religion missinterpretated Jesus's words.

I have no problem with Jesus' attributed words Per se. I have a problem when those words are twisted/ used out of context/ interpretted to the detriment of vast numbers of people.

About the confortable position of Athiest -Skeptics of don't presenting proofs of their own beleifs or non-beleifs it is a little unfair or lazy . Is a position debated and not unanimous inside the Skepticism. They are expecting someonelse to present the proofs. Are not they able to research , study , investigate for their own? Proofs of what ? Of God existence?
What about the proofs of the non-existence of God as a Philosophy of Skepticim?

Personally, I have spent years building my own philosophy. I have studied various religions and have been a member of the Church of England and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (where I held the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchezidik Priesthood). I cannot put all my studies and experiences into one post. Sometimes it is easier to make a statement saying 'I do not believe', rather than go into great detail over every little point

Why this forum is about Philosophy if a debate can not be handle in a philosophical way?
Is just the mockery the only option for the Athiest -Skeptics to show their aparent intelligence?

I agree, but every poster is an individual, and some are not so mature as others

I thank you Peter for being honest with your beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S

Thank you
Peter

Darwin

9th May 2003, 05:46 PM

"I am asking the Atheist -skeptics if they think , beleive or are not sure if Jesus existed or not , and if they can put proofs or evidences of their claims.
"

As far as I know,there still are people who carry the name Jesus.
To the point of yours,I have absolutely no problem with Jesus existing as a man,as a historical figure.
But if I were to consider it in literal sense,it would demand me to believe that Jesus´s birth was of divine origin,I know that is impossible (without supernatural explanations that I do not buy)
from this viewpoint,I could hardly think of THAT Jesus existing.

9th May 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Darwin
"I am asking the Atheist -skeptics if they think , beleive or are not sure if Jesus existed or not , and if they can put proofs or evidences of their claims.
"

As far as I know,there still are people who carry the name Jesus.
To the point of yours,I have absolutely no problem with Jesus existing as a man,as a historical figure.
But if I were to consider it in literal sense,it would demand me to believe that Jesus´s birth was of divine origin,I know that is impossible (without supernatural explanations that I do not buy)
from this viewpoint,I could hardly think of THAT Jesus existing.

Hi Darwin :

I am assuming , according to your post , that Jesus was born like a real normal man , and that is not the son of God . He had a real existence and death , though.

I am asking you a question .

What is more important to discuss or debate in a R &P forum , the Philosophy or the philosopher ?
The interpretations of that philosophy are out of the question.

Thanks,
S&S

Darwin

9th May 2003, 07:22 PM

"I am assuming , according to your post , that Jesus was born like a real normal man , and that is not the son of God . He had a real existence and death , though.
"
Yes.It is just another way of putting what I think others have already said,his existence can be taken for granted but minus the supernormal.

"What is more important to discuss or debate in a R &P forum , the Philosophy or the philosopher ?
The interpretations of that philosophy are out of the question."
I hope this is not supposed to relate,since I fail to see how it does.

If this is supposed to relate to your original question,then it is not needed since it was already answered in a way that you asked for.

triadboy

9th May 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by S&S

What is more important to discuss or debate in a R &P forum , the Philosophy or the philosopher ?

I would say the philosopher. The philosophy is usually present before the philospher gets the credit. The Jesus in the bible said nothing that Buddha, Confusius or Krishna already said. So in his case, you have to talk about him, because he wasn't much of a philosopher.

9th May 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Darwin
"I am assuming , according to your post , that Jesus was born like a real normal man , and that is not the son of God . He had a real existence and death , though.
"
Yes.It is just another way of putting what I think others have already said,his existence can be taken for granted but minus the supernormal.

"What is more important to discuss or debate in a R &P forum , the Philosophy or the philosopher ?
The interpretations of that philosophy are out of the question."
I hope this is not supposed to relate,since I fail to see how it does.

If this is supposed to relate to your original question,then it is not needed since it was already answered in a way that you asked for.

It is not related to my original question.
Just answer , if you want.
"What is more important to discuss or debate in a R &P forum , the Philosophy or the philosopher ?

We are on an R&P forum.

Triadboy brought a confused answer , with no logic. Maybe he also thought was a related question to Jesus..

Is about Philosophy.

Darwin

9th May 2003, 07:47 PM

I´d say both can be important,depending.

9th May 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Darwin
I´d say both can be important,depending.

Hi Darwin :
Without any abstraction , dependind on what ?
Please put an example.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

9th May 2003, 09:15 PM

No evidence of a Jesus Christ.

There are plenty of myths that the Jesus myths are similar to, though. Therefore, it is my opinion that christianity is based on a mythical hero named Jesus.

thaiboxerken

9th May 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Frostbite
I don't think there's any reason to believe Jesus never existed. .

I disagree. The similarity to many other mythical heroes lends me to believe that Jesus was a myth as well. Also, the lack of evidence of a person that was supposedly extremely important and eath changing are other reasons not to believe.

Darwin

10th May 2003, 05:02 AM

"Hi Darwin :
Without any abstraction , dependind on what ?
Please put an example."
Uh huh.
Circumstances perhaps? :)

10th May 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Darwin
"Hi Darwin :
Without any abstraction , dependind on what ?
Please put an example."
Uh huh.
Circumstances perhaps? :)

Dear Darwin :

Perhaps? Are you not completely sure?

Let me consider your "circumstances" .

Until now , if confessed Athiest -Skeptics , are not in agreetment about the existence or not of Jesus (a myth or a normal born man) , it can be interpretated as a dualism , ignorance or free mockery .

Considering that Athiest Skepticim is not a Philosophy perse (under that concept there is not a philosopher also) , then people who proclame, support or belong to -Skeptics organizations (with leaders or representative figures on it ) are not sure about their own beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S

Darwin

10th May 2003, 06:52 AM

"Perhaps? Are you not completely sure?"'
No,I´m sure.I´m just letting you to do some thinking.
This should occur to one imo.

"Until now , if confessed Athiest -Skeptics , are not in agreetment about the existence or not of Jesus (a myth or a normal born man) , it can be interpretated as a dualism , ignorance or free mockery ."
As before,no problem with Jesus existing or any other of the time,period.
Skepticism is laid on claimed supernatural things.
I hope you will find this answer satisfying once and for all.

I do not know what this has to do with dualism or mockery (of course you said "can be interpretated...",one is free to make his/her own conclusions)

"Considering that Athiest Skepticim is not a Philosophy perse (under that concept there is not a philosopher also) , then people who proclame, support or belong to -Skeptics organizations (with leaders or representative figures on it ) are not sure about their own beleifs."
Skepticism is a method,so yes (skepticism can,but does not necessarily touch religious doctrines)
Atheism is simply "without God",so it is not necessarily a philosophy that influences life in different ways (of course nothing is to deny that it could not be)

People who support or belong to skeptic organizations are not sure about their own beliefs? Does not make any sense to me (sounds like one strange logic)

10th May 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Darwin
[B

"Considering that Athiest Skepticim is not a Philosophy perse (under that concept there is not a philosopher also) , then people who proclame, support or belong to -Skeptics organizations (with leaders or representative figures on it ) are not sure about their own beleifs."
Skepticism is a method,so yes (skepticism can,but does not necessarily touch religious doctrines)
Atheism is simply "without God",so it is not necessarily a philosophy that influences life in different ways (of course nothing is to deny that it could not be)

People who support or belong to skeptic organizations are not sure about their own beliefs? Does not make any sense to me (sounds like one strange logic) [/B]

Dear Darwin :

The answer for your problematic interpretation is debating here :
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19343

Thanks,
S&S

Dancing David

12th May 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by S&S

What is more important to discuss or debate in a R &P forum , the Philosophy or the philosopher ?
The interpretations of that philosophy are out of the question.

Thanks,
S&S

Now there is a question for a whole another thread. I don't think that I could choose either one as being more important than the other. generaly philosopies are dependant on the philospher and so both would be open to discussion.

Why would interpretations be out of the question?

Peace

Upchurch

12th May 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

I don't think that I could choose either one as being more important than the other. generaly philosopies are dependant on the philospher and so both would be open to discussion.
Idealy, I don't think this should be the case, but given that people put their egos behind their words, a criticism of a person's words is interpreted as a criticism of the person, wheither intended or not.

13th May 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

How many of us believe in King Arthor or Robin Hood?

Put me up in the list of persons who believe that Arthur was a historical person, though probably not a king. The Welsh Easter Annals have the entry for year 537 (probably, there is a slight possibility for ~30 year error):

The Strife of Camlann in which Artois and Medraut perished.

The other Arthur mention in the annals is quite probably a later addition. That one sentence is just about all that we know of historical Arthur, but a strong tradition connects him to the battle of Badon Hill.

Similarily, a quite strong case can be made for the character of wizard Merlin being grown on stories of historical bard Myrddin, who is said to lost his mind in a battle (around year 570, IIRC) and flee into a forest living as a hermit and prophet.

The case for a historical Robin Hood is weaker and no really convincing candidate has been found from written sources.

ceo_esq

13th May 2003, 10:24 AM

The historicity of Jesus (and, in passing, that of various other figures) has been discussed in numerous threads:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11486
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18004
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7879

(to give a few examples)

It would be nice if, before starting new threads on the subject, the thread-starter could take stock of the ground already covered in prior threads and either (a) narrow the scope of the new discussion to pursue an original line of inquiry or (b) at least pick up where previous discussions left off, so that we don't end up trying to reinvent the wheel each time.

(Post #666, by the way, and still going strong!)

aggle_rithm

14th May 2003, 05:37 AM

Whatever Jesus was, he was NOT:

a. a Christian,

b. the founder of Christianity.

Even theologians agree on this.

There was no such thing as a Christian when Jesus walked the earth. Christianity was founded after the fact by Paul, who had never even met Jesus.

aggle_rithm

14th May 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Oh, I think there probably was a man named Yeshua (whose name was later bastardized to "Jesus" but the Greeks), who lived approximately two thousand years ago.

Pretty good bet, since Jeshua (Yeshua, Joshua) was one of the most common names in that part of the world 2000 years ago.

Mercutio

14th May 2003, 05:51 AM

If I am not mistaken (but I may very well be, so correct me if you know better), C.S. Lewis, in his The Screwtape Letters , argues that emphasis on the historical Jesus is a strategy of the devil, and that Christianity does not and need not depend on the historical Jesus to be true.

Never understood that, but I've heard it many times.

Upchurch

14th May 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by aggle_rithm

Pretty good bet, since Jeshua (Yeshua, Joshua) was one of the most common names in that part of the world 2000 years ago. Fair enough. Let me expand that I believe there probably was a guy named Jeshua who went around preachin', pissed off the local magistrates and was killed for it.

Still don't think he was any more devine than the rest of us.

19th May 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Now there is a question for a whole another thread. I don't think that I could choose either one as being more important than the other. generaly philosopies are dependant on the philospher and so both would be open to discussion.

Why would interpretations be out of the question?

Peace

The question was posed by the moderator at an early Republican presidential debate in 1999: "Who is your favorite political philosopher?" George W. Bush surprised, if not stunned, his fellow candidates when he tersely declared, "Jesus Christ, because he changed my life."

Thanks,
S&S

roger

19th May 2003, 08:47 AM

try to attribute your quotes. It's dishonest to pass off other's work as your own:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2003/001/21.38.html

19th May 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by roger
try to attribute your quotes. It's dishonest to pass off other's work as your own:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2003/001/21.38.html

You are correct . I just had it in an word pad.

But it is not a commentary qoute, is just about a fact.
Those were Bush words. That is the main point.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

19th May 2003, 09:16 AM

It's no secret that Bush is a fundamentilist Christian zealot. It's no secret that he think's he's "god's" warrior. His superstition is a BIG part of why he doesn't get my votes. No way I'd vote for someone who's willing to kill in "god's" name.

19th May 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's no secret that Bush is a fundamentilist Christian zealot. It's no secret that he think's he's "god's" warrior. His superstition is a BIG part of why he doesn't get my votes. No way I'd vote for someone who's willing to kill in "god's" name.

Since you wrote for who you did not vote, maybe you can tell us for who you did in the past.
Just to show your inclinations.

Thanks,
S&S

ceo_esq

19th May 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's no secret that Bush is a fundamentilist Christian zealot. It's no secret that he think's he's "god's" warrior. His superstition is a BIG part of why he doesn't get my votes. No way I'd vote for someone who's willing to kill in "god's" name.
A piece in today's International Herald Tribune (probably running simultaneously in the New York Times) paints a much more nuanced picture of the supposed "zealot":

"How Religion Influences the President" (http://www.iht.com/articles/96678.html)

thaiboxerken

19th May 2003, 10:16 AM

Bush's fundamentalism is seen in his speeches, his interviews and his actions.

Things Bush is pushing.
1. Abstinence education, sex-education will not be granted by Bush's new "Office of Faith".
2. Ban on cloning research.
3. Ban on "partial birth" abortion.
4. Federal funding into churches and church organizations.

These are all religion-driven decisions.

19th May 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Bush's fundamentalism is seen in his speeches, his interviews and his actions.

Things Bush is pushing.
1. Abstinence education, sex-education will not be granted by Bush's new "Office of Faith".
2. Ban on cloning research.
3. Ban on "partial birth" abortion.
4. Federal funding into churches and church organizations.

These are all religion-driven decisions.

And your votes in the past were to......? An Athiest skeptical candidate?
Or you never voted?

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

19th May 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by S&S

And your votes in the past were to......? An Athiest skeptical candidate? Personally, I think there are lots of criteria on which to select a candidate to vote for, religion being one of them. In the last election, as is too often the case, I voted for the lesser of two evils. I voted for Al Gore.

Dancing David

19th May 2003, 03:01 PM

Voting in the USA is usually a choice amongst the lesser of two evils.

What does this have to do with the original post? I think this belongs in the atheists and skeptical army thread.(WINK)

Funk On

Upchurch

19th May 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I voted for the lesser of two evils.
Originally posted by Dancing David
Voting in the USA is usually a choice amongst the lesser of two evils. Jinx! :D

19th May 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Voting in the USA is usually a choice amongst the lesser of two evils.

What does this have to do with the original post? I think this belongs in the atheists and skeptical army thread.(WINK)

Funk On

If one of your candidates has Jesus as his main philosopher , and he is actually ruling your country and you are part of it (as an Athiest -skeptic) , then everything is related to the opening post.

If you just want to Foolosophy , you are also welcome.
Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

19th May 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by S&S

I am asking the Atheist -skeptics if they think , beleive or are not sure if Jesus existed or not , and if they can put proofs or evidences of their claims.

Originally posted by S&S

If one of your candidates has Jesus as his main philosopher , and he is actually ruling your country and you are part of it (as an Athiest -skeptic) , then everything is related to the opening post. What does the president's beliefs on Jesus have to do with my, or anyone else's, beliefs on Jesus? There is no corrolation that I am aware of.

19th May 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

What does the president's beliefs on Jesus have to do with my, or anyone else's, beliefs on Jesus? There is no corrolation that I am aware of.

If you agreed that Jesus really existed as a philosopher and not as a God ., and if your President also agreed that Jesus was a philosopher , and if also in this thread some posters agreed that it can be important the phillosopher and the philosophy, then you are just a little foolosophing.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

You can ignore this thread if you are not confortable.

Upchurch

19th May 2003, 03:57 PM

Lot of "if"s here:Originally posted by S&S

If you agreed that Jesus really existed as a philosopher and not as a God
I don't have proof positive that he really existed, but for argument's sake, okay.
and if your President also agreed that Jesus was a philosopher
He does, although he also cosiders him to be God so, okay.
and if also in this thread some posters agreed that it can be important the phillosopher and the philosophy
What? "some posters agreed that it can be important the philosopher and the philosophy" What does that mean?
then you are just a little foolosophing.
1. I don't see how you reached your conclusion (although I have no idea what you're talking about in that third "if")
2. If I am doing a "little foolosophing" it's only because you got there first. ;)
3. What does the President's beliefs on Jesus have to do with atheists' or skeptics' views on Jesus? I assert that one has no effect on the other.

19th May 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lot of "if"s here:
I don't have proof positive that he really existed, but for argument's sake, okay.

He does, although he also cosiders him to be God so, okay.

What? "some posters agreed that it can be important the philosopher and the philosophy" What does that mean?

1. I don't see how you reached your conclusion (although I have no idea what you're talking about in that third "if")
2. If I am doing a "little foolosophing" it's only because you got there first. ;)
3. What does the President's beliefs on Jesus have to do with atheists' or skeptics' views on Jesus? I assert that one has no effect on the other.

Is time for you pseudo skeptics Athiest to begin to read a little more about PHILOSOPHY, if you expect to debate in an R&P forum.

s not a matter to mocker about Chistianism, is a matter to analize the philosopher or the Philosophy who inspiired the religion.

Those are two separate subjects . , and this superficial fanatic forum , just don't the knowledges to separate those principles.

Nietzche , the philosopher and athiest , NEVER were against Jesus , he was against the religion and how his followers misinterpretated his Philosophy.

If you pseudo Atheists - skeptics can not be sure if he really existed , if you can not be sure if he really was a philosopher , just because of your ignorance and your confort and laziness to investigate for your own, then you are just a bunch of brainwashed fanatics.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

19th May 2003, 04:22 PM

If you pseudo Atheists - skeptics can not be sure if he really existed , if you can not be sure if he really was a philosopher , just because of your ignorance and your confort and laziness to investigate for your own, then you are just a bunch of brainwashed fanatics.

Do some research, the evidence shows that this Jesus character was, most likely, a mythical hero.

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

Start here.

19th May 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If you pseudo Atheists - skeptics can not be sure if he really existed , if you can not be sure if he really was a philosopher , just because of your ignorance and your confort and laziness to investigate for your own, then you are just a bunch of brainwashed fanatics.

Do some research, the evidence shows that this Jesus character was, most likely, a mythical hero.

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

Start here.

Your quote is my evidence of your ignorance , true beleiver. Relax , and continue with your investigations .

"Most , likely"

Be sure when you pretend to make a point.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

20th May 2003, 05:13 AM

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/historicus/jesus.html

So far as the question of the historicity of Jesus is concerned, it is conclusively summed up in the following:

"The real question of the historicity of Jesus is not merely whether there ever was a Jesus among the numerous claimants of a Messiahship in Judea, but whether we are to recognize the historical character of this Jesus in the Gospels, and whether he is to be regarded as the founder of Christianity. If the whole of the older Church, including the New Testament literature, entirely rejects the notion of a human founder of the religion, how can our theologians venture to suggest that this literature really wanted to describe such a human founder to its readers, though it did so very clumsily and ineffectively?"

Like God, Jesus is a myth.

Also, the claim that this Jesus is the son of god needs to be held to the same standard of any other claim. It needs validation, it needs evidence. You keep claiming that this Jesus character really existed, yet you have yet to provide evidence. Instead, you want to sit back and make us prove to you that he was a myth. I have given you articles and links that do exactly that. The fact that this jesus character resembles many different myths, that the character's life has been done many times over in different cultures and the fact that there is no evidence of his existence are all evidence that your jesus is a myth.

;)

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by S&S

s not a matter to mocker about Chistianism, is a matter to analize the philosopher or the Philosophy who inspiired the religion.I thought you were asking what the opinions of atheists and/or skeptics were toward Jesus rather than an analysis of Jesus and of what he said. You do realize there is a difference, do you not?

So, if you are truly asking what skeptics and/or atheists think about Jesus's philosophy (and I can really only guess since you never actual state), then I would tell you that I agree with Jesus on many of the big points, especially on the "Golden Rule" (even though it's not originally his). I dis-agree with him on several points, the primary being his hyprocracy in having his followers question the truth behind others claims (false prophets, the devil, etc.), but not question the truth behind his own claims.
Nietzche , the philosopher and athiest , NEVER were against Jesus , he was against the religion and how his followers misinterpretated his Philosophy.Do you think every atheist and/or skeptic is a Nietzchian? What do you base that on?
If you pseudo Atheists - skeptics can not be sure if he really existed , if you can not be sure if he really was a philosopher , just because of your ignorance and your confort and laziness to investigate for your own, then you are just a bunch of brainwashed fanatics.Well, that was certainly an emotionally driven attack as, I suspect, most of your attacks are since they are hardly argument driven.

We cannot be sure that Socrates really existed, but does that lessen the importance of the philosophy attributed to him by Plato? From historic or religious points of view, it is very important to know whether Jesus truly existed or not, but from a philisophical point of view, I can't see what it matters what the reported source of the philosophy is. To have merit, a philosophy should be able to stand on its own despite the source. Does knowing the historical truth behind the person who created (or in Jesus's case, adapted) the philosophy change the philosophy itself?

20th May 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I thought you were asking what the opinions of atheists and/or skeptics were toward Jesus rather than an analysis of Jesus and of what he said. You do realize there is a difference, do you not?

So, if you are truly asking what skeptics and/or atheists think about Jesus's philosophy (and I can really only guess since you never actual state), then I would tell you that I agree with Jesus on many of the big points, especially on the "Golden Rule" (even though it's not originally his). I dis-agree with him on several points, the primary being his hyprocracy in having his followers question the truth behind others claims (false prophets, the devil, etc.), but not question the truth behind his own claims.
Do you think every atheist and/or skeptic is a Nietzchian? What do you base that on?
Well, that was certainly an emotionally driven attack as, I suspect, most of your attacks are since they are hardly argument driven.

We cannot be sure that Socrates really existed, but does that lessen the importance of the philosophy attributed to him by Plato? From historic or religious points of view, it is very important to know whether Jesus truly existed or not, but from a philisophical point of view, I can't see what it matters what the reported source of the philosophy is. To have merit, a philosophy should be able to stand on its own despite the source. Does knowing the historical truth behind the person who created (or in Jesus's case, adapted) the philosophy change the philosophy itself?

When you admit that a Philosophy should be able to stand on its own despite the source., you are really making a point that are the basis of this debate. Thanks for being honest.

Since the poor examples of how some posters just relate Jesus to their mockery , and since this is a philosophy forum supposed to be debating about philosophical topics , is time to debate about HIS atributed philosophy .

Your pro and contras about Jesus Philosophy are not well defined.

About Nietzche , I never wrote that every -atheist and/or skeptic is a Nietzchian. I just wrote about HIS philosophy concerning JESUS (he never was against him ). And I hope posters read a little more about the differents aspects about Philosophy , in order to keep a civil tone.

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch : I appreciate(...) when you correct my english. Thank you.

thaiboxerken

20th May 2003, 08:17 AM

Was/ is the philosophy of "Jesus" good?

Do you think so, S&S?

If so, please show me what is so good about that philosophy.

Dancing David

20th May 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Is time for you pseudo skeptics Athiest to begin to read a little more about PHILOSOPHY, if you expect to debate in an R&P forum.

s not a matter to mocker about Chistianism, is a matter to analize the philosopher or the Philosophy who inspiired the religion.

Those are two separate subjects . , and this superficial fanatic forum , just don't the knowledges to separate those principles.

Nietzche , the philosopher and athiest , NEVER were against Jesus , he was against the religion and how his followers misinterpretated his Philosophy.

If you pseudo Atheists - skeptics can not be sure if he really existed , if you can not be sure if he really was a philosopher , just because of your ignorance and your confort and laziness to investigate for your own, then you are just a bunch of brainwashed fanatics.

Thanks,
S&S

Uh Gee S&S some of us do answer you seriously, I hope that the attitude issues are just from the laguage barrier. Some of us do understand and study philosophy. The Socratic method is not what these forums are generally about, if you present an idea then I am open to learning from you, where do you get off with saying all people in this forum are ignorant and lazy. I do a lot of reading and a lot of thinking, maybe the language barrier presents problems in our understanding. I do try to follow your posts.

I don't have to believe that Yeshua existed to study the philosophy, I happen to think there is a good chance that such a person existed.

Hope you are feeling better soon.

Peace

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by S&S

When you admit that a Philosophy should be able to stand on its own despite the source., you are really making a point that are the basis of this debate. Thanks for being honest.This would be a lot easier if you would have just stated this, but you are welcome.
Since the poor examples of how some posters just relate Jesus to their mockery , and since this is a philosophy forum supposed to be debating about philosophical topics , is time to debate about HIS atributed philosophy .Be fair, S&S. You've thrown plenty of mockery around yourself. You are not guiltless.
Your pro and contras about Jesus Philosophy are not well defined.Neither was your question. What is it that you would like to see? If you can give me a list of points from Jesus's philosophy that are of interest to you I will give you my take on each one. I'm sure others will too. We love lists on this board.
About Nietzche , I never wrote that every -atheist and/or skeptic is a Nietzchian. I just wrote about HIS philosophy concerning JESUS (he never was against him ). And I hope posters read a little more about the differents aspects about Philosophy , in order to keep a civil tone.Again, your intent was not clear. I see now that you were attempting to provide an example of an athiest/skeptic who respected Jesus, is that correct?

20th May 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
This would be a lot easier if you would have just stated this, but you are welcome.
Be fair, S&S. You've thrown plenty of mockery around yourself. You are not guiltless.
Neither was your question. What is it that you would like to see? If you can give me a list of points from Jesus's philosophy that are of interest to you I will give you my take on each one. I'm sure others will too. We love lists on this board.
Again, your intent was not clear. I see now that you were attempting to provide an example of an athiest/skeptic who respected Jesus, is that correct?

You wrote : " I agree with Jesus on many of the big points, especially on the "Golden Rule" (even though it's not originally his). I dis-agree with him on several points, the primary being his hyprocracy in having his followers question the truth behind others claims (false prophets, the devil, etc.), but not question the truth behind his own claims."

Will you please be more specific. I mean try to analize your points.

About the mockery I received : When posters just have the uncivil mockery and the insults as a form of debate , they are just showing their absence of evidences or arguments to make a point. Is the way many cults use to do as a method to justificate their ignorance. Is not new to me, is part of real life. They are the upset ones , and I understand their potition.

About Nietzche : Yes, your assumption is correct.

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by S&S

You wrote : " I agree with Jesus on many of the big points, especially on the "Golden Rule" (even though it's not originally his). I dis-agree with him on several points, the primary being his hyprocracy in having his followers question the truth behind others claims (false prophets, the devil, etc.), but not question the truth behind his own claims."

Will you please be more specific. I mean try to analize your points.
No, S&S. I am not going to go through the New Testament line by line saying "I agree with this verse" or "I disagree with that verse" until you find something that makes you happy. It's a big book and I don't have that kind of time.

If you want specific answers, ask specific questions. I'm not going to do your argument for you.
About the mockery I received : When posters just have the uncivil mockery and the insults as a form of debate , they are just showing their absence of evidences or arguments to make a point. Is the way many cults use to do as a method to justificate their ignorance. Is not new to me, is part of real life. They are the upset ones , and I understand their potition.
*sigh* S&S, Lets look at some of the things you have said.

Originally posted by S&S:
You are a member of your charlatan's cult.
Maybe because of your athiest beleifs.
I understand also that cult position.
To confused thatgaywhojuggles:
Thank's for still writing stupidities.
Go see the Teletubbies, do not miss them.
You are supposed to be away of this, you are invisible (or imbecile)
Go play with your balls , don¨t miss the teletubbies.
Go away, this is an Educational Foundation Forum, first pass the elementary school
You all are doing your best
besides you are only clowns
with no brain and replies
In this big circus
Hi leader of the stupids clowns :
The only thing your father won in his life was your mother. You are the result of that.
Sorry for your mother, she lost twice.
Thanks for posting the list of your Association of Brainless Clowns(ABC).
TLN is just a hit and run TRUE BELEIVER and fanatic.

I gave you your 15 minutes of fame .
Now , just return to your headquarter and join your cheer leaders.
You are just acting like a chicken. You remind me someone from your cult.
Is that all you have , a-thiest beleiver?
Are you dizzy now? Or is to hard for you to understand it?
ALMOST all the replies of this Religion and Philosophy Forum are Foolosophy, mainly of those that are just a bunch of pseudo-skeptics.
Bla, bla, bla
And a lot of nuts actively join Foolosophy.
Aren't you also "just showing your absence of evidence or arguments to make a point," then?

20th May 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

No, S&S. I am not going to go through the New Testament line by line saying "I agree with this verse" or "I disagree with that verse" until you find something that makes you happy. It's a big book and I don't have that kind of time.

If you want specific answers, ask specific questions. I'm not going to do your argument for you.

*sigh* S&S, Lets look at some of the things you have said.

Originally posted by S&S:
You are a member of your charlatan's cult.
Maybe because of your athiest beleifs.
I understand also that cult position.
To confused thatgaywhojuggles:
Thank's for still writing stupidities.
Go see the Teletubbies, do not miss them.
You are supposed to be away of this, you are invisible (or imbecile)
Go play with your balls , don¨t miss the teletubbies.
Go away, this is an Educational Foundation Forum, first pass the elementary school
You all are doing your best
besides you are only clowns
with no brain and replies
In this big circus
Hi leader of the stupids clowns :
The only thing your father won in his life was your mother. You are the result of that.
Sorry for your mother, she lost twice.
Thanks for posting the list of your Association of Brainless Clowns(ABC).
TLN is just a hit and run TRUE BELEIVER and fanatic.

I gave you your 15 minutes of fame .
Now , just return to your headquarter and join your cheer leaders.
You are just acting like a chicken. You remind me someone from your cult.
Is that all you have , a-thiest beleiver?
Are you dizzy now? Or is to hard for you to understand it?
ALMOST all the replies of this Religion and Philosophy Forum are Foolosophy, mainly of those that are just a bunch of pseudo-skeptics.
Bla, bla, bla
And a lot of nuts actively join Foolosophy.
Aren't you also "just showing your absence of evidence or arguments to make a point," then?

Thank you very much for the list of "my mockerys". You "only" forgot why and to which kind of post and poster was my answer.
It would be more ilustrative and like a real proof if you wanted to make a point.
I know you are upset because I called you naive (here and in your P.M.) . You are doing it again. At least put the specific links of your "investigation". People will decide if it was a mockery or not.
Telling the truth is not mockering.

Now if you had time enough to do your incomplete research, then just start pointing the points that you agree with Jesus Philosophy. Was your claim , not mine. Be more specific, please.

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Thank you very much for the list of "my mockerys". You "only" forgot why and to which kind of post and poster was my answer.
It would be more ilustrative and like a real proof if you wanted to make a point.
Oh, so, mocking someone is okay if they have a reason for it? But wait! Maybe the other posters on this board have mocked you, because they had a reason other than showing their absense of evidence or arguments to make a point. Maybe they aren't just rationalizing their irgnorance, as you thought? If not, what makes their mockery different from your own?

Are you dizzy now?
Telling the truth is not mockering.But it can be if you tell it in a mocking fashion.

Or is to hard for you to understand it?
Now if you had time enough to do your incomplete research, then just start pointing the points that you agree with Jesus Philosophy. Was your calim , not mine. Be more specific, please.Wow, S&S, you are the most. Talk about lazy.

Doing a few quick search, copy & pastes is vastly different from going line by line through the bible.

Further, yes, I did make the claim that I agreed with portions of Jesus's philosophy. I supported it with a specific example, the golden rule. If you want more, you'll have to ask a specific question.

synaesthesia

20th May 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's just a figure of speech. But no, how could I be? I wasn't there.

Honestly, if you were there you'd probably be an ignorant fishmonger having a less clear idea than you do now. Empirical observation is not the fundamental unit of knowledge.:)

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by synaesthesia

Empirical observation is not the fundamental unit of knowledge.:) True, but I have a pretty low stadard of proof for Jesus's historical existance. Seeing the man would certainly meet that. His being God has a slightly higher standard of proof. ;)

20th May 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Oh, so, mocking someone is okay if they have a reason for it? But wait! Maybe the other posters on this board have mocked you, because they had a reason other than showing their absense of evidence or arguments to make a point. Maybe they aren't just rationalizing their irgnorance, as you thought? If not, what makes their mockery different from your own?

Are you dizzy now?

.........................
Further, yes, I did make the claim that I agreed with portions of Jesus's philosophy. I supported it with a specific example, the golden rule. If you want more, you'll have to ask a specific question.

I was not mocking to anyone . Since you are not able to put the links that demonstarte if it was a mocking or just telling a truth , then you are still apeearing as a speculating naive.

Now start pointing the portions and why you agree with Jesus's Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by S&S

I was not mocking to anyone . Since you are not able to put the links that demonstarte if it was a mocking or just telling a truth , then you are still apeearing as a speculating naive.
"you are only clowns with no brain"

S&S, are you suggesting that there is literally a bunch of professional entertainers who wear comical makeup making posts on this forum board despite the fact that they are missing three pounds of their neurological systems? Were you telling the truth when you wrote that or were you mocking thatguywhojuggles (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)?

I would say that you are appearing to be a hypocritical naive.
Now start pointing the portions and why you agree with Jesus's Philosophy.I made my point and backed it up. What is it you want to know?

Dancing David

20th May 2003, 12:38 PM

S&S:
The Socratic method is pointless on this board, we do answer your questions and then you just spinning off on your own tangent.

As I have stated in other threads, communication with you would be easier if you came out and made your points instead of trying to get us to make them for you.

I agree with almost every statement that is attributed to Yeshua in the King James bible. I do not recall any statemens in there that I found offesive or repugnant. I belive that there may have been a historical Jeseus on about the same level I believe that there may have been a historical Socrates.

The main thing that I think about what Jesus taught is that heaven is a place in the heart of those who follow the path he teaches, that we should be kind and forgiving. that god loves us and wants to help us.

I am still a polytheistic nihilist. but I believe that the words of Jesus have merit.

Please prove to me that you are not some computer program trying to pass the Turing Test.

Peace

thaiboxerken

20th May 2003, 12:40 PM

I'll ask, ok Upchurch.

What do you think about the philosophical implications of the following phrases made by Jesus?

Matthew 11:20
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

11:21
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

11:22
But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

11:23
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

11:24
But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Or.. how about this short little phrase?

Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'll ask, ok Upchurch.Sure. Why not?
Matthew 11:20 - 24I don't agree with the idea of distroying cities because they doubted him when he said he was the son of god. Why question some claims and not Jesus's?
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. False Dilemma (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm). I am not "with" Jesus on a number of things (this being one of them) but I do agree with him on other things. What category does that put me in? I suppose that because I am "abroad" from where Jesus was when he lived, I must be against him. :rolleyes:

20th May 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

"you are only clowns with no brain"

S&S, are you suggesting that there is literally a bunch of professional entertainers who wear comical makeup making posts on this forum board despite the fact that they are missing three pounds of their neurological systems? Were you telling the truth when you wrote that or were you mocking thatguywhojuggles (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)?

I would say that you are appearing to be a hypocritical naive.
I made my point and backed it up. What is it you want to know?

Since is the ONLY link you are refering (page 4 of the affair ) and in your naive definition you are surprised about my answer, I suggest to you to go back to page 3 and read how Foolosophy works in this forum : when members don't have real arguments and evidences to rebate a point, they just use the insulting method .
They a look of what your "thatguy" friend (a juggler) posted before (page 3):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

Real Clowns have and use their brains . Bad clowns are just uncivil and not originals, they just don't use their brain.

You can continue with your naive incomplete research of "my mockerys", if you want . But don't forget to read a little more .

Now is time for you to show us your points and why you agree with Jesus Philosophy , as you wrote before.

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Since is the ONLY link you are refering (page 4 of the affair ) and in your naive definition you are surprised about my answer, I suggest to you to go back to page 3 and read how Foolosophy works in this forum : when members don't have real arguments and evidences to rebate a point, they just use the insulting method .
Actually, what I am more surprise at (although I don't know why) is your hypocracy. When others mock you, you get offended, plead that they stop, and claim that they are using it as a last defense because their arguments aren't good enough. When you mock others, you claim that it is with just cause.

Further, when actually "debating", if you can call it that, you do nothing but criticize other's claims and arguments while rarely posting any of your own. When you do, it is usually only a claim with no argument to back it up. Other posters, including myself, are forced to guess at what the meaning is behind your comments and you mock us when when we guess wrong.
You can continue with your naive incomplete research of "my mockerys", if you want . But don't forget to read a little more .Actually, I think I'm starting to get a handle on the way you work, S&S. I've read plenty of your stuff the last few days or so and I've seen very little that suggests that I'm wrong.

You are like a child on a playground, S&S. You lash out at the others to hide your insecurites, making you feel better about yourself by putting other people down. Making yourself feel superior.

Do you remember our first exchange?
S: The Foolosophy Vs. The Philosophy.
U: I don't understand, what is the topic?
S: Your foolosophy.
U: My (i.e. Upchurch's) foolosophy or the board's foolosophy.

And what is "foolosophy"?
S: Foolosophy is everyting that is not Philosophy, and that pretends to appear as Philosophy.
But it is not Philosophy , is just Foolosophy.
Are you dizzy now? Or is to hard for you to understand it?
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You make... not even a statement, more like a title. When I asked what you meant, began making snide comments. Is that an appropriate reaction to an honest inquiry, S&S? (Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question.) At the time, I thought you were bitter because you failed the JREF Challenge, and maybe you are, but now I see that it's all about your self-esteem.
Now is time for you to show us your points and why you agree with Jesus Philosophy , as you wrote before. Nope. Wrong. Did that already. It's your turn to participate.

20th May 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Actually, what I am more surprise at (although I don't know why) is your hypocracy. When others mock you, you get offended, plead that they stop, and claim that they are using it as a last defense because their arguments aren't good enough. When you mock others, you claim that it is with just cause.

Further, when actually "debating", if you can call it that, you do nothing but criticize other's claims and arguments while rarely posting any of your own. When you do, it is usually only a claim with no argument to back it up. Other posters, including myself, are forced to guess at what the meaning is behind your comments and you mock us when when we guess wrong.
Actually, I think I'm starting to get a handle on the way you work, S&S. I've read plenty of your stuff the last few days or so and I've seen very little that suggests that I'm wrong.

You are like a child on a playground, S&S. You lash out at the others to hide your insecurites, making you feel better about yourself by putting other people down. Making yourself feel superior.

Do you remember our first exchange?
S: The Foolosophy Vs. The Philosophy.
U: I don't understand, what is the topic?
S: Your foolosophy.
U: My (i.e. Upchurch's) foolosophy or the board's foolosophy.

And what is "foolosophy"?
S: Foolosophy is everyting that is not Philosophy, and that pretends to appear as Philosophy.
But it is not Philosophy , is just Foolosophy.
Are you dizzy now? Or is to hard for you to understand it?
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You make... not even a statement, more like a title. When I asked what you meant, began making snide comments. Is that an appropriate reaction to an honest inquiry, S&S? (Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question.) At the time, I thought you were bitter because you failed the JREF Challenge, and maybe you are, but now I see that it's all about your self-esteem.
Nope. Wrong. Did that already. It's your turn to participate.

So you are upset because of my answer to your question about what t is Foolosophy ?
S: Foolosophy is everyting that is not Philosophy, and that pretends to appear as Philosophy.
But it is not Philosophy , is just Foolosophy.

Foolosophy is everything that is use to justificate the ignorance about Philosophy. Insults , uncivil mockeryng , dirty words and pictures , not arguments , absences of evidences, double speechs , hiding facts , speculations, etc.

Look at you . You are refusing to write about the points and why you agree with Jesus Philosophy. You are not specific. You are just refusing to write about them, you are most focused on me , in a way to elude the thread.

Thanks,
S&S

uruk

20th May 2003, 07:59 PM

I have to agree with upchurch.

I've read Almost every posting and thread you have made,
And when you get cornered by someone or are requested to
answer a question, you evade the question or try to redirect the debate or make fun of people. (for proof, just read the past thread.

Upchurch has cornered you on your hypocracy

Now I'm sure that you are going to rebut either by your usual obfuscation and redirection or out right ridicule.

Upchurch

20th May 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by S&S

So you are upset because of my answer to your question about what t is Foolosophy ?*sigh* No, S&S. I'm not upset about your answer. That's not the point. I'm pointing out that the way you answer is passive-agressive which gives every indication that you are compensating for self-esteem issues.

No, I'm not upset with you. I only regret that I fed your compensation when you really need healthier outlets.
Look at you . You are refusing to write about the points and why you agree with Jesus Philosophy. You are not specific. You are just refusing to write about them, you are most focused on me , in a way to elude the thread. Nope. I've said my part. If you want to know more, you have to make the next move, not me. It's up to you.

20th May 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
*sigh* No, S&S. I'm not upset about your answer. That's not the point. I'm pointing out that the way you answer is passive-agressive which gives every indication that you are compensating for self-esteem issues.

No, I'm not upset with you. I only regret that I fed your compensation when you really need healthier outlets.
Nope. I've said my part. If you want to know more, you have to make the next move, not me. It's up to you.

Hi Upchurch :

Is better when you are not upset. About my "style" of the answers (passive -agressive as your opinion ) , well are answers after all . Is like my opinion about your answers : I thought they were naive . That doesn't mean you are an idiot or stupid person. That's the reason I am still responding you .

Now , getting back to the topic : You wrote this :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Upchurch

So, if you are truly asking what skeptics and/or atheists think about Jesus's philosophy (and I can really only guess since you never actual state), then I would tell you that I agree with Jesus on many of the big points, especially on the "Golden Rule" (even though it's not originally his).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you wrote that you agreed with Jesus's Philosophy on MANY of the big points, will you please (and separate the "Golden rule " ) tell me and enumerate me those MANY big points.
I am just asking you according to your own reply.You are the only one who knows what are those MANY points you agree with Jesus Philosophy.
If you are not able to tell us , I will assume that you just were only speculating or you really don't know what you are writing about.

Thanks,
S&S

MRC_Hans

20th May 2003, 10:44 PM

Carlos, you are a troll. This is typical troll behaviour:
You demand that others explain their viewpoint in details, so you can attack them, while you are giving away very little yourself, making all your answers wague and cryptic.

I have tried to debate with you, but whenever it gets down to something concrete, you evade, making questions instead of answers.

Also, you are hiding behind your language barrier, pretending to have difficulty with English. This makes people more patient with you because they think that this poor fellow has a hard time reading and writing English. But your latest posts here are well worded, with complex and mostly correct grammar, and show that you have no serious difficulties with the language.

In all the time you have been here, you have been doing very little but trolling. Unlike the fool, I shall not miss you when you're gone.

Hans

20th May 2003, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Carlos, you are a troll. This is typical troll behaviour:
You demand that others explain their viewpoint in details, so you can attack them, while you are giving away very little yourself, making all your answers wague and cryptic.

I have tried to debate with you, but whenever it gets down to something concrete, you evade, making questions instead of answers.

Also, you are hiding behind your language barrier, pretending to have difficulty with English. This makes people more patient with you because they think that this poor fellow has a hard time reading and writing English. But your latest posts here are well worded, with complex and mostly correct grammar, and show that you have no serious difficulties with the language.

In all the time you have been here, you have been doing very little but trolling. Unlike the fool, I shall not miss you when you're gone.

Hans

And your evidences are ?
Or is just your Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

MRC_Hans

20th May 2003, 11:00 PM

Carlito, just go back and read the threads and you will see that I am correct. Read slowly and carefully, and you will see, unless you are too stupid to understand. Relax, read again from the start.

See? :D

Hans

20th May 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Carlito, just go back and read the threads and you will see that I am correct. Read slowly and carefully, and you will see, unless you are too stupid to understand. Relax, read again from the start.

See? :D

Hans

Relax, don't get upset ...again.
You made your assumption , you put the evidences.

Like Upchurch : he wrote he agrees with Jesus's Philosophy on MANY of the big points, but he is also upset (like you ) just because I want him to write what are those MANY big points he agrees with Jesus Philosophy.

Take your time, "Atheist -Skeptic".

Thanks,
S&S

MRC_Hans

20th May 2003, 11:22 PM

Carlos, I just "put the evidences". Any thread you have started or contributed to is full of your evations, vague assertions, insulting condescence, misquotations etc. Just take your time and read it.

I am perfectly relaxed, but perhaps you are a bit upset by my using your style? Like when Latin got mightily upset when somebody made a very precise parody on him?

Don't you like what you see in the mirror?

Hans

synaesthesia

20th May 2003, 11:24 PM

Jesus's Philosophy?

Well that all depends, what connection does what some analagous historical figure had to say and the bible?

I have no idea. Uh, if
a)Jesus condones the bible
b)condones the new testament (thereby implicitly meeting the first condition) or
c)condones the new testament except the parts that condone the old testament I would say:

A bunch of fluff and inapplicable platitudes with a some insane apocalytic ravings and plen-ty dilutable for ((re)re)interpretation.

I would rather watch some Akira Kurosowa. Just finishes "RAN", excellent Japanese rendition of a king Lear doomed by his credulous acceptance of his older sons' blanishments and fury at his youngest's frank honesty.

MRC_Hans

20th May 2003, 11:45 PM

20th May 2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Carlos, I just "put the evidences". Any thread you have started or contributed to is full of your evations, vague assertions, insulting condescence, misquotations etc. Just take your time and read it.

I am perfectly relaxed, but perhaps you are a bit upset by my using your style? Like when Latin got mightily upset when somebody made a very precise parody on him?

Don't you like what you see in the mirror?

Hans

You made your assumption , you are only missing the evidences.
"Any thread" is so naive . I have different threads of different topics in different forums.
This one is the last one in the banter
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19859

This one is my last in L & A Forum.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869917350#post1869917350

Please be more specific in your points and don't forget to put the proofs or evidences of your assumption. Put some quotes , some replies , etc. Some links refering to the both of us. Or just start a thread about me and your assumptions. You will be more confortable and you will find a lot of support from members that are part of your cult and/or organization.

You are invited to write about Jesus in this thread , if you want .
Just stay relax.

Thanks,
S&S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth man's mind about to religion. -- Francis Bacon, Essays

MRC_Hans

21st May 2003, 12:01 AM

Nah, Carlos. I will leave it at the allegation: I consider you a troll, because I percieve your behaviour to be that of a troll. This is a subjective perception, but I will give you the opportunity to prove it wrong. Just relax and begin some true debate.

Hans

;)

21st May 2003, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Nah, Carlos. I will leave it at the allegation: I consider you a troll, because I percieve your behaviour to be that of a troll. This is a subjective perception, but I will give you the opportunity to prove it wrong. Just relax and begin some true debate.

Hans

;)

Bye, be happy with your Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

Jesse

21st May 2003, 02:05 AM

LOL!

Upchurch

21st May 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by S&S

If you wrote that you agreed with Jesus's Philosophy on MANY of the big points, will you please (and separate the "Golden rule " ) tell me and enumerate me those MANY big points.
I am just asking you according to your own reply.You are the only one who knows what are those MANY points you agree with Jesus Philosophy.
I already told you, S&S. No. Ask a specific question and I will give you a specific answer.

The Golden Rule is the simple and often expressed "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It appears in nearly every religion because it is a good rule of thumb for behavior. I cannot separate it because it is so basic.
If you are not able to tell us , I will assume that you just were only speculating or you really don't know what you are writing about. This, S&S, could almost be a text book example of passive-aggressive behavior. I will not respond to the threat because it is demeaning to me and counter-productive to you. Learn to be comfortable with yourself.

thaiboxerken

21st May 2003, 04:37 AM

Mmm, yeah, to get back on topic: Jesus (whatever way you spell it) is as historical a person as most others we know from that time. Which means that there was probably a religious revolutionary (incidentially, in that era there was little distinction between being a religious or secular figure) named Jesus, who preached a new version of the religion that was to become Christianity, who gathered a certain following, and who finally became enough of a nuisance to the powers that be that he was arrested and executed. Crucifiction was all the rage in those times, so it is probably correct that he was crucified.

This sounds realistic enough, but the evidence is lacking in the historic validity of both the bible and the jesus stories. The Romans were notorious for keeping records and they have no such record of a jesus of nazareth, or a jesus that incited such a troubling cult that he needed to be executed. Heck, the jewish people don't even have a record of this guy, and they kept records of many false-prophets and such wackos at that time.

The higher probability is that the jesus character is a made-up mythology. Considering that jesus' story had been done several times by many other mythical heroes that predate him show that this is true.

This probably happened around the year 33 AD according to our present calendar. The stories about the birth of Jesus and the very sparse accounts of his childhood and youth are probably pure legend, constructed after his death to complete the image of the man-god. And of course most of his deeds are legend, but bear in mind that these things were written in an era that did not value objectivism like we (mostly) do; quite the contrary: Miraculous and magic abilities and deeds were routinely attributed to great people.

Hans

Which raises a question... if a man named jesus founded christianity, but the stories of the birth, life and deeds of this jesus are constructed...... does it matter? I mean, the jesus in the bible is obviously a mythological hero. Since this is true, how can anyone be sure of what the "philosophy" of the "real" jesus was?

MRC_Hans

21st May 2003, 06:17 AM

I don't think what became Christianity is the work of Jesus or any other one man. NT Christianity was sparked in that area around that time by a small group of people with a leader. This leader was the person around whom the legends and accounts of Jesus Christ were formed. As for historical records: Both the Romans and the Jews were careful record-keepers, but records from that time are far from complete. Thus, the old saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is very pertinent here; Jesus may very well be a real person, even if no records are preserved.

Hans

21st May 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

I already told you, S&S. No. Ask a specific question and I will give you a specific answer.

The Golden Rule is the simple and often expressed "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It appears in nearly every religion because it is a good rule of thumb for behavior. I cannot separate it because it is so basic.
This, S&S, could almost be a text book example of passive-aggressive behavior. I will not respond to the threat because it is demeaning to me and counter-productive to you. Learn to be comfortable with yourself.

Hi Upchurch:

Please , if you agreed with Jesus's Philosophy on MANY of the big points (the Golden rule is only one), why do you refuse to tell us the rest of the big points?
You are the one who made the claim , so ONLY you know the rest of the MANY points you agreed with Jesus Philosophy.Please write about and tell us which are the rest of those many points.

This is my specific question and I hope you give me an specific answer.

If you think I am agressive with you because of my question , please be free to be negative with your answer.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

21st May 2003, 08:07 AM

Maybe Upchurch doesn't feel compelled to draw up a big list of points that this jesus character had, simply because you want him to. Why the hell would he want to waste his time to appease your whims?

If you want to know what points Upchurch agrees with and doesn't agree with, YOU make the list.

Dancing David

21st May 2003, 08:12 AM

S&S, you seem to be fighting with yourself here, we may or may not percieve your attitude to one that does not promote discussion.

I for one find that you sometimes generate good thoughts, Upchurch and I are not the ones who have baited you or mocked you.

Get off your horse, talk about what you want to say, stop trying to get us to make your points for you, make your points yourself .

Then you will not be percieved as a troll, the reason peopple think you are a troll is that you never say what you think and you engage in the silly socratic method ad nauseum, I think that you are justified to be wary of mockery but i also think you don't know what you think and that is why you don't respond to alot of the post and just shadow box.

I want to know what you think, , I would be interested to read your ideas, give up the socratic thing, please.

Peace

21st May 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Maybe Upchurch doesn't feel compelled to draw up a big list of points that this jesus character had, simply because you want him to. Why the hell would he want to waste his time to appease your whims?

If you want to know what points Upchurch agrees with and doesn't agree with, YOU make the list.

He made the claim of a big list of points he agrees with Jesus 's Philosophy, then he is the ONLY one who can tell us the big list.

Why are you upset because of a simple and logical question?

He made the claim , he must put the evidences.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

21st May 2003, 08:40 AM

He made the claim of a big list of points he agrees with Jesus 's Philosophy, then he is the ONLY one who can tell us the big list.

He said that he liked some of the jesus philosophy and the he didn't agree with others. That is an opinion, it requires no list.

Why are you upset because of a simple and logical question?

Am I upset? Prove it.

He made the claim , he must put the evidences.

This is stupid, he made a value judgement. It requires no evidence. If he said "I like red", would you want him to prove that also?

21st May 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

He made the claim of a big list of points he agrees with Jesus 's Philosophy, then he is the ONLY one who can tell us the big list.

He said that he liked some of the jesus philosophy and the he didn't agree with others. That is an opinion, it requires no list.

Why are you upset because of a simple and logical question?

Am I upset? Prove it.

He made the claim , he must put the evidences.

This is stupid, he made a value judgement. It requires no evidence. If he said "I like red", would you want him to prove that also?

A)No no, he wrote this :" I agree with Jesus on many of the big points, especially on the "Golden Rule" (even though it's not originally his)."
I just want to know the list of the MANY of the big points HE agrees with Jesus. Simple. He is the ONLY one who knows that answer.

B) You are upset because you are not Upchurch , and you are just "trying· to respond in his name.

C) Again yuu are upset , you used the word "stupid" just to show that you must be intelligent.
Upchurch wrote about a list of MANY points , I just want to know the list. Is simple.

Relax,

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

21st May 2003, 11:01 AM

He did not claim to have a list of points, he only claimed to agree with jebus with many big points. There lies the difference. You made up a strawman, now you are argueing that strawman.

Upchurch has already stated that he will not make a list for you. Do you treat women like this as well? No means no!

Upchurch

21st May 2003, 01:37 PM

Well, this thread certainly has been busy today while I was away.

S&S, I'm curious. Why are so entralled by this? Why is this so important to you?

Hegel

21st May 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by S&S

What is more important to discuss or debate in a R &P forum , the Philosophy or the philosopher ?

Jesus most certainly existed as a man. The concept of a peaceful and loving soultion to problems (the whole love your neighbors concept) was fairly unique, at least from what I have studied of the west. And for such a unique idea to come about you have to have a creative person. So whether that person was Jesus or Splat really doesn't matter, however there was a person there.

To the question I quoted, I think that the philosophy and the philosopher should be seperated, however I think both topics are equally valid for discussion.

Dancing David

21st May 2003, 02:01 PM

And then S&S just ignores anyone who answers his post but he doesn't want to fight with him(in his imagination), S&S your behavior is percieved by my as rude, start acting reasonably please, talk about your ideas, stop trying to get others to make your points for you.

I value your comments when you make them, what gives, why not tell us what you think?

I begin to foolosophise that you really are a Turing machine or a million monkeys at a million typewriters.

By and large I agree with the statements of Jesus, but I doubt that I agree with them all.

Did you read what I wrote about heaven being a place in the hearts of humans? What do you think?

Peace

Upchurch

21st May 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
He did not claim to have a list of points, he only claimed to agree with jebus with many big points. That's true, ya know. I didn't and still don't have a list of specific points that I agree with when I said I agree with Jesus on many of his big points, philosophically. By "big points" I mean general points like "love is good", "hate is bad", and "don't believe liers". If S&S is going to ask about specific points, I have to know what those specific points are in order to know what category they fit under.

Besides, I never respond well to bullying.

21st May 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's true, ya know. I didn't and still don't have a list of specific points that I agree with when I said I agree with Jesus on many of his big points, philosophically. By "big points" I mean general points like "love is good", "hate is bad", and "don't believe liers". If S&S is going to ask about specific points, I have to know what those specific points are in order to know what category they fit under.

Besides, I never respond well to bullying.

Hi Upchurch :

Don't feel "bullyed" .
I just thought you knew about your "big points" (your specific points) of the Philosophy of Jesus . If you are just generalizing and you don't know about what are you specificaly claiming, is ok with me.
I am glad you agree with Jesus on those "big points " as you wrote.

Thanks,
S&S

Upchurch

21st May 2003, 03:40 PM

You never answered. Why is it so important to you?

thaiboxerken

21st May 2003, 04:04 PM

Jesus most certainly existed as a man.

This is not an established fact.

The concept of a peaceful and loving soultion to problems (the whole love your neighbors concept) was fairly unique, at least from what I have studied of the west.

I think you're studying the wrong texts, peace and pacifists have been around longer than Judaeism in the "west".

And for such a unique idea to come about you have to have a creative person.

Not unique, and it's just a matter of reasonable thinking.

So whether that person was Jesus or Splat really doesn't matter, however there was a person there.

Still not an established fact.

To the question I quoted, I think that the philosophy and the philosopher should be seperated, however I think both topics are equally valid for discussion.

The Jesus character in the bible was hypocritical, preaching love AND hate depending on his situation.

Upchurch

21st May 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The concept of a peaceful and loving soultion to problems (the whole love your neighbors concept) was fairly unique, at least from what I have studied of the west.

I think you're studying the wrong texts, peace and pacifists have been around longer than Judaeism in the "west".
He's right. (http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html)

21st May 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Then you will not be percieved as a troll, the reason peopple think you are a troll is that you never say what you think and you engage in the silly socratic method ad nauseum, I think that you are justified to be wary of mockery but i also think you don't know what you think and that is why you don't respond to alot of the post and just shadow box.

I want to know what you think, , I would be interested to read your ideas, give up the socratic thing, please.

Peace

Hi Dancing David:

You seems to be upset with Socrates Philosophy. You are assuming I am using a socratic method , that disturb you and upset you.

Let me remind you that this is a Religion and Philosophy Forum.

You are free to discuss about Socrates 's Philosophy , just start another thread, and put the reasons why you are upset with that Philosophy.
You seems to know everything , so you will have the answer for everything.
I am just learning , so I like to ask questions. If your answer belong to the Foolosophy style is not my fault. You are free to consider me whatever you want, that doesn't mean that you are the owner of the truth.

Or do you think that just because a majority of posters repeat the same stuff it should be the final Truth ? Do you beleive in polls as a scientific method?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
This tread is to find what Atheist -Skeptics know about JESUS.

21st May 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
You never answered. Why is it so important to you?

I questioned you, and you were the one who refused to answer and specify the BIG points you agree with Jesus Philosophy. You just generalized it.

It is important to me because, if you are an Skeptic-Atheist , you can agree In BIG points with Jesus'Philosophy.

It is important to me because you consider Jesus as a Philosopher or you agree in the existence of an atributed Jesus's Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

21st May 2003, 04:35 PM

Well, no point in trying to discuss anything with the troll anymore. I'm putting S&S on my ignore list.

Relax, S&S. You're stupid.

21st May 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Well, no point in trying to discuss anything with the troll anymore. I'm putting S&S on my ignore list.

Relax, S&S. You're stupid.

If it comes from you and from your Foolosophy , I am flattered.

Relax.
Thanks,
S&S

MRC_Hans

21st May 2003, 11:12 PM

Funny... Carlos asks a question, asks people to stay on topic, yet he goes straight for some technicalities in one post and ignores a number of posts that actually discuss the topic.

What is it you really want, Carlos?

Hans

Darwin

22nd May 2003, 07:28 AM

S&S will be ignored by me too.

Upchurch

22nd May 2003, 08:07 AM

"Ignore" is such an ugly word. I'm planning on doing it the old fashioned way simply not paying him any more attention than he's worth. Granted, the end result is the same...

Dancing David

22nd May 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Dancing David:

You seems to be upset with Socrates Philosophy. You are assuming I am using a socratic method , that disturb you and upset you.

Let me remind you that this is a Religion and Philosophy Forum.

You are free to discuss about Socrates 's Philosophy , just start another thread, and put the reasons why you are upset with that Philosophy.
You seems to know everything , so you will have the answer for everything.
I am just learning , so I like to ask questions. If your answer belong to the Foolosophy style is not my fault. You are free to consider me whatever you want, that doesn't mean that you are the owner of the truth.

Or do you think that just because a majority of posters repeat the same stuff it should be the final Truth ? Do you beleive in polls as a scientific method?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
This tread is to find what Atheist -Skeptics know about JESUS.

I am glad we have a converstaion going here, I was just trying to find the common ground, I think that I for one find it hard to have a conversation with someone how only asks questions.

I am sorry if I seemed to know everything, certainly I don't. While it may not be deliberate, some of your posts might appear to be trolling. Again it may be that the cultural and language barriers create inante antagonisms in this forum.

So when you say that you consign my thought to the Foolosophy style , is that in direct answer to my thoughts that Jesus did not think heaven was a place that we go to when we die? If you feel that I have mocked you, I regret that.

So do you think my idea that the 'kingdom of heaven' is a place in the heart is Foolosphy?

Just so you know , I was raised in a very strong faith based church, and I was the religious one in my family. I was gentled by the Jesus people and later came to understand that the commonly held beliefs of the Christian Churches are very different from my own.

So while I am a nihilist, which makes me a sort of atheist, I do find that the teachings of Jesus have value to me.

Peace

22nd May 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

I am glad we have a converstaion going here, I was just trying to find the common ground, I think that I for one find it hard to have a conversation with someone how only asks questions.

I am sorry if I seemed to know everything, certainly I don't. While it may not be deliberate, some of your posts might appear to be trolling. Again it may be that the cultural and language barriers create inante antagonisms in this forum.

So when you say that you consign my thought to the Foolosophy style , is that in direct answer to my thoughts that Jesus did not think heaven was a place that we go to when we die? If you feel that I have mocked you, I regret that.

So do you think my idea that the 'kingdom of heaven' is a place in the heart is Foolosphy?

Just so you know , I was raised in a very strong faith based church, and I was the religious one in my family. I was gentled by the Jesus people and later came to understand that the commonly held beliefs of the Christian Churches are very different from my own.

So while I am a nihilist, which makes me a sort of atheist, I do find that the teachings of Jesus have value to me.

Peace

No Dancing David , you used Foolosophy when you wrote you were upset of "my" socratic method , and that is the reason you have for calling me a troll.

And why you missed to write about the socratic method ?
Do Socrates Philosophy and method upset you? Why?

Being a nihilist doesn't mean you have to be against Jesus Philosophy.
Nihilism is (contradictory of what people "think" ) in favor of Jesus figure. Jesus was a revolutionary in ideas. The missinterpretations of HIS ideas and Philosophy ( the religion stuff) are the only matter of controversial to nihilism.

Thanks,
S&S

Dancing David

23rd May 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by S&S

No Dancing David , you used Foolosophy when you wrote you were upset of "my" socratic method , and that is the reason you have for calling me a troll.

And why you missed to write about the socratic method ?
Do Socrates Philosophy and method upset you? Why?

Being a nihilist doesn't mean you have to be against Jesus Philosophy.
Nihilism is (contradictory of what people "think" ) in favor of Jesus figure. Jesus was a revolutionary in ideas. The missinterpretations of HIS ideas and Philosophy ( the religion stuff) are the only matter of controversial to nihilism.

Thanks,
S&S

I don't recall saying you were a troll.
I ahve no problem with Socrates, it is the perception I have that you don't state what you think and just ask questions that I was commenting on. I was hoping to engage in discussion with you.

I agree I have stated that as a type of atheist thaT I can still find value in the teachings of Jesus.

So what do you think about heaven and the eternal afterlife?

Peace

24th May 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

I don't recall saying you were a troll.
I ahve no problem with Socrates, it is the perception I have that you don't state what you think and just ask questions that I was commenting on. I was hoping to engage in discussion with you.

I agree I have stated that as a type of atheist thaT I can still find value in the teachings of Jesus.

So what do you think about heaven and the eternal afterlife?

Peace

Then why you told me to stop using the socratic method?

Your heaven and your eternal afterlife is when you read my posts.

Thanks,
S&S

Dancing David

26th May 2003, 08:04 AM

I didn't realize I could attain the kingdom of heaven so easily.

My comments on the socratic method were trying to draw into a dialouge.

Peace

triadboy

26th May 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Jesus was a revolutionary in ideas.

I don't know of anything attributed to Jesus that was revolutionary with regard to ideas. Please explain what revolutionary ideas he had.

26th May 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I didn't realize I could attain the kingdom of heaven so easily.

My comments on the socratic method were trying to draw into a dialouge.

Peace

Your comments about the socratic method just shows your angry and how you are upset about it. Is a kind of Foolosophy you have.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by Dancing David in this thread , page 3
.... the reason peopple think you are a troll is that you never say what you think and you engage in the silly socratic method ad nauseum, I think that you are justified to be wary of mockery but i also think you don't know what you think and that is why you don't respond to alot of the post and just shadow box.
I want to know what you think, , I would be interested to read your ideas, give up the socratic thing, please.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you upset with this particular philosophical method ?

Thanks,
S&S

26th May 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

I don't know of anything attributed to Jesus that was revolutionary with regard to ideas. Please explain what revolutionary ideas he had.

If Jesus's ideas were not revolutionary at that time , he would not be condemmned and killed by the system of that age.

Thanks ,
S&S

P.S.
If his ideas were not revolutionary , then even how you count the years (related to his existences) in the actual calendar would be different.

Or do you think that we are in year 2003 after Randi ?

Thanks,
S&S

triadboy

26th May 2003, 09:10 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S&S

If Jesus's ideas were not revolutionary at that time , he would not be condemmned and killed by the system of that age.

So everybody who was killed by the system had revolutionary ideas?! Doesn't Josephus say in that time there were a lot of wandering idiots preaching the end of the world?

If his ideas were not revolutionary , then even how you count the years (related to his existences) in the actual calendar would be different. Or do you think that we are in year 2003 after Randi?

Well, that's just a goofy thing to say. We follow time from the "birth" of Jesus, because the power within the church mandated it that way. I believe it was one of your popes. Aren't there other calenders being followed?

With that reasoning - then Mithra was revolutionary since we celebrate his birthday on Dec 25. (Christians adopted this date for Jesus' birthday because it was already being celebrated. No where in the bible does it say JC was born on Dec 25 and if the 'shepards were out watching their flock', it sure wasn't December.)

Or pagan sky worship was revolutionary since we have days of the week named after the visible 'planets' in the sky.

26th May 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S&S

If Jesus's ideas were not revolutionary at that time , he would not be condemmned and killed by the system of that age.

So everybody who was killed by the system had revolutionary ideas?! Doesn't Josephus say in that time there were a lot of wandering idiots preaching the end of the world?

If his ideas were not revolutionary , then even how you count the years (related to his existences) in the actual calendar would be different. Or do you think that we are in year 2003 after Randi?

Well, that's just a goofy thing to say. We follow time from the "birth" of Jesus, because the power within the church mandated it that way. I believe it was one of your popes. Aren't there other calenders being followed?

With that reasoning - then Mithra was revolutionary since we celebrate his birthday on Dec 25. (Christians adopted this date for Jesus' birthday because it was already being celebrated. No where in the bible does it say JC was born on Dec 25 and if the 'shepards were out watching their flock', it sure wasn't December.)

Or pagan sky worship was revolutionary since we have days of the week named after the visible 'planets' in the sky.

Why Jesus was killed by the Jews ?

Please name what year is now , according to the calendar , and to the calendar of this JREF forum?

Thanks,
S&S

triadboy

26th May 2003, 09:55 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S&S

Why Jesus was killed by the Jews?[B]

You must realize, there is little evidence that Yeshua existed, much less 'killed by the Jews'. I'm always amazed how the bible creates this image of Jesus causing a revolution of ideas - performing miracles to vast crowds - and yet no one wrote about him in his lifetime. Strange.

[B]
Please name what year is now , according to the calendar , and to the calendar of this JREF forum?

Which one?

Today is Monday, May 26,2003
CDT is 11:57 AM
Today is Monday, May 26,2003
EDT is 12:57 PM
This is the 146th day of the year
22nd week ISO reckoning
22nd week common reckoning
Day of
Hour of
Iyyar 25, 5763
Kamal, 10 `Azamat Bahá'í Era 160
May 13 2003 Old Style
Year of the Water Ram
Month of the Water Ox
Day of the Earth Pig
Hour of the Metal Horse
12199th day of the 0th month
Year 228 of American independence
52nd year of H.M. Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada
A.U.C. MMDCCLVI
2nd year of the 695th Olympiad
Jyaistha 5, Saka Era 1925 (India)
Era of Alexandria 7495 (Coptic)
Ethiopian Year 1995
Buddhist Year 2546
Kouki 2663 (Japan)
15 Heisei (Japan)
Anno Lucis 6003
Anno Inventionis 2533
Anno Benefacio 3916
Anno Depositionis 3003
Anno Ordinis 885
Atomic Era 61
82 Post Scriptum Ulysses
Sweetmorn, Discord 73, 3169 Discordian Calendar
Jusanotoron year CUN
Julian Day 2452786
exact Julian Day (Greenwich) 2452786.2067
Modified Julian Day 52785
Dublin Julian Day 37766
Truncated Julian Day 12785
Or perhaps Truncated Julian Day 2785
Lilian Day 153626
Besselian Epoch 2003.3996
Julian Epoch 2003.3982
Norad Daycode 03146.7066
UARS Day 4275
Thelemic Year IV xi
Saturday, St. Paul 6, St. Monica, in the Positivist Calendar
Friday, May 24 in the World Calendar
Friday, June 6 in the Fixed Calendar ("Cotsworth")
La Prime 1-360-840 Galactic Milieu date
Goddess Lunar Calendar Version 2.7
Stardate [-29]0343.53
Metonic Cycle 9 (Golden Number)
Solar Cycle 24
11th year of the Indiction
Epact 27
Dominical Letter E
Concurrent 2
332 of the Dionysian Period
6716 of the Julian Period
Universal Year value 5
Universal Month value 1
Universal Day value 9