Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 05:16 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 03:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 03:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is not possible to actively oppose a non-existent being. So I would live very differently.

You are wrong, have been shown to be wrong, and continue to claim you are right. You need to grow up.

Since we are not talking about God's existence, I shall dismiss the above as moot.

Rather we are talking about your disposition towards Him granting His existence. It is clear you would actively oppose Him and all that He stands for, for these were your own words, not mine.

So once again, why would you ask a Christian for evidence for God's existence? Would you do so in order to feel justified in opposing Him?

If so, what would you oppose Him for? For all that you think He has done that is as you would say "horrible" or "evil"?

But if God is evil in your eyes, then you must have some sort of idea about what is good, from which evil is a deviation. But if you have some sort of idea about what is good and what is evil then you must believe in some sort of moral ideal or law or standard which is your basis for distinguishing between good and evil. Something good being that which meets the ideal or law or standard, and something evil being that which fails to meet that ideal or law or standard.

But if there is no law or ideal or standard existing independently of you and I or anyone else on earth then all we have is a bunch of opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent ideal law or standard because it does not exist.

You believe God is evil. I believe He is good. In your world neither of us can say that our views are preferable over the other by virtue of their corresponding with the law that exists objectively outside of us because no such law exists!

But if no such law exists to which our views can be compared to, then you saying God is evil is like saying spaghetti is nasty. It is your opinion, nothing more.

The only way out of this is to posit the existence of an objective moral law. But if you posit this then you must give a coherent account of its ontology. Thus far, no one has been able to show how moral values and duties can exist independently of human beings in the absence of a transcendant moral law giver.

Your "transcendant moral law giver" is a fictional character in a book written by ignorant priests and propagandists over 2000 years ago. He was violent, sexist, racist, egotistical, power-hungry, capricious, jealous, homophobic, and not overly smart. He allowed and encouraged rape, even of children. He sanctioned slavery, war, murder and the unnecessary killing of animals. He took sides and interfered in the world’s proceedings like a meddlesome, mischievous bully. He passed judgment on people based on the most trivial of issues, and insisted the Jews worship him. He was a right old bastard.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-05-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 05:16 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 03:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Since we are not talking about God's existence, I shall dismiss the above as moot.

Rather we are talking about your disposition towards Him granting His existence. It is clear you would actively oppose Him and all that He stands for, for these were your own words, not mine.

So once again, why would you ask a Christian for evidence for God's existence? Would you do so in order to feel justified in opposing Him?

If so, what would you oppose Him for? For all that you think He has done that is as you would say "horrible" or "evil"?

But if God is evil in your eyes, then you must have some sort of idea about what is good, from which evil is a deviation. But if you have some sort of idea about what is good and what is evil then you must believe in some sort of moral ideal or law or standard which is your basis for distinguishing between good and evil. Something good being that which meets the ideal or law or standard, and something evil being that which fails to meet that ideal or law or standard.

But if there is no law or ideal or standard existing independently of you and I or anyone else on earth then all we have is a bunch of opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent ideal law or standard because it does not exist.

You believe God is evil. I believe He is good. In your world neither of us can say that our views are preferable over the other by virtue of their corresponding with the law that exists objectively outside of us because no such law exists!

But if no such law exists to which our views can be compared to, then you saying God is evil is like saying spaghetti is nasty. It is your opinion, nothing more.

The only way out of this is to posit the existence of an objective moral law. But if you posit this then you must give a coherent account of its ontology. Thus far, no one has been able to show how moral values and duties can exist independently of human beings in the absence of a transcendant moral law giver.

Your "transcendant moral law giver" is a fictional character in a book written by ignorant priests and propagandists over 2000 years ago. He was violent, sexist, racist, egotistical, power-hungry, capricious, jealous, homophobic, and not overly smart. He allowed and encouraged rape, even of children. He sanctioned slavery, war, murder and the unnecessary killing of animals. He took sides and interfered in the world’s proceedings like a meddlesome, mischievous bully. He passed judgment on people based on the most trivial of issues, and insisted the Jews worship him. He was a right old bastard.

Ok....... Consider

Most of your comrades would agree.... Thumbsup

Can you explain to me what your basis is for making such judgments?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 05:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 05:16 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Your "transcendant moral law giver" is a fictional character in a book written by ignorant priests and propagandists over 2000 years ago. He was violent, sexist, racist, egotistical, power-hungry, capricious, jealous, homophobic, and not overly smart. He allowed and encouraged rape, even of children. He sanctioned slavery, war, murder and the unnecessary killing of animals. He took sides and interfered in the world’s proceedings like a meddlesome, mischievous bully. He passed judgment on people based on the most trivial of issues, and insisted the Jews worship him. He was a right old bastard.

Ok....... Consider

Most of your comrades would agree.... Thumbsup

Can you explain to me what your basis is for making such judgments?

I've read the bible...all of it....not just neatly packaged snippets. Have you?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 01:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you, via "deductive reasoning", came to the conclusion that Jesus was and is who He actually claimed to be and that the Holy Bible from Genesis to Revelation is the account of God's dealings with men, and that you indeed are a sinner who is in open rebellion against a Holy God in need of a Saviour, what would you do with this knowledge? What would be your response to this?

No, I answered your question as you originally presented it. This would be a different question you are now presenting, concerning claims made by you.

(03-05-2014 01:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do not give me some nonsense about investigating the matter. That is done with. You have already investigated the matter and have reached your conclusions. The matter of investigation is no longer pertinent. You have the evidence, you have the knowledge.

No, it seems YOU have already reached YOUR conclusions.

In matters of great import, one must not put the cart before the horse. In other words, one can not have a conclusion in order to "make certain" it is arrived at it.

That would be cheating.

***
Investigation is always pertinent and continuing, if a culture is to progress.

If there is interesting information about something then, continuing study of it will bring about a more accurate understanding and a greater amount of evidence for it to become "knowledge"... which can then also be studied for accuracy and added to for more concrete knowledge... to possibly be relied upon as "fact". Very broadly, that is the scientific method.

This would be how conclusions are arrived at.
***
You said, "...Jesus was and is who He actually claimed to be..."
So, who did he actually claim to be?
I'm pretty sure the book you read gives his quote to be something like: "it's what YOU say I am"

***
You seem to present your faith as some sort of cheat. I want no part of that.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 01:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 10:39 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Such proof, if it was real proof, would establish that your heinous god is real. So the LAST thing I would do is worship him. I would carry on with my life the same as it is now without any acknowledgement of him as a god..... I certainly wouldn't be fulfilling your god's narcissistic needs and his own record (as you claim the bible is) clearly establishes that he doesn't take "no" for answer well at all. But I would still have to go with my conscience. I suppose such a powerful being could force me on my knees, but that's what it would take. There's no way I'd worship that beast willingly. No

Is that the answer you were looking for? Drinking Beverage

Yes it was. And it serves only to reinforce my point. For you and many who think like you, evidence is not the issue at all. You just do not like the idea of there being a God who you are morally accountable to.

Those who think like you would be taken much more seriously if you stated your view plainly when talking with Christians instead of trying to hide behind the whole "I can't believe because there is no evidence" piece. It is not that you can't believe, but rather, that you won't believe.

Thank you.Thumbsup
Apparently this needs to be spelled out for you more precisely. My approach to the idea of a god is:

1. There is no evidence for your god or any god.
2. If there was evidence to support or prove the existence of your god, he is a beast and I would want nothing to do with praising him.
3. If there was evidence to support or prove the existence of another god that had decent morals, I would have no problem following that god.
4. #2 and #3 are irrelevant without getting past #1 first.

Therefore, yes, evidence is of primary importance. No hiding, just logical common sense.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
03-05-2014, 06:25 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 03:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Since we are not talking about God's existence, I shall dismiss the above as moot.

Rather we are talking about your disposition towards Him granting His existence. It is clear you would actively oppose Him and all that He stands for, for these were your own words, not mine.
Facepalm
Are you really that stupid? YOU compared what Chas is doing now to what Chas said he would do in your hypothetical situation and you said they are the same. What Chas is doing now is outside of your hypothetical granting...

Just admit you lost that argument already geez... Rolleyes

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 06:36 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 05:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 05:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Ok....... Consider

Most of your comrades would agree.... Thumbsup

Can you explain to me what your basis is for making such judgments?

I've read the bible...all of it....not just neatly packaged snippets. Have you?

That is not what I signified.

What I signified was this:

You make moral judgments about a person i.e. that a person should not be cruel or that rape is wrong.

Words like "should" or "wrong" relate to concepts like moral obligations or values.

My question therefore is what are you basing your moral judgments on?

Is it your opinion?

Or are you saying that the God of the bible has actually broken some law somewhere that no one should break?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 01:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 10:50 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Or at the very least, you'd think he'd understand that if you have to try to force an opponent through leading to a prerequisite conclusion before presenting evidence shows something is very wrong with either that evidence, it's would-be presenter or both.

Or, you know, actually presenting evidence. Not too hard.

You still have not answered the question.

Okay; that's it.

I have been perfectly happy to play along to see what evidence might eventually rear its head, but fuck it, I'm done.

You have the Onus Probandi on your shoulders and you have failed to meet it. You claimed to have evidence of your assertion which would dispel the Onus from you, but you have not presented it, you have merely created another burden to bear and have made not a single solitary attempt to even acknowledge either of them, let alone fulfil them.
In the stead of presenting the evidence you claimed you have, which given the claim it represents must be something phenomenal and nigh unquestionable under scrutiny, you present nothing more than loaded and leading questions designed to get people to agree to your case before even presenting the evidence. Were there ever to be dishonesty, this case is a fine exemplar.

So, have fun being disingenuous and fallacious, sir, for I shall have no further part in playing such a game.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
03-05-2014, 06:47 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 06:15 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 01:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Yes it was. And it serves only to reinforce my point. For you and many who think like you, evidence is not the issue at all. You just do not like the idea of there being a God who you are morally accountable to.

Those who think like you would be taken much more seriously if you stated your view plainly when talking with Christians instead of trying to hide behind the whole "I can't believe because there is no evidence" piece. It is not that you can't believe, but rather, that you won't believe.

Thank you.Thumbsup
Apparently this needs to be spelled out for you more precisely. My approach to the idea of a god is:

1. There is no evidence for your god or any god.
2. If there was evidence to support or prove the existence of your god, he is a beast and I would want nothing to do with praising him.
3. If there was evidence to support or prove the existence of another god that had decent morals, I would have no problem following that god.
4. #2 and #3 are irrelevant without getting past #1 first.

Therefore, yes, evidence is of primary importance. No hiding, just logical common sense.

my point is that when an atheist who thinks like you tells a Christian that there is no evidence for God and that is why they do not believe in Him, the Christian can simply reply by saying: "So what?" If I bothered to give you the evidence, you would not ask God to be born again and repent of your sins. A Christian could care less if you acknowledge God's existence as a mere fact. The demons acknowledge His existence and tremble. And many acknowledge His existence and hate Him.

When a Christian talks with an atheist and gives them arguments and or reasons why God exists it is with the aim of leading that person to the point where they see their desperate need for God and their hopeless state so that they will repent and confess their sins and be forgiven. It is not so that the person can say: "Ok God exists."

As I stated, I could care less whether or not you agree that the proposition "God exists" is true. You can believe the proposition and align yourself positively against God. I do what I do because I desire to see people receive the light and illumination of Christ in their heart and mind so that they may be saved, not so that people can say "God exists" and then go their merry way as slaves to sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 06:46 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 01:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You still have not answered the question.

Okay; that's it.

I have been perfectly happy to play along to see what evidence might eventually rear its head, but fuck it, I'm done.

You have the Onus Probandi on your shoulders and you have failed to meet it. You claimed to have evidence of your assertion which would dispel the Onus from you, but you have not presented it, you have merely created another burden to bear and have made not a single solitary attempt to even acknowledge either of them, let alone fulfil them.
In the stead of presenting the evidence you claimed you have, which given the claim it represents must be something phenomenal and nigh unquestionable under scrutiny, you present nothing more than loaded and leading questions designed to get people to agree to your case before even presenting the evidence. Were there ever to be dishonesty, this case is a fine exemplar.

So, have fun being disingenuous and fallacious, sir, for I shall have no further part in playing such a game.

You did not answer the question.

You do not have to. I know the answer. All I have written has not been for my benefit but for yours. The choice is yours. God gives it to you. That is the beauty of it really. People like you charge God with evil in allowing evil to happen.

What you fail to realize is that when you choose life without God, you necessarily forfeit good for evil. All the pain and suffering in the world people like you charge God with is actually the result of people living according to your mentality.

Forfeit the Highest Good and evil is all you are left with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: