The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
Other stories similar to jesus' story preceded the new testament. Heracles was born half human half god, did "labors" of good, was killed, and resurrected to be a god. Horus is another man god story. Many of the births centered around the winter solstice.
So jesus story isn't original, it's just another rendition of a man-god story that was carried down through the ages.
Discuss.....
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Changing is fine, but without even sociobiological theories of morality to back it, it is all the more arbitrary. Did it exist when the universe came into being? When dinosaurs roam? When humans lived in clans looking for fire? Or just as it is expressed? If so, how can anyone be taken to task for it retroactively?
I don't know how do do that cool quote thingy yet so bear with me. First, when I said evolving, I didn't mean the biological "evolotion", I met changing.
That is relativism, is it not?Second, I state that I and I alone think that the things mentioned were evil. It just so happens that many people agree with me at this time.
Empathy is considered an evolved trait, which places your beliefs strongly within morality by sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology. So my previous statements hold. Unless you have a different source for empathy?But when I make moral judgements I hardly deem it necessary to ask popular opinion. The reason I think that I know it is things like mentioned were wrong is because of empathy.As the world has gotten smaller people have slowly realized how we are all human (not the original case in slavery) and how basically almost everyone on the planet wants the same thing. It's because we recognize eachother as humans we can show them empathy which leads to morality. So I don't know that I can show you impirical data that something is wrong, but are you saying that you think thinks like inquisitions, jihad and crusades aren't? And if you don't think they are wrong, or you church doesn't I think it is my turn to ask how you came to those conclusions without the bible expressing it. It morality, as I think you and many of the new age christians are claiming is innate and coming form a god figure, why did it take this long for the churches to figure this out? If morality comes from God, then why a bible?
I have actually never stated a single belief of mine, but merely expressed the implications of a darwinian or materialist approach to morality. Frankly, all I see in morality is that the more affluent societies influence the less so. Inevitably, this changes, and societies readopt "traditional" morality, or more on to brand new ones. The last 40 years in Iran seem to support this, as well as the changes in Chinese culture. Is it an improvement, that they have given up elder respect and community for hardcore personal ambition? I wonder, if a plague hit, and the only survivors were isolationists of the "screw your neighbor" variety, would they then be right? It would be the only morality left. Or would they still be objectively wrong?Also, as I have said, if I am reading your answer correctly, it seems that you are making the case that if racism is popular in a society we either have no right to judge it or you are once again trying to insert the belief that it was a what is seeming to be a rather incompetent god figure waited about 100,000 years to suddenly change are hearts.
I am saying that you have provided no grounds to judge, aside from an appeal to current popular opinion to contravene past popular opinion. Do you have anything better?
It is analytic philosophy. Two propositions that are equal in weight, but are opposed. Both have equal validity when expressed individually, but the first is only correct if there is no dissension. The second implies that there are two or more opinions, the first requires that there only be one. Inherently, as there are two opinions, the first is wrong. Unless the first has other support or evidence. I don't know how else to put it, Christianity is accused of illogic, so I give plain old propositional logic, and it is accused of the same.So the last part of what you said with the A: and B answers is not logical in the least, it's more bunk philosophy on why I guess christians feel they are incapable themselves of deciding what is right or wrong. It is simple that once mankind accepted itself as mankind and put religion, race, and politics behind it, we began empathizing with eachother. It is because of this MANMADE laws changed, and Christian teachings, which was I think in front of the curve for a long time fell behind the curve.
Frankly, I have not seen a whole lot to prove that your further statements are true. I see more groups entrenched in ideological dispute than ever, and less common ground. I could be wrong.
Heck, I did not say that I did not think him completely wrong the matter. I do. My point is strictly about why YOU do. I do not see how a materialist logic, that has no realm of platonic abstract objects, metaphysical properties, or spiritual truths, but is full of hard deterministic causes, can accomodate the notion that a person was wrong prior to the causes of his being wrong. IE, if morality results from rather than precedes human society, how can a man be held responsible for later moral thought resulting from a later society?Lastly, before I depart for some travel, I do have to say it astounds me know one sees the travesty of a Christian who is sainted like Aquinas can take a message like "Love they neighbor" or "Turn the cheek" and turn it into "Kill the heretics!" Then again, this dude did claim to fly, so maybe he was full of it to begin with.
Have fun on your travels, and Merry Christmas.
So I don't get it. If this is a debate forum, but you are not debating, you just keep asking questions in what is seems to be an attempt to corner me in some weird logic trap. As far as morality or empathy, sure I guess it could be possible. If he body evolves, why can't the mind where our thought processes reside. Haven't they done brain scans on serial killers and seen increased brain activity in certain areas?
I'm still not exactly sure where you are going with the whole empathy, I think I made it pretty clear that is where I get my morality from. But since you seem to be the one asking all these questions and asking for statistics and data, can you give me a time frame of when things are or are not evil? So if butchering small babies like Moses and his soldiers did against the Caananites, or is Aquinas saying kill all the heretics was okay then and I have no right to retroactively judge, can you give me the length of time between events that makes them off limits? If Hitler would have killed the Jews in the 1920s would it have been before this mysterious "context" time loophole?
Second, how would I know what would happen if a plague hit? Sort of a lot of x-factors for me to guess at, but I would say the immoral would have a short term advantage, but in the end only morality of some sort would establish a set of laws that would allow their new society to strengthen. Maybe not, maybe they turn back to slavery? Who knows, but I know what I would feel about it.
Next you have said that I have provided no grounds to judge......yes I have. I know how I feel, I know how I want to be treated, and that is the way I treat others, it's pretty simple actually. Do you have anything better, or is it he guy in the sky?
And here I am trying to debate, and I keep looking through your comments, and there is no debate here. I answer, you ask, I answer you ask. And I don't think the questions and requirement of impirical data to support that my theory that Aquinas advocating mass murder is wrong. I'm guessing (and it's a guess because you are debating with some weird Jedi Mind Trick of not saying much) that you are trying to get me to sort of walk into a AHA! moment where I sort of have to admit that I don't know where morality comes from and you get to say "It's God!" But the you run into the problem that some how God gave me a morality he didn't give a Aquinas for whatever reasons. And you would also have to show me data of how you know that Jesus's morals were superior to his comtemporaries.
So the next few answers I have tried to give, you just keep coming back with "who says" and "by what authority". So I guess this is why debating christians is somewhat like smashing my own face against a wall. Let's just get right to the chase and say I have no idea where morality or ethics or values or empathy comes from. Let's say I cannot prove with any certainty that it is a biological or evolutionary trait. What then?
At this point I am only guessing, but let me just say this. It seems like everyone here has done there research, but for all the philosophical, professorial, and collegiate level talk of relativism, empirical data, socioevoloutinary science, whatever, the enlightened Christians who have turned to and now excepted evolution and many more scientific understandings where the bible was just wrong, are using the same exact unsophisticated thought process that flat earthers, bible literalists and fundamentalists use.
Simply, if I can not prove my side of it....it means god did it. The bible says creation in 7 days. Wrong. We know that a population cannot begin with just two people like Adam and Eve. We know that Noah could not fit every species of animals on a boat. We know that plagues and natural disasters are not curses and God's wrath. Over and over again science has taken God out of the picture. So this argument that morality has to come from some higher source simply because we don't quite understand yet all of our brain functions is just a more modern version of cave men thinking that lighting was one of their God's anger.0 -
It seems we have utterly hijacked this thread, I am going to ask the author of the OP if he would like me to move this discussion elsewhere. I cannot respond tonight, anyhow, I have a dinner date. Thank you for taking the time, sir, as it would seem you are prepping to travel. If I need to move this discussion, I will certainly use your post as the OP, with your permission. And, no Jedi mind tricks, I promise.0
-
Other stories similar to jesus' story preceded the new testament. Heracles was born half human half god, did "labors" of good, was killed, and resurrected to be a god. Horus is another man god story. Many of the births centered around the winter solstice.
So jesus story isn't original, it's just another rendition of a man-god story that was carried down through the ages.
Discuss.....
What's wrong with allowing this thread to move in different directions? That happens in debates all the time.0 -
Dang it, I still have two posts on here I have not responded to, and that thread on the logical basis of Christianity to start. Last time I tried to start it, though, I was almost injured by a narcoleptic fit. Does anyone actually want me to do that thread? Anybody?
Me!0 -
So, all you have to add to this debate is some youtube video? Fail.0 -
I love me some Tim Minchin.0 -
So, all you have to add to this debate is some youtube video? Fail.
I think it was more of a light-hearted break.
And it was clever and cute.0 -
After celebrating Christmas, I've convinced that jesus was a lush like most of my relatives.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
That was awesome! I have never seen that guy before!
I love me some Tim Minchin.0 -
After celebrating Christmas, I've convinced that jesus was a lush like most of my relatives.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Y'all are gonna have to forgive me but this brings up one of my favorite jokes by David Cross...
"One of Jesus's miracles was turning water into wine. Which is great. If you like wine. I can only imagine that in the desert someone probably took a big gulp to try to quench their thirst and was like "Aaarrh! Who did this? Jesus? Well turn it back! I got kids here, it's 103 degrees, maybe not everyone is looking to get a buzz on right now."0 -
Y'all are gonna have to forgive me but this brings up one of my favorite jokes by David Cross...
"One of Jesus's miracles was turning water into wine. Which is great. If you like wine. I can only imagine that in the desert someone probably took a big gulp to try to quench their thirst and was like "Aaarrh! Who did this? Jesus? Well turn it back! I got kids here, it's 103 degrees, maybe not everyone is looking to get a buzz on right now."
I hope we have someone from Church of Christ who can explain to you how this was non-alcoholic wine!:drinker:0 -
Y'all are gonna have to forgive me but this brings up one of my favorite jokes by David Cross...
"One of Jesus's miracles was turning water into wine. Which is great. If you like wine. I can only imagine that in the desert someone probably took a big gulp to try to quench their thirst and was like "Aaarrh! Who did this? Jesus? Well turn it back! I got kids here, it's 103 degrees, maybe not everyone is looking to get a buzz on right now."
I hope we have someone from Church of Christ who can explain to you how this was non-alcoholic wine!:drinker:
Really? I'd never heard that.
And now I've done a bit of looking up the matter. I really would never make it as a Christian. I just can't accept what passes for logic or evidence in the context of religion.
http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/Chuck_Northrop/christliv/wine.htm
I don't think this is a "bad" article or anything like that. It just doesn't pass muster in my brain. Clearly the author hates alcohol. So he can't accept that Jesus turned water into wine. So he goes through all these twists and turns to try to prove that Jesus turned water into grape juice essentially. That changes the whole story! The people at the wedding were not upset at the lack of grape juice. They wanted wine. Jesus made wine. Now a few thousand years later some people think alcohol is bad so now Jesus didn't make wine. This is not how you arrive at the truth. It's starting with a conclusion and then working to justify it.
p.s. my favorite part of the article was "The obvious answer to the question, "Did Jesus turn water into wine?" is yes." Really? THAT'S the "obvious" answer?0 -
p.s. my favorite part of the article was "The obvious answer to the question, "Did Jesus turn water into wine?" is yes." Really? THAT'S the "obvious" answer?
Ha! There are denominations of Christians who "do not believe" in drinking, dancing, cutting their hair......I could go on and on.0 -
Ha! There are denominations of Christians who "do not believe" in drinking, dancing, cutting their hair......I could go on and on.
Well I do support any bans on dancing they want to throw out. Provided they apply mainly to white people.
Oh how I envy those lucky folks in the little town from Footloose...0 -
Brett~ My Grandmother used to say that being Catholic is the best because "We can drink, smoke, dance, gamble. We just can't have sex". (she was an Irish, New York Catholic socialite)!0
-
Brett~ My Grandmother used to say that being Catholic is the best because "We can drink, smoke, dance, gamble. We just can't have sex". (she was an Irish, New York Catholic socialite)!
Not bad Patti, not bad at all. But I still win with all that and Sunday's off. And The Sex.
Though the Mormons get harems so they may beat us both...0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SFdUJLebzU&feature=g-u&context=G29da02aFUAAAAAAABAA
This discussion has been closed.