27 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are obviously forgetful. Remember our criteria?
Naive or knave? The latter is greater than the former, although [b]everything of value which the latter is able to do, relies on the actions of the former.
With notable exception (i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ), the student does not surpass the teacher.
Charlie did a few things which established his name, but he did not initiate one--- let alone all-- ...[text shortened]... roof of impact sinks below any further response.
In a word: idiocy. In two words: pure idiocy.[/b]
Religious influence
Jurisprudence
Scientific advancement
Literature
Military
Financial
Abram had limited impact on any of these. His forebears had a fair bit of influence on all
of them. Charlemagne had a tremendous influence on all of these except for scientific
improvement. His forebears changed the world.
Nemesio
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioAbram had limited impact on any of these.
Except, of course, for the fact that he initiated the whole thing.
Your specious argument holds no water, and avoids acknowledging the initial declaration, while confirming the same.
Abraham was given specific promises in his departure from Chaldea, and some of these promises have already been fulfilled, while the remaining totality is yet future. Those who followed in his line, have been pulling the sled.
Disingenuosity is unbecoming of your obviously brilliant mind.
27 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, if you want to argue that Abram's starting the ball rolling, then
[b]Abram had limited impact on any of these.
Except, of course, for the fact that he initiated the whole thing.[/b]
you would have to give Charlemagne the credit for all of Western art
music and scientific advances that were a product of Church reform.
How do you want to play this? The accomplishments of the individual,
or the ball the individual got rolling. Either way, Charlemagne has Abram
beat.
Nemesio
28 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioThe accomplishments of the individual,
or the ball the individual got rolling.
Utililzing such an inane line of thought, you could make the argument that Jesus had little or no influence on the world.
Books written? None, although He did write something in the dirt, once.
Travels? None.
Followers in His lifetime? Nothing to write home about, really.
Financial impact? Traveling preachers didn't really bring home the bacon back then.
Scientific advancements? Except for the whole raising from the dead thing, which hasn't been replicated, none to speak of here, either.
Military adeptness? Never battle-tested.
There you have it. In the world according to Nemesio, Jesus had no impact on the world.
Brilliant use of debate tactics 🙄.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBuddha influenced Christ more than Abram did.
The list provided aids in analyzing the world's religions, although a cursory reading of the list will eliminate many of them from the discussion of impact on Western civilization.
Of the 22 listed, 19 of them were either in opposition of Western adavance, or had nothing to do with the same.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by frogstompYou are correct in assuming that the humanity of Christ was influenced by some line of thought, prior to His full understanding of His identity. However, you are wrong in asserting that anything other than Torah was consulted, in order for Him to ascertain His identity.
Buddha influenced Christ more than Abram did.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHChrist's message is far removed from the nastiness in the torah.
You are correct in assuming that the humanity of Christ was influenced by some line of thought, prior to His full understanding of His identity. However, you are wrong in asserting that anything other than Torah was consulted, in order for Him to ascertain His identity.
28 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompMatthew 26:23,24
Christ's message is far removed from the nastiness in the torah.
Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Wow! That the soul would never have even existed?!?
Seems a tad harsh, almost Old Testament-ish, don't you think?
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDont even come close to mass-murdering an entire country on god's orders.
Matthew 26:23,24
Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Wow! That the soul would never have even existed?!?
Seems a tad harsh, almost Old Testament-ish, don't you think?