- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 May 13
1 edit
What you asked me is basically who alive or dead has most closely instantiated your concept 'God'. Again, my honest take is that no one alive or dead has ever come close to instantiating such a concept. And here again I'll explain the following point for you one more time. I'll go slowly so that it sinks in too. I do not take it to be the case that your Jesus god-man concept is or was ever instantiated. So, sorry, but your water-walking, sickness-healing, dead-raising zombie doesn't make my list of historical persons alive or dead. For a similar reason, I don't think Zeus or Horus or Superman are in the running either.
You don't have to go slow. I can see how lazy you are in the mind.
Like I said before - I think you would have to work pretty hard in your mind to make your case that Jesus does not even come close to manifesting an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
Your little repeated rant above just shows me that you're lazy and don't want to do any real intellectual work to make that case.
10 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipTo make what case? You asked me what my honest take is on some question, and I answered it directly. I cannot help it if you still cannot understand my response even after I've bothered to explain it to you several times. And I cannot help it if my honest take on some matter isn't what you want to hear. That's your problem, not mine. I call you Dasa because, well, it fits, since you seem intent on suggesting that my honest take as I relay it isn't honest after all (presumably for no other reason than that it just isn't what you desire to hear and doesn't accord with your own).
[quote] What you asked me is basically who alive or dead has most closely instantiated your concept 'God'. Again, my honest take is that no one alive or dead has ever come close to instantiating such a concept. And here again I'll explain the following point for you one more time. I'll go slowly so that it sinks in too. I do not take it to be the case that y me that you're lazy and don't want to do any real intellectual work to make that case.
I'll be sure to pick my battles more carefully in the future and steer clear of your proselytizing that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Here's a tip: when someone asks you a hypothetical question about some issue, just try actually answering the frickin' question; or don't bother wasting their time.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 May 13
3 edits
You asked me what my honest take is on some question, and I answered it directly. I cannot help it if you still cannot understand my response even after I've bothered to explain it to you several times. And I cannot help it if my honest take on some matter isn't what you want to hear. That's your problem, not mine. I call you Dasa because, well, it fits, since you seem intent on suggesting that my honest take as I relay it isn't honest after all (presumably for no other reason than that it just isn't what you desire to hear and doesn't accord with your own).
What I desired to hear was not that you agree with me necessarily on the Deity of Jesus.
You cannot honestly lump one whose historicity is certain in the same category with Zeus or Horus.
That is why I said if you wanted to make a case for Jesus being nowhere close you should compare Jesus' character with someone of whom the majority of serious historians agree actually lived.
I suggested several more appropriate figures by which one could compare their character and deeds with those of Jesus.
That's ok. Lost interest in your diatribes minus honest rationales.
Anyone reading who would like to see a good presentation to the establishment of the historicity of the resurrection can view some of the lectures by Dr. Gary Habermas.
Of whom Wikapedia includes these comments:
In 1985, Dr. Gary Habermas and Antony Flew debated the question of Jesus' resurrection as a literal and historical/physical event, before a crowd of 3000 people. Five philosophers and five professional debate judges judged the debate. Of the philosophers who judged on the content of the debate, four voted that Habermas won and the other was undecided. Of the debate judges who voted on debate technique, three voted for Habermas while two voted for Flew.[2] The debate was published as a book under the title Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate (Harper & Row).
In 2004, Habermas conducted an interview with Antony Flew published in Biola University's Philosophia Christi journal, in which Flew reversed his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing deistic theism.[3] The interview has been the source of some minor controversy, centering on claims made in the interview's preface regarding the scope and nature of Flew's beliefs, and his subsequent contradictory statements endorsing atheism, the latter being a misnomer, for Flew clearly no longer supports the inference or verdict of atheism, but rather the evidential method or route by which one may secure such a verdict, i.e., the "Presumption of Atheism" is default, nullified only on the condition that the degree of proof is met. [4]
[my emphasis]
10 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipEither you are having trouble putting what you really mean into words, or you believe that everyone on the planet is either Christian or 'worked pretty hard to make the case that Jesus does not even come close to manifesting an all-powerful, all-knowing God.'
You don't have to go slow. I can see how lazy you are in the mind.
Like I said before - I think you would have to work pretty hard in your mind to make your case that Jesus does not even come close to manifesting an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
Its also odd that you contradicted that by saying such hard working people are also 'lazy in the mind'.
Did you get LemonJello's comment that fictional people were excluded from his consideration? Do you object to him doing so?
Do you get that I and LemonJello consider the Jesus as described in the Bible to be a fictional character?
Do you not realize that everyone except Christians consider Jesus as described in the Bible to be a fictional character?
10 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipYou asked me what my honest take is on some question, and I answered it directly. I cannot help it if you still cannot understand my response even after I've bothered to explain it to you several times. And I cannot help it if my honest take on some matter isn't what you want to hear. That's your problem, not mine. I call you Dasa because, well, it on the condition that the degree of proof is met. [4]
[my emphasis]
You cannot honestly lump one whose historicity is certain in the same category with Zeus or Horus.
Well, apparently you still don't get it, even after I and others (e.g., twhitehead) have tried to drill it into your head. Here this time I'll go SUPER SLOW for ya:
The .... historical .... veracity .... of .... the .... bible .... may .... be .... "certain" .... to .... you .... and .... others .... who .... happen .... to .... share .... your .... same .... viewpoint .... on .... the .... topic .... but .... not .... to .... others .... who .... hold .... different .... views .... on .... the .... topic.
If you didn't want to hear my honest take on it, then you shouldn't have asked for it. (You shouldn't have asked for it regardless, since it was patently irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but I chose to accommodate you; and I live and learn.)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I ... and .... pretty .... sure .... you .... are .... thoroughly .... self .... deceived .... to .... the point .... of ..... desperately .... wanting .... to .... pretend .... Jesus .... is .... maybe .... somewhere .... around .... 80% - 100% .... legendary.
On .... those .... unrealistic .... biases .... you .... want .... me .... to .... think .... of ....you .... as .... an ..... honest ..... doubter.
And now I say "nowhere close". You're bigoted and are not objective about the impact of this man's life on human civilization.
10 May 13
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipWow, I'm a bigot now?!? Are you a bigot for dismissing the impact of Zeus' or Horus' life on human civilization?
I ... and .... pretty .... sure .... you .... are .... thoroughly .... self .... deceived .... to .... the point .... of ..... desperately .... wanting .... to .... pretend .... Jesus .... is .... maybe .... somewhere .... around .... 80% - 100% .... legendary.
On .... those .... unrealistic .... biases .... you .... want .... me .... to .... think .... 're bigoted and are not objective about the impact of this man's life on human civilization.
I understand that your belief in the historical veracity surrounding the accounts of Jesus is very important to you. I played some part in inciting you with my 'zombie' comments, etc. But the fact is, I gave a respectful and direct response to your question the very first time you asked it, even though it was obviously irrelevant to the topic at hand. You may want to take a look at yourself and try to understand why that response didn't satisfy you. You're going to have to face facts: not all persons are going to agree with you on this; not all are going to agree with you that the historical veracity of the bible is "certain". What bigots they must be! Imagine that, to actually think that ancient accounts of some man being born of a virgin, walking on water, healing sickness at will, raising dead persons at will, turning water into wine, rising from the grave, etc, may not actually be historically rigorous!
10 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipYou are being completely ridiculous. Did you start out this discussion assuming that everyone in the world accepts the historicity of Jesus? (as in miracles and all). If so you are remarkably ignorant, and somewhat stupid to boot. If that was the case then everyone would be Christian surely? Or are you one of those people who thinks everyone is a closet Christian?
On .... those .... unrealistic .... biases .... you .... want .... me .... to .... think .... of ....you .... as .... an ..... honest ..... doubter.
So what is an honest doubter? Clearly he is not allowed to doubt anything with regards to Jesus, so what does such a doubter doubt?
10 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipDo you think all people who don't believe the historicity of Jesus to be 'certain' are 'self deceived'?
I ... and .... pretty .... sure .... you .... are .... thoroughly .... self .... deceived .... to .... the point .... of ..... desperately .... wanting .... to .... pretend .... Jesus .... is .... maybe .... somewhere .... around .... 80% - 100% .... legendary.
On .... those .... unrealistic .... biases .... you .... want .... me .... to .... think .... ...[text shortened]... 're bigoted and are not objective about the impact of this man's life on human civilization.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 May 13
1 edit
Get clear on this too. I didn't ask about the whole Bible.
I focused on comparisons of Jesus to other possible candidates for God being expressed in history.
Your patronizing "I know the Bible is meaningful to you .... etc. etc." misses the mark.
The mistake I made was not pinning you down on WHAT do you think the possible attributes of God would be. But there you did seem to volunteer all knowing and all powerful. Good enough.