[Off-Topic]Arnold is looking strangely Republican...

User avatar
Wayfarer
Regular Poster
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Lantern Waste
Contact:

Post by Wayfarer »

Deflare wrote:I don't say that Hitler was a Christian in order to strike at Christians- I point it out as a way to say that Christains aren't automatically good.
I would venture to say that many Christians would have no argument with this whatsoever. In fact, many freely admit it. (I would say most or all, but I hate to commit to generalizations I have no way of proving.) I can say for sure that the teachings of the Bible - which I consider to be the standard against which Christian beliefs should be measured - clearly and most definitely show that Christians aren't perfect, though we are commanded to strive toward that end.
I also think that it's only fair to point out that, at this point in history, to associate anyone with Hitler will probably be taken as a way of striking out and saying that someone is necessarily bad.
Deflare wrote:This specific example was a way for me to say that Christain conservatives aren't necessarily good, and was in response to a direct challenge.
That said, I do acknowledge the intent you state here.


And my $.02 (or whatever it's worth) on... I don't know - stuff:
I don't think that any system, insofar as it involves people, is going to be perfect. In fact, I think that any system that involves people is susceptible to being terribly corrupted. I believe that's because... well, it's going to be made up of people, and people aren't perfect, and they're capable of terrible corruption. This can be true of governments, it can be true of systems of thought, it can be true of churches. I would add that in the case of churches, the fact that they claim belief in Jesus and authority from Scripture does not mean that they follow or obey the commands of either. It also doesn't mean that the commands Jesus gave, and those found in the rest of the Bible, are wrong. (For precision's sake, I will add that I do not expect this last statement to be a proof of their truth. I do intend to point out that the fact that they can be used - I would say twisted - toward corrupt ends does not prove them in themselves to be either corrupt or untrue.)

I'll also admit that I've only addressed one point - and maybe, to most, not even the main point - of the discussion. But it was the point that mattered to me.
Last edited by Wayfarer on Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The mirror may tell us what we are; memory may tell us what we were; but only the imagination can tell us what we might be.” – Donald Keesey

“You go whistling in the dark/ Making light of it/ Making light of it/ And I follow with my heart/ Laughing all the way// Oh 'cause you move me/ You get me dancing and you make me sing/ You move me/ Now I'm taking delight/ In every little thing/ How you move me”
~ "You Move Me"
Pierce Pettis, Gordon Kennedy

User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...
Contact:

Post by The JAM »

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


To summarize:

Hitler claimed to be a Christian, and he wrote down his claims. However:
Yeshua HaMashiach wrote:Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" And then will I profess unto them, I never knew[had a relationship with] you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity/lawlessness.
What fruits is He talking about?
Shaul of Tarshish wrote:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.
Given Hitler's track record, I can say that he came up short in the above list.
Delfare wrote:I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone that follows all of Christianity's teachings, or even assemble them in such a way that others would agree with.
It's sad, but true. There are plenty of Protestants and Catholics out there who claim to be a Christian and love God, but their actions prove otherwise. Reminds me of this:
Elijah of Tisbe wrote:I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away!
God replied:
YHWH Tsabaoth wrote:I have reserved for me 7,000 in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and whose mouth hath not kissed him.
Would you like to meet my pastor, his wife, and his two daughters? They've followed God's commands like few others I've known.

Delfare wrote:If someone believes in the divinity, then they're Christian, no matter what amount of simpering claims to the contrary are laid down.
However, the true meaning of being a Christian is not only what you say you believe, but how you show it as well, as Shaul of Tarshish said.

Ergo:

Hitler claimed to be a Christian.

Hitler did not behave like a Christian according to Yeshua's definition.

Therefore Hitler was not and was never a Christian, or at most, abandoned Christianity and surrendered to his own personal religion.



Last edited by The JAM on Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Regular Poster
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Lantern Waste
Contact:

Post by Wayfarer »

Jam: agreed.
“The mirror may tell us what we are; memory may tell us what we were; but only the imagination can tell us what we might be.” – Donald Keesey

“You go whistling in the dark/ Making light of it/ Making light of it/ And I follow with my heart/ Laughing all the way// Oh 'cause you move me/ You get me dancing and you make me sing/ You move me/ Now I'm taking delight/ In every little thing/ How you move me”
~ "You Move Me"
Pierce Pettis, Gordon Kennedy

User avatar
Deflare
Regular Poster
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: California

Post by Deflare »

Well, I must give ground here- whatever else can be said of him, Hitler definitely didn't follow the ideals of Christianity.

I regard Jesus as one of the greatest philosophers in history. I don't believe that he was the son of God, and I think that his early death was a shame, as his real messages of tolerance, fairness, compassion, and so on obviously didn't sink in too well.

I tend to be irritated when people state that people who claim to be Christian but don't follow the ideals aren't really Christian; it seems to like they're just trying to claim that their group is perfect, and anyone that isn't obviously isn't really of their group. Admittedly, I just did the same thing with stating that Mao and Stalin weren't really atheists. I suppose denial is a natural response when someone in one's group does something one doesn't like.

Another reason I don't like it is because I'm rather sensitive to the statement, "If you don't believe _____, you aren't really _____." The phrase is thrown about so much regarding the American-ness of liberals, that the mere structure makes me grind my teeth.

So, my apologies if I seem to be attacking every Christian on the planet. While people like Hitler and the operators of the Inquisition were Christian (or considered themselves Christian), so were Mother Teresa and my grandmother (life-long Catholic, nurse for decades, still volunteers and is just one of the sweetest women you could know).

(Irony: Since the association of pennies with thoughts, the worth of pennies has dropped dramatically at the same time that media has allowed so many ideas to start flying about that each one is almost worthless and incapable of much influence.)
You may call me, "L'Avocat De Diable."

User avatar
Wayfarer
Regular Poster
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Lantern Waste
Contact:

Post by Wayfarer »

Deflare wrote:I regard Jesus as one of the greatest philosophers in history. I don't believe that he was the son of God, and I think that his early death was a shame, as his real messages of tolerance, fairness, compassion, and so on obviously didn't sink in too well.
As much as I enjoy communicating via writing, there are times when I wish tone-of-voice was more apparent in it. I state the following with utter calmness and in no way as an attack.

How do you reconcile your view of Jesus with the utterly pervasive claim to Deity that He makes in the Gospels? I say pervasive because it's in everything - what He says, what He implies, what He does - and that not just once, but many times.
He makes direct claims, though they are not the only way He made this claim:
John 8:54 wrote:Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me."
(Incidentally, that whole conversation, from about vs. 12 to the end of the chapter, applies.)
He makes indirect claims, such as in Luke 20:1-19, when He was asked where His authority came from, and He replied first with His question about John the Baptist and then with the Parable of the Tenants. Claims direct and indirect, however, do not exhaust the ways He made this claim.
His very life, the way He lived, and the work He did, also expressed His claim:
Luke 7:18 wrote:John's disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of the, he sent them to the Lord to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
(Note: this is the man who said and believed of Jesus, "Look, the Lamb of God,who takes away the sin of the world!" - John 1:29)
Luke 7:20-23 wrote:When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'
At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive signt, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
~Consider the above in the context of such prophesies as Isaiah 61:1-2, which Jesus claimed to fulfill (Luke 3:14-21), and such statements as
John 10:34-38 wrote:Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scriptures cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
If you do not consider these things - and all the things like them, which saturate the accounts of Jesus' life - to have come from Jesus, what reason can you have for crediting Jesus with the teachings you actually agree and feel make Him a great philosopher?
“The mirror may tell us what we are; memory may tell us what we were; but only the imagination can tell us what we might be.” – Donald Keesey

“You go whistling in the dark/ Making light of it/ Making light of it/ And I follow with my heart/ Laughing all the way// Oh 'cause you move me/ You get me dancing and you make me sing/ You move me/ Now I'm taking delight/ In every little thing/ How you move me”
~ "You Move Me"
Pierce Pettis, Gordon Kennedy

Celidah the Bardess
Regular Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:01 pm

Post by Celidah the Bardess »

Deflare wrote:I tend to be irritated when people state that people who claim to be Christian but don't follow the ideals aren't really Christian; it seems to like they're just trying to claim that their group is perfect, and anyone that isn't obviously isn't really of their group. Admittedly, I just did the same thing with stating that Mao and Stalin weren't really atheists. I suppose denial is a natural response when someone in one's group does something one doesn't like.
I'm glad you caught the part about atheism...I was about to point that out.

On that note, though, I ask that you consider a few things.

Firstly, I'm pretty darn sure that JAM and Wayfarer aren't claiming Christians are perfect. That would indeed be a foolish statement, and untrue. However, there is a difference (albeit sometimes hard to tell) difference between someone who claims he or she is a Christian and someone who truly is.

I can claim I'm a chicken. I can tack feathers all over myself, cluck, eat corn off the ground, crouch down and keep my arms folded at my sides...I could even try to lay eggs. But I have never been, am not, and never will be a chicken, because there are specific requirements laid down that define chicken-ness.

So it is also with Christianity. Yeshua God himself laid down a list of requirements for Christianity, and--as JAM said--how to tell if a person if meeting those requirements. (By their fruit...) I can claim to be a Christian all I want, but if I am not following the requirements, I'm not really a Christian.

It's true that we humans have tried to redefine and redefine the requirements over the centuries, but that says nothing about God's requirements. They still remain the same.

God Himself even warns that those who claim to be Christians will find themselves very surprised at the end of all things. Allow me to emphasize a verse JAM has already stated:
21"Not everyone who says to Me [Yeshua], 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' "
You're right that the phrase "If you don't believe ________, you aren't really ________" gets thrown around way too much. But sometimes, it really is true, and I would submit that in this case, it is.

Maybe the chicken analogy isn't that good. It's the first thing that came to mind. I'm just offering my thoughts here.

Bock, bock.

User avatar
Deflare
Regular Poster
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: California

Post by Deflare »

Wayfarer wrote:How do you reconcile your view of Jesus with the utterly pervasive claim to Deity that He makes in the Gospels? I say pervasive because it's in everything - what He says, what He implies, what He does - and that not just once, but many times.
Easy- I think that he's wrong about there being an all-seeing, all-knowing divine being that created and controls the universe, humanity, and morality, but I think that he's right that one should be compassionate, tolerant, and so on, because that's how we would want to be treated. I don't have to support all of his claims to think that he's right about some of them. I regard him the same way I regard any other philosopher. People all have points on which they agree and disagree with Socrates, Marx, Nitzche, Rousseau, Locke, and so on; I treat Jesus the same way.
You may call me, "L'Avocat De Diable."

RHJunior
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: WV
Contact:

Post by RHJunior »

I'm afraid that's a big ol' cop out.

What Jesus Christ claimed, about God and about Himself, places him FAR outside the realm of "but he was a good teacher." This is not


He was claiming, openly, to be God. Explicitly enough for the hairsplitters that the religious leaders twice attempted to stone him for blasphemy... and finally crucified Him.

Either Jesus was stark raving mad-- on the order of a man who claimed he was a poached egg-- or he really was who he claimed he was.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert

User avatar
Steltek
Regular Poster
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:52 pm

Post by Steltek »

You've left the "liar" out of your use of the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument, RH. :)

Mwalimu
Regular Poster
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Bloomington, IL
Contact:

Post by Mwalimu »

RHJunior wrote:[Jesus Christ] was claiming, openly, to be God. Explicitly enough for the hairsplitters that the religious leaders twice attempted to stone him for blasphemy... and finally crucified Him.
At least that's true in John's gospel, which is where you find all the passages like "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light", and "I am the Vine, You are the Branches". In the other three gospels, especially Mark, he is much more ambiguous, even with his own disciples. He would ask them "Who do people say that I am?" and "Who do you say that I am?" It is only in the final days of his ministry (the Last Supper and the Passion) that he openly claims to be God.

In addition, people often assume that "the Son of Man" is synonymous with "the Son of God", and that when Jesus says it, he is talking about himself. This overlooks the fact that the phrase "Son of Man" appears in other period writings of a religious or philosophical nature (some of which pre-date Jesus) where it is doubtful it was referring to him. Even the Old Testament book of Daniel has a passage somewhere where it mentions "one like a Son of Man". The study of what phrases like this meant to people at the time, and what Jesus meant by them (or the gospel writers who attributed the words to him), is really quite fascinating

User avatar
Wayfarer
Regular Poster
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Lantern Waste
Contact:

Post by Wayfarer »

mwalimu wrote:
RHJunior wrote:[Jesus Christ] was claiming, openly, to be God. Explicitly enough for the hairsplitters that the religious leaders twice attempted to stone him for blasphemy... and finally crucified Him.
At least that's true in John's gospel, which is where you find all the passages like "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light", and "I am the Vine, You are the Branches". In the other three gospels, especially Mark, he is much more ambiguous, even with his own disciples. He would ask them "Who do people say that I am?" and "Who do you say that I am?" It is only in the final days of his ministry (the Last Supper and the Passion) that he openly claims to be God.
Placing a great deal of stress on the qualifier openly, I would, for the sake of argument, grant most of that (I actually think the statement and the implications of it call for examination). However, I would point out that in the case of asking, "Who do [people/you] say that I am?" He doesn't just leave it there. Look at His answer in Matthew 16:17:
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."
That's a very open affirmation, and I would say it amounts to an open claim.

He made other claims by implication - I mentioned one from Luke in my last post. Another example of these would be in Matthew 17:24-27, where Jesus says, in essence, that He doesn't owe the temple tax because He is the Son of the One Whose temple it is, though in order not to give offence, He consents to pay. Also, consider Luke 2:49, where Jesus as a boy calls the temple His Father's house.

I also, however, think that the very life He lived was part of His claim. This may fall under His seemingly ambiguous claims, but I don't think ambiguity mitigates the weight they carry. Indeed, I think that He deliberately did not make many clear verbal claims, and I think He had good reason.
John 5:31-40
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.
You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth*. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.
I have a testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
(*John
“The mirror may tell us what we are; memory may tell us what we were; but only the imagination can tell us what we might be.” – Donald Keesey

“You go whistling in the dark/ Making light of it/ Making light of it/ And I follow with my heart/ Laughing all the way// Oh 'cause you move me/ You get me dancing and you make me sing/ You move me/ Now I'm taking delight/ In every little thing/ How you move me”
~ "You Move Me"
Pierce Pettis, Gordon Kennedy

Mwalimu
Regular Poster
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Bloomington, IL
Contact:

Post by Mwalimu »

Again, John's gospel is kind of separate from the others. All the gospels are the inspired word of God, and each has its messages and purposes. If you were to read each gospel by itself and evaluate Jesus as you would a character in a story based on that gospel alone, you find differences in how he is characterized by each of the four gospel writers. The differences are relatively minor between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but John's portrayal of Jesus is very different.

I don't have a Bible handy, so I can't look up the references (if I really thought about it, I'm sure I could find it online). I'll take your word for it that there are times, even outside John's gospel, when he states clearly that he is the Son of God.

I'm not sure you can read too much in Jesus' reference to God as his Father, since he often refers to God as everyone's father, not just his own, such as when he implores us to pray, "Our Father, who art in heaven..."

I strongly agree that his greatest testimony to being the Son of God was not his words, but his life and his actions. By not saying too much about himself and allowing people to see who he was and draw their own conclusions, he got the message across much better, even to those who considered that a threat and eventually put him on the cross for it.

User avatar
Deflare
Regular Poster
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: California

Post by Deflare »

RHJunior wrote:I'm afraid that's a big ol' cop out.

What Jesus Christ claimed, about God and about Himself, places him FAR outside the realm of "but he was a good teacher." This is not

He was claiming, openly, to be God. Explicitly enough for the hairsplitters that the religious leaders twice attempted to stone him for blasphemy... and finally crucified Him.
Again, I think that Jesus was right about some things and wrong about others. I don't think that one should be forced to agree with every word that came out of his mouth or disagree with every word; I take each of his thoughts in moderation, consider it myself, and if I like it, add it into my own personal philosophy.

Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? This book is and was treated like the Bible by many. I haven't read it myself (but then, I haven't read the Bible, either), but I do know of some of Marx's arguments. I apply the same mindset to Marx's words as I do to Jesus' words. I don't think the the elimination of a free market or property is a good idea in the least, and I absolutely despise violent revolutions- they just don't work. However, I agree with Marx that the poor in industrialized societies are treated very poorly, and that something must be done to help them even now. In the same way, I don't think that Jesus was the son of God, but I do think that many of his lessons are worth considering.
Either Jesus was stark raving mad-- on the order of a man who claimed he was a poached egg-- or he really was who he claimed he was.
This is just plain wrong. It's not an either-or question. He wasn't either 100% wrong or 100% right. He, like any man, was right in some ways and wrong in others.

I know that I'm angering a lot of people by saying this, but I think that Jesus was starting to get a little eccentric toward the end. I don't think that this is a strike against him- the same applies to Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, and Gandhi. Everyone is a little loopy, and those with power tend to become a little more loopy. Someone that begins to attract a strong following based on his preaching is very likely to begin thinking of himself as, if not a god, at least a servant of the gods (or God, in this case). In my opinion, Jesus was a man, and was thus vulnerable to vanity just as much as anyone else. This does not, however, lessen the wisdom of his words.
You may call me, "L'Avocat De Diable."

User avatar
Wayfarer
Regular Poster
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Lantern Waste
Contact:

Post by Wayfarer »

Deflare wrote:
Either Jesus was stark raving mad-- on the order of a man who claimed he was a poached egg-- or he really was who he claimed he was.
This is just plain wrong. It's not an either-or question. He wasn't either 100% wrong or 100% right. He, like any man, was right in some ways and wrong in others.
The question of whether or not Jesus was Who He claimed He was is an either/or question. Granted, you've given your view on that - you say He was not. However, I would say that the claim to be God and the Son of God, to be the sacrifice for the world's sin, and to be the only way to God, would be on a different order from your general philosophical theory. On this, at least, it can never be, "He was right, or He was wrong, and it's no big deal." Either He was right, and it's a huge deal, or He was wrong, and wrong about claims no ordinary person would make. It would have to be either the biggest lie ever, or insanity. If you believe that He was wrong, and you still want to hold to some of His teachings, the fact remains that those teachings either came from a liar of the highest order or a man who was insane.
Deflare wrote:I know that I'm angering a lot of people by saying this,
If you are referring to people on the forum, I just want to reiterate that I'm not writing in anger.
Deflare wrote:but I think that Jesus was starting to get a little eccentric toward the end. I don't think that this is a strike against him- the same applies to Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, and Gandhi. Everyone is a little loopy, and those with power tend to become a little more loopy. Someone that begins to attract a strong following based on his preaching is very likely to begin thinking of himself as, if not a god, at least a servant of the gods (or God, in this case). In my opinion, Jesus was a man, and was thus vulnerable to vanity just as much as anyone else. This does not, however, lessen the wisdom of his words.
Just a couple of things -
First, you had stated above that you haven't read the Bible. I don't know if you meant that you haven't read the whole Bible, or if you meant that you haven't read much of it at all. However, the model you suggest - that of eccentricity and finally arrogance enough to claim Godhood growing as a result of having gained power - factually does not fit the facts of Jesus' life. The first instance of His having claimed to be God that we know of took place when He was 12 and visited the Temple (Luke 2:49), long before He ever started teaching. His claims of Godhood didn't begin after He started gaining a following; they were there throughout His ministry. In order for a theory like yours to be sound, it would need to be informed by the actual life Jesus lived. You would need to read the Gospels in order to properly evaluate its validity.
“The mirror may tell us what we are; memory may tell us what we were; but only the imagination can tell us what we might be.” – Donald Keesey

“You go whistling in the dark/ Making light of it/ Making light of it/ And I follow with my heart/ Laughing all the way// Oh 'cause you move me/ You get me dancing and you make me sing/ You move me/ Now I'm taking delight/ In every little thing/ How you move me”
~ "You Move Me"
Pierce Pettis, Gordon Kennedy

User avatar
Deflare
Regular Poster
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: California

Post by Deflare »

Wayfarer wrote: The question of whether or not Jesus was Who He claimed He was is an either/or question. Granted, you've given your view on that - you say He was not.
'Tis true- that is an either/or question. However ,what I was refering to was the idea that either every word Jesus spoke about himself and God is the truth, or else Jesus was either insane or a con artist. I don't think he was either.
However, I would say that the claim to be God and the Son of God, to be the sacrifice for the world's sin, and to be the only way to God, would be on a different order from your general philosophical theory. On this, at least, it can never be, "He was right, or He was wrong, and it's no big deal." Either He was right, and it's a huge deal, or He was wrong, and wrong about claims no ordinary person would make. It would have to be either the biggest lie ever, or insanity. If you believe that He was wrong, and you still want to hold to some of His teachings, the fact remains that those teachings either came from a liar of the highest order or a man who was insane.
To reiterate, he need not be insane to claim that he was the son of God. All people are rather quirky, and prone to their own fits of grandiosity and arrogance. When I was a small child, I though that I was Homo troodontis, the next stage of human evolution. These little fits of arrogance can happen to anyone at any time in their life. My assumption is and always has been that Jesus was a man- perhaps wiser than most, but still a man. He would therefore be as susceptible to eccentricities and arrogance as anyone else. And I won't even start on the fact that, by this time, cannabis had found its way to Judea.
If you are referring to people on the forum, I just want to reiterate that I'm not writing in anger.
Indeed, but I guarantee that there are people who would be angered by my suggestions that Jesus was a mere man, and an eccentric one at that.
Just a couple of things -
First, you had stated above that you haven't read the Bible. I don't know if you meant that you haven't read the whole Bible, or if you meant that you haven't read much of it at all. However, the model you suggest - that of eccentricity and finally arrogance enough to claim Godhood growing as a result of having gained power - factually does not fit the facts of Jesus' life. The first instance of His having claimed to be God that we know of took place when He was 12 and visited the Temple (Luke 2:49), long before He ever started teaching. His claims of Godhood didn't begin after He started gaining a following; they were there throughout His ministry. In order for a theory like yours to be sound, it would need to be informed by the actual life Jesus lived. You would need to read the Gospels in order to properly evaluate its validity.
Started when he was 12, eh? Who is more arrogant than a child? See again my embarrassing little fit of vanity mentioned above.

Admittedly, I was just hypothesizing; as my knowledge of Jesus' life comes from glimpses of documentaries on the History Channel and second-hand accounts, I apologize for speaking out of ignorance.

However, I will say that the vast majority of leaders throughout history have had some sort of major quirk about their life or personality.

Washington worked for the Revolutionary army for no salary; however, at the end of the war, he submitted a bill to Congress that far exceeded the cost of a salary. He offered to do the same for his pay as president, but was refused; he was so angered that he didn't speak to Congress for weeks afterward. When he was president, Washington insisted on being called His Mightiness, and was sullen when that didn't happen. At one point when he was working on his plantation (he actually went out and worked in the field with his slaves), Washington almost beat a man to death with his bare hands because the man had mistreated one of his slaves (can't really fault Washington on this, myself).

John Adams thought that little devils were constantly spying on him; whenever he wrote letters, he would scrunch over the paper and have his wife put up sheets around him that the devils couldn't see through. Personally, I think this has something to do with his poor experiences as a schoolteacher earlier in life.

Thomas Jefferson, when he was a child, would kill various animals and immediately cut open their bodies to study the circulatory system. After his wife died due to complications in childbirth caused by constant pursuit of Jefferson by British officials, Jefferson spent a long time contemplating suicide. He decided not to kill himself, and instead asked one of his slaves, a 1/4 African woman by the name of Sally Hemings, who happened to be Jefferson's wife's half-sister, to care for his children. He essentially entered into a common law marriage with her; she bore 5 children and was his companion for the rest of his life. When Jefferson became President, he essentially split in two- the wild-eyed revolutionary of his private letters still lived, but existed under the staid statesman that was the President.

Theodore Roosevelt is well known for his love of woodland creatures, especially bears- hence, the 'teddy bear.' Franklin Roosevelt had an almost child-like love of secrets- Truman didn't know about the Manhattan Project until he took office.

Mahatma Gandhi slept sandwiched between two virgins, although it was apparently completely chaste. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a plagiarist and an adulterer. JFK was also a know adulturer.

All of these men accomplished great things, despite their eccentricities. They were skilled leaders, and moved much of history forward. That is a fact, and the fact that they were eccentric does not mean that their deeds were any less great, nor does it mean that their words and ideals were any less worthy of consideration. I believe that Jesus should be considered the same way- a great man with great thoughts, despite his eccentricities.
You may call me, "L'Avocat De Diable."

User avatar
Wayfarer
Regular Poster
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Lantern Waste
Contact:

Post by Wayfarer »

Our disagreement seems to be over the weight of a claim to Godhood. You argue that such a claim can be considered on the level of an average - or at least still sane - case of arrogance and eccentricity. I would argue that Jesus' claims were not on the same order as any of the examples you mentioned in the other historical figures you brought up, and they would have to go well beyond mere eccentricity and arrogance. Claiming to be God is not just a quirk. Objectively, as a claim, it has to be either true, something one claims but doesn't believe to be true, or something one claims and believes to be true although it is not. If Jesus claimed to be God, the only way to Heaven, and the sin-sacrifice of the world and yet did not believe Himself to be those things, what could He be but a monstrous liar? And if He lied about those things it is difficult to see how He could be trustworthy at all. If He claimed these things and also believed them, and yet they were not true, what does that mean about Him? You said that as a child you believed you were Homo troodontis. Yet you do not still believe this today - you call it an embarrasing fit of vanity. Consider why - you no longer believe it, I presume, because the evidence of reality has proven it to be not only wrong, but very far from what the facts could support (else why would you call it embarrasing?). Consider how much farther from the evidence of life the claim to be God, if false, would be. How could a sane person miss that gap or, seeing it, continue to believe that what they claim is true? Could eccentricity and vanity really explain that? Even if you think so, I don't think that psychology would agree with you.

Yet you also seem to be saying that we can look at and evaluate the things Jesus taught separately from His claims about Himself, and that we can agree with the former while rejecting the latter. However, I would point out that Jesus was on a number of occaisions asked what gave Him the authority to act and teach as He did. The very question, unless a complete non sequitur, indicates that His teachings and actions were such that they would require the validation of some kind of authority. Jesus' claims about Himself were His validation and source of authority. They were the basis upon which He claimed the right to say the things He did.
“The mirror may tell us what we are; memory may tell us what we were; but only the imagination can tell us what we might be.” – Donald Keesey

“You go whistling in the dark/ Making light of it/ Making light of it/ And I follow with my heart/ Laughing all the way// Oh 'cause you move me/ You get me dancing and you make me sing/ You move me/ Now I'm taking delight/ In every little thing/ How you move me”
~ "You Move Me"
Pierce Pettis, Gordon Kennedy

User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...
Contact:

Post by The JAM »

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Well, you have set down interesting points.

I don't have much more to say to that, but I do recommend the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". I forgot the name of the author, but the book should be a very interesting read for you. It should be available at your local library so you don't need to dish out any cash for it.



Mwalimu
Regular Poster
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Bloomington, IL
Contact:

Post by Mwalimu »

The JAM wrote:[...] I do recommend the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". I forgot the name of the author, [...]
It was written by Josh McDowell. I haven't read the book, but if what I remember hearing about it is correct, he set out to dig up enough information to disprove Christianity, and ended up converting to it instead.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Regular Poster
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Lantern Waste
Contact:

Post by Wayfarer »

The JAM wrote:I do recommend the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". I forgot the name of the author, but the book should be a very interesting read for you.
Evidence That Demands a Verdict is by Josh McDowell
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel also talks about a number of these things.

*edit*
And yes, mwalimu, that is how Evidence that Demands a Verdict came to be written.
“The mirror may tell us what we are; memory may tell us what we were; but only the imagination can tell us what we might be.” – Donald Keesey

“You go whistling in the dark/ Making light of it/ Making light of it/ And I follow with my heart/ Laughing all the way// Oh 'cause you move me/ You get me dancing and you make me sing/ You move me/ Now I'm taking delight/ In every little thing/ How you move me”
~ "You Move Me"
Pierce Pettis, Gordon Kennedy

User avatar
Kerry Skydancer
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Bethlehem PA
Contact:

Post by Kerry Skydancer »

mwalimu wrote:
The JAM wrote:[...] I do recommend the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". I forgot the name of the author, [...]
It was written by Josh McDowell. I haven't read the book, but if what I remember hearing about it is correct, he set out to dig up enough information to disprove Christianity, and ended up converting to it instead.

I have read the silly piece of tripe, and that is in fact what he claims (without any indication that he ever honestly was a nonbeliever - not going to church for a few years doesn't make you an atheist any more than going to church makes you a Christian). If the claim is true, though, McDowell is even more of an idiot than this book demonstrates him to be. Every last one of his arguments is based on logical fallacies or the misunderstanding of information. It's only convincing if you already believe and don't want to look at the mistakes he makes.
Skydancer

Ignorance is not a point of view.

Post Reply