discovery versus jesus

[Death_By_Pod]

I don't know about that, did Socrates exist?

 

 

 

Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem

[insane]

I don't know about that, did Socrates exist?

 

 

 

Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem

 

 

 

That article doesn't question Socrates' existence, it questions whether or not Plato's writing about him are an accurate representation of his teachings.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

That article doesn't question Socrates' existence, it questions whether or not Plato's writing about him are an accurate representation of his teachings.

 

 

 

Plato had many personas (usually appearing in the form of dialogues; such as Plato asking Timaeus how the world was created and Timaeus explaining it rather then Timaeus asking Plato). The problem is we don't know if Socrates is just a persona of Plato or a real person (Since Socrates never authored any texts). If historians feel that some of Socrates later work is just Plato's persona, then what makes his earlier work not PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s persona? Is it really that hard to comprehend? The whole article does question his existence (ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅMany of the dialogues seem to use Socrates as a device for Plato's thought, and inconsistenciesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[insane]

 

That article doesn't question Socrates' existence, it questions whether or not Plato's writing about him are an accurate representation of his teachings.

 

 

 

Plato had many personas (usually appearing in the form of dialogues; such as Plato asking Timaeus how the world was created and Timaeus explaining it rather then Timaeus asking Plato). The problem is we don't know if Socrates is just a persona of Plato or a real person (Since Socrates never authored any texts). If historians feel that some of Socrates later work is just Plato's persona, then what makes his earlier work not PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s persona? Is it really that hard to comprehend? The whole article does question his existence (ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅMany of the dialogues seem to use Socrates as a device for Plato's thought, and inconsistenciesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

 

 

I don't know about that, did Socrates exist? He never published anything and only published in PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s works. Much like Jesus, Socrates has very little evidence (If any confirmed evidence) for existence outside of PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s works (Jesus-Christian texts).

 

 

 

2 John 1:7 (New International Version)

 

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

 

 

Scepticism even back then, makes you think. It would be interesting to find out how many people are sceptical of JesusÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ historical existence. I don't quite understand what you mean Jesus existed; do you have his dead body or something? People just take it for granted that he historically existed because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t validate him as the son of God.

 

 

 

We have record that Jesus lived through Jewish census records and such. No, I don't have access to sources at this moment - but I just sent an email to someone who does.

 

 

 

I don't know about Socrates, but we have plenty of evidence that Jesus was alive. I was talking to a good friend last year who had come up with some ideas that it was possible that before he started preaching, Jesus spent some time in India. I was curious about this so I asked some Bible experts I know and they said it was impossible because there are official records indicating exactly where Jesus was living.

[kirbybeam]

 

 

 

Well, I would disagree with you in saying that most things should be figurative. I believe that everything in the Bible really comes down to this:

 

 

 

Is Jesus who He said He was or is He not? He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through Me." That's pretty exclusive...but then again, every religion is exclusive.

 

 

 

So is the truth.

 

 

 

Not every religion is exclusive. Buddhists don't go around condemning non-Buddhists. Muslims say that some Jews and Christians can still go to heaven. Jews? They say as long as gentiles follow the 7 Noahide laws they should be ok. Hindus? There's more than one way to worship God, through all of his avatars.

 

 

 

The only religion that's exclusive is Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

 

 

 

So... please don't try to pretend that all religions are the same, when they are clearly not.

[tintmangbpack]

What we believe in my church is that good people go to heaven not just christians. Then we believe that they have an oppurtunity to accept god after gaining a knowledge of him. Then their decision determines there eternal state after death. So why don't you stop generalizing that all christians are intolerant. It offends me and many other christians that you are so close minded and think that everyone in a religion is the same.

[kirbybeam]

What we believe in my church is that good people go to heaven not just christians. Then we believe that they have an oppurtunity to accept god after gaining a knowledge of him. Then their decision determines there eternal state after death. So why don't you stop generalizing that all christians are intolerant. It offends me and many other christians that you are so close minded and think that everyone in a religion is the same.

 

 

 

If you actually read my post, you would know that I don't believe everyone in a religion is the same. And, I don't care what your church thinks, all that matters to me is what the Bible itself says. Unless you're a Catholic, because then you have argue Tradition and the Popes' writings.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

The only religion that's exclusive is Christianity.

 

 

 

Sorry I misread that...

 

 

 

But still Kirby, go back in your hole.

[kirbybeam]

The only religion that's exclusive is Christianity.

 

 

 

Sorry I misread that...

 

 

 

But still Kirby, go back in your hole.

 

 

 

aww.... but it's Easter and a cute bunny took me to the surface :wink:

[Kewl_Sabre]

Well, this debate has certainly gotten more interesting since I posted on it... from a recent scientific theory to whether or not Socrates existed :lol:

 

 

 

The debate seems to be about Jesus and his existance...

 

 

 

It was my opinion that it was accepted by many scholars that a man named Jesus of Nazarith existed, and that he did indeed preach to people. On this matter, I'll go out across the internet and look for exact proof (because on the Offtopic forums, I know I've got a 3/4 chance of being blasted for any given post :P).

 

 

 

The question of whether or not he did miracles is a matter of belief/faith/whatever. I don't really feel like going into my personal beliefs at the moment, as I am hungry and the pub is calling.

 

 

 

So while you people debate, just do it with respect for each other.

 

 

 

And another thing... whether or not you believe in the accomplishments of Jesus does not change his message. The idea of love for one another, peace, and achievement of happiness is one echoed by many religions and philosophies around the world. In fact, many decent people would probably agree with his ideas.

 

 

 

Ok, off to get some food. Chao. (tee hee... chao/chow : P)

[pianofrieak2]

Not every religion is exclusive. Buddhists don't go around condemning non-Buddhists. Muslims say that some Jews and Christians can still go to heaven. Jews? They say as long as gentiles follow the 7 Noahide laws they should be ok. Hindus? There's more than one way to worship God, through all of his avatars.

 

 

 

The only religion that's exclusive is Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

 

 

 

So... please don't try to pretend that all religions are the same, when they are clearly not.

 

 

 

I stand by my statement that every religion is exclusive. The Koran states that those who resist Islam should be killed. Where you got your information is beyond me.

 

 

 

I don't think Buddhism can really be called a religion because they do not profess a belief in God. But, they do believe that their way is the best way to enlightenment. In that way, they are exclusive, saying their way is the best way.

 

 

 

Now, to answer the real point of our arguing, what's wrong with being intolerant? Only the intolerant say others are intolerant. Stop being so intolerant of my so-called intolerant beliefs! :roll:

[McOwned]

Not every religion is exclusive. Buddhists don't go around condemning non-Buddhists. Muslims say that some Jews and Christians can still go to heaven. Jews? They say as long as gentiles follow the 7 Noahide laws they should be ok. Hindus? There's more than one way to worship God, through all of his avatars.

 

 

 

The only religion that's exclusive is Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

 

 

 

So... please don't try to pretend that all religions are the same, when they are clearly not.

 

 

 

I stand by my statement that every religion is exclusive. The Koran states that those who resist Islam should be killed. Where you got your information is beyond me.

 

 

 

I don't think Buddhism can really be called a religion because they do not profess a belief in God. But, they do believe that their way is the best way to enlightenment. In that way, they are exclusive, saying their way is the best way.

 

 

 

Now, to answer the real point of our arguing, what's wrong with being intolerant? Only the intolerant say others are intolerant. Stop being so intolerant of my so-called intolerant beliefs! :roll:

 

 

 

I thought that Muslims were tolerant of the other religions, not stating that nonbelievers of Islam deserve death. Im probably wrong, though, since I never actually read the koran.

[Kewl_Sabre]

Not every religion is exclusive. Buddhists don't go around condemning non-Buddhists. Muslims say that some Jews and Christians can still go to heaven. Jews? They say as long as gentiles follow the 7 Noahide laws they should be ok. Hindus? There's more than one way to worship God, through all of his avatars.

 

 

 

The only religion that's exclusive is Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

 

 

 

So... please don't try to pretend that all religions are the same, when they are clearly not.

 

 

 

I stand by my statement that every religion is exclusive. The Koran states that those who resist Islam should be killed. Where you got your information is beyond me.

 

 

 

I don't think Buddhism can really be called a religion because they do not profess a belief in God. But, they do believe that their way is the best way to enlightenment. In that way, they are exclusive, saying their way is the best way.

 

 

 

Now, to answer the real point of our arguing, what's wrong with being intolerant? Only the intolerant say others are intolerant. Stop being so intolerant of my so-called intolerant beliefs! :roll:

 

 

 

I would concede the point of most religions being hypothetically exclusive. According to many holy books, those who don't follow said holy books should be beheaded/stoned/burn in hell (encouraging, eh?)

 

 

 

However...

 

 

 

It's my personal belief that not EVERYTHING in any given holy book is to be taken completely literally (back from eating and ready to go into detail here : P). For example, I don't personally believe that anyone who isn't Christan is going to be cursed for all time.

 

 

 

I believe in more the overarching message of the events and writings, and personally belief in their occurances. However, I don't necessarily believe everything in the book. Because even if it was the word of god, it was man who penned the book. And it was men who wanted their religion to spread and be number one who penned the book. And men who lived in their own time and with their own culture.

 

 

 

So although it may state such things, in practice it is hardly exclusive.

 

 

 

And that wasn't really against anything you said, it was just more of a rambling by me. I agree with your points about the lines in the book.

 

 

 

P.S. As for Buddism... a reference to an almighty being is not a prequisite for being a religion. Plus, their trying to become one with a spiritual power type thingy, which is pretty close.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Josephus was a historian who did not believe Jesus was the Christ, or in his miracles. At least he didn't write about Jesus in that way - it is generally accepted that Christian historians altered the accounts Josephus gave about Jesus, so what they say about Him cannot be trusted - but here we have a non-Christian author recognizing at the very least, Jesus' existence.

 

 

 

 

This isn't a first hand account of Jesus, he merely talks of Jesus. It could be just as likely that he heard people were writing about a miracle maker, assumed he existed and as a loyal atheist, went to deny it. From the article: "it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus" - it doesn't necessarily confirm Jesus existing, merely that the idea of Jesus existed.

 

 

 

Not only that the article questions the translation/interpretation of the text. ("but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.")

 

 

 

Even if you do take his account to be accurate, he also confirms the resurrection ("for he appeared to them alive again the third day") taking place. In essence confirming a miracle from happening, so why don't people tote this text for evidence of miracles; I personally can't wait for a miracle anti aging cream.

[pianofrieak2]

 

It's my personal belief that not EVERYTHING in any given holy book is to be taken completely literally (back from eating and ready to go into detail here : P). For example, I don't personally believe that anyone who isn't Christan is going to be cursed for all time.

 

 

 

I believe in more the overarching message of the events and writings, and personally belief in their occurances. However, I don't necessarily believe everything in the book. Because even if it was the word of god, it was man who penned the book. And it was men who wanted their religion to spread and be number one who penned the book. And men who lived in their own time and with their own culture.

 

 

 

You know, I should probably just let this post die, but let me ask you one question.

 

 

 

You say that you believe in the over-arching principles found in all Scriptures...However, how do you which principles are true? Which ones are good? What is the true determinant for good and evil, right and wrong, morality?

 

 

 

Who are you to say that one act is wrong and another isn't? Relativism, according to its own definition, cannot stand up to its own teachings. By stating there are no absolutes is to believe in at least one absolute statement...violating its own existence. And to believe what you do is to be a relativist.

 

 

 

Let me close with two quotes:

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIn the world it is called tolerance but in hell it is called despair. The sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, enjoys nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, but remains alive because there is nothing which it would die for.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

You say that you believe in the over-arching principles found in all Scriptures...However, how do you which principles are true? Which ones are good? What is the true determinant for good and evil, right and wrong, morality?

 

 

 

How do I know? Easy. I use common sense. Take a look at the messages in the bible about what is right and what is wrong. Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism. These messages don't need to be supported by things like "Jesus walked on water." The "events" in the bible were meant to be allegories. Humans' urge for characters and drama motivate them to elevate ordinary beings to extraordinary heights. The pharoah was the son of the sun god, the chinese emperor received mandates from heaven, and Moses parted the waters.

 

 

 

 

Who are you to say that one act is wrong and another isn't? Relativism, according to its own definition, cannot stand up to its own teachings. By stating there are no absolutes is to believe in at least one absolute statement...violating its own existence. And to believe what you do is to be a relativist.

 

 

 

No one is being a relativist here. The teachings of the bible are correct, but its stories are the work of its human authors. That seems pretty absolute to me.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism.

 

 

 

Pragmatism is a method of analyzing things. A way of thinking. A way of philosophizing.

 

 

 

There is nothing about pragmatism that forces someone to "know" something for sure. It is merely a method of conjuring up speculation.

[bearofthunder]

Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism.

 

 

 

Pragmatism is a method of analyzing things. A way of thinking. A way of philosophizing.

 

 

 

There is nothing about pragmatism that forces someone to "know" something for sure. It is merely a method of conjuring up speculation.

 

 

 

Pragmatism = "A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results."

 

 

 

 

Polygamy is bad because:

 

 

 

correct reasoning: Wives do not share children. Husband has to deal with each group of wife+children separately, which contradicts the idea that a polygamist family can exist as a whole.

 

 

 

incorrect reasoning: Genesis 2:18 said "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make A helper suitable for him." A means only one.

 

 

 

Alcohol is bad because:

 

 

 

correct reasoning: it clouds judgments and causes accidents.

 

 

 

incorrect reasoning: Luke 1:15 says "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." so we shouldn't drink either.

 

 

 

Justifying "bad things" using pragmatism works. Justifying "bad things" using the Bible doesn't work. Why? Because things like slavery can be justified in the bible (Ephesians 6:5) but not in pragmatism.

[insane]

Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism.

 

 

 

Pragmatism is a method of analyzing things. A way of thinking. A way of philosophizing.

 

 

 

There is nothing about pragmatism that forces someone to "know" something for sure. It is merely a method of conjuring up speculation.

 

 

 

Pragmatism = "A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results."

 

 

 

 

Polygamy is bad because:

 

 

 

correct reasoning: Wives do not share children. Husband has to deal with each group of wife+children separately, which contradicts the idea that a polygamist family can exist as a whole.

 

 

 

incorrect reasoning: Genesis 2:18 said "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make A helper suitable for him." A means only one.

 

 

 

Alcohol is bad because:

 

 

 

correct reasoning: it clouds judgments and causes accidents.

 

 

 

incorrect reasoning: Luke 1:15 says "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." so we shouldn't drink either.

 

 

 

Justifying "bad things" using pragmatism works. Justifying "bad things" using the Bible doesn't work. Why? Because things like slavery can be justified in the bible (Ephesians 6:5) but not in pragmatism.

 

 

 

You give pragmatism too much credit. And you misquote what pragmatism is. Pragmatism isn't a means to find a "value" based on practicality - early pragmatists such as James and Pierce say that pragmatism is a means to find truth based on practicality. This makes truth relative - what one person sees as practical another may not, making truth different for two people. This isn't very pragmatic, making pragmatism unpragmatic, which is a self-refutation.

 

 

 

A problem with your pragmatism vs. Bible argument is that you fail to recognize that God may have given us those laws BECAUSE God knows that alcohol clouds our judgment,for example. He probably knows more about the effects alcohol can give you, seeing as, He's God.

[Anesthesia]

A problem with your pragmatism vs. Bible argument is that you fail to recognize that God may have given us those laws BECAUSE God knows that alcohol clouds our judgment,for example. He probably knows more about the effects alcohol can give you, seeing as, He's God.

 

 

 

That argument only works for a christian though, whereas in the example he gave the reasoning shown could be achieved by both christians and non-christians.

[insane]

A problem with your pragmatism vs. Bible argument is that you fail to recognize that God may have given us those laws BECAUSE God knows that alcohol clouds our judgment,for example. He probably knows more about the effects alcohol can give you, seeing as, He's God.

 

 

 

That argument only works for a christian though, whereas in the example he gave the reasoning shown could be achieved by both christians and non-christians.

 

 

 

Yep, I was just saying that God may have had "correct" reasoning behind His laws given.

[Kewl_Sabre]

 

It's my personal belief that not EVERYTHING in any given holy book is to be taken completely literally (back from eating and ready to go into detail here : P). For example, I don't personally believe that anyone who isn't Christan is going to be cursed for all time.

 

 

 

I believe in more the overarching message of the events and writings, and personally belief in their occurances. However, I don't necessarily believe everything in the book. Because even if it was the word of god, it was man who penned the book. And it was men who wanted their religion to spread and be number one who penned the book. And men who lived in their own time and with their own culture.

 

 

 

You know, I should probably just let this post die, but let me ask you one question.

 

 

 

You say that you believe in the over-arching principles found in all Scriptures...However, how do you which principles are true? Which ones are good? What is the true determinant for good and evil, right and wrong, morality?

 

 

 

Who are you to say that one act is wrong and another isn't? Relativism, according to its own definition, cannot stand up to its own teachings. By stating there are no absolutes is to believe in at least one absolute statement...violating its own existence. And to believe what you do is to be a relativist.

 

 

 

Let me close with two quotes:

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIn the world it is called tolerance but in hell it is called despair. The sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, enjoys nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, but remains alive because there is nothing which it would die for.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Kewl_Sabre]

Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism.

 

 

 

Pragmatism is a method of analyzing things. A way of thinking. A way of philosophizing.

 

 

 

There is nothing about pragmatism that forces someone to "know" something for sure. It is merely a method of conjuring up speculation.

 

 

 

Pragmatism = "A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results."

 

 

 

 

Polygamy is bad because:

 

 

 

correct reasoning: Wives do not share children. Husband has to deal with each group of wife+children separately, which contradicts the idea that a polygamist family can exist as a whole.

 

 

 

incorrect reasoning: Genesis 2:18 said "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make A helper suitable for him." A means only one.

 

 

 

Alcohol is bad because:

 

 

 

correct reasoning: it clouds judgments and causes accidents.

 

 

 

incorrect reasoning: Luke 1:15 says "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." so we shouldn't drink either.

 

 

 

Justifying "bad things" using pragmatism works. Justifying "bad things" using the Bible doesn't work. Why? Because things like slavery can be justified in the bible (Ephesians 6:5) but not in pragmatism.

 

 

 

You give pragmatism too much credit. And you misquote what pragmatism is. Pragmatism isn't a means to find a "value" based on practicality - early pragmatists such as James and Pierce say that pragmatism is a means to find truth based on practicality. This makes truth relative - what one person sees as practical another may not, making truth different for two people. This isn't very pragmatic, making pragmatism unpragmatic, which is a self-refutation.

 

 

 

A problem with your pragmatism vs. Bible argument is that you fail to recognize that God may have given us those laws BECAUSE God knows that alcohol clouds our judgment,for example. He probably knows more about the effects alcohol can give you, seeing as, He's God.

 

 

 

However, I hope you don't object to ALL practicality applied to the Bible. Because there are SOME things that I see as wrong set forth in the Bible, one of them being slavery. Did G-d want us to have slaves? Who knows. Maybe. Do I think it's morally right? No.

 

 

 

So it's really grey area at times, depending on your interpretation of the Bible. That's what this all comes down to, really.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism.

 

 

 

Pragmatism is a method of analyzing things. A way of thinking. A way of philosophizing.

 

 

 

There is nothing about pragmatism that forces someone to "know" something for sure. It is merely a method of conjuring up speculation.

 

 

 

Pragmatism = "A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results."

 

 

 

Do you study philosophy? I encourage you to not argue with me on this subject.

 

 

 

Pragmatism, like skepticism, is a philosophical method. That means that there is nothing about pragmatism that forces anyone to know the truth about anything.

 

 

 

John Dewey, for instance, is a very well known pragmatist. His methodolgy is revealed in his works such as How we think. However, skepticism is another philosophical method used by many great philosophers including Socrates.

 

 

 

If you are going to try and use pragmatism as a methodology, you are going to run straight into people with very epistemological mindsets who are going to disagree with everything you say based on the uncertainty that exists when dsicussing what you can actually know.

 

 

 

Basic point: pragmatism doesn't prove anything. It's merely one method people use to arrive at their own personal philosophical ideas.