‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 
 
   
 

My argument

 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
14 May 2009 08:52
 
McCreason - 14 May 2009 12:27 PM

Sure I can Josh. I can compare the mythological Jesus (and what has been written about the character) to the real Ghandi and say that Ghandi was a better person.

I never said that you couldn’t. I was merely addressing Argo’s interpretation of your post.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14792
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
14 May 2009 10:22
 
teuchter - 14 May 2009 12:34 PM

Someone willing to “lay down his life” to save people from eternal torment would be psychotic, and pitiable, not by any means “a great guy.”


Are you sure you wrote that as intended?

Someone willing to die to save others is noble, even if deluded and deranged.

The problems with the Jesus character are deeper than that though, starting with the fact that he’s responsible for creating ALL of the conditions related to people having to be saved from eternal torment to begin with.

He’s an alien/other worldly super villain who uses the nobility of humanity against it in a brilliantly twisted and insidious way, usurping all credit for that nobility from humanity and leaving us with the sense of guilt for its absence.

Byron

 
 
Argo
 
Avatar
 
 
Argo
Total Posts:  227
Joined  07-05-2008
 
 
 
14 May 2009 16:10
 

I don’t think we’re talking about the same Jesus. Teuchter is probably saying anyone who is willing to die in order to save everyone from damnation which his dad knew would and allowed to happen is loony. Him claiming to be his own dad is the cherry on top.

Josh is talking about the ideal Jesus, the one that’s supposed to be pure good.

If we’re talking about reality, we know Christianity is bullshit, so if Jesus existed he falls into the category Teuchter was talking about. If Christianity is somehow true and God has been playing a huge joke on several billion humans who before death didn’t get to read the right divine text, or didn’t read it the right way, then Jesus falls into the category Josh is talki—Wait.. that can’t be right…

 
Jack's Smirking Revenge
 
Avatar
 
 
Jack's Smirking Revenge
Total Posts:  132
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
14 May 2009 20:46
 
Josh - 13 May 2009 07:18 PM
Jack’s Smirking Revenge - 13 May 2009 01:44 PM

Good thing I always have an umbrella handy.

Good, because you’ll be needing it. Today’s forecast calls for a 100% chance of Josh.

Not a cloud in the sky here.

You…..defend people who promote superstition as fact…..by watering down the superstition attempting to make it more palatable.

(sigh) I was not defending people who promote superstition as fact…

You defend people who promote superstition as fact, by your own explicit admission. You are implicitly doing so in this thread.

(assuming you mean those with unjustified religious certainty…those who say “I know” instead of “I believe”)

No, I mean just what I said: people who promote superstition as fact. Whether they claim it to be a belief or knowledge is irrelevant.

A positive literary criticism of the Jesus character in the gospel stories does NOT equal a defense of the intellectually dishonest…

A “positive literary criticism” of the Jesus character is intellectually dishonest. Defending a “positive literary criticism” of the Jesus character is doubly so.

... and does NOT necessarily equal “watering it down to make it more palatable”.

Someone feeds you because you’re hungry, then tosses you into a fire because you don’t/can’t believe the incredible story he’s telling you while you’re eating. Is he a good guy?

You’re a babbling idiot for concluding that Jesus was a “good guy,”

I suppose if you ignore everything he said…

The only one ignoring anything is you. To wit:

(practicing what he preached, BTW)

Preaching love and mercy while also preaching the eternal torment of most of the people who will ever live is not practicing what one preaches.

... about loving one another, following the Golden Rule, being a Good Samaritan…

Yes, yes, according to popular mythology, Jesus espoused trite moral sentiments that existed long before he was invented.

... avoiding hypocrisy…

However, according the parts of that same popular myth you ignore, Jesus then turned around and hypocritically condemned most people who will ever live to eternal torment.

... and not casting stones…

While hypocritically casting stones…

...as well as that whole “cross” thing…

He had a bad day. Big deal.

... then yes, Jack. I’m a babbling idiot for drawing such a conclusion.

Some people might tell you it took a lot of guts to admit that.

...and for defending people who promote superstition as fact.

Saying it more than once don’t make it so.

No, it doesn’t. Your defense of superstitious nitwits makes it so.

People who are willing to lay down their lives don’t beg for pardons.

By begging for a pardon, are you referring to when he prayed: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”?

What else would I be referring to?

Jack, you seemingly have failed to read the REST of Matthew 26:39.

Reading it is one thing. Understanding it is something else altogether.

The rest of the verse quotes him as saying “nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

Contrary to your assertion that he willingly laid down his life.

Jesus CHOSE his father’s will, and laid down his life.

Right. He chose his father’s will over his own, you babbling idiot.

He didn’t HAVE to.

I didn’t suggest otherwise.

Further, taking responsibility for others’ actions is not virtuous. It’s idiotic.

I was thinking merciful.....

Hmmm… I wonder if the victims of concentration camps - most of whom mercifully enough went to hell on top of their merciful experiences with god’s warriors - thought it merciful and virtuous for Jesus to give those god fearing Nazis a free pass to do whatever they wanted by taking responsibility for their actions.

Great guys don’t send most of the people who will ever live to eternal torment.

Jack, I think the party line is that the people are sending themselves there, and that a “great guy” stepped in and laid down his life to save them.

Save them from what? The hell he’s going to send them to if they don’t bow down and kiss his ass.

Besides, this “hell” that the Bible speaks of may not even be “eternal”...

It may not even exist!

(ask Salathiel, the artist formerly known as Bruce Burleson, for details on that).

Bruce Burleson is also a babbling idiot, as has been demonstrated ad nauseam on this very forum.

...I’m not looking at it through rosy shades.

Neither am I, Jack.

Sure. And my name really is Jack.

However, YOU appear to be looking at it through dark, negatively biased shades.

Coming from someone who just recommended I seek wisdom from Bruce Burleson…

“The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.”

Were these the words of Jesus himself?

That’s the rumor.

If so, it would seem rather strange coming from a guy who allegedly said things like: “Blessed are the merciful”, “Blessed are the peacemakers”, “Love your enemies”, “Judge not, that ye be not judged”, and “Forgive those who repeatedly offend you”.

Which are rather strange statements coming from a guy who condemned most people who will ever live to eternal torment.

What does it matter? Lots of people were hung on crosses. What makes Jesus so special?

Because, Jack, according to the story, Jesus was paying your debt so that you could be saved from being hoisted up on some demon’s pitchfork.

I have no debt that’s going to be satisfied by the assisted suicide of some raving lunatic who allegedly lived in the middle east 2000 years ago. Then there’s that little thing about having to believe the story in order to be spared from the pitchfork; a requirement I’m sure even you can see problems with in the context of your watered down version of the Jesus character.

The other guys were just paying their own debts.

They paid their own debts? What a couple of fucking assholes!

Understand?

If I don’t, you’ve failed to demonstrate how. On the contrary…

Or should I read the story to you a little bit slower this time?

Uhm… yeah, sure. Go right ahead. You have my divided attention.

 
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
15 May 2009 08:43
 

Cumulonimbus clouds begin to form, invading Jack’s sunny skies. The wind velocity increases. Barometric pressure drops. Lightning strikes, immediately followed by a deafening clap of thunder. Jack cancels his outdoor plans, realizing that Josh is about to make it rain on him.

Jack’s Smirking Revenge - 15 May 2009 12:46 AM

Sure. And my name really is Jack.

So you’ve chosen (for whatever reason) not to reveal your real name. That’s understandable. However, given your user name, the only name we have to work with is “Jack”. If ya like, I could refer to you as J.B. (Josh’s Bitch).....

You defend people who promote superstition as fact, by your own explicit admission. You are implicitly doing so in this thread.

My “explicit admission”, which you quoted, was a defense of the fact that THIS creationist put his Bible aside and attempted to scientifically prove his theory. I also defended his honesty, for admitting that proof of creation would still not necessarily prove that HIS God did it. I did NOT say: “Well, in his defense, he DID promote superstition as fact…” If you think you can find a quote in which I say this, then by all means, keep digging.

No, I mean just what I said: people who promote superstition as fact. Whether they claim it to be a belief or knowledge is irrelevant.

People who say “I know” are promoting superstition as fact. People who say “I believe” are promoting superstition as their own personal BELIEF. If you’re still confused, look up the words “belief” and “knowledge” in the dictionary (that big book with all those fancy words), and note the differences in definition.

A “positive literary criticism” of the Jesus character is intellectually dishonest. Defending a “positive literary criticism” of the Jesus character is doubly so.

Correction: A “literary criticism which disagrees with yours” is intellectually dishonest. Defending a “literary criticism which disagrees with yours” is doubly so.

...according to popular mythology, Jesus espoused trite moral sentiments that existed long before he was invented.

I never said that he was the first one to think of these moral sentiments. Call them “trite” all you wish, but hopefully you at least agree that the aformentioned moral sentiments are good ones to live by.

Your defense of superstitious nitwits…

(sigh) More “affirmation” through repetition. I regret to inform you, J.B., that those whom you refer to as “nitwits” don’t ALL fit neatly into this little box that you have created for them. I know this makes things more complicated for you, but reality does not always cater to your wishes.

He chose his father’s will over his own…

No sentient human being that I know of WANTS to suffer an agonizing death. When I say he went “willingly”, I mean that he was not FORCED to do this, but decided to submit to the will of his father. He didn’t have to, but he did.

...for Jesus to give those god fearing Nazis a free pass to do whatever they wanted by taking responsibility for their actions.

A real Christian seeks to emulate Jesus. According to the story, Jesus never killed anyone. The Nazis killed millions of people. Their apparent refusal to ask “WWJD?” means that they are not real Christians, no matter how many of their belt buckles said “Gott mit uns”.

[ Edited: 15 May 2009 08:47 by Josh]
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
15 May 2009 09:16
 
Jack’s Smirking Revenge - 15 May 2009 12:46 AM

...tosses you into a fire…
...preaching the eternal torment of most of the people who will ever live…
...hypocritically condemned most people who will ever live to eternal torment…
...The hell he’s going to send them to...
...a guy who condemned most people who will ever live to eternal torment…..

I think I understand what your problem is. You can’t see what a great guy this Jesus character was, because you’re hung up on this whole “hell” thing. You really should stop thinking of hell as the place described by most “Christians” out there…..and (if you’re interested) take a look at what the actual story book (the Bible itself) says about “hell”.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/8240/

Bruce “Salathiel” Burleson may be a babbling idiot in your opinion, but ya gotta admit that he, if nothing else, knows a “hell” of a lot more about the contents of the Bible than most “Christians” in this country. I’ll take Bruce’s Biblical insights a little more seriously than those of someone who wears a golden cross around their neck but has not read about 99% of their Bible (IOW, most Christians).

[ Edited: 15 May 2009 09:19 by Josh]
 
Jack's Smirking Revenge
 
Avatar
 
 
Jack's Smirking Revenge
Total Posts:  132
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
15 May 2009 11:10
 
Josh - 15 May 2009 12:43 PM

Cumulonimbus clouds begin to form, invading Jack’s sunny skies. The wind velocity increases. Barometric pressure drops. Lightning strikes, immediately followed by a deafening clap of thunder. Jack cancels his outdoor plans, realizing that Josh is about to make it rain on him.

It’s a shame you’re not an actual forecaster. At least you could get paid for being wrong most of the time.

Jack’s Smirking Revenge - 15 May 2009 12:46 AM

Sure. And my name really is Jack.

So you’ve chosen (for whatever reason) not to reveal your real name. That’s understandable. However, given your user name, the only name we have to work with is “Jack”. If ya like, I could refer to you as J.B. (Josh’s Bitch).....

“You can call me Susan if it makes you happy,” junior.

You defend people who promote superstition as fact, by your own explicit admission. You are implicitly doing so in this thread.

My “explicit admission”, which you quoted, was a defense of the fact that THIS creationist put his Bible aside and attempted to scientifically prove his theory.

Like I said.

I did NOT say: “Well, in his defense, he DID promote superstition as fact…”

No, you didn’t. And?

No, I mean just what I said: people who promote superstition as fact. Whether they claim it to be a belief or knowledge is irrelevant.

People who say “I know” are promoting superstition as fact. People who say “I believe” are promoting superstition as their own personal BELIEF.

So, people who promote their beliefs don’t believe their beliefs to be factual.

Got it.

If you’re still confused, look up the words “belief” and “knowledge” in the dictionary (that big book with all those fancy words), and note the differences in definition.

What part of “Whether they claim it to be a belief or knowledge is irrelevant” are you having trouble with, exactly?

A “positive literary criticism” of the Jesus character is intellectually dishonest. Defending a “positive literary criticism” of the Jesus character is doubly so.

Correction: A “literary criticism which disagrees with yours” is intellectually dishonest. Defending a “literary criticism which disagrees with yours” is doubly so.

Incorrect, as has been illustrated.

...according to popular mythology, Jesus espoused trite moral sentiments that existed long before he was invented.

I never said that he was the first one to think of these moral sentiments.

I didn’t suggest otherwise.

Call them “trite” all you wish, but hopefully you at least agree that the aformentioned moral sentiments are good ones to live by.

No, I don’t. But that’s irrelevant.

Your defense of superstitious nitwits…

(sigh) More “affirmation” through repetition.

More irony.

I regret to inform you, J.B., that those whom you refer to as “nitwits” don’t ALL fit neatly into this little box that you have created for them. I know this makes things more complicated for you, but reality does not always cater to your wishes.

Complicated? Hardly. Anyone who believes patently superstitious nonsense to be true is a nitwit, whether s/he’s a janitor or a physicist.

He chose his father’s will over his own…

No sentient human being that I know of WANTS to suffer an agonizing death. When I say he went “willingly”, I mean that he was not FORCED to do this, but decided to submit to the will of his father. He didn’t have to, but he did.

Moving the goal posts doesn’t support your argument. It just makes you look like a babbling idiot.

...for Jesus to give those god fearing Nazis a free pass to do whatever they wanted by taking responsibility for their actions.

A real Christian seeks to emulate Jesus.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. - Jesus

According to the story, Jesus never killed anyone.

I didn’t suggest otherwise, you babbling idiot. Please stop posting the conversations you’re having with the voices in your head like they have anything to do with what we’re discussing.

The Nazis killed millions of people.

“Amateurs.” - god

Their apparent refusal to ask “WWJD?” means that they are not real Christians, no matter how many of their belt buckles said “Gott mit uns”.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. - Jesus

I think I understand what your problem is. You can’t see what a great guy this Jesus character was, because you’re hung up on this whole “hell” thing.

This is roughly tantamount to your saying Charles Manson is a good guy because he never killed anyone, then telling me I’m the one with the problem because I don’t ignore the fact that Manson had people do his killing for him.

God, you really are a babbling idiot.

You really should stop thinking of hell as the place described by most “Christians” out there…

You really should stop trying to read my mind.

... and (if you’re interested) take a look at what the actual story book (the Bible itself) says about “hell”.

That pretty much satisfies my irony quota for the day.

Bruce “Salathiel” Burleson may be a babbling idiot in your opinion…

Bruce “Salathiel” Burleson is a babbling idiot, regardless of what my (or your) opinion may be.

... but ya gotta admit that he, if nothing else, knows a “hell” of a lot more about the contents of the Bible than most “Christians” in this country.

Knowing a lot more about the bible than most christians is one thing. Believing the bible to be true is another, and that’s what makes Bruce a babbling idiot, as well as anyone who props his superstitious gibberish up as a beacon of reason.

I’ll take Bruce’s Biblical insights a little more seriously than those of someone who wears a golden cross around their neck but has not read about 99% of their Bible (IOW, most Christians).

An epitome of the blind leading the blind.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
15 May 2009 11:34
 

‘On the other hand, someone who is willing to die to save his comrades (much less, all humanity) from “eternal torment” is psychotic, and not noble.’

And if I may add…..an incredible narcissist. How self important would someone have to be to think that his death, alone, will save all of human kind?

Rather than a ‘great guy’ he is rather embarrasing and disgusting.

Josh is young and easily impressed however.

 
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
15 May 2009 15:00
 
Jack’s Smirking Revenge - 15 May 2009 03:10 PM

It’s a shame you’re not an actual forecaster.

You don’t know whether I’m an “actual forecaster” or not, now do you? I never gave you this information, now did I?

So, people who promote their beliefs don’t believe their beliefs to be factual. Got it.

People who promote their beliefs using the words “I believe” believe their beliefs to be BELIEFS. Those using the words “I know” believe their beliefs to be factual. Got it?

What part of “Whether they claim it to be a belief or knowledge is irrelevant” are you having trouble with, exactly?

Uh…..the “irrelevant” part. Claiming a belief to be a BELIEF shows more intellectual honesty than claiming it as knowledge.

Complicated? Hardly. Anyone who believes patently superstitious nonsense to be true is a nitwit, whether s/he’s a janitor or a physicist.

Where it gets complicated (why they don’t all fit neatly into your box) is the varying levels of CERTAINTY from one individual to the next. Those with more intellectual honesty regarding their beliefs are less likely to be successfully squeezed into your “nitwit” box than the religiously certain.

Moving the goal posts doesn’t support your argument.

The goal posts have not been moved, my friend. Unless you think that by “Jesus went willingly” I originally meant that he was a pain junkie with a death wish, who got all tingly under his robe at the thought of being nailed to a cross…

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. - Jesus

Would you be so kind as to regale me with chapter and verse? Because the last two verses you have quoted sound more like the angry father than the gentle, meek and mild son.

...roughly tantamount to your saying Charles Manson is a good guy because he never killed anyone, then telling me I’m the one with the problem because I don’t ignore the fact that Manson had people do his killing for him.

Uh…..no. According to the story, Jesus (the son, NOT the father) never commissioned anyone to do any killing for him. ANYONE, past or present, who has killed “in Jesus name”, did not get such an order from Jesus, as much as they would like to think that they did.

You really should stop trying to read my mind.

If you’re allowed to presume to know whether or not I’m an “actual forecaster”.....then I’m allowed to attempt to read your mind. Deal?

[ Edited: 15 May 2009 15:06 by Josh]
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
15 May 2009 15:23
 
McCreason - 02 May 2009 11:35 AM

Ghandi was a better human being.

Whether he was or not is a debate for which we could start a whole new thread, if either of us were to feel motivated enough to do so.

Ghandi DID have this to say about the allegedly inferior human being named Jesus: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” That’s exactly the point that I was trying to make, way back in post #2, when I said:

So Christianity, in and of itself, is not the problem. It’s those Christians who make the label look bad, by not being very Jesus-like.

Say what you want about Jesus, but it would appear that Ghandi and I are on the same page regarding Mr. Christ.

Great guy…..nutty fan club.

[ Edited: 15 May 2009 15:26 by Josh]
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
15 May 2009 16:01
 

Please stop making a fool of yourself, Josh. Even Jack’smirking comments are mild at this point, relative to what your idiocy now deserves.

You may find this place more congenial—everyone there seems happy, content and fake as the Christ himself:
http://www.reasonproject.org/forum/

 
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
15 May 2009 16:43
 
unknown zone - 15 May 2009 08:01 PM

Even Jack’smirking comments are mild at this point, relative to what your idiocy now deserves.

I don’t know why, but apparently, according to the story, Jesus loves you.

You’ve got me curious, UZ. What exactly does my “idiocy” truly deserve? Care to educate me? I’m a big boy; so don’t worry about hurting my feelings. Pretend I’m Pat Benatar and “hit me with your best shot”.

I’ll even “turn the other cheek” so that you can hit me again. So come on; don’t hold back, and don’t be shy. Whaddaya wanna say to me?

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
15 May 2009 20:40
 

I’m only suggesting a less contentious forum environment for you, Josh. Sam Harris even posts there, and you’re already registered.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
16 May 2009 08:23
 

I am a peaceful person. I taught my children to be peaceful people. I taught them to turn the other cheek and not fight. I think we need diplomacy and communication in the world and not violence.

I guess per Josh and his standards I am also a ‘great guy’

 
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
16 May 2009 09:53
 
McCreason - 16 May 2009 12:23 PM

I am a peaceful person. I taught my children to be peaceful people. I taught them to turn the other cheek and not fight. I think we need diplomacy and communication in the world and not violence.

I guess per Josh and his standards I am also a ‘great guy’

This makes you a greater guy than most, IMO.

What are YOUR standards for “great guy”, McCreason? Do you consider yourself one?

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >