81–90 of 102 posts
Once I was convinced of the existence of God by considering the fact that life exists, it became easier for me to accept Christianity. Frankly, it's a relief. But, unfortunately, Christianity has a bad reputation now because of Trump.
One could also assume that life created the existence of a god.
The Historicity of Jesus is such an interesting topic. There almost certainly was a man from Nazareth named Jesus (we have pretty good unbiased sources there). However, unless you are a follower of his (or potentially some related religions), there are obviously mystical things associated with him that you likely do not believe to actually have happened. Even followers disagree about the veracity of certain stories.…
As a secular person I can understand Jesus as an important historical figure, but it seems to me his "historicity" is a pretty uninteresting question. I know this can be hard for a person who was raised in Christianity to understand, but from an outside perspective, the guy is pretty boring. His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier (an…
I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were very definitely second-class citizens. "Giving charity" was not a central concept in the Greek moral universe.
I mention the last one especially because in the pre-Constantine era, the notion that other Christians were your brothers and would take care of you was pretty powerful. That was not a common thing back then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a secular person I can understand Jesus as an important historical figure, but it seems to me his "historicity" is a pretty uninteresting question. I know this can be hard for a person who was raised in Christianity to understand, but from an outside perspective, the guy is pretty boring. His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier (an…
Although "show us some citations" is getting to be a pretty boring response, I would like to see some elaboration on "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier." I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were ver…
Jesus wasn't anti-slavery, because he was a Jew and slavery is directly supported by Jewish law and scripture, sometimes with quotes from God himself. Jesus even commands slaves to obey their masters.
>Women were very definitely second-class citizens.
Read the Pauline epistles, particularly 1st Timothy. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
>Giving charity" was not a central concept in the Greek moral universe.
What linguistic root is the word "philanthropy" from? It isn't Hebrew[0].
[0]https://sofii.org/article/philanthropy-in-ancient-times-some...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a secular person I can understand Jesus as an important historical figure, but it seems to me his "historicity" is a pretty uninteresting question. I know this can be hard for a person who was raised in Christianity to understand, but from an outside perspective, the guy is pretty boring. His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier (an…
Although "show us some citations" is getting to be a pretty boring response, I would like to see some elaboration on "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier." I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were ver…
Read any Hindu upnishads especially Bhagwad Gita[0]. Chapter 16 especially defines the code of conduct for good peoples. Here is the opening statement.
श्रीभगवानुवाच |
अभयं सत्त्वसंशुद्धिर्ज्ञानयोगव्यवस्थिति: |
दानं दमश्च यज्ञश्च स्वाध्यायस्तप आर्जवम् || 1||
अहिंसा सत्यमक्रोधस्त्याग: शान्तिरपैशुनम् |
दया भूतेष्वलोलुप्त्वं मार्दवं ह्रीरचापलम् || 2||
तेज: क्षमा धृति: शौचमद्रोहोनातिमानिता |
भवन्ति सम्पदं दैवीमभिजातस्य भारत || 3||
renunciation, peacefulness, restraint from fault-finding, compassion toward all living beings, absence of covetousness, gentleness, modesty, and lack of fickleness; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, bearing enmity toward none, and absence of vanity.
Bible on the other hand is directed responsibility for the dark ages in which people were tortured for having different beliefs, women were burned for witch craft, believers in other gods were eliminated brutally. Scientists were killed for stating their theories. Remember Bruno was burned on stake for merely saying earth revolves around the sun. World history is filled with divine crimes sanctioned by Bible. There are hundreds of examples to read from history. For example Goa inquisition in which is Indians were tortured to death not because they didn't believe in Jesus. But because they also continued to believe in the gods they used to worship[1].
There are enough references in the Bible. One only needs to read it critically.
[0] https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/16/verse/1-3
[1] https://archive.org/details/FrancisXavierSJTheManAndHisMissi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although "show us some citations" is getting to be a pretty boring response, I would like to see some elaboration on "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier." I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were ver…
>Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Jesus wasn't anti-slavery, because he was a Jew and slavery is directly supported by Jewish law and scripture, sometimes with quotes from God himself. Jesus even commands slaves to obey their masters. >Women were very definitely second-class citizens. Read the Pauline epistles, particularly 1st Timothy. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she m…
Your other points are disingenuous at best. The eventual abolition of slavery in England was driven directly by Christian beliefs, however much they'd evolved in the ensuing time.
The bit about the Pauline epistles is also disingenuous. You picked one quote. Mary Magdalene was one of the disciples. Women were considered to be "in the image and likeness of God." They did not attend Mass in a separate section from the men (a separation which is still done at the Western Wall).
Lastly, who cares what the linguistic root was? And your link ignores one of the primary drivers of very early Christianity: the Romans didn't care how much you suffered. It was the Roman Empire where Christianity took off first.
"Philanthropy" seems to have been much like a lot of celebrities' "charitable foundations" nowadays: "Hey, everyone: Look at what a good person I am!"
> But the tendency for many donors to use such legal instruments for self-glorification, personally advantageous politicking, and the conservation of family wealth did little to help larger numbers of the destitute in growing Roman imperial cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although "show us some citations" is getting to be a pretty boring response, I would like to see some elaboration on "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier." I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were ver…
> "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier. Read any Hindu upnishads especially Bhagwad Gita[0]. Chapter 16 especially defines the code of conduct for good peoples. Here is the opening statement. श्रीभगवानुवाच | अभयं सत्त्वसंशुद्धिर्ज्ञानयोगव्यवस्थिति: | दानं दमश्च यज्ञश्च स्वाध्यायस्तप आर्जवम् || 1|| अहिंसा सत्यमक्रोधस्त्याग: शान्तिर…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although "show us some citations" is getting to be a pretty boring response, I would like to see some elaboration on "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier." I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were ver…
>Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Jesus wasn't anti-slavery, because he was a Jew and slavery is directly supported by Jewish law and scripture, sometimes with quotes from God himself. Jesus even commands slaves to obey their masters. >Women were very definitely second-class citizens. Read the Pauline epistles, particularly 1st Timothy. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she m…
Likewise, what linguistic root is the word "television" from? it's not American or British. *
---------------------------
* the main claimants as inventors of television are British and US.
The Historicity of Jesus is such an interesting topic. There almost certainly was a man from Nazareth named Jesus (we have pretty good unbiased sources there). However, unless you are a follower of his (or potentially some related religions), there are obviously mystical things associated with him that you likely do not believe to actually have happened. Even followers disagree about the veracity of certain stories.…
Besides the bible what other source is there? Maybe Josephus? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus I'm not a historian but it says most accept the authenticity of the name mentioned and being persecuted but that it's been manipulated over time. At best you can argue Jesus existed. So what? At the time there were a number of apocalyptic preachers, hence the format of the book of Revelation. I'm shocked th…
What’s strange to me in this whole debate is that there are folks that will take a single mentioned name on a incomplete stone tablet as absolute evidence of a person to exist thousands of years ago, but demand many contemporary non-biblical references for the existence of a man named Jesus from Nazareth. It seems strange that such effort is made to deny his existence, almost as if he existed then his divinity did too? It’s not an all or nothing equation.
Question the claim of his divinity…of course that requires extraordinary proof (or perhaps simply faith), but is it really that difficult to believe that the man existed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a secular person I can understand Jesus as an important historical figure, but it seems to me his "historicity" is a pretty uninteresting question. I know this can be hard for a person who was raised in Christianity to understand, but from an outside perspective, the guy is pretty boring. His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier (an…
Although "show us some citations" is getting to be a pretty boring response, I would like to see some elaboration on "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier." I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were ver…
* Polemarchus claims that justice is helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies and that this is what one owes people (332c). Socrates’ objections to Polemarchus’ definition are as follows: (i) Is this appropriate in medicine or cooking? So in what context is this the case? (332d)? (ii) The just person will also be good at useless things and at being unjust (333e). (iii) We often do not know who our friends and enemies are. Thus, we may treat those whom we only think are our friends or enemies well or badly. Would this be justice? (334c). (iv) It does not seem to be just to treat anyone badly, not even an enemy (335b). Discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus follows (336b-354c).*
* Adeimantus complains that the guardians in the just city will not be very happy (419a). Socrates points out that the aim is to make the whole city, and not any particular class, as happy as possible (420b). Socrates discusses several other measures for the city as a whole in order to accomplish this. There should be neither too much wealth nor too much poverty in the city since these cause social strife (421d-422a).*
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although "show us some citations" is getting to be a pretty boring response, I would like to see some elaboration on "His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier." I don't think so. The pagan "religions" were not very big on "everyone, even the poor, the sick, and the lame, is equal." Slavery was accepted almost everywhere. Women were ver…
I mean not to be all like “read Plato’s republic, literally the most famous Greek philosophy” but… * Polemarchus claims that justice is helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies and that this is what one owes people (332c). Socrates’ objections to Polemarchus’ definition are as follows: (i) Is this appropriate in medicine or cooking? So in what context is this the case? (332d)? (ii) The just person will also be…
Somehow, I don't see this drawing throngs of Hebrew peasants. Just doesn't have that common touch, or something.