The Real face of Jesus

[darthviper107]

This thread has gone on for too long--there's no point in arguing, it's obvious when someone's made a choice. And there's no point in putting so much effort into trying to change their mind. Especially when there's so many more people in the world that would welcome the idea.

 

[ProgMatinee]

the thing is I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I just don't want someone to get their jollies off offending me because they think their sense of believing in emperical evidence makes them superior to someone that believes in something over faith.

I'm sorry, but there is no prize at the end of the rainbow for people that were following the tide of "scientific" evidence so I'm not sure why they get off accussing believers of everything from being a nut ball to now being "Evil".

 

[devilof76]

I didn't call you evil.

 

[ProgMatinee]

you just said you now don't consider me to be above the accusation of some author I never heard of that calls Americans evil. at least, thats what i thought you said, because i don't know who that author is or what his point was/

 

[devilof76]

< sigh >

It was an off-handed remark because I was pissed that you said there was room within Reason for atrocities, and that's a contradiction in terms. I'm not about to try and defend a thesis as big as that on my phone so I dug up the dead professor to kick his carcass around a bit. I wasn't calling you evil; I was astonished that you would be spouting things that I would expect to hear from the kind of people who do think you're evil. Just trying to show you that with a bit of healthy abuse. I apologize for being so heavy handed with it.

.

 

[ProgMatinee]

well, this is a tough argument to do not in person. sorry i am being so defensive. but i don't think its incorrect to say that people kill and steal for what they consider "reason".

In no way am I anti-American, so please don't take this the wrong way, but can you say that the "domestication" of the American West wasn't done under a pretense of what 1 culture thought was "Reason" while the other cultures involved thought it was an atrocity?

Again, I'm not making a judgement of what was right or wrong, but I don't think manifest destiny was a religious event. And you can't argue that the natives would not have considered it an atrocity. So thats just one example of something that was done under the justification of the sciences of economics, domestication, among other things and justified as "reason" for growing and empowerering thecolonies and finally American civilization.

 

[devilof76]

So, no. My purpose in comparing Santa to Jesus was not to offend; it was to make the point that both are beliefs rooted in faith. I shouldn't have have left attribution of motive to interpretation. I like Santa. I think he represents the best within Jesus (even if I can't reconcile forgivness of sin with the naughty/nice list).

Better?

 

[Maglor]

So, no. My purpose in comparing Santa to Jesus was not to offend; it was to make the point that both are beliefs rooted in faith. I shouldn't have have left attribution of motive to interpretation. I like Santa. I think he represents the best within Jesus (even if I can't reconcile forgivness of sin with the naughty/nice list).

Better?

^^^^^^

 

[devilof76]

The Indians can believe whatever they like. The fact of the matter is that they had no claim on the whole of the North American continent, so the arrival of the Europeans in and of itself was not just cause for the way they treated the settlers. They made war upon the Europeans just as passionately as the Europeans gave it back and if they want to hold a grudge because they lost, I don't know what to say. To the extent that acts of brutality were committed against them without cause, is the extent that Americans acted irrationally towards them. In neither case is reason culpable. Self-defense is rational; murder isn't. War is composed of both and we risk too much by failing to distinguish the separate causes. No one gets a free pass to claim their actions are based in reason just because the majority of their society acts as such. Case in point, do Christians who burn witches get to claim that they represent a religion of peace?

 

[Maglor]

Just a thought:

"Faith" and "Religion" are 2 very different things.

Terrible things have been done in the name of religion but faith isn't to blame for that.

Gandhi said 'I hate Christians but I love Christ' [paraphrased]. He said this because many people that claim to follow Christ really don't.

Jesus taught that his followers should love their enemies. If that was truly followed many of the major wars in history would not have been fought. And the "witches" would not have been burned. And Christians wouldn't have been burned be the Church for owning bibles either.

 

[ProgMatinee]

So you think the natives were acting in the wrong trying to defend what their culture "reasoned" to be right. And you think settlers were acting in the right based on what their culture "reasoned" to be right.

Conversely a native of the time would have had the completely opposite "reasoning". Maybe I'm offbase on the definition of "reason", but I don't think "reason" should be construed as altruism. Altruism is a religious concept to be ultimately jsudged as true by someone greater than man. I think your belief in a "right and wrong" might make you more religious than you realized.

Personally, I agree that burning "witches" was wrong, as personally I don't belive in such a thing. Likewise, throwing Christians to the lions for entertainment don't get a free pass either. I'm sure you can ask the caesars and senators of Roman territories why they did that and they can present a very "reasoned" answer but not an altruistic one.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I looked up the definition of "reason" on wikipedia (forgive me, i haven't done any philosophical reading in like 15 years ) and this statement holds a lot of merit to me.

People use logic, deduction, and induction, to reach conclusions they think are true. Conclusions reached in this way are considered more certain than sense perceptions on their own[13]. On the other hand, if such reasoned conclusions are only built originally upon a foundation of sense perceptions, then, the argument being considered goes, our most logical conclusions can never be said to be certain because they are built upon the very same fallible perceptions they seek to better.

To me, "REASON" is a totally subjective term based on an individuals beliefs which can be forumulatied honorably or totally perversivly. Its hardly something that can be used to indicate a true right and wrong action, rather only to use as a comparison to whether an individual has been acting rationally to their own beliefs and values...but not necessarily anyone elses.

 

[devilof76]

And to most people it is a subjective term. Look up Immanuel Kant and David Hume if you want to know why.

It's complete and utter bull____. Reason is not a form of faith. They are opposites. When western culture accepted reason as the true method of human cognition, they rose from the Dark Ages. Abandoning reason is what put them in the Dark Ages in the first place.

This conversation is making me grumpy. I'm going to eat some chocolate eggs.

 

[ProgMatinee]

hmm.
having faith doesn't seem exclusive of reason to me.

someone can have faith that a flip of the coin will reveal heads...and someone might have faith that it will be tails.

1 of them will be right. So for the person that happened to have the correct faith it wasn't incompatible with reason, they aren;t mutually exclusive, so I don't think it can be said that people operating on faith are void of reason.

 

[devilof76]

...need...more...chocolate...

 

[ProgMatinee]

i have faith your chocolate egg will be reasobaly satisfying

 

[devilof76]

I thought we discussed mocking each other's beliefs.

 

[Kai]

...need...more...chocolate...

Hi ..:chew..

 

[Anzik]

History is by no means a complete record. We cobble together bits and pieces and highlights and often we miss things because we never felt they would be of importance later.

The fact of the matter is that 'reason' is subjective according to the data the supposition is built around. A child 'reasons' that cookies are good food because they taste so good. The child is obviously lacking data.
I have the same trouble trying to explain the existence of Chi energy and there are many who wish to believe its a bunch of crap because we don't have a machine that can measure it. However I know a 56 yr old Chinese man who can gently place his arm in contact with a 6' 275lb man and drop him to the ground by 'placing energy in his spine'.
We do the best we can with the information we have. The trick is to realize our limitations, and not to assume because we can make cool little gadgets and figure out a few things that we understand the whole picture. We are far from even figuring out the questions let alone, having the answers.

 

[Maglor]

History is by no means a complete record. We cobble together bits and pieces and highlights and often we miss things because we never felt they would be of importance later.

The fact of the matter is that 'reason' is subjective according to the data the supposition is built around. A child 'reasons' that cookies are good food because they taste so good. The child is obviously lacking data.
I have the same trouble trying to explain the existence of Chi energy and there are many who wish to believe its a bunch of crap because we don't have a machine that can measure it. However I know a 56 yr old Chinese man who can gently place his arm in contact with a 6' 275lb man and drop him to the ground by 'placing energy in his spine'.
We do the best we can with the information we have. The trick is to realize our limitations, and not to assume because we can make cool little gadgets and figure out a few things that we understand the whole picture. We are far from even figuring out the questions let alone, having the answers.

You've seen this with your own eyes, know both individuals, and are sure that there was no trickery involved?