The Myth of the Spiritual Hierarchy

au reply to: Tangerine

So basically your pet theory is because he did not observe the event, he is excluded?

Duh...... What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?

Duh.....the documentation exist that offers the data in question as valid......refute that or realize

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
au reply to: Tangerine

So basically your pet theory is because he did not observe the, he is excluded?

Duh...... What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?

Duh.....the documentation exist.....refute that or realize

Any thoughts?

"...because he did not observe the, he is excluded?" What? I'll assume you are referring to Tacitus. If he did not observe Jesus living, OF COURSE he doesn't count as a witness to his existence.

Tell me how it's possible that someone can witness the existence of someone without witnessing the existence of someone. I can't wait to see your answer.

a reply to: Tangerine

To Kashai in response to your question, "Duh......What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?"

Uh..it implies nothing in relation to our judicial system. It has nothing to do with our judicial system. Are you asking why the courts don't accept testimony about crimes from people who didn't witness anything? Isn't the answer self-evident?

Nevertheless, historical documentation and the legal process are entirely different.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai
au reply to: Tangerine

So basically your pet theory is because he did not observe the, he is excluded?

Duh...... What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?

Duh.....the documentation exist.....refute that or realize

Any thoughts?

"...because he did not observe the, he is excluded?" What? I'll assume you are referring to Tacitus. If he did not observe Jesus living, OF COURSE he doesn't count as a witness to his existence.

Tell me how it's possible that someone can witness the existence of someone without witnessing the existence of someone. I can't wait to see your answer.

It the same way with determining the death of a person.

The basis is deduction as in access to all the information.

You seem to imply no basis for an individual to base his/her conclusions upon a deductive prose.

Duh.....10s of thousands were Crucified in that period.

Duh...Why was this particular individual referenced in the first place????

Do you have a Time Machine, in which case where is your PDF??

Seriously get over it.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai
au reply to: Tangerine

So basically your pet theory is because he did not observe the, he is excluded?

Duh...... What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?

Duh.....the documentation exist.....refute that or realize

Any thoughts?

"...because he did not observe the, he is excluded?" What? I'll assume you are referring to Tacitus. If he did not observe Jesus living, OF COURSE he doesn't count as a witness to his existence.

Tell me how it's possible that someone can witness the existence of someone without witnessing the existence of someone. I can't wait to see your answer.

It the same way with determining the death of a person.

The basis is deduction as in access to all the information.

You seem to imply no basis for an individual to base his/her conclusions upon a deductive prose.

Do you have a Time Machine, in which case where is your PDF??

Seriously???

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Tangerine

You have not offered any data that debunks a clear point. This being that the documentation related to, two Roman historians, should be questioned.

LOL

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai
au reply to: Tangerine

So basically your pet theory is because he did not observe the, he is excluded?

Duh...... What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?

Duh.....the documentation exist.....refute that or realize

Any thoughts?

"...because he did not observe the, he is excluded?" What? I'll assume you are referring to Tacitus. If he did not observe Jesus living, OF COURSE he doesn't count as a witness to his existence.

Tell me how it's possible that someone can witness the existence of someone without witnessing the existence of someone. I can't wait to see your answer.

It the same way with determining the death of a person.

The basis is deduction as in access to all the information.

You seem to imply no basis for an individual to base his/her conclusions upon a deductive prose.

Do you have a Time Machine, in which case where is your PDF??

Seriously???

Any thoughts?

What is the same way with determining the death of a person? People are determined to be dead by examination by a medical expert, not by rumor. A death certificate is produced and signed by a person who witnessed the existence of the dead body. No one is determined to have been dead who never existed. In other words, Gandalf and Frodo are not dead.

I don't know what a "deductive prose" is. If you are referring to deductive reasoning, there is no process of deductive reasoning that allows me to conclude that someone who supposidly performed miracles, appeared before hundreds, caused a political uproar, and was tried and executed by the Romans was not mentioned in writing by a single person (including the Romans who were scrupulous record keepers) who lived at the same time as the person in question.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai
au reply to: Tangerine

So basically your pet theory is because he did not observe the, he is excluded?

Duh...... What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?

Duh.....the documentation exist.....refute that or realize

Any thoughts?

"...because he did not observe the, he is excluded?" What? I'll assume you are referring to Tacitus. If he did not observe Jesus living, OF COURSE he doesn't count as a witness to his existence.

Tell me how it's possible that someone can witness the existence of someone without witnessing the existence of someone. I can't wait to see your answer.

It the same way with determining the death of a person.

The basis is deduction as in access to all the information.

You seem to imply no basis for an individual to base his/her conclusions upon a deductive prose.

Do you have a Time Machine, in which case where is your PDF??

Seriously???

Any thoughts?

What is the same way with determining the death of a person? People are determined to be dead by examination by a medical expert, not by rumor. A death certificate is produced and signed by a person who witnessed the existence of the dead body. No one is determined to have been dead who never existed. In other words, Gandalf and Frodo are not dead.

I don't know what a "deductive prose" is. If you are referring to deductive reasoning, there is no process of deductive reasoning that allows me to conclude that someone who supposidly performed miracles, appeared before hundreds, caused a political uproar, and was tried and executed by the Romans was not mentioned in writing by a single person (including the Romans who were scrupulous record keepers) who lived at the same time as the person in question.

Because you are wrong. In relation to a formal investigation with respect to murder? Why do you consider that the capacity of an individual alive 2000 years ago is not in some equivalent. Close enough to provide a determination
as to cause?

You are assuming something in relation to the role of an Historian, outside your Element.

originally posted by: Kashai

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Kashai
au reply to: Tangerine

So basically your pet theory is because he did not observe the, he is excluded?

Duh...... What does that imply in relation to our Judicial System?

Duh.....the documentation exist.....refute that or realize

Any thoughts?

"...because he did not observe the, he is excluded?" What? I'll assume you are referring to Tacitus. If he did not observe Jesus living, OF COURSE he doesn't count as a witness to his existence.

Tell me how it's possible that someone can witness the existence of someone without witnessing the existence of someone. I can't wait to see your answer.

It the same way with determining the death of a person.

The basis is deduction as in access to all the information.

You seem to imply no basis for an individual to base his/her conclusions upon a deductive prose.

Do you have a Time Machine, in which case where is your PDF??

Seriously???

Any thoughts?

What is the same way with determining the death of a person? People are determined to be dead by examination by a medical expert, not by rumor. A death certificate is produced and signed by a person who witnessed the existence of the dead body. No one is determined to have been dead who never existed. In other words, Gandalf and Frodo are not dead.

I don't know what a "deductive prose" is. If you are referring to deductive reasoning, there is no process of deductive reasoning that allows me to conclude that someone who supposidly performed miracles, appeared before hundreds, caused a political uproar, and was tried and executed by the Romans was not mentioned in writing by a single person (including the Romans who were scrupulous record keepers) who lived at the same time as the person in question.

Because you are wrong. In relation to a formal investigation with respect to murder? Why do you consider that the capacity of an individual alive 2000 years ago is not in some equivalent. Close enough to provide a determination
as to cause?

You are assuming something in relation to the role of an Historian, outside your Element.

Historians rely on contemporaneous documentation to PROVE that someone lived. Their personal beliefs about whether someone lived in the absence of contemporaneous documentation is simply belief not proof.

I am willing to accept contemporaneous documentation from a person who lived 2,000 years ago as evidence that a person lived then. Note that I said contemporaneous documentation. Corroborating contemporaneous documentation from additional persons would be even stronger evidence. In the case of Jesus, however, there is ZERO contemporaneous documentation. ZERO. ZERO. ZERO.

I don't understand your comparison of the question of whether Jesus existed with a murder investigation. Could you explain how you think those two things are comparable.

a reply to: Tangerine

Courts acknowledge first person information. And n relation to an 80 year time span, despite your implication of generations. There is from the context of the first person, several witnesses available to the event in question.

Again life spans in general was about 50 years and again. Every society of that time has people that lived even twice that period.

You are assuming that was not the case?

What documentation do you have that support that idea that these two Roman Historians were wrong???

What part of, "I am not responsible for your homework", are you having trouble understanding .

Any thoughts

a reply to: WhiteHat

That is a fair point, WhiteHat. We do give people names to those who fit a certain role, perhaps as a sign of respect.

The title Master might mean simply one who has spent a great deal of time on a given subject, and if we are to learn that subject, it would be prudent to respect his experience. Yet, because someone spends a great deal of time on a given subject does not automatically endow him with virtues that are deserved of respect. The old platitude “respect is earned” is quite true.

The title “Master” requires some sort of specialization in a subject or craft, i.e. a Master of carpentry, and it deserves respect in respect to carpentry only; but one who is a master in a certain ancient scripture, ritual, asceticism, philosophy, “spiritual path”, religion, is merely a master at repeating what has been said a thousand times before, with rarely any sort of advancement throughout the history of mankind. An apprenticeship could be better spent.

For someone who is not spiritual and couldn't care less about it as the OP, I see an awful lot of time and energy spent in trying to deny spirituality. But as long as we're only looking down on something how can we see what is above?

Everyone is spiritual. I care deeply about it; enough to wish to free it from the clutches of the worshippers of death, and return it to the worshippers of life. How can we look down on something if we've always been taught to look up to it? Let's bring it back down to our level.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Tangerine

Courts acknowledge first person information. And n relation to an 80 year time span, despite your implication of generations. There is from the context of the first person, several witnesses available to the event in question.

Again life spans in general was about 50 years and again. Every society of that time has people that lived even twice that period.

You are assuming that was not the case?

What documentation do you have that support that idea that these two Roman Historians were wrong???

What part of, "I am not responsible for your homework", are you having trouble understanding .

Any thoughts

Name those "several witnesses" to Jesus's existence and cite THEIR first person accounts.

Who cares how long people lived. What does this have to do with the fact that the writers were not even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and, thus, could not possibly have witnessed him living? Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus were not alive when Jesus allegedly lived. I don't care if they each lived for 300 years. They weren't born until after Jesus allegedly lived.

You don't seem to understand that it is impossible to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that someone did not live. It's impossible. I don't have to prove that historians were wrong. The person who makes a positive claim (ie. Jesus lived) has the onus to prove it.

a reply to: preludefanguy

Pretty powerful stuff, sir. I don't think our thinking is that different. Thank you for presenting your ideas.

I appreciate the critique. You are right to point out that I am merely speaking my opinions, where perhaps I am unfinished. I would argue, as such, we are all works in progress.

As a system of physical beings, we need to learn how to enhance our way of living, our way of succeeding as a species, through our physicality. This takes spirit, this takes will. You can say it is just the body behaving in self taught ways, emerging simply from the physical system, but there is a space between the actions, which contemplates and directs in different ways, to test the boundaries of life. There is a hidden wisdom in our cells, in the core of our being, which has directed life down this avenue in this story, and here we are. As the will, we manifest whatever we decide to pour our energies into, and either we can let us take the easiest path presented to us by our habits, or we can take a step back and learn to be better human beings, better parts of nature expressing itself, nurturing itself, enhancing itself. But this takes devotion to mindfulness, concentration and the desire for wisdom. For it is through desire that one can guide the will, work will be done one way or another, and one can choose to do it through being, or non-being, but understand that non-being does not mean there is no one there, not exactly... it means there is no one there fooling themselves into thinking there is a permanent one there creating all the actions, but rather the self is empty of meaning and we only give it meaning by choosing which actions we do take. So non-being means taking action, but by using all forms of ego, all forms of self, all forms of energies in the body to the best of their abilities, by way of not clinging to any one particular way of doing things, but by contemplating all ways and directing one's actions into the more favorable. Beliefs are dangerous, and it should not be beliefs that guide us, but principles, principles which work to create a more cohesive, loving, understanding and wise mankind.

It is currently being raised right now in linguistics and the cognitive sciences that we are metaphorical beings. If this is true, and I believe it is, how far have our metaphors led us astray? It's difficult to think about, but rewarding to do so.

a reply to: Tangerine

Your ignorance is in never having reviewed to documentation.

As you have not yet provided data to the effect that it can be disputed.

You are wasting this Forums time.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

A myth is something that has not been deduced.

An example being Atheism.

Any thoughts?

A myth is something that is deduced from itself in a circular fashion.

Atheism has nothing to deduce from.

a reply to: Aphorism
Then that would present that in logic it is irrelevant.

a reply to: Kashai

Can anyone explain what Kashai is trying to communicate?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Kashai

A myth is something that has not been deduced.

An example being Atheism.

Any thoughts?

A myth is something that is deduced from itself in a circular fashion.

Atheism has nothing to deduce from.

I wish you better luck than I had in trying to decipher Kashai's communications.

a reply to: Aphorism

There is a collective fear of the unknown, and belief is what allows one to overcome this fear by replacing the variable "unknown" with the variable "God" - the means by which this is done is to create a mechanism that can deny the unknown and welcome "God" instead. Often those whom accept "God" will wonder about those whom don't, and the answer to their eyes is that those whom have not replaced "unknown" with "God" will suffer from symptoms that are caused by the forces of evil, "evil" being the spawn of "unknown".

There are many ways to go about this, however, a rational person can see that "unknown" affects us all the time, for instance, accidents. Accidents happen, we can't control them, and they can happen to anyone. So, the unknown variable is there as the cause of such accidents, however, if you accept "God" and you are a Hindu, then instead of this accident being the result of pure chance, and thereby uncontrollable, it is the result of "karma" and mistakes you have made in the past.

Now, there is one big unknown that is pivotal to religion, and that is, what happens after we die. It is very convenient because that question is practically impossible to answer, and thus, is open to speculation, we all speculate about this, however, "God" is the ultimate answer because obeying "God" only makes sense because he offers you the facet of "knowing" what happens after you die. Those whom do not accept this facet will not know what happens after they die, and it is this that religion posits to be the reason why they do not have one.

That facet is belief itself.

originally posted by: Aphorism
The title “Master” requires some sort of specialization in a subject or craft, i.e. a Master of carpentry, and it deserves respect in respect to carpentry only; but one who is a master in a certain ancient scripture, ritual, asceticism, philosophy, “spiritual path”, religion, is merely a master at repeating what has been said a thousand times before, with rarely any sort of advancement throughout the history of mankind. An apprenticeship could be better spent.

True.
I (as usual) have a good quote from The Buddha about being a "Master" (from the Dhammapada):

"Irrigators channel waters;
fletchers straighten arrows;
carpenters bend wood;
the wise master themselves."
-T he Buddha

Your body is a machine with many tools - there are few people who actually work their lives to try and master the control of it.