It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lord Altmis
Anyways, I think this is the ultimate paradox. That Jesus himself, wasn't a Christian. Yet he leads them. And nobody notices or says anything. In reality, Christianity is simply Catholocism all the way around. That's my conclusion so far. And Jesus wasn't Catholic.
[edit on 4-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]
Originally posted by Lord Altmis
Well based on your analogies, I think Satan is obviously a Satanist.
Originally posted by Lord Altmis
His followers believe in following him and worshipping him, and so does Satan. He follows himself, encourages others to as well. As strange as that sounds. In other words, he is for that cause. Texas would then be a Texan although it's not a living entity. The reason being, if the pieces are "texans" then the sum total of the pieces (Texas) is a "texan".
Originally posted by Lord Altmis
Jesus said I am the way, but didn't say to worship him. So when people follow him and worship him they are considered Christians. Yet Jesus didn't say that or wouldn't do that. So technically, Jesus is not a Christian. He is not a sum total of the pieces. I don't know if you can see the discrepancy.
Originally posted by Lord Altmis
It sounds like an almost out of body analogy, but I think as others have agreed. Jesus may not have been a Christian. Something interesting to consider.
Originally posted by supercheetah
I think Jesus was historically real, but I think that he has been mythologized to such a degree that no one knows who the real Jesus was, or what happened to him. He may well have simply been a great Jewish philosopher (ala Socrates), and some people misinterpreted his teachings as being indicative of his "divine" status.
Recently I was talking with a group of people in Los Angeles. I asked them, "Who, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ?" The response was that He was a great religious leader. I agree with that. Jesus Christ was a great religious leader. But I believe He was much more.
The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
To Jesus, who men and women believed Him to be was of fundamental importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what He claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be.
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
You do well in lending credence to my argument. For one thing, I simply stated a possibility of who he was. I personally make no claim about who he was. Who's to say the Gospels are the correct version of his life?
Originally posted by krossfyter
Originally posted by supercheetah
I think Jesus was historically real, but I think that he has been mythologized to such a degree that no one knows who the real Jesus was, or what happened to him. He may well have simply been a great Jewish philosopher (ala Socrates), and some people misinterpreted his teachings as being indicative of his "divine" status.
take a look at the book "more than just a carpenter" by Josh McDowell... here's an excerpt...
Recently I was talking with a group of people in Los Angeles. I asked them, "Who, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ?" The response was that He was a great religious leader. I agree with that. Jesus Christ was a great religious leader. But I believe He was much more.
The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
To Jesus, who men and women believed Him to be was of fundamental importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what He claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be.
C.S. Lewis, once a professor at Cambridge University and agnostic turned theologian/philosopher wrote in his book "Mere Christianity" ....
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."
Lewis adds...
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" It is a question that every one must answer.
Originally posted by supercheetah
You do well in lending credence to my argument. For one thing, I simply stated a possibility of who he was. I personally make no claim about who he was. Who's to say the Gospels are the correct version of his life?
Originally posted by krossfyter
Originally posted by supercheetah
I think Jesus was historically real, but I think that he has been mythologized to such a degree that no one knows who the real Jesus was, or what happened to him. He may well have simply been a great Jewish philosopher (ala Socrates), and some people misinterpreted his teachings as being indicative of his "divine" status.
take a look at the book "more than just a carpenter" by Josh McDowell... here's an excerpt...
Recently I was talking with a group of people in Los Angeles. I asked them, "Who, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ?" The response was that He was a great religious leader. I agree with that. Jesus Christ was a great religious leader. But I believe He was much more.
The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
To Jesus, who men and women believed Him to be was of fundamental importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what He claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be.
C.S. Lewis, once a professor at Cambridge University and agnostic turned theologian/philosopher wrote in his book "Mere Christianity" ....
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."
Lewis adds...
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" It is a question that every one must answer.
Both McDowell and Lewis commit the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, and Lewis commits an even worse fallacy by using an ad hominem argument.
Finally, just because a man is crazy doesn't make him immoral. I've met many mentally ill individuals who have made some pretty extraordinary claims, but they're still good people, and just because they might be "crazy" doesn't necessarily negate the truth of something they teach. To dismiss an argument based on character is an ad hominem fallacy. I, for one, happen to think that the philosophy of "Love your enemies as your neighbor" is a good philosophy, regardless of whether or not Jesus was crazy.
Originally posted by krossfyter
tell me which one did lewis use? the traditional or the basic fallacy? besides that...who's charcther did he attack instead of the argument? im clearly seeing an attack on the argument itself not the attacker.
I'm not arguing that just because a mans crazy that would make him immoral. So there goes that... not sure why thats brought up.
You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
Originally posted by supercheetah
Originally posted by krossfyter
tell me which one did lewis use? the traditional or the basic fallacy? besides that...who's charcther did he attack instead of the argument? im clearly seeing an attack on the argument itself not the attacker.
Firstly, an ad hominem argument isn't an attack, it's a judgement of character, irrelevant to the topic. Secondly, it's an ad hominem argument in relation to Jesus' character over the topic of whether or not it's right to learn from him, even if you do not believe him to be divine.
I'm not arguing that just because a mans crazy that would make him immoral. So there goes that... not sure why thats brought up.
That's the implication of Lewis' argument, though. More specifically, he says:
You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
Originally posted by krossfyter
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
From Wikipedia:
A makes claim B;
there is something desirable about A,
therefore claim B is true.
Lewis's arguement doesn't argue against not learning from him at all.... it's an arguement against Jesus as only a teacher/philosopher and nothing else.... because of what Jesus said. It's that simple.
No need to get lost in the techinicals over such a simple argument. If you'd like to attack it with Sophistical Refutations then one can also counter attack your argument and loose the point of the entire argument. We can go even further with the Derrida slant... and tear this sh it wide open or futher apart. It never ends.