jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:I read with a kind of Garth Marenghi voice, went perfectly.

You should read what I said about processing info through one's 'truth mill'.

I've read it multiple times before, it still doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

My aim here has always been to transform factories.

How can that have been your aim for 20 years, and you're still so bad at it?

Oh man, watching again, so fucking good



Relevant to the thread part is at 6:07

jamest wrote:My wandering mind leads me all over the place, including [now] to this thought: that there are more ways than one to pinpoint a Christ.

... I mean, let's leave out the 'physical evidence' of miracles, which no doubt most of you here would consider bullshit anyway. David Blaine stuff, or whatever, if not outright lies.

I'm talking about the signs of a Christ in a persona? What then would you expect, devoid of the 'physical magic'? Serious question. Honest guv'.

I mean, you obviously have to be open-minded in this thread and therefore retract any surety in your physicalist beliefs, but this is the philosophy forum so what the hell.

Beyond physical miracles, what would you expect of the The Christ? This is a genuine question, so spare me the BS. I'm so tired of the BS.

Calm down; relax; go with the flow; get over yourself mostly; get a grip. Please m8.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:I read with a kind of Garth Marenghi voice, went perfectly.

I'm going to have to google who that is, aren't I?

Oh man, you've never seen Garth Mareghi's Dark Place? Yes, you must!

BURN HIM!!

Oh dear.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:Beyond physical miracles, what would you expect of the The Christ?

That it made sense.

Why did he need to put himself into human form, get himself killed on purpose, resurrect himself and then forgive us? Why did this take place 250.000 years after the first anatomically modern humans evolved, and what is it's purpose and how is that achieved and why did it even need to happen in the first place through these fatuous symbolic acts of torture and theatrics?

The whole thing is stupid from start to finish.

Well sure - if you put it that way.

The Divine (or a closer approximation to it than say: me) needed to be put in human form in the hope that the rest of us would raise our bar.

That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone "raise their bar" because a divine being assumed human form?

John Platko wrote:And he got killed because some didn't/don't want the bar raised because it's too big a leap for them.

Even if that is why they killed him, why did he allow this? What purpose is served by this? I have a hard time believing this sorta accidentally happened to God. As far as I am aware, this was all sorta kinda predicted and expected to happen, and all of it had some sort of purpose, obscure that it is.

John Platko wrote:He resurrected because you can't keep a good meme down.

Actually the only portion of this whole story that makes a tiny bit of sense is the act of resurrection, which would constitute a piece of evidence that something out of the ordinary is afoot. In that sense, I can understand why a divine being would want to resurrect it's fleshy form, to prove that it is more than just an ordinary man talking shit.

John Platko wrote:And the trick is to forgive yourself.

That's not how I've had it told before. Do you have scriptural support for this? And in any case, how the fuck does God assuming a fleshy form, getting itself killed, and resurrecting itself, somehow advance the plot-point that I should forgive myself? You're making this story make even less sense that it already did. And it already made no sense at all. We're down to anti-sense now.

John Platko wrote:It took place when it could, which I'm thinking is way more than once. The purpose - information - more specifically, Knowledge, to help guide evolution. Sadly, the torture was more than symbolic.

None of this makes any sense.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Forget all the evidence, forget the history, forget evolution and all that. In it's central message the story of "The Christ" is complete fucking gibberish. The concept of skapegoating, and vicarious redemption, is simultaneously both evil and nonsensical.

Scapegoating is evil, not doubt about that. I see it more as a powerful story that can teach just about all you'd ever need to learn about the dynamics of human behavior.

I can think of approximately twenty million additional things one needs to learn about the dynamics of human behavior, than "some people used to crucify others".

John Platko wrote:That said, if I was on scene I hope I'd have enough sense to physically remove him from danger before he got himself crucified.

I agree, a good person would try to prevent the torture and execution of another.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Even if you managed to convince me that God exists, that he made himself become human, have himself killed and resurrected, and through this act forgave me and everyone else who ever lived of our sins, I would still not become a christian and it would still not make sense to me.

That's the spirit. It seems you've already learned much that the story has to teach.

Wait a minute, are you saying one of the messages the story has to teach, is that the story doesn't make sense and that it is rational to reject it?

Okay. Fine.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I would become a theist in that I would then believe a personal God exists. But the actions this God took, the whole story about coming to us in human form and performing these various acts, and their stated purpose, would appear to me nothing but meaningless theatrics.

Perhaps once you and this personal God hooked up you would be given a slightly more credible explanation of what went on.

That'd be nice and I'd appreciate his take on the matter. I'm ready any time.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:If God exists and did the acts and miracles for the purposeses stated in the bible (kill and resurrect himself to forgive us), then God would have proven to me that he is just a confused madman with lots of power. I would not worship or follow this God, I would pity it's confusion and lunacy.

What rational person could take issue with that?

She couldn't.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:The central failure of the new testament and the Christian religion in it's essence is that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make logical or even emotional sense.

And yet for thousands of years something in the story has deeply touched the hearts and minds of billions of people. Are they all

Yes.

On the subject of their christian faith, it has made them crazy, yes. If experience of arguing with religious people over the last 10 years has taught me anything it is that human beings are amazing compartmentalizers. Otherwise cognitively healthy and well-functioning adults can simultaneously hold to the most penetratingly fatuous religious concepts to such an extend that on the pertinent subject they are literally incapable of rational thought, and have nothing short of lost their fucking minds.

Few greater examples of this can be thought of than the adherence to the Christ-myth by a large fraction of the planet's population.

John Platko wrote:or is there something important that the story somehow communicates despite it's irrational, and sometimes downright troubling surface appearance? I suggest, just learn what you can from the story that does make sense and is good. Like, scapegoating is always wrong.

I believe, though I could be wrong of course (but I don't think I'm wrong), that there are better ways to be taught the lesson that scapegoating is always wrong. I could think of less convoluted and more emotionally and rationally impactful ways of advocating that position. Having a divine being assume the role of a human carpenter, to get tortured, crucified, killed and then resurrected, seems to me a rather confused way of going about imparting that message.

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:Beyond physical miracles, what would you expect of the The Christ?

That it made sense.

Why did he need to put himself into human form, get himself killed on purpose, resurrect himself and then forgive us? Why did this take place 250.000 years after the first anatomically modern humans evolved, and what is it's purpose and how is that achieved and why did it even need to happen in the first place through these fatuous symbolic acts of torture and theatrics?

Good questions, squire

I've always appreciated this apparent need you have to diminish your interlocutors so that you can emotionally tolerate disagreement.

jamest wrote:which is part of the reason why I'm not a "common Xian", which you should know by now.

How common your xianity is, is of no concern to me.

jamest wrote:Which is the primary reason the OP was started in the philosophy forum. Indeed, in post 61 I specifically clarify my position when I stated:
"The Christ is a very specific outlook/attitude/mentality which we all have the potential to acquire... which (for the record) I do not claim to have. So no, don't expect me to start washing your feet any time soon."

Cool. And?

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:The whole thing is stupid from start to finish.

Then let me reiterate the fact than I'm neither a Xian (as you understand a 'Xian'), as well as emphasise that this is a philosophical discussion.

All discussions are philosophical discussions, some are just less competent than others. In the bottom quater, discussions with you are massively overrepresented.

jamest wrote:I cannot stop Xians talking bollocks here

If you could this thread would not exist.

jamest wrote: any more than I can stop theists undermining Xian bollocks, but I'll do my utmost to stop you ruining a philosophy thread started by someone who has less in common with Xians than the atheists he prefers to talk to.

You're doing great at that already. I will take your successes in your stated goal here to reflect both the truth and sensiblity of your particular brand of uncommon xianity.

Stated another way, since you are thoroughly failing at achieving what you are claiming to do your utmost to stop, your xian faith is nonsensical, and false.

jamest wrote:

Rumraket wrote:forget all the evidence, forget the history, forget evolution and all that. In it's central message the story of "The Christ" is complete fucking gibberish. The concept of skapegoating, and vicarious redemption, is simultaneously both evil and nonsensical.

You've given this no thought at all, it seems

I must be talking to a blind man then.

jamest wrote:which also reflects badly upon the numpties giving you a thumbs-up, because I'm Not a fucking 'Xian'. The fact that you know this, or should, after all of these years, just makes you appear like a fucking idiot.

I cannot even begin to impress upon you of how little consequence I find your opinions about me.

jamest wrote:I've encountered you many times over the years though, so I know for a fact that you're bright and intelligent.

Thanks. I don't feel the same away about you. Honestly. And you can't buy my obedience or agreement with flattery. Over the past ten years I have seen nothing but vacuous, self-gratifying bullshit of no value or consequence from you. All the evidence before me tells me that you have nothing to offer on any imaginable subject.

jamest wrote:What you need to do

You are in no position to inform me of my needs, so just shut your useless trap. Thank you.

jamest wrote:now, henceforth, is to engage those qualities within this thread... or else... just do something else.

I have already engaged directly with the subject of this thread, which is: What would I expect of "The Christ" if it really existed/was true?

I have said: I would expect that "The Christ" made sense, but that it manifestly doesn't.

jamest wrote:Let's prove that atheist extremism isn't a myth.

But atheist extremism isn't a myth. Atheist extremists clearly exist, and I don't give the slightest, most minuscule fuck that can even be coherently conceived of, if you consider me to be among them.

Have a nice day.

Rumraket wrote:

John Platko wrote:
And yet for thousands of years something in the story has deeply touched the hearts and minds of billions of people. Are they all

Yes.

I've also gotten this argument from family over the years. You can always tell when someone can't actually defend it when they resort to "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!"

Rumraket wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

jamest wrote:Beyond physical miracles, what would you expect of the The Christ?

That it made sense.

Why did he need to put himself into human form, get himself killed on purpose, resurrect himself and then forgive us? Why did this take place 250.000 years after the first anatomically modern humans evolved, and what is it's purpose and how is that achieved and why did it even need to happen in the first place through these fatuous symbolic acts of torture and theatrics?

The whole thing is stupid from start to finish.

Well sure - if you put it that way.

The Divine (or a closer approximation to it than say: me) needed to be put in human form in the hope that the rest of us would raise our bar.

That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone "raise their bar" because a divine being assumed human form?

I'm thinking it was a lead by example sort of thing. An improbable evolutionary mutation, which had some long term selection value.

John Platko wrote:And he got killed because some didn't/don't want the bar raised because it's too big a leap for them.

Even if that is why they killed him, why did he allow this? What purpose is served by this? I have a hard time believing this sorta accidentally happened to God. As far as I am aware, this was all sorta kinda predicted and expected to happen, and all of it had some sort of purpose, obscure that it is.

Why did JC allow this? Many possibilities come to mind:

He mistakenly thought it would end better, which could account for the "My god Why have you forsaken me."

He thought he had to do what he thought was right regardless of the consequences.

And I think it reasonable to assume some mental health issue, as the Bible tells us his family suspected, played a role.

John Platko wrote:He resurrected because you can't keep a good meme down.

Actually the only portion of this whole story that makes a tiny bit of sense is the act of resurrection, which would constitute a piece of evidence that something out of the ordinary is afoot. In that sense, I can understand why a divine being would want to resurrect it's fleshy form, to prove that it is more than just an ordinary man talking shit.

It wasn't very effective proof at the time. Surely a being that could defy the laws of physics that govern the rest of us could have come up with a more convincing demo.

John Platko wrote:And the trick is to forgive yourself.

That's not how I've had it told before. Do you have scriptural support for this?

I'm thinking that if you pray for forgiveness, and you believe you've received it, you are in
reality forgiving yourself. That is, it's a form of CBT self talk. I think that because - um what else
could be possibly going on.

And in any case, how the fuck does God assuming a fleshy form, getting itself killed, and resurrecting itself, somehow advance the plot-point that I should forgive myself?

I think you're supposed to look behind the curtain and realize that we're talking about a story about a man who had ideas and behaviors that some felt made him seem Divine who others felt so threatened by that they conspired to have him killed. And this man so inspired those close to him that they believed he resurrected from the dead. And, a notable change in their behavior was reported to be observed after all this transpired.

Now if one thinks an all powerful being is somehow involved in all this then one could reasonably expect a bit more of a direct way to communicate and teach than this, - but all powerful beings aren't usually up for consideration around these parts - and I think for good reason.

You're making this story make even less sense that it already did. And it already made no sense at all. We're down to anti-sense now.

John Platko wrote:It took place when it could, which I'm thinking is way more than once. The purpose - information - more specifically, Knowledge, to help guide evolution. Sadly, the torture was more than symbolic.

None of this makes any sense.

It's a story that can teach you something about human dynamics. An early form of psychology. How people see what they want to see. How people distort reality beyond credibility and yet some still believe the distortion. How people distort reality so they don't have to see the truth before their eyes. Why I've been reading for years here many good ideas that many members here have taken away from their encounters with people talking about this story. And I must admit, take away the whole crucifixion/resurrection thing and JC could easily have just come across like another guy in the park on a soapbox. But somehow he didn't, and that's interesting. And it's interesting to and wonder why so many well educated, seemingly intelligent people, say so many batshit crazy things about that story. Understanding why that's so is the only way to pin-point Christ that I know.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Forget all the evidence, forget the history, forget evolution and all that. In it's central message the story of "The Christ" is complete fucking gibberish. The concept of skapegoating, and vicarious redemption, is simultaneously both evil and nonsensical.

Scapegoating is evil, not doubt about that. I see it more as a powerful story that can teach just about all you'd ever need to learn about the dynamics of human behavior.

I can think of approximately twenty million additional things one needs to learn about the dynamics of human behavior, than "some people used to crucify others".

hmmm. Let's try an experiment, tell me an interesting human behavior dynamic and I'll try to see if I find that dynamic in the JC story.

John Platko wrote:That said, if I was on scene I hope I'd have enough sense to physically remove him from danger before he got himself crucified.

I agree, a good person would try to prevent the torture and execution of another.

And yet the people around him didn't. They loved him and they let him continue on a path that would likely end in his being killed. It makes me wonder what was wrong with those people.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Even if you managed to convince me that God exists, that he made himself become human, have himself killed and resurrected, and through this act forgave me and everyone else who ever lived of our sins, I would still not become a christian and it would still not make sense to me.

That's the spirit. It seems you've already learned much that the story has to teach.

Wait a minute, are you saying one of the messages the story has to teach, is that the story doesn't make sense and that it is rational to reject it?

It's certainly rational to reject the normal Sunday school, Hollywood version, of a magic being, with defy the laws of physics powers, becoming man and being scapegoated so our sins will be forgiven. That's not a good story, that's a crazy story with all sorts of bad messages in it.

Okay. Fine.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I would become a theist in that I would then believe a personal God exists. But the actions this God took, the whole story about coming to us in human form and performing these various acts, and their stated purpose, would appear to me nothing but meaningless theatrics.

Perhaps once you and this personal God hooked up you would be given a slightly more credible explanation of what went on.

A man born in unfortunate circumstances, in a country where the lives of many were treated like dirt, tried to understand what the hell was going on. He studied the religious traditions of his own people and others. He saw some good in people who others shunned, he saw some bad in people who others revered. Sometimes he would go off by himself for long periods of time, seemingly depressed. Other times he would seem to have visions of dead people and talk about a kingdom within, followed by manic episodes of preaching about how the meek will inherit the earth. Some were so blown away by what he said that they left their homes and followed him around, although they seemed not to be able to understand what he was going on about. Others were pissed off by what he said and tried to knock him off his high horse. His family tried to get people to excuse him by explaining he was . Eventually he crossed paths with the major power structures of his culture and when he threatened their money, position, ideas, and even their intelligence they did what major power structures tend to do, they crushed him in a brutal way. And from that we have the Christianity that we have today. At it's root, it's a story of mental illness on a very large scale.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:If God exists and did the acts and miracles for the purposeses stated in the bible (kill and resurrect himself to forgive us), then God would have proven to me that he is just a confused madman with lots of power. I would not worship or follow this God, I would pity it's confusion and lunacy.

What rational person could take issue with that?

She couldn't.

John Platko wrote:

Rumraket wrote:The central failure of the new testament and the Christian religion in it's essence is that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make logical or even emotional sense.

And yet for thousands of years something in the story has deeply touched the hearts and minds of billions of people. Are they all

Yes.

All that remains to sus out is why and what, if anything, can be done about it. That, and how to live with it without loosing your own mind.

On the subject of their christian faith, it has made them crazy, yes.

Or were they crazy to start with?

If experience of arguing with religious people over the last 10 years has taught me anything it is that human beings are amazing compartmentalizers. Otherwise cognitively healthy and well-functioning adults can simultaneously hold to the most penetratingly fatuous religious concepts to such an extend that on the pertinent subject they are literally incapable of rational thought, and have nothing short of lost their fucking minds.

Exactly.

Few greater examples of this can be thought of than the adherence to the Christ-myth by a large fraction of the planet's population.

That's why is such a great story. People are believing what should be obvious nonsense in some cases and downright immoral behavior in others. Yet try to set them straight and they'll likely drive you crazy before you make a dent in their beliefs. And if they have any sort of power over you then watch out because their ideas about love will go out the window and they'll crush you.

And as you say, there are few greater stories to capture all that than the Christian story.

John Platko wrote:or is there something important that the story somehow communicates despite it's irrational, and sometimes downright troubling surface appearance? I suggest, just learn what you can from the story that does make sense and is good. Like, scapegoating is always wrong.

I believe, though I could be wrong of course (but I don't think I'm wrong), that there are better ways to be taught the lesson that scapegoating is always wrong. I could think of less convoluted and more emotionally and rationally impactful ways of advocating that position. Having a divine being assume the role of a human carpenter, to get tortured, crucified, killed and then resurrected, seems to me a rather confused way of going about imparting that message.

Yes, it certainly seems like there should be a better way to teach children and others then this story which rarely seems to teach anyone anything good - but then I remember all the things folks around here learned from their encounters with religion. People who worked harder at understanding and thinking about the stories than most religious people I've met. Maybe this is just the best evolution could have come up with at the time. Maybe someday it will do better.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

John Platko wrote:
And yet for thousands of years something in the story has deeply touched the hearts and minds of billions of people. Are they all

Yes.

I've also gotten this argument from family over the years. You can always tell when someone can't actually defend it when they resort to "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!"

I'm always perplexed by the idea that it's hard to believe people are often wrong.

It usually seems to be deployed in a situation where someone is expressing just how mundane it is that the person who disagrees with them is wrong.

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

John Platko wrote:
And yet for thousands of years something in the story has deeply touched the hearts and minds of billions of people. Are they all

Yes.

I've also gotten this argument from family over the years. You can always tell when someone can't actually defend it when they resort to "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!"

I'm always perplexed by the idea that it's hard to believe people are often wrong.

It usually seems to be deployed in a situation where someone is expressing just how mundane it is that the person who disagrees with them is wrong.

I imagine it's obvius but just to be clear; I never said or implied that: "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!" was a right idea. Lot's of people believe all sorts of things that are obviously wrong. Sometimes it's a resonable and honest mistake and sometimes it's so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

John Platko wrote:
I imagine it's obvius but just to be clear; I never said or implied that: "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!" was a right idea. Lot's of people believe all sorts of things that are obviously wrong. Sometimes it's a resonable and honest mistake and sometimes it's so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

I wish there were better guidance as to when something is so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on. It now occurs to me that the task of apologetics is lowering the bar for belief sufficiently so that all this digging deeper requires much less effort, so that it becomes just a lot of squirrelly busy-work, or hoarding, as it were. You can also see this in the various conspiracy theories that people are forever digging deeper into. Alas, yours is the best available guidance on cases of obvious wrongness worth digging deeper into. It doesn't get any better from there, and that is what is so sad. Some people just know how to pick 'em.

John Platko wrote:

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Yes.

I've also gotten this argument from family over the years. You can always tell when someone can't actually defend it when they resort to "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!"

I'm always perplexed by the idea that it's hard to believe people are often wrong.

It usually seems to be deployed in a situation where someone is expressing just how mundane it is that the person who disagrees with them is wrong.

I imagine it's obvius but just to be clear; I never said or implied that:

There's no clearer implication to the statement "But lots of people believe it!" in response to someone declaring it bullshit. If you want to be clear and obvious and not imply that, then don't respond that way to that statement.

Lot's of people believe all sorts of things that are obviously wrong. Sometimes it's a resonable and honest mistake and sometimes it's so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

What's going on is already obvious, as is your desperate pleas to make more of it than there actually is. People all over the world inherit bullshit from their family and society, and there's no special reason why a family or society is pushing one particular kind of bullshit or the other.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I imagine it's obvius but just to be clear; I never said or implied that: "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!" was a right idea. Lot's of people believe all sorts of things that are obviously wrong. Sometimes it's a resonable and honest mistake and sometimes it's so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

I wish there were better guidance as to when something is so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on. It now occurs to me that the task of apologetics is lowering the bar for belief sufficiently so that all this digging deeper requires much less effort, so that it becomes just a lot of squirrelly busy-work, or hoarding, as it were. You can also see this in the various conspiracy theories that people are forever digging deeper into. Alas, yours is the best available guidance on cases of obvious wrongness worth digging deeper into. It doesn't get any better from there, and that is what is so sad. Some people just know how to pick 'em.

You can spend your days digging through bullshit looking for tiny, half-digested nuggets of corn, but at the end of the day you've still got bullshit all over your hands.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I imagine it's obvius but just to be clear; I never said or implied that: "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!" was a right idea. Lot's of people believe all sorts of things that are obviously wrong. Sometimes it's a resonable and honest mistake and sometimes it's so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

I wish there were better guidance as to when something is so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

Better than me? I can't say that I've seen anyone else even address that issue.

It now occurs to me that the task of apologetics is lowering the bar for belief sufficiently so that all this digging deeper requires much less effort, so that it becomes just a lot of squirrelly busy-work, or hoarding, as it were. You can also see this in the various conspiracy theories that people are forever digging deeper into. Alas, yours is the best available guidance on cases of obvious wrongness worth digging deeper into. It doesn't get any better from there,

I thought so.

and that is what is so sad. Some people just know how to pick 'em.

My where to dig in the dung guidebook, which I'll publish any year now, also suggests digging deep into where the Warren Commission went wrong and susing out why. Much to be learned there too, but that will have to wait until jamest starts a "how to pinpont the signs of a Lee Harvey Oswald persona.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I imagine it's obvius but just to be clear; I never said or implied that: "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!" was a right idea. Lot's of people believe all sorts of things that are obviously wrong. Sometimes it's a resonable and honest mistake and sometimes it's so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

I wish there were better guidance as to when something is so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on. It now occurs to me that the task of apologetics is lowering the bar for belief sufficiently so that all this digging deeper requires much less effort, so that it becomes just a lot of squirrelly busy-work, or hoarding, as it were. You can also see this in the various conspiracy theories that people are forever digging deeper into. Alas, yours is the best available guidance on cases of obvious wrongness worth digging deeper into. It doesn't get any better from there, and that is what is so sad. Some people just know how to pick 'em.

You can spend your days digging through bullshit looking for tiny, half-digested nuggets of corn, but at the end of the day you've still got bullshit all over your hands.

As that noteworthy Christian, Thomas Jefferson, informs us, you'll be left with diamonds. once you was your hands.

from

We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I imagine it's obvius but just to be clear; I never said or implied that: "Lots of people believe it, therefore it can't be wrong!" was a right idea. Lot's of people believe all sorts of things that are obviously wrong. Sometimes it's a resonable and honest mistake and sometimes it's so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on.

I wish there were better guidance as to when something is so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on. It now occurs to me that the task of apologetics is lowering the bar for belief sufficiently so that all this digging deeper requires much less effort, so that it becomes just a lot of squirrelly busy-work, or hoarding, as it were. You can also see this in the various conspiracy theories that people are forever digging deeper into. Alas, yours is the best available guidance on cases of obvious wrongness worth digging deeper into. It doesn't get any better from there, and that is what is so sad. Some people just know how to pick 'em.

You can spend your days digging through bullshit looking for tiny, half-digested nuggets of corn, but at the end of the day you've still got bullshit all over your hands.

As that noteworthy Christian, Thomas Jefferson, informs us, you'll be left with diamonds. once you was your hands.

from

We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

In other words, everyone else's bullshit is just bullshit, but his bullshit is special! But thanks for making a blind appeal to authority for your cherry picking, it's just as useless as it was the last time. You've certainly not offered anything meaningful or useful to the conversation from this "noteworthy Christian".

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

I wish there were better guidance as to when something is so obviously wrong that it's worth digging deeper into what's going on. It now occurs to me that the task of apologetics is lowering the bar for belief sufficiently so that all this digging deeper requires much less effort, so that it becomes just a lot of squirrelly busy-work, or hoarding, as it were. You can also see this in the various conspiracy theories that people are forever digging deeper into. Alas, yours is the best available guidance on cases of obvious wrongness worth digging deeper into. It doesn't get any better from there, and that is what is so sad. Some people just know how to pick 'em.

You can spend your days digging through bullshit looking for tiny, half-digested nuggets of corn, but at the end of the day you've still got bullshit all over your hands.

As that noteworthy Christian, Thomas Jefferson, informs us, you'll be left with diamonds. once you was your hands.

from

We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

In other words, everyone else's bullshit is just bullshit, but his bullshit is special! But thanks for making a blind appeal to authority for your cherry picking, it's just as useless as it was the last time. You've certainly not offered anything meaningful or useful to the conversation from this "noteworthy Christian".

Well plenty of people think his Declaration of Independence was special bullshit. Why not his Bible?

I think this may be just the thing jamest needs to pinpoint the persona of Christ. Just fill it out as you think JC might and out pops the answer. Here's how it pinpointed JC's persona for me:

Extravert-iNtuitive-Feeler-Perceiver

Extraverts are outgoing, energetic and action-oriented. They are enthusiastic and expressive
iNtuitives pay more attention to information that is imaginative and original. iNtuitives focus on the future.
Feelers let their feelings and emotions play a leading role because of their concern for other people.
Perceivers prefer a lifestyle that is spontaneous, flexible and adaptable. They like an environment that is unstructured, and like to keep their options open.

An ENFP at-a-glance
You are a charming, effervescent and people-oriented individual. You have a contagious enthusiasm and love to inspire others to greater things. You see potential in everyone and in every situation.
People are naturally attracted to you - they see you as passionate, inspirational and lively. You have an exceptional ability to intuitively understand a person after a very short period of time. You use your intuition and flexibility to relate to others on their own level - to be on the same wavelength.

You live in a busy world of possibilities where your imagination runs free and each and every day is important. You just can't bear to be left out of anything! For you, diversity is the universal key to happiness in life - you enjoy many different types of friends, interests and experiences. Every Jung Personality type has one or two specific nicknames that concisely describe your Jung personality type, e.g. Inventor, Strategist, Protector and others.
Your probable contributions to an organization
Each Personality Type has a different set of skills, talents and attributes that they bring to an organization, group or relationship. Here is a list of those most commonly associated with Personality Types like you - ENFP.
Brings a special brand of warmth, graciousness, enthusiasm, color and vivaciousness to an organization.
Seeks variety, challenge, diversity, novelty and ideas.
Easily handles and excels in ambiguous situations.
Has little hesitancy in becoming involved in different projects - does not hold back.
Is committed to the progress and growth of people.

Impressive!

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
You can spend your days digging through bullshit looking for tiny, half-digested nuggets of corn, but at the end of the day you've still got bullshit all over your hands.

As that noteworthy Christian, Thomas Jefferson, informs us, you'll be left with diamonds. once you was your hands.

from

We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

In other words, everyone else's bullshit is just bullshit, but his bullshit is special! But thanks for making a blind appeal to authority for your cherry picking, it's just as useless as it was the last time. You've certainly not offered anything meaningful or useful to the conversation from this "noteworthy Christian".

Well plenty of people think his Declaration of Independence was special bullshit. Why not his Bible?

No please, go ahead and keep making vapid appeals to authority, it really strengthens your argument