A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

John Platko · **#81** by **John Platko** » Feb 25, 2018 5:55 pm

laklak wrote:No point in being a Christ if you can't do the water into wine shtick, or at least walk on it.

Don't know about the walk on it part.

GrahamH · **#82** by **GrahamH** » Feb 25, 2018 6:10 pm

John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.

Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:

John Platko wrote:

Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.

Not obvious.

There are obvious Christian apologetics to apply a meaning to it, but what it actually meant, assuming it was something actually spoken by JC, could indeed be much more literal, as is the case in some modern contexts.

SafeAsMilk · **#83** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 25, 2018 6:19 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Save that Picard for yourself. Need has nothing to do with it. Apparently they can't whenever they want, because Jesus wants his precious perfume right now, dammit! And fuck those poor people when Jesus wants his perfume

Hey, it's not my fault if you and others don't actually read the book and ascribe a false reputation to him. Here, for instance, you're making the people who were peacefully sitting and selling their wares out to be villainous money grubbers in an attempt to justify Jesus' violence. Truly, there isn't a position so self-serving that a Jesus apologist won't adapt it. If some guy in your neighborhood was going around physically attacking people working in stores, it would be justice if he were arrested for it. Or perhaps you'd say he's just "not following the narrative"?

Sure, I want him arrested but I would think the death penalty a bit harsh.

Could not be any less relevant to the conversation if you tried, aside from the fact that he wasn't crucified just for attacking the merchants.

And everybody can have a bad day, you seem to expect Jesus to be perfect.

I have no expectations at all of Jesus, his followers claim he is perfect.

His followers claim all kinds of things, like he made bread and fish pop out of nothing. One must filter what his followers say.

Saying that they've claimed something ridiculous isn't the same as saying what they've claimed is correct. You can't claim someone isn't claiming what they clearly are just because it's ridiculous.

You asked what bad things he did, I listed them. You attempted to defend them, and failed. Just so we know where the conversation is.

Well it's pretty hard to defend self appointing yourself to be in charge of the temple and then causing a stampede. The other stuff is subject to interpretation.

You've claimed they're subject to interpretation, but you've utterly failed to show this to be so.

As I said, leaving a religious faith can separate you from your family but sometimes that's what's best for you to do.

And as I pointed out, that isn't at all relevant to the scripture in question. It's just you hand-waving.

That's completely pulled out of your ass for all the relevance it has to that scripture. It doesn't say anything about conflicts within their families, it just demands they abandon their families and follow him if they want his special spirit sauce. Your apologetics are farcical.

Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family. And obviously the Bible doesn't make much sense if you read it literally.

It isn't obvious at all that isn't what he meant, because it's what he's written as having said. Just because something in the Bible contradicts itself or doesn't make much sense doesn't mean you aren't reading it right.

Well .. I guess I'm just going to have to concede that point to you because you're right about that.

You'd have to show that to be the case, not just hand-wave and assume it's meaningful if you twist and mangle it enough with "interpretation".

It's impossible to "show that to be the case." We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.

It is possible to show the case in terms of the available evidence. What you've done is wild guessing, whereas I've gone by what's actually been said -- I've accepted the text at face value when there's no evidence of metaphor or alternate meaning. That isn't literalism.

laklak · **#84** by **laklak** » Feb 25, 2018 6:20 pm

Walking on it would be quite useful when we're on the boat. I could just carry the dog over to an island for a shit instead of messing about with the dinghy.

felltoearth · **#85** by **felltoearth** » Feb 25, 2018 6:24 pm

John Platko wrote:

His followers claim all kinds of things, like he made bread and fish pop out of nothing. One must filter what his followers say.

“One” meaning non-believers? “We” don’t have to do anything. It would be nice if the believers did some heavy lifting for once.

SafeAsMilk · **#86** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 25, 2018 6:26 pm

felltoearth wrote:
John Platko wrote:

His followers claim all kinds of things, like he made bread and fish pop out of nothing. One must filter what his followers say.

“One” meaning non-believers? “We” don’t have to do anything. It would be nice if the believers did some heavy lifting for once.

Half-assed apologetics is about as much lifting as they can manage. It's kinda like the student staying up all night coming up with excuses to tell their teacher why they didn't do their homework instead of just doing it.

John Platko · **#87** by **John Platko** » Feb 25, 2018 6:44 pm

GrahamH wrote:
John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.

Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:

John Platko wrote:

Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.

Not obvious.

Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.

Which reminds me of a parable.

One time when I was driving across the country I decided to take a break and check out the University of Notre Dame. I was wandering around the Cathedral there, a bit puzzled by a painting of Jesus and I asked the guide what it represented, He told me it was Jesus at the death of Joseph. I thought for a second and said, "I don't remember that Bible story," he smiled and said it's not from the Bible, it's from Christian tradition. And they put it right there up front in the Cathedral.

John Platko · **#88** by **John Platko** » Feb 25, 2018 6:47 pm

laklak wrote:Walking on it would be quite useful when we're on the boat. I could just carry the dog over to an island for a shit instead of messing about with the dinghy.

Well this guy appears to know how to do it:

It' be better with a dog by his side.

SafeAsMilk · **#89** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 25, 2018 6:50 pm

John Platko wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.

Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:

John Platko wrote:

Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.

Not obvious.

Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.

Yeah, because he couldn't possibly have been a complete asshole, right? :lol:

Which reminds me of a parable.

One time when I was driving across the country I decided to take a break and check out the University of Notre Dame. I was wandering around the Cathedral there, a bit puzzled by a painting of Jesus and I asked the guide what it represented, He told me it was Jesus at the death of Joseph. I thought for a second and said, "I don't remember that Bible story," he smiled and said it's not from the Bible, it's from Christian tradition. And they put it right there up front in the Cathedral.

Fortunately, Jesus being an asshole is right there in black and white in the Bible, so no need for a "parable" about Christian tradition.

John Platko · **#90** by **John Platko** » Feb 25, 2018 7:06 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.

Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:

John Platko wrote:

Obviously Jesus didn't mean that if you want to follow him you must abandon your family, he didn't abandon his family.

Not obvious.

Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.

Yeah, because he couldn't possibly have been a complete asshole, right?

That's the way Thomas Jefferson and I see it.

Which reminds me of a parable.

One time when I was driving across the country I decided to take a break and check out the University of Notre Dame. I was wandering around the Cathedral there, a bit puzzled by a painting of Jesus and I asked the guide what it represented, He told me it was Jesus at the death of Joseph. I thought for a second and said, "I don't remember that Bible story," he smiled and said it's not from the Bible, it's from Christian tradition. And they put it right there up front in the Cathedral.

Fortunately, Jesus being an asshole is right there in black and white in the Bible, so no need for a "parable" about Christian tradition.

I prefer to give him the benifit of the doubt. Perhaps he was simply misquoted.

SafeAsMilk · **#91** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 25, 2018 7:09 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
GrahamH wrote:

Right, so that is your error when you wrote this:

Not obvious.

Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.

Yeah, because he couldn't possibly have been a complete asshole, right?

That's the way Thomas Jefferson and I see it.

Well you're both guilty of assuming your preferred conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence. Not really a good way to approach much of anything.

Which reminds me of a parable.

One time when I was driving across the country I decided to take a break and check out the University of Notre Dame. I was wandering around the Cathedral there, a bit puzzled by a painting of Jesus and I asked the guide what it represented, He told me it was Jesus at the death of Joseph. I thought for a second and said, "I don't remember that Bible story," he smiled and said it's not from the Bible, it's from Christian tradition. And they put it right there up front in the Cathedral.

Fortunately, Jesus being an asshole is right there in black and white in the Bible, so no need for a "parable" about Christian tradition.

I prefer to give him the benifit of the doubt. Perhaps he was simply misquoted.

And perhaps he's quoted perfectly. You can make assumptions towards whatever conclusions you prefer, I'll go by the actual evidence, thanks.

John Platko · **#92** by **John Platko** » Feb 25, 2018 7:24 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.

Yeah, because he couldn't possibly have been a complete asshole, right?

That's the way Thomas Jefferson and I see it.

Well you're both guilty of assuming your preferred conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence. Not really a good way to approach much of anything.

What exactly does the word "complete" mean to you?

GrahamH · **#93** by **GrahamH** » Feb 25, 2018 8:01 pm

John Platko wrote:
Of course it's obvious. JC would have been a complete asshole if he meant that you must abandon your family to follow him.

Whether you consider such behaviour the mark of !a complete asshole" is irrelevant. Cult leaders do that sort of thing, say that sort of thing, and their followers still adore them.

http://www.familysurvivaltrust.org/info ... ts_operate

John Platko wrote:We can't know what JC actually had in mind 2000 years ago from the bits of error riduled information we have had passed down to us. We can only take our best guess at it. Give the ideas a go and then see what happens.

But then your have declared your bias:

John Platko wrote:
I prefer to give him the benifit of the doubt.

SafeAsMilk · **#94** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 25, 2018 8:18 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yeah, because he couldn't possibly have been a complete asshole, right?

That's the way Thomas Jefferson and I see it.

Well you're both guilty of assuming your preferred conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence. Not really a good way to approach much of anything.

What exactly does the word "complete" mean to you?

Ask yourself, you used it first. Be sure to keep its context.

John Platko · **#95** by **John Platko** » Feb 26, 2018 1:43 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

That's the way Thomas Jefferson and I see it.

Well you're both guilty of assuming your preferred conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence. Not really a good way to approach much of anything.

What exactly does the word "complete" mean to you?

Ask yourself, you used it first. Be sure to keep its context.

I'm thinking you need to be a David Koresh or a Jim Jones to be a "complete asshole". The description hardly
applies to JC. And I don't recall the nuns saying anything about us having to abandon our families to be
Christian - :nono:

. But I could imagine Koresh, Jones, and perhaps others misunderstanding such things.

SafeAsMilk · **#96** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 26, 2018 1:58 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Well you're both guilty of assuming your preferred conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence. Not really a good way to approach much of anything.

What exactly does the word "complete" mean to you?

Ask yourself, you used it first. Be sure to keep its context.

I'm thinking you need to be a David Koresh or a Jim Jones to be a "complete asshole". The description hardly
applies to JC. And I don't recall the nuns saying anything about us having to abandon our families to be
Christian - . But I could imagine Koresh, Jones, and perhaps others misunderstanding such things.

Well you said Jesus would be a complete asshole for asking people to abandon their families, and If you read the actual text instead of making up your own interpretation to suit your beliefs, that’s exactly what he did, so take it up with yourself. Jesus isn’t a nun you’ve talked to I imagine, so I assume that’s another one of your irrelevant herrings about Christian tradition. Then again your entire argument has been nothing but herrings, so that isn’t much of a surprise.

GrahamH · **#97** by **GrahamH** » Feb 26, 2018 2:10 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Well you're both guilty of assuming your preferred conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence. Not really a good way to approach much of anything.

What exactly does the word "complete" mean to you?

Ask yourself, you used it first. Be sure to keep its context.

I'm thinking you need to be a David Koresh or a Jim Jones to be a "complete asshole". The description hardly
applies to JC.

How do you know that? More rash assumptions about what was in the mind of someone two millennia ago from scant stories recalled by his adoring followers?

This guy doesn't think Koresh was "a complete asshole":

Clive Doyle, a 72-year-old Australian-Texan, still lives in Waco and still has Bible study every Saturday with another survivor, Sheila Martin. Doyle has become the Davidians' unofficial historian and spokesman. He says they are still waiting on the resurrection of Koresh.
"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."

https://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/17806347 ... ll-believe

John Platko · **#98** by **John Platko** » Feb 26, 2018 2:25 pm

GrahamH wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

What exactly does the word "complete" mean to you?

Ask yourself, you used it first. Be sure to keep its context.

I'm thinking you need to be a David Koresh or a Jim Jones to be a "complete asshole". The description hardly
applies to JC.

How do you know that?

How do I know what the word "complete" means to me in this context?
I asked myself - that's how. :lol:

More rash assumptions about what was in the mind of someone two millennia ago from scant stories recalled by his adoring followers?

Just a bit of introspection of my own mind while sipping coffee this morning.

This guy doesn't think Koresh was "a complete asshole":

Clive Doyle, a 72-year-old Australian-Texan, still lives in Waco and still has Bible study every Saturday with another survivor, Sheila Martin. Doyle has become the Davidians' unofficial historian and spokesman. He says they are still waiting on the resurrection of Koresh.
"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."

https://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/17806347 ... ll-believe

And your point is?

When I think of the contemptible ideas I was taught by the CC I can't pinpoint any of them to JC. Mostly recast ideas of Aristotle by people who rapped them in their own biases are responsbile for those is what I find.

And more on the OPs point. I'm thinking that we have limited control in how well we can actually "pinpoint" Christ. We might influence part of that quest but what we Cs call Grace plays a major role too. Non Cs might have a model that says something like: "free will can't possibly control our fate - our particles are just doing what they must."

GrahamH · **#99** by **GrahamH** » Feb 26, 2018 3:11 pm

John Platko wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
John Platko wrote:
And more on the OPs point. I'm thinking that we have limited control in how well we can actually "pinpoint" Christ.

So why do you keep making these silly assumptions about what JC must "obviously" be like? You think he could not be "a complete asshole" like Koresh for no better reason than fans of the guy think he's really nice. Well ditto with Koresh. There are followers of all sorts of religions who think harsh practices are necessary and justified to defend the faith. Whether you use the label asshole depends on your perspective and level of indoctrination. Those nuns really got to you did they?

GrahamH · **#100** by **GrahamH** » Feb 26, 2018 3:15 pm

John Platko wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Ask yourself, you used it first. Be sure to keep its context.

I'm thinking you need to be a David Koresh or a Jim Jones to be a "complete asshole". The description hardly
applies to JC.

How do you know that?

How do I know what the word "complete" means to me in this context?

No, how do you know Koresh (or any cult leader) is an asshole but JC is not? If the text describes JC saying asshole-ish things like other cult leaders say why do you selectively discount that bit of the text as "obviously not literal"?

A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Re: A philosophy on how to find The Messiah, The Christ

Who is online