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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ineffable mystery, or summat.

GrahamH wrote:

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?

Perhaps for the same reason some people bet on the ponies: "Ghosterzapper gots to be the winner."

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.

Actually, I think you'll find many who are not especially fans of JC still think he was really nice. But comparing Koresh to JC is

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.

I use the label asshole based on the absolute scale of assholeidness. And my asshole detector is well oiled.

Those nuns really got to you did they?

Indeed. But I've been meaning to tell the folks here thanks for helping me with that and some others who "really go to me" too.

Thanks.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

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"?

JC preached peace, love, and understanding. JC was a turn the other cheek kind of guy. While Koresh was loaded for bear.

But, if you have evidence that I'm being unfair to memory of Koresh then by all means do tell us why he wasn't an asshole.

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. And he got killed because some didn't/don't want the bar raised because it's too big a leap for them. He resurrected because you can't keep a good meme down. And the trick is to forgive yourself. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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

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. I cannot stop Xians talking bollocks here, 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.

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, 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've encountered you many times over the years though, so I know for a fact that you're bright and intelligent. What you need to do now, henceforth, is to engage those qualities within this thread... or else... just do something else.

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

jamest wrote:"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."

The thing about specific things, is they have a specification.

Unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that the specification you haven't given supersedes the one in the bible which has wide recognition. I don't think it takes all that much intelligence to spot that Rumraket was responding to the OP and the generally accepted meaning of the words, does it?

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

You claim that he hasn't thought at all about the point he just made, but then you don't actually point out how he's wrong. Nobody gives a shit if you're Christian or not, it doesn't change how nonsensical the Christ persona thing is.

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

You haven't changed anything despite that last post jamest, you're still making all the same mistakes.

I sincerely don't want to be rude, John Plakto, but please understand that my philosophical understanding of 'Christ' completely undermines your religion. With respect, I ask you to retreat from defending Christ in the PHILOSOPHY forum from a religious perspective. That is, please understand that we have different hymn sheets.

Ignore this request at your peril, for I am no more repulsed by physicalism as a metaphysics as I am by the thought that my god is ontologically different/distinct to me, which you seem to believe. If you continue to gatecrash my philosophy threads, I will have to nuke 'you'. Nothing personal, of course.

jamest wrote:I sincerely don't want to be rude, John Plakto, but please understand that my philosophical understanding of 'Christ' completely undermines your religion.

It doesn't.

What undermines a position is reasoning, evidence or fact. Not a vague allusion to personal superiority.

PS: The threat of "nuking", which I take to mean the ineffectual personal abuse you generally wave around is not especially intimidating.

jamest wrote:I sincerely don't want to be rude, John Plakto, but please understand that my philosophical understanding of 'Christ' completely undermines your religion. With respect, I ask you to retreat from defending Christ in the PHILOSOPHY forum from a religious perspective. That is, please understand that we have different hymn sheets.

Well, you both seem fond of creative writing.

If you continue to gatecrash my philosophy threads, I will have to nuke 'you'. Nothing personal, of course.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:"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."

The thing about specific things, is they have a specification.

Unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that the specification you haven't given supersedes the one in the bible which has wide recognition. I don't think it takes all that much intelligence to spot that Rumraket was responding to the OP and the generally accepted meaning of the words, does it?

This thread clearly invites enquiry into what 'A Christ' might be evident by... other than miracles. I am clearly not a Xian, and geezers such as you and Rum[...] no longer have reasonable excuse for NOT taking that into consideration of my OPs in the PHILOSOPHY forum. I've basically just told a Xian who knows me much less that you [both] to [politely] fuck off for the same reason. However, I have no more reason to be polite to you [athesists] both, as this has all been explained to you [all] dozens of times over the years.

YOU have NO more excuses for NOT fucking understanding my threads/philosophy!! John P does. That's the only reason I'm being more polite to him than he deserves. If he's still talking bollocks in my philosophy threads a half-dozen years hence, as you are, then he'll get the badger treatment.

The bottom-line is that I give people a chance to prove that they're not fucking totally stupid. That is, I give people a chance to exhibit the ony trait worthy of universal praise here, which is openness.

You're a smart guy, Thommo. Smart enough to be open, eventually, certainly.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:I sincerely don't want to be rude, John Plakto, but please understand that my philosophical understanding of 'Christ' completely undermines your religion. With respect, I ask you to retreat from defending Christ in the PHILOSOPHY forum from a religious perspective. That is, please understand that we have different hymn sheets.

Well, you both seem fond of creative writing.

If you continue to gatecrash my philosophy threads, I will have to nuke 'you'. Nothing personal, of course.

You're next in-line, squire.

jamest wrote:This thread clearly invites enquiry into what 'A Christ' might be evident by... other than miracles.

That depends. If someone reads the title, subtitle, Opening Post and the few subsequent ones, it does not.

If one hangs on your every word throughout the innards of the thread, then I guess one could say it does.

My bet is that Rumraket wasn't hanging on your every word. What do you think?

jamest wrote: I am clearly not a Xian, and geezers such as you and Rum[...] no longer have reasonable excuse for NOT taking that into consideration of my OPs in the PHILOSOPHY forum.

I don't see either of us calling you a Christian. But if you want to co-opt the language of Christianity then you naturally incur the baggage of that language. Since you've done this intentionally, it's hard to think you aren't already aware of that.

jamest wrote:YOU have NO more excuses for NOT fucking understand my threads/philosophy!

I have a couple of reasons. They essentially boil down to (i) It's inconsistent between one of your posts and the next (ii) It's internally incoherent and frequently self-contradictory and (iii) You don't seem able to flesh it out in any detail when requested - as in your famous promise a year or so back that you wouldn't post until you could deliver a comprehensive manifesto that you completely failed to deliver.

jamest wrote:John P does. That's the only reason I'm being more polite to him than he deserves.

You aren't being more polite than he deserves actually. You're just clinging to the edge of not being deliberately rude, insulting and ill-mannered.

jamest wrote:Smart enough to be open, eventually, certainly.

Please stop with the personal comments. I've asked you enough times, it's just rude to keep on with it.

Thommo wrote:
Please stop with the personal comments. I've asked you enough times, it's just rude to keep on with it.

I'm going to bed soon, but spare me this bullshit at least. Over the years you have made it perfectly clear that you regard 'me' as an individual in a dim light. Though I'm not complaining, since my intentions are so profound as to utterly destroy your sense of being, not least 'my' own.

The bottom-line is that we can do this without the nastiness. The other bottom-line is that I'm the only one here trying to achieve that goal. Yeah, sure, I'm evidently guilty of scoring points too. However, I truly hate nobody here. My feelings have NEVER been engaged in anything I've ever said, except within the context of my philosophy. This is why I can be telling you to shove something frozen up your arse on the one-hand, and then honestly admit that i'd like to buy you a pint and have a chat [on the other].

I don't even know if this is a cultural deficit, on your part, but either way rest assured that I'll gladly buy you a pint regardless of how many times you call me a cunt. That's just the way it is. Which is precisely why I've survived these forums for almost two decades, I guess. I just don't do hate, other than ideas.

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

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Please stop with the personal comments. I've asked you enough times, it's just rude to keep on with it.

I'm going to bed soon, but spare me this bullshit at least. Over the years you have made it perfectly clear that you regard 'me' as an individual in a dim light.

I don't think I've ever said that.

jamest wrote:Though I'm not complaining, since my intentions are so profound as to utterly destroy your sense of being, not least 'my' own.

I don't think intentions can be profound. But you can consider my sense of being entirely unaffacted by anything you've ever said.

We seem to have a very different evaluation of the worth of your "philosophy", for me it's about as important as David Ike's Lizard theories.

jamest wrote:The bottom-line is that we can do this without the nastiness.

Great! Let's do it.

jamest wrote:The other bottom-line is that I'm the only one here trying to achieve that goal.

You're not. In fact, if we're offering our own evaluations, again mine differs substantially from your own and I think many others have frequently made much more valuable contributions to this thread and others. For example Rumraket's post we are now nominally discussing.

jamest wrote:Yeah, sure, I'm evidently guilty of scoring points too. However, I truly hate nobody here.

I don't actually care who you do or don't hate. It's not relevant to the thread.

jamest wrote:I don't even know if this is a cultural deficit, on your part, but either way rest assured that I'll gladly buy you a pint regardless of how many times you call me a cunt.

Since I've never called you a cunt I don't see the relevance. And again, I just don't care about these personal elements. I have friends and family and people to buy pints for and to have pints bought from. I'm not looking for that on Ratskep so I really, really wish you'd stop bringing it up to me.

jamest wrote:That's just the way it is. Which is precisely why I've survived these forums for almost two decades, I guess. I just don't do hate, other than ideas.

Weird use of "survived". You've been frequently banned (or so you've previously told us), so you can't mean it in a "forum health" way. But in the literal sense forums are completely benign, they don't injure or kill people. So I'm at a loss to see the value of such a boast.

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?

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'.

My aim here has always been to transform factories.

Good night to you both (Thommo too).

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!