Moderator: Dan~
iambiguous wrote:How about this: When he returns, we'll ask him.
Greatest I am wrote:iambiguous wrote:How about this: When he returns, we'll ask him.
We will wait forever.
Regards
DL
felix dakat wrote:Based on historical analysis of the New Testament texts, it's doubtful that Jesus considered himself to be God.
iambiguous wrote:felix dakat wrote:Based on historical analysis of the New Testament texts, it's doubtful that Jesus considered himself to be God.
This can get tricky: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/300246095
In other words, even among those "deep thinkers" who take things like this seriously.
Me, I still need actual hard evidence that God -- any God -- does in fact exist. After all, how on earth could that not be both the starting point and the bottom line for quandaries such as this?
felix dakat wrote:iambiguous wrote:felix dakat wrote:Based on historical analysis of the New Testament texts, it's doubtful that Jesus considered himself to be God.
This can get tricky: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/300246095
In other words, even among those "deep thinkers" who take things like this seriously.
Me, I still need actual hard evidence that God -- any God -- does in fact exist. After all, how on earth could that not be both the starting point and the bottom line for quandaries such as this?
From the interview you linked:
EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God.
That completely supports what I said above.
Me, I still need actual hard evidence that God -- any God -- does in fact exist. After all, how on earth could that not be both the starting point and the bottom line for quandaries such as this?
iambiguous wrote:
Okay, but there's still this part:Me, I still need actual hard evidence that God -- any God -- does in fact exist. After all, how on earth could that not be both the starting point and the bottom line for quandaries such as this?
felix dakat wrote:Based on historical analysis of the New Testament texts, it's doubtful that Jesus considered himself to be God.
felix dakat wrote:iambiguous wrote:
Okay, but there's still this part:Me, I still need actual hard evidence that God -- any God -- does in fact exist. After all, how on earth could that not be both the starting point and the bottom line for quandaries such as this?
"God"...what does that even mean?
iambiguous wrote:felix dakat wrote:[
Indeed. That's the part I construe as being embedded/embodied existentially in dasein.
But here's the thing. With both morality on this side of the grave, and immortality on the other side at stake, wouldn't it seem reasonable to expect that the Christian God would make it abundantly clear what it does mean to worship and adore Him?
True, I don't know if, on Judgment Day, Christians damn well better know if Jesus Christ was aware of being Yahweh, but, well, how do we determine if it is important that they do?
Greatest I am wrote:
If Christians put Jesus above Yahweh, which they have done, they break the first commandment.
Christians deny that, but you will note, that churches are full of Jesus iconography and very little of Yahweh.
Regards
DL
iambiguous wrote:
Indeed. That's the part I construe as being embedded/embodied existentially in dasein.
But here's the thing. With both morality on this side of the grave, and immortality on the other side at stake, wouldn't it seem reasonable to expect that the Christian God would make it abundantly clear what it does mean to worship and adore Him?
True, I don't know if, on Judgment Day, Christians damn well better know if Jesus Christ was aware of being Yahweh, but, well, how do we determine if it is important that they do?
iambiguous wrote:Greatest I am wrote:
If Christians put Jesus above Yahweh, which they have done, they break the first commandment.
Christians deny that, but you will note, that churches are full of Jesus iconography and very little of Yahweh.
Regards
DL
Let's just say that until someone is able to convince me that Jesus and Yahweh actually did/do exist -- and I once believed that they did/do -- it really doesn't matter much what others think their relationship was.
But that's just me.
Here and now.
iambiguous wrote:Greatest I am wrote:
If Christians put Jesus above Yahweh, which they have done, they break the first commandment.
Christians deny that, but you will note, that churches are full of Jesus iconography and very little of Yahweh.
Regards
DL
Let's just say that until someone is able to convince me that Jesus and Yahweh actually did/do exist -- and I once believed that they did/do -- it really doesn't matter much what others think their relationship was.
But that's just me.
Here and now.
felix dakat wrote:
Yeah it's good that you qualified that your response is just about you. Because for billions of people in the world Jesus has important historic and symbolic significance regardless of whether there is such a being as whatever you conceive God to be. The problem is while you say that your stupid evaluation of the situation is just about you, here you are trying to promote your way of seeing things on a philosophical forum. You don't see that you contradict yourself every time you do that. The problem is with other people from your narcissistic point of view. Here's a suggestion: don't keep it up.
felix dakat wrote:Because for billions of people in the world Jesus has important historic and symbolic significance regardless of whether there is such a being as whatever you conceive God to be.
felix dakat wrote:The problem is while you say that your stupid evaluation of the situation is just about you, here you are trying to promote your way of seeing things on a philosophical forum. You don't see that you contradict yourself every time you do that. The problem is with other people from your narcissistic point of view. Here's a suggestion: don't keep it up.
iambiguous wrote:felix dakat wrote:
Yeah it's good that you qualified that your response is just about you. Because for billions of people in the world Jesus has important historic and symbolic significance regardless of whether there is such a being as whatever you conceive God to be. The problem is while you say that your stupid evaluation of the situation is just about you, here you are trying to promote your way of seeing things on a philosophical forum. You don't see that you contradict yourself every time you do that. The problem is with other people from your narcissistic point of view. Here's a suggestion: don't keep it up.
I always do. In regard to value judgments [re the OP and others] I construe my point of view as an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein. Then I ask objectivists of various ilk to note how that is not the case with them.
Instead...felix dakat wrote:Because for billions of people in the world Jesus has important historic and symbolic significance regardless of whether there is such a being as whatever you conceive God to be.
As with my own frame of mind, however, I am not interested in what others believe "in their head" is true about Jesus and God, I'm interested in what either "I" or they can demonstrate is in fact true about them. As this relates to the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave as that relates to what we anticipate our fate to be on the other side.
You know, the part that you and your ilk avoid like the covid-19.felix dakat wrote:The problem is while you say that your stupid evaluation of the situation is just about you, here you are trying to promote your way of seeing things on a philosophical forum. You don't see that you contradict yourself every time you do that. The problem is with other people from your narcissistic point of view. Here's a suggestion: don't keep it up.
Again, let's focus in on the assessments of a particular context involving conflicting religious denominations. I can convey my evaluation of it and you can point out in much greater detail how and why it is "stupid". How I "contradict" myself here in a philosophy forum. Why I am a "narcissist" in providing my own assessment.
While I point out a few things about you.
Note to others:
Shame him into actually taking me up on this.
Again, let's focus in on the assessments of a particular context involving conflicting religious denominations. I can convey my evaluation of it and you can point out in much greater detail how and why it is "stupid". How I "contradict" myself here in a philosophy forum. Why I am a "narcissist" in providing my own assessment.
While I point out a few things about you.
felix dakat wrote:Right. You're not interested in the phenomenal world. You're only interested in a narrow little debunking agenda based on a paper thin set of assumptions you took away from your failed superficial understanding of religion. You don't profit from reason from any other point of view despite the attempts of many well-meaning intelligent persons on this website. I say this for the benefit of others. You have repeatedly demonstrated that dialogue with you is a waste of time.
iambiguous wrote:Again, let's focus in on the assessments of a particular context involving conflicting religious denominations. I can convey my evaluation of it and you can point out in much greater detail how and why it is "stupid". How I "contradict" myself here in a philosophy forum. Why I am a "narcissist" in providing my own assessment.
While I point out a few things about you.felix dakat wrote:Right. You're not interested in the phenomenal world. You're only interested in a narrow little debunking agenda based on a paper thin set of assumptions you took away from your failed superficial understanding of religion. You don't profit from reason from any other point of view despite the attempts of many well-meaning intelligent persons on this website. I say this for the benefit of others. You have repeatedly demonstrated that dialogue with you is a waste of time.
Note to others:
Can you fucking believe this?!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
![]()
What on earth does it have to do with my challenge above?
I doubt even KT would defend it. And he's Curly now.
felix dakat wrote:What do you imagine I'm wiggling from?
Again, let's focus in on the assessments of a particular context involving conflicting religious denominations. I can convey my evaluation of it and you can point out in much greater detail how and why it is "stupid". How I "contradict" myself here in a philosophy forum. Why I am a "narcissist" in providing my own assessment.
felix dakat wrote:You are an infection I have overcome.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users