- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's remarkable how far up your own posterior your own head is, so convinced of your own intellect are you.
It's remarkable how much you struggle with abstract concepts.
I find it hard to take your pretensions of intellectualism seriously when you keep talking
about "the words of Jesus while He walked the Earth" given that Jesus is most likely a
fictional character and that even if that were not true what we have are mutually contradictory
accounts by unknown third parties decades [or more] after the fact and then multiply edited
and translated by yet more unknown persons and all this from a time when people frequently
talked in terms of metaphor and analogy the context and meanings of which are often lost to
time and almost always omitted and overlooked.
In short, we have no compelling reason to suppose this person ever existed, or that if he did we
have anything resembling the meaning of what he did say.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIts remarkable how often you repeat that nonsense.
It's remarkable how much you struggle with abstract concepts.
You know we can keep this up indefinitely, but it will remain the case that you pretending that I struggle with abstract concepts will not make my questions and comments go away.
07 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudge
It's remarkable how far up your own posterior your own head is, so convinced of your own intellect are you.
I find it hard to take your pretensions of intellectualism seriously when you keep talking
about "the words of Jesus while He walked the Earth" given that Jesus is most likely a
fictional character and that even if that were not true what we ...[text shortened]... on ever existed, or that if he did we
have anything resembling the meaning of what he did say.
In short, we have no compelling reason to suppose this person ever existed, or that if he did we
have anything resembling the meaning of what he did say.
Try reading my response to GoaD on page 30. As well as the related posts prior to that.
07 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkey dokey
Its remarkable how often you repeat that nonsense.
You know we can keep this up indefinitely, but it will remain the case that you pretending that I struggle with abstract concepts will not make my questions and comments go away.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe supposed 'teachings of Christ' are not coherent, nor profound, nor true, nor the teachings of Jesus.
[b]
In short, we have no compelling reason to suppose this person ever existed, or that if he did we
have anything resembling the meaning of what he did say.
Try reading my response to GoaD on page 30. As well as the related posts prior to that.[/b]
So nothing you said on page 30 diminishes my critique.
07 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeAlso from page 30:
The supposed 'teachings of Christ' are not coherent, nor profound, nor true, nor the teachings of Jesus.
So nothing you said on page 30 diminishes my critique.
Tell you what. Reread the following:
"By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent. It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value."
Then do an extensive analysis of the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and determine the major themes and their underlying concepts with the above in mind. You can even skip Mark if you like.
Then get back to me.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 May 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't need to go 're-read' those words.
Also from page 30:
Tell you what. Reread the following:
"By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent. It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value."
Then do an extensive analysis of the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and determin ...[text shortened]... s with the above in mind. You can even skip Mark if you like.
Then get back to me.
I know that they are mutually contradictory [I've already established that] and I also know that
they are neither profound, nor of value.
As moral guides they are useless as they are arguments from authority which are useless as
a moral foundation.
And as philosophy they are superseded and bettered by just about everything that's come since.
This is not surprising as they were written by people who knew next to nothing about how the world
works, and who were deeply superstitious.
And we still haven't got to my point that back then they spoke/wrote in metaphor and analogy, the
context of which we largely do not have.
Which means that pretty much any meanings we attribute from our modern world to the translations
we happen to be working with are not the intended meanings of those that wrote them.
Which makes the whole thing an utterly pointless waste of time.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am not surprised you are not surprised.
I'm not surprised that you'd think that.
I'm glad I could help you improve your vocabulary.
I see you don't know the difference between vocabulary and spelling.
Now we're both "glad". Isn't life swell.
Yes.
And my points still stand.
07 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd here I was hoping that you'd get back to me with your list of the major themes and their underlying concepts conveyed by the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, so that you wouldn't be arguing from a place of ignorance.
I don't need to go 're-read' those words.
I know that they are mutually contradictory [I've already established that] and I also know that
they are neither profound, nor of value.
As moral guides they are useless as they are arguments from authority which are useless as
a moral foundation.
And as philosophy they are superseded and bettered b ...[text shortened]... gs of those that wrote them.
Which makes the whole thing an utterly pointless waste of time.
Carry on.