Originally posted by FreakyKBHNice strawman. Of course, your characterization of my argument does not even
[b]The accomplishments of the individual,
or the ball the individual got rolling.
Utililzing such an inane line of thought, you could make the argument that Jesus had little or no influence on the world.
Books written? None, although He did write something in the dirt, once.
Travels? None.
Followers in His lifetime? Nothing to write home about, ding to Nemesio, Jesus had no impact on the world.
Brilliant use of debate tactics 🙄.[/b]
come close to what I said. And, you can't help the little ad hominem at the
end. You really should try to tone it down a bit.
If your criteria need adjusting, then feel free. You're the one who stated them.
You seem to want to credit Abram for the accomplishments of all the Jewish people.
But you do not seem to want to credit Charlemagne for all the reforms that ultimately
defined the modern Church.
What gives?
Abram did not impact the Jews nearly as much as Moses did. Abra(ha)m did little
teaching and little influencing. His role in shaping the Jewish people is more as a
figurehead -- like say Adam -- than in an active way. I would say that Moses is a
much more important figure in Judaism, since his teachings and leadership have a
direct and visible effect on practicing Jews.
Just like Charlemagne had on the modern Church.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf your criteria need adjusting, then feel free. You're the one who stated them.
The criterion were suggested by me as a launching point. They were made with the assertion that, after Jesus Christ, Abraham has had more impact on the world than any other person. This position is supported by the consequential acts of those who have come after him.
You seem to want to credit Abram for the accomplishments of all the Jewish people.
I never claimed Abraham was the one achieving. I did claim the Jews, the Muslims, the Christians, would never have existed, had it not been for Abraham crossing over the river, and receiving the promises of God.
Moses is a much more important figure in Judaism
Father Abraham. Is there anything else to say? Not taking anything away from Moses, David, or any other figure from the ages prior to the appearance of Jesus, but: father Abraham.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The criterion were suggested by me as a launching point. They were made with the assertion that, after Jesus Christ, Abraham has had more impact on the world than any other person. This position is supported by the consequential acts of those who have come after him.
And, obviously, they are flawed because you don't like the application of them as it
pertains to Jesus. I'll ask again: would you like to revise your criteria?
I never claimed Abraham was the one achieving. I did claim the Jews, the Muslims, the Christians, would never have existed, had it not been for Abraham crossing over the river, and receiving the promises of God.
So, Abraham's 'big' role was crossing a river. So, fine, he was a catalyst for future things.
Fine. But without Abraham's father, the Jews, Muslims, and Christians would never have
existed either. And so on, and so on. Your model is ridiculous. By that standard, Adam is
the greatest of all people, because without him, no one would have existed.
Do you see how silly your argument is?
Now, if we want to talk about the impact that individuals actively had, then obviously
neither Adam nor Abraham were all that significant.
Father Abraham. Is there anything else to say? Not taking anything away from Moses, David, or any other figure from the ages prior to the appearance of Jesus, but: father Abraham.
This isn't an argument, as you well know. And, as I'm sure you also know, the Jews regard
(and have regarded) Moses as the most important figure in Judiasm. So, while they might
call Abraham 'Father Abraham,' this doesn't entail (as is borne out in fact) that they hold him
in higher regard.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioBy that standard, Adam is the greatest of all people, because without him, no one would have existed.
Although Adam was the first, he was the first of all, including the Jews. Being first, there is no division, as far as man is concerned.
Abraham, however, was the first Jew. He was Gentile the majority of his life, and then, suddenly, became a Jew.
He was the father of the youngest of all racial distinctions, and as such, is considered the starting point of the most unusual group of people on the planet.
From him, decendants of another of his offspring trace their roots, another high-profile group of people.
Progressing from him, further divisions occured, and eventually, the key and pivotal Person of the entire human history sprang.
Western civilization would not have occured without the spiritual and/or racial progeny of Abraham, the whole of which is greater than the sum of its parts. Part of which, includes great people along the way, including Charlie and other drivers in history.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Although Adam was the first, he was the first of all, including the Jews. Being first, there is no division, as far as man is concerned.
Abraham, however, was the first Jew. He was Gentile the majority of his life, and then, suddenly, became a Jew.
So being the first 'something' makes you great?
He was the father of the youngest of all racial distinctions, and as such, is considered the starting point of the most unusual group of people on the planet.
What are the other racial distinctions with which you are comparing Jews? What makes
Jews the most unusual?
From him, decendants of another of his offspring trace their roots, another high-profile group of people.
Progressing from him, further divisions occured, and eventually, the key and pivotal Person of the entire human history sprang.
Western civilization would not have occured without the spiritual and/or racial progeny of Abraham, the whole of which is greater than the sum of its parts. Part of which, includes great people along the way, including Charlie and other drivers in history.
You keep repeating yourself. Yes, without Abraham's crossing the river, Western Civilization
never would have occured. But neither without Aristotle, or Pope Gregory the Great.
Stop repeating yourself and define the characteristics by which you judge Abraham to
be the greatest figure after Jesus. It can't be that he's the first Jew. because then Abraham's
father would be greater, because he would be the 'Father of the First Jew' and so on. You
can't pile all of Western Civilization on the people who influenced it from a distance, because,
as I said earlier, then the greatest of all would Adam, who was the first of the first of the first.
Give a clearly delineated definition, or stop posturing.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI find that one of life's greatest wonders is that people with the sort of thought processes exhibited in posts such as this actually survive in adulthood.
[b]By that standard, Adam is the greatest of all people, because without him, no one would have existed.
Although Adam was the first, he was the first of all, including the Jews. Being first, there is no division, as far as man is concerned.
Abraham, however, was the first Jew. He was Gentile the majority of his life, and then, suddenly, became a J ...[text shortened]... t of which, includes great people along the way, including Charlie and other drivers in history.[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioGive a clearly delineated definition, or stop posturing.
Your evasive semantics are as superficial as they are transparent. By your scale of values--- clearly and repeatedly applied on this issue now several times--- Charlemagne, Aristotle, et al., have all had more impact on Western civilization than Christ Himself. Hell, for that matter, why not throw in Bill Gates?
Using your counterargument (and that's a stretch), Charlie's father, Ari's father, and Greg's father, are to be credited more than their offspring.
Why not start with the person who purposed the beginning acts of the movement, instead of players along the way, as is done in the field of history? Did Abraham see the unfolding of all that has transpired since his receipt of the promises of God? Clearly not, as only two of them had short-term application, i.e., his lifetime.
The distinction between Abraham and anyone else of his day, including his father, begins with his departure from Chaldea, and accepting God's promises.
In history, people become notable (among other distinctions) for their departures. People who have followed in the footsteps and furthered the movement are simply continuing on the path, not trailblazers themselves. While their accomplishments outpace the seemingly insignificant steps taken to begin the movement, historical perspective of the movement recognizes its author more than its contributors, however great the intrinsic value of the contributions.
The beginning post on this subject spoke of these beginnings and how much impact one man, Abraham, has had on the world because of his faith. One act of faith, followed by his descendants, has led to where we sit today.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Give a clearly delineated definition, or stop posturing.
Your evasive semantics are as superficial as they are transparent. By your scale of values--- clearly and repeatedly applied on this issue now several times--- Charlemagne, Aristotle, et al., have all had more impact on Western civilization than Christ Himself. Hell, for that matter, why not throw in Bill Gates?[/b]
Please recall that it was YOU who set up the criteria, not me. It is your scale of values
that were iterated, not mine. It is in the application of that scale that leads to the absurdities
that I am observing.
So, I'll ask a third (?) time, would you like to revise your values so that we might examine your
claim that Abraham was the second-most important person in the history of time?
Using your counterargument (and that's a stretch), Charlie's father, Ari's father, and Greg's father, are to be credited more than their offspring.
LOL! It's not a counterargument! It's the application of your own argument! You keep saying
Abraham was great because he was the first Jew and without him, all these wonderful things that
is our civilization never would have happened. I have simply observed that this argument is
specious for the very reason above. It's not about being 'first' that makes a person great.
It is about the impact that a person directly has in changing the currents of society. Moses, by
that standard, far outranks Abraham (as is supported by modern and historical Judiasm).
Why not start with the person who purposed the beginning acts of the movement, instead of players along the way, as is done in the field of history? Did Abraham see the unfolding of all that has transpired since his receipt of the promises of God? Clearly not, as only two of them had short-term application, i.e., his lifetime.
'Purposed' the beginning acts? I'm not sure what you mean. In the case of Charlemagne, Pippin
(his father) was critical in paving the way for the former's accomplishments. Of this there is no
historical doubt. However, Pippin only set the stage: Charlemagne was the actor. Was Pippin
great? Sure! But his role was (by metaphor) of St John the Baptist: he paved the royal highway,
but he didn't walk across it. Similarly, Abraham was a great individual, but his accomplishments
pale in comparison with those of Moses or even Elijah.
Sure, he was first, but he only set the stage. Moses (and others) were the major players in what
unfolded into Jewish tradition.
The distinction between Abraham and anyone else of his day, including his father, begins with his departure from Chaldea, and accepting God's promises.
Absolutely. Abraham's father wasn't great. He was just another of anonymous people who
did very little of historical note. Abraham was great. He took the first step. Fine. We
can agree on this. However, being 'first' doesn't mean anything without accomplishment. Abraham's
accomplishments were just simply that: he was first.
In history, people become notable (among other distinctions) for their departures. People who have followed in the footsteps and furthered the movement are simply continuing on the path, not trailblazers themselves. While their accomplishments outpace the seemingly insignificant steps taken to begin the movement, historical perspective of the movement recognizes its author more than its contributors, however great the intrinsic value of the contributions.
Naturally. Abraham departed from the norm. Good for Father Abraham! But, Moses departed
that much more. Yes, Moses couldn't have existed without Abraham, but neither could
Abraham existed without his dad, and so on. It's not about simply departing from the norm, it is
the manner in which you depart. Abraham's departure was extraordinary, but Moses's was visionary.
The beginning post on this subject spoke of these beginnings and how much impact one man, Abraham, has had on the world because of his faith. One act of faith, followed by his descendants, has led to where we sit today.
Abraham's impact was negligable compared with Moses's. Abraham did, indeed, take a 'leap of
faith.' But his role in the actually shaping of the world is far smaller than Moses's, whose vision
and leadership immediately, dramatically, profoundly, and indisputably changed the shape of his
people and their future.
Nemesio