27 May 08
Originally posted by bbarrIt's amusing that you assume ignorance in Jefferson (indisputably one of the greatest and most versatile minds of the Enlightenment) because he didn't give an full and complete explanation of all the various schools of ancient Greek philosophy in a one page letter. I'm sure you critique your colleagues' Christmas cards in the same thorough manner.
I am not being snooty, I am being skeptical for good reason. The Epicurean school is one hedonistic version of ancient Greek ethics that involves the reformulation of the notion of 'happiness as pleasure' (here meaning, roughly, 'tranquility'😉 found in the Cyrenaics, and one that is foreign to the Stoics, Socratics and to Aristotle. So, even if Jefferson did ...[text shortened]... timately ought to be compassionate or just because there are egoistic reasons for doing so?
Jefferson was classically trained (you know Latin, Greek, etc. etc.) and I have no reason to believe that the average 2100st century post-grad student had a better grounding in philosophy then he did. I could probably find articles and writings by Jefferson regarding these matters (for an imbecile he sure wrote a lot) but differences between Epicureans, Stoics, Aristotelians, etc. etc. bores me to tears, so I'll leave your feeling of intellectual superiority over Thomas Jefferson intact.
27 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI am not assuming that Jefferson is ignorant, I am giving reasons for thinking that his broad and general conclusions about ancient Greek ethics posted above are false. I am also claiming not to be sure that he understood Epicureanism, precisely because the brief summary of the view he presents leaves out essential features of the view.
It's amusing that you assume ignorance in Jefferson (indisputably one of the greatest and most versatile minds of the Enlightenment) because he didn't give an full and complete explanation of all the various schools of ancient Greek philosophy in a one page letter. I'm sure you critique your colleagues' Christmas cards in the same thorough manner.
...[text shortened]... tears, so I'll leave your feeling of intellectual superiority over Thomas Jefferson intact.
Of course, the rest of your post is mere bombast.
27 May 08
Originally posted by dizzyfingersLike I said earlier, "Actually the differences I see between much of 'Christianity' and the teachings of Jesus is at the root for the topic of this thread".
Jefferson obviously found something of value in the life and teachings of Jesus, but because he rejected the supernatural, he found much of the Bible troublesome and therefore "edited" it according to his bias, hence we have a Jefferson Bible. (Hmm, ... Christianity with no resurrection, huh? No such creature exists 🙄 Poor Tom).
27 May 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou stated that the differences you see between much of 'Christianity' and the teachings of Jesus are at the root of your reason for starting this thread. So it just seemed natural to ask if you believed that the teachings of Jesus are what 'Christianity' should be in the first place. I also believe, and I think it's fairly obvious, that they should be. Strangely enough, even some who call themselves 'Christian' don't agree.
Yes. I have to say that this is a curious question. Where are you going with this?
So, from the title of this thread and from your original post, I'd infer that you think atheists have more of a problem with Christianity as it's practiced than they do with Jesus and his teachings; is that right? I apologize if I'm sounding like a lawyer trying to cross-examine you LOL Feel free to respond in kind, if you'd like 🙂
27 May 08
Originally posted by JirakonWhat possibility could be worse than an 'eternal, excruciating punishment'?
However, Jesus was apparently OK with continuing to use this scare tactic
Telling his followers about the reality of hell is not a scare tactic; it's just reality. In the context of the verse you mentioned, He was trying to show His disciples the way they should respond to persecution. If they truly believe that accepting Christ allows them to ente ...[text shortened]... because He can destroy our souls," but rather, "We love Him because He first loved us."
How can you possibly claim that God is 'loving' if he sentences people that he created to such a fate? It's absurd.
[The verse says fear Him - capitalized - it refers to God.]
27 May 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe context just makes God sound like a madman, threatening hell in one breadth and lovingly numbering hairs in the next. Sorry, but I don't seem to have the true believer's ability to gloss over, or ignore, the unsavory parts of scripture.
If you put this into context, it's not necessarily as heavy handed as you might suppose.
"4 And I say to you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, which after he has killed has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, Fear him. 6 Ar ...[text shortened]... live lives based in fear rather love. Even at that, he tells them they have nothing to fear.
27 May 08
Originally posted by dizzyfingersThey certainly seem to and not without reason.
You stated that the differences you see between much of 'Christianity' and the teachings of Jesus are at the root of your reason for starting this thread. So it just seemed natural to ask if you believed that the teachings of Jesus are what 'Christianity' should be in the first place. I also believe, and I think it's fairly obvious, that they should be. ...[text shortened]... yer trying to cross-examine you LOL Feel free to respond in kind, if you'd like 🙂