Originally posted by FMFI am curious FMF, when you were a Christian, how did you view Jesus? As God, or son of God?
I don't see why. All we know about him comes from what followers who'd never met him wrote about him in the decades and centuries after his death. In so far as this is a 'historical record', it is what it is, as they say. And the rest is history, as they also say. If you need as a starting point a situation where perceptions of what or who Jesus was need "to be ...[text shortened]... u recognize this, what is the point of repeatedly demanding that there be such a starting point?
I don't think I have asked you this before, and have no motive behind the question. Just curious, if you choose to answer.
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3If I were still a Christian, I'd answer your question. But I am no longer a Christian, so I don't see what me picking over what I used to believe in decades past has to do with you finding your "starting point". I believe Jesus was a radical or maverick Jewish rabbi and that he was executed by the Romans for sedition. A cult of personality that probably started during his lifetime developed into a religion that broke away from Judaism after his death. I would have thought that would be an 'identity of Jesus' that everyone could agree on, but, as you know, it's not, because some people question the historicity of Jesus and even whether he existed at all.
I am curious FMF, when you were a Christian, how did you view Jesus? As God, or son of God?
I don't think I have asked you this before, and have no motive behind the question. Just curious, if you choose to answer.
Originally posted by FMF"I believe Jesus was.." blah blah blah.
If I were still a Christian, I'd answer your question. But I am no longer a Christian, so I don't see what me picking over what I used to believe in decades past has to do with you finding your "starting point". I believe Jesus was a radical or maverick Jewish rabbi and that he was executed by the Romans for sedition. A cult of personality that probably started ...[text shortened]... s not, because some people question the historicity of Jesus and even whether he existed at all.
You don't know what to believe, period. And even if you did you wouldn't.
Originally posted by chaney3You're full of hot air chaney.
RBHILL just started a new thread, armenianism, which sums up my point that there is something fundamentally wrong with not having the truth regarding the identity of Jesus. And different Christians and Catholics having differing views of Jesus seems wrong to me.
Originally posted by chaney3 to josephwI don't think josephw comes to this debate and discussion message board in order to demonstrate "curiosity".
Why? Because I am pointing out glaring identity problems that exist all through Christianity regarding Jesus?
Is Jesus God? And if so, don't you find it curious that Christians disagree on this?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOnce again you when you can't refute some factual information or can't tell me why I haven't answered his question you go on and squeal about it not being my original thoughts. How peculiar. Well, well. What a strange incident.
Someone asks you, a Christian, on a Spirituality Forum, who you think Jesus is, and you go off to some blog on the internet, copy somebody else's words, and you paste them here. How peculiar. And to top it all off, do you really think these words that somebody else wrote answer chaney3's question properly? Well, well. What a strange incident,
Originally posted by FMFYou are still ignoring the fact that if there is no objective standard for right and wrong, you cannot know whether or not your subjective opinions about what is right and wrong are in fact right or wrong. This is something that you have been blanking out all along. You are in denial.
You think that people being guided by their moral sensibilities to try and figure out the right thing to do in given situations is analogous to finding the answer to a maths problem. I believe this is more or less a case of reductio ad absurdum on your part, and if you've actually read and understood what I have been saying in my posts directed at you, you will know why..
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIf they have the same moral stances as me then they should adhere to those moral stances for the same reason as I adhere to my moral stances. Ultimately though, I am responsible for my own moral behaviour and not theirs.
[b]1. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then why should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
If they have the same moral stances as me then they should adhere to those moral stances for the same reason as I adhere to my moral stances. Ultimately though, I am ...[text shortened]... ame things over and over and over again and ignoring what my stance is doesn't achieve anything.[/b]
But if they don't have the same moral stance as you, how can you know that your stance is right and their stance is wrong if there is no objective standard of right and wrong?
I've have already covered this.
No you haven't. You have never told me how you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong. Because you can't. And you won't admit it.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have been addressing this head on ~ and the general topic of how you attach certain aggrandizing terminology to your moral stances ~ in literally dozens of my posts on this thread but you have been simply ignoring it.
You are still ignoring the fact that if there is no objective standard for right and wrong, you cannot know whether or not your subjective opinions about what is right and wrong are in fact right or wrong.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have explained countless times exactly what is the source of my sense of right and wrong and how it guides my attempts to make morally sound decisions as I live my life.
You have never told me how you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong.
Fetchmyjunk, you set up a scenario, ostensibly about "genocide", specifically about dealing with ISIS and I responded immediately but you just seemed to drop it without a further word, as you did with the scenario about rape, which I also tackled head on. Am I to assume that you have just decided to blank out these attempts by me to engage what you are saying?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt would never occur to me to copy paste someone else's words to answer a question about a core belief like you did, especially when you were willing to do so in less than 100 words. If me saying this sounds like a "squeal" to your ears and you feel the need to pretend that my comment was somehow in lieu of refuting "factual information", it may say more about the understandable discomfort you feel at being called out for doing such an odd thing than it does about the validity of my observation.
Once again you when you can't refute some factual information or can't tell me why I haven't answered his question you go on and squeal about it not being my original thoughts. How peculiar. Well, well. What a strange incident.
Originally posted by FMFThe words 'objective' and 'subjective' are commonly used in a discussion of ethics. You calling them 'aggrandizing' is merely your coping mechanism to blank them out.
I have been addressing this head on ~ and the general topic of how you attach certain aggrandizing terminology to your moral stances ~ in literally dozens of my posts on this thread but you have been simply ignoring it.