-Removed-You cannot quote me writing "aliens on other planets".
You could probably quote me saying that my expression "other worlds" (however that should be taken) was speculation I was quite willing to set aside.
Apparently, me using the phrase "other worlds" was just too good for you to set aside.
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm not asking you for party tricks. You were talking ethics and morality.
You posted: "You have no example of an ethicist in history
with as powerful an impression on the moral conscience of
mankind as Jesus Christ."
I asked you to justify this by citing a piece of
morality from JC that was not known of before his time.
Can you do that?
The one who is far more known around here for cleverness and tricky trollish comments is you. I think I am more regarded as offering serious discussion, albeit to be disagreed with by a few.
So let's see what tricks you're up to.
1.) The first trick is that you eliminated works of Christ arbitrarily. Your first filter was against the miraculous. You did not specify that the act could not be miraculous.
So next time you pose this question about Jesus Christ specify that nothing miraculous will be considered.
So now that you have moved that goal post, what's your next trick?
2.) Your next trick, I bet, is to point out any particular non-miraculous act of Jesus focusing on morality, could be found in some form by some other human being. Since He was a typical man (excluding as you wish, the signs of divinity) acts done by Him surely could find some correspondence in history as from some other man.
So, if I mention that Jesus comforted and released a woman about to be stoned for adultery, conceivably another example of something similar you could locate as being done by someone else.
And the game continues. Each occurrence of a non-miraculous act of high morality, you get busy comparing with something some other ethical person did.
This is not a game I find impressive because it misses the point. The accumulated effect of one Person having displayed such consistency of behavior is the point. It is not the point that we can find 100 other people, each who may have said or done at least something that reminds us of Jesus.
So put your party trick away. I am not interested in you proving that in the acts of a normal typical man parallels could be found in many many other typical men.
It is the accumulative effect many acts within three and one half years of living of ONE Jesus of Nazareth that is singularly unique in human history.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipYou were asked to show just one piece of morality from Jesus and you mentioned an occasion where he healed a man's blindness who was born blind. Are you suggesting that a supposed miracle performed on one person is an example of "morality"?
So next time you pose this question about Jesus Christ specify that nothing miraculous will be considered. So now that you have moved that goal post, what's your next trick?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipWhy didn't he condemn the law calling for her to be stoned for adultery as an immoral law?
So, if I mention that Jesus comforted and released a woman about to be stoned for adultery, conceivably another example of something similar you could locate as being done by someone else.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF
You were asked to show just one piece of morality from Jesus and you mentioned an occasion where he healed a man's blindness who was born blind. Are you suggesting that a supposed miracle performed on one person is an example of "morality"?
You were asked to show just one piece of morality from Jesus and you mentioned an occasion where he healed a man's blindness who was born blind. Are you suggesting that a supposed miracle performed on one person is an example of "morality"?
Are you denying that recovering a man's ability to see was a good thing to do ?
And this man was blind from birth. If a medical doctor did so, would you not consider that an act of high morality ? His or her oath is to do good and not harm. The Hypocratic oath -
It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It requires a new physician to swear, upon a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Of historic and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine in many countries, although nowadays the modernized version of the text varies among them.
Focus on "uphold specific ethical standards".
Most people have no problem, I think, noticing that recovering a man's ability to see was a good act.
Originally posted by sonshipIf he had the power to cure blindness why did he only cure that man's blindness and not cure everyone with that affliction? Curing only one blind person when in fact he has the power to cure all blindness is more akin to a "party trick", as wolfgang59 put it, than an example of impressive morality. Withholding the ability to relieve the suffering of the blind seems, indeed, to smack of a lack of immorality.
Are you denying that recovering a man's ability to see was a good thing to do ?
Originally posted by FMF
If he had the power to cure blindness why did he only cure that man's blindness and not cure everyone with that affliction? Curing only one blind person when in fact he has the power to cure all blindness is more akin to a "party trick", as wolfgang59 put it, than an example of impressive morality. Withholding the ability to relieve the suffering of the blind seems, indeed, to smack of a lack of immorality.
If he had the power to cure blindness why did he only cure that man's blindness and not cure everyone with that affliction?
That could be a fair question. Although it easy carries the flavor of "I just HAVE to find SOMETHING wrong with Jesus Christ."
It is true that many other people in Judea probably remained physically blind. The physical healing of blindness is important. But there is something more important - the seeing of God for who He is and who we are in relation to God.
This is why the act of physical blindness and its healing in that chapter is used by Jesus to point to a deeper need of "seeing" in human beings.
"And Jesus said, For judgment I have come into the world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.
Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, We are not blind also, are we?
Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would not have sin; but now that you say, We see; your sin remains." (John 9:39-41)
It appears the good act of restoring a blind man's sight was backdrop upon Jesus teaching of the blindness of self righteousness, self trust over trust in God, self sufficiency over dependence upon God, and the blindness of pride.
So it is true that He did not heal EVERY case of blindness at that time, He used the good act to make a deeper point addressing deeper inability to "see" the truth of God and life.
Having said that, I would aid that mass healing of physical ailments is promised in the coming millennial kingdom. At that time there will be MASS healing of mankind by the sons of God.
Curing only one blind person when in fact he has the power to cure all blindness is more akin to a "party trick", as wolfgang59 put it, than an example of impressive morality.
What wolfgang59 calls a "party trick" is what the Gospel of John calls a "sign" - meaning a physical act which points to more profound issues of man's alienation from God.
IE. The turning of water into wine was a "SIGN" done by Jesus.
"This beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him." (John 2:11)
Probably, the sign, the "beginning of signs" or first sign done by Jesus in this Gospel underlines John's prologue that in Jesus was life. Or that Jesus turns man's death into life.
People stuck with a comic book mentality or who have gorged themselves on too many SyFy forms of entertainment might pick up the Gospel of John and only see "party tricks" of Jesus.
One can only feel sorry for such readers.
Withholding the ability to relieve the suffering of the blind seems, indeed, to smack of a lack of immorality.
You may not know that Fanny Crosby was blinded by a malpractice medical operation. Fanny Crosby lost her sight to a bad medical practice. This woman never complained about it. Rather she authored over 9,000 Christian hymns which have supplied consulation, faith, and hope to millions of people.
Fanny Crosby will receive her sight in the resurrection, in the millennial kingdom probably, and in eternity. The inner eyes of thousands have been enlightened through one or many of the over 9,000 Christian hymns she wrote during her lifetime.
It is too superficial of you to not see that there are inner needs of the soul, the spirit, the mind, the conscience, which in need healing from God.
It is very shallow to not see hurt and damage of the soul needs attention from God as well as physical ailments. And often their discomfort is greater.
Originally posted by sonshipWhat was the moral purpose of withholding the cure from blind people?If he had the power to cure blindness why did he only cure that man's blindness and not cure everyone with that affliction?
That could be a fair question. Although it easy carries the flavor of "I just HAVE to find SOMETHING wrong with Jesus Christ."
It is true that many other people in Judea probably remained physically blind. The ...[text shortened]... ul needs attention from God as well as physical ailments. And often their discomfort is greater.
Originally posted by sonshipGood acts were done before JC.You were asked to show just one piece of morality from Jesus and you mentioned an occasion where he healed a man's blindness who was born blind. Are you suggesting that a supposed miracle performed on one person is an example of "morality"?
Are you denying that recovering a man's ability to see was a good thing to do ?
And this man ...[text shortened]... people have no problem, I think, noticing that recovering a man's ability to see was a good act.
(We can argue whether or not miracles happened another time.).
I'm asking you to substantiate your bold claim regarding JC
giving us (the world) a new morality and standards of ethics.
I don't think you can.
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59
Good acts were done before JC.
Of course they were. Even in the Bible itself many persons acted as kinds of pointers to the Son of God to come.
Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha and all the positive figures of the Old Testament foreshadowed Jesus Christ.
And in history outside of the Old Testament history, thank God, many men and women before Jesus taught and performed virtuous acts.
(We can argue whether or not miracles happened another time.).
I'm asking you to substantiate your bold claim regarding JC
giving us (the world) a new morality and standards of ethics.
I don't think you can.
Perhaps you are biased against Christ. You don't even seem to muster up enough respect to speak of Him as Jesus Christ but instead want to use the slangish initials "JC".
Is there any reason why I should expect you to believe you would admit the moral impact of Jesus on human culture ? Sounds to me like you're busy digging in your heels to trivialize His life and importance.
3 edits
What was the moral purpose of withholding the cure from blind people?
I am not here to entertain you.
IE. "Jump through this hoop. Now jump through this hoop."
If you need a toy go stop by Toys-R-Us and pick yourself up a toy.
I ask the question because I find you incoherent on "morality" for the most part.
John chapter 9 recalls a unique act of Jesus with a unique message embodied within it. If you find its goodness incoherent that suggests more about you than anything else. I don't have a problem seeing a Divine / Human lesson on morality here.
The reason the healed man was kicked out of the Jewish synagogue was because what Jesus had done was too convicting to them. They had to remove from them all evidence of His goodness, His authority and power.
This is much like what you are occupied with - nullifying and removing the effect of Jesus as far from you as possible, with warped reasonings.
IE. "He didn't heal every blind person in the world that day. So what He did was not that morally significant."
Originally posted by sonshipYour delusions of grandeur are matched only by Gramps!
I think I am more regarded as offering serious discussion, albeit to be disagreed with by a few.
Your posts are mainly nonsense to theists and atheists alike.
The reason?
Because you make claims which you cannot substantiate in discussion.
That is why you get called out so many times.
This latest mockery of a debate is ridiculous! You may as well claim that
my eye-surgeon was a moral man! And as happy as I am with my lasered
vision, I know nothing about the man's morality - do I?