|
V. Illych L. posted:yo sinnlos are you done with your sect-posting in the chat thread I have a half done Lutheran one and an almost finished St. Gertrude the Great post. I spent my actual free time on CK2 when I should have been writing.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Judas Iscariot was paid off by the Sanhedrin to betray Jesus. Only according to a collection of storybooks that you like. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that he was executed simply for taking over John the Baptist's doomsday cult, after JtB made himself unpopular with the local king and got executed for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Trent posted:Thank you Jesus! I've been getting increasingly irritated as I read down the thread and no one said this. Multiple studies have shown that exposure to more different looking people during early childhood makes babies comfortable with more diverse people. Note why would a helpless infant have a drive to fear strangers and cry out when they are picked up by people that don't look like those they trust? Whelp, humans are racist everyone kill yourself. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:So when do humans naturally and instinctively discard with preferring the familiar (those of the same race) then? When they have regular positive exposure to members of other races? I mean, come on, babies go through a period where they are loving terrified of everyone who is not their parents. Most of them naturally overcome their aversion to loud noises, fear of animals, fear of machines, etc. and stuff as well (despite preferring their parents to all of these things as babies). "Exposure" is pretty much the normal method for overcoming fear of the benign but unfamiliar, a common baby emotion. Hell, it even works for overcoming fear of the hostile but unfamiliar, which is why people tend to be so much more afraid of rare dangers than common ones. Actually, why don't you provide some evidence of inherent racism and post some studies about children raised by parents with different skin colors, because I'm not even sure I'm convinced. Did they end up preferring their own race or their parent's race? Encompassing aversion to the unfamiliar isn't really racism, even if it can have racist outcomes, and it is definitely something babies naturally start to grow out of in somewhere between 4 and 7 years old. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4GMuYhevc *sigh*
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:We all know that my stance is that humans are inherently bad. To expand, I would say that humans are more inherently self-interested, which I believe to be a negative quality. Luckily, that self interest allows for humans to establish mutually beneficial relationships, which leads to good. I know some of you believe that humans are neutral by default, and I have yet to see anyone claim that humans are inherently good. Do you mind expanding on these ideas? So, based on this assumption you are making, God created us inherently bad? Is that what I'm getting from this baseless assumption? Sinnlos posted:Judas Iscariot was paid off by the Sanhedrin to betray Jesus. Prove it. And the Bible is not a valid source for actual historical events 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Only according to a collection of storybooks that you like. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that he was executed simply for taking over John the Baptist's doomsday cult, after JtB made himself unpopular with the local king and got executed for it. Nah being paid off is entirely in line with what we know about Roman Judea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nah being paid off is entirely in line with what we know about Roman Judea. Please don't pretend that there is only a single explanation for the circumstances of the historical Jesus' death. I sincerely doubt that you have special knowledge that can conclusively lay it at the feet of the Sanhedrin. There are multiple plausible theories and little evidence that corroborates a single theory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
C'mon Sinnlos, post in the thread, don't PM me studies to try to prove babies are racist:quote:CommieGIR wrote on Apr 29, 2015 18:50:
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
DEKH posted:Please don't pretend that there is only a single explanation for the circumstances of the historical Jesus' death. I sincerely doubt that you have special knowledge that can conclusively lay it at the feet of the Sanhedrin. There are multiple plausible theories and little evidence that corroborates a single theory. Yeah but flipping out about storybooks and then suggesting it was Jesus actually leading John the Baptist's particular cult behind it, well, that's a lot less in line with evidence we have in general. Someone in the Roman empire getting paid off to give someone else up is a pretty common thing that happens constantly throughout history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:C'mon Sinnlos, post in the thread, don't PM me studies to try to prove babies are racist: Yeah I also want to know which parent my biracial child is going to fear. Her hair is curly like her mother, but the color is from me. And her skin is fairly light like mine but she has the yellow undertones of her mother. Maybe she will fear both of us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
DEKH posted:Yeah I also want to know which parent my biracial child is going to fear. Her hair is curly like her mother, but the color is from me. And her skin is fairly light like mine but she has the yellow undertones of her mother. Maybe she will fear both of us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:52
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Judas Iscariot was paid off by the Sanhedrin to betray Jesus. Hey, what do you think of the theory that "Iscariot" is a transcluded "Sicarius"?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think this falls under the heading of "tragic mulatto," where she will be unable to fully belong in the immutable categories of "one racial group largely invented a couple hundred years ago" and "another one, similarly" and will be driven to burlesque, laudanum and ruin. To be driven to burlesque is truly a fate worse than death, and it is terrible that someone would inflict this on a sweet, innocent (but inherently evil) child.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:To be driven to burlesque is truly a fate worse than death, and it is terrible that someone would inflict this on a sweet, innocent (but inherently evil) child.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
DEKH posted:Please don't pretend that there is only a single explanation for the circumstances of the historical Jesus' death. I sincerely doubt that you have special knowledge that can conclusively lay it at the feet of the Sanhedrin. There are multiple plausible theories and little evidence that corroborates a single theory. The best that can be said of a "historical" Jesus is "maybe he existed and if so was probably a rabbi of some sort". Everything else is shaky at best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:We all know that my stance is that humans are inherently bad. To expand, I would say that humans are more inherently self-interested, which I believe to be a negative quality. Luckily, that self interest allows for humans to establish mutually beneficial relationships, which leads to good. I know some of you believe that humans are neutral by default, and I have yet to see anyone claim that humans are inherently good. Do you mind expanding on these ideas? I feel like I see arguments getting simplified into very black-and-white choices a lot from the religious and/or Christian side. There was your assertion that since we can't be certain of outcomes, we therefore know nothing about outcomes and should choose to help the man in danger every time. Now there's this: that every human is overall self-interested, and that quality is a bad (or from before, "evil") one. Self-interest has evolutionary advantage of course, so I'd agree that it's an overall trait we share, but it's not so simple as: we all want to survive more than anything else, and to the detriment of others. You of course acknowledge this: we can come to mutually beneficial relationships via self-interest (which makes me wonder why you still view it as an evil). And hey, ask any solider and you'll find out there are other motivations stronger than self-preservation that can and do regularly supersede it. So while there might be an instinct toward self-preservation, it's not always the strongest, which I think is an important nuance. Lastly, I think you need to define "bad", "neutral", and "good" before doling out prescriptions about what humans are overall. Do you use "good" to mean "following explicitly Christian morals"? Then no, at least 5 billion humans are not good overall, at least not consciously. But what about something more generalized, like "desiring happiness for your fellow man"? Then actually, yes, I'd wager is a clear minority that actually want others to suffer when they don't have to. Who What Now posted:The best that can be said of a "historical" Jesus is "maybe he existed and if so was probably a rabbi of some sort". Everything else is shaky at best. I think it's more of a "probably" existed, and his crucifixion at the hands of the Roman government is a fact attested to as well as many historical specifics. I refer you to this post in this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3556458#post416850870 especially the section under "Did Jesus really exist?" It's pretty well explained, and by a non-Christian to boot. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The best that can be said of a "historical" Jesus is "maybe he existed and if so was probably a rabbi of some sort". Everything else is shaky at best. Exactly. The best we can do is say that a theory is plausible. The fact that one seems more plausible than another is meaningless in the context of no evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
guys arguing against the historical jesus yields nothing except revealing yourselves to be profoundly ignorant about how little we know about most people from the classical period we have much more information about jesus than we have on e.g. anaximander, but nobody really doubts that he was a guy who hung out talking philosophy a long-rear end time ago historical jesus is 1) completely irrelevant to anything at hand and 2) says unpleasant things about people who bring it up in any sort of non-academic argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think it's more of a "probably" existed, and his crucifixion at the hands of the Roman government is a fact attested to as well as many historical specifics. I refer you to this post in this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3556458#post416850870 especially the section under "Did Jesus really exist?" It's pretty well explained, and by a non-Christian to boot. I'm well aware of a lot of the evidence, but a new book has cast a lot of it into greater doubt, at least for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
The idea of Jesus first existing as a metaphorical or spiritual being doesn't really jive with the historical trend of Jesus becoming more 'supernatural' over time. Could you summarize the book's arguments a bit? e: Other books written by the same author include, Sense and Goodness Without God and Why I Am Not A Christian. Miltank fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The idea of Jesus first existing as a metaphorical or spiritual being A mythos surrounding a character exploited for political power games is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:20
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm well aware of a lot of the evidence, but a new book has cast a lot of it into greater doubt, at least for me. But not for the academy, I think, a large part of which has no dog in the fight at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm well aware of a lot of the evidence, but a new book has cast a lot of it into greater doubt, at least for me. Man that's one unnecessarily expensive book, practically textbook level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A mythos surrounding a character exploited for political power games is a hell of a thing. No doubt, but I want to know evidence there is that this character was wholly invented instead of the more likely case that he was mythologized in a series of classical roman biographies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
There are many 'inconvenient' details given about Jesus' past- particularly in the earliest sources, that suggest he was not invented outright. His low class birth and is an example of an embarrassing detail that was included in the book of Mark and then rectified in the later books. It is far more likely that a messiah character created whole cloth from the Jewish sacred texts would be have been born a priest with a genealogical connection to David already established.
Miltank fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
My personal favorite theory is that he started off as an allegorical tale, perhaps based loosely on a real person, than then was interpreted literally. Not intentionally invented but created through a long game of telephone. Like if someone made a story about Emperor Norton to make a point about power, which people later got obsessed about.Sinnlos posted:We all know that my stance is that humans are inherently bad. To expand, I would say that humans are more inherently self-interested, which I believe to be a negative quality. Luckily, that self interest allows for humans to establish mutually beneficial relationships, which leads to good. I know some of you believe that humans are neutral by default, and I have yet to see anyone claim that humans are inherently good. Do you mind expanding on these ideas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
rudatron posted:My personal favorite theory is that he started off as an allegorical tale, perhaps based loosely on a real person, than then was interpreted literally. Not intentionally invented but created through a long game of telephone. Like if someone made a story about Emperor Norton to make a point about power, which people later got obsessed about. That's not really valid though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There are many 'inconvenient' details given about Jesus' past- particularly in the earliest sources, that suggest he was not invented outright. His low class birth and is an example of an embarrassing detail that was included in the book of Mark and then rectified in the later books. It is far more likely that a messiah character created whole cloth from the Jewish sacred texts would be have been born a priest with a genealogical connection to David already established. I mean, fine, I can easily accept that he was a person. That doesn't exactly make him the son of god or even that his crucifixion had any impact upon humanities 'sins' (other than making us feel better about them ourselves)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:I would also like to state that LookingGodInTheEye, you do indeed sound insane. I'm still fascinated by BrandorKP's assertion some time ago that Nietzsche was a prophet, but I guess he's crazy too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I mean, fine, I can easily accept that he was a person. That doesn't exactly make him the son of god or even that his crucifixion had any impact upon humanities 'sins' (other than making us feel better about them ourselves) Well no, of course not, and I totally agree that the most likely explanation for everything was simply that a particularly charismatic Jewish teacher who was killed by the Roman authorities was exaggerated over time into the Messianic figure we know today, and that really, there is no God or divine being at all. But more than anything I want to be fair, open minded, and objective, which includes at the very least conceding that the best explanation includes the fact that Jesus the man really did exist, divine or not. I think too often we on the non-religious side are so intent on finding the holes in the other side's argument that we go beyond reasonable objection. Sure, we don't have conclusive evidence of his existence, but that doesn't mean his nonexistence is the most likely story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I mean, fine, I can easily accept that he was a person. That doesn't exactly make him the son of god or even that his crucifixion had any impact upon humanities 'sins' (other than making us feel better about them ourselves) It is a long shot that I choose to believe in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
How many people -- if you created a button that would blow up the world, how many people would press it? We could set up a button that sets off nuclear war, and then we could put it in a public place and see how long it takes before somebody presses it. How long do you think it would be? I think there'd be a huge crowd waiting for them to make it available. People would stampede over each other for the honor of pressing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm well aware of a lot of the evidence, but a new book has cast a lot of it into greater doubt, at least for me. Richard Carrier is to Jesus as Michael Behe is to evolution. Both buck the mainstream consensus of experts in those respective fields, can't get published in reputable journals, and cater to laypeople who want to believe the argument they're selling. Carrier is a crank and you should take anything he writes with a huge grain of salt. Kyrie eleison posted:How many people -- if you created a button that would blow up the world, how many people would press it? Prove that. Then give us a breakdown of how many of them are religious fanatics. Otherwise, stop using this thread as soapbox for projecting your horrid little personal fantasies onto sane people. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:How many people -- if you created a button that would blow up the world, how many people would press it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Prove that. Then give us a breakdown of how many of them are religious fanatics. I'm thinking of how to prove it. Like, aside for actually doing it, which would be awesome, but, alternatively we could create a social experiment of sorts. Like, some people show up to do a study and the scientist is like, "so, uh, this button... *holds up button* this button destroys the world. Nukes everywhere. So don't press it" And then he places it on the desk in front of you and says, "uh, I'll be right back, I gotta see about a thing." and walks out the door. And you just sit there looking at the button. And then you realize they've positioned some other items around the room, like... a copy of Schindler's List, and a Pinkie Pie doll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Probably not a good test if the subjects have every reason to believe that it's not true. The reason the electric shock experiments worked so well is because people actually believed the button was doing what they were told it would do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:How many people -- if you created a button that would blow up the world, how many people would press it? No, but, see, this one time, I saw the Dark Knight, and they did the thing where the boats have a button to blow up the other boat, but neither boat pushes it. QED.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm thinking of how to prove it. Finding sources on humanity's inherent evil that come from some sort of accredited institution would be a start. I'm sure there's dozens. Knock yourself out!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No, but, see, this one time, I saw the Dark Knight, and they did the thing where the boats have a button to blow up the other boat, but neither boat pushes it. QED. Yeah but the Joker was also an insane mass murderer so there was really no reason to believe anything he said. Pressing the button could have just as easily blown up my own ship, or it might be rigged to explode regardless and it's just a mind game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 05:09
|
|