User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who was Jesus?

Voters
114. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Son of God (in the traditionally understood evangelical sense)

    43 37.72%
  • A very good and wise man.

    22 19.30%
  • Definitely more than human... but nothing else can be said with clarity.

    7 6.14%
  • A man tapped into the "ineffable Greatness" of the cosmos/universe.

    3 2.63%
  • A idiosyncratic nut.

    9 7.89%
  • It is unclear whether Jesus actually lived.

    21 18.42%
  • Jesus existed, but it's unsure whether he was human or "more than human"/godly.

    9 7.89%
First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 119

Thread: Who Was Jesus?

  1. #81
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    Kant would say that in terms of teleological morality, we have faith (which he classifies as an attitude of the mind) and we can believe in a Higher being for which we have not or can not find any empirical proof in the sensorial sphere, in the teleological in nature.".
    This higher realm ought to be interpreted as the noumenal world, which by its nature is indescribable. You cant stuff a religious message into that one. You certainly can argue that the noumenal world is God, which is a claim that Kant would grant, but this does not have anything to do with Jesus being the Messiah.

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    What matters for each person is whether they can accept Jesus' message, and that is "denial of the self and to follow him". But one thing that people are afraid of the most is to lose the self, something that each will lose either way in the long run (temporal), and not only to lose it but to entrust it into someone else's hands-Jesus'. For some this may be a big challenge, for me it is simple "He is my Lord and Savior".
    Denial of the self is impossible because of psychological egoism. We want to 'deny the self' so we can later be redeemed.

    As Jesus once said, whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. No, Nietzsche responds 1800 years later--whoever humbles himself wants to be exalted.

    Moreover, Nietzsche was also right to claim that the more we practice the Christian monkish virtues the more dishonest we become. We befool ourselves into thinking that we are altruistic because we do good for others and not for ourselves, thinking we've given our 'self' up. But we really did not--we are still subtly insisting on others repaying us for our 'generous deeds'. Thus, the more of our 'self' we renounce, the more we will insist on the world taking care of us. And the more we will think we are entitled to. Jesus's prescriptions, without a doubt would have been disastrous. Evil stems from a lack of inner comfort, yet the further we carry through with our self-abnegation mantra, the less comfortable we become and the more evil we get. Scarily enough, contemporaneously, the better we get at presenting ourselves as congenial. As our society tends to mistake altruism for virtue, whilst notoriously failing to acknowledge the impossibility of such an ethical component.

    Unless you can refute psychological egoism, 'giving up the self for Jesus' can be no more than a travesty.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Originally posted by BLUEWING:
    This higher realm ought to be interpreted as the noumenal world, which by its nature is indescribable. You cant stuff a religious message into that one. You certainly can argue that the noumenal world is God, which is a claim that Kant would grant, but this does not have anything to do with Jesus being the Messiah.


    I wasn't referring to Kant's conception of Noumenal or Phenomenal-I was distinguishing between Moral Teleology and Physical Teleology. Kant asserts that we can't have any proof for the existence of God in the Physical teleology, but given that we are more than just matter, there is an attitude of the mind called moral Teleology which supports our conviction aroused by our natural need for an Original, Higher Being. Now, the challenge that Jesus posits, is whether we can accept that He is that evidence in terms of Physical teleology; I am not the one "stuffing" religious message into that, but instead Jesus is the one that says that.

    Posted by BLUEWING:
    Denial of the self is impossible because of psychological egoism. We want to 'deny the self' so we can later be redeemed.

    As Jesus once said, whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. No, Nietzsche responds 1800 years later--whoever humbles himself wants to be exalted.

    Moreover, Nietzsche was also right to claim that the more we practice the Christian monkish virtues the more dishonest we become. We befool ourselves into thinking that we are altruistic because we do good for others and not for ourselves, thinking we've given our 'self' up. But we really did not--we are still


    You bring Nietzsche to combat, and to counterattack what Jesus demanded! Yet Nietzsche's argument in terms of "psychological egoism" is tantamount as me saying that Christ was right when he says "Denial of the self"! WhY should I be convinced that Nietzsche is right? But supposing that he is, well then Jesus had already discovered this psychological egoism as a trait found inside the human nature, and that is why He demanded us giving ourselves to HIm! It is not something that we were originally intending to do with the "self", but since Jesus offered to take upon Himself our sins we are no longer playing according to our psychological egoism which is utterly mad because we do not satisfy everything that it desires, but instead we give up on all the cravings of the self and accepting Jesus as our Saviour. If Jesus claims that he prepared a heaven, and you consider that to be "psychological egoism" because we desire to be rewarded, well that is fine. Judaism had a pessimistic view about the after life, until Jesus came along and claimed that there is such a thing as after life, and He encouraged us to accept this gift (freely). Some may try to make a mathematical algorithm out of the whole assertion, but really He says "it is that simple"; due to its simplicity some may not be able to accept it...
    [

  3. #83
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    ..

    I wasn't referring to Kant's conception of Noumenal or Phenomenal-I was distinguishing between Moral Teleology and Physical Teleology. Kant asserts that we can't have any proof for the existence of God in the Physical teleology, but given that we are more than just matter, there is an attitude of the mind called moral Teleology which supports our conviction aroused by our natural need for an Original, Higher Being. Now, the challenge that Jesus posits, is whether we can accept that He is that evidence in terms of Physical teleology; I am not the one "stuffing" religious message into that, but instead Jesus is the one that says that. ...
    There is a higher essence, claiming there is a higher being is an anthropomorphic error on Kant's part. Not sure if even this is the way that Kant meant to use the word 'being'. His argument does not merit the existence of a personal God. In other words, we know that there is an infinite realm, but there is no reason to call it God of Jesus. We have a natural need to acknowledge the infinite realm, but there is nothing natural about calling it God.



    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    ..
    You bring Nietzsche to combat, and to counterattack what Jesus demanded! Yet Nietzsche's argument in terms of "psychological egoism" is tantamount as me saying that Christ was right when he says "Denial of the self"! WhY should I be convinced that Nietzsche is right? But supposing that he is, well then Jesus had already discovered this psychological egoism as a trait found inside the human nature, and that is why He demanded us giving ourselves to HIm! It is not something that we were originally intending to do with the "self", but since Jesus offered to take upon Himself our sins we are no longer playing according to our psychological egoism which is utterly mad because we do not satisfy everything that it desires, but instead we give up on all the cravings of the self and accepting Jesus as our Saviour. If Jesus claims that he prepared a heaven, and you consider that to be "psychological egoism" because we desire to be rewarded, well that is fine. Judaism had a pessimistic view about the after life, until Jesus came along and claimed that there is such a thing as after life, and He encouraged us to accept this gift (freely). Some may try to make a mathematical algorithm out of the whole assertion, but really He says "it is that simple"; due to its simplicity some may not be able to accept it...

    Nevermind psychological egoism, just believe in Jesus, it will all be fine if you do--it really is that simple.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #84
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    I believe Jesus was just one of many instances of God walking among us to show us what it's all about. He happens to be the most famous of these occurences because that particular presentation spawned something that became a major shaping force in the society and culture which raised me and which in turn had a huge influence on the world in general, but I don't by any means think that he was the only example of God doing this, though yes, perhaps I do believe that he was the only example (that I know of) of him doing it in such a dramatic way.

    The word 'avatar' in the Hindu sense seems to me to describe more accurately what I feel about Jesus than traditional Christian terminologies involving sons and fathers etc.
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  5. #85
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    I believe Jesus was just one of many instances of God walking among us to show us what it's all about. He happens to be the most famous of these occurences because that particular presentation spawned something that became a major shaping force in the society and culture which raised me and which in turn had a huge influence on the world in general, but I don't by any means think that he was the only example of God doing this, though yes, perhaps I do believe that he was the only example (that I know of) of him doing it in such a dramatic way.

    The word 'avatar' in the Hindu sense seems to me to describe more accurately what I feel about Jesus than traditional Christian terminologies involving sons and fathers etc.
    Most esteemed Sir,

    Could you explain to me what God is? And how Jesus could be an instance of this 'God' walking among us?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #86
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Most esteemed Sir,

    Could you explain to me what God is? And how Jesus could be an instance of this 'God' walking among us?
    Already did
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  7. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Originally posted by BLUEWING:
    There is a higher essence, claiming there is a higher being is an anthropomorphic error on Kant's part. Not sure if even this is the way that Kant meant to use the word 'being'. His argument does not merit the existence of a personal God. In other words, we know that there is an infinite realm, but there is no reason to call it God of Jesus. We have a natural need to acknowledge the infinite realm, but there is nothing natural about calling it God.


    OK- Let me give you Kant's version in a nutshell. Kant asserts that in the Natural Physical Teleology, though we may seek to show that based on the things that we see in Nature (e.g. animals drinking from the river, humans eating animals, etc. the cycle of life) we may be fooled into thinking that God exists because everything in nature, as we make sense of it has a purpose. The lion eats the zebra, the lion dies, the ground gets the minerals..etc. Kant says that we are deceived by this, because if you really think about it, how can one explain the fact that there are earthquakes for ex. which are not useful to us but on the contrary harmful! Where is the purpose in that? As a result, we can not prove that God exists based on empirical grounds (so he is not falling into the error of anthropomor.) but due to the fact that there is another need inside of us, the Moral teleology we can assume that there is a God who ultimately is the originator of everything. Kant here distuinguishes between Reason (based on which we can't prove the existence of God) and faith (based on which we can assume).

    Originally posted by Bluewing:
    Nevermind psychological egoism, just believe in Jesus, it will all be fine if you do--it really is that simple
    You sound very dismissive of the simplicity idea, if I'm not mistaken, but don't be alarmed; the idea is that Christ offered-one has the choice whether he should accept. If the agent accepts he might stand accused of psychological egoism, but at least this is the best antidote to psychological egoism to a certain extent that I can see, unlike the non-existent antidote that you've offered me so far.
    [

  8. #88
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post

    OK- Let me give you Kant's version in a nutshell. Kant asserts that in the Natural Physical Teleology, though we may seek to show that based on the things that we see in Nature (e.g. animals drinking from the river, humans eating animals, etc. the cycle of life) we may be fooled into thinking that God exists because everything in nature



    as we make sense of it has a purpose. The lion eats the zebra, the lion dies, the ground gets the minerals..etc. Kant says that we are deceived by this, because if you really think about it, how can one explain the fact that there are earthquakes for ex.. which are not useful to us but on the contrary harmful!
    So Kant does avoid the anthropomorphic illusion here. He isnt saying that the grand creator had us in mind when he made the proccess of nature where lion eats the zebra.

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    we can assume that there is a God!
    You're confusing 'God' with the infinite essence that dwells within us. Kant proved the existence of the latter. To say that there is a 'God' in a way that you're thinking means to commit the anthropomorphic error. God either exists as a person or he does not exist at all. I prefer to use the word god as an allegory for the greatest possible principle. (That is why i write the word in small-case)

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    who ultimately is the originator of everything.!
    I don't know where in Kant you get the 'originator' from..I certainly don't recall this, he'd be disgusted at being painted as a creationist of a sort. This notion of 'origination had been thoroughly destroyed by his idea of the noumenal world, which echoes Spinoza's idea of the infinite substance.




    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    You sound very dismissive of the simplicity idea, if I'm not mistaken, but don't be alarmed; the idea is that Christ offered-one has the choice whether he should accept..!
    Yes, it happened just because he said it. There does not need to be any reason for what he said to be true. He just has to say it! Who knows about all the things that Mohammed, Buddha, Socrates..Confucius..and so on said that werent delivered to us by word of mouth..Why arent we losing sleep over what they may have said?


    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    If the agent accepts he might stand accused of psychological egoism, but at least this is the best antidote to psychological egoism to a certain extent that I can .
    [/U]

    How is this an antidote to psychological egoism, as it only makes the doctrine seem more convincing? The more you want to be saved the harder you will try to debase yourself on Earth. Its all to the end of yourself being exalted and no more. 'Loving Jesus' is just a stratagem. As we see to what great lengths people go to debauch their lives for the mere thought of being saved. So in short how hard you try to be 'selfless' is in direct proportion with how selfish you truly are.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Originally psoted by BLUEWING:
    You're confusing 'God' with the infinite essence that dwells within us. Kant proved the existence of the latter. To say that there is a 'God' in a way that you're thinking means to commit the anthropomorphic error. God either exists as a person or he does not exist at all. I prefer to use the word god as an allegory for the greatest possible principle. (That is why i write the word in small-case)


    I said that Kant asserts that due to our Moral teleology, which desires an ultimate purpose for our being, we can assume that there is a Higher Being/God. Kant himself does not believe in God or a god for that matter, but he says that through imagination & understanding+faith we can fulfill this need, for the existence of an Omnipotent Being.

    Originally posted by BLUEWING:
    How is this an antidote to psychological egoism, as it only makes the doctrine seem more convincing? The more you want to be saved the harder you will try to debase yourself on Earth. Its all to the end of yourself being exalted and no more. 'Loving Jesus' is just a stratagem
    Let's play a little game; imagine that Jesus lied, and we supposedly bought into that lie, namely that if we put a stop to all the manifestations, desires of our psychological nature, we will be rewarded (which again like you said psycho.egoism at a higher level) in the next world. Now imagine that due to the fact that we have been deceived ( that really there isn't going to be a next world) we actually obstructed the "baleful psychological egoist " inside of us from satisfying its cravings. Wouldn't we have then obtained victory against psychological egoism and thus came up with an antidote to psycho egoism?
    [

  10. #90
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    I never beleived in Santa, the easter bunny or really Jesus. Maybe he was just some guy who was nice and tried to convince other people to be nice and people made a big deal about him- who knows? I have enough trouble beleiving that if there is a god it cares about us. All I know is that way too many people die arguing about things like this!

Similar Threads

  1. Was Jesus white?
    By FigerPuppet in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 12:14 AM
  2. Who was the greatest (...) of all time?
    By Frederico Rogeiro in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-03-2010, 12:33 PM
  3. Was Jesus a Buddhist?
    By Mayflow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 03-15-2010, 09:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO