No reason to think so, maybe there was a obscure massiah wanabe but there's nothing to tell, so to all intents and purposes jesus is the NT character, these's no historical or "real" one, but an idea wrapped around an agenda coverered in polemical rants by a american TV comedy style commitee of hacks, who ignored, ripped off or contradicted each other.

There is no single jesus in the NT, just a name to use for a writers ideas, be they Mats messainic fire n brimstoner, luke's gentle greekish philosopher or john's gnostic loon, all have their problems, but they cant be combined into a consistant character, as there're too many contraditions, i dislike mats jesus the most, but paul's is too cultish as well.

Take it as given that's what i mean.

A cult of personality is more a control mechanism, than an actual example of that personality, it may sway and convince, but its the repetition, authority, social pressures and emotionalism that counts, not jesus himself. It wasnt his teachings that started the crusades but a popes speach. The institution xtianity created using jesus is what makes the impact on humanity, he could have taught anything, no differance would have resulted, tryanny does as tryanny is.

BT

Glad to know I can't be Christian because I don't fit your definition. I feel like I'm reading what a fundy is saying. Heh, oh well, I don't really care.

But I fail to see how it is logical to assume that a complex worldview can be simply moral or immoral. I don't think it is either.

And sure, maybe what I believe doesn't fit the original purpose, but I doubt that either of us know it's original purpose. But I also don't think any modern person follows the original ideology, whatever it was 1900 years ago.

So I suppose I agree that I'm not fitting its original purpose. But I also think no one can be perfectly logical or skeptical. Just as no one's beliefs can be infallible.

ME

QUOTE

Glad to know I can't be Christian because I don't fit your definition. I feel like I'm reading what a fundy is saying. Heh, oh well, I don't really care.

No offence BT ( I find it ironic I agree with fundys as well, but they have a point) but logic does not tolerate vague categorisations, if we considered Christianity to include anybody who vaguely likes some of Jesus's teachings we'd have no practical definition at all. I was discussing the moral status of Christian doctrine, to that end I had to exclude those who do not believe or agree with it. You may consider yourself a Christian if you like, and my condemnation of the faith will not apply to you.

QUOTE

But I fail to see how it is logical to assume that a complex worldview can be simply moral or immoral. I don't think it is either.

Its many appear to be a false dichotomy, but I was not excluding any possibility, there are many grey areas in matters of religion, but if analysed from the stark moral perspective of objectivity, then by fostering a dependency on authority for values, and discrediting morality itself, I would claim that this is the height of immorality. If preventing millions of people from acting morally is not immoral, then nothing is. We are talking about the specific elements of Christian doctrine, not the religion in all its intricacies, the essential elements that are at the heart of Christian doctrine from the very beginning. We all know what they are, I'm merely demonstrating that they are responsible for Christianity's crimes, and are a reflection on the religion itself, rather than entirely on the xtian criminals.

This is a doctrinal issue, an analysis of the moral impact of Christian theology, it is a worldview, a perspective of life and humanity, a decree concerning man's relationship with a deity, and the metaphysical extensions of our lives. They are simple to break down, and they all result in damaging the minds of its adherents, every single one of these aspects are dangerous and flawed, together they are conclusively immoral. Very few philosophies or religions can truly be defined in such stark moral terms, and I understand your objection, but I see no flaw in my reasoning, and it is a common attitude expressed in less specific terms, among many freethinkers over many centuries.

Christian doctrine has a overwhelmingly negative effect on the human race, I've given my moral and logical reasons for this opinion, as well as historical examples, you may object on principle, but there is no assumption here, and complexity does not imply moral neutrality. Presuppositionalist arguments are complex, but still a load of dishonest crap. If morality is to be based on empirical fact, and acknowledged as deriving from inherent cognitive functions, then xtian doctrine being the opposite of this is a lie, which thusly causes harm to humanity by removing its moral protections, I call this immoral, what would you call it? Maybe the doctrine's creators didn't know how wrong they were, but they knew what they were doing when they imprisoned mankind within a moral denying metaphysical construct, which is immoral regardless of its founders intentions, due to its effects and implications. Einstein did not intend his atomic theory to be used to incinerate tens of thousands of Japanese, but it was nonetheless immoral to do so. Maybe certain denominations have mutated beyond this doctrinal cancer, these are few and far between and have no real impact on my conclusions. You can't use a minority to get a majority of the hook. Xtianity must answer for its crimes.

QUOTE

And sure, maybe what I believe doesn't fit the original purpose, but I doubt that either of us know it's original purpose.

The new Testament clearly gives us an early indication of the political, economic and social philosophy of the group. As well as the doctrinal polemics of its earliest leaders. It started as one thing, mutated into something immoral, and you are a further mutation that perhaps lacks such immorality, where lies the difficulty? The purpose of Christianity was to foster a personality and doomsday cult, designed to maintain a close nit community, isolated from the outside world, with elitist and snobbish protentions, but in a communist model, whatever evidence we do have of the early Christian community fits this model. We know where abouts Christianity developed, we know when from the references in the writings, and what kind of ideologies and theologies were put into the mix at various stages to create the "final" product. Pretty self-evident from the writings of Paul and the Gospels what they were after, they had skill enough to con illiterate Mediterraneans of the first century, but not enough to fool those good at reading between the lines.

QUOTE

But I also don't think any modern person follows the original ideology, whatever it was 1900 years ago.

There are many denominations that attempt to live their lies, sorry lives according to a strict reading of both acts, the Gospels and Paul's spiritual yammerings, some come pretty close. There may have been even earlier versions now lost to us, but that is therefore be irrelevant to any discussion. We are talking about Christianity here and now, and as it has been throughout recorded history, we could do this by majority or by primary tenants, either way xtianity is a serious problem. You may be trying to get your particular interpretation recognised as xtian or absolved, or even entire cult absolved by making it as nebulous as possible, all I can say is your "domination" is not what I'm talking about. If you do not adhere to Christian doctrine, then you can hardly disagree with my dissection of it. Think of it as a theological and ethical exercise, not a anti religious one.

QUOTE

So I suppose I agree that I'm not fitting its original purpose.

It's original purpose is (mostly) irrelevant anyway, it's reality is what concerns me.

QUOTE

But I also think no one can be perfectly logical or skeptical.

So? Logic can be absolute like mathematics, so a "perfection" is possible. As for scepticism, that is not my position here, I'm arguing from the perspective of logic and objective morality, although to be perfectly skeptical all one would have to do is require evidence for everything they encounter, and I do. Perfection is such a theistic term anyway.

QUOTE

Just as no one's beliefs can be infallible.

I know some theists who'd disagree with you on that one, anyway fallibility is the basis of empiricism, which is precisely why being fallible is not considered an obstacle, and why we are so good at pointing out the problems with theism. The problem isn't fallibility but that belief is a insufficient foundation for a worldview, or standard of ethics. All are fallible, but some are more likely to make mistakes than others.

Are you trying to say I might be wrong? That is why I made a falsifiable case, I wish to know for myself.

Asimov

Sorry, BigToe, but I am leaning towards AUB on this one. Does it make me a Buddhist because I like what the Buddha teaches? No.

However, I'll have to agree with BigToe, because she said that she associates herself with Christ, although the label Christian in that sense is loose.

(BT then throws down the gauntlet, and decides she is here for a debate)

BT

[quote=- AUB]
No offence BT ( I find it ironic I agree with fundys as well, but they have a point) but logic does not tolerate vague categorisations, if we considered Christianity to include anybody who vaguely likes some of Jesus's teachings we'd have no practical definition at all.

I am not saying that anyone who simply likes his teachings should be considered Christian. I can think of a ton of people that did things I feel were good that I wouldn't want to be a follower of or worship in any way. So I agree, simply liking some things doesn't make one a Christian.


[quote] I was discussing the moral status of Christian doctrine, to that end I had to exclude those who do not believe or agree with it. You may consider yourself a Christian if you like, and my condemnation of the faith will not apply to you.

Right, I understand your criticisms now don't apply to me because I don't fit your definition. But when it comes down to definitions and who has which one, it merely becomes a game of semantics. A Southern Baptist's definition is going to differ widely from that of a Quaker or that of an Episcopalian. They all find their "base" in the Bible, all picking and choosing. None of them is any more "correct" than the other.


[quote]
Its many appear to be a false dichotomy, but I was not excluding any possibility, there are many grey areas in matters of religion, but if analysed from the stark moral perspective of objectivity, then by fostering a dependency on authority for values, and discrediting morality itself, I would claim that this is the height of immorality. If preventing millions of people from acting morally is not immoral, then nothing is.

Yes, but I don't think religion, or Christianity specifically, defines what morality is. If we were to take a denomination that fit most with what your definition of a Christian is- there would still be degrees of disagreement as to what is right or wrong, a sin or not. But I also think morality goes much deeper than simply thinking something is right or wrong. And I also think that most people today misuse terms like "morals" for things that are quite relative from population to population. In doing so, one has to answer if morals are absolute or not. If they are, there can be no degress of relativity about them. If not, then they cannot be inherent but acquired some other way. And perhaps the discussion of moral relativity is best for a different philosophical thread. But then again, I do not think that religion genuinely claims to be mutually exclusive to morals. I think that is a claim that individuals make on behalf of the religion in order to make it more appealing to the masses.


[quote] We are talking about the specific elements of Christian doctrine, not the religion in all its intricacies, the essential elements that are at the heart of Christian doctrine from the very beginning. We all know what they are, I'm merely demonstrating that they are responsible for Christianity's crimes, and are a reflection on the religion itself, rather than entirely on the xtian criminals.

Many people believe that at the core of Christianity is Romans 10:9 dealing with faith. That seems to be what you feel salvation is based upon as well (faith). So that would be what would at the heart of Christianity- how is faith that Jesus is God and was raised from the dead to be blamed for the crimes of tons of people? I think it is what people go on from there to say, but not resting there alone. Jesus cannot be blamed for those crimes, but what people have done to twist their view of Jesus to justify those crimes. So if blame can be placed on someone for being a figure that can be twisted, then I suppose he is a monster.

[quote] This is a doctrinal issue, an analysis of the moral impact of Christian theology, it is a worldview, a perspective of life and humanity, a decree concerning man's relationship with a deity, and the metaphysical extensions of our lives. They are simple to break down, and they all result in damaging the minds of its adherents, every single one of these aspects are dangerous and flawed, together they are conclusively immoral.

But I do not agree they are inherently dangerous or immoral. Words on a page cannot have any roots in morality. And interpretation of them cannot. What an individual or group of individuals do with those words can, but in and of themselves they cannot. They do not make you do something or think something in particular. That should be obvious since there are so many different interpretations among the multitude of denominations. There is something else at play in these people that causes them to do the horrid things they do, it is not their belief alone. If it were, then all Christians everywhere would commit the same criminal acts, but they do not. So something about the individual has to be a factor. When a group of people act in a way together, there has to be something about the makeup of the group that causes them to have the behavior they have. It can not be their theological beliefs alone.

Yes, it might provide them with something they feel they can justify their actions with, but if I wanted to be a mass murderer, I am sure I could find something in The Three Little Pigs to justify it. That does not make that story inherrently evil or immoral. It would make me sick and twisted to do so, but that doesn't make the story as a whole sick and twisted. And yes, it would be much easier to pull something from the Bible to justify horrible acts, but I think you understand what I am trying to say, yes?

[quote] Very few philosophies or religions can truly be defined in such stark moral terms, and I understand your objection, but I see no flaw in my reasoning, and it is a common attitude expressed in less specific terms, among many freethinkers over many centuries.

I don't think it being a common attitude means it isn't flawed. I am sure we can both go over a multitude of things that were common attitudes for centuries that we both agree are horribly flawed. Furthermore, I don't see how the authority that your thoughts are a common attitude is any less flawed than people believing the Bible because it was "written by God." Both are falling back on some form of authority that is seperate from themselves.

[quote]
Christian doctrine has a overwhelmingly negative effect on the human race, I've given my moral and logical reasons for this opinion, as well as historical examples, you may object on principle, but there is no assumption here, and complexity does not imply moral neutrality.

I didn't mean to imply that I felt it was morally neutral. But I believe the question of morality exists outside of religion. But with the complexities involved in looking at modern day Christianity, I don't think it is as simple as stating "Christianity is immoral" or that its "doctrine has a negative effect on humans." Why? Because there is not a single "doctrine" or school of thought in modern day Christianity. I understand that is one of the issues you're taking up, but it doesn't negate the fact that that is how it is at this point in time. I think taking historical examples alone isn't a way to arrive at something's inherrent morality either. Because someone else can come along and provide examples of how Christianity is "good." Sure it is much easier to look at the Inquisition or something and think "Look, it is bad stuff, the whole lot." But I don't think there are many (at least none that anyone here would say has a brain about them) that would look at those examples of good things. I agree, groups of Christians, and other religious people, have done some disgustingly evil things. But there are groups that do things to help others out- groups providing free medical care or the like. Both sides feel that they are doing so for God and because of God. So that also shows that Christianity cannot be naturally negative, but again what people do WITH it that is negative. And yes, I agree there have been larger and more numerous occasions of people feeling called by God to do bad than good. And in this day and age we certainly focus a lot more on the negative of everything. So when people from the same congregation in the same town with the same teaching can do things from both ends of that spectrum- how do we account for what makes the evil ones evil and the good ones good? Are the good ones not "true" Christians?


[quote] Presuppositionalist arguments are complex, but still a load of dishonest crap. If morality is to be based on empirical fact, and acknowledged as deriving from inherent cognitive functions, then xtian doctrine being the opposite of this is a lie, which thusly causes harm to humanity by removing its moral protections, I call this immoral, what would you call it?

Well again, you have to make the claim as to morality's absolutism or relativism. You seem to be in favor of the absolute. But again, we have Christians in the same group, holding to the same basic doctrine that behave in contradictory ways. Each one believes they are on the moral high ground and the other is not. So I don't think that one can say Christianity is involved in morality but outside of it. Granted, I don't think we disagree on the inherentness of morality so this is pretty moot. But I think there are many denominations that don't ascribe to a sort of moral code simply because of God or the promise of Heaven or the threat of Hell. But that gets into the discussion of a fear based or rewards based religion- or neither. I have a problem with both rewards and fear based religions, much for the same reason you find Christianity to be immoral- the motivating factors. But I don't think that is the point of Christianity.

I'm going to stick with your definition of a Christian for a moment. But they see Jesus as perfect and without sin. To them, that would be a moral man. They also feel that part of their journey as a Christian is to become more Christ-like, basically to be sin free. In their understanding, Jesus didn't do what he did because he had another motive- like getting to heaven or escaping hell, or even gaining followers. They see Jesus as a man who would see a situation that needed fixing and he would fix it- not because he could get something from it, but because it needed to be fixed. (I understand that isn't your view or what you feel was the motives behind those writing the Bible. But this is what "Christians" see it as). Now, wouldn't part of their becomming more Christ-like be the removal of outside motives for their behavior but just simply doing it because it is the right thing to do? And isn't that, in time, getting rid of the obstacles to morality? So ultimately, to them, it is about getting to genuine morality instead of doing what is right because someone tells you it is right.


[quote] Maybe the doctrine's creators didn't know how wrong they were, but they knew what they were doing when they imprisoned mankind within a moral denying metaphysical construct, which is immoral regardless of its founders intentions, due to its effects and implications.

Because something can be used as a tool of evil doesn't make it immoral because of its effects. Guns murder people, they aren't inherently immoral. Authoritarian forms of communism can cause harm, but that does not make communism itself inherently immoral.

Plus, I doubt the creators of Chrsitianity were Machiavellian enough to create what you feel they did intentionally. Perhaps I don't give them enough credit? hehe.


[quote] Einstein did not intend his atomic theory to be used to incinerate tens of thousands of Japanese, but it was nonetheless immoral to do so.

I'm confused- are you saying Einstein's atomic theory is immoral because people used it for evil? Or are you saying that using it for evil is immoral without his intention of it being used that way?

[quote] Maybe certain denominations have mutated beyond this doctrinal cancer, these are few and far between and have no real impact on my conclusions. You can't use a minority to get a majority of the hook. Xtianity must answer for its crimes.

I don't think anyone claims Christians are innocent of crimes commit in God's name. And I think there are a lot of people that are trying to get beyond that and ensure that doesn't happen again. And there are churches within the various denominations that are trying individually to break away from their denomination's "dogma first and foremost" reputations. Discrediting the whole is being dishonest.


[quote] The new Testament clearly gives us an early indication of the political, economic and social philosophy of the group. As well as the doctrinal polemics of its earliest leaders. It started as one thing, mutated into something immoral, and you are a further mutation that perhaps lacks such immorality, where lies the difficulty?

Are you simply refering to early Christians or Jews as well? Because many of those tied into a legalistic doctrine were "rebuked" by Jesus. That is why many times today you have liberal Christians referring to the more rabid fundamentalists as Pharisees. There are many Christians, like myself, that do not necessarily believe Jesus was God that feel he was put to death for directly opposing the then dominant political paradigm.

[quote] The purpose of Christianity was to foster a personality and doomsday cult, designed to maintain a close nit community, isolated from the outside world, with elitist and snobbish protentions, but in a communist model, whatever evidence we do have of the early Christian community fits this model.

And naturally you would believe that as someone with as militant views against religion as you do. And I think there are groups now that do just that and live in their little bubbles. But I feel that directly contradicts much of what Jesus is attributed to saying. The 'Great Commission' is in direct opposition to living in your little cultish community. It says to go make disciples of all nations. Now, my belief of what that means is much different than an orthodox fundamentalist thinks. I think the ideas of loving our neighbors and enemies is in direct conflict with living in a bubble as well.

[quote]
We know where abouts Christianity developed, we know when from the references in the writings, and what kind of ideologies and theologies were put into the mix at various stages to create the "final" product. Pretty self-evident from the writings of Paul and the Gospels what they were after, they had skill enough to con illiterate Mediterraneans of the first century, but not enough to fool those good at reading between the lines.

Final products now- of which there are many. Again, I do not think that makes Christianity in and of itself inherent immoral, but the dogmas that have been created upon that foundation. But to me, Christianity is rooted in Christ and not Paul's writings. I know there are many Christians that disagree and put a lot more stock in what Paul had to say than what Jesus did.

[quote] There are many denominations that attempt to live their lies, sorry lives according to a strict reading of both acts, the Gospels and Paul's spiritual yammerings, some come pretty close. There may have been even earlier versions now lost to us, but that is therefore be irrelevant to any discussion. We are talking about Christianity here and now, and as it has been throughout recorded history, we could do this by majority or by primary tenants, either way xtianity is a serious problem.

Yes, a strict reading of whichever translation they choose to use. Which are modern. Or what individual groups throughout the history have done. But maintaining the same traditions is far from maintaining the same ideology.

[quote] You may be trying to get your particular interpretation recognised as xtian or absolved, or even entire cult absolved by making it as nebulous as possible, all I can say is your "domination" is not what I'm talking about. If you do not adhere to Christian doctrine, then you can hardly disagree with my dissection of it. Think of it as a theological and ethical exercise, not a anti religious one.

Because I do not adhere to a doctrine doesn't mean I cannot disagree with your dissection of it. And I am certainly by no means trying to claim that the wrongs of Christians past and present have been indemnified. There are many that simply cannot be paid back. (I, personally have nothing to be absolved of because I'm perfect )

[quote]
It's original purpose is irrelevant anyway, it's reality is what concerns me.

Well, you are the one that brought up it's original purpose.

[quote] So? Logic can be absolute like mathematics, so a "perfection" is possible. As for scepticism, that is not my position, I'm arguing from the perspective of logic and objective morality, although to be perfectly skeptical all one would have to do is require evidence for everything they encounter, and I do. Perfection is such a theistic term anyway.

Possible? Sure, that doesn't mean I think there is anyone "perfectly" logical. But the reasons behind that aren't one of a religious nature and thus lead into an entirely separate philosophical discussion. How is perfection a theistic term?


[quote] I know some theists who'd disagree with you on that one, anyway fallibility is the basis of empiricism, which is precisely why being fallible is not considered an obstacle, and why we are so good at pointing out the problems with theism. The problem isn't fallibility but that belief is a insufficient foundation for a worldview, or standard of ethics. All are fallible, but some are more likely to make mistakes than others.

Haha, yes I know several theists that would disagree with me as well. That is obviously where my thoughts on the matter stray quite a bit from orthodoxy. I agree that fallibility isn't a problem and that belief alone is an insufficient foundation.

[quote] Are you trying to say I might be wrong? That is why I made a falsifiable case, I wish to know for myself.

Sure, you might be wrong. But that isn't what I am trying to say. I don't think the point of dialogue is to point out that any one character is right or wrong, but instead the exhange of ideas. Agreement isn't my mission. Just discussion and perhaps more understanding of where you are coming from.


Speaking of which- this is a dialogue I would like to continue. However, I am leaving town and am unsure of my internet access. That being said- if I don't respond in a prompt fashion, it isn't because I am backing out. I find that to be disrespectful to anyone involved in a discussion and wanted to let you know that I do not wish to extend any disrespect towards you.

And apparently I am too dense to use the quote function properly. Sorry about that. I've added color to the parts of your post I was responding to.