freigeister

I assume that you are asking why I think the question of the historicity of Christ is a vital one for all humanity, not just for Christians. Let me answer the question in terms of the foregoing discussion on materialism and idealism. In the physical sciences, there are certain fundamentals that are absolutely essential. None of these is more important than the atomic theory. Nowadays we know that there is no such thing as a literal atom, ie an indivisible particle. Nevertheless, we continue to make use of this concept of the indivisible particle to accomplish all manner of practical activity. The point is that if we eliminated all memory and record of atomic theory our science would be gravely affected. Now if we turn around and look at reality from an idealist perspective, it is plain that Christ's importance to the human sciences is as great as atomic theory's importance to the physical sciences. This does not prove Christ's historicity, but it does show why the question of his historicity is important for all humanity.

freigeister

Christ is of universal importance from the perspective of the human sciences for a number of reasons. First of all, he has dominated cultural activity in a very direct way over the last 2,000 years: politics, economics, art, religion of course, and philosophy all revolve around him to one degree or another. This is the empirical demonstration of his importance. Then there is his importance to practical activity in the human sciences today. What he does is provide us with an insight into the fundamentals of human personality. He reveals himself in a unstinting way, allowing us to use his model to evaluate the inner self of others. Further, we see that his inner self is fundamentally different from that which we see in ourselves. This is the reason for so much controversy and confusion about him. It is difficult to assess exactly how our inmost self relates to his. It is far easier to say that he is the "the other", the god or the myth. But this difference between him and us is actually the foundation of the human sciences. In essence, there are two species of humans: the masses and the spiritual elite. The latter is comprised of the small number of artistic, philosophical and mystical geniuses in whose shadow the rest of humanity stands. In this select group, Christ is the greatest, and his model allows us to develop this doctrine of the spiritual elite and the masses to the point of providing mankind with an effective and accurate human science.

Buffman

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=140412&page=1
(Post # 19...and many, many others)

Try to answer the questions already asked rather than simply repeat your allegations. Your make-believe supernatural hero has not dominated cultural activity throughout the world other than in your Christian conditioned mind. Had you said that Christianity has been of decided importance in the western world for the last 2000 years, you would have had a much stronger position. However, by claiming the universe for Christianity, you ignore historical/statistical accuracy in order to justify your desired end. Additionally, you mix your obviously limited understanding of science with a one-sided appreciation/application of specific metaphysical beliefs. You speak of only two "species" of humans...the masses and the spiritual elite. (BARF!) That sounds very much like the old "Them-Us" divisive philosophy of the self-anointed tyrant... hungry for power and control.

I have spent a lifetime challenging and fighting those that claimed that they knew what was best for me and everyone else. I am afraid that I can view you as little more than just another of those types...with an unsupported belief that the supernatural is on your side. Would you do away with yourself if you woke-up one day and realized that there was no God... only humankinds' historical ability to apply experience and accurate knowledge to determining personal and social rights from wrongs... without recourse to supernatural intercession? (It must be very disturbing, and for others very tiresome, to live with the fears that seem to motivate your faith beliefs.)

freigeister

The western world has had a decisive influence on the rest of the world. The rest of the world is westernizing rapidly.

Yeah, this has a most offensive ring. It is much better in Brunner's original German: Der Geistigen und das Volk (literally the spirit ones and the folk). It corresponds, for example, to the Stoic distinction between sages and fools. There is a disparaging connotation, but in his work Brunner is careful to point out that the common folk are right to be as they are. He merely states that there are those who wish to establish their lives on an entirely different basis from the practical, who seek to live on the basis of the spiritual. There is no need for any conflict between the two, but that is what we have had. Spiritual people need to stop trying to turn practical people into spiritual people, and practical people need to stop trying to turn spiritual people into practical people. Then we can end this stupid war.

My view is that "God" is a term for the whole of reality understand under the attribute of thought, just as "nature" is the term for the whole of reality understood under the attribute of matter. Because of superstitious accretions, the word "God" is useless. I prefer to use Brunner's term, the cogitans (das Denkende).

Corey Hammer

No. If you can't figure out why this is demonstrably false, then there's no hope for you.

No...it's your misconception.

No he doesn't.

No he doesn't.

Funny, I thought it was because it's doubtful there was ever a Yeshua ben Miriam the Messiah...the Christus.

Funny, because I thought modern ethics are based on the principles of the Enlightenment.

Sounds pretty racist to me...

David Spade: "No."

Buffman

The obligation of the left AND right is to present the available evidence for evaluation and let the historicity fall where it may. That was done by the Jesus Seminar.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus...s_seminar.html

Unfortunately, a few zealots like yourself simply couldn't accept the findings, and much like David Barton has done with American political history, claimed that the majority of the Seminar's membership were revisionist, theologically liberal, activist intellectuals.

Given that your accurate knowledge concerning American history and the important players in that history is, at best, superficial and biased, I can understand why you would not know the differences between Jefferson's Deism and your Unitarianism. I most sincerely recommend that your read through these next URLs and discover some accurate historical knowledge.
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/fou...s_religion.HTM
http://www.cuuf.net/history/default.html

(Extract)
Unitarianism and Universalism. Unitarianism and Universalism have their origins in the first three centuries of the Christian era. The term "Unitarian" originally meant a Christian believing in the oneness of God. Early Unitarians thus rejected the divinity of Jesus, regarding him instead as the human source of a uniquely important moral message guiding their lives. Throughout the early history of Christianity those holding Unitarian beliefs were persecuted as heretics and as enemies of what was regarded as the "true faith." These persecutions continued until the 18th Century. A "Universalist" in the early stages of Christianity endorsed the basic goodness of all human beings, and thus rejected the doctrines of Original Sin and of God's damnation to Hell of all but the fortunate "elect." Both Unitarianism and Universalism took root in Colonial America, with Universalism being officially organized in 1793 and Unitarianism later in 1825. In 1961 the two organizations merged to form the Unitarian Universalist Association. Today the UUA has over 1,000 congregations in the United States, and is represented by its symbol of the flaming chalice all around the world. For a more complete account of this history see Unitarian Universalist Origins by Mark W. Harris. Also available online are biographies of notable Unitarians. Included are biographies of two past members of the Carbondale Fellowship, Buckminster Fuller and Henry Nelson Wieman.
(End extract)

http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html

Since Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743 and died on July 4, 1826, the likelihood that he was a "Unitarian" would appear to be rather slim. If you are unable to present accurate information about a President of the USA that was alive just 179 years ago, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe that you can present accurate historical evidence about a book character that supposedly lived around 2000 years ago?

(////NEWS FLASH\\\\ Canadian Christian infers that the Rev. Martin Luther King was assassinated, not by Christian zealots, but by a conspiracy among atheists, secularists, humanists, freethinkers and "anti-Christers," all under the planning and funding of the ACLU. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

What on earth did you hope to express with that off-hand remark? It did very little to encourage me to want to join forces with the so-called rational Christians. :down:

At least you practice what you preach.

Some of the enlightened folks already have, thank you. :wave:

freigeister

I don't see anywhere that anyone connected with the Jesus Seminar rejects the historicity of Christ. In fact, Marcus Borg concurs that Christ was a Jewish mystic.


When I call Jefferson a Unitarian, I do not mean that he was a member of a Unitarian congregation. I mean it in the sense that he held an antitrinitarian view ie. he believed that Christ was a man, not God. In any case, there is this from Wikipedia:

Jefferson later expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph Priestley's Unitarianism and wrote that he would have liked to have been a member of a Unitarian church, but there were no Unitarian churches in Virginia.

I was responding to a statement that ninewands made to the effect that he had personal experience of an anti-Christian component of the 60s movement. My reply, to spell it out, was that many of the prominent leaders of the 60s movement were Christians.

Buffman

Hell! Even I concur that there were Jewish mystics named Jesus running around the countryside back then. So?
Read this slam of the Jesus Seminar from a zealous Christian!
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html

Then please say what you're thinking the first time and don't cause me to keep guessing and wasting my time finding the accurate historical facts. Thanks. (I'm still unsure what you mean by Christ's historicity. Jesus maybe.)

There are four distinct schools of Unitarian thought. Which one did Priestley practice that Jefferson admired? Humanitarian Christology? I believe you will find better, more accurate and meaningful, original references here: (I simply have no desire to provide a full course in colonial American history by providing the URLs of the original, specific, letters. That's "your" homework!)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm

(Extract)
Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence." Therefore, it is appropriate to quote the two following paragraphs from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson wherein he wrote specifically about deism, as taught by Jesus.

"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)

"I had believed that [Connecticut was] the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. ... I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to understand [i.e., to mean] sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.'" (Ltr. to Adams, May 5, 1817,Writings,A.A.Lipscomb,15:108-109.)
(End extract)

Of course they were! That doesn't mean that there weren't strong anti-Christian sentiments Read and learn.
http://www-personal.arts.usyd.edu.au...christian.html

(Extracts)(My bold)
Similarly, Katherine Stuart van Wormer describes her role in the Civil Rights Movement. Her role as a campaigner is useful, because as a white Christian in the Civil Rights Movement, her perspective is somewhat different to the normal white Christian stand, which was against the Civil Rights campaign. As a primary source, this is useful in documenting the wide-ranging support that the Civil Rights movement received, which contrasts a lot of the polemic that has been posted on the Web.

The Secular Web is a set of sites which provides resources for humanists, atheists and other ideologies. There is little treatment of the Civil Rights Movement as such, especially primary material to back up the claims. Simplistic labelling of Christians as against the Civil Rights Movement makes up the amateur's Web focus.

The Web is a useful tool but because of its vast depth and breadth, the really useful material requires careful sifting through a wad of amateur historical writing.
(End extracts)

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...pat-robertson/

(Extracts)(My bold)
Beginning in the 1960s, however, the nation began to stray from God's teachings for some reason. Society began to embrace principles which were inimical to the American dream. So in just a handful of decades our country has become a haven for homosexuality, atheism, and false religions (anything other than Judeochristianity). Which makes us ripe for some retribution.

In 1960, Pat bought a struggling UHF television station for $37,000 and gave it an evangelistic format. It would be the beginnings of CBN -- the Christian Broadcasting Network. He launched a religious talk show in 1963 and called it the 700 Club. It showcased lots of trippy religious stuff, including glossolalia -- speaking in tongues. This was later removed from the show in the 1980s.

Gerard Straub, a former 700 Club producer, published Salvation for Sale in 1986. It was a nasty tell-all describing what it was like working with Pat at CBN. It portrayed Robertson as something of an overbearing asshole with delusions of grandeur. In 1979, the network started making detailed preparations to televise the Second Coming of Christ, which they figured was due at any moment. This was known internally as God's Secret Plan, or GSP:

Robertson's political platform could have been summed up in a single phrase: pro-Christian. If elected President, Pat promised that his administration would:
Eliminate illegal drugs.
Eliminate pornography.
Revamp the public school system, and reintroduce the Bible to classrooms.
Sever diplomatic relations with the elected government of Nicaragua and recognize the Contra rebels as the nation's "government in exile."
Eliminate the following agencies:
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Amtrak
Conrail
The Legal Services Corporation
Supreme Court
And although Pat never publicly advertised it, there was another work item on his agenda:
Disregard any and all Supreme Court rulings.
In a March 1986 speech to Yale University Law School, Robertson admitted one possible reason why he failed the New York Bar Exam (and thus, never practiced law):

"When I was at law school, I studied constitutional law for a whole year. I read a thick book of cases on constitutional law. I did all kinds of research. But I confess to you, I never read the Constitution. I graduated without anybody asking me about that."
(End extracts)

IMHO, many anti-Christian feelings/statements can be attributed directly to having been prompted by Christianity crazed/drugged people like Pat Robertson and so many other televangelists...and Christians made him a multimillionaire many times over while right wing political conservatives were only too happy to put an arm around him for photo ops.

So when you come to these forums sputting the one-world Christianity that you do, I suggest that you come better armed with accurate statements and original source reference evidence. Thanks.

freigeister

The point is that I concur with Jefferson, Spinoza, Brunner, Einstein etc. etc. that this particular Jewish mystic was a most extraordinary man and that we need to read the Gospels accurately to separate the superstitious elements from the authentic portrait of the man and his message.

I use "Christ" instead of "Jesus" in exactly the same way that I use "Buddha" instead of "Lord Siddharta".

My beliefs are exactly those of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson espoused a Christianity purified of all superstition and restored to the original purified Judaism espoused by Christ. Whether it is called "Deism" or "Unitarianism" or "Jeffersonianism" is unimportant. I can't think of a better foundation for a one-world order than this.

BioBeing

This discussion split from Here and moved to BC&H.

BioBeing,
S&S Moderator