Hilarius:

What are your beliefs and what rational tests did you apply to your beliefs?

Without naming names, what were your adherences and departures from the teachings of X?

And while you're presenting the teachings of X, could you describe which teachings are original and which are similar to teachings in other cultures/religions/etc.?

Without naming names, could you describe your relations with others/quality of life and the deterioration therewith/therein and relate the logic of how such deterioration occurred due to your departure from X's teachings as opposed to departing from the "teachings" of Deborah Tannen [Book: You Just Don't Understand re: the research on the ways men/women use conversation and miscommunications resulting from misunderstandings] and/or Jon Grey [Book: Men Are From Mars; Women Are From Venus re: popularization of the Tannen et al. research] and other human authors who offer "teachings" re: how to get along with other human beings?

Without naming names, could you describe the specific/practical situations in which the teachings of Jesus AND ONLY JESUS "failed to produce a good response"?

What doubts did you throw at the Bible/JC, and specifically how did the Bible’s/JC's ideas never fail? Please contrast with the teachings of humans that failed.

Joseph McCabe presented parallels to JC's teachings in other sources in his essay/chapter "Parallels to the Teachings of Christ" in his book, The Sources of the Morality of the Gospels, published in 1914 by Watts & Company, London, with an abridged reproduction of pages 210-296 appearing Dr. Gordon Stein [Ph.D. Philosophy]: A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, NY 14215, which might help you determine which of JC's teachings are original and which are not, so you could be more accurate in your rhapsodies about his teachings.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited February 27, 2001).]

Posted by Turtonm: “Denying the existence (sic) of the Historical Jesus is an emotional and not rational decision”

Nonsense. I’m not at all emotional about it. I don’t believe that JC was an actual person any more than Zeus was an actual person or that a god, yours or any one else’s, created the universe. These conclusions are based on reason and logic, not on emotion.

Emotion comes into the picture when theists push their beliefs on other people. I’m not going to go into all the ways that this happens, that is fodder for another thread.

Sturgeon:
[Quote] Would it be fair to say emotions and blind faith go hand in hand? Seems that Hebrews 11:1-3 is a definition of blind faith. Blind faith is belief in something without questioning it as to its truth or falsity. Upon questioning the belief evidence would be looked for to support the truth or falsity of the belief. An emotional belief skips over the questioning because the belief produces a good feeling that the person doesn't want to give up.

I agree.

I sense that religionists for the most part can be categorized as emotionalists rather than rationalists. This observation comes from my personal experiences resulting from conversations/emails/etc. with religionists in which religionists have been advised of arguments against various religious propositions/assertions and they have responded with claims that I sense could more effectively be labeled emotional than logical, because they seem more to need to defend their beliefs than determine the truth.

Example: [KJV] Genesis 1 Sequence: Earth-Animals-Man vs. Genesis Sequence: Earth-Man-Animals. These are clearly temporal sequences and thus comparable as temporal sequences [apples to apples]. Clearly there is a contradiction: Earth-Animals-Man is not the same as Earth-Man-Animals.

A religionist/emotionalist friend has claimed that with G all things are possible [the cant phrase of religionists/emotionalists who otherwise cannot refute criticism with logic], so it is possible that both sequences are true but that G has not told us how.

If the gods are bound to the same logic as are humans, then by the law of sequences [derived from the law of identity], a series of events can only have one temporal sequence and none other. Thus, either G1 Earth-Animals-Man is true or G2 Earth-Man-Animals is true, but not both, hence a clear and obvious contradiction in the Xn OT.

[Can we coin a new term: emotionalist(s)/emotionalism? To contrast rationalist(s)/rationalism?]

If religionists have not studied the arguments against religion, for any reason, then skeptics/atheists/agnostics may not be fair in accusing them of being emotional rather than rational. But once educated as to the arguments, and given time to think for themselves what’s what, then we are justified in labeling religionists emotionalists if their logic is faulty and therefore clear evidence of emotionalism—using an emotional basis for making decisions concerning religion, following the emotional credo: Emotions determine truth/falsity; “If it feels good, then it is true; if it feels bad, then it is false.”

I didn't say that, Bede did. And his spelling was different than yours. It is best to ignore spelling errors, since we all make them, and pointing them out will only backfire.

Michael

Turtonm,

My apologies for attributing bede’s comment to you. As for spelling errors, right next to the Submit Reply button is a
Spell Check button.

Yes, but funny how it doesn't recognize
proper names....like [B]ede's, eh?

Michael