@reasoning logic,
Quote:I can only guess from the knowledge that I currently hold that I would have been a disturbance to the status quo "some what like Socrates was during his time.
Why Socrates? Why not the average street furniture vandal? There are less crude ways of flattering yourself on our account than that.
Quote:You do realize that within written history that there were many who shared some of "the Jesus's moral philosophy don't you"?
But it would do if the written history was selected to share some (sic) of the philosophy of Jesus. I wouldn't call it a philosophy. It is a blueprint to avoid life being nasty, short and brutish.
Quote:I think that what may have happened is that the status quo seen this and played on it and invented the Jesus character.
If the
status quo invented Jesus its motive must have been to make an example of Him as to what the rebel can expect. And Jesus warned his followers to expect it themselves. And a few of them got it.
Quote:How is this any different than saying that I have the empirical proof to prove all of what spendius states as being false?
It is different because you cannot demonstrate that all of what I state is false and this thread is fatuous because its author is unsure whether Jesus existed and is also unsure whether, if He did exist, He failed to condemn slavery of the type that existed in his world. Under such circumstances it is fatuous to ask us the question.
It is also fatuous because if there is a Grand Plan, an Intelligent Designer, it is impossible to criticise anything that happens, horrors included, without being critical of the Designer and thus to claim superiority over Her. Which Apisa proves himself to be by claiming there is something amiss in having a fear of Her personified in one of her representatives he has happened to get tangled up with in his immediate environs or even further afield on the occasion of him being privileged to meet a few English Roses.
And if there is no Grand Plan everything is the current state of energy/matter transfers between randomly colliding atoms and molecules, and the fields of force they exert, and history is some exceedingly reductionist picture of such states at other times. In which case it is fatuous to ask the question for the very obvious reason that you look ridiculous having any opinions about **** like that.
When there is equivocation about whether or not there is a Grand Plan or whether Jesus existed or whether He condemned slavery, we are arrived at Grand Central Farce.
So when you do a number like that on the proposition that what I say is false I might consider your claim. Stating it cuts no ice with me and the proof of you being a slow learner is your inability to realise that.
Quote:OK so its your opinion but you do realize that opinions are not always facts?
It wasn't an opinion. It was stated as a fact in a book I read about the making of the Constitution and I have seen the fact referred to on A2K more than once. I try not to have opinions for the very reason that they mean nothing which is not something I advise you to adopt yourself as the shock would make you jump out of your skin so opinionated are you. Gradual, careful weaning is a possibility but unlikely to work when the addiction has solidified.
Quote:Are you suggesting that the bible should not be followed to the tee?
For sure. Ploughing with oxen is ridiculous. Getting water from wells in pots carried on young ladies's heads moreso. ( Although I daresay it improved posture and increased the number of young ladies looking for somebody to raise their status.) Try walking from Jerusalem to Damascus to send a message.
Do people not look at you funny like when you put such questions to them?
Quote:Are you suggesting that all atheist support the teaching of the church as you do?
Yes. Intelligent atheists in the west earning above, say, $50 thou. Who cares what unintelligent people say. They only have influence when they coalesce in a mob and start wrecking things.