To non-Christians - Is Jesus of Nazareth one of the greatest humans to [W:207]

Ben K. · Jan 21, 2013

German guy said:
I'm not a Christian, but I believe Jesus was a prophet and manifestation of God, like i.e. Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna and Baha'u'llah were too.

I take it you think he's a decent dude so...

Lethargic Aptitude · Jan 21, 2013

RGacky3 said:
Well it didn't seam like he was jealous of rich people or even tried to be rich, also condemning the rich and not liking class society is not a sole-socialistic idea, but they are very much connected to that idea, they are certainly not pro-capitalistic, and along with everything else tend toward something a socialist would say.

Communism or communalism ... Its just semantics, fact is they practiced what most people who don't have a viseral negative reaction to the word "communism" would call communism.

Im arguing that jesus's teachings do not equate socialism Im not arguing that they equal Capitalism. What I am asserting is that two concepts stand alone on their own merits. Logically since the teachings of jesus are much older than the concept of socialism that any significant similarities are passed from the older philosophy to the newer philosophy.

It is not just semantics communism and communalism are not the same thing. Communism is a type of government while communalism is a type of social structure. Communism employs aspects of communalism but that is just one part of it. WHich shows that that they are not the same thing.

Because they'd be no basis of condemning it without hte notion of "all men are created equal."

The notion of equality wasnt just a notion learned through religion. People are quite capable of making their own observations. To claim that universality was an exclusive result of the bible is nonsense. Not everything in philosophy is a result of religious traditions. Some people through out history have been able to think for themselves. It would be impossible to assign everyones influences to be the same. Perhaps people started believing in equality not because some book said so but because they were being oppressed and therefor recognized that they weren't worth anymore or any less then their neighbors whether they be rich or poor? War has a way of forcing equal rights on the battlefield. A weapon drove into the chest was not stopped by money. People can deduce that other people are just people.

The people in the crusades were not killing BECAUSE of their belief in christ, it was a lot more complicated then that. Also people nuked Japan for the notion of the "american way" or "amricanism" patriotism, freedom and so on, the legacy of George Washington.

Now obviously I don't REALLY believe that, but the logic is the same.

The crusades were a holy war that was fought by Christian western Europeans There was nothing but Christians going sown to save Jerusalem from the Muslims. It was a war waged on religious beliefs pitting one religion against another. Of course like I mentioned there were other dynamics.

Ok ... But how argued that ethics and morals come form economic systesm? What I'm arguing is our deciding which economic framework is best is based on moral judgements, your arguing that capitalism is better is basedon moral values.

I argued that they dont and you said that was wrong. And I am not arguing anything about capitalism right now. What I did argue though was that economic decisions are based on individual beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. Of course not everyone agrees on what is right and what is wrong which is why laws come in handy. Since some morals are not agreed on laws are not actually based on morals they are based on legal justice. Or more accurately rational logic not emotions. That is how the enforcement of law gets past the notion of absolute freedoms. Because logically it would not work to allow an individual to have the freedom to kill someone else since logic dictates that in doing so the other person was not able to enjoy the same freedom.

A moral code doesn't NEED to be absolute.

Either its right or its wrong their isnt any doubt.

Also those "good reasons" are "good" because they have outcomes that you find to be morally positive ....

Justice IS morality.

You can keep telling me that justice is morality but that wont make it so at least not about what I was talking about. What you are doing is purposely confusing the definition of a word to meet your argument when I am not even using the word in a way that would use your definition. Its fallacious to say the least.

Rights are a moral concept ... recieving your just "due" is a moral concept. There is no way of talking about "justice" without appealing to ethics.

Again its a legal concept not a moral issue. People assume everything is a moral issue but ignore that logistics play a key role in rights. My right to bear arms is not a moral notion is a necessary notion that people in power dont always want to follow the law.

You brought it up, but fair enough.

That is because the influence of jesus on history is pretty strong.

I thought you said you didn't want to get into it. But it's clear you havn't studied Marxian economics, he doesn't appeal to "greed" nor is the term "exploitation" used in some moralistic way. Marxian economics explains how capitalism deals with production distribution, surplus, deficit and so on.

Ah yes the obligatory "you havent studied enough" perhaps it is you that has not studied enough?

" The only wheels which political economy sets in motion are greed, and the war amongst the greedy – competition."

"Now, therefore, we have to grasp the intrinsic connection between private property, greed, the separation of labor, capital and landed property; the connection of exchange and competition, of value and the devaluation of man, of monopoly and competition, etc. – the connection between this whole estrangement and the money system."

Both quotes by Karl Marx, you were saying?

RGacky3 · Jan 22, 2013

FreedomFromAll said:
Im arguing that jesus's teachings do not equate socialism Im not arguing that they equal Capitalism. What I am asserting is that two concepts stand alone on their own merits. Logically since the teachings of jesus are much older than the concept of socialism that any significant similarities are passed from the older philosophy to the newer philosophy.

It is not just semantics communism and communalism are not the same thing. Communism is a type of government while communalism is a type of social structure. Communism employs aspects of communalism but that is just one part of it. WHich shows that that they are not the same thing.

The similarity is passed from the more familiar philosophy ... If we find an ancient civilization in latin America that practiced a type of democracy called the "ugga booga system", we would'nt say "oh look, Our Democracy is just like their ugga booga system."

Communism is not a type of government ... We are using the terms seperately, but if you want to say communalism because it gives you less images of sickles and hammers that's fine, I'm using communism in the traditional sense.

The notion of equality wasnt just a notion learned through religion. People are quite capable of making their own observations. To claim that universality was an exclusive result of the bible is nonsense. Not everything in philosophy is a result of religious traditions. Some people through out history have been able to think for themselves. It would be impossible to assign everyones influences to be the same. Perhaps people started believing in equality not because some book said so but because they were being oppressed and therefor recognized that they weren't worth anymore or any less then their neighbors whether they be rich or poor? War has a way of forcing equal rights on the battlefield. A weapon drove into the chest was not stopped by money. People can deduce that other people are just people.

Yeah ... But historically the concept of universalism came about through christianity, at least in europe.

The crusades were a holy war that was fought by Christian western Europeans There was nothing but Christians going sown to save Jerusalem from the Muslims. It was a war waged on religious beliefs pitting one religion against another. Of course like I mentioned there were other dynamics.

Ok ...

I argued that they dont and you said that was wrong. And I am not arguing anything about capitalism right now. What I did argue though was that economic decisions are based on individual beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. Of course not everyone agrees on what is right and what is wrong which is why laws come in handy. Since some morals are not agreed on laws are not actually based on morals they are based on legal justice. Or more accurately rational logic not emotions. That is how the enforcement of law gets past the notion of absolute freedoms. Because logically it would not work to allow an individual to have the freedom to kill someone else since logic dictates that in doing so the other person was not able to enjoy the same freedom.

Economic decisions WITHIN A FRAMEWORK are based on individual beliefs on what is right and wrong, however, the framework itself is setup by society, which itself is decided on a collective concept of right and wrong.

All laws ultiamtely are based in some sort of value judgement, and those are all based on ethics, saying that ethics and raiontal logic are incompatible is rediculous, I don't see why that would be.

As for as you'r last sentance, your confusing ethics with absolutism ...

Either its right or its wrong their isnt any doubt.

It can be right in some circumstances, but wrong given other circumstances, you have to take other things into account, this is basic in the concept of ethics.

You can keep telling me that justice is morality but that wont make it so at least not about what I was talking about. What you are doing is purposely confusing the definition of a word to meet your argument when I am not even using the word in a way that would use your definition. Its fallacious to say the least.

What kind of justice could possibally be detached from morality, Even if you say "no legal justice" laws are created on the basis of "this is good for society, this is not" which are all ethical judgements,

Again its a legal concept not a moral issue. People assume everything is a moral issue but ignore that logistics play a key role in rights. My right to bear arms is not a moral notion is a necessary notion that people in power dont always want to follow the law, even if you are just saying "for society to work," you have to ask, what constitutes "working" and working "for whome" and how, those are all ethical judgements.

Ah yes the obligatory "you havent studied enough" perhaps it is you that has not studied enough?

" The only wheels which political economy sets in motion are greed, and the war amongst the greedy – competition."

"Now, therefore, we have to grasp the intrinsic connection between private property, greed, the separation of labor, capital and landed property; the connection of exchange and competition, of value and the devaluation of man, of monopoly and competition, etc. – the connection between this whole estrangement and the money system."

Both quotes by Karl Marx, you were saying?

That quote, if you look at the larger context, is showing that Capitalism requires greed, it demands it, it isn't saying "things are bad bceause people are greedy."

Read Kapital, or at least study it from a marxist source.

Lethargic Aptitude · Jan 22, 2013

RGacky3 said:
The similarity is passed from the more familiar philosophy ... If we find an ancient civilization in latin America that practiced a type of democracy called the "ugga booga system", we would'nt say "oh look, Our Democracy is just like their ugga booga system."

Communism is not a type of government ... We are using the terms seperately, but if you want to say communalism because it gives you less images of sickles and hammers that's fine, I'm using communism in the traditional sense.

Despite your belief that it was communism either way it was a complete failure since it didnt have and real wide influence anthropologically speaking. Actually it would seem that man evolved quit the opposite type of society afterwards.

Yeah ... But historically the concept of universalism came about through christianity, at least in europe.

I think you are putting too much worth in the concept of universalism without defining it or what good it is. Plus Europe wasnt the entire human race much of which had their own significant influence as a whole of society. ANd when you add it all up I fail to truly see a universal belief on anything, not now, not historically and not prehistorically.

Ok ...

Economic decisions WITHIN A FRAMEWORK are based on individual beliefs on what is right and wrong, however, the framework itself is setup by society, which itself is decided on a collective concept of right and wrong.

All laws ultiamtely are based in some sort of value judgement, and those are all based on ethics, saying that ethics and raiontal logic are incompatible is rediculous, I don't see why that would be.

As for as you'r last sentance, your confusing ethics with absolutism ...

You keep missing my point and what I am saying. Perhaps I am not saying right? But it doesnt really matter.

It can be right in some circumstances, but wrong given other circumstances, you have to take other things into account, this is basic in the concept of ethics.

If a train is running out of control and you have a switch in the track that will either turn it towards a group of people or the other track a single person? Yes I familiar with the concept the morals are situational at times. But laws have to be black or white or they are impossible to enforce. So while I agree that ethics can have a major impact on the creation of laws it isnt the entire concept of laws. Ideally the less morals and ethics involved in laws is a more egalitarian affair. When morals are based on religious fervor we end up with anti-laws such as anti abortion laws or anti same sex marriage laws. Hence why the separation of church and state is important.

What kind of justice could possibally be detached from morality, Even if you say "no legal justice" laws are created on the basis of "this is good for society, this is not" which are all ethical judgements,

Again its a legal concept not a moral issue. People assume everything is a moral issue but ignore that logistics play a key role in rights. My right to bear arms is not a moral notion is a necessary notion that people in power dont always want to follow the law, even if you are just saying "for society to work," you have to ask, what constitutes "working" and working "for whome" and how, those are all ethical judgements.

Justice can be universal despite what religion will tell us. But you are only half right since not all laws or justice is based on ethics and morals. It is easy to point to non emotional logic to explain why we should have a law against murder or why the victim of a crime has a right for fair justice. A legal system demands justice if the goal is for that system to work. But a system entirely based on ethics and morals will fail to achieve either.

That quote, if you look at the larger context, is showing that Capitalism requires greed, it demands it, it isn't saying "things are bad bceause people are greedy."

Read Kapital, or at least study it from a marxist source.

Marxs point is that Capitalism demands greed just as you just stated and as I said. Marx believed that his philosophy could stop greed by stopping Capitalism, but history has shown that greed is the problem with Marx's own philosophy. As most Socialists will point out there has never been a true Socialist society. The obvious reason is because his philosophy ignored the human element and made grand assumptions.

lol a marxist source where do you think I read it, off foxnews or some crap? Christians and Socialists are funny they always assume that whoever disagrees with them is ignorant. But neither stop to realize just how they are marginalizing themselves. The key concept that you are missing here is your bias.

RGacky3 · Jan 23, 2013

FreedomFromAll said:
Despite your belief that it was communism either way it was a complete failure since it didnt have and real wide influence anthropologically speaking. Actually it would seem that man evolved quit the opposite type of society afterwards.

That isn't the debate

I think you are putting too much worth in the concept of universalism without defining it or what good it is. Plus Europe wasnt the entire human race much of which had their own significant influence as a whole of society. ANd when you add it all up I fail to truly see a universal belief on anything, not now, not historically and not prehistorically.

Ok ...

Universalism is the idea that all men are created equal, that's basically the concept.

If a train is running out of control and you have a switch in the track that will either turn it towards a group of people or the other track a single person? Yes I familiar with the concept the morals are situational at times. But laws have to be black or white or they are impossible to enforce. So while I agree that ethics can have a major impact on the creation of laws it isnt the entire concept of laws. Ideally the less morals and ethics involved in laws is a more egalitarian affair. When morals are based on religious fervor we end up with anti-laws such as anti abortion laws or anti same sex marriage laws. Hence why the separation of church and state is important.

I don't think that's the way to look at it, there is no less or more morals and ethics in laws, its WHICH ones, and how are they applied, the desire to have an egalitarian affair is itself and ethical concept.

I agree in seperation of church and state, and that legal codes should not take into account religious codes.

Justice can be universal despite what religion will tell us. But you are only half right since not all laws or justice is based on ethics and morals. It is easy to point to non emotional logic to explain why we should have a law against murder or why the victim of a crime has a right for fair justice. A legal system demands justice if the goal is for that system to work. But a system entirely based on ethics and morals will fail to achieve either.

t
I totally agree that justice can be universal dispite what religion says, my point in universalism was just historical.

I think ALL laws and justice are ultimately based in ethics, infact the concept of justice IS an ethical concept. But ethics does not necessarily mean emotional or not logical (see Kantian ethics or Utalitarianism). There is no way to say we should have a law against murder without making some sort of value judgement, i.e. there is something we SHOULD preserve, and value judgements are necessarily ethical ones.

Marxs point is that Capitalism demands greed just as you just stated and as I said. Marx believed that his philosophy could stop greed by stopping Capitalism, but history has shown that greed is the problem with Marx's own philosophy. As most Socialists will point out there has never been a true Socialist society. The obvious reason is because his philosophy ignored the human element and made grand assumptions.

lol a marxist source where do you think I read it, off foxnews or some crap? Christians and Socialists are funny they always assume that whoever disagrees with them is ignorant. But neither stop to realize just how they are marginalizing themselves. The key concept that you are missing here is your bias.

No Marx didn't believe his philosophy could stop greed, he thought his philosophy could get rid of the demand for greed, but then again Marx's philosophy was a discriptive one, it was positive economics not normative, Marx didn't really give a credible solution, that's why there are so many different types of Marxists that are trying to find a solution to capitalism, Marx found the problem with capitalism, we have to find the solutions.

My point is that if you are going to learn about Marxism, you would want to learn about it from a credible Marxist, just like I'd want to learn about Islam from a Muslim, or Libertarianism from a Libertarian.

Lethargic Aptitude · Jan 23, 2013

RGacky3 said:
That isn't the debate

The debate is asking whether jesus was a good influence. After all if the idea is that jesus was the greatest human then certainly his influence on mankind would be part of this debate.

So take a look around did jesus create a communist mankind in his wake? Do you believe that failure makes jesus great or not?

Universalism is the idea that all men are created equal, that's basically the concept.

Nice pipe dream but we are a long ways from mankind accepting that "all mean are created equal". American proponents of slavery thought of Africans as sub human and some even assert that they were not even human. Also look at how much of Europe treated those damn savages abroad. How far are we as a society moved from those old beliefs? Of course things are moving in the right dirrection today but we are a long ways from universalism.;

I don't think that's the way to look at it, there is no less or more morals and ethics in laws, its WHICH ones, and how are they applied, the desire to have an egalitarian affair is itself and ethical concept.

I agree in seperation of church and state, and that legal codes should not take into account religious codes.

t
I totally agree that justice can be universal dispite what religion says, my point in universalism was just historical.

I think ALL laws and justice are ultimately based in ethics, infact the concept of justice IS an ethical concept. But ethics does not necessarily mean emotional or not logical (see Kantian ethics or Utalitarianism). There is no way to say we should have a law against murder without making some sort of value judgement, i.e. there is something we SHOULD preserve, and value judgements are necessarily ethical ones.

I conceded that ethics and morals was a part of justice, but I will not accept that its mostly based on ethics and morals. Rules and laws may have as I said heavy ethical and moral influences during their creation but once they exist they are just laws and rules they are amoral. Courts have to act by rule of law not by ethics and morals. Of course in some courts judges have discretion but they must go by the laws or appeal will most definitely be applied. The appeals courts exist as a check and balance to stop the courts from acting beyond the law.

No Marx didn't believe his philosophy could stop greed, he thought his philosophy could get rid of the demand for greed, but then again Marx's philosophy was a discriptive one, it was positive economics not normative, Marx didn't really give a credible solution, that's why there are so many different types of Marxists that are trying to find a solution to capitalism, Marx found the problem with capitalism, we have to find the solutions.

My point is that if you are going to learn about Marxism, you would want to learn about it from a credible Marxist, just like I'd want to learn about Islam from a Muslim, or Libertarianism from a Libertarian.

Should I be like you now and declare that the debate is not about that?

I think that a short response that is off subject does not really hurt a debate as long as its actually short. Sometimes it can actually help.

Since the writings about jesus failed to make his characters (jesus is only a character in a book since that is the only place that we have ever heard about his thoughts) vision of how humans should live. When you look at the Earths population as a whole and not just the western world its clear that jesus isnt the greatest human that some say existed. In fact his influence was used as a excuse for wars and murder oppression racism etc. To besure none of that is what the character jesus wanted (well sort of) And well not every citizen of this planet believes that he existed or even care about what the bible says about him. All in all jesus does not matter.

RGacky3 · Jan 24, 2013

FreedomFromAll said:
The debate is asking whether jesus was a good influence. After all if the idea is that jesus was the greatest human then certainly his influence on mankind would be part of this debate.

So take a look around did jesus create a communist mankind in his wake? Do you believe that failure makes jesus great or not?

As I said, Jesus wasn't a revolutionary, his whole message was the "kingdom of God" I never claimed his message was "lets make communism."

Nice pipe dream but we are a long ways from mankind accepting that "all mean are created equal". American proponents of slavery thought of Africans as sub human and some even assert that they were not even human. Also look at how much of Europe treated those damn savages abroad. How far are we as a society moved from those old beliefs? Of course things are moving in the right dirrection today but we are a long ways from universalism.;

I said the CONCEPT of universalism ....

I conceded that ethics and morals was a part of justice, but I will not accept that its mostly based on ethics and morals. Rules and laws may have as I said heavy ethical and moral influences during their creation but once they exist they are just laws and rules they are amoral. Courts have to act by rule of law not by ethics and morals. Of course in some courts judges have discretion but they must go by the laws or appeal will most definitely be applied. The appeals courts exist as a check and balance to stop the courts from acting beyond the law.

Ok ... I suppose it depends how you view "ethics," obviously their own morals are not involved, however the ethical framework of "justice" is accepted as the common ethic. But I get what your saying.

Should I be like you now and declare that the debate is not about that?

I think that a short response that is off subject does not really hurt a debate as long as its actually short. Sometimes it can actually help.

Since the writings about jesus failed to make his characters (jesus is only a character in a book since that is the only place that we have ever heard about his thoughts) vision of how humans should live. When you look at the Earths population as a whole and not just the western world its clear that jesus isnt the greatest human that some say existed. In fact his influence was used as a excuse for wars and murder oppression racism etc. To besure none of that is what the character jesus wanted (well sort of) And well not every citizen of this planet believes that he existed or even care about what the bible says about him. All in all jesus does not matter.

Well ... The OP was about Jesus ... Not Marx.

EVERY FAMOUS PERSON'S INFLUENCE was used as an excuse for terrible things. Also It wasn't really used as an excuse for racism, quite the opposite.

Also to argue that his influence caused wars and murder and oppression, you'd have to argue that there was MORE war, murder and oppression than there would have been without his influence.

Lethargic Aptitude · Jan 24, 2013

RGacky3 said:
As I said, Jesus wasn't a revolutionary, his whole message was the "kingdom of God" I never claimed his message was "lets make communism."

You are very positive that the gospels practiced some basic type of communism right? Well then why did you bring it up then? I mean I wasnt the one that brought that in this thread that was you.

I said the CONCEPT of universalism ....

Yes and I got that. But what kind of claim are you making then if it hasnt ever really been practiced universally? At most it means that only sections of society has been affected by the concept.

Ok ... I suppose it depends how you view "ethics," obviously their own morals are not involved, however the ethical framework of "justice" is accepted as the common ethic. But I get what your saying.

And I got what you were saying but I had to explain exactly what I meant.

Well ... The OP was about Jesus ... Not Marx.

Seriously dude?

EVERY FAMOUS PERSON'S INFLUENCE was used as an excuse for terrible things. Also It wasn't really used as an excuse for racism, quite the opposite.

Yes influence is a two way street. And have you not ever heard of the KKK? You cant just look at this with rose colored glasses on you have to take the good with the bad. The New Testament has a lot of bad in it. And jesus's message had a lot of bad.

Also to argue that his influence caused wars and murder and oppression, you'd have to argue that there was MORE war, murder and oppression than there would have been without his influence.

I do not have to argue more I just need to point out that people have done things bad in the name of jesus. Which is not surprising since the bible is full of bad deeds in the first place. The psychological influence of praising a afterlife, of looking at one figure as the dictator of the universe, The new testaments promotion of faith over family, Putting more worth to males, all are bad influences on society. Taken over time they have lead to the beliefs that the extreme Right likes to promote in their Christian politics. Have you not been to a Christian church lately? Most of those church's are mixing politics into their services. And they are not talking about your Socialism in a good light now are they?

Perhaps in the day of the gospels jesus's message was a great thing in that small locality. But every since Rome embraced jesus's message it has been a bad thing. Now in modern times the influence has turned into a definite bad influence. You have to admit that only a small minority today embraces anything near what jesus preached.

To non-Christians - Is Jesus of Nazareth one of the greatest humans to [W:207]

Ben K.

Lethargic Aptitude

Political Parties = Corruption

RGacky3

Lethargic Aptitude

Political Parties = Corruption

RGacky3

Lethargic Aptitude

Political Parties = Corruption

RGacky3

Lethargic Aptitude

Political Parties = Corruption