If the wisdom was flowing 6000 years ago and 2000 years ago within the hearts and minds of the peoples then why wouldn't it be flowing now? Our ability to comprehend and conceive ideas is far greater than it was before now. Of course there are those who would prefer to look at the texts that were highly controlled by those seeking power over of the people, but that doesn't mean it's THE Way, it just got the best press and we know how reliable that is.

hawkeye wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 2:38pm:


I can appreciate your point.  During my formative years those in my protestant church were certain anyone who didn't believe our particular sect of christianity was going to hell.  I quickly began to spend my Sunday mornings surfing to be with God and learned a great deal more about love, acceptance and appreciation than anyone standing in a pulpit ever taught me. 

I don't need that cookbook either, although I don't mind hearing about other recipes.

The topic of this thread was originally about "Evil People."  It was thrown off and became embroiled in battle when the existence of Jesus on earth was brought into question.  I take it as a given that one can argue anything - much like Holocaust deniers have conspiracy theories to deny that genocide, despite the fact that the Nazis were profilfic photographers, film makers, and meticulous record keepers (with millions of documents about the gas chambers, photographs, mass graves, all there for anyone to see). 

If the Holocaust, a recent historical event could be brought into question, so can anything.  To debate the conspiracy theories never resolves the issue, and in some ways, gives more credence to the wackadoodle conspiracy folk, because even arguing with them, makes them say "well, at least there are two sides to everything and we have the right to agree or disagree."   In my own opinion, I would say: Bull.

This is a side product of our PC (politically correct) environment in the USA and other parts of the world.  There is a sort of moral relativism, that says in a PC world that "everyone's ideas are equal, no matter what they are, and nothing is really good or bad, nothing really right or wrong."  Again, to this my own opinion is Bull.  If we all agree that love is the foundation of human consciousness, this sets up the idea that love and acting lovingly is "good," and that hate or acting unlovingly is "bad."  With this commonly agreed on axiom, we can now extrapolate to discussions and ideas.  So that if, for example, a satanist says "I should be able to desecrate sacred symbols and perform human sacrifice (using the argument that all beliefs are true and one is not better than another.........ie. moral relativism), we would all say "no, you may not - this is wrong."  We would all be referring to our idea that love is "good" and to act otherwise is "bad" or wrong action.  Eventhough we live in a PC world, it is clear that it is not correct to say that every belief is ok and equal and every action correct.

With that preamble, let us examine the discussion here about the earthly existence of Jesus.  While we are not going to find unassailable proof that Jesus existed, To bring up a completely unsubstantiated theory that he did not does not in any way add to the discussion about Evil People.  In truth it serves no purpose because its sole purpose is to create doubt without proving anything.  To then claim protection for this theory under the PC excuse that "all discussion and ideas are equal, and you are entitled to yours, and I mine," is a moral relativism that we have already debunked (see the above paragraph).

While I have great respect for the ideas of others, and I am not christian, I also feel that it is wrong to drop unsubstantiated criticisms on the faithful of major religions.  Did Buddha exist?  Did Moses?  Did Mohammed get divine revelation?  These sorts of discussions won't get us anywhere on an afterlife thread, and may intentionally or not create more ill will than anything else.

Matthew

DocM wrote on Feb 16^th, 2010 at 5:06pm:


As will denouncing other non-major religious opinion holders and marginalizing their viewpoints with name-calling and other minimizing or negative aspersions.

By the way, Hawkeye,

I love your analogy of belief to cooking.  I think I would very much like the freedom to cook instead of having to eat from a prefab menu every day.  I bet you are a good chef.


Matthew

You know Matthew, I love to cook. (Almost as much as I love the Creator.)

I just dont see that how being connected to a belief, church, religion, or being a theologists make you a good person. There are those who are the strongest of believers who have committed the most evil of evils.
Don, I dont want to poke at you but... you have let us know of your support for yet anouther one of the many pervert priests. Your strong religious beliefs move you to do that. And that s just fine. I would expect nothing less than that from someone in your line of work. In fact I have come to expect it from the church and its leaders. Is this child molestation evil? Just why does the church and many of its clerics support child molesters? They seem to have for years now. Hiding them out. Moving them from church to church in order for them to what? Find new recruits? To show that they are in support of it? Forgivness? Because when it come to good and evil, I seem to be getting this holy work confused with evil deeds. Please enlighten me as to a religious, church running mans mans views on if child molestation is good or evil and how the church deals with it, and has dealt with it in the past also...good/evil?

Mathew wrote:

'There is a sort of moral relativism, that says in a PC world that "everyone's ideas are equal, no matter what they are, and nothing is really good or bad, nothing really right or wrong."  Again, to this my own opinion is Bull. '

But to some extent morality is relative i.e dependent on time and place. A look in any history book shows how morality i.e. the norm changes. I have just come back from a holiday in Gambia where the norm was slave trading in the 18thC ( I visited James island a slave holding station) and currently a Muslim man in Gambia may have up to 4 wives. A hundred or so years ago the norm was to send small boys up chimneys to clean them. History shows us that morality changes with time and geography shows us it varies with place (Saudi Arabia anyone ?). Also I don't think we are in a privilaged 'enlightened' position at this point in time- I've no doubt that in a few generations people will tut at our current inhumanity to animals, environment or whatever. Throughout history its been that way and don't see it changing.

I don't find this upsetting at all, it just means we are growing (i.e expanding our vision). We are always changing our minds and we will keep on doing it. That's as it should be. That does'nt mean that we can't make desisions or have preferences based on our current worldview - just don't expect that worldview to remain static !

D