to the dumb philsopher

GodSchism · Feb 11, 2007

In philsophy, you learn that everything that is possible is necessarily true. Everything imagined is an image of truth.
You're too smart (replace smart with a four letter word) to realize that Jesus Christ was a philosopher. It's funny the philosopher that everyone rejected has become the cornerstone. Whoever comes across this stone shall stumble. Whoever this stone shall land upon shall be as dust.

Creature of habit, I have no respect for your kind.
Choking the life out of you with my bare hands.

GodSchism · Feb 11, 2007

still don't believe me then let's turn to the gospel of thomas:

13. Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

GodSchism · Feb 11, 2007

Why don't you read the bible for it's philosophical value.
Science is Not philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy. You don't know anything about philosophy because if you did then you would know that in philosophy, if something is possible that means it is necessarily true. Everything imagined is an image of truth.

Creature of habit, I have no respect for your kind.
Choking the life from you with my bare hands.

fuzzyh · Feb 11, 2007

Jesus was a philosopher with an ethical theory that was greater than most ethical theories out there. In fact, I think anyone who has studied ethics without looking at Jesus, is doing a disservice to ethical theory, even if they weren't Christians.

GodSchism · Feb 11, 2007

fuzzyh said:
Jesus was a philosopher with an ethical theory that was greater than most ethical theories out there. In fact, I think anyone who has studied ethics without looking at Jesus, is doing a disservice to ethical theory, even if they weren't Christians.

Thank you brother. I've been trying to fight these scientific minds with reason but they will hear none of it. It's nice to have a friend.
I don't know if you believe or not but your statement is enlightening. All you have to do is confess his word. He says, whoever keeps my sayings, it is he that loves me.

us38 · Feb 11, 2007

GodSchism said:
In philsophy, you learn that everything that is possible is necessarily true.

Really? News to me. Let me try this.

It is possible that I have one trillion dollars.
Therefore, I have one trillion dollars.

Now, please explain to me why I'm not the richest person on the planet?

Everything imagined is an image of truth.

I imagine myself flying, with no external help. But I can't, so obviously my imagination is not a reflection of reality.

You're too smart (replace smart with a four letter word) to realize that Jesus Christ was a philosopher.

You're too smart (replace smart with a four letter word) to realize that Sidharta Guatama was a philosopher.

The fact that he was a philosopher doesn't make him right.

It's funny the philosopher that everyone rejected has become the cornerstone.

It's funny that you haven't proven this.

The Nihilist · Feb 11, 2007

1. No serious thinker ever said that everything possible was necessary.
2. The citation from Thomas is a simile. To say that Jesus is like a wise philosopher is not the same as saying that he is a wise philosopher.
3. The Gospel of Thomas? Seriously? I'm not sure you're allowed to use the Christian icon if you're a gnostic. Canonic scripture only, please.

Fuzzyh, you are also wrong. Jesus's passivity in the face of opposition is not really different from stoicism.

us38 · Feb 11, 2007

GodSchism said:
You don't know anything about philosophy because if you did then you would know that in philosophy, if something is possible that means it is necessarily true. Everything imagined is an image of truth.

Not, it's not. Get over it.

GodSchism said:
I've been trying to fight these scientific minds with reason but they will hear none of it. It's nice to have a friend.

If by "reason" you mean "horribly fallacious arguments", then I would agree.

Eudaimonist · Feb 12, 2007

People who can't spell "philosopher" shouldn't call others dumb.

GodSchism said:
In philsophy, you learn that everything that is possible is necessarily true. Everything imagined is an image of truth.

Philosophy says something very different. It is you who don't understand philosophy.

[You're too smart (replace smart with a four letter word) to realize that Jesus Christ was a philosopher.

Jesus was no philosopher. He may have been a moral teacher, assuming he existed, but he showed no talent for philosophy. A philosopher never merely pontificates -- he gives rational reasons why one should believe some claim.

To see a real philosopher in action, read the Socratic dialogues and watch his approach carefully.

eudaimonia,

Mark

fuzzyh · Feb 12, 2007

I'm not certainly not an expert in stoicism most everything I've read is second or third hand material. However, I found Jesus to be more love center. This means that although stoicism had a passivity there was something different in the passivity of Jesus. Perhaps, my lack of reading as many 1st hand sources as possible is my problem.

fuzzyh · Feb 12, 2007

Jesus was no philosopher. He may have been a moral teacher, assuming he existed, but he showed no talent for philosophy. A philosopher never merely pontificates -- he gives rational reasons why one should believe some claim.

To see a real philosopher in action, read the Socratic dialogues and watch his approach carefully.

Funny how, I have found almost as many definitions of philosophy as I have authors that I have read. In some definitions Jesus would be a philosopher, though perhaps not the one with the tightest reason. In some definitions, Jesus would not be a philosopher. I guess we must define philosophy first.

fuzzyh · Feb 12, 2007

3. The Gospel of Thomas? Seriously? I'm not sure you're allowed to use the Christian icon if you're a gnostic. Canonic scripture only, please.

Let's give him a fairly good read. We could say that the use of the Gospel of Thomas is authoritative. The use of the Gospel of Thomas is what some early, albeit, heretical Christians thought about Jesus. Someone thought Jesus was a philosopher, even if you do not.

The Nihilist · Feb 12, 2007

fuzzyh said:
Let's give him a fairly good read. We could say that the use of the Gospel of Thomas is authoritative. The use of the Gospel of Thomas is what some early, albeit, heretical Christians thought about Jesus. Someone thought Jesus was a philosopher, even if you do not.

No, it's a simile. Like I said.

The Nihilist · Feb 12, 2007

fuzzyh said:
I'm not certainly not an expert in stoicism most everything I've read is second or third hand material. However, I found Jesus to be more love center. This means that although stoicism had a passivity there was something different in the passivity of Jesus. Perhaps, my lack of reading as many 1st hand sources as possible is my problem.

I think what you're saying here is that the difference lies in the fact that Jesus instructs passivity out of love, rather than, I dunno, ataraxia. I am fairly certain that stoicism had such an element prior to Jesus's preaching, or at least, it had elements that were relevantly similar so as to make it look like Jesus is nothing more or less than the world's most popular adherent of stoicism.

Blackguard_ · Feb 12, 2007

2. The citation from Thomas is a simile. To say that Jesus is like a wise philosopher is not the same as saying that he is a wise philosopher.

Besides, doesn't that passage hint that what Thomas said was the right answer?

Let's give him a fairly good read. We could say that the use of the Gospel of Thomas is authoritative. The use of the Gospel of Thomas is what some early, albeit, heretical Christians thought about Jesus. Someone thought Jesus was a philosopher, even if you do not.

It's mid second century, it's not early.

Fuzzyh, you are also wrong. Jesus's passivity in the face of opposition is not really different from stoicism.

Yep. I've been reading the Discourses of Epictetus lately, and uf he didn't say "Zeus" or "gods" occasinaly most of it could have been written by a Christian.

Even before Stoicism there's Socrates drinking the hemlock like a martyr going to his demise becasue he felt he was basically on a mission from Apollo.

Plato's Apology said:
Strange, indeed, would be my conduct, O men of Athens, if I who, when I was ordered by the generals whom you chose to command me at Potidaea and Amphipolis and Delium, remained where they placed me, like any other man, facing death; if, I say, now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfil the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise.

discourses of Epicteus book1 said:
How did Socrates behave with respect to these matters? Why, in what other way than a man ought to do who was convinced that he was a kinsman of the gods? "If you say to me now," said Socrates to his judges, "'We will acquit you on the condition that you no longer discourse in the way in which you have hitherto discoursed, nor trouble either our young or our old men,' I shall answer, 'you make yourselves ridiculous by thinking that, if one of our commanders has appointed me to a certain post, it is my duty to keep and maintain it, and to resolve to die a thousand times rather than desert it; but if God has put us in any place and way of life, we ought to desert it.'"

think what you're saying here is that the difference lies in the fact that Jesus instructs passivity out of love, rather than, I dunno, ataraxia.

But they would be kind of be the same thing, if your soul found serenity in acting out of love. wouldn't they?

And while the subject has been brought up, Jesus idea not to repay "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" goes back farther than him too.

Plato's "Crito" said:
Soc. Again, Crito, may we do evil?

Cr. Surely not, Socrates.

Soc. And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many-is that just or not?

Cr. Not just.

Soc. For doing evil to another is the same as injuring him?

Cr. Very true.

Soc. Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another, when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our agreement? Or do you decline and dissent from this? For this has been of old and is still my opinion; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step.

GodSchism · Feb 13, 2007

fuzzyh said:
[/size][/color][/font]
Funny how, I have found almost as many definitions of philosophy as I have authors that I have read. In some definitions Jesus would be a philosopher, though perhaps not the one with the tightest reason. In some definitions, Jesus would not be a philosopher. I guess we must define philosophy first.

Every living man is a philosopher. We are all searching for something, usually truth. However, we are all searching for something but mostly happiness. In truth there is happiness. We just fail to accept the truth as leading to happiness because we discover that our desires cannot always be fullfilled with truth. But one cannot desire what he has not yet perceived. The definition of philosophy is the search for truth. Jesus said I am the truth; and then in parable he gave philosophical stones to ponder because in seeing we do not see and in hearing we do not hear. Parable is nothing more than a philosophical lesson derived from a poetic tale. Jesus was a philosopher king.

The Nihilist · Feb 13, 2007

God I hate gnostics.

fuzzyh · Feb 13, 2007

hahaha. I'm certainly not a gnostics and normally I hate gnostics as well. I'm a Thomist.

In my thoughts on the Gospel of Thomas, I was thinking early as in second century. I probably should have specified that.

In any case, I'll take the heat that someone considered Jesus like a philosophy as opposed to is a philosopher. I was wrong in that case, perhaps I best read more and say less.

However, in slighted defense I have read some works by some philosophy professors who has considered Jesus as a philosopher, but I neither have the writings in front of me nor the name of the person(s) who wrote them. The one name I do seem to recall is Douglas Groothuis talking about Jesus as a philosopher in a lecture in MP3 format.

Squeejie · Feb 13, 2007

schism you seem to be looking to pick fights, which goes against what you are even saying Jesus taught. don't you think you are being a little hypocritical? as a philosopher or one who studies philosophy, wouldn't you wanting to break stereotypes? you seem to be enforcing the stereotype that all christians are hypocritical hotheads who's sole goal is to belittle others to feel better about themselves.

to the dumb philsopher

GodSchism

Guest

GodSchism

Guest

GodSchism

Guest

Senior Member

GodSchism

Guest

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

Contributor

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

I believe in life before death!

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Contributor

Contributor

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

GodSchism

Guest

Contributor

Senior Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency