Who's Your Historical Hero?

[Heaven_Bound]

I would have to say:

Jesus my Lord and Saviour
Mother Teresa
Jimmy Carter

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

I think the only repeat sofar has been Jesus. Nobody share my hero.....

 

[jayem]

My heroes tend to be artists/intellectuals. I admire them for their creative genius, not necessarily their personal qualities, which admittedly, were wanting in many cases.

Epicurus
Leonardo Da Vinci
Voltaire
Mozart
Beethoven
Giuseppi Verdi
Bertrand Russell
Frank Lloyd Wright
John Steinbeck

And as regards a religious leader, from what I've read, Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha, who lived 6 centuries before Jesus, had moral teachings every bit as worthy, and was a more admirable person.

 

[SolomonVII]

And as regards a religious leader, from what I've read, Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha, who lived 6 centuries before Jesus, had moral teachings every bit as worthy, and was a more admirable person.

But would he die for you?

 

[jayem]

But would he die for you?

Hi Solomon,

This would probably be better in the GA forum. Let me say, I'm not a Buddhist, but I've read a bit about it. Buddha (or anyone else) doesn't have to die for me. If I sin, or wrong someone, there are only two people who can forgive me. I have to seek forgiveness from whomever I've hurt, and I have to forgive myself. Buddha's basic teaching was that redemption or spiritual peace doesn't come from any outside entity, it comes from within ourselves. Buddha never claimed to be a god and never asked to be worshipped. Buddha's original teaching, as I understand it, denies any supernaturalism. Life is here and now. Buddha was born a prince into a noble family. But he actually did what Jesus exhorted the rich young man to do. He gave up his wealth and position to lead a spiritual life and teach. And a big difference between Buddha and Jesus is how they regarded non-believers. Buddha's attitude towards those who chose not to follow his teaching was benign acceptance. Jesus, of course, taught that "those who are not with me are against me, and those who do not gather with me scatter" (Matt.12:30). Buddha, to my knowledge, never disparaged those who disagreed with him. Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Snakes! Viper's brood! How can you escape being condemned to Hell?" (Matt 23:30). Buddha taught, "...you should act towards others as you would they should act towards you." (Huston Smith, "The Religions of Man, 1953.) And this was 600 years before Jesus.

Honestly though, I do respect any person's sincere faith, and I really don't wish to belittle anyone's beliefs. I simply find much of Jesus' teaching highly questionable, and not the absolute pinnacle of virtue. That's just my 2 cents.

 

[Palatka44]

Buddha was born a prince into a noble family. But he actually did what Jesus exhorted the rich young man to do. He gave up his wealth and position to lead a spiritual life and teach

And left his wife and kids to starve while he sought "enlightenment".

 

[Palatka44]

Jesus, of course, taught that "those who are not with me are against me, and those who do not gather with me scatter" (Matt.12:30). Buddha, to my knowledge, never disparaged those who disagreed with him. Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Snakes! Viper's brood! How can you escape being condemned to Hell?" (Matt 23:30).

Jesus was dealing with a corrupt religious hierarchy that put restrictive rules on the people. A pious groupe that took more from the widows than they had a right too. He stood up to them and the people followed Him in mass. They were afraid of Him and had Him delivered up for crucifiction. His stance for the poor and downtrodden changed the world for those that follow Him. He fed the hungry, healed the sick and raised the dead. For all this He was hated. He "disparaged" the Priest in the hopes that they would understand their wickedness and repent of it. On the cross He said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Your Buddha did nothing to relieve the burdens of the everyday life of the poor and downtrodden and simply was not brave enough to take on those that would opress the masses.

 

[Striver]

My Heroes...

Jesus (sorta goes without saying yes)

Alexander the Conqueror
Francis "SwampFox" Marion
Belisarius
Douglas McArthur
William Wallace
Erwin Rommel - yes he was German, but besides being a great tactical man, he went against Hitler as someone has said. He really is a Knight of old IMHO.
Paul - controversial but brilliant yes.
King David
Alfred the Great
Robert E. Lee - one word for this guy: gentleman
Stonewall Jackson and Longstreet

Henry I - nothing so great about him I suppose, but I am descended from his line.

That's all I can think of for now. Sure they might not have all been the best men ever, but they certainly we're all good at their various roles and played major parts in History.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hi Solomon,

This would probably be better in the GA forum. Let me say, I'm not a Buddhist, but I've read a bit about it. Buddha (or anyone else) doesn't have to die for me. If I sin, or wrong someone, there are only two people who can forgive me. I have to seek forgiveness from whomever I've hurt, and I have to forgive myself. Buddha's basic teaching was that redemption or spiritual peace doesn't come from any outside entity, it comes from within ourselves. Buddha never claimed to be a god and never asked to be worshipped. Buddha's original teaching, as I understand it, denies any supernaturalism. Life is here and now. Buddha was born a prince into a noble family. But he actually did what Jesus exhorted the rich young man to do. He gave up his wealth and position to lead a spiritual life and teach. And a big difference between Buddha and Jesus is how they regarded non-believers. Buddha's attitude towards those who chose not to follow his teaching was benign acceptance. Jesus, of course, taught that "those who are not with me are against me, and those who do not gather with me scatter" (Matt.12:30). Buddha, to my knowledge, never disparaged those who disagreed with him. Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Snakes! Viper's brood! How can you escape being condemned to Hell?" (Matt 23:30). Buddha taught, "...you should act towards others as you would they should act towards you." (Huston Smith, "The Religions of Man, 1953.) And this was 600 years before Jesus.

Honestly though, I do respect any person's sincere faith, and I really don't wish to belittle anyone's beliefs. I simply find much of Jesus' teaching highly questionable, and not the absolute pinnacle of virtue. That's just my 2 cents.

Perhaps the one thing that has been most regrettable about the feminist movement is not the very positive role it has played in the liberation of woman, but the fact that the concept of masculinity has been disparaged in the process. to the extent that a man of religion displays his softer, more effeminate side, he becomes more acceptable as a spiritual icon for many of us moderns. In spite of what many have come to believe about Jesus, it is quite correct to point out that he was not a soft, pliable creature, but on the contrary, very hard. It was not beyond him to take a very authoritarian, uncompromising stand for truth, and against the lie. Harder still, was his acceptance of the destiny that His Father was calling him to. Far from being the feminized ideal of a man that is fast becoming the norm for many of us westerners, the character of Jesus was indeed very masculine. Without being militaristic, without hardening himself against the wide range of emotions or against his gentle and caring nature so evident in his ministry, Jesus nevertheless was always man enough to react strongly against the evil that surrounded him.
There are certainly some universal truths such as the golden rule that are similar to many major religious denominations, but what is unique to Jesus, as an historical figure, is not his teaching, but the example of his life itself. To understand scripture as he did, to become aware of his calling to be the suffering servant, and to have the courage to love and accept the God that willed such a terrible destiny upon him defines the heroism of this man.

 

[jayem]

. In spite of what many have come to believe about Jesus, it is quite correct to point out that he was not a soft, pliable creature, but on the contrary, very hard.

Thanks for your response. I'm afraid this discussion is getting sidetracked into apologetics and it should probably be a new thread. But I'll just give you my take on it.

You are quite correct that many of Jesus's sayings are very hard. He talked more about hell and damnation than about heaven. And, of course it all depends on one's point of view. If you believe Jesus was God incarnate, then you accept this as God's holy word. And it does follow the tone of the OT, where God is typically portrayed as wrathful and judgemental towards the unrighteous. But some of us suspect that Rabbi Y'shua was rather a particularly charismatic Jewish teacher, who attracted a cult following, got in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified for sedition and blasphemy. And the accounts of his exploits (the earliest written 30 years after his death) were embellished by his followers with miraculous and supernatural happenings--a bodily resurrection being the most notable. So if your point of view is that Y'shua was simply another human religious leader, then much of his teaching exhibits a striking megalomania. "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the father but through me." This exclusivity is my biggest problem with Christianity. You can be a person of total good will and fine character, yet if you chose not to believe in Jesus, then you are condemned. You are not just mistaken, your are an enemy of God (at least by implication. How else would you interpret Matt 12:30?) I'm not just singling out Christianity--this is even more of an issue with Islam, too. This attitude toward non-believers is dangerous, and has been responsible (or used as an excuse) for untold misery--public humiliation, imprisonment, confiscation of property, torture, burnings, beheadings, and forced conversions, to name a few. That's my point. You don't find this attitude in other great moral teachers--not in Buddha, not in Socrates, not in Lao-Tze.

 

[SolomonVII]

Thanks for your response. I'm afraid this discussion is getting sidetracked into apologetics and it should probably be a new thread. But I'll just give you my take on it.

You are quite correct that many of Jesus's sayings are very hard. He talked more about hell and damnation than about heaven. And, of course it all depends on one's point of view. If you believe Jesus was God incarnate, then you accept this as God's holy word. And it does follow the tone of the OT, where God is typically portrayed as wrathful and judgemental towards the unrighteous. But some of us suspect that Rabbi Y'shua was rather a particularly charismatic Jewish teacher, who attracted a cult following, got in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified for sedition and blasphemy. And the accounts of his exploits (the earliest written 30 years after his death) were embellished by his followers with miraculous and supernatural happenings--a bodily resurrection being the most notable. So if your point of view is that Y'shua was simply another human religious leader, then much of his teaching exhibits a striking megalomania. "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the father but through me." This exclusivity is my biggest problem with Christianity. You can be a person of total good will and fine character, yet if you chose not to believe in Jesus, then you are condemned. You are not just mistaken, your are an enemy of God (at least by implication. How else would you interpret Matt 12:30?) I'm not just singling out Christianity--this is even more of an issue with Islam, too. This attitude toward non-believers is dangerous, and has been responsible (or used as an excuse) for untold misery--public humiliation, imprisonment, confiscation of property, torture, burnings, beheadings, and forced conversions, to name a few. That's my point. You don't find this attitude in other great moral teachers--not in Buddha, not in Socrates, not in Lao-Tze.

The one crucial point that is being missed in this response is that public humiliation, imprisonment, confiscation of property, torture.... preceded the teachings of Christ. Therefore, it would be incorrect to think that such inhumanity and injustice are a reslult of his teachings.
Arguably, it is only through dying the way that he did that all of this has become the issue that it is for us today. With all due respect to the great Eastern religions, man's inhumanity to man has not been brought to the foreground with all the terrible force that it has been in the Passion of Christ. In some ways the teachings of these religions appear to be made for a world much more sophisticated and civilized than our own.

Before the crucifixion, the idea that a person could be tortured and publicly humiliated as a Friday afternoon's diversion for the crowd's amusement, only to then be unceremoniously tossed into the dump heap with the rest of the yesterday's trash, was deemed as acceptable and even justifiable. In fact, compared to Rome, much of the world outside of the empire was the domain of people who even the Romans with their crucifixes considered to be barbarians (and not without cause)!

With his courageous acceptance of his fate, Christ changed all of this. With the idea that an innocent man, even God Himself, could suffer such a fate, the violence of the mob is no longer seen as justified. The seeds of doubt have been planted. Is that old hag that we are burning really responsible for the failure of our crop, or might there not be another reason? Is it possible that she is innocent too, as was Christ?

The symbolism of the cross resonates at many levels, but it is apparent to me at least that it was no accident that both humanism and critical scientific thinking sprang forth from Christian lands. By standing for the leper, the blind, the lame, and all those who were socially rejected from their societies even to the point of humiliating death, and by standing against the self-serving hypocricy of the religious and secular powers, in His rising, Jesus lifts to glory even the least among us. With his questioning of the powerful Pharisees and Sadduccees, even the very underpinnings of a society become available for dissection with the critical attitude that now defines the whole of our western society.

Not because of the teachings of Socrates or Lao-Tsu, or Mohammmed, but only because of the life of Jesus does the absolute value of all of humanity become an issue for society. No religious or secular authority can deny this without denying God Himself. If we ask ourselves why man's inhumanity to man has become such a central issue for our society today, the anwer would be, in a word, Jesus.

If the historic truth of the Gospels of Christ are only partially accepted, then Jesus, as a historic figure, is in fact unknowable, and any discussion about him becomes moot and mere conjecture. But when a Christian's faith moves one to believe that the Biblical representation of Christ is true, the ethical character and steadfast determination of this man defines heroism as it has never been define before, or since.

 

[Proud Hindu]

On the original topic, my historical hero would be Shivaji, the Hindu warrior that overthrew the mighty Mughals with only a small band of horsemen.

 

[crystalpc]

I admire many, they are my heroes for many reasons.
William Tyndale
Johnathon Edwards
Martin Luther
John Bunyan
Nathaniel Hull
Daniel Burr
George Whitefield
Martin Burnham
Albert Schweitzer
Billy Graham
Oral Roberts
Rex Humbard
just a few among many.

 

[Striver]

I forgot two very important ones: Martin Luther King Jr. and Martin Luther

 

[two feathers]

Ernesto "Che" Guevara, a Guerrilla leader born in Argentina and fought for the poor working class people of Latin America...

Great choice, cartridge.

 

[crystalpc]

I forgot two very important ones: Martin Luther King Jr. and Martin Luther

Good ones!

 

[jwsiii]

My hero is Charles Lindbergh.

 

[Roman Soldier]

Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

To Roman Soldier: Why did you choose that name? Also, my hero defeated a great Roman army and saved the Germanic peoples (the Germanic peoples are not just the modern Germans so you know) from Rome.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Let's see.... I would have to say mine are
Jesus Christ
Martin Luther King
Kennedy
And our current president now, Bush.