I have no doubt you sincerely believe you are personally communicating with Jesus. But my equally sincere belief is you are not; it is only a self-delusion, an artifact of the way the human brain operates, observes the world, and interprets it.
My claim is well-grounded in current scientific knowledge. Your claim requires postulation of an extra-terrestrial, spiritual being. Since your claim is the more fantastic, the burden of proof is upon you.
Actually, current scientific knowledge say that it’s a draw, at least according to one celebrated neurosurgeon who studied spirituality on both theoretical and practical levels.
— Phantoms in the Brain, V.S. Ramachandran, MD, PhD
Emphasis mine.
Libertarian, either your quote doesn’t relate well to our subject, or it just went over my head. It seems to support my position better than yours.
It would be tempting to reply directly to your quote, however, we seem to be getting off the OP. If you wish to start a new thread, I will be glad to contribute to it.
But on the question of “Jesus: Savior or Moral Teacher?” I feel he was neither. To be a “savior of mankind” requires postulating what I feel are unnecessary:[ul][li]Supernatural being(s): a god or gods and an anti-god, or devil, as a minimum[]An original sin or some reason that mankind needs to be “saved” in the first place[]An end-time vision, whether the idea that an individual person or soul transcends death, or the entire universe will be destroyed at once for other than natural reasons[/ul][/li]Without these conditions or something like them, there is no need for a deus ex machina to “save” anything or anybody.
I might agree that Jesus was a moral teacher, with some reservations. [ol][]Most of his teachings were not original, and[]Much of the body of his work came after his death. Pious redactors, of which the biblical John was one, probably embellished what was only oral history to begin with. Therefore, what we now credit to Jesus is likely quite different from what he actually taught.[/ol]
The thrust of the teaching of the historical Buddha, that Siddhartha fellow circa 500 B.C., was to follow the eightfold path to the other shore, and awaken.
The debatable point there is the usual theological mazing about just what “be God” means, but I would posit that when a human being truly achieves what the Buddha taught–be peace, be love, be the cessation of suffering–then “being God” in the sense that the historical Christ was arguably getting at–be light, be peace, be love, and be that with all of yourself without reservation–is pretty much part and parcel of it. You can’t do the one without the other.
There’s an idea that getting to something first is important, a badge of distinction, like running a race, winning a contest. There was at least one fellow–his name escapes me–who spoke out against that idea.
And wouldja looky here! The good ol’ alt.atheism FAQ even has a section devoted to this very argument:
—I’m just asking whether you know of anyone who taught Jesus’ moral imperative before He did. The answer is either a name, a “no”, or an “I don’t know”.—
I guess I’m an original teacher then if I repeat the golden rule with a few double negatives thrown in? Be serious: it’s the moral IDEA that matters, not the phrasing or the description. You obviously mean a certain idea as being new: but I wasn’t sure which you thought was original (since I have a hard time seeing how anything in there was original, insofar as it regards a justification for, or explication of, moral conduct).
—If you find the syntax of the imperative too complex, you can reduce it to merely “Be God”.—
That would be, in my opinion, a forced reading. The reading I get from that passage is: “Love Everyone (even your enemies), LIKE God does.” Jesus is using god as a model of moral perfection.
Even if not, I still don’t see how it is unique as a MORAL teaching. Most moral systems have an ideal, as I noted. The ideal is perfect, and ones imperative is to be that perfect ideal. Calling it god does not present anything new to its content as a moral teaching, though one might well construct new theologies around the idea.
I didn’t claim that Jesus (I hope we’re both bypassing the debate over “what did the REAL Jesus really say?” and are just talking about the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, however that portrayal came to be) contributed nothing to theology, or had no new ideas. As far as I know, he’s the first to suggest eternal suffering as punishment for unbelief, for instance. But his moral teachings: the actual ones praised even by non-believers (like Jefferson), the ones that C.S. Lewis was talking about: the ones who didn’t have the benefit of your radical theology, are not actually unique or original to him.
Musicat
Your position is that my spiritual experience “is only a self-delusion, an artifact of the way the human brain operates, observes the world, and interprets it.” My position is that my brain is not perceiving any illusion, but in fact is perceiving the only reality there is: God. Dr. Ramachandran said that it could be argued either way.
Drastic
Oh, I agree. Just as often as not (as in this thread, for example) it is the nonbelievers who trot out the “someone said it before Jesus” stuff. And, of course, the fallacious Mithras comparisons and what-not. In fact, what I’m doing now is challenging one of the people who said “All of his commonly praised teachings can be found first and elsewhere in much purer and better justified forms.”
I asked him where Jesus’s moral imperative can be found. Incidentally, I don’t think Buddha was necessarily a theist.
Apos
As I explained, the case is genitive. It is not “love everyone LIKE God does”; it is “love everyone THE SAME AS God does”.
I think that Jesus’s moral imperative fits nicely into Kant’s requirement for a categorical moral imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Then I apologize. I misunderstood your usage of the word “All” to mean “all”.
Apologies to the OP for this brief hijack, but Lib you’re not seriously suggesting that there are not striking similarities between Mithraism and Christianity, are you? If you are, then I would be interested in hearing about it, and discussing it - in a separate thread most likely.
Compare:
“Jesus is God!”
“How do you know?”
“The Bible says so!”
“How do you know the Bible is true?”
“Jesus says so!”
with
“God cannot be real”
“How do you know?”
“Because all you have is a dusty book”
“But I claim to have a personal relationship with God”
“But that isn’t possible”
“Why?”
“Because God cannot be real”
Point taken. Also in line with Mars Horizon, I’d be interested in seeing another thread about to what degree comparisons to Mithras (and likely other “Dying God” business) are fallacious, or not, and the whys.
Different social contexts, different framings of the message. When another manifests into the same office(s), I would expect yet another framing–but much the same picture.
Mangetout wrote:
Interestingly, Mange, the assertion that God does not exist because He has not been proven to exist is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance.
Arguments from ignorance can be really funny when the ignorance is removed. A famous example that this discussion reminds me of was the popular conviction among scholars at the Royal Academy of Science, who in 1893 were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that it would be impossible ever to communicate with Mars.
You would need, he maintained, a flag the size of Ireland, and it would be impossible to wave. 
Mars wrote:
There are striking similarities between the earth and a bowling ball. But there are significant differences, too. The coincidences of similarity between Christ and Mithras (the Persian version) are well known, but seldom discussed are any of the essential differences. I don’t think it merits a whole discussion, but if you do, go ahead, and I’ll participate.
**And yet here we are! Astounding that even back then people were looking for a way to talk to me 
The most significant difference is that no one ever got a bowling ball confused with a planet
OK, when I can find some time I will come up with an OP. I’m no expert though, all I know is what I’ve read online. Still, I like to think I can put a coherent sentence or two together, so stand by. If Drastic or anyone else wants to jump on it, just let me know.
There’ll be no jumping from me–or rather, I’ll be jumping quietly from the lurkers’ gallery. I’m interested in it for that ignorance-fighting thing–don’t know dime one about Mithras other than that it’s a name that pops up frequently enough in Christology discussions, and rarely in any sort of depth.
Too bad that’s not the argument I’m making. Moreover, it isn’t even a decent parallel to H4e’s circular logic.
Even if God exists, He does not communicate with His creation. I’m talking letters of fire in the sky, working miracles, Old Testament asskicking–just doesn’t happen. So you can’t have a relationship that is purely one-way.
George Clooney definitely exists. But even if I talk to him out loud every day, think about him constantlyand decorate my apartment with pictures of him, can we really be said to have a relationship if he never talks to me or acknowledges my existence, not even to swear out a restraining order?
Don;t tell me God talks to you becuase you get urges or you “fell spiritual” When you hear Charlton Heston talking to you from a burning bush that is not consumed by the flame, or if a pedestrian walkway opens up in the Red Sea, then I’ll accept that God is talking to you.
Apologies for the hijack, but as Mars Horizon stated so succinctly, seeing as there’s precious little contemporaneous evidence that Jesus even existed, I don’t see why anyone should be constrained from embuing him with any mortal or divine characterists that give them pleasure.
Gobear wrote:
With all due respect, I doubt that you will. At least, I know I won’t. Magic tricks are a dime a dozen.
Dinsdale wrote:
There’s an important difference between evidence and evidence that satisfies you personally. I find ample evidence. Nevertheless, I don’t mind atheists embuing the faithful with their own subjective suspicions that assuage their envy.
**My apologies if I have mischaracterised your position.
**OK, I won’t.
I thought he sounded more like Delos Jewkes…
Uhmm…
Damn. It’s just too easy.
Of course I specified “contemporaneous.” If you are aware of “ample” evidence contemporaneous with Jesus’ supposed lifetime, I and the rest of the world would appreciate if you would share.
I’m always surprised that folk who believe in a deity interpret their experiences as proof of the existence of that particular deity. Even if - for example - you pray to Christ and you believe your prayers are answered, seems at least possible to me that some other benevolent deity may have overheard your prayers, and answered them, not penalizing you for the wrong number.
More likely, tho, IMO - there are certain categories of experiences/phenomena, that a majority of people people seem predisposed to interpret as evidence of the supernatural. Cultural factors strongly influence the particular supernatural phenomena or being to which these experiences/phenomena are attributed.
Eek, I genuinely must proofread before I hit Submit.