Question about Jesus..

Although it might appear to be an ad hominem, it is a true parable. If you tell someone something that is beautiful only if they understand it, they will trample what you say into the dirt because of their lack of knowledge. To them, the pearl you have given them is worthless because of their lack of understanding (they do not see that all things come from God).

I'll jump in here with a quote:
"In one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left us, the Thirty-second Chapter of the Twelfth Book of his Evangelical Preparation bears for its title this scandalous Proposition,

"How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived." "**Ancient Greek**" (P 356, Edit. Graec. Rob. Stephani, Paris 1544.) In this chapter he alleges a passage of Plato, which approves the occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds; nor is Eusebius ashamed to justify the sentiments of the Athenian philosopher by the example of the sacred writers of the Old Testament."

Here is something from the N.T. that you can draw from it what God wills:

1 Corinthians 4:4,5 :
4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

 

Compliment from the master

If you are unaware of metaphorical parable, more the fool you are. However I'm certain that you are not a fool, but you are a manipulator. And that is all that need to be said regarding your manipulating the true meaning into your perversion of it's intented meaning.

You're joking again, right?? Obviously don't re-read your postes, do you?
The dodge master who explains away every inconsistency in his own arguments, all the while accusing myself of the same. You who do not answer the faults of your indoctrinal beliefs expect that others should then answer to you. Example quotation as follows ~

You admit all cited was true, then posit your indoctrinated apologist unsubstantiated pretensions, and now harp on about me proving reference, but can't understand how it could be possible that you're wrong Re-read your own admissions, but first take the self-delusional blinkers off.
Further to this ~

A word of advice ~ the open mind has nothing to prove and everything to learn!

Rather than engage any of the potentials which are opened, you are too busy trying to plug up your very leaky boat. Keeps you pretty busy, huh?
And rather than make the necessary admissions that this is so, you seek to manipulate responsibility for your stance upon quotations and documentation you demand be provided in desperate attempts to discredit so as not to be seen as sinking. I suppose if you can fool yourself, you can fool anyone!

 

So are we going to just hurl insults at each other or are we going to discuss the matter at hand?

Oh, I am aware of metaphor, yes. But the metaphor still implies a rather insulting and derogatory attitude toward me. You won't support your claims because you think I will just try to trample on them. You suppose to much about me. I will TEST what you say and RESEARCH what you say. If you consider that "trampling under foot," then I do not understand how you have come to any conclusions.

Hmmm... still no circular argument. Explaining away an inconsistency is not begging the question per se. You have failed to provide evidence of circular reasoning. I am not asking because I claim that I haven't, I am asking so that you may show me where I have. You claim that I beg the question, please show me where and when I have begged the question. Spell it out for me as I am obviously missing it.

Well, I wanted it to wait until I had more information on it, but I have not found ANY record of Constantine doing wholesale burnings of all heretical literature. He did order it for ONE SPECIFIC author (Arius, a 4th Century presbyter). What's funny is that Arius was allowed back in and the destruction of the texts were halted. Other than that, there is no record that I was able to find that indicated any sort of wholesale destruction of heretical texts or pagan religions. Libraries remained intact under Constantine. So, after doing more research, I need to retract my statement. There is NO evidence that Constantine or the early Church instituted any sort of pogrom against what they classified as heretical.

And for the record, the first time the current Roman Catholic canon was proclaimed was at the Synod of Hippo (393 AD, 56 years after Constantine *died*) and that canon was reaffirmed at the Synod of Carthage (397 AD).

So what did come out of Nicea. Here is a summary:

The Nicene Creed and these 20 canons:

• Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
• Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
• Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
• Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
• Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
• Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
• Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
• Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
• Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
• Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
• Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
• Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
• Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
• Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
• Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
• Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
• Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
• Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
• Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
• Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

You can read the details here - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

A mind that is closed to nothing is incapable of making choices and is, in effect, incapable of functioning. It can absorb information, but it cannot do anything with it.

That analogy works both ways. It could be that my boat is sound, but it needs defending from people always trying to drill holes in it (those are the same people who then claim it is leaky). And what do you mean by "engage any of the potentials"? By that do you mean turning a skeptical eye towards scripture while wholeheartedly, unreservedly, and without criticism accept points of view which are contrary to my own? By the way, do you think that I approach Scripture with *less* criticism than I do other religions or philosophical modes of thought? If you do, then you are quite mistaken.

Wow, still attacking me instead of addressing the matter at hand. Are you going to answer my questions or just continue to berate me for doubting you?

 

• A circular argument is one that is self-referential authority. "Begging the question" is but one method of circularizing argument.
• Each of your self-justifications (infantile "explaining away") uses circular (ill) logic
• Manipulation distorts argumument by sly alteration to favour held bias.
• Your false dilemma/dichotomy conclusions preclude any solution but your own.
• The appeal to authority is fallacious as your authority is circularly self-appointed.

Engaging such rhetoric simply furthers your opportunity to manipulate and circularize. From my viewpoint, this may simply self-satisy an absence of recognition/engagement because manipulators must have a debateable cause, otherwise there is no way to engage.
That you cannot recognize your own inconsistencies is clear enough warning that you hold foregone conclusions no matter what is presented. Circularized manipulation is evidence of such.
You may loop your loops at will, but not with my assistance.

 

A circular argument is any argument which uses circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy which is a special case of the fallacy of false assumption. It is commonly called begging the question. In logic, the two terms are interchangeable and are equivocal. Where did you get the idea that the two are somehow different in some way? If you beg the question, your argument is circular; if it is circular, you are begging the question. The terms are synonomous.

For more information, see here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A688287
http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html
http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/LogCircArg.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion.htm
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

And again I ask for a demonstration. It isn't hard. Just point out where my premises assumed my conclusion. Either you can't, or you won't. If either is true, then please stop repeating this objection over and over as you are clearly unwilling to support it with evidence.

So, am I subtly trying to manipulate your arguments, or am I attempting to clarify what you have said? Could it be that I have simply misunderstood you brief posts? Glad to know that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a manipulator without addressing the other options. Do you know the Principle of Charity in regards to argument?

So point out how the dichotomy is false and move on. Show that I have applied the fallacy of the false dilemma and then call me on it. Making vague references doesn't support your argument and simply stating that I have made commited a logical fallacy doesn't make it true.

Sorry, the appeal to authority is ALWAYS fallacious (regardless of its appointment). But, I don't appeal to authority as my argument. I do not say that "x is true because y said so." My logical arguments stand on their own with references to history as agreed upon by historians as evidence. You can refer to an authority as evidence or for support for your premises. Doing so does not constitute a fallacious appeal to authority.

So, you will not address my arguments nor will you support your claims because you think that I am manipulative? Wow. You dismiss my comments, questions, and rebuttals not because they are fallacious, but because of *me.* Wow... ad hominem city. And still you are focusing on me instead of the matter at hand. You still haven't cited any evidence nor have you supported your claims. Now you simply try and give me a brief lesson on circular arguments and then simply rehash your old claims. You still provide no evidence and you refuse to directly answer my questions. You claim to have truth, yet you keep it from me when I ask for it. And this is somehow more noble or better than manipulation?

 

Jesus was not trying to create Christianity in the form that we now know it. He wanted to restore to sanity the way people related to God and to each other. He wanted people to realize what they already knew, not as some inspirational theory or a comforting mythology or some kind of metaphysical insurance policy, but as a body of inherited wisdom that IS the behind-the-ego reality of every human life, including yours.

The reason Jesus didn't just write down his message for posterity is because he knew that the best way to change the hearts and minds of one's fellow human beings is to live with them, talk with them, give them an example of what it is you want them to know, show them how it works in real life and to practice what you preach. Unfortunately, as always, some people misunderstood and within an all-too-brief time, Jesus' simple idea was either brushed aside or co-opted by the same people who have always profited most by controlling power, money, desire and ego. But because Jesus lived according to his ideals, right up to the very second of his death (and even after, according to the story), many, many people know that it is possible and practical to live a conscious, inspired life. The inspiration is still there. It might not be had he been just an inspired writer.

Now, I am not saying the following people's stories are the same as Jesus, but just consider how same idea applies.

None of The Beatles wrote down anything about how to turn rock and roll into an art form. They just did it, better than anyone had ever imagined it could be done. After their debut in 1964 there was an explosion of musical creativity by young people who were inspired to create music themselves. Unfortunately, as always, some people misunderstood and within a decade or so they began to make music as a commodity to sell for money, for political purposes, or for reasons other than the joy of creating art. But, because of the Beatles, many people understand that rock and roll can be an art form and there are still many who create just for the joy of it. Had The Beatles just written a book about making Rock and Roll then maybe they would not have inspired as many people as they did. Many of our favorite musicians might have done something else than create our favorite music.

The people at Woodstock, a half million or so, didn't write down anything about how to celebrate life and take care of one another and get along peacefully. They just did it, better than anyone had ever imagined it could be done. As a result, a lot of people were inspired to re-examine their lives, and live according to their ideals. Unfortunately, as always, some people misunderstood and within an all-too-brief time the hippie ideal was reduced to an absurd and untrue image of wild, uncaring, unwashed, misguided youth. But because of what happened at Woodstock, a lot of people understand that it is possible and practical to live a conscious, inspired life. Had Woodstock been nothing more than a book, it would only remain an untested ideal.