SOCRATES vs JESUS{socrates meets jesus}

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm

has any1 read this/is familiar with this. i think its a nice article pointing out some of the shortcomings of christianity as a whole. interesting and humourous to read too.

DO read till the end. it can seem daunting but its worth it. the step by step mentioning of the way in which god is responsible for his creation's acts is nice too. seeing as wordtwisting normally leads real debaters off topic.

Statement: Were FeceMan a secular humanist and in perfect control over the debate, he too could best Jesus in a theoretical debate.

Admission: FeceMan has not and will not read the articles on the basis that he believes them to be little more than typical apologetics issues repeatedly brought up by ignorant believers.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Were FeceMan a secular humanist and in perfect control over the debate, he too could best Jesus in a theoretical debate.

Admission: FeceMan has not and will not read the articles on the basis that he believes them to be little more than typical apologetics issues repeatedly brought up by ignorant believers.

ahan, ahan. {get it out of your system, itll help with the rehab}

Typing Jesus up to be a moron does not make Jesus a moron.

but it isnt jesus who is a moron is it. its the confines of the idology set up by chritianity that make him "that".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but it isnt jesus who is a moron is it. its the confines of the idology set up by chritianity that make him "that".

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The confines of the ideology that He created.

untrue. the confines of the ideology selectively created/manipulated/editted by the saints/relgious figues/church, of his later beleivers. i do not think christ as a person could have been 1/100th as bad as his followers.

consider this. with limited resources/knowledge of the time. newton put pur his laws of motion. with the best of scientific intentions and curiosity o the time.

6oo years later, some of his adherant denounce quantum mechanics and reletivity because in some cases they null newton's laws of motions. do we discredit newton on the account of their ignorance??? 😕 . i dont htink so. they should know better, he did not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

6oo years later, some of his adherant denounce quantum mechanics and reletivity because in some cases they null newton's laws of motions.

you are 250-300 years off, especially bad considering how accessible those data are on Wikipedia

i was referring to the future to make a point. i am well aware of when he was alive and came up with his theory, also. when the quantum and reletavistic theoris and their extrapulant theories were created.

very well, it is I who have missed the point 😉

hehe. gotcha 😉 👿

...Jesus gives Socrates big punches.

Socrates out-beards Jesus.

This uses very inaccurate arguments on Jesus behalf. For example "Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. After they ate, the learned of sexual love. That was the original sin."

The original sin was actually going against Gods rules, nothing to do with the fruit or sex. The actual act of rebellion was the sin.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
This uses very inaccurate arguments on Jesus behalf. For example "Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. After they ate, the learned of sexual love. That was the original sin."

The original sin was actually going against Gods rules, nothing to do with the fruit or sex. The actual act of rebellion was the sin.

Although in classic terms when one speaks of "original sin" there has been a tradition of equating it with sex, especially with the history of sex and the way it was viewed and treated within Christian organisations.

Of course literally it was the act of disobedience, but like all things people read into it and interpret. Thus the history of equating the original sin with sexual sin.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although in classic terms when one speaks of "original sin" there has been a tradition of equating it with sex, especially with the history of sex and the way it was viewed and treated within Christian organisations.

Of course literally it was the act of disobedience, but like all things people read into it and interpret. Thus the history of equating the original sin with sexual sin.

Declaration: The writer of this "Socrates versus Jesus" rubbish has failed.

This is more like one man's preception of Socrates versus his perception
of Jesus.

With evident bias it's easy to have the veiw you like beat the veiw you do not understand.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: That would be an idiotic, obviously false interpretation.

Declaration: The writer of this "Socrates versus Jesus" rubbish has failed.

statement: the article's popularity has sky rocketted

decleration: feceman's decleration is untrue

simply because you{who is the member of a minority} choose to interpret the bible without taking the literal meaning does not mean the vast majority of christians do. or agree with your point of view.

one interpretation is not better than the other when no context exists which can judge the word of the bible with any number of different kinds of believers.

Feceman did take the literal meaning. The sex interpretation is not even plausible at all. It is very idiotic.

is that why the bible preaches sexual modesty. praches that chidlbirth is a curse on a woman{who is not PURE for like 22 weaks after it or sumthing if im remebering correctly}. is the christian practice{well more PREACHING} of celibacy baseless? why is fornication a sin? why is it a sin to LUST? etc etc