High School Coach Peddlin Jesus

[GhostRider]

wow.� what a mature post.� typical response from someone that adds no value to any discussion on this board. 

You mean like these posts?

That's not even close to all of them.  Carry on, Captain Hypocrisy.

aside from policing grammer and the copy/pasting of stats, that is...

It's "grammar," professor - and I can understand why someone who rails on and on about crap they are clueless on would dislike the stats that blow holes through their statements/opinions.  Sorry about that.

Again, the difference is, I don't interrupt actual debate, just inject humor into already bad threads.  You on the other hand hold no weight in a debate, choosing instead to act like a little cheerleader.  Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about the concept of context, seeing as you are devoid of any.

[Biggs3535]

[GhostRider]

*yawn

[John Galt?]

No, not all mammals are cats, just as not all religious people are christian.  But groups of cats share actual physical traits that groups them together, it is not a choice.  When one chooses to associate themselves with particular group or organization, one then assumes the stigma of said group, whether good or ill.  Again, the more logical analogy would be a gang.  Maybe not ALL crips shoot each other in the streets, but if  you're a member of the Crips, you're every bit the dirtbag that your fellow brethern are.  If you choose to call yourself a Christian, you therefore assume responsibility for the actions of the group.  It is the moniker YOU have chosen.

Your gang analogy only fits if people join the "Christian Gang" BECAUSE of its bad reputation. People join gangs BECAUSE they have a reputation of being "bad mo-foes dat nobody mess wit". They are therefore willfully accepting that stigma and desire it. Most people don't become Christians because they want to be known as Moor torturers or mass murderers, in fact most people don't even associate that with Christianity.

The more apt analogy is the (legal) immigrant that wants to become an American. That doesn't mean he wants to or should carry the stigma of slavery or Indian massacres.

[BucsBullsBolts]

Who killed more Jews, Hitler or the Crusades?

Hitler, because there were more Jews to kill. The entire Jewish population in the mid-east was under the 4 million Hitler got credit for.

Just curious but is there a way to figure out what the world population was at the point in time that God pulled the 40 day/40 night precipitation trick?

Only if you could get a reasonably accurate date for the flood. Any estimate based on Genesis is inaccurate and far too recent. No actual date or time is given by Genesis and any calculations are based on counting all the so-and-so begetting so-and-so.

If you look at all the other Flood myths you get a general idea.

Plato: based on several Greek myths, put the great flood at around ~10,500-11,000 BCE

The Sumerian Eridu puts it anywhere from 8,000 BCE to 12,000BCE

Epic of Gilgamesh probably ripped it off from the Sumerians and both stories are very similar to Noah, including building a boat and getting 2 of each critter.

China has a bunch of flood myths anywhere from 4k BCE  to 12k BCE

In Indian/Hindu myths Vishnu appeared as a fish and told a guy to build a boat and gather animals, and then the fish towed the boat to a mountain top during the flood. About 11,000 BCE

Aboriginal Australia-no date but I like the story of a giant frog swallowing all the water and various animals trying to make the frog laugh, which caused all the water to flood the Earth except for the highest mountains.

Mayan myths estimate is at around 11,000 BCE. The Mayan myth has only 4 people surviving and they repopulate the world, then build a "city that approaches the gods" which is scattered and the peoples languages mixed up (very "Tower of Babel" like)

Inca, Hopi, Aztec, and other Meso-American myths are not date specific.

Geologic Evidence:

There is evidence of a massive flood (possibly the Mediterranean bursting through the Dardanelles) around 5600 BCE.

But since a lot of the myths seem to point to around ~10,000-12,000 BCE it is notable that this would have coincided with the ending of the last great ice age. Melting of massive ice sheets and glaciers on North America and Siberia would have raised sea levels a bunch, but over several hundred years. This would have caused a series of numerous big floods/deluges.

Around 10,000 BCE the population was just a few million. In the next thousand years, agriculture and animal domestication were invented which led to communities and the population soared dramatically. More food more people.

Dang, there's a 8,000-10,000 years and 15 million people difference in yours and keva's responses ... damn confusing.

[kevabuc]

BBB, my estimation was based on certain dates quoted by Gensis scripture and as JG states, these dates can be suspect due to the actual length of years. His extimates use more diverse sources and I would always bow to his detailed analysis since mine was born more from a position of a solitary source.

I guess it is just going to come down to which one you have more "faith" in.

[John Galt?]

BBB, my estimation was based on certain dates quoted by Gensis scripture and as JG states, these dates can be suspect due to the actual length of years. His extimates use more diverse sources and I would always bow to his detailed analysis since mine was born more from a position of a solitary source.

I guess it is just going to come down to which one you have more "faith" in.

I feel that a lot of Genesis is apocryphal and doesn't really belong in the Bible. It seems like it was patched together from several different sources.

But I do find it very interesting that there are "Great Flood" stories in Australia, South America, Norse, Indian, Chinese, and mid east mythologies and there is no way they could have been borrowed from one another. So it seems likely there was some sort of great flood that spawned all these myths.

Also very strange that Mayans and Mid-easterners both had a Tower of Babel type story.

[The White Tiger]

Here is the flaw in your argument:  Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and the like didn't commit atrocities in the NAME of evolution.

They absolutely did.

The principles gleaned from evolution, were the basis for what Marx relied on. Marx assumed there was no God. Therefore man could re-make his world in his own image...well...some "special" people could anyway...

Frederich Nietzsche's concept of "The Will to Power" derived heavily from evolutionary thought - and when applied by "special people" - led to the legitimacy and creation of the "superman" that could not be leashed by morality - since there was no God, his morality only applied to fools binding themselves needlessly to decorum and someone elses idea of "good behavior":

"..."Exploitation" does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life. (Struhl, 144; SS, 68).."

"...The "superior" people are those who acknowledge and express the will to power. "Expressing the will to power" means taking advantage of your natural gifts (physical strength, intelligence, beauty, etc.) to achieve your full potential, which may include achieving dominance over others. Nietzsche says superior people develop their gifts directly and unashamedly. They do not deny their own nature, their own ability. They face the reality of the competitive struggle with their eyes open and their hearts under control. They eschew sentimentality and pretense. They resist slave ideologies that try to diminish and impose artificial limits on them..."

Hitler loved how Nietzsche set him free:

Existential Murder: The Nietzsche Syndrome

"...Like some killers today, Hitler appropriated Nietzsche's ideas and made them his own.  It may not have been Nietzsche's intent to have his themes taken out of context, but few thinkers have the luxury of controlling what others do with their work.  It's unlikely he would have viewed a petty, dysfunctional and tyrannical little man like Hitler as the �bermensch that would usher in a new age of self-realization and cultural achievement. Yet Hitler was indeed a "monster filled with joy" with the "conscience of a beast of prey," as Nietzsche described.  Vague phrasing provided a certain flexibility of interpretation..."

...V.I. Lenin, J. Stalin, N Ceausescu, J.B. Tito, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot - simply expanded on a theme.

It's why I've often pointed you to existentialism - it's taking Nietzsche to his intellectual conclusion, freed to be "Monster's filled with Joy"...and they all had "conscience['s] of bird's of prey..."

It's why evolution cannot be what you think it is - as concepts spring from it are used for a basis for godless political thought - so that's why you have personal philosophy that is corrupt and bankrupt.

Christianity gave you democracy.

Evolution gave you totalitarianism - in the 20th century.

When you attack Christian thought, you'd better be more prepared to defend your own.

Your holes are showing.

They did what they did to further their own self serving agenda, not to forward the agenda of the belief system.

Wrong - they became the "special people" Nietzsche told them they could become, because there was nothing saying they couldn't anymore...

Nietzsche told some men that they were special and needed to be loosed from morality to become their best.

...and here's the kicker...you're becoming all Nietzsche told your teachers that you could become...with his and their help.

Christianity, on the other hand was spread violently via the sword and the burning stake, and now it's followers attempt to affect social policy based on the premises of their faith, not seperate from it.

You know very little.

Christianity suffered mightily for allowing corrupt men (like the Humanistic Pope of the Medici family;Pope Leo X - of whom it is said believed Christ to be a myth and the Borja Pope's: Calixtus III, and  Alexander VI) to bastardize God's intent by trying to expand the "physical" Kingdom of God by the sword.

The humanistic Popes - were the worst ones. Many of the worst leaders of the church - actually believed a lot like you do now.

At least the one's that did the most damage anyway...

You see, they didn't believe in what they were in charge of, they just enjoyed the power it afforded them.

They were Nietzsche, before Nietzsche was cool (by despotic measures, I mean).

You know how you can see this proof?

The Protestant Reformation started with Rev. Dr. King's namesake...Martin Luther's 95 Thesis. That Humanist Pope, Leo X, had begun to sell the rich indulgences for their sins, rather than hold them accountable...Luther had a problem with that and said they needed to get back to the message of salvation through Jesus Christ alone...

The Humanist leadership didn't like this and started a thing we like to call "The Burning Time"...A time in history where Christians could be killed by Catholics because they were Christians and not Catholics....

The Crusades killed a LOT of Christians and laid the groundwork, taught the Muslim's that Christians = Crusaders and the concept of holy war...etc.,

Just before Mr Luther began to shut them down.

No, not all mammals are cats, just as not all religious people are christian.  But groups of cats share actual physical traits that groups them together, it is not a choice.  When one chooses to associate themselves with particular group or organization, one then assumes the stigma of said group, whether good or ill.  Again, the more logical analogy would be a gang.  Maybe not ALL crips shoot each other in the streets, but if  you're a member of the Crips, you're every bit the dirtbag that your fellow brethern are.  If you choose to call yourself a Christian, you therefore assume responsibility for the actions of the group.  It is the moniker YOU have chosen.

To be a true Christian, you must humble yourself, admit that you cannot be good and even when you are, we tend to boast about the good stuff - which means your bragging that you had some part in it.

Sin is sin - it means man has placed himself opposite of God - it is rebellion.

God accepts anyone - man ranks sin and compares, while minimizing his own shortcomings.

[BucsBullsBolts]

No, not all mammals are cats, just as not all religious people are christian.  But groups of cats share actual physical traits that groups them together, it is not a choice.  When one chooses to associate themselves with particular group or organization, one then assumes the stigma of said group, whether good or ill.  Again, the more logical analogy would be a gang.  Maybe not ALL crips shoot each other in the streets, but if  you're a member of the Crips, you're every bit the dirtbag that your fellow brethern are.  If you choose to call yourself a Christian, you therefore assume responsibility for the actions of the group.  It is the moniker YOU have chosen.

Your gang analogy only fits if people join the "Christian Gang" BECAUSE of its bad reputation. People join gangs BECAUSE they have a reputation of being "bad mo-foes dat nobody mess wit".

Although I hesitate to get in the middle of this argument, that's not the only reason people join gangs. They also join because they have a need for a sense of "family" they are not getting otherwise ...

[The White Tiger]

Yes and there are so many Christian gangs recklessly sewing good deeds, they MUST be stopped!

By showing up immediately after hurricane Katrina - Christian groups with their well organized "self-serving" initiatives set up to manipulate disaster for their own self-serving ends - capitalized on all that free publicity by working for free at their own first responder aid stations, staffed by Christian volunteers, with donated fresh water and cooked food, all provided free of charge!? Who do they think they are...they're not even conducting mandatory revival meetings!

Why, they're stealing all the opportunity from all those well-meaning, lazy but all-to-characteristically invisible, godless/atheist and nearly godless agnostics!! It's just not fair for ______ (quick somebody tell me the name of that altruistic charity organization...because I seem to be having a mental lapse...it's so well known it's on the tip of my tongue...)...

How dare these Christians give money and time and put themselves in in harms way - with no strings attached - World Vision feeds and cares for the oppressed people of Darfur - why those lousy self-serving Christian's must be buying-up all the airfare to Africa!!

While I found plenty of articles citing what Atheists think should be done - and even more where Atheists  talk about what to do in Darfur, (how to fix it) - I notice those folks are comfortably behind their keyboards typing away ensconced in modern comfort of the world they created.

I was looking for the self-less altruistism from a group of atheistic aid workers - I'm sure there are a few that are no doubt working on teams, I just don't seem to find a single group of atheists banding together selflessly to show how much they care for their fellow mamals.

Random and spontaneous acts of altruism should be abounding...showing how to care for each other with no need of religion...?

Maybe it's because you guys eschew the spotlight - yeah - as righteously as you spout off about Christian atrocities, you'd think someone could show what atheists have contributed to society (I mean besides that whole relieving the world of excess population in the 20th century - thingy...ya' know, that whole Vladimir, Josef, Mao, Pol )?

...maybe it's because atheism tends to promote selfish tendencies...?

Nah...couldn't be.

Guess you guys just give at the office....?

By the way - besides the government - just what is the name of the biggest atheist charity?

Damn, how many people did this evil 'Nietzsche' kill?

[The White Tiger]

you might say his spirit is still inspiring faithful - in certain totalitarian regimes - he's considered a must read...he is revered in psychoanalysis, political science, and is the father of the existential movement.

In high schools and colleges across America - his stuf is gospel...

Hitler loved him...

Che and Fidel loved his stuff too.

Marx borrowed his premise (although Nietzsche didn't care for Marx/Engels, probably wouldn't have liked Hitler either) but like the material cited says - you can't control how others interpret you stuff...

[dalbuc]

The principles gleaned from evolution, were the basis for what Marx relied on. Marx assumed there was no God. Therefore man could re-make his world in his own image...well...some "special" people could anyway...

Frederich Nietzsche's concept of "The Will to Power" derived heavily from evolutionary thought - and when applied by "special people" - led to the legitimacy and creation of the "superman" that could not be leashed by morality - since there was no God, his morality only applied to fools binding themselves needlessly to decorum and someone elses idea of "good behavior":

People should avoid that which they don't know.

Marx's major antecedent isn't Darwin but Hegel from which he derives the dialectic of history along with others he pulled his theories of materialism.  Marx's own economic ideas are first found in the so-called Paris Manuscripts from 1844 and predates Darwin's Origins by 15 years and the Communist Manifesto predates it by 11 years. Marxists embraced Darwin after the fact as a scientific theory but is certainly wasn't necessary for their thought process.

Similarly Nietzsche, though writing after Darwin, has his roots in another German thinker Arthur Schopenhauer and the core concept of the "will" is lifted pretty much straight from "The World as Will and Representation" by Schopenhauer.

[dalbuc]

Here is the flaw in your argument:  Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and the like didn't commit atrocities in the NAME of evolution.  They did what they did to further their own self serving agenda, not to forward the agenda of the belief system.  Christianity, on the other hand was spread violently via the sword and the burning stake, and now it's followers attempt to affect social policy based on the premises of their faith, not seperate from it.

Why do you people even try these arguments?

Xianity was really largely not spread by the sword. By the time Constantine establishes a neutral position for the Xian faith the religion had largely reached most of the critical areas of the Mediterranean almost wholly w/o force and including Gaul. The major spread from 400-600 was into the hinterlands of North Africa, Spain and the Balkans. Also, mostly w/o force. The most violent widespread moments for the faith was during the spread into Germany and then via the Eastern Crusades into the Baltic regions.

[The White Tiger]

The principles gleaned from evolution, were the basis for what Marx relied on. Marx assumed there was no God. Therefore man could re-make his world in his own image...well...some "special" people could anyway...

Frederich Nietzsche's concept of "The Will to Power" derived heavily from evolutionary thought - and when applied by "special people" - led to the legitimacy and creation of the "superman" that could not be leashed by morality - since there was no God, his morality only applied to fools binding themselves needlessly to decorum and someone elses idea of "good behavior":

People should avoid that which they don't know.

People should read the text to see if a logical basis for the argument exists.

(Hi dal, I have missed our discussions).

But what you did was a GIANT obfuscation...

You distracted from the premise. It is not whether Marx and Engels were contemporaries of Nietzsche - it is that AFTER Marx's particular brand of communism was established in Russia, Nietzsche's ideas took hold in fertile soil and the ubermensch was freed  from a religious morality and elevated to become "monsters, filled with joy".

The ubermensch depicts an evolutionary process whereby a mere man, became the SUPERman - guys like Lennin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot....

Marx's major antecedent isn't Darwin but Hegel from which he derives the dialectic of history along with others he pulled his theories of materialism.  Marx's own economic ideas are first found in the so-called Paris Manuscripts from 1844 and predates Darwin's Origins by 15 years and the Communist Manifesto predates it by 11 years. Marxists embraced Darwin after the fact as a scientific theory but is certainly wasn't necessary for their thought process.

Unless of course it was Blythe?

Similarly Nietzsche, though writing after Darwin, has his roots in another German thinker Arthur Schopenhauer and the core concept of the "will" is lifted pretty much straight from "The World as Will and Representation" by Schopenhauer.

There are some very subtle differences between the will to live, and the will to power - one counts life as the prime motivation, the other frees man to become a monster.

as the results of the application of Nietzsche's ideas always seem to prove.

They liked him, whether or not he would have liked them...is really immaterial.