Was George Washington president?

chris epic said:
I'm not sure why Jesus Freak is so bitter.I am not anywhere near bitter! So many Christians try so hard to "prove" everything regarding their faith; but therein lies the contradiction, and I'm just not sure why all of these Christians don't see thatI am not trying to prove my faith to anyone. The frustration, the defense, the bad attitude- you will find in the Bible that these are all tale-tell signs of a Christian giving into their "flesh" instead of giving into their "spirit."Not frustrated, have a really good attitude, not sure what you mean about the flesh and spirit part Its as if a Christian takes the whole apologetic war on their own shoulders, baring a false burden; a burden (that the bible will also tell them) was carried by Jesus Christ. Ummm pretty sure it also tells me to go make decipels and spread the Gospel

there is no fight to fight, acording to the bible, so why do it? ? Why set yourself up for defeat after defeat. Its hard to be defeated when you know you have the truth The bible is illogicalif you say so , end of story- you can't argue it. I'm not even sure why the Christian Apologetic Movement is so invasive- its really biblically contrary at it's core. Faith and Reason, especially with Religion and/or Spirituality will always be a struggle to mix oil and water together. Even Saint Paul says that "it confounds the wise." If you're a Christian, relax, your faith is supposed to be stronger than any evidenceMy faith is very strong...I just don't want people to go to Hell!!!. If you had enough evidence to prove the divinity of Christ, then faith wouldn't be necessary, and faith is the foundation of Christianity so let it go, buddy. Well at least I got one buddy here:p I mean, does the snotty attitude that comes with your posts reflect the kind of witness you want to be? Thats no way to talk to your buddyBecause you're not going to win over any converts anytime soon with that.
Click to expand...

There that was fun!!!
 
m_huber said:
True enough, but at least part of what Plato wrote is commonly thought to be his own philosophy through the mouth of Socrates. I'm not as familiar with Xenophon and Aristophanes, though if I recall correctly, Aristophanes didn't write much on Socrates at all. But I haven't had philosophy in a long time :).
Click to expand...

Socrates never wrote anything. In the Phaedrus he explains why (he couldn't be sure that philosophy, calling into question the beliefs of the city, wasn't the most evil and unjust thing that a man could do). I think that to try and separate Socrates from Plato in the way you're suggesting is fruitless (in the sense that if you succeeded it wouldn't really tell you anything interesting) and impossible (in the sense that there is no possibility of success because you have no other evidence than Plato's writings).

Of course, it must be noted that Xenophon's Socrates, Plato's Socrates, and Aristophanes' Socrates are all similar. In The Apology, Plato has Socrates mention during his trial that Aristophanes' presentation of him was grossly unfair. In Aristophanes' The Clouds Socrates is a buffoon who claims to be trying to know the ways of nature and the gods but instead listens to the farts of fleas and whose arguments are used to justify mother beating (and by extension mother raping) and how to argue your way out of debts your rightly owe (i.e., overthrow all notions of justice). He is so poor and dirty that he has to steal cloaks and lives on handouts for his food. Plato returned the favor by having Aristophanes appear as a character in the Symposium who has to skip his turn because he is hiccuping (i.e., making funny sounds)and whose discussion of love is hilariously grotesque.
 
Stone Island said:
Socrates never wrote anything. In the Phaedrus he explains why (he couldn't be sure that philosophy, calling into question the beliefs of the city, wasn't the most evil and unjust thing that a man could do). I think that to try and separate Socrates from Plato in the way you're suggesting is fruitless (in the sense that if you succeeded it wouldn't really tell you anything interesting) and impossible (in the sense that there is no possibility of success because you have no other evidence than Plato's writings).

Of course, it must be noted that Xenophon's Socrates, Plato's Socrates, and Aristophanes' Socrates are all similar. In The Apology, Plato has Socrates mention during his trial that Aristophanes' presentation of him was grossly unfair. In Aristophanes' The Clouds Socrates is a buffoon who claims to be trying to know the ways of nature and the gods but instead listens to the farts of fleas and whose arguments are used to justify mother beating (and by extension mother raping) and how to argue your way out of debts your rightly owe (i.e., overthrow all notions of justice). He is so poor and dirty that he has to steal cloaks and lives on handouts for his food. Plato returned the favor by having Aristophanes appear as a character in the Symposium who has to skip his turn because he is hiccuping (i.e., making funny sounds)and whose discussion of love is hilariously grotesque.
Click to expand...

Curious that contradictory descriptions actually provide stronger evidence of a real person than complimentary descriptions. Of course, Socrates is not mentioned as a miracle-worker that I can recall, so that automatically makes him easier to believe.

Thanks for the info!
 
jesus_freak said:
I am not anywhere near bitter!
Click to expand...
oh, just sarcastic and brimming with negetivity.
I am not trying to prove my faith to anyone.
Click to expand...
never said proving your faith, proving that which is with regard to your faith: the divinity of Jesus Christ.
not sure what you mean about the flesh and spirit part
Click to expand...
In reference to your platform- you take a very defensive and negetive approach- very aggressive and spiritually unfruitful. Read the new testament- theres loads of stuff about the flesh/spirit battle. Fruits of the spirit (i.e. gentleness, kindness, etc...things lacking from your platform) vs. fruits of the flesh (pretty much anything that lends itself to self-righteousness and a bad attitude in general.
Ummm pretty sure it also tells me to go make decipels and spread the Gospel
Click to expand...
well its blatantly obvious that you are FAR from spreading the gospel and making any disciples in here. I would say you're doing nothing more than repelling people from it at best.

Its hard to be defeated when you know you have the truth
Click to expand...
then why are you still debating it. If your arguements haven't been defeated then you would be satisfied enough to stop rebutting everyone.
The bible is illogical if you say so
Click to expand...
I don't, well, I do, but Paul pretty much does too. Read I Corinthians I:18-25. "it confounds the wise."
My faith is very strong...I just don't want people to go to Hell!!!
Click to expand...
Your general attitude contradicts that statement of apparent compassion for all the sinners on this forum. If you have faith, that faith can be strong enough on its own to materialize your desire for people to be saved regardless of what you do about it personally.
Well at least I got one buddy here
Click to expand...
sarcasm
Thats no way to talk to your buddy
Click to expand...
more sarcasm.
There that was fun!!!
Click to expand...
Sadistic. Those last couple of responses show an attitude contrary to the perported love of Jesus in the Bible and I'm not quite sure any Christian demonination would want to sponsor you as a missionary any time soon, let alone the Big Man Himself. Seriously, if you care about turning people to salvation (Acts 26:16-18) I'd get deep down in the Word if I were you and come up with a better game plan on how to win converts for your sake and your church's.
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
Knock yourself out!
Click to expand...
So you admit to the dishonest quote mind, and have no problem making christians look like fools?

To each their own.

Funny thing is I would never intentionally misrepresent your position. It does a good job of being a mockery on its own.
 
joobz said:
So you admit to the dishonest quote mind, and have no problem making christians look like fools?

To each their own.

Funny thing is I would never intentionally misrepresent your position. It does a good job of being a mockery on its own.
Click to expand...

If the FZ himself has a problem with my sig and wants me to take it off of course I will. Come folks whats wrong with a little humor in here why is everyone so serious, or is it just against me?
 
It occurs to me that George Washington is actually a poor example for this analogy (not that the analogy doesn't suffer from all kinds of issues as has already been pointed out). Stone Island makes the better case for this, and jesus_freak should sit up and take notice.

To make a better case, if I were jesus_freak or any other Christian who felt the need, I wouldn't have used a major, historical figure who's impact was known as it was occuring. George Washington and Jesus are not historic equals in the eyes of their contemporaries. Jesus was from an insignificant village in a back-water nation that didn't really have much going for it. To coin a phrase, if there were a bright center of the world at that time, Nazareth was the further point from it. Literacy was limited at best, and largely unnecesary to the majority. Those who were literate, were most likely part of the status quo and those not inclined to put pen to paper over an upstart philosopher and his aspersions against the status quo. Jesus ministry was, at that time, largely unsuccessful and only lasted a handful of years. The kind of impact this hick-from-the-sticks was going to have in thirty, a hundred, or three-hundred years was somewhat unpredictable at the time. Contemporary historians can be forgiven for their oversight.

From here, I would pull some obscure figure of whom we have only a few scraps, but who is likely regarded as having lived based on those few scraps. Not being more than an armchair historian, I'm not certain who I would suggest, although I liked joobz use of Achilles. A much better analogy than the George Washington analogy.
 
RobRoy said:
--snipped most parts--

From here, I would pull some obscure figure of whom we have only a few scraps, but who is likely regarded as having lived based on those few scraps. Not being more than an armchair historian, I'm not certain who I would suggest, although I liked joobz use of Achilles. A much better analogy than the George Washington analogy.
Click to expand...

Well argued. At least, a much better argument than I've ever heard from a Christian.

How about.... Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus? Both were common centurions mentioned in the writings of Julius Caesar.

As for Achilles, I think the evidence of his existence is even less as that of Jesus, though probably based on a real person.
 
Last edited:
Ryokan said:
Well argued. At least, a much better argument than I've ever heard from a Christian.
Click to expand...

How about.... Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus? Both were common centurions mentioned in the writings of Julius Caesar.
Click to expand...

An excellent choice. As a side note, I was engrossed with these characters during the two seasons of HBO's Rome series.

As for Achilles, I think the evidence of his existence is even less as that of Jesus, though probably based on a real person.
Click to expand...

A real person, or perhaps a group of people. I wonder if a case could be made that Jesus was actually a group?
 
RobRoy said:
I'm not certain who I would suggest, although I liked joobz use of Achilles. A much better analogy than the George Washington analogy.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I used him because I wanted to demonstrate the logicaly problem error made and I thought it worked well using a person whose former existance was even more in question.
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
If the FZ himself has a problem with my sig and wants me to take it off of course I will. Come folks whats wrong with a little humor in here why is everyone so serious, or is it just against me?
Click to expand...

The FZ himself thinks it's funny. It's a perfect example of the quality of your information.
 
joobz said:
Thank you.

I used him because I wanted to demonstrate the logicaly problem error made and I thought it worked well using a person whose former existance was even more in question.
Click to expand...

It did. I hadn't considered the problem in that light before, and it was a perfect parallel for the question at hand.
 
joobz said:
Thank you.

I used him because I wanted to demonstrate the logicaly problem error made and I thought it worked well using a person whose former existance was even more in question.
Click to expand...

It did. I hadn't considered the problem in that light before, and it was a perfect parallel for the question at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom