PBS Discussions

ssawyer · Joined: 15 Sep 2004 Posts: 21 Location: Tulsa, Ok.

One of the main problems with posting The Ten Commandments in public schools is the subsequent inference that these common sense generic ideas, that were in the public domain long before there were any Christians or Jews, were either discovered by or first revealed to the Christians and Jews.
During tonight's program (9/15/04) DR. See defended the validity of Christianity by referring to the profound statements made by Jesus in the Gospels. But there are no profound moral statements in the Gospels that were not in the public domain before the time of Jesus.

chip316 · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 5 Location: Puyallup, Washington

Jesus said, "I am the truth, the way and the life. No man gets to the Father but through me" Forgive my paraphrasing but is that not profound that Jesus Christ declared himself the Son of God. Either Jesus Christ was accurate or he perpetuated the greatest hoax of all time.
_________________
Chip

Ralph Dumain · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 11

This is the logic of an idiot. There are several other possibilities, e.g.:

(1) Jesus Christ is a fictional character.

(2) JC's "biography" consists of fairy tales built around a historical character.

(3) JC's message was distorted and/or misunderstood and/or falsified by those who wrote these stories.

(4) JC was well-intentioned but delusional.

(5) JC's followers or inventors were deluded rather than dishonest.

Isaiah538 · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 6 Location: Arizona

What immediately came to mind as a profound statement by Christ was when he said, "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." And in relation to that he said, "The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going, so is everyone who is born of the Spirit of God." (see John 3) Again, he said, "You did not choose me, but I have chosen you."

This lines up with what Paul quoted from the Old Testament saying, "None seeks after Him." (see Romans 3) And how salvation 'does not depend on the man who wills, or the man who runs, but on God, who has mercy.' (see Romans 9)

So we see that just like when we are born the first time, we did not choose it, neither do we choose our spiritual birth.

Was this really new? Well, while we hear from the prophets saying God will turn your heart of stone into a heart of flesh... and that dry bones will be turned into bodies of flesh and blood, we never see this exactly 'fleshed out'. Or should I say 'Spirited out'? Also note this was new to the Jewish leader Nicodemis, at the time.

And so, this goes a long way to explain why some believe and some will not, until the judgement, when we see Him face to face.
_________________
Have you been to the peak?

Isaiah 52 & 53

John

USAtheist · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 520 Location: Tacoma, WA.

ssawyer · Joined: 15 Sep 2004 Posts: 21 Location: Tulsa, Ok.

I am talking about profound moral statements, not statements of Christian dogma. Jesus said we should have compassion for our fellow man (Do unto otthers as you would have others do unto you). But humanity had already come up with this idea.
If the Isrealites had come up with with, thou shalt not kill, lie, or steal, before these ideas were in the public domain, that would lend some credence to the story of Moses receiving The Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai.
If Jesus had told us to have compassion for our fellow man before this idea was in the public domain, that would lend some credence to Christian Dogma.

Godan · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 16 Location: Los Angeles, CA

Ernest D. Tamminga · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 41 Location: CA

According to recent "experts" on Biblical translations of Jesus' statements, the passage should read "I AM is the way....etc. Meaning the "I AM", which is "that which God is", the Absolue Cconsciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, etc.
Jesus said--Of myself (his ego self, not his Cosmic Self) i can do nothing, it is the Father within (the I AM, (higher self, spiritual Self, Cosmic Consciousness) which doeth the works.

ssawyer · Joined: 15 Sep 2004 Posts: 21 Location: Tulsa, Ok.

Godan,
I have read this type of material before. If you want to give a specific example, I will be happy to discuss it.

Godan · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 16 Location: Los Angeles, CA

SSayer,

Just go to the page and pick out something that was also stated by some other religion. You made the claim, so you should back it up with some evidence.

If you wanted to be general, just go for the idea that one's motives are more important than one's actions.
_________________
Rich
[url=http://www.godandscience.org/]

Evidence for God from Science[/url]

Isaiah538 · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 6 Location: Arizona

You should take note that the subject is profound statements, not profound MORAL statements. I believe that is what Dr Lee said on the program.

So, if I say Jesus predicted his own death three times, (as one of the panelist mentioned), that would also be profound.

But as for moral statements, it was probably important for God to establish them for our saftey long before Christ.
_________________
Have you been to the peak?

Isaiah 52 & 53

John

Godan · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 16 Location: Los Angeles, CA

That is a good point. Jesus made many profound statements that do not directly relate to morality. He said He was God - something that few, if any religious leaders have claimed before or since. His handling of detractors has always impressed me.
_________________
Rich
[url=http://www.godandscience.org/]

Evidence for God from Science[/url]

USAtheist · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 520 Location: Tacoma, WA.

ssawyer · Joined: 15 Sep 2004 Posts: 21 Location: Tulsa, Ok.

Godan and Isaiah538,

I wrote the opening statement of this topic, and I gave the topic its title. The first thing I did was write the statement, and the main point I was trying to make was contained in the sentence in which I said that Jesus made no profound moral statements which were not already in the public domain. I thought about capitalizing the word moral, but decided not to. Then I hit the submit button and immediately got back the message that I had to give the thing a title.
Please bear with me because I guarantee you that what I am about to say does tie in to what I just said.
I watched the program and got all excited and decided to go to PBS and see what people were saying. All I wanted to do was see the posts, and I bet it took me, at least, thirty frustating minuted just to get to that point. I haven't been in a chat room for years and this one operated differently than what I was used to. So when this thing comes back and says I have to give my topic a title, I'm about ready to:

A. Get a gun and blow the computer to pieces
B. Castrate the computer if I can find an electron microscope powerful enough to find its testicles
C. Pull a 1950's SciFi type job and make the computer self destruct by feeding it data that does not compute
D. All of the above

So now I have to come up with a title for my topic. And I come up with "What profound statements of Jesus?" . I should have come up with "What profound moral statements of Jesus?". In fact, as I have stated above, just a couple of minutes before this I had been debating with myself as to whether or not I should capitalize the word moral. But, I did what I did and that's my mistake.
Isaiah538, you correctly point out that Dr. See was not emphasizing the profound moral statements of Jesus. This is clear from his subsequent statements. I was only using Dr. See as a lead into what I wanted to say. But people are not mind readers and I can see how my reference to Dr. See could cause confusion. However, in my own defense, I will say that I thought I set the general tone of my message when I began by saying that the posting of The Ten Commandments in public schools falsely inferred that ideas that were in the public domain before there were any Christians or Jews were the discovery or a revelation of or to the Christians or Jews.

Please forget about my reference to Dr. see. Here is what I was actually trying to get at: The statement that "this country was founded upon Judeo Christian principles" is my pet peeve. This statement is constantly made, it is rarely refuted, and it is almost always simply assumed to be true. It is not a direct lie, but yet it is a falsehood in the following respects:

A. There are no principles upon which this country was founded which are unique to either Judaism or
Christianity.
B. The principles upon which this country was founded which are in common with the principles of Judaism
and/or Christianity were in the public domain long before Judaism or Christianity.
C. Therefore the statement falsely implies that the greatness of this country is due to Judaism and/or
Christianity.
D. The idea that Judaism and/or Christianity are true is reinforced by the false idea that the greatness
of this country is due to Judaism and/or Christianity.

Statements C and D are circular and a very true reflection of my signature.
_________________
Thomas Paine is my main man. And so it is with great humility that I paraphrase the INSPIRATOR of our founding fathers and say: Since the beginning, the chief priest and the chief magistrate have worked hand in hand to milk the masses.

Ernest D. Tamminga · Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 41 Location: CA

TITLE The profound statements of ssawyer.

Profundity indeed! The best of TV is PBS and the best of computering is/are the discussions prompted by "The Question of God" in the PBS programming.
Rather than make a personal request in these postings I'm asking for email inputs to me wrt the book "What If . . ." by E. Dorsey, which, IMHP offers a valid, if controversial, answer to The Question of God.
Try me ern1@earthlink.net

A Real JC · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 56

Hey Godamn, can you please take the spam off your signature file. You agreed not to spam the list when you registered.

bgridley · Joined: 15 Sep 2004 Posts: 39

ssawyer · Joined: 15 Sep 2004 Posts: 21 Location: Tulsa, Ok.

Godan,

I went to the web site you recommended, and here is what it said about the golden rule:

Golden Rule
Many atheists claim that the golden rule is a part of virtually every religion, and that it was taught by many before Jesus was born. This is false, since the "golden rule" taught in other religions is not the same as that taught by Jesus. Here is what Jesus said:
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12, Jesus Christ)15
In comparison, here is the "golden rule" given by Confucius:
"A man should practice what he preaches, but a man should also preach what he practices." (Confucius)
There is a huge difference between the two. According to Confucius, it would be acceptable to kill all atheists as long as one also preached that it was acceptable to do so. Therefore, according to Confucius, Stalin was completely justified in killing 40 million Russians, since he practiced what he preached and preached what he practiced.

I am not sure of what Confucius is talking about here, but it did not look like the golden rule to me. So I did a search on Confucius and a sub search on golden rule. What follows is part of what I found:
Examples
Here is a short list of statements of the golden rule, in chronological order: ~1970 </encyclopedia/20th-century-BCE>-1640 BCE </encyclopedia/1640s-BCE> "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient Egypt </encyclopedia/Ancient-Egypt>, tr. R.B. Parkinson. ~700 BCE </encyclopedia/7th-century-BC> "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism </encyclopedia/Zoroastrianism>. ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism. ~550 BCE </encyclopedia/6th-century-BCE> "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." - Bible, The New International Version, Leviticus </encyclopedia/Leviticus> 19:18, Judaism </encyclopedia/Judaism>. ~500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism </encyclopedia/Buddhism>. ~500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "The Sage...makes the self of the people his self." Tao Te Ching </encyclopedia/Tao-Te-Ching> Ch 49, tr. Ch'u Ta-Kao Unwin Paperbacks, 1976. ~500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." Analects of Confucius </encyclopedia/Analects-of-Confucius> 15:24, Confucianism </encyclopedia/Confucianism>, tr. James Legge </encyclopedia/James-Legge>.>~ <http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu&no=415]<li>500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "Now the man of perfect virtue, wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others. To be able to judge of others by what is nigh in ourselves;? this may be called the art of virtue." Analects of Confucius 6:30, Confucianism, tr. James Legge. [ ~ <http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu&no=150</a>500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life [is>http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu&no=150 ~500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life [is] reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire." - Doctrine of the Mean </encyclopedia/Doctrine-of-the-Mean> 13.3, Confucianism. ~500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "Therefore, neither does he [, a sage,] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." - Acarangasutra 5.101-2, Jainism </encyclopedia/Jainism>. ~400 BCE </encyclopedia/4th-century-BC> "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." - Socrates </encyclopedia/Socrates>. ~150 BCE </encyclopedia/150-BCE> "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." - Mahabharata 5:1517, Brahmanism </encyclopedia/Brahmanism> and Hinduism. ~100 CE </encyclopedia/1st-century> "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." - Talmud </encyclopedia/Talmud>, Shabbat 31a, Judaism </encyclopedia/Judaism>. ~100 CE </encyclopedia/1st-century> "Do to others as you would have them do to you." - Bible, The New International Version, Gospel of Luke </encyclopedia/Gospel-of-Luke> 6:31, Christianity </encyclopedia/Christianity>. ~100 CE </encyclopedia/1st-century> "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." - Epictetus </encyclopedia/Epictetus>. ~800 CE </encyclopedia/9th-century> "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Hadith ?, Islam </encyclopedia/Islam>. ? CE "And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." - Epistle

I have recopied part of the above list here. Please read the following,

500 BCE </encyclopedia/5th-century-BC> "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." Analects of Confucius </encyclopedia/Analects-of-Confucius> 15:24,

and compare it to the what your web site cites as the dolden rule of Confucius.

In comparison, here is the "golden rule" given by Confucius:
"A man should practice what he preaches, but a man should also preach what he practices." (Confucius)
I see that in other topics USAtheist is talking about "bearing false witness". I cannot read the mind of the author of your web site. But it may be that he is a very naughty boy, and in dire need of a spanking.

If you read my previous posts, I don't believe I compared Christianity and Judaism to other religions. But instead I spoke of what was in the public domain. I heard about Confucius when I was a little kid, but it is only relatively recently that I heard that he had stated the essence of the golden rule five hundred years before Jesus. But I wasn't terribly impressed when I did hear it.

Compassion is a common sense thing that we all learn simply by experiencing life. (Weirdos like Ted Bundy may be some kind of exception.) I'm an evolutionist, you probably are not, but I do not think that human nature has changed that much in, let us say, the last 6,000 years. So it does not surprise me when I find that there have been people in the course of human history who have actually spoken about compassion. The astonishing thing would be that if in the course of human history no one had ever spoken about compassion.

Of course, it is not just Judaism and Christianity, virtually all religions try to establish their absoluteness by claiming they were the discoverers of or, at least, are the guardians of morality. They take what was already in the public domain (humanity's property) before their own existence and say they have the copyright to it.

As Thomas Paine would say: How long will mankind be imposed upon in this manner?
_________________
Thomas Paine is my main man. And so it is with great humility that I paraphrase the INSPIRATOR of our founding fathers and say: Since the beginning, the chief priest and the chief magistrate have worked hand in hand to milk the masses.