Who killed Jesus?

[kal-el]

Okay, and....? I already said Christianity and Judaism have completely different views on abortion... Let's just leave it at that.

Yes, they are very different. As far as I know, Jews consider the fetus a complete human being at birth.

You did.

The only reason why I may ignore certain distinctions, is because the Bible was written over 2,000 years ago. Society changes. Everything changes. You can't keep the same old laws that we had 2,000 years ago, they are completely irrelevant to reality. It's a bit like saying we're gonna keep the death penalty 2,000 years from now, when we have the means to eradicate all crime, it's totally stupid and unreasonable.

If they're the same, then it must follow they can be used interexchangably.

Killing and Murdering are completely different, completely different crimes, completely different motives, completely different punishments, in the bible and in the U.S.

You may be right, however the end result is the same.

 

[Binyamin]

You may be right, however the end result is the same.

That's like saying the end result is the same in rape and assault, both leave the victum in a bad state...

You're ignoring the differences and focusing in on the one thing they have in common, the death. Everything else is different, besides the fact that the person is dead.

 

[Mike 1967]

I think it was the Romans, who were directly responsible, but the Jewish establishment had a hand in it as well.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "kill"

It was the Roman authorities/soldiers that beat him and hung him on the cross.

But it was the Jewish Religious leadership that were the catalyst behind his death.

Pontias Pilot tried to get out of the situation. It was the Jewish Religious leaders of the day that pushed it forward.

 

[Mike 1967]

The only reason why I may ignore certain distinctions, is because the Bible was written over 2,000 years ago. Society changes. Everything changes. You can't keep the same old laws that we had 2,000 years ago, they are completely irrelevant to reality. It's a bit like saying we're gonna keep the death penalty 2,000 years from now, when we have the means to eradicate all crime, it's totally stupid and unreasonable.

That seems like quite a leap to say that Everything Changes.

If there is an absolute truth, then why would that truth change over time ?

It is absolutely true that I need food, oxygen and water to survive. That has not changed over time. It is absolutely true that one day you will die. That has not changed.

And on what basis do you say that we can eradicate all crime ?

The only way to completely eradicate all crime would be to eradicate man....or to eradicate the concept of crime. Specifically, to say that there is no such thing as crime...that all behaviour is acceptable.

 

[HU-210]

Myself a keen fan of Heraclitus, I must agree with this panta rei, everything changing.

Absolute truth?

It is absolutely true that I need food, oxygen and water to survive. That has not changed over time. It is absolutely true that one day you will die. That has not changed.

I? Who is I? What is I? Your food, is it part of you when it is in your mouth, in your stomach, or when its molecules are part of your cells? Survive? Do you need oxygen to survive? How do you know this? Try holding your breath. Try to find out whether there is a point when you are no longer surviving, so you can prove this theory. You can not prove yourself any of those statements. They are derived from observations, and can not represent a real, absolute truth thusly. Of course, when one accepts the veracity of the current reality, such a statement could be made, but even than we do not know whether our own body is subject to the same things as the bodies of others. Even than we must add a second assumption. How do we know that other people have the same awareness as us? We don't, we can't. We are alone in this.

However, if we make all these assumptions, when you will die (may you live a long while, by the way), you will no longer need to breathe, eat or drink, because your I will have passed on into lifeforms that are no longer collectively 'I'. Your very absolute truth is transitory, because it is so temporal. We conclude, thus, that there is no absolute truth, or at least, that there is no reason to assume there is.

Mr U

 

[Mike 1967]

Myself a keen fan of Heraclitus, I must agree with this panta rei, everything changing.

Absolute truth?



I? Who is I? What is I? Your food, is it part of you when it is in your mouth, in your stomach, or when its molecules are part of your cells? Survive? Do you need oxygen to survive? How do you know this? Try holding your breath. Try to find out whether there is a point when you are no longer surviving, so you can prove this theory. You can not prove yourself any of those statements. They are derived from observations, and can not represent a real, absolute truth thusly. Of course, when one accepts the veracity of the current reality, such a statement could be made, but even than we do not know whether our own body is subject to the same things as the bodies of others. Even than we must add a second assumption. How do we know that other people have the same awareness as us? We don't, we can't. We are alone in this.

However, if we make all these assumptions, when you will die (may you live a long while, by the way), you will no longer need to breathe, eat or drink, because your I will have passed on into lifeforms that are no longer collectively 'I'. Your very absolute truth is transitory, because it is so temporal. We conclude, thus, that there is no absolute truth, or at least, that there is no reason to assume there is.

Mr U

I exist at this point in time. I will call this point in time 12:50PM CST on 12/7/2005.

This will be absolutely true tomorrow...or an eternity from now.

I also absolutely no that if you stand in front of a moving truck...and it keeps moving....then you will not longer be standing in that spot in the road.

If you don't believe this to be absolute...then give it a try. :mrgreen:

 

[Mike 1967]

Do you need oxygen to survive? How do you know this? Try holding your breath.

I know, absolutely, that if you tie a weight to your leg and jump into a large body of water...and do not have apparatus to feed oxygen to your body...your body will die.

I absolutely know this.

 

[Mike 1967]

We conclude, thus, that there is no absolute truth, or at least, that there is no reason to assume there is.

Mr U

You conclude that there is not absolute truth....yet you just stated an absolute truth in which you believe.

Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth ?

 

[HU-210]

I also absolutely no that if you stand in front of a moving truck...and it keeps moving....then you will not longer be standing in that spot in the road.

Oh yes? Perhaps God will make me impervious, and the truck will move around me, leaving devistation in a silhouette of me in it. Or, more like, the truck will divert from its course, keep on moving, but not hit me. There is no absolute truth because we do not not know any fact for certain. Some may be probable, but certain? We do not know.

this point

That point? Ha. Seeing as time is infinitive, following your statement, that moment will repeat itself an infinite amount of times, and an infinite amount of times in a different manner. Nothing absolute about it. Absolute would be something that does not change or is not repeated. Time is relative.

I know, absolutely, that if you tie a weight to your leg and jump into a large body of water...and do not have apparatus to feed oxygen to your body...your body will die.

I absolutely know this.

No, you do not absolutely know this, because you neither know precisely the properties of my body, nor that of the water. Perhaps the water is so salty I can not stay underwater, or perhaps the water will split in have as soon as I enter it. There are a near infinite amount of possibilities in which your scenario will not happen.

That said, even if it did happen, it where not an absolute truth, because your statement would not describe the 'truth', that which happened, in its fullness. It would be an imperfect image and would not qualify as the truth. This is assuming you even have perfect senses capable of registering the truth, which, most likely, you do not have.

You conclude that there is not absolute truth....yet you just stated an absolute truth in which you believe.

No, I stated that, in the least there is no reason to assume there is an absolute truth.

Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?

The mere fact that the correct syllogistic reasoning "There is no absolute truth" is by definition incorrect shows indeed, a fallacy. Namely that of is. We do not know how to define existence, but expect truth to act according to our binary view upon it? How silly. Anyway, logic is a way man reasons. It is as imperfect as his view upon the world, and can not be trusted to give an absolute image of it. A realistic image, that much is certain, but nothing that gives us reason to abandon doubt concerning reality.

Mr U

 

[Mike 1967]

Oh yes? Perhaps God will make me impervious, and the truck will move around me, leaving devistation in a silhouette of me in it.

Try it and find out. I will absolutely gaurantee you what will happen.

Or, more like, the truck will divert from its course, keep on moving, but not hit me.

:mrgreen:

OK..let me tighten it up for you a bit.

If the truck does not swerve, and you do not move, and the truck continues to move at 80 mph, and it makes contact with you in the middle of the road, and your feet are connected to the road at the time it makes contact, and it continues to move forward at between 70 to 80 mph....you will no longer be standing in the same spot in the road.

There is no absolute truth because we do not not know any fact for certain. Some may be probable, but certain? We do not know.

I am absolute certain that I am typing this sentence. I am absolutely certain that the quote above contains the word "absolute".

That point? Ha. Seeing as time is infinitive, following your statement, that moment will repeat itself an infinite amount of times, and an infinite amount of times in a different manner. Nothing absolute about it. Absolute would be something that does not change or is not repeated. Time is relative.

How can you claim that time is infinitive..and then at the same point claim that there is nothing we can know for certain ? It would appear that you establish your argument on "certainties"...and they are certainties based on presuppositions.

What I did yesterday...I did yesterday. It is absolutely done.

No, you do not absolutely know this, because you neither know precisely the properties of my body, nor that of the water. Perhaps the water is so salty I can not stay underwater, or perhaps the water will split in have as soon as I enter it. There are a near infinite amount of possibilities in which your scenario will not happen.

That is why in my analogy I told you to tie a weight to your leg. If there is a near amount of "possibilities" in which my scenario won't happen...then please give it a try and let us know how it turned out. :mrgreen:

That said, even if it did happen, it where not an absolute truth, because your statement would not describe the 'truth', that which happened, in its fullness. It would be an imperfect image and would not qualify as the truth. This is assuming you even have perfect senses capable of registering the truth, which, most likely, you do not have.

It would be absolutely True that if you did this today, that you would not be typing on this Forum tomorrow. But the only way to carry this argument out to it's full conclusion is to put it to the test.

No, I stated that, in the least there is no reason to assume there is an absolute truth.

Based on your view of perception and relativity....I don't see how you can logically make an assumption on anything.

If you are going to remain consistent then you at least have to say that absolute truth may exist, and may not exist.

The mere fact that the correct syllogistic reasoning "There is no absolute truth" is by definition incorrect shows indeed, a fallacy. Namely that of is. We do not know how to define existence,

True, we do not in and of ourselves know how to define existence. But we are able to measure the machine....the mechanics. There is order in the mechanics....thus we have language, science and mathmatics. If all was relative...then there would be no point in these things...because there would be no consistency with which to meaasure anything. As each incidence would be separate and random. And ultimately this forum would not exist. But in your mind...it may not exist :mrgreen:

but expect truth to act according to our binary view upon it? How silly. Anyway, logic is a way man reasons. It is as imperfect as his view upon the world, and can not be trusted to give an absolute image of it. A realistic image, that much is certain, but nothing that gives us reason to abandon doubt concerning reality.

Go stand in the road and/or jump into the body of water with the weight...and we will thus conclude the argument at hand.

Mr U[/QUOTE]

 

[HU-210]

If you are going to remain consistent then you at least have to say that absolute truth may exist, and may not exist.

I did!

We conclude, thus, that there is no absolute truth, or at least, that there is no reason to assume there is.

To assume, ergo, that we can have no real knowledge whether or not it exists. However, if we can't be sure of its existence, I prefer not believing in it at all. Keeps my mind tidy.

What I did yesterday...I did yesterday. It is absolutely done.

Are you sure? Perhaps someone imprinted those memories into your mind. Perhaps you have just come into existence, and the memory you have has been fabricated to serve you in this existence.

How can you claim that time is infinitive

I didn't, you did. I followed your suggestion, to show that it lead to a non-absolute view as well.

then please give it a try and let us know how it turned out.

It is not about the likely outcome. It is about being an absolute outcome. Such a thing would require knowing everything. Present me with an entity who knows everything, and I'll conclude that he knows the absolute truth. Without God, however, absolute truths can not exist. Than still, however, these absolute truths would only exist in his mind. We could not possible fathom them if he attempted to explain them, because we are too limited.

then there would be no point in these things.

There is a point, however. We are finite beings, or at least, that conclusion we follow from our surroundings. Death drives us towards motivation.

Is death an absolute given? No, because we might not die, by some miracle. It is not within our field of knowledge. Is the speed of light an absolute? Only within this reality can we tell, and this reality is transitory, and thus, it is not absolute.

Mr U

 

[Mike 1967]

I did say (Absolute Truth may exist)

That is good. Because it was appearing like you were stating that Absolute Truth does not exist.

To assume, ergo, that we can have no real knowledge whether or not it exists. However, if we can't be sure of its existence, I prefer not believing in it at all. Keeps my mind tidy.

Sounds tidy…but I don’t believe you.

You make assumptions everyday based on the knowledge that you have.

Do you drive a car ?

Are you sure? Perhaps someone imprinted those memories into your mind. Perhaps you have just come into existence, and the memory you have has been fabricated to serve you in this existence.

Yep…I’m sure. Absolutely sure.

I didn't, you did. I followed your suggestion, to show that it lead to a non-absolute view as well.

Then you did not mean what you stated when you stated the following

*******

That point? Ha. Seeing as time is infinitive, following your statement, that moment will repeat itself an infinite amount of times, and an infinite amount of times in a different manner. Nothing absolute about it. Absolute would be something that does not change or is not repeated. Time is relative .

] ********

So back to my original point

I exist at this point in time. I will call this point in time 12:50PM CST on 12/7/2005.

It is not about the likely outcome. It is about being an absolute outcome. Such a thing would require knowing everything. Present me with an entity who knows everything, and I'll conclude that he knows the absolute truth.

The existence of an absolute outcome does not require my knowledge of it to exist.

You appear to be confusing perception with Truth.

Without God, however, absolute truths can not exist.

You just stated more absolute Truth.

(1) It would take a God for absolute Truth to exist
(2) Absolute truths cannot exist without a God

I would agree to an extent. Without God there would be no existence either spiritual or material.

But…there would be an absolute truth….and that would be that nothing exists.

And, in your statement, there would still be an absolute truth…and that would be that no absolute truth exists.

There is a point, however. We are finite beings, or at least, that conclusion we follow from our surroundings. Death drives us towards motivation.

Is death an absolute given? No, because we might not die, by some miracle. It is not within our field of knowledge.

Yes…I believe that Miracles have and can occur.

Is the speed of light an absolute? Only within this reality can we tell, and this reality is transitory, and thus, it is not absolute. .

You have made another absolute statement. You have stated that reality is transitory and thus is not absolute. You state that one cannot make absolute statements yet you consistently do that very thing in an attempt to support your argument.

But that is to be expected….because you cannot make any claim without some basis of absolute.

Also, evidence is on my side You would have me believe that I cannot be confident that the ball will hit the ground if I drop it….that it might float in the air on the 1 millionth attempt.
I have 999,999 attempts to back up my position. You have nothing to back up yours.

So at the most…all you can absolutely say is that it may be absolutely true..and it may not be absolutely true….because you have nothing beyond your reason to determine otherwise.


I will give you another absolute truth that you have already proven.

One of the following is absolutely true. Because Absolute Truth either exists or does not exist.

(1) Absolute Truth Exists
(2) Absolute Truth does not Exist

And….I will give you another absolute Truth.

The answer above can only be 1. Because if the answer is 2…then it proves 1.

 

[Mike 1967]

I will give you another absolute Truth.

If there was ever a point in the past whereby nothing existed...nothing at all....a complete vacuume.....then there would be nothing in existence today.

 

[kal-el]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "kill"

It was the Roman authorities/soldiers that beat him and hung him on the cross.

True

But it was the Jewish Religious leadership that were the catalyst behind his death.

True

Pontias Pilot tried to get out of the situation. It was the Jewish Religious leaders of the day that pushed it forward.

Yes, but just becuse Pilate "washed his hands" of it, does that mean he is totally innocent? He had the power to set Jesus free, but gave into the pressure of the crowd. He is as much to blame as the people who nailed him to the cross.

 

[Mike 1967]

Yes, but just becuse Pilate "washed his hands" of it, does that mean he is totally innocent? He had the power to set Jesus free, but gave into the pressure of the crowd. He is as much to blame as the people who nailed him to the cross.

Good point.

Pilate definitely could have stopped it. But at the risk of his own skin since he was responsible to keep order. He may have lost his position if was not able to keep the Jews from rioting.

 

[kal-el]

That's like saying the end result is the same in rape and assault, both leave the victum in a bad state...

Well, can you justify a rape at all? If killing is justifiable, using your logic, rape would be also. It's just that the end result is the same.

You're ignoring the differences and focusing in on the one thing they have in common, the death. Everything else is different, besides the fact that the person is dead.

Killing is something that happens. One thing causes the life of another to cease existing. The word "kill" has no moral value at all ,but Murder (execution, manslaughter, infanticide, and even euthanasia) is a name society gives to what it sees as different sorts of killing. It's a legal or political or social label, nothing more, nothing less. All these words have some sort of moral value attached. Saying killing produces the same result, well, the victim is no more (or less) dead because of a particular label being stuck on their death. And I think killing is almost always a wrong thing to do (the exception being euthanasia of incurably ill people who wish to die, war,etc).
Actually, I think sometimes it is necessary to choose to do a wrong thing in order to avoid an even wronger thing.

 

[HU-210]

Do you drive a car ?

No, but I do ride a bicycle. I love my bicycle. It's nice and shiny and I can ride it.

Yep…I’m sure. Absolutely sure.

It's a semantical discussion, of course, but you are not absolutely sure. You are never absolutely sure.

Then you did not mean what you stated when you stated the following

Hmm.. This is difficult for me to explain. I did mean it, I was simply assuming another stance, that time is infinite as you explain. I am not sure whether or not time is infinite, and if time is infinite, there still would be no absolute. In the case of time being finite, there still is no absolute, because things would eventually end completely. But I did meant what I said, it merely did not flow from my line of thought, but yours. At least, if I understood what you said correctly, and if I didn't, you are free to correct me.

You just stated more absolute Truth.

(1) It would take a God for absolute Truth to exist
(2) Absolute truths cannot exist without a God

I would agree to an extent. Without God there would be no existence either spiritual or material.

But…there would be an absolute truth….and that would be that nothing exists.

And, in your statement, there would still be an absolute truth…and that would be that no absolute truth exists.

I am uncertain of many things. One of them is the existence of God. I am not arrogant to state that I know the answer. However, if he did exist, absolute truth would have to exist for him to exist. After all, he would know everything, and thus he would know the absolute truth, and thus it would exist. However, is existence has yet to be proven, and thus too absolute truth.

(2) Absolute truths cannot exist without a God

Now that I did not say, or at least I did not intend to say it . I said that only God can know absolute truths. Thus, we can not know whether they exist. Only God can know whether they exist, because he is the only one who can know them.

Without God there would be no existence either spiritual or material.

Why? That statement is just as likely to be true as "Without HU-210 there would be no existence either spiritual or material."
I believe in neither. Believing, not to be true, but to be, well likely in being a representation of reality. It's difficult to describe, because there is no real word for it. I believe something not the be true, but to correspond with reality, acknowledging the imperfection of my senses, my mind, the inevitable and near-complete corruption and the fact that what I see smell and feel has little to do with what is actually out there. Reality does not really have colours, or smells. When things go dark, they do not really loose their colour. These are limitations of our mind. An apple is not red, that's not the truth. It will never be the truth, well, not in reality, only in our minds. And our minds are a fragile thing. Too fragile for me to base anything as absolute as a truth on.

You have made another absolute statement. You have stated that reality is transitory and thus is not absolute.

Hmm.. I understand that you see my view as being self-defeating. The statements I make, however, are constructs of my limited mind. The English language, and all other languages I know force me to place them in a binary status, while in fact they are merely observations I make, the veracity of which I do not know. I do not know whether what I am saying is true. It is just what seems to me might be the case. If I said "This is how it is", as an intented statement, I would be judging reality, and asking it to conform to my rules. I would ask the apple to be red, while it is incapable of being red. Because red is very much a construct of my mind. I do not even know whether the apple really exists!

Absolute Truth does not Exist

You attempt, with your limited mind (no insult here, I have a limited mind as well, we all do, well, as far as I can tell, plenty of assumptions, I'll readily admit) to poor existence into a binary statement. We do not know what existence is. We don't. We think of existence in two terms. As either existent, or non-existent. Do we know this for certain? No!

Cogito ergo sum. Sure, we think, so we may exist, but why insist that we exist because there is something thinking. We can not be certain that our minds can fathom the outside reality, or even the inside reality, and so attempts made to make statements about this reality will inevitably fail. Merely the fact that "Absolute truth does not exist" being a logical error should show us that logic fails. Why? Because it is a human construct. It is a way for us to make sense of our environment. Whether or not we are a product of our environment? I don't know, that's the first assumption of existence.

Do I make assumptions in my daily life? Naturally. But I do not deny the possibility for a comet to hit that truck before it impacts me. Well, a small comet, or I'm dead anyway.

Mr U

 

[Mike 1967]

We can not be certain that our minds can fathom the outside reality, or even the inside reality,
Mr U

So you cannot even be sure that we are having this discourse ?

 

[HU-210]

So you cannot even be sure that we are having this discourse ?

We? What is we? You and I together? What are you. I know, in some degree what I am. An organism, belonging to what some call the specie Homo Sapiens Sapiens. I am composed of organs, and other tissues. However, I am in doubt. Is the air in my lungs part of me? Is that I? Is it I in my mouth? Is the food in my stomach I? When does this transition of existence, from food to I happen?

You are even less certain. All I know about you has been transmitted to my personal computer, through 0's and 1's. I can't even properly define the entity we. This discourse, this conversation? A way of communicating? How do I know that when I click the submit button something actually happens? Perhaps I am hallucinating, perhaps this is all a silly dream, or perhaps I will wake up to see Morpheus, Neo and Trinity. Or, perhaps I am in the lab of a professor attempting to find out whether he can stimulate a braindead individual by use of electric shocks, and these moments I am reliving are memories from days ago, last beats of a nearly died out heart.

Am I certain? No. Am I torn atwice by doubt? No. All evidence points in the direction that we are having a conversation.

Mr U

 

[Mike 1967]

Am I certain? No. Am I torn atwice by doubt? No. All evidence points in the direction that we are having a conversation.

Mr U

Good...the evidence has pointed you on the right direction.

 

[Mike 1967]

If I say that something is absolutely true....then it is either true or it is false. It cannot be both.

EXAMPLE: There is either an all powerful, infinite, non-created God......or there is not. So one, or the other, is absolutely true.

Logic is. It does not require my understanding or perception to be.

 

[Mike 1967]

Even though I am finite...this does not mean that I have no understanding

Finite:

a. Having bounds; limited: a finite list of choices; our finite fossil fuel reserves.
b. Existing, persisting, or enduring for a limited time only; impermanent.

My knowledge and reason has bounds...but these bounds do not mean that my knowledge or reason is non-existent or of non value.

Even though I am finite, I can still perceive some absolute truths. But I cannot percieve all absolute truths.

The existence of this discource is one of those absolute truths that I can know, even in my finiteness.

 

[HU-210]

If I say that something is absolutely true....then it is either true or it is false. It cannot be both.

In your arrogance assuming you are able to comprehend the principles of reality and existence. Besides, even when differentiating between objective and subjective reality one can only 'prove' to oneself that the subjective reality exists, insofar that one can 'prove' that one's thoughts exists. Sure, it is likely that my thoughts exist, but why claim certainty? Why believe it is some undeniable truth?

Mr U

 

[Mike 1967]

In your arrogance assuming you are able to comprehend the principles of reality and existence. Besides, even when differentiating between objective and subjective reality one can only 'prove' to oneself that the subjective reality exists, insofar that one can 'prove' that one's thoughts exists. Sure, it is likely that my thoughts exist, but why claim certainty? Why believe it is some undeniable truth?

Mr U

We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of existence for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself.

 

[Mike 1967]

Sure, it is likely that my thoughts exist, but why claim certainty? Why believe it is some undeniable truth?

Mr U

Your thoughts do exist. They are there in front of you. You have obviously grasped them and comprehended them....because you have communicated them to me.

But...for the purposes of conversation, lets say that your thoughts may or may not exist. In either case there would still be truth left on the table. Because either they exist, or they don't. The very question establishes an antithesis which in and of itself establishes a condition of truthness and falseness.

For it is certainly true that one or the other is true. And the one being true, directly dictates that the opposite is not. In which case two absolutes have been established.