To Theists: An Interesting Agreement ...

[Splendour]

between Napoleon Bonaparte and Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of Harvard Law School, on the nature of Jesus Christ...

Bonaparte said "I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."

Simon Greenleaf said "The doctrines and precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God, agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either from reason or from revelation. They are strikingly adapted to the capacity of mankind, and yet are delivered with a simplicity and majesty wholly divine. He spake as never man spake. He spake with authority; yet addressed himself to the reason and the understanding of men; and he spake with wisdom, which men could neither gainsay nor resist. In his private life, he exhibits a character not merely of strict justice, but of flowing benignity. He is temperate, without austerity; his meekness and humility are signal; his patience is invincible; truth and sincerity illustrate his whole conduct; every one of his virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both wins the love of his friends, and extorts the wonder and admiration of his enemies. He is represented in very variety of situation in life, from the height of worldly grandeur, amid the acclamations of an admiring multitude, to the deepest abyss of human degradation and woe, apparently deserted of God and man. Yet everywhere he is the same; displaying a character of unearthly perfection, symmetrical in all its proportions, and encircled with splendor more than human."(an excerpt from "Testimony of the Evangelists" a careful examination of the witness of the Gospels by a Harvard Law Professor...Greenleaf's other well-known work, a Treatise on the Law of Evidence, is considered a classic of American jurisprudence.)

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm

[Phil153]

Buddha >>>>>>>>> Jesus when it comes to the stuff you're talking about.

Why aren't you a Buddhist?

[madnak]

I think I'm getting it, Splendour. You believe that we base our opinions on the arguments of people who are "important" or "scientific," and thus you're searching out "important" and "scientific" Christians in order to influence us. The idea that we form our opinions based on the facts and the arguments, rather than the people who make them, hasn't fully occurred to you.

Well, that's the reality. It doesn't matter who said what, for the most part. In the sense that it does matter, it's the proportions of scientists and other figures who support Christianity that matter, not the individuals. So you are getting nowhere.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm getting it, Splendour. You believe that we base our opinions on the arguments of people who are "important" or "scientific," and thus you're searching out "important" and "scientific" Christians in order to influence us. The idea that we form our opinions based on the facts and the arguments, rather than the people who make them, hasn't fully occurred to you.

Well, that's the reality. It doesn't matter who said what, for the most part. In the sense that it does matter, it's the proportions of scientists and other figures who support Christianity that matter, not the individuals. So you are getting nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one time Darwin said "Pull my finger."

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm getting it, Splendour. You believe that we base our opinions on the arguments of people who are "important" or "scientific," and thus you're searching out "important" and "scientific" Christians in order to influence us. The idea that we form our opinions based on the facts and the arguments, rather than the people who make them, hasn't fully occurred to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider the basis for the general theistic search , that would be the required mindset. "X said ..."
The appeal to Authority is a fundamental.

luckyme

[Splendour]

Actually Madnak I think its more important to widen the search...to look at sources in addition to science...Science is in flux a lot of the time and the bible was written in an inspired sweeping vein that was more concerned with capturing moral philosophy and the interrelationships between man and man and between man and God and frequently it speaks in down to earth universal terms instead of overly analytical ones (one of the reasons for so many parables...also parables are remembered more easily than dissertations)...science seems almost incidental in the bible...Many Christians actually regard the bible as a manual for "right living" and for their ultimate plan of salvation...sort of like the owner's manual to a new automobile...We rely on it...like in a legal sense where rely means "depend on" for our critical decisions or for critical advice ...

I would also be aware of "groupthink" in an internet forum...people with like minds tend to cluster together and that will narrow your scope also...

People have free will to think things over...but there's always that element of peer pressure...To believe or not is a personal choice...

[bunny]

I dont know what I am supposed to find interesting in this. Surely the idea of a god is either right or wrong. What someone said years ago (however much we should or should not respect them) isnt going to mean much - the idea of a personal god who participates in the world in some way is either a coherent idea or it isnt. If god exists, well these two people agreed at some level about jesus. If god doesnt exist, they still agreed.

I've asked you a couple of direct questions which I havent yet seen you answer, perhaps you will answer this one. Can you say why you are posting here?

The most common reason people post on SMP is to discuss ideas and hear arguments for and against them - if you are trying to save souls or just preach that's all fine, but if you would clearly state that then I can at least stop bothering to respond with an argument. If on the other hand, you are interested in putting forth ideas and then debating them. Perhaps you could make some statement as to what you think the agreement of these two people means?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know what I am supposed to find interesting in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny, get a grip. Napolean liked broccoli, Ronald Reagan like broccoli. hmmmmm... interesting... broccoli is therefore good for you.
It's called 'broadening the search'. You put aside logic and evidence and just find stuff that is 'interesting'.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know what I am supposed to find interesting in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny, get a grip. Napolean liked broccoli, Ronald Reagan like broccoli. hmmmmm... interesting... broccoli is therefore good for you.
It's called 'broadening the search'. You put aside logic and evidence and just find stuff that is 'interesting'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I was hoping to make the point that it would help to hear some input from the OP as to why it was interesting. I'm curious as to why Splendour is posting here - at this stage I'm leaning towards "I must try and save these atheists by preaching the good word to them." However, I've been wrong before, so was looking for a clue from him... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know what I am supposed to find interesting in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny, get a grip. Napolean liked broccoli, Ronald Reagan like broccoli. hmmmmm... interesting... broccoli is therefore good for you.
It's called 'broadening the search'. You put aside logic and evidence and just find stuff that is 'interesting'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I was hoping to make the point that it would help to hear some input from the OP as to why it was interesting. I'm curious as to why Splendour is posting here - at this stage I'm leaning towards "I must try and save these atheists by preaching the good word to them." However, I've been wrong before, so was looking for a clue from him... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

he doesn't have one to give out.

luckyme