Jesus is Evolutionary Prototype

The sadness, and stupidity of the thesis that "Jesus is an evolutionary prototype, is that it may well be assumed correct and apt in a psychospiritual interpretation, on the indismissable condition that one focuses very selectively on only occidental religio-philosophy, but pathetically wrong and severely conflated when interpreted in the sense of the topic title, namely as some newly emerged evolutionary taxon (although not truly qualifying as such but more a unique phenotype). Christ and many other enlightened guides may aptly be seen to represent peak accomplishments of psychospiritual evolution in their time. More, historical fact such as that percepts and tenets of the Greek period of enlightenment, and the tenets of highly evolved and enlightened beings still far surpass present global social averages in philosophical and cultural sophistication despite the overwhelming technocultural accomplishments of our age, shows that, in parallel with classical evolutionary modes, older, less fit and developed taxons will coexist with more evolved ones whose psychospiritual niches are not attainable by them. That is, at least not in this lifetime..

That Christ was the only such enlightened individual is a very narrowly lensed and uninformed impression. The 6th Century BP Buddha (The Awakened One) surpassed Christ in many pertinent ways and each of them has their unique interpretations, inspirations and manners of guidance. Since then, masters so enlightened in the Buddhistic way who followed him have been called "patriarchs." The 28th Indian Patriarch, Boddhidarma, "Knower of the Way" travelled to China in the 6th C of the present era where he inspired a new school known as Chan - this reached Japan in the 12th C and became known as Zen. Contrary to popular paradigm, there have been, and are, and will no doubt be, many truly enlightened masters - if one studies their teachings these have phenomenal depth, insight and guidance, and not least, surpass wisdoms of present occidental religions and religionisms with almost incomparable horizons. Christ may well be considered to have left an important memetic record of guiding tenets, many of these may be traced to far earlier oriental psychophilosophical precedents however. Memes of course are the cultural equivalent of genes, and like these, are selected for in their adaptive fitness to either survive or become extinct, and spread circumspherically via societal communication channels and modes to become cultural paradigm. Like evolutionary taxons, memes also undergo memetic drift, mutation and adaptive natural selection - the religious memetic record in its documentation is perhaps spectacularly evidential of these effects, their human processing and modulations. For some insight into these, study the history of the Three Chapters Edict, the Councils of Chalcedon, Nicea, and Constantinople (the infamous Vth) such as critically analysed in the historical evolution of the Christian religion by Henry Reed, Dr. of psychology and professor of transpersonal studies at Atlanta University in Edgar Cayce; Gramercy Books, ISBN 0-517-69702-5.

Interestingly, paradigms, not just in their preserving "archiving" functionality but also culturally, show all the classical effects of evolutionary cladogenesis and anagenesis.

In short, To define any enlightened individual as a new "prototype" on a strictly classical evolutionary basis is just complete uninformed conflation, inapt, a misleading and inapplicable distortion and a little silly.

Sadly, an inability to recognise that Christ was not an only, and sole enlightened being to be born human, is to place a human-defined limit on the expression of divinity.

FV

Christianity is only 2000 or so years old,how can one relate evolution to Christianity if the religion has not existed from the beginning when the earth first experience the changing diversity of species over eons of time till now? Not trying to insult anyones intelligence just unable to put the two together in the context that
no1nose has placed it?

The point I tried to make about 4 pages of crap ago, was that people chose their beliefs, based upon their character and desires.

Once those beliefs have been chosen or accumulated from personal experience/character the theist/atheist seeks to prove themselves correct.

The higher you take your arguments, is a pointer to the desperation of your need to know, and maybe a show of lack of faith in what you supposedly believe in.

All people have similar desires - To avoid pain and suffering, to stave off death for as long as possible, either from fear of it or desire to live... when threatened endlessly by Catholics the former becomes the more prominent.

If you look at Capitalism objectively, you see a selfish system, easy to abuse, but for the law, which is easy to avoid. You see a system based upon one precept: Self.

Capitalism - DEFINED, not created, by the people that upheld it's paradigms; selfish people.

Naturalism and Evolutionary theory are offshoots of atheist theory. They appeared BECAUSE of lack of faith in existing religion.

(if there were no God there would be no atheists)

Religion caused Darwin pain. He seeked to change his view of the world. You'll find that the death of his daughter effected him profoundly. Plato one of the finest thinkers in history, upon which almost everything you learn is at least in part influenced by, was greatly affected by the murder of Socrates - He later began to think of philosopher kings (of course thinking of his murdered teacher).

All the arguments here have nothing to do with knowing, they have everything to do with believing.
and I think the amount of emotion and blasting in this topic shows that.

-My point, is that all definition of philosophies springs from personal belief based upon experience and desire, not objectivity. You can only be truly objective if you have no emotion, or if you know everything (God).

- I just realised the profoundness of my last statement, cool. I dont expect many people here to understand all it's implications, because they dont want to.

My other point, is that no matter how much you learn it will always be a question of faith and hope, not of knowledge. - The crux of Christianity - Faith.

Jesus was real?

Kinda like the Jewish Socrates if you ask Ruckus.

Stories written in ones name do not amount to the existence of that said individual.

As far as I'm concerned there isn't a shred of empirical evidence beyond the bible to support the existence of Jesus. The bible is fraudulent in many cases and the existence of god's son on earth fits right in there with Noah's Ark. A fairy tale.

With that said, I'll throw my own opinion.

I believe Jesus existed...

A philosopher and pontificator at best.

The original thread starter is creative. Whenever no1nose posts it's like reading the latest action movie script.

Empty and asinine; yet amusing. Thus I have justified my reply... amusement.

Of course I lack faith. I strive to replace all faith with knowledge.

No, they appeared because SOMEONE was not satisfied with "God works in mysterious ways". Religious fanatics denounced electricity, just as they do evolution now. Show me but one Christian here who doesn't use electricity. Same story with organic chemistry.

Right-o. But. Atheism is a FAITH. Just as Christianity is. And faith can go and take a walk. I don't want to BELIEVE, I want to KNOW.

Is this the best argument you anti-science fanatics can come up with? Okay then, if Darwin really developed his theories SOLELY to get back at God for taking his daughter's life, I may take that. But what connection does Darwin's daughter have to the current evolutionary theories, which are very different from what Darwin origianlly wrote.

Mine too? The prove it

Sooo... we all should stop trying to be objective and join His flock, because only He knows everything and thus is the only truly objective being? %)

Yup. And that is why I enjoy religious discussions so. They say laughter makes you live longer
One question. Throughout history, a mass of humanity believed (BELIEVED! FAITH!) that the Earth was flat. Knowledge says the Earth is round. Does faith stand that challenge?
Or, not to wander too far off the topic, Christianity states that the world (what exactly IS the world in the Biblical sense remains to be seen) was created by God around 35000 years ago. It has been proven by various means that both the Universe and the planet Earth are far older than that. Does faith stand that challenge?

The crux of Stupidity - replacing knowledge with faith. No offense

Nah, the guy most probably was real and an influential prophet too. But the notion of his ressurection and godly powers is more than a little questionable.


One last note to Christians: You can believe all you want. What you believe is not my business. You can even revel in your own hypocrisy. What you believe is not my business. But the freedom of your faith end right where your world ends and the real world begins. Meditate on that %)

Jewish Socrates, sure, why not.

Both were honest people that got screwed over by bigots because they challenged epople in powerful positions.


QUOTE
All the arguments here have nothing to do with knowing, they have everything to do with believing.

Mine too? The prove it

-I dont know enough about you to prove it. But, if you are truly objective then you have no emotion.

QUOTE
You can only be truly objective if you have no emotion, or if you know everything

-Sooo... we all should stop trying to be objective and join His flock, because only He knows everything and thus is the only truly objective being? %)

-Your response does not challenge my statement, it merely retorts to it sarcastically... so...
- Yes. IF there is a perfect being called God then we NEED to worship him and ask for his help.

Well, here's the latest Killing in the name of GOD...HEHE...


http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&cl...19098341918B265

"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," Father Daniel, 29, the superior of the Holy Trinity monastery in north-eastern Romania, said before celebrating a short mass "for the soul of the deceased", in the presence of 13 nuns who showed no visible emotion."


Thats pretty Sick ***... god or jesus if they exist better get their *** down here and straighten these crazy preists up.... damn.

I do have emotions, but I don't use them when presenting arguments. So, yeah, if you take this discussion as a closed system, I have no emotions and as objective as my limited knowledge allows me to be.

Um... why exactly do we need to WORSHIP him? Asking him for help is each man's personal matter, but why WORSHIP? Does the Perfect Being have an inferiority complex? Self-esteem problems?
Oh, also:

Let me rephrase. Instead of trying to become better ourselves we should stare at Him in awe?

The more we become obsessed with the 'how' of religion, the less we wonder why it occurs.

The less we wonder why, the more this thread becomes pointless.

Religion and Science are two fundamentally different things that appear to cross over to those without understanding of both.

Science is constantly changing, new theories born, old ones disproven. Science is based on the world that we can observe and is therefore limited to it. Everything scientific theory must be proven to become more than philosophy.

Religion looks beyond the world that we observe into the unseen to understand why it occurs. We have evidence (no matter how non-scientific, nor whether you want to believe it or not) that there has been contact between the unseen and the seen that explains this.

The fundamental 'Why' will never be answered with science. Sure, you can give someone a factual explaination, but any scientist who's ever had a five year old will tell you that this can only go so far!

i.e.
why am I here? evolution! others came before you.
why did they do that? because others came before them!
why did they do that? because others came before them!
how did it start? with a big bang!
why? a singularity - [philosophical. no scientific evidence.]
what's a singluarity? something that holds everything but is nothing
why? because it's a useful concept!

Science, fundamentally, is a series of useful concepts, constructs and models that can be used to explain behaviour. The failing of modern society is the belief that it can be used to explain behaviour away.

The fundamental 'why' be answered quite succintly with my religion.

why am I here? God, your creator, has placed your soul, which may or may not be an extrusion into another dimension (scientific philosophy), in your currently limited container of a body, where you are constricted by space, time, emotion and the physical in order to test your self worth before becoming purely soul in death, where your thoughts become your actions. You can reform and repent as you wish, but remember to keep this in mind. Oh yea, and here's a guide to bettering your self-worth.

why did god create souls? You will learn when you die.

note that the fundamental why may appear to be affected by scientific proof, but it's not! Darwinism does not conflict this, it only conflicts the view of the catholic (and a few other) churches. These are based on interpretations of the bible which are based on further interpretations in a long string of reproductions and translations. A lot of what the churches say is certifiable nonsense, and it's most embarrasing (i.e what is with contraception banning? Should we have sex 24-7 to avoid preventing human life?) but what religious people hang onto is the fundamentals.

Now, telling me you can whittle away at that theory of why with millions of little 'hows' is pointless. Theories are constantly changing, being renewed, and rewritten. "Why" is not dynamic. "Why" does not change. Placing your faith in Science is ridiculous. It's like trying to summarise an infinitely long book. If you have no faith, then don't be religious, but understand that there is heavy anecdotal evidence of faith, it exists, and despite any lack of understanding,it should be respected. If you have faith, why are you throwing it into a bottomless pit of hows?

Some little pointers.

Aethism =
A - Without
Theism - Faith

The crux of Stupidity - replacing knowledge with faith. No offense

How can you not expect someone to take offense to being called the crux of stupidity.

Clearly, you are a total f$cking moron. No offense.

Also I'd like to juxtapose this little gem with another.

Lie. You are controlled by your emotions, otherwise you would never have started flaming this guy. Absolute lie, and you know it. Pathetic. No offense.
Oh, and before you get started, yes, I'm emotional, but I don't lie about it.

If you created a robot, and the robot didn't ask you for commands, deciding rather to create havoc and theorise poorly about the basic natures of life, jumping off high ledges and blowing up other rooms of your house, would you give it a second chance, or just throw it in a bin?

Without God there was nothing made that was made. The Earth contains all that God created and His children, if anyone, has a right to enjoy all that is. And by the way, You know there is an attainable place in God where one knows He is and not only believes He is. The Bible is the oldest book of Prophecy on the face of the Earth and archeologists, biologists, historians, and others have been relentlessly trying to prove it inaccurate, but can't. As I stated under the topic Evolution vs God, don't play around with something you know nothing about. The foolishness of God is wiser than men. Fellow Christians, I encourage you to pray for these, especially DB, and unbelievers worldwide; for we all were unbelievers at some point in our lives. Further, I beseech you to not enter into debates with others for the sake of trying to prove that Jesus is The Son of God and that He is the only way to God the Father. (Paul lets us know that the creation demands the fact of a creator.) For the Bible lets us know that one day every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess (whether it wants to or not) that Jesus Christ is Lord. Again, in reference to my other comment, no man knows that God is except the Spirit reveals it to him. The prince of this world has blinded so many people, thus they walk in darkness. Let us just continue to be, or start to be, that beacon of light that the Lord has called us to be. For if they can't see Him in us, then they will remain lost. It's up to us to lead the way to safety. And remember this, the world is only as dark as it is because we have failed to light a candle.

The HUMAN Mind needs Evidence, Visually, or Using any of the other senses that somthing is TRUE, otherwise its pretty pointless and you get all these so called Non-beleivers... is that So hard to comprehend???

I mean, would you jump off a cliff if someone told you, that you would actually survive the fall, or would you need proof first? Would you spend money on a car that someone said it could fly without actually seeing proof? I highly Doubt it... Same IDEA. But if 100000's of people said Yah IT FLYS!!! You would beleive instead of beleiving one person... thats the case with GOD, 10000000's of people think there is, so everyone else beleives cause everyone else does, so that must be enough "proof" YET NO ONE ON CAN PROVE IT CORRECT.... AS IT STANDS, ITS PROVEN WRONG CAUSE THERES NO PROOF Its Even TRUE!!! LOL......


Course, I'm open to beleiving there's a creator, but has to make sence... i mean, adam and even? C'mon.... talk about incest... its already proven today that incest leads to Mutated Kids.... And were adam and eve white or black, or chineese?

I beleive some creator must of created DNA/RNA to be so specific to create us, but i dont beleive he just created two people that resulted it all the people here today, that dosent make any sence and you know it....


So Show me a sign god exists... Pray, Get the WHOLE World to pray for ME, go ahead... i wont expect to see a thing, but if you make a bird hit the window then i'll beleive..... but it has to be within a couple days, other than that its just coincidence....hehe...

I will say this.

As an agnostic, I can conceive a creator, god if you will, that would be powerless as to what occured after his creation of our existence.

In this respect, I would say that god is not responsible for the horrid acts done in his name.

Humans view with human brains.

Even if the Christian god -was- real, who is to say we would be able to comprehend his wants and expectations.

This Priest was obviously mentally deranged. His view is moot as far as I am concerned. Thus his reasoning for murder is irrelevant.

Hell... If I killed someone I would definetly say, "God made me do it."

Why not...?

I just killed someone. Blame the ultimate social authority.

Or those who do and want to have some fun

This evidence is limited to belief. Thus - is not objective. Thus - is not evidence. Thus - is not true.

Less than a hundred years ago people thought that movies with sound are impossible.
And, religion also can't answer this "Fundamental Why". At least, not Christianity as you present it here - the best you can come up with is "God works in mysterious ways".

Ah, so the peak of sentience is a five-year old. I see, I see...

Wrong. Not evolution. Birthing process is more like it. Evolution does not affect creatures, it affects populations. Man, don't they teach that in High School?

Yup. Because a five-year-old wouldn't understand a well thought-out answer to that question. Of course, the answer "Because God will us so" is much better. For a five-year-old.

With a [insert another theory].

No DIRECT evidence, yes. Side evidence - plenty. That doesn't make it true, but that sure as hell proves that the universe is far older than around 10000 years as stated in the Bible. You're getting lost in your own dogmas, Mr.Spiritual Enlightenemnt

Good explanation. For a five-year-old. Keep going, I'm having a good time here.

Because there is side evidence to that, which, unfortunately, you cannot understand because, apparently, your mental development stopped when you were five years old.

Nope. Religious pseudo-science is.

It doesn't work that way. When you introduce a concept, define it. You did not define away.
Also, religion places the object "God" at a theoretical location, where the existance of said object cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. Isn't THAT a useful concept meant only to comfort the doubtful?

Now. I'm making a statement here. I am God. I know that for you to believe me I have to prove it. But I won't. Because I work in mysterious ways, so you'll just have to take my word.
Alright, now I'll prove that I am God.
Now, I write on piece of paper: "Darth_Blade is God". It's true, because it is the Word of God, i.e. me. It is the Word of God because I am God. Thus, I am God. Statement proven. Worship me.

Finally, ONE fanatic that realizes that. *claps*

No, you hang onto your beliefs. Quote the part of the Bible that proves your answer to "Why am I here?".

DOGMA! DOGMA! It's part of the dogmatic system of your religion, which, I assume, is Christianity. When one dogma is proven wrong, the whole dogmatic system goes down. The dogma about the age of the Universe has been proven wrong.
Oh wait, damn, I'm talking science again. Okay then...
I believe that you are wrong! It is written by me on a piece of paper! I am God! Thus it is the Word of God! Thus, it is true! Thus, you are wrong!

I understand that. And laugh at it from time to time, when the anecdote is funny

Aaaaand? You should be careful when dealing with etymology (take my word as an [amateur] linguist's). Most people who call themselves atheists put the absence of any deity as hard truth. Which it is not, because, while anyone has yet to prove the existance of God, the contrary was never proven too.

Well, doesn't Christianity preach tolerance?

None taken I'm many things, most of them bad, sadly, but "a total f$cking moron" is not one of them.

[offtopic]I started flaming (flaming? hey, wasn't that a debate just a few pages ago? maaan...) just 'cause I wanted to have some fun. I take pleasure in debating, and I take pleasure in debating relgious topics.
You assume that my first post was triggered by me seeing the posts here and thinking "***!? This guy's all wrong, he's so stupid, I've got to set him on the right path!". Your assumption is wrong.

I'm not emotional and I don't lie about it. You can scream "pathetic lies!" all you want, it won't change that fact

Poor reasoning. God is all-powerful and I, the creator of the robot, am not. Thus, God cannot be harmed, either physically, economically or morally, by a human, while the creator of the robot can be harmed physically (jumping off high ledges), economically (blowing up other rooms of your house) and morally (the humiliation of creating a bad robot).
Are you implying that God created humans for the sole purpose of worshipping him? Then he really overdid with sentience. A robot would've did that so much better.

According to the Bible, God created the world around 10000 years ago. According to geologists, archaeologists and astronomers, both the Universe and the Earth are far older.
So there you have it.

...lest the Heavenly Father strike thee down!
Please.

I appreciate the attention, but no need, really. I sin faster than you pray %))

Mmm, I used to be a believer, actually.

So as not to endanger thy faith in thy Heavenly Father %)