I took a look at the proposed conversation between Jesus and Socrates and found a narrator with an agenda using these names to further that agenda. I think, properly handled, this could make for an interesting conversation, but I know I am not personally qualified to do so. How about you Zill? You got to know Christ intimately as a child and then went on to study Plato. Surely an understanding of Socrates crept in there somewhere.
I believe an honest attempt at allowing these two great figures their own voices would yield a lot more than simply forcing the dogmas of their respective followers through their cardboard teeth. If anyone takes a shot, please let me know - I'd love to read it.
And this is why I love Ian! Well spotted. The kind of thing you bring up is exactly, what I thinks is, one of the main problems with this subject.
Take Richard Dawkins for example: he is such a strong athiest that he actually has a religion: he "believes" there is no god. He BELIEVES it. Isn't that faith?
So much good research is tainted by personal agendas and motives. As explained in "Theosophical Anthropology": only by being completely neutral, or as close as we can be, can we hope to find an unbiased, useful, pertinent semblance of "truth".
Hats off to you Sir Ian. Thanks for being a great contributer!
Hi guys.
ReplyDeleteThe link below is to a fictional conversation between Jesus and Socrates. It's an oldie-but-goodie. If you haven't yet read it: it's awesome!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63169
An interview with one of England's prominent Athiests after he came to an understanding regarding my friend God.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
I took a look at the proposed conversation between Jesus and Socrates and found a narrator with an agenda using these names to further that agenda. I think, properly handled, this could make for an interesting conversation, but I know I am not personally qualified to do so. How about you Zill? You got to know Christ intimately as a child and then went on to study Plato. Surely an understanding of Socrates crept in there somewhere.
ReplyDeleteI believe an honest attempt at allowing these two great figures their own voices would yield a lot more than simply forcing the dogmas of their respective followers through their cardboard teeth. If anyone takes a shot, please let me know - I'd love to read it.
And this is why I love Ian! Well spotted. The kind of thing you bring up is exactly, what I thinks is, one of the main problems with this subject.
ReplyDeleteTake Richard Dawkins for example: he is such a strong athiest that he actually has a religion: he "believes" there is no god. He BELIEVES it. Isn't that faith?
So much good research is tainted by personal agendas and motives. As explained in "Theosophical Anthropology": only by being completely neutral, or as close as we can be, can we hope to find an unbiased, useful, pertinent semblance of "truth".
Hats off to you Sir Ian. Thanks for being a great contributer!
Hi Guys
ReplyDeleteHere's an article on Adam & Eve and whether it was God or man who sinned:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=214900
Not saying I agree, or disagree; it's just interesting.