Philosophy Now Forum

Jesus was a man for that particular time.

It's always amazing to me when someone can say something that's manifestly untrue and go unquestioned on it. But I'll question you.

Is there one historical figure...name any one, from any time and any culture...that you could remotely say was not simply a "man for that particular time" other than Jesus Christ? For if there is not, then your claim means precisely nothing -- for then *all* men are "men for their particular time, which is then a trite truism, not a truth, since it applies to absolutely every case without possibility of distinction: in short, it communicates no content, it says nothing.

On the other hand, if you think there was ever *even one* person who was not a "man for his particular time," then is it even possibly float any candidate for the title that comes within a million miles or a thousand years of Jesus Christ? Was Marx that great? Was Napoleon? Was Einstein? Was Shakespeare, Socrates or Galileo? Was Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great? Was Mohammed, or Buddha?

Was anyone, anyone at all, anywhere near the man that Jesus Christ was, with the impact He has had, not only in the realm of his day and the context of Jewish religious practice, but in every corner of human endeavour, and ultimately, in the moral realm? In short, has anyone ever made such an impact on human history?

If every there was a Man for all seasons, not merely "a man for a particular time," He is that Man.

Happy Easter.

Immanuel Can wrote: It's always amazing to me when someone can say something that's manifestly untrue and go unquestioned on it. But I'll question you.

Tell me about it.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Is there one historical figure...name any one, from any time and any culture...that you could remotely say was not simply a "man for that particular time" other than Jesus Christ? For if there is not, then your claim means precisely nothing -- for then *all* men are "men for their particular time, which is then a trite truism, not a truth, since it applies to absolutely every case without possibility of distinction: in short, it communicates no content, it says nothing.

Why? Isn't one example enough?

Immanuel Can wrote: On the other hand, if you think there was ever *even one* person who was not a "man for his particular time," then is it even possibly float any candidate for the title that comes within a million miles or a thousand years of Jesus Christ? Was Marx that great? Was Napoleon? Was Einstein? Was Shakespeare, Socrates or Galileo? Was Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great? Was Mohammed, or Buddha?

No, I was actually thinking of a specific time period.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Was anyone, anyone at all, anywhere near the man that Jesus Christ was, with the impact He has had, not only in the realm of his day and the context of Jewish religious practice, but in every corner of human endeavour, and ultimately, in the moral realm? In short, has anyone ever made such an impact on human history?

If every there was a Man for all seasons, not merely "a man for a particular time," He is that Man.

Happy Easter.

How about I swap my "man for a particular time" trite truism for your "man for all seasons" trite truism?

Immanuel Can wrote: Happy Easter.

Si, Buona Pasqua a tutti!

Jesus Christ could be right here right now but you wouldn't want to hear it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's a fashion thing. Messiahs were all over the place in those days. They were the 'rock stars' of the day. Certain people feel the need to follow someone else around, salivating over their every word. The whole jebus story is beyond silly, and only an idiot would believe it.

Yes, this is true, messiahs were everywhere in Palestine at that time; but I think Jeoshua Ben Josheph was different from the others, because He made miracles such as Lazzarus' resurrection.
Forgive me, but I don't know who jebus is, could you explain me?

How about I swap my "man for a particular time" trite truism for your "man for all seasons" trite truism?

Guilty, as charged.

And yet not so guilty. For while my phrase may be a truism, it is apparently also a truth: have you found that one man greater than Jesus Christ yet? I did not notice him named in your last message.

Immanuel Can wrote:

How about I swap my "man for a particular time" trite truism for your "man for all seasons" trite truism?

Guilty, as charged.

And yet not so guilty. For while my phrase may be a truism, it is apparently also a truth: have you found that one man greater than Jesus Christ yet? I did not notice him named in your last message.

I googled it. Apparently it is a truth in terms of actuality. There was a man for all seasons and it was Sir Thomas Moore.

THAT is your candidate for a someone not "a man of his particular time"? But you had to google him even to know he existed.

I've actually read the play -- Robert Bolt was the author, you will discover. The introduction the play has quite a nice summation of what Bolt thought "a man for all seasons" meant. It's worth a read. But that is another matter entirely.

I'm still waiting for your real candidate to step forward. A name will do.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Ridiculous actually. For a God there is no "right" or "wrong" time. For a God, if they "fuck up" the God simply Flood's the planet. It is ridiculous to say that now is not the "right" time for Jesus2 to show up and feed the starving africadudes. Why not perform more of his bread multiplication tricks? Oh yes I know why, you are drawing up excuses for this God of yours. Like Job, God could rape your babies and kill your family, and you would still praise Him, because you believe God is right, by definition.

Jesus2? May I know what the hell have you read?
Never talked of such things.

Immanuel Can wrote:
On the other hand, if you think there was ever *even one* person who was not a "man for his particular time," then is it even possibly float any candidate for the title that comes within a million miles or a thousand years of Jesus Christ? Was Marx that great? Was Napoleon? Was Einstein? Was Shakespeare, Socrates or Galileo? Was Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great? Was Mohammed, or Buddha?

As I said previously, I am not floating any candidate for any overall greatness in historical terms. This is another strawman. As I said in other posts, I'll let you know what my thinking is. No, I wasn't thinking that. I was thinking of a particular time period in history. That was my immediate reply to your above quote.

I was not considering anyone or anything in terms of alternative hands, or alternative thinking.

Well I would say your "man for his particular time" is indeed a straw man if you cannot name one man who isn't -- by your definition -- a "man for his particular time." For then that claim means absolutely nothing, since it applies to all men and women in the history of the universe equally. You may as well have said, "Well, he was a man with two legs and two arms." For both statements are equally obvious, and equally devoid of informative content.

So you can see that your claim adds no information and communicates no unique truth...and equally refers to every person and none. This is the very epitome of a "straw man," I believe - a false person, a person who does not really exist, one constructed for some particular argumentative purpose, but with insufficient reality to warrant any conclusion.

And that was all I was at pains to point out. In calling Christ "a man for his particular time," I observe that you were simply not making any information-possessing statement at all. You were saying something you regard to be equally true of everyone.

David Handeye wrote:Why did God decide to send his own son just 2000 years ago? I don't think that world, that time, that humanity, was more corrupt than ours. Being God omniscient, He should have known the time when his sons and daughters were more in need of help. Nowadays, most of Jesus' teaching have been forgotten. Maybe the best time to send his son would have been during WWII as to stop the holocaust of his people, I think that was the right time, to save his people and to introduce his glory in the world by his son. Contemporary humanity could have been much better than it actually is. Being omniscient God should have known, I think. So why in I century? Is there a particular, religious reason that I ignore?

Immigration policies!

Anyone who read and understand the Scripture itself will know that there is second coming of Christ. However, it didn't state in the Scripture the exact time when will that happen.

hazlett wrote:Anyone who read and understand the Scripture itself will know that there is second coming of Christ. However, it didn't state in the Scripture the exact time when will that happen.

I was referring to the first coming.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well I would say your "man for his particular time" is indeed a straw man if you cannot name one man who isn't -- by your definition -- a "man for his particular time." For then that claim means absolutely nothing, since it applies to all men and women in the history of the universe equally. You may as well have said, "Well, he was a man with two legs and two arms." For both statements are equally obvious, and equally devoid of informative content.

So you can see that your claim adds no information and communicates no unique truth...and equally refers to every person and none. This is the very epitome of a "straw man," I believe - a false person, a person who does not really exist, one constructed for some particular argumentative purpose, but with insufficient reality to warrant any conclusion.

And that was all I was at pains to point out. In calling Christ "a man for his particular time," I observe that you were simply not making any information-possessing statement at all. You were saying something you regard to be equally true of everyone.

No, that's not a straw man argument. You were right the first time in terms of my statement being a truism. In other words, a rhetorical device that actually conveys nothing.

An example of a straw man argument would be to take a quote...let's say, " man for that particular time" and turn it into something like..."man for his particular time". In this instance you would then proceed to build a fallacious argument based on a quote attributed to someone...let's say me. That would constitute a straw man argument.

At no stage did I say "man for his particular time" in relation to anyone.