Which town's people were more evil: the people of Jerusalem who murdered Christ, or the people of Athens who murdered Socrates?

File: 121 KB, 429x410, 1437731265599.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:07:48 2015 No.7169290 [Reply] [Original]

Which town's people were more evil: the people of Jerusalem who murdered Christ, or the people of Athens who murdered Socrates?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:10:32 2015 No.7169295 Uhhhhhhh memes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:13:59 2015 No.7169303 "Evil" does not exist save in complaints of the weak.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:16:57 2015 No.7169310 >>7169303 This seems like a complaint and it seems like 'evil' exists in it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:19:59 2015 No.7169314 >>7169310 >This seems like a complaint think again

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:20:36 2015 No.7169317 test

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:25:53 2015 No.7169325 >>7169290 Evil is a silly concept. Also if you are a Christ fag you cannot be evil, you can only live a life of sin. No one is "evil" they simply make bad choices. Only the devil, who isn't even in the bible, is technically evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:39:57 2015 No.7169351 >>7169325 >>7169314 Why do you both choose to ignore the content of the question and focus on my choice of that particular word? Use any synonym for moral reprehensibility that you feel like using. Which community is more reprehensible?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:44:41 2015 No.7169355 Killing the Son of God is pretty evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:50:01 2015 No.7169372 >>7169325 Sin is evil. The capacity to sin is proof of the presence of evil in human beings. This evil is accidental, while human goodness is essential.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:54:18 2015 No.7169384

>>7169290
Debates about the concept of 'evil' and 'immorality' aside, in a general sense I'd have to go with the murder of Christ. Considering the effects Socrates' teachings had and the things the people he taught/lectured went on to do (e.g. government overthrow), he was legitimately guilty of corrupting the populace. That's not to say their actions were necessarily morally obligated or permissible, but he knew what he was doing and he suffered the consequences. I wouldn't even call it murder tbh.

But playing along to your question aside, personally the question is incoherent since I'm something of an anti-realist if I had to apply a meta-ethical analytic position to my views. Still, I'd say I still view the murdering of Christ as distasteful.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:57:50 2015 No.7169394

>Socrates
>old guy who goes around pissing off sages and nobility by being a fucking contarian bitch and being the equivalent of that annoying as fuck meme kid who always says "Why?" to everything you say as if it makes it deeper and then gets killed because the Athenians are tired of the constant memes

>Jesus
>Selflessly offers himself as a mortal sacrifice to atone forever and always the ultimate crime of disobeying God, despite having been given EVERYTHING you could possibly want and made king and queen of all the world, all you have to do is just not eat from this one tree.

I stand by socrates as he represents logic and rationality unlike christfags XD

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:59:48 2015 No.7169401 >>7169394 Except jesus didn't want to sacrifice himself, he acted like a bitch at the garden of Gethsemane and basically got emotionally manipulated into doing it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 04:59:48 2015 No.7169402 >>7169325 I am evil. It's not just Immoralism or Egoism, I'm a slave to evil without any principle that would justify my deeds. I'm not a sociopath either. Evil is real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:00:19 2015 No.7169403 If the people of Jerusalem didn't murder Christ salvation of humanity would be impossible so I don't see how they can be described as evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:01:19 2015 No.7169406 >>7169402 Evil is a psycho-linguistic phenomena related to a persons view of what is acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:08:01 2015 No.7169417 >>7169406 That's not the definition I use. I'm not talking about social standards. My "evil" still exists even when there is no living being around anymore. It's like an essence of the universe that can poison your soul.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:09:03 2015 No.7169418

>>7169403
They mentioned this in the movie Andrei Rublev. Two monks get into an argument about the nature of humanity. One of the monk's is old and bitter and prefers to live a hermetic existence away from others. He believes people are animals and says the same people who lined up to listen to Christ were also the same people who begged Pilate to string him up.

The conclusion that was come to was that despite committing the terrible crime of crucifying somebody pretty needlessly, was that despite the bloodthirsty crowd begging for Jesus' violent death they were actually beside in him doing God's work. Surely had they known they were crucifying the Son of God they would have instantly stopped the crucifixion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:15:29 2015 No.7169433 >>7169417 >It's like an essence of the universe that can poison your soul. Please...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:15:47 2015 No.7169435 Neither people were as good as they could have been. Nor, for that matter, are you or I.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:16:34 2015 No.7169437 >>7169433 Too much, huh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:19:39 2015 No.7169444 >>7169418 Was Judas saved?

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:34:02 2015 No.7169444,1 [INTERNAL]

The town's people weren't evil.
Socrates was evil.
There are many ways to define evil, but I like to use the definition that 'evil' is a human trait that endangers the society that someone is a part of. Murder, theft, adultery, and in Socrates' case corrupting the youth.

Socrates was a man who was 'ahead of his time' in the sense that his views and ideas could not fit within the Ancient Greek model of society. The crime of taking away Gods seemed dangerous. Radical change can create unrest, and this 'corruption' had to be stamped out to sustain harmony within society.

Not like it matters anyway. Socrates's work lives on through Plato.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:40:50 2015 No.7169483 le joos

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:42:50 2015 No.7169492 >>7169290 the Roman soldiers who killed Archimedes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:46:56 2015 No.7169502 >>7169437 No, it's just fucking retarded. You just believe in Evil, there for you think it exists. That's about all you have said really and it has done nothing to convince me that evil exists outside the minds of men.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:49:02 2015 No.7169507

The town's people weren't evil.
Socrates was evil.
There are many ways to define evil, but I like to use the definition that 'evil' is a human trait that endangers the society that someone is a part of. Murder, theft, adultery, and in Socrates' case corrupting the youth.

Socrates was a man who was 'ahead of his time' in the sense that his views and ideas could not fit within the Ancient Greek model of society. The crime of taking away Gods seemed dangerous. Radical change can create unrest, and this 'corruption' had to be stamped out to sustain harmony within society.

Not like it matters anyway. Socrates's work lives on through Plato.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:53:10 2015 No.7169514 File: 60 KB, 453x604, 1440680370381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7169507 >Socrates was evil.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:55:03 2015 No.7169517

>>7169492
lol evil? The Romans wanted to capture Archimedes alive, but one soldier got pissed off when Archimedes told him to fuck off so he showed that arrogant prick what's what. And if Archimedes was truly responsible for burning Roman ships then he certainly deserved what he got.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:56:48 2015 No.7169522 >>7169514 We only don't view him as evil because we're not the general populus of Classical Greece. We're looking at another society from our own and therefore not judging him to be evil.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 05:58:15 2015 No.7169528

>>7169290
Neither of them. They both had real chances of destroying a social order which had served well since before the people could remember.

I never got why the Nicene Creed has "For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate" when Pilate was just doing his job and had no proof beyond rumors from peasants that this man was anything more than the rebel and charlatan the Pharisees painted him as, and could have had serious trouble keeping social order in Israel had he let Jesus live.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 06:00:10 2015 No.7169530 >>7169444 According to Catholic dogma he is the only person known to be in Hell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 06:01:21 2015 No.7169535 File: 11 KB, 352x398, asian homer face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7169522 >constructing your moral paradigm solely through social norms

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 06:06:03 2015 No.7169546 >>7169535 It's not exactly my own standpoint. Morality is just a biological construct woven into a society so the largest amount of people can benefit from it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 06:10:30 2015 No.7169554 >>7169502 But anon, how does it follow from evil only existing in the mind that evil doesn't exist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 06:13:08 2015 No.7169559 I wouldn't consider the murder of jesus, who preached malice and cruelty to be an evil action. Granted it would be quite ineffective, but it's the thought that counts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 08:49:06 2015 No.7169790 >>7169530 Excatly what piece of dogma do you base that on?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 08:54:13 2015 No.7169801 >>7169394 >the ultimate crime of disobeying God >disobeying >the ultimate crime And still you people wonder why religion isn't consider intellectual

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 09:02:58 2015 No.7169812 >>7169314 >>7169303 Edgelord taco supreme >>7169290 Neither. Farming peasants can't really be blamed for not taking up arms against rich people who kill a few philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 09:08:27 2015 No.7169823 >>7169559 >jesus, who preached malice and cruelty

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 09:19:12 2015 No.7169846

>>7169517
>>7169517
>And if Archimedes was truly responsible for burning Roman ships

No, the war mirrors was a retarded myth even by ancient standards. And if this roman soldier couldn't handle some old man being salty to the point of disobeying orders, he was a murderous fuckboy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 09:19:37 2015 No.7169848 >>7169801 >religion isn't consider intellectual 1. considered* 2. What do you mean? Is it not a topic intellectuals discuss? Are there no religious intellectuals? Neither seems to be the case.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 09:25:17 2015 No.7169858

>>7169848

If you consider disobeying and disagreeing the ultimate crime, you're going to have a pretty hard time ever engaging in anything intellectual, because the intellectual debate over the past millennia has been little else but an endless set of disagreements and people disobeying the ruling intellectual status quo.

If you subscribe to a worldview were that is considered the ultimate crime, I don't consider the chance very high that such a worldview will be intellectually engaging

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 09:41:47 2015 No.7169892

>>7169846
But does that make him evil? Of course not.

also
>murderous
>in war

also
>fuckboy
>for killing a disrespectful arrogant man who wouldn't obey orders

Archimedes was an idiot not to do what a victorious army, with benevolent intentions towards him, requested. There could not be a more precarious and potentially dangerous situation than a charged mob; you don't thumb your nose at it unless you want to tip the situation over the edge. He could have saved himself if he was smart but instead practically asked for trouble.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 09:47:46 2015 No.7169899 >>7169858 But I mean seriously. How many angels can fit on the head of a needle?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 10:03:36 2015 No.7169927 >>7169290 It wasn't murder. It was lawful execution. Well, maybe on in Jesus' case. Pilate didn't really had the legal grounds to execute him and just left the decision to the locals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 10:08:17 2015 No.7169939 >>7169892 >murderous >in war Yes, that is a thing. It's codified nowadays by the Genevra conventions and back then it would be murder to deliberately kill someone you were tasked with capturing alive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 11:23:30 2015 No.7170123 >>7169790 Don't remember the exact dogmatic letter but the gist was that Judas's ultimate sin was thinking he was beyond forgiveness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 11:26:53 2015 No.7170130 File: 18 KB, 286x400, thrasymachus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] good/evil is the false dichotomy of plebeians. might is right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 11:33:43 2015 No.7170153 >>7169325 Of course there's evil in the world, why do you think the tree was called Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Part of the plan, God created us sufficient to stand but free to fall.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 11:35:26 2015 No.7170154 >>7169444 Funnily enough, he would've been, but he killed himself, thus damning his soul.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 11:37:45 2015 No.7170163 They're both suicides.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 11:56:53 2015 No.7170211

>>7170154
>What is more, it darkens the mystery around his eternal fate, knowing that Judas "repented and brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood'" (Mt 27: 3-4). Even though he went to hang himself (cf. Mt 27:5), it is not up to us to judge his gesture, substituting ourselves for the infinitely merciful and just God.
Pope Benedict XVI

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 12:02:09 2015 No.7170229 >>7169899 All of them and none of them. This is possible because of metapotential supercausality

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 12:07:33 2015 No.7170243 The Jews were not contradictory in their claim against Jesus, where as the Greek council couldn't even pull together coherent arguments. >accused of worshipping new gods >accused of being an atheist Lol what?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 12:22:00 2015 No.7170282 >>7170163 >roman revisionism

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 12:29:17 2015 No.7170313 >>7169899 Depends on the measure of the pin. Depends on the measure of the angels. You can with the former, but the later is a bit more tricky if we we don't just want to assume.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 18:49:03 2015 No.7171724 Bump

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 18:50:34 2015 No.7171731 >>7169858 You have a very simplistic understanding of religion and philosophy tbh

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 19:05:24 2015 No.7171777

>>7170282
If the Romans revised anything it was putting in the Pilate handwashing and blaming the Jewish courts, not claiming God forsook himself.
>inb4 implying the Romans learnt Aramaic to come up with Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani alibi
they really did not give that much of a shit

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature