Personally I say this guy.
[quote]sensless wrote:
I don’t think being a great leader that conquered the world makes an individual “tough”. If that leader actively fought in all the battles and endured the same pain of his soldiers first hand then he’d be tough. But most leaders lead from afar, not from in the middle.
Perhaps clarification on what “tough” means. I would think that enduring pain and mental torment to still function at a high level would qualify as tough.
Using the example of the “stupid” rugby player I had mentioned before. Yes, the actions were stupid, but to play through the excrutiating pain and still be successful at the task at hand I would think also qualifies as tough. You know, the ability to both deliver and take a punch.
Regards,
Sensless[/quote]
Good point. Julias Caesar wasn’t tough. However, those leaders who did fight in the front with their soldiers are the aces. They are sending themself into the risk of death. These guys are really few and far apart, but they do exist. And even with the most weirdest ideals (go conquer as much as possible for fun, glory and to be remembered), they always have a ton of men ready to fight alongthem wherever they may go.
Definition of toughness?
Toughness(time) = Integration(Pain&Torment * Functional_level, from t0 → t) * Preknown_Risk
I am the toughest math geek ever:)
What we need is a clear defintion of tough?
Is it the guy who can kick ass?
The guy who is incredible strong?
The person that even though life has kicked them in the gut still gets up everyday and tries to make the best of it?
- lenny mclean
- roy shaw
- charles bronson( the prisoner not the actor)
toughest man won’t be seen in any hollywood movie.
[quote]rg73 wrote:
Imbrondir wrote:
2) Leif Erikson. Crossed the atlantic to america 1000 years ago, when everybody “knew” about the existence of monsters in the ocean. The world was also flat, so if he sailed abit too far, he’d tip over the edge. Oh, and have you seen those old viking ships they used? With respect to Columbus, which I think did a REALLY brave deed, compared to this mad man, he was a pussy.
A lot of Vikings did this. And probably Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chinese and anyone else with a boat. Nevermind the folks that colonized the Pacific. And no one actually thought the world was flat then. The Greeks had already accurately calculated the cirumference of the globe like two thousand years before. Tough, sure. Uniquely tough? Nah. As tough as any sailor in history. Except Columbus. Big pussy. Liked to torture young Indian boys, so fuck him.
- Jesus.
Since when is getting crucified by Roman Legionaires tough? Tough were the mofos at Mosada who fought the Romans until the bitter end, then killed themselves so as to not get taken prisoner by the Romans. No crucifixations for them. Tough is fighting Rome, not giving yourself up to Rome.
Now sacrificing your son to the Romans, that’s tough. But, the virgin birth, martyrdom, blood sacrifice of your own kin, and the resurrection, all that was standard stuff for the gods of the Mederterranean and the Near and Middle East. Nothing tough about doing what Egyptian gods had already done 2000 years earlier. Except at least they had badass animal heads and shit.
[/quote]
My dad has been to Israel, he has stood on the mount of olives and noticed where the soldiers with Judas would have came in to take jesus to be judged by the pharisee’s and eventually pontius pilate and other roman leaders before his final death.
He had been praying all night regarding what he KNEW was about to happen.
He stood on that mountain, and remember Judas brought a LEGION of troops to come get Jesus.
He was able to see them from half way across the city.
At the top of the mount you can break off into the rest of the city.
Jesus could have ran…he knew hell was coming for him but he DIDN"T RUN.
He stood their like a man.
The roman legions asked him if he was Jesus of Nazereth. He said “I AM”
and knocked out an entire legion of Roman troops…flat on their ass.
then he did it a 2nd time.
Then he let them take him way.
He LET THEM.
Actually read the story man.
Jesus is pure baddassery.
[quote]GERRY.P.SHARMAN wrote:
THRASHER WROTE-
Jesus. See “Passion of the Christ”
dude Jesus ranks right up there with Jean Claude Van Damme ,Chuck Norris ,And Steven Sagal
(FICTIONAL)
[/quote]
read “The case for christ” by Lee Strobel.
[quote]ahex740 wrote:
Personally I say this guy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1338445/posts[/quote]
That’s fucking hilarious- everyone check this link out!
Genghis Khan
Here’s your answer:
Shackleton and his crew on the Endurance. How about being stranded in Antarctica for a few months 1,200 miles from civilization and having to leave your ship and use a lifeboat for a couple hundred miles.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Thanks for keeping the debate civil there, mindeffer!
Why should I be ashamed of myself? You have your book that you believe, I have my sources that I believe. It’s called debate, it’s called difference of opinion. What it’s not called is okay to say anything about my mother.
And, just for your own edification, I’m neither stupid or ignorant. Calling someone names because they disagree with you, however, is something that could be called both. Please refrain, thank you.
BTW, good analysis over in the RDL thread. The idea of the spine being a lever against the pelvis doesn’t sound like something that’s really a good idea.
Best,
–T.[/quote]
In that Weider Principle 5307.4b? Anyhow, it should be. Hell, I’m glad someone understands the concept of civil discourse, as I was beginning to lose hope. You feel one way about McCain; I feel another. Neither one of us has examined every source, nor will we. However, neither of us has insulted anyone.
I do take issue and offense to one thing, however, Mr. Weider: I’m not a Republican!!!
~Terumo
[quote]thrasher wrote:
He also took the most brutal, humiliating, longest lasting beat down in history.[/quote]
Are you serious? Let’s assume Jesus was an historical figure instead of a mythological one, the whole “beat down” was over in a matter of hours. Just about any cancer victim can be in excrutiating pain for months, sometimes even years… Imagine dying of cancer before there were anaesthetics.
Being shot or knifed in the gut can take days to kill you. Being trapped in a collapsed building, a bunch of bones broken, dying of thirst over 2-3 days.
Political prisoners being tortured for days, months and years. Having guards piss in your mouth and cattle prod your genitals, how’s that for humiliation? Or watching the same being done to your loved ones. Not knowing when it’ll be over, or even if it ever will.
Get real man. I can think of hundreds of tortures (both physical and psychological), diseases and ways to die over which I’d take a few severe lashings and crucifixion.
[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
Jesus could have ran…he knew hell was coming for him but he DIDN’T RUN.
He stood their like a man.[/quote]
He should’ve stood in the middle of a lake, on the surface. That would’ve been way cooler. It would’ve been fun to see the roman strip out of their armor and swim to grab his feet while he was standing there.
Then, when they’re all in; POOF change the water to wine! And multiply the fishes!
God has no sense of theatrics.
[quote]The roman legions asked him if he was Jesus of Nazereth. He said “I AM”
and knocked out an entire legion of Roman troops…flat on their ass.
then he did it a 2nd time.[/quote]
Maybe some of them were hard of hearing and didn’t fall the first time?
I’ve had protein shakes that left me with a breath so foul I probably could’ve put a couple of cops on their asses just by breathing in their general direction. What’s his trick?
[quote]
Then he let them take him away.
He LET THEM.[/quote]
Well, when you’re the son of God; or God himself in some way (you know, that confusing trinity stuff, three beings in one…) it’s pretty easy to act brave.
I mean, what can they really do to you? You’ve created the fricking universe and have been around since… well forever.
There’s no bravery or “toughness” when you could end it all with a simple wish; when you could all make it be over on a whim.
Make me omnipotent and I’ll let you do anything you want to me. How brave is that?
[quote]
Actually read the story man.
Jesus is pure baddassery.[/quote]
I have. The Greeks and Vikings had much more entertaining mythology. The Greeks had gods fighting, plotting, scheming, impregnating mortals, etc.
The “badassery” to word count ratio is way, way higher in those. Check’em out.
Pookie, you completely miss several points.
Firstly, yes Jesus could have brought down fire and brimstone on any that opposed Him, BUT HE DIDN’T. That’s the whole point. He was tough because He chose not to take the easy route, but rather the route that would teach the positive message He was here to spread, and which would save the most souls.
Secondly, comparing Jesus with mythological pantheons of dieties, is silly, especially after you stated initially that you were going to consider, for the sake of arguement, that Jesus was a historical figure.
Thirdly, to clear up the issue of the trinity, though Jesus is part of God, He is also independent and while on Earth had to struggle both physically and psychologically. Imagine realizing that your duty is to be the living, breathing example of God’s values and generosity, and it is neccesary to carry that out, even unto torture and death. And here we touch on a fourth point, that Jesus did NOT see Himself as Godly, nor did He see Himself as the son of God. Repeatedly He refers to Himself as the Son of Man. I believe He would have felt it kind of arrogant for Himself to even consider Himself in anyway equivalent to God. In this context then, consider the destiny He was given, not for His own benefit, but for that of others. Do you think you could have stayed the course? Do you think you could have avoided the temptations of Satan, or the weaknesses in your own will that would make you question God’s love for you up to the end?
Lastly, your whole implication that God should choose His actions based on what would seem the most “cool” or “theatrical” is disgusting. If you realized that every action is carefully chosen for a reason, and that interposing another would have taken from its meaning, and if you took a moment to try to understand the meaning, perhaps you would find them “cool”.
[quote]BOSS wrote:
Wrong not a lot of people did this, only a few! The Vikings were the first. The Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chinese did not. Read your history dude, visit your local library.
[/quote]
Actually they have found ancient South American crops, that did not exist anywhere else, in Pharos tombs. So the question is did they go to America, or did America go to Egypt?
Now as far as adding in religious figures, it is really wrong to bring religion into this. First of all a religious figure might not be considered human in the eyes of their followers, so would they count? And would never be accepted by those who do not accept them as such.
I wasn’t going to weigh in, but I guess I will. First how exactly are we defining toughness anyway? Just being able to withstand pain? The ability to kick ass? Both or just one? Or other factors?
I think Navy Seals, and other special forces. The ones who put their lives on the line in the real world, living on the land, scoping out people who want to kill them, in the most treacherous places possible. And having to defend themselves after staying awake for days, living on what they could find.
And of them all, I am sure there is one who stands head and shoulders above the others. And we may never know his name. He may die having to live with the secret that he was the best, and cannot tell anyone. If he survives at all.
Sorry that I pick a person who is faceless and nameless.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
Firstly, yes Jesus could have brought down fire and brimstone on any that opposed Him, BUT HE DIDN’T. That’s the whole point. He was tough because He chose not to take the easy route, but rather the route that would teach the positive message He was here to spread, and which would save the most souls.[/quote]
Yeah, but he knew he was immortal. I mean, not even in the same league as any man or group of men who’d confront him.
When you’re God, all routes are easy.
When omniscient, you already know what’s going to happen, when and how and even what you’ll do and the end result.
Well, at one time, the Greeks, Romans and Vikings thought their gods and stories as real as many do today of Jesus, Muhammad, Vishnu or any other of the world’s 3000 or so religions.
I like the invisible pink unicorn myself.
God’s love? I’ve got troubles with god’s existence… Would you accept to die for Santa Claus?
So you must find the whole “I AM”; legions fall on theirs asses; repeat a second time deal pretty disgusting then.
How about walking on water? Any purpose to that other than showing off?
Finally, that you would even consider judging any action of God seems extremely presumptuous to me. You’ve probably committed a sin of pride right there. Repent and pray for forgiveness.
If you really believe that is.
Don’t get me wrong; I agree with many values from the Bible, and especially from the gospels. But basically you could condense it down to a 12 page pamphlet and dispense with the rest.
You could then add a few missings ones, clarify the stance on slavery, beating your kids, homosexuality, mastubartion, whether women are equal to man or somewhere between cattle and man… You know, simply add another 10 or so commandments and clarify things.
Not that incest, lapidations, throwing babies against rocks, eating kids or having bears do it isn’t entertaining. But the writing is pretty uneven and there are some very long, boring passages that really clamor for a good editor.
For the record, I agree with The Mage, that bringing in religious figures might be inappropriate, however I do contend that, whether valid as an entrant in this “contest” or not, Jesus was tough.
Now, Pookie, I’m not going to address your comment about Jesus knowing already since I already went into that in my last post, but suffice it to say, Jesus wasnot all knowing while on Earth.
I think you bring up a good point, with your comment on Santa Claus though. What Jesus had was faith. This is where the psychological aspects I talk about come in, since at many points He was unsure, and questioned, but ultimately stayed the course because of His faith, His love for God, and His love for all of the people of the world.
As for God’s actions being just showing off, that just displays how you’ve missed the point. Throughout His life on Earth, Jesus was repeatedly trying to wake people up to the fact that He was sent by God. Again, I say, He called Himself the son of man, not God. It is my contention he did not deign to accept Himself as the son of God. However, He was trying to get people to believe, which is ultimately why He had to die and be resurrected. The blood shed there was not a cure all that gave everyone a free pass to heaven. If people did not believe, then why would they follow His teachings? And if His teachings were not the gate to heaven, then why would He have bothered teaching?
Finally, as for the issues of bible interpretation, that is a matter of men twisting God’s word over the years, not God’s word being less then exact. In the time it was written, the language used was precise, and even now, if you take care and actually read the whole of it and think about it, the answers will jump out at you.
And don’t forget about Samson. He was a damn tough dude…until that ho Delilah came along.
In the words of Bel Biv Devoe, “Never trust a big butt and a smile”.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
For the record, I agree with The Mage, that bringing in religious figures might be inappropriate, however I do contend that, whether valid as an entrant in this “contest” or not, Jesus was tough.[/quote]
I think we’re all in agreement on that part. We might as well include Batman and Wolverine or any other of the thousands of fictional characters thought up by men.
As for Jesus, let’s assume that he was neither omniscient nor omnipotent while on earth. Let’s take your stance that he was “just a man” sent by God with an enormous amount of faith.
Faith is (according to Merriam Webster) “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” Do we agree on this?
Now, Jesus had faith in God and in the fact that he’d been sent by God to save all men from sin. Fine, I can see that.
But, where I get off, is that Jesus could perform miracles (or God performed them on Jesus’s behalf; let’s not argue semantics here.) And when you’re performing miracles, faith gets a lot easier. If I prayed to God for something that defied all know laws of physics and it actually came true, man I wouldn’t believe, I’d know.
So if you’re trying to tell me that Jesus could raise the dead, walk on water, create enough food for a crowd from a few leftovers; turn water into wine, etc. And he still was unsure, had doubts and had to rely on faith… I mean, what’s wrong with the guy? Isn’t he a little dense?
Well at the time it was written down, it had already been passed down orally for at least a few generations, several in most cases. Even the oldest gospel was written something like 90 years after Jesus’s death. And if you’ve ever told tales around a campfire, you know that a little exaggeration goes a long way in making a good story better.
You know, from “Jesus helped that sick man”… to “Jesus healed that sick man”… to “Sick? No, he was dead, and Jesus brought him back to life!” Which one sounds more like a man God would send to save us?
The other thing is that I did read most of the Bible. Even found a recent translation from the “original hebrew” to make sure I’d get the least “interpretation” possible. There is stuff in there that, no matter how you interpret it (exegesis and all that), you’re hard pressed to find a way to attribute it to a supposedly “all-loving” God. Just the contrast between the old testament and the new one is enough to make you wonder if the book is all about the same god.
What is even more interesting is to read about other religions; both current and old dead (or nearly dead) ones. The same themes come up again and again.
God-man offsprings (Hercules, Jesus, Krishna); virgins births are another common theme. Vishnu-Brahma-Shiva are three aspect of the same unique God, a trinity of one being. Sound familiar?
As you go far back in the past and read chronogically, you can see some patterns. From polytheistic pantheons to dualistics ones (like Zoroastrianism, where Good (Ahura Mazda) and Evil (Anghra Mainyu) are equally powerful gods; to somewhat monotheistics ones like Hinduism and Christianisms where there is one all-powerful God that may have many aspects (Jesus, Holy Spirit) and adversaries (Satan) but no one of equal standing; to completely monotheistic ones like Islam where there is no god but Allah.
Of course, that skips over tribal gods, animal spirits, earth (Gaia) worship, etc. All the variations too. Sects, cults, splits (protestants from catholics and so on…)
You even have “modern” religions like Scientology or the Raelians; who try to incorporate more “scientific” thoughts in their theology, often doing away with the god figure altogether, but always keeping the “messiah/prophet” or earthly messenger. He’s the one who gets all the perks. 
We’ve wandered pretty far off-topic here; but what I’m basically saying is that I can see no religion as being more “right” or “true” than any other one. Most of the time, you believe the same one your parents believe; which is the one your grandparents believed… If you’d been born in Egypt, I’m pretty sure you’d bow down toward Mecca 5 times a day and believe with just as deep a faith as you’ve got now that there is no God but Allah. Or if you’d been born in America 600 or 700 hundred years ago, you’d prayed to whatever great spirit was appropriate for each occasion.
I have to agree with pookie here, anyone who is sure of the fact that they will not really die, but transition to the next step or next journey or whatever, is not as tough as someone who knows that this is the only life they will ever experience. (regardless of what reality is) The guy who sacrifices his only existance for a purpose is the ultimate definition of tough.
Fighting wise UFC fighters are tough, and skilled but they train mostly in non lethal combat. Special forces train in how to KILL you in a second, with the least amount of effort and time as possible. And they are good at it. One of my buddies in college was a college all american wrestler, trained in MMA and then went into the military. He ended up being a trainer for special forces hand to habd combat. He could run 5 miles with me who was a collegiate cross country runner, could bench in the low 400s was fast strong, and fearless, (brainless maybe) Plus this guys skull was like a freakin cannon ball, it was huge and thuck.
His apartment caught fire one day and he jumped out of a second story window onto a sidewalk, only problem was he hit a pizzaria sign on the way out and fell out spinning. He hit the ground with no control of his body and broke many bones in his legs and his arms. He then stood up to catch his girlfriend who was standing in the window. (she never jumped and instead collapsed back into the burning house).
Well needless to say the guy keeps on trucking, he is the toughest person I have ever met and if there was one person I would call to back me up in a fight against 10 guys, this would be the guy I call.
Great leaders like alexander the great while maybe not technically tough, were sure powerful people. But I guess thats not what this is about.