Except that He was, and is. much much more than a “prophet”, and totally unacceptable to everyone. Of course nobody recognized Him, and nobody, even now, wants to know about Him!

http://www.kneeoflistening.com/f1-kripal.html

http://www.dabase.org/intro2.htm

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon

http://www.dabase.org/divemerg.htm

http://www.dabase.org/Divhscrt.htm

And no it is not possible to be perfectly ethical without practicing a Divine Way of Life.
These 3 references point out why.

1. http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-life.aspx

2. http://www.dabase.org/spacetim.htm

3. http://www.dabase.org/p5egoicsociety.htm

Plus this essay gives a very sobering assessment of the state of the world–a world created in the image of the collective psychosis described in references 2 and 3 above.

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html

That would only make sense if we look at humans in a non-evolutionary and non-biological context – as if we are spiritual beings not made up of protons and electrons. It might be hard to conceive of a thought as something reducible ultimately to complex neural messages and inconceivably small particles. But just because it’s hard, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Since it is we who do the thinking, from our perspective it seems like the most irreducible thing in the world is our thinking. But science will eventually show that that is not the case.

Similarly, from our perspective morality feels somewhat irreducible. And granted, to a person who lacks any moral sensitivity whatsoever, it may be impossible to teach them how to be good. But remember that we are animals, derived ultimately from single celled organisms that undoubtedly lacked morals. The origin of morality lies in evolution, and so it is reducible in that sense.

In any case, even if morality was “inexplicable and non-derivative”, I don’t see how that would affect the status of prophets. If someone comes down from a hill to tell you that you must stop acting in so-and-so way and start acting in another way, why would anyone believe them if they didn’t have the capacity to see their point in the first place? And if they did, then they didn’t need a divinely sent message to convert them. My point is that it is perfectly possible to be an “ethically creative being” without having any connection whatever with the divine.

In terms of lacking depth, perhaps for one, though the subject is certainly interesting to discuss, it is to broad to address within any short form or medium adequately. For one I would wish to return to the ever present of the origin of the Ethical and knowledge of moral laws. This is by no means the sole wisdom of what the early prophets taught, but what is outside of conduct and humanity (that is purely subjective) is the spiritual and mystical, and therefore cannot be properly discussed.

For your interest I include this brief passage of Otto Weininger’s whom I happen to be reading of late and addressed the problem in the following way:
“The second failure of all the systems of ethics founded on sympathy is that they attempt to find a foundation for morality, to explain morality, whilst the very conception of morality is that it should be the ultimate standard of human conduct, and so much be inexplicable and non-derivative, must be its own purpose, and cannot be brought into relation of cause and effect with anything outside itself. ”

To return to the lack of depth, my answer in this respect is primarily of two things.
a.) As stated by me prior, that the problem is too big to receive sufficient treatment in a short dialogue that fails to find many of the key questions/issues. (though once again the discussion is valuable simply for opening the question to further inquiry).
I think at least a few of the issues that point at the magnitude of the problem I have already picked out, thereby I move on to the following.
b.) The arguments of Mr. A and Mr. B seem to lack a solid theoretical basis or background. I am not saying that Mr. A and Mr. B should proceed to quote Kantian ethics, Leibniz/Godel’s ontological proof for God’s existence etc. But they would do well to at least establish the conversation across a cohesive and limited set of points over which they deliberate.

Your point that Einstein, Descartes and Kafka were prophets in their own way is an interesting one, and, I think, true. However the substantial difference is that they didn’t claim themselves to be as such. Furthermore, they certainly didn’t claim to have had their message dictated to them by God, or make any other claims about their own special status in the order of things.

I don’t think (and neither does Mr A) that ethics can be derived solely by reason. On the contrary, in fact. But Mr A’s beef was not with the ethical claims of prophets, only with the supernatural ones. Mr A would find it perfectly reasonable to accept Jesus’ teachings of turning the other cheek and so on without his (apparent) claims to be the son of God. As good a moral teacher as Jesus may have been, his teachings were hardly so amazingly far-sighted that they could only have come from someone related to the Creator.

What else about the arguments of Mr A and Mr B lacked depth?

Also I find it quite bothersome, and at best silly, that comments require moderation before appearing.

As for this author’s (I presume they are the authors) opinions on faith – they are all together nonsensical. I suggest he read perhaps Kierkegaard, but for that matter it is enough to read any ethical philosopher to ascertain the absurdity of such claims that things can be known solely by reason.

(Undoubtedly this is even more true of the transcendental and religious).

I shall chose this point to end what I write, not because it is a suitable point – it explicitly is not, but because this comment box is rather small and I cannot very well see what I wrote above. In regards to the contentions of my arguments – they are I believe valid, although who they oppose it is hard to say as the author has distanced himself from us by the services of Mr A and Mr B.
At the same time the fundamental flaws and lack of depth found often in the arguments of A and B reflect a lack of insight or deep thought into these matters that I must after all attribute to the author.

That said my presence and comment on this blog are purely incidental, though I may perhaps return to see if the author will afford this comment a response.