How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Mudda]

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

You are starting to sound like Michael HaShev. And he thinks he is the messiah.

He could be right. After all, it's been foretold:

Yes, he could. But it could also be that he is as bat shit crazy as you are too.

I'm bat shit crazy because I ask for real proof and you can't deliver any?

No. You are bat shit crazy because you spend so much resources talking about something you don't believe in.

Just looking for proof, nothing wrong with that. Or is there?

 

[Mudda]

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Ya, Jesus started a trend by wearing a diaper on the cross.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Ya, Jesus started a trend by wearing a diaper on the cross.

Loin cloths were common in those days.

Are you a HS dropout or just young?

 

[Mudda]

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Ya, Jesus started a trend by wearing a diaper on the cross.

Loin cloths were common in those days.

Are you a HS dropout or just young?

Loin cloths? That was a Tarzan.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

 

[sealybobo]

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

You are starting to sound like Michael HaShev. And he thinks he is the messiah.

He could be right. After all, it's been foretold:

Yes, he could. But it could also be that he is as bat shit crazy as you are too.

I'm bat shit crazy because I ask for real proof and you can't deliver any?

No. You are bat shit crazy because you spend so much resources talking about something you don't believe in.

And you spend a lot of time talking to people who don't believe plus you suck at converting non believers. Not very convincing. A terrible representative of Christianity. LOL

 

[Divine Wind]

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

I'm sure you fervently believe this. While the record of Jesus is scanty to nonexistent outside of the Bible, the Christian movement is better documented.

Why Did Christianity Succeed? - The Rise Of Christianity | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS
In similar fashion, archaeological evidence shows that from very early days, house churches were clearly identifiable--the neighbors would have been entirely aware that these were Christian gathering places (White 1990). In addition, soon many Christians began to take names that were distinctively Christian--scholars have no difficulty identifying them as such today (Bagnall 1993), and surely non-Christians in antiquity were sufficiently perceptive to have done so too. Funerary inscriptions also often bore clearly Christian identifications (Meyers 1988; Finegan 1992).

That Christians were not a secret sect is, of course, patent in the fact that they grew. If a group is to attract outside members, potential converts must, at the very least, be able to find it. Moreover, for a group to grow as rapidly as Christians did, it must maintain close ties to nonmembers--it must remain an open network. Thus had Roman repression been so consistent and severe that the Christians actually had become a hidden underground movement, this book would not have been written. A truly underground Christianity would have remained insignificant....

 

[sealybobo]

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

I'm sure you fervently believe this. While the record of Jesus is scanty to nonexistent outside of the Bible, the Christian movement is better documented.

Why Did Christianity Succeed? - The Rise Of Christianity | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS
In similar fashion, archaeological evidence shows that from very early days, house churches were clearly identifiable--the neighbors would have been entirely aware that these were Christian gathering places (White 1990). In addition, soon many Christians began to take names that were distinctively Christian--scholars have no difficulty identifying them as such today (Bagnall 1993), and surely non-Christians in antiquity were sufficiently perceptive to have done so too. Funerary inscriptions also often bore clearly Christian identifications (Meyers 1988; Finegan 1992).

That Christians were not a secret sect is, of course, patent in the fact that they grew. If a group is to attract outside members, potential converts must, at the very least, be able to find it. Moreover, for a group to grow as rapidly as Christians did, it must maintain close ties to nonmembers--it must remain an open network. Thus had Roman repression been so consistent and severe that the Christians actually had become a hidden underground movement, this book would not have been written. A truly underground Christianity would have remained insignificant....

A lot of false conclusions I believe. Christianity didn't grow after all the people saw him get crucified. Lets pretend it actually happened. Those people lived out their days worshipping him but it died with them. They didn't pass on the worship to their children who then passed it on to their children and you can't trace back any church to those people.

Paul went into Greece and told stories and the Greeks started worshipping based on hearsay. That's it. Same with Mexicans. No witness necessary.

Show me a Christian grave 10 years AD. Or 20 years AD.

 

[Divine Wind]

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

I'm sure you fervently believe this. While the record of Jesus is scanty to nonexistent outside of the Bible, the Christian movement is better documented.

Why Did Christianity Succeed? - The Rise Of Christianity | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS
In similar fashion, archaeological evidence shows that from very early days, house churches were clearly identifiable--the neighbors would have been entirely aware that these were Christian gathering places (White 1990). In addition, soon many Christians began to take names that were distinctively Christian--scholars have no difficulty identifying them as such today (Bagnall 1993), and surely non-Christians in antiquity were sufficiently perceptive to have done so too. Funerary inscriptions also often bore clearly Christian identifications (Meyers 1988; Finegan 1992).

That Christians were not a secret sect is, of course, patent in the fact that they grew. If a group is to attract outside members, potential converts must, at the very least, be able to find it. Moreover, for a group to grow as rapidly as Christians did, it must maintain close ties to nonmembers--it must remain an open network. Thus had Roman repression been so consistent and severe that the Christians actually had become a hidden underground movement, this book would not have been written. A truly underground Christianity would have remained insignificant....

A lot of false conclusions I believe. Christianity didn't grow after all the people saw him get crucified. Lets pretend it actually happened. Those people lived out their days worshipping him but it died with them. They didn't pass on the worship to their children who then passed it on to their children and you can't trace back any church to those people.

Paul went into Greece and told stories and the Greeks started worshipping based on hearsay. That's it. Same with Mexicans. No witness necessary.

Show me a Christian grave 10 years AD. Or 20 years AD.

Skipped the reading the link, dintcha? No worries. You are free to believe as you wish. I accept the historical record on the rise of Christianity. The divinity of Christ is a matter of debate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Dawkins wimped out by admitting he was a "6.5". First, because he didn't have the guts to just say "7" and, secondly plus more importantly, he didn't admit the most logical position is Agnostic, "I don't know and I can't prove either position".

I questioned his "I am a 6.9" comment, too. Had to look it up, but he created his belief scale in 2006 in The God Delusion. He made his 6.9 comment in 2012. He considered himself an agnostic at one time, so will give him the benefit of a doubt and accept his answer. A person can give a finer grade to their answers. He's still a Strong Atheist and anyone can change their mind. Something can happen to change a person's mind.

He was an atheist then and was hedging his bets.

"The God Delusion" was published in 2006. He claimed to be a "6" on Bill Maher's show in 2008 then a "6.9" in 2012.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

While I certainly don't look to Richard Dawkins as any sort of authority on religious faith, I will give him props for being honest about it. Many Atheists like to hold up Einstein as a model Atheist who rejected the Abrahamic God, but Einstein did not consider himself an Atheist and rejected the label. He did not believe in a personal relationship with any God or gods, of course, but he did not reject intelligent design.

As he said:
“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... "

I bet you've seen this:
In January of 1936, a young girl named Phyllis wrote to Albert Einstein on behalf of her Sunday school class, and asked, "Do scientists pray?"

Dr. Einstein answered as follows:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein"
Letters of Note: Dear Einstein, Do Scientists Pray?



So....Einstein speaks for the scientific community here: "... end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science."

And he claims to have even more than run-of-the-mill religious belief: "... everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort,..."


Q.E.D. It would be impossible to claim that Einstein was an atheist.

 

[james bond]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Dawkins wimped out by admitting he was a "6.5". First, because he didn't have the guts to just say "7" and, secondly plus more importantly, he didn't admit the most logical position is Agnostic, "I don't know and I can't prove either position".

I questioned his "I am a 6.9" comment, too. Had to look it up, but he created his belief scale in 2006 in The God Delusion. He made his 6.9 comment in 2012. He considered himself an agnostic at one time, so will give him the benefit of a doubt and accept his answer. A person can give a finer grade to their answers. He's still a Strong Atheist and anyone can change their mind. Something can happen to change a person's mind.

He was an atheist then and was hedging his bets.

"The God Delusion" was published in 2006. He claimed to be a "6" on Bill Maher's show in 2008 then a "6.9" in 2012.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

While I certainly don't look to Richard Dawkins as any sort of authority on religious faith, I will give him props for being honest about it. Many Atheists like to hold up Einstein as a model Atheist who rejected the Abrahamic God, but Einstein did not consider himself an Atheist and rejected the label. He did not believe in a personal relationship with any God or gods, of course, but he did not reject intelligent design.

As he said:
“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... "

I agree Einstein rejected the Abrahamic God and think he was a de-facto pantheist. His science led him to proclaim, "God doesn't play dice with the world."

 

[Foxfyre]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Dawkins wimped out by admitting he was a "6.5". First, because he didn't have the guts to just say "7" and, secondly plus more importantly, he didn't admit the most logical position is Agnostic, "I don't know and I can't prove either position".

I questioned his "I am a 6.9" comment, too. Had to look it up, but he created his belief scale in 2006 in The God Delusion. He made his 6.9 comment in 2012. He considered himself an agnostic at one time, so will give him the benefit of a doubt and accept his answer. A person can give a finer grade to their answers. He's still a Strong Atheist and anyone can change their mind. Something can happen to change a person's mind.

He was an atheist then and was hedging his bets.

"The God Delusion" was published in 2006. He claimed to be a "6" on Bill Maher's show in 2008 then a "6.9" in 2012.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

While I certainly don't look to Richard Dawkins as any sort of authority on religious faith, I will give him props for being honest about it. Many Atheists like to hold up Einstein as a model Atheist who rejected the Abrahamic God, but Einstein did not consider himself an Atheist and rejected the label. He did not believe in a personal relationship with any God or gods, of course, but he did not reject intelligent design.

As he said:
“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... "

I bet you've seen this:
In January of 1936, a young girl named Phyllis wrote to Albert Einstein on behalf of her Sunday school class, and asked, "Do scientists pray?"

Dr. Einstein answered as follows:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein"
Letters of Note: Dear Einstein, Do Scientists Pray?



So....Einstein speaks for the scientific community here: "... end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science."

And he claims to have even more than run-of-the-mill religious belief: "... everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort,..."


Q.E.D. It would be impossible to claim that Einstein was an atheist.

No, I had not seen that and thank you for posting it. I had read of other comments Einstein had made on the subject though, and it was always from the point of view of possibilities rather than any firm conclusion that a God/gods/universal mind or spirit or however that might be characterized could not exist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Dawkins wimped out by admitting he was a "6.5". First, because he didn't have the guts to just say "7" and, secondly plus more importantly, he didn't admit the most logical position is Agnostic, "I don't know and I can't prove either position".

I questioned his "I am a 6.9" comment, too. Had to look it up, but he created his belief scale in 2006 in The God Delusion. He made his 6.9 comment in 2012. He considered himself an agnostic at one time, so will give him the benefit of a doubt and accept his answer. A person can give a finer grade to their answers. He's still a Strong Atheist and anyone can change their mind. Something can happen to change a person's mind.

He was an atheist then and was hedging his bets.

"The God Delusion" was published in 2006. He claimed to be a "6" on Bill Maher's show in 2008 then a "6.9" in 2012.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

While I certainly don't look to Richard Dawkins as any sort of authority on religious faith, I will give him props for being honest about it. Many Atheists like to hold up Einstein as a model Atheist who rejected the Abrahamic God, but Einstein did not consider himself an Atheist and rejected the label. He did not believe in a personal relationship with any God or gods, of course, but he did not reject intelligent design.

As he said:
“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... "

I agree Einstein rejected the Abrahamic God and think he was a de-facto pantheist. His science led him to proclaim, "God doesn't play dice with the world."

1. No, he certainly wasn't a pantheist.
In an article from Huffington Post, Amir Aczel writes: " As someone who has spent a decade and a half studying Einstein's writings, I see it as my responsibility to correct this prevalent misconception.

Albert Einstein believed in something like Spinoza's "God": a powerful entity that transcends the world. To Einstein, "God" was the maker of the laws of physics that he, Einstein, saw as his life's role to uncover.


2. As for playing dice, you might enjoy Thomas Hardy's 'Hap,' as in happenstance.
If but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: “Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!”

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
—Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.

 

[RodISHI]

The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

Maybe he isn't really hearing or understanding the words. Many things happened in history and a person writes from their own experience. If a person has not had that experience in the super natural they have a tough time understanding the spirit of things. A lot of theologians, scribes, preachers, and such have struggled with this over the years. Personally I wouldn't have known the difference between what the spirit sees and what the flesh sees if I had not been shown the difference by the spirit. As carnal human beings we do not know the difference unless it is shown to us by the spirit. People see things all the time but do not have an understanding of what it is they are seeing because the spirit is not scientifically explainable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

No impact on society? An estimated 2+ billion Christians live on Earth now, roughly 1/3 of all people on Earth. The total world population at the time of Jesus was roughly 250,000.

Most of the world's universities, social structures, most magnificent architectural structures are due to Christian influence as is much of the literature, art, and music that has been preserved and has endured into modern times. The Bible has been the world's best selling book pretty much since the Gutenberg Bible was first published.

Most private social agencies, thrift shops, homeless shelters and ministries, ministries to lepers, addicts, orphans, and hands on ministries to some of the world's most poor and desperate people are founded and staffed by Christians. (Pretty much none by Atheists.)

With very few exceptions, almost all of the world's most prosperous nations were heavily influenced by Christian organization, philosophy, and doctrines. That would include the United States.

With very few exceptions, even in countries with little Christian presence, most of the world's calendars and the identification of the centuries are based in part on the agreed birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Those who do not wish to believe this will of course pick this or that story or fact from the Bible and hold it up as evidence that it is all bunk. Many of those stories are indeed debatable as whether they are based on historical people or events or whether they are symbolic or parable to teach a concept. And it is legitimately debatable whether Jesus was God in human form or whether he was just a man.

But nobody with any intelligence or education is willing to say that Jesus of Nazareth never existed or that he did not have a profound affect on humanity as no other single individual ever has had.

 

[Mudda]

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

No impact on society? An estimated 2+ billion Christians live on Earth now, roughly 1/3 of all people on Earth. The total world population at the time of Jesus was roughly 250,000.

Most of the world's universities, social structures, most magnificent architectural structures are due to Christian influence as is much of the literature, art, and music that has been preserved and has endured into modern times. The Bible has been the world's best selling book pretty much since the Gutenberg Bible was first published.

Most private social agencies, thrift shops, homeless shelters and ministries, ministries to lepers, addicts, orphans, and hands on ministries to some of the world's most poor and desperate people are founded and staffed by Christians. (Pretty much none by Atheists.)

With very few exceptions, almost all of the world's most prosperous nations were heavily influenced by Christian organization, philosophy, and doctrines. That would include the United States.

With very few exceptions, even in countries with little Christian presence, most of the world's calendars and the identification of the centuries are based in part on the agreed birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Those who do not wish to believe this will of course pick this or that story or fact from the Bible and hold it up as evidence that it is all bunk. Many of those stories are indeed debatable as whether they are based on historical people or events or whether they are symbolic or parable to teach a concept. And it is legitimately debatable whether Jesus was God in human form or whether he was just a man.

But nobody with any intelligence or education is willing to say that Jesus of Nazareth never existed or that he did not have a profound affect on humanity as no other single individual ever has had.

The church was responsible for many wars, greed, power, torture, lighting people on fire... so ya, Jesus did have a big influence on western society.

 

[Foxfyre]

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

No impact on society? An estimated 2+ billion Christians live on Earth now, roughly 1/3 of all people on Earth. The total world population at the time of Jesus was roughly 250,000.

Most of the world's universities, social structures, most magnificent architectural structures are due to Christian influence as is much of the literature, art, and music that has been preserved and has endured into modern times. The Bible has been the world's best selling book pretty much since the Gutenberg Bible was first published.

Most private social agencies, thrift shops, homeless shelters and ministries, ministries to lepers, addicts, orphans, and hands on ministries to some of the world's most poor and desperate people are founded and staffed by Christians. (Pretty much none by Atheists.)

With very few exceptions, almost all of the world's most prosperous nations were heavily influenced by Christian organization, philosophy, and doctrines. That would include the United States.

With very few exceptions, even in countries with little Christian presence, most of the world's calendars and the identification of the centuries are based in part on the agreed birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Those who do not wish to believe this will of course pick this or that story or fact from the Bible and hold it up as evidence that it is all bunk. Many of those stories are indeed debatable as whether they are based on historical people or events or whether they are symbolic or parable to teach a concept. And it is legitimately debatable whether Jesus was God in human form or whether he was just a man.

But nobody with any intelligence or education is willing to say that Jesus of Nazareth never existed or that he did not have a profound affect on humanity as no other single individual ever has had.

The church was responsible for many wars, greed, power, torture, lighting people on fire... so ya, Jesus did have a big influence on western society.

Atheism and Islam and paganism have waged far more violence on the world's people than have small groups/sects of Christians or corrupt Popes who indeed did bad things. And the good that Christianity has done has outweighed the bad by a thousand fold. Those following man made religion no matter what its label are probably going to get it wrong though much may be harmless or even satisfying to those who practice it.

I don't excuse the politically motivated crusades or the Inquisitions or the Salem Witch Burnings or any other atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. But neither do I see any of those things as Christian acts but rather contrary to Christian teachings. To judge all of Christianity by those isolated and short lived acts or events is to dishonestly characterize Christianity as something it is not.

 

[BreezeWood]

Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb


Einstein's greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging that the bomb be built.

In April 1940 an Einstein letter, ghost-written by Szilard, pressed Briggs Committee chairman Lyman Briggs on the need for "greater speed" (Weart & Szilard, pg. 125+; Clark, pg. 680).

Einstein biographer Ronald Clark has observed that the atomic bomb would have been invented without Einstein's letters, but that without the early U.S. work that resulted from the letters, the a-bombs might not have been ready in time to use during the war on Japan (Clark, pg. 682-683).

According to Szilard, Einstein said the possibility of a chain reaction "never occurred to me" .


how about lets not build the bomb instead ... especially during a world war.

 

[Mudda]

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.

Nah. He had no impact on society. In fact his followers disappeared. The 5000 he fed with 3 fish and 2 loaves of bread didn't start churches, spread the word, erect statues or preserve anything.

So basically Paul went into Greece and those Greeks bought it hook line and sinker, just as many modern day Americans do. It blows my mind how gullible people are. Or look at Mexico. Did any Mexican ever witness Jesus perform miracles? Nope. But look how many of them are named Jesus today.

So the story is very impactful for people who are prone to being superstitious and then it's simple if you brainwash a person from age 2-18. The priest in my church tells the Lazuris story and the Jonah story like they are fact. Why does he do this? Because if they believe those stories then they'll believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of god.

No impact on society? An estimated 2+ billion Christians live on Earth now, roughly 1/3 of all people on Earth. The total world population at the time of Jesus was roughly 250,000.

Most of the world's universities, social structures, most magnificent architectural structures are due to Christian influence as is much of the literature, art, and music that has been preserved and has endured into modern times. The Bible has been the world's best selling book pretty much since the Gutenberg Bible was first published.

Most private social agencies, thrift shops, homeless shelters and ministries, ministries to lepers, addicts, orphans, and hands on ministries to some of the world's most poor and desperate people are founded and staffed by Christians. (Pretty much none by Atheists.)

With very few exceptions, almost all of the world's most prosperous nations were heavily influenced by Christian organization, philosophy, and doctrines. That would include the United States.

With very few exceptions, even in countries with little Christian presence, most of the world's calendars and the identification of the centuries are based in part on the agreed birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Those who do not wish to believe this will of course pick this or that story or fact from the Bible and hold it up as evidence that it is all bunk. Many of those stories are indeed debatable as whether they are based on historical people or events or whether they are symbolic or parable to teach a concept. And it is legitimately debatable whether Jesus was God in human form or whether he was just a man.

But nobody with any intelligence or education is willing to say that Jesus of Nazareth never existed or that he did not have a profound affect on humanity as no other single individual ever has had.

The church was responsible for many wars, greed, power, torture, lighting people on fire... so ya, Jesus did have a big influence on western society.

Atheism and Islam and paganism have waged far more violence on the world's people than have small groups/sects of Christians or corrupt Popes who indeed did bad things. And the good that Christianity has done has outweighed the bad by a thousand fold. Those following man made religion no matter what its label are probably going to get it wrong though much may be harmless or even satisfying to those who practice it.

I don't excuse the politically motivated crusades or the Inquisitions or the Salem Witch Burnings or any other atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. But neither do I see any of those things as Christian acts but rather contrary to Christian teachings. To judge all of Christianity by those isolated and short lived acts or events is to dishonestly characterize Christianity as something it is not.

Just look at Christianity today, all the hate on gays, the church still sees women as second class citizens, the pope praying for the poor while holding a staff with a solid gold cross on it, still trying to control people, with offshoots of pedophilia, polygamy and mass suicide. So what was it again that they did for the good of society? Maybe I'll give them comforting people in times of death... What else?

 

[Foxfyre]

Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb


Einstein's greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging that the bomb be built.

In April 1940 an Einstein letter, ghost-written by Szilard, pressed Briggs Committee chairman Lyman Briggs on the need for "greater speed" (Weart & Szilard, pg. 125+; Clark, pg. 680).

Einstein biographer Ronald Clark has observed that the atomic bomb would have been invented without Einstein's letters, but that without the early U.S. work that resulted from the letters, the a-bombs might not have been ready in time to use during the war on Japan (Clark, pg. 682-683).

According to Szilard, Einstein said the possibility of a chain reaction "never occurred to me" .


how about lets not build the bomb instead ... especially during a world war.

Would we have built the bomb without knowing that Nazi Germany was well on its way to having one? I think not. Though they could not envision how horribly effective and devastating the bomb would actually be, they did know it was bad enough that if Hitler got it before we did, the war would be lost.

And then, coming from a humanitarian Christian point of view, once the threat had been removed from Germany along with most of the scientists who knew how to create the threat, how could we justify using the bomb on Japan? And ultimately it was weighing 100,000 lives against the certain millions who would die if Japan was not defeated and if Japan had to be invaded to defeat it.

The bomb was cruel, horrendous, horrific, and so much more devastating that we ever imaged it would be. But ultimately, it was the humane thing to do.

And the ultimate result was that it would never be used again by anybody in war.