For non-Christians, how did Jesus do it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

christians like to have it both ways

Or is it three ways? Just because you cant comprehend it doesnt make it not so. I bet theres a lot of physics most of us cant comprehend. Things like global warming that you swear is a fact. My main argument against it is that its beyond mans comprehension at this point in time at least. Its the same here. But your beliefs are more worthy as they are based in your religion science. Yes I am back to that again. We need to stop hi jacking every thread we enter. Round and round we go. Where we stop nobody knows. At least I admit i dont know professor.

[Zaknafien]

you cant possibly be comparing global warming with the trinity. global warming is PROVEN. It is fact. The only debate (among a very small group mind you) is wether humans contribute to it as much as some think. That it exists is not doubted at all.

[Navaros]

well, I believe in what are called "facts". You should look into them sometime. Facts are by definition not "stupid".

I'm not so sure about the quoted text here. Claiming that Pliny the Younger's and Josephus' confirmations of Jesus are bogus seems to run contrary to the commonly-accepted facts of the matter - which are agreed upon as facts by secular historians - that they do indeed confirm Jesus Christ.

Saying they are bogus simply because they were written by a Jewish man definitely isn't a fact-based opinion, it's an emotion-based opinion.

[Zaknafien]

Don't go blowing those out of proportion. Neither one of them says anything about a Jesus. they use the term Christus, which is from the Hebrew for Messiah (of which there are several dozen) and they are both refering to whom the christians worship which are causing all the problems in the empire. Not to mention they are writing decades after the establishment of christianity and can be expected to know of what the worshippers they are writing about believe. Using Tacitus and Pliny to confirm the historical-ness of Jesus is also, silly.

[Ser Clegane]

Just a friendly reminder:
Simple religion bashing is not acceptable here. Any historical, philosophical etc. arguments are highly welcome.

Thanks

Ser Clegane

[Duke of Gloucester]

well, I believe in what are called "facts". You should look into them sometime. Facts are by definition not "stupid". Belief in a mystical pantheon of Christian gods is silly.

here's a cool movie i just found :

http://www.thegodmovie.com/atheism/?...FQVpFQodFn9ntg

Actually "facts" can be "stupid". All the matter in the universe exploded from a point the size of the eye of a needle is a "stupid" "fact". Electrons and photons are both waves and particles - I mean come on physicists - you can't have it both ways that's just "stupid".

I think you need to re-examine what you mean by "fact". For you Global Warming is a "fact" rather than an (albeit well established) theory and it is also a "fact" that the New Testament was written between 200 and 400 years after Jesus's death when biblical scholars tend to put the writing between 45 to 150 years after his birth. Also bear in mind some things that don't seem to make sense are actually true.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Electrons and photons are both waves and particles - I mean come on physicists - you can't have it both ways that's just "stupid".

I object to this popular science way of describing photons and electrons. Electrons and photons ARE not both waves and particles; they HAVE BEEN OBSERVED TO HAVE PROPERTIES OF both waves and particles.

A similar way of description could of course be applied to the trinity, but some mysticists groups in religions make a point out of making things as incomprehensible and incoherent as possible, so that they can't be refuted. It's impossible to refute linguistic fog.

--

As for global warming, unless our thermometers lie, it's been proven that we've had a significant increase in temperature in the latest 60 years.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I would be interested to hear you explain why that description is different from yours.

btw I was not seeking to draw any parallels between wave particle duality and the Trinity, just to drive a wedge between the concepts of "silly" and "wrong".

As for global warming, what is the statistical significance of this rise in temperature, given that temperatures fluctuate randomly? I am not seeking to challenge theories about global warming, merely to undermine their status as "fact". We might be able to say something about averages temperatures over the last 60 years which are fact although your statement is open to challenges ("What is "significant" and "what about the mid 80's when temperatures were lower than average?"). However the idea that this is part of a trend that will continue is a theory (one which I accept), not a fact.

[doc_bean]

I would be interested to hear you explain why that description is different from yours.

If it's about the physics thing, I agree with Legio, you stated that photons and electrons are both waves and particles, this is simply wrong, they are something else which can be described either acting as a wave or as a particle or as a combination of both.

As for global warming, what is the statistical significance of this rise in temperature,

I guess that would depend on the variance you use and what you base it on, if you base it on the variance of the temperature over the last millenia you could probably conclude that it's possibly a natural phenomena (this would only be useful if you want to determine if the impact of man is statistically significant, which it is probably not, which doesn't mean man doesn't have an impact, just that we can't say that with 95% or more certainty). If you use an average variance based on a yearly basis (calculating the variance over a year and assuming that is pretty much constant, taking the 'average estimated variance' as an estimation for the real variance). You'd probably conclude the rise is significant.

I'd like to see some statistical studies though, I'm sure some must exist.

[Papewaio]

This is going to be a large service annoucement, but it is for the greater good.

Spoilers [ SPOIL ][ / SPOIL ] are a great thing to use to wrap large quotes.

Changing this:

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

to this:Genesis 1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Much easier to read, and very useful the second or third time you are reading a thread and want to get to the bottom.

PS Put a summary above the spoiler... particularly with multiple quotes and more so if it really is a spoiler.

[Adrian II]

I was wondering for non-Christians, how do you think Jesus did it?

By did it, I mean, how he became the most famous man in all of history. And he will remain the most famous man in all of history for all-time. Surely this is mind-bogglingly great accomplishment.

There were more famous men before him, like Gilgamesj, Odysseus and Emperor Chin. There will be many more in the distant future. For most people in today's world Jesus is not the most famous or important character anyway.

For substance I refer you to the Monastery. Some time ago I started a thread there to which Suraknar, Pindar and others contributed and in which we explore the circumstances of the Jesus story with open minds.

[LeftEyeNine]

I fail to see what the thread title asked for.

Edit: Adrian II is flash-quick.

[Reverend Joe]

Zaknafien, with all due respect, I was having a philosophical discussion with Gawain on the subject of the Trinity, in order to gain a better understanding of the concept. Calling a religion stupid is not only uncalled for, it is also unbelievably ignorant.

My own problem with the Trinity is the very idea that God, an all-pervasive being, can directly create a mortal man without that man exploding or something. Not to mention that my own view of God is very different from the Christian view, to the point that it is technically impossible, in my view, for God to have a son, just as it is impossible for a man to create an atom and name it his son; but that's off the subject.

Anyway, what bothers me is the fact that, ignoring all else, an immortal deity could use his own essence to create a mortal being, not to mention the fact that this should create either a soulless, mindless abomination or another God. Then again, I suppose God can just do what God wants to... when you created reality, it's your choice what to do with it... but in that case, why not just erase Satan and Evil?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

not to mention the fact that this should create either a soulless, mindless abomination or another God

Hence we are formed in the image of god.

you cant possibly be comparing global warming with the trinity. global warming is PROVEN. It is fact. The only debate (among a very small group mind you) is wether humans contribute to it as much as some think. That it exists is not doubted at all.

I think you answered your own question here. No one says global warming isnt happening. The earth is in a constant state of flux and always has been. Its the theory you and others believe that we are the reason thats very much in doubt. As you said. Its pretty much the same as believing in god. You can see the results but you cant prove who or what did it.

I fail to see what the thread title asked for.

Yeah I keep saying that. Look if there wasnt a Jesus were there apostles? If not we have a real mystery on our hands. If there were why were they willing to die for preaching about a man who never existed?

[Zaknafien]

Look, I do not mean to belittle anyone for their beliefs; people are certainly entitled to believe whatever they like if it makes them happy. I am just pointing out that believing 3 is actually 1 but still somehow 3 is well, silly. Plus if you study Jewish mysticism and the origins of Hebrew religion you will find that it was originally a polytheistic cult, where Adam and Eve and all the angels all corresponded to their own deities. Yaweh originally meant "God(s)". And the modern trinity is a playback to the egyptian sun-life-death-ressurection myth that has been given to the new christian god, Jesus.

Back to Tacitus and his mates though. Does anyone still think they prove Jesus existed? I think I explained that pretty well above.

But you know, Im changing my Paul theory. I dont think he had as much to do with it as I earlier thought. I went back and looked at a couple of textbooks from the New Testament class I had in school. Paul doesnt seem to know anything about Jesus' life. He doesnt know anything about the virgin birth, herod, ministry, miracles, etc. In fact in Hebrews he says Jesus was never on earth at all. According to him, Jesus, like many other savior-gods of the time period, was a purely mystical, spirtual creature. Since his writings were created long before the first Gospel was written, it seems this would be more accurate to the truth of the situation.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I would be interested to hear you explain why that description is different from yours.

doc_bean already answered this, I think

However the idea that this is part of a trend that will continue is a theory (one which I accept), not a fact.

This is the traditional "do we know anything for sure at all" question in philosophy. It depends on how you define "know". The definition of "know" IMO should somehow contain the idea that for something to be known, it must:
1. be true in reality
2. be possible to prove strongly, so that the probability that it is false is low
3. the proof should be reconstructible by others

Depending on how strong our requirement in no. 2 is, we either know some things, or we know nothing at all.

At least we can probably agree that if we don't know anything for sure in science (where statements are usually well supported and immediately rejected when counter-examples are found) then we don't know anything for sure in religion (where statements are unsupported and not rejected when counter-examples are found), according to this definition.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Look, I do not mean to belittle anyone for their beliefs;

Well you do a pretty good job of it.

I am just pointing out that believing 3 is actually 1 but still somehow 3 is well, silly.

There you go again, not two sentences later. You just cant help yourself it seems. Look to me those who take as gospel that man is ruining the atmosphere and we are going to cause some kind of catastrophe as silly. But I have a feeling that argument may not fly to well back here. Again you will have to better. Just because something is beyond your comprehension doesnt make it silly or wrong. Ever think the fault my lie within you?

Plus if you study Jewish mysticism and the origins of Hebrew religion you will find that it was originally a polytheistic cult, where Adam and Eve and all the angels all corresponded to their own deities. Yaweh originally meant "God(s)". And the modern trinity is a playback to the egyptian sun-life-death-ressurection myth that has been given to the new christian god, Jesus.

All very possible but it still doesnt rule out that he lived,which is not the topic of this thread, but why did it spread.

I ask you again were there apostles and when did they live. Ill just leave you with one question to try an keep it simple for you. And so you dont go off on another tangent.

[Zaknafien]

I don't know if they lived or not. I'm sure they're probably based on people who lived, at least. Let's look at Matthew and his Gospel though.

The final draft of Matthew's Gospel (still unnamed) emerged sometime after the war of 135 AD.

In the aftermath of that devastating conflict, a Greek-speaking Jew, writing in the pagan city of Antioch, had been at pains to reassure the Roman authorities that his particular faith posed no threat to the imperium. The writer had fled 'fundamentalist' Jerusalem for the relatively enlightened pagan city of Antioch. He had with him an early version of 'Mark' and used this as the basis for his own story. His creation would eventually become known as 'Matthew.'

Plagiarist 'Matthew' plundered Old Testament scripture for almost every chapter of his novel.

1.23 (Isaiah 7.14)
2.6 (Micah 5.2)
2.16,18 (Jeremiah 31.15)
2.14,15 (Hosea 11.1)
2.23 (Judges 13.5)
3.3 (Isaiah 40.3)
4.4 (Deuteronomy 8.3)
4.7 (Deuteronomy 6.16)
4.10 (Deuteronomy 6.13)
4.6 (Psalm 91.11,12)
4.16 (Isaiah 9.1,2)
5.21 (Exodus 20.13)
5.27 (Exodus 20.14)
5.31 (Deuteronomy 24.1)
5.38 (Exodus 21.24)
5.43 (Leviticus 19.18)
6.11 (Proverbs 30.8)
6.12 (Ecclesiasticus 28.2)
8.17 (Isaiah 53.4)
9.13 (Hosea 6.6)
10.35,6 (Micah 7.6)
11.10 (Malachi 3.1)
12.7 (Hosea 6.6)
12.18,21 (Isaiah 42.1,4)
13.14,15 (Isaiah 6.9,10)
13.35 (Psalm 78.2)
15.4 (Exodus 20.12, 21.17)
15.8,9 (Isaiah 29.13)
18.16 (Deuteronomy 19.15)
19.4 (Genesis 1.27)
19.5 (Genesis 2.24)
19.18,19 (Exodus 20.12,16)
21.5 (Zechariah 9.9)
21.9 (Psalm 118.26)
21.13 (Jeremiah 7.11)
21.16 (Psalm 8.2)
21.42 (Psalm 118.22,23)
22.32 (Exodus 3.6)
22.39 (Leviticus 19.18)
22.37 (Deuteronomy 6.5)
22.44 (Psalm 110.1)
23.39 (Psalm 118.26)
24.15 (Daniel 9.27)
24.29 (Isaiah 13.10; 34.4)
26.31 (Zechariah 13.7)
27.10 (Zechariah 11.12,13)
27.35 (Psalm 22.18)
27.46 (Psalm 22.1)

If you believe in a historical Jesus, you might as well believe in Hercules.

Hercules. Now let's see ...

• born from a god (Zeus) and a mortal virgin mother (Alcmene).
• while still an infant, a jealous goddess, Hera, tried to kill him.
• performed miraculous deeds.
• descended into Hades.
• died in agony.
• rose again as a god.

Should we believe in an historical Hercules? He's mentioned by Tacitus, Josephus and others.

In short, we have as much (that is, as little) evidence for an historical Hercules as an historical Jesus.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Look, I do not mean to belittle anyone for their beliefs; people are certainly entitled to believe whatever they like if it makes them happy. I am just pointing out that believing 3 is actually 1 but still somehow 3 is well, silly. Plus if you study Jewish mysticism and the origins of Hebrew religion you will find that it was originally a polytheistic cult, where Adam and Eve and all the angels all corresponded to their own deities. Yaweh originally meant "God(s)". And the modern trinity is a playback to the egyptian sun-life-death-ressurection myth that has been given to the new christian god, Jesus.

But by labelling people's beliefs as "silly" you do belittle them. Such a notion may not fit with your world view, but many people embrace the idea.

Even in the realm of things we can measure, there is nothing odd in multiple properties belonging to single entities as His Grace of Gloucester eloquently illustrated. (At least we avoided string theory ).

Polytheism can be seen as a precursor to the closer understanding of the natures of God. It is easier for the mind to divide the Godhead into archetypes and describe those elemental principles as divided gods. As we understand more about God, we can see that He is in fact One (in the same sense perhaps that physics yearns for and approaches the Theory of Everything to unify natural laws). This oneness however, has fundamental characteristics - the Father-Creator, whose scope and bound we can never understand - the Spirit, which moves and drives and extols us beyond our base instincts - and our Humanity, in the person of Jesus Christ, who by taking wholly human form exemplified everything to which we might aspire, and did so without the escape clause of being an untouchable god.

I cannot explain the Trinity beyond these kind of archetypes, because the mystery of it surpasses any analysis but faith. But it feels entirely right, and I see those aspects of God reflected in humanity. I see no conflict in God having three persons - and indeed the rule of three is prevalent in many aspects of nature and human art, which one might posit either as cause or effect.

So, as an invitation to reflection, I can do no better than offer the honourable member a shamrock. It works, you know.

[Rodion Romanovich]

As for global warming, what is the statistical significance of this rise in temperature, given that temperatures fluctuate randomly? I am not seeking to challenge theories about global warming, merely to undermine their status as "fact".

Correct, attempts at describing the causes of the current global warming may be called theories, rather than facts. This depends on what definition of "know" is used. But there are a few principles which make global warming far more convincing than religion:
1. there are no contradictions to the global warming model. The global warming says atmosphere composition alterations of certain types will push the temperature equilibrium to another level. The "solar cycles" theories aren't opposing this theory, they are opposing the statement that all global warming would be caused by atmosphere composition changes. In fact, nobody has been able to disprove that altered atmosphere compositions will lead to increased average temperatures.

2. the models used in religion aren't models, they are claims that something is the absolute truth.

3. the models in religion are vague and can be interpreted in several different ways. The models in science are exact. Because the religious models are so ambiguous, people can use them to support any statement they want. Scientific models can't be used in this manner, since they're completely specified. Since they're completely specified, they can be refuted easily if they're wrong. Nobody will say "but this is not how I meant" if someone disproves their scientific theory. Religion can however circumvent critcism by not specifying the models fully or unambigiously, so that nobody really knows what the theories are, and thus can't refute them.

4. Occam's razor, and statistical theory, shows that as the number of variables increase, statistical significance of any "proof" for the model decreases. The models in religion, because of their vagueness, would correspond to unambigious models containing millions of variables - often even more variables than observations. Scientific models consist of few variables compared to collected data.

5. one of the major theories against the statement "atmosphere composition changes are the major source of global warming at the moment" is that of solar cycles causing this. However, as this graph demonstrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
...we're actually right now in a period of low solar activity, which would instead imply global cooling rather than global warming. It turns out this attempt has backfired and this is rather an argument for global warming.

6. the global warming theory is built on theoretical models with even fewer variables, which have enormous statistical support over a long period of time.

7. science has a policy of everyone being allow to express their ideas and disprove existing theories. Nobody is silenced. Despite that there are millions working to disprove existing theories, nobody has disproven global warming, see no. 1. Religion has had a lot of counter-arguments, but heretics, protestants, and others have been subject to extreme persecution and murder when they tried to disprove statements the church presented as facts. Only a handful of powerful men are allowed to question the church, and even then, over history we've seen many religious "facts" refuted.

8. the global warming model way back resulted in predictions that have now been demonstrated to be accurate. Also, when including all factors such as solar radiation cycles, ice age cycles, and pollution, the theoretical model yields the exact same values as those measured today.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I was wondering for non-Christians, how do you think Jesus did it?

By did it, I mean, how he became the most famous man in all of history. And he will remain the most famous man in all of history for all-time. Surely this is mind-bogglingly great accomplishment.

I wouldn't say this is necessarily a mind-bogginly great accomplishment. Hitler and Stalin are among the most well-known figures of the previous century.

As for how Jesus became well-known, there are many reasons:
1. he symbolized the fight against oppression and the roman empire in his death on the cross
2. the roman empire made Christianity state religion, and made it out of a mix of existing religions, so it would be acceptable to many
3. many had a lot to gain from getting the favor of the Pope. The only way to do this, was to recognize the pope as a source of the truth, and reaffirm Christianity
4. Christianity forced-converted many poor people that were conquered by Christian rulers, and mass-murdered those who didn't want to change religion.
5. every citizen in many European countries were at times by law forced to attend church once a week, where they saw propaganda images of Jesus over and over again
6. the priests who believed in Jesus often used their position to be able to have sex with many of the women, which increased the percentage of believers in these countries by genocide of others.
7. in societies ruled by oppressive Christian rulers, the poor repressed people could still resort to Jesus for comfort, even though it was the followes of his religion that were responsible for the oppression. This is because Jesus is known as a poor man who, while innocent, had to endure horrible suffering from repressive authorities.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

there are no contradictions to the global warming model.

There arent?

On contradictions in the theory of anthropogenic global warming


Besides your making the rules. And these models dont have near the information needed to make such incredible assumptions.

In fact, nobody has been able to disprove that altered atmosphere compositions will lead to increased average temperatures.

Or prove it either. They dont even know if global warming will result in a warming or cooling of the earth. Its all faith based that in scienists have it right. And even they dont all agree on the matter.

The big thing with science is they can claim when their proven wrong, which is most of the time , that it is a continuing process. You cant prove their facts wrong because their only theories lol. They have little facts. They have plenty of faith.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Whilst the idea of global warming and its causes is a useful metaphor for uncertainty in science versus faith, I think we would all appreciate it if we kept to the topic at hand.

Navaros has instigated a serious and fascinating thread. I think we should respect that by keeping on topic as best we can.

There is nothing to stop anyone starting a new global warming thread - except compassion and common humanity, of course.

[Rodion Romanovich]

There arent?

On contradictions in the theory of anthropogenic global warming


Besides your making the rules. And these models dont have near the information needed to make such incredible assumptions.


Or prove it either. They dont even know if global warming will result in a warming or cooling of the earth. Its all faith based that in scienists have it right. And even they dont all agree on the matter.

The big thing with science is they can claim when their proven wrong, which is most of the time , that it is a continuing process. You cant prove their facts wrong because their only theories lol. They have little facts. They have plenty of faith.

This movie doesn't quote its sources of temperature and CO2 data correctly, and contains a lot of incorrect information:
- his record of atmopsheric CO2 levels was first claimed to come from NASA, then he edited his references two or three times, until finally settling for a completely different reference, which he fetched from a 1998 Medical Sentinel journal. This graph however seems to be one of very few contradictions to the vast majority of graphs made. The film maker also cut out the part of the curve that supported his claim the most. He cut off the period from 1988 to 2007, and drew a horizontal line from 1988 to 2007, claiming that the temperature today would be the same as 1988, which is an outright lie.
- he addresses not the main global warming theory, but some of the hypotheses that have not yet been accepted by the scientific community. He tries to present it as if he disproved global warming by coming with a vague argumentation against one of the so far unconfirmed hypotheses.
- he claims that because the model doesn't take into account and completely 100% accurately describe loosely related things such as the exact physics of cloud formation, it must be incorrect. This is a fallacy. It's similar to claiming that Newton's laws are incorrect because they don't describe how you barbeque a sausage.
- he uses incorrect data for the C02 concentration in the atmosphere. he claims that volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, but after the movie was made, Durkin admitted that this claim was an outright lie.
- he claims that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, but in fact all graphs suggest solar activity is currently lower than usual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
- he doesn't even try to respond to the fact that the temperature increases in the last 60 years are over 20 times more rapid than any previous temperature increase earlier in the history of the earth.

Edit: BG's post came while I was writing this. Let's create a new thread if anyone wishes to continue this discussion.

[LeftEyeNine]

Navaros has instigated a serious and fascinating thread. I think we should respect that by keeping on topic as best we can.

Oui, oui !

[Zaknafien]

Chew on this: The earliest proven authentic epistle is that of Clement, which uses the scientific example of a Pheonix as proof of the resurrection. :)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Whilst the idea of global warming and its causes is a useful metaphor for uncertainty in science versus faith, I think we would all appreciate it if we kept to the topic at hand.

That is the only reason I mentioned it. That and that somebody else brought it up,


It seems to me that that two main possibilities exist. Either the apostles were crazy or they were conspirators according to the doubters. If they were not crazy again why did they go and preach about a man who never existed while many of them were killed for doing it? Im still waiting for an answer to this question.

[Zaknafien]

that's a good question, and here is your answer. The earliest Christian communities, remote from power and lacking in wealth, were led by charismatic agitators, peripatetic "prophets" and "teachers" who claimed their doom-laden message was received directly from the Holy Spirit of God. Their doctrine was spontaneous, variable and idiosyncratic.

Tellingly, the handful of late 1st century and early 2nd century writers (Paul, Clement, Barnabas, Papias) did not quote the mythical Jesus at all. They say nothing, or next to nothing, of humanoid "Jesus actions" or miracles. The virgin-born, miracle-working, godman of later legend was unknown to them. When their fantasy required the endorsement of higher authority they turned instead to Jewish scripture, to the patriarchs, the prophets and the supposed utterances of the Jewish God himself.

There are some scriptures that claim Jesus lived and was persecuted a century before the time period, and others that claim other dates. It is clear that there were many local myths and god-man legends (Persian, jewish, Egyptian, and Greek) that were combined in the person of Jesus later by the authors of the Gospels.

They weren't crazy (at least some of them werent. The dude who wrote the "revelation" was certainly insane. They were preaching against Rome and persecution of their people and homeland by metaphor and analogy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

that's a good question, and here is your answer. The earliest Christian communities, remote from power and lacking in wealth, were led by charismatic agitators, peripatetic "prophets" and "teachers" who claimed their doom-laden message was received directly from the Holy Spirit of God. Their doctrine was spontaneous, variable and idiosyncratic.

Is this another cut and paste job? I wish you would give a link now and then.

Cant you ever answer in your own words. It looks like you are a conspiracy theorist on this matter.

[Zaknafien]

LOL, no I told you I studied New Testament when I first went to college. I graduated with a degree in Classics and antiquity, and am a historian, hence my position with EB.I used to be quite the insane Christian myself. Those are my words, dude.