So if I'm reading you right, you're acknowledging that maybe Jesus was a pretty good guy (and even if he did cause some minor property damage, I think the things he's championed clearly outweigh the things he's moved against), that we need to ask how effective he was as a prophet?

In other words, how good was Christianity (and how does it compare to what we would have had had Christianity never arisen)?

Well, the problem with mentioning Christianity is that many people have tarnished the word. I have no shame being called a Christian, but what I'm really after is, what do people think of how Jesus has changed society and the world since. Specifically, his value as a Prophet, wiseman, etcetera.

I don't know the impact of him as a Prophet; I don't know what defines a Prophet, as it varies depending on what religion you're talking about.

The impact he's had, religion unconsidered, is very much like most philosophers.   In this sense we could say however that it was Paul who spoke for Jesus, like Plato for Socrates, since it appears that neither wrote anything down that we have evidence for.  Unless we have records of Socrates being sentenced to suicide by Hemlock somewhere, I really doubt that he existed at all, and I hold the same reservation of judgement as to the existence of Jesus.

But like Socrates, the message still exists if not the man.

The difference of course being that Plato was a student of Socrates, wheras there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus. Was Jesus a nice guy? Probably- most people are, but in terms of the impact of Christianity on history my general impression has been that it's institutions have generally been opposed to progress and then the religion is credited with the progress it opposed in future generations because those acting for secular reasons, or leasts as part of secular movements happened to also be christian and refer to their personal beliefs in defending themselves from theological attacks, while those acting for relgious reasons were 'false' christians.

I believe the discussion is about Jesus as portrayed in the Bible.  Not Christianity as an organization.

I don't see Jesus as a huge force limiting progress.  Nor do I see Christianity the same way either.  Any organization with a 2,000 history is going to have its bad turns and good turns.

Jesus on his own? He probably built some nice tables and made some people happy. But he died at 35, and AFAIK, he hasn't been doing quite so much since (or if he has, it's seriously outweighed by just about everything else in the world). Jesus on his own, from every possible objective and scientific test (and assuming he existed at all) did relatively little on the global scale. Whether Jesus unlocked the gates of heaven to permit access to thousands or millions of trapped souls is not something we can test or answer objectively, but if so, it would seem to be the greatest act he personally did.

As has been pointed out, the greatest impact of Jesus isn't Jesus, but what everyone who followed him did in reaction to him.

(Tangentally related, I also find the idea of Christianity holding back science to be made in bad faith (haha!) Christians were oftentimes the foremost scientists through the later Roman empire, and the only source of education whatsoever through the middle ages. Come the rennaisance and Galileo though, they had a problem because the same body covered science, religion and politics. An attack on one was an attack on the credibility of the others. It's like if every major government were made up solely of quantum physicists and someone came asking for money to research string theory, or a presidential candidate makes it to office on the campaign of global warming and someone wants to run experiments to show we're actually entering a period of global cooling. It's nothing inherent to Christianity.

Since then the major resistance to scientific BELIEFS has been conservatives who would argue no matter what, but now have a scapegoat. The resistance to scientific PRACTICES is oftentimes a moral matter, and really should be contested by organizations like churches.)

Except that in teh 1400s the rennaisance began as a result of the crusades bring back scientific advancments from the Muslim kingdoms, and every step of progress it made from that point forward was fought by the church. So the progress didn't come from teh church but from quite litterally the enemies of the church.

The Christian Church, however, preserved a lot of the other things from Roman culture, such as the architectural aesthetics and many of the philosophies, such as Stoicism (the concepts of which are very heavily integrated into Revolutionary America's language of revolution and disestablishmentarianism.

Try to say that three times fast!

;), yeah, antidistestablishmentarianism is actually easier to say because it starts with a soft vowel.  Damn Tories :P

That would sum up my view pretty well too.  Jesus the guy seems like a great dude, but just by himself he probably didn't have a huge impact on the world (setting aside the untestable issue of salvation--and if we went down that road, we'd also have to weigh up the issue of having created a system in which people are destined for hell and thus need salvation in the first place).  His followers have had a huge impact on the world.  Some for good, some for bad, some for neutral.  Some of which might have happened anyway, some of which might not have.  I agree that Kathlous seems to want to claim all the good actions of christians but disown all the bad, which doesn't seem like a good way to answer the question to me.  I'd agree that much of the bad things done by christians/christianity were against Jesus teachings, but at the same time I think we have to accept that the people who committed the acts honestly felt they were doing what Jesus wanted them to do.  That's an effect of Jesus' teachings, even if it was an undesired/unintended consequence.

Overall, I think the world would probably be a better place if more people tried to live by Jesus' teachings.  I think a lot of people, christians included, don't fully realize just how revolutionary his teachings were.  It wasn't just a "don't be a dick" philosophy, or a "be nice to your neighbors" philosophy (though it would be great if we could even get those right), but much further than that.  It was a love your enemy philosophy.  Not just a "don't fight back," but "let them him you again" philosophy.  A lot of people can manage loving their friends and family, and do pretty well leaving their neighbors alone, but how many of us manage to love our enemies?  I can't claim to love Osama bin Laden.  Through conscious effort I think I may have reached a point where I can honestly say I don't hate him, but that's as good as I've been able to do so far.  I think most people tend to embrace the parts of Jesus' teachings that come naturally to them anyway (e.g., loving their friends, giving money to charities they agree with, etc.) and give Jesus/christianity the credit for that behavior.  When people actually go further, and start showing love/kindness towards people who wish them ill, it's a much more impressive and great thing.  More often, though, I think people tend to focus on the salvation bit than the teachings about how to act, which to a degree I suppose isn't too surprising since the religions says its the belief in the salvation bit that gets you into heaven.

1) Christian 'preservation' of Roman Architecture was mostly that they inhabited the same space as the buildings the Romans had already built.
2) IN context Jesus teachings are less revolutionary- Roman discipline was strict in it's limits as to how far they could push someone without cause, though with cause they could be quite draconian. If a soldier made you carry his packa  mile and you spit in his face he could flog you. If he made you carry his pack a mile and you kept carrying it after the mile was done he could be flogged. The second option then was simply a better tactic at undermining the Roman army.

In reply to silveroak (msg #45):

Cathedrals, castles, and palaces were all left over from the Romans?  How about the arts that flourished under those evil, repressive Christians?

As for science, what about:

Bede, the Venerable (c.672–735) - Catholic monk who wrote a work On the Nature of Things, and several books on the mathematical / astronomical subject of computus, the most influential entitled On the Reckoning of Time. He made original discoveries concerning the nature of the tides and his works on computus became required elements of the training of clergy, and thus greatly influenced early medieval knowledge of the natural world.

Pope Silvester II (c.950–1003) - A scientist and book collector, he influenced the teaching of math and astronomy in church-run schools, and raised the cathedral school at Rheims to the height of prosperity.

Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) - Wrote on geometry, mathematics, and the astrolabe. He was also a monk who composed Marian antiphons and was essentially beatified.

Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253) - Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences.

Pope John XXI (1215–1277) - He wrote the widely used medical text Thesaurus pauperum before becoming Pope.

Albertus Magnus (c.1193–1280) - Patron saint of scientists in Catholicism who may have been the first to isolate arsenic. He wrote that: "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena."

Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294) - He was an English philosopher who emphasized empiricism and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He joined the Franciscan Order around 1240, where he was influenced by Grosseteste. Bacon was responsible for making the concept of "laws of nature" widespread, and contributed in such areas as mechanics, geography and, most of all, optics.

Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250–c.1310) - Dominican who is believed to have given the first correct explanation for the rainbow in De iride et radialibus impressionibus or On the Rainbow.

Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) - He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed studies as one of the Oxford Calculators of Merton College, Oxford University. These studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.

Jean Buridan (1300–1358) - Catholic priest and one of the most influential philosophers of the later Middle Ages. He developed the theory of impetus, which was an important step toward the modern concept of inertia.

Nicole Oresme (c.1323–1382) - Theologian and Bishop of Lisieux, he was one of the early founders and popularizers of modern sciences. One of his many scientific contributions is the discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction, he also showed that the reasons proposed by the physics of Aristotle against the movement of the Earth were not valid. Oresme strongly opposed astrology and speculated about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) - Cardinal and theologian who made contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. His philosophical speculations also anticipated Copernicus’ heliocentric world-view.

Ignazio Danti (1536–1586) - Bishop of Alatri who convoked a diocesan synod to deal with abuses. He was also a mathematician who wrote on Euclid, an astronomer, and a designer of mechanical devices.

René Descartes (1596–1650) - Descartes was one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution in the Western World. He is also honoured by having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important work on invariants and geometry.

Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598-1671) - Italian astronomer. He was a Jesuit who entered the order in 1614. He was also the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body.

Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680) - German Jesuit scholar who published around 40 works, most notably in the fields of oriental studies, geology and medicine. He made an early study of Egyptian hieroglyphs. One of the first people to observe microbes through a microscope, he was thus ahead of his time in proposing that the plague was caused by an infectious microorganism and in suggesting effective measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Kircher has been compared to Leonardo da Vinci for his inventiveness and the breadth and depth of his work

And that is just a few of the Christians who advanced science during those dark days when the Christianity was stomping out science as you claim.  It is not good form to concentrate on Galileo and use that as the starting point of demonizing a religion you obviously have a low opinion of already.

Christianity has hardly held humanity back.  Bad things have been done by its practioners but so have good things.  As I said before, it is like any organization that has a 2,000 year history: it's going to have its ups and downs.

The Cathedral, castles, and Places were not examples of Roman architecture.
Buckingham pallace was built in 1761, well after the renassaince, Versailles was started in 1664, still well after the renaisance, Castles depend on the area, but are not largely distinguishable from early fortifications of  anumber of tribal groups until after the renassiance, and you will find that durring the same period the Islamic world had built a number of their own pallaces. In short the architectral techniques of Medieval Europe also regressed from Rome, while Islamic and other regions continued to show advancement. At best it can be claimed that the chrch preserved *some* knowledge durring teh era, but when you compare that preservation to advancements being made by non-Christian cultures of the same period it is clear that there is no actual intellectual benefit to christianity's presence in that era.

Yet they are wonders of architectural innovation.  Innovation you claim was repressed by Christian rule.  Architecture is science and engineering.



Here are the top 100 Medieval castles:

http://www.topcastles.com/topkastelen.php?Language=en

Yep.  Looks like early tribal fortifications to me.  Just take a look at those little shacks that were made in the 12th century.  While there are fine examples of Islamic castles in that list there are a huge supply of Medieval castles in Europe that are equally grand and advanced AND built during the period of supposed repression.



Your premise is wrong and off-base as I have shown but it is your conclusion that is very interesting.  There was actually no serious repression of scientific advancement during that period.  In fact, the Church seemed to provide the only intellectual light during the Dark Ages and Medieval periods.

You have to look at what happened to Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire.  A huge power vacuum existed that took centuries of war and political manuevering to fix (sort of).  Various barbarian tribes, plague, invasions, wars, famine, etc.  All of these were huge factors in the intellectual health of Europe during the Dark Ages and Medieval periods.  One has to get beyond trying to feed one's family before one ponders the wonders of the universe.

Actually yes. aside form the castles from say Syria, a lot of those if you put them next to pictures of pre-Roman Hill forts or even Scotland's stone fences used by peasants to keep in sheep, and they really aren't that impressive. Sure they are big, so are any number of pre-roman architectural structures.

As to te power vaccume teh same conditions existed in the Islamic lands, yet they managed to advance well beyonf what the Christians managed at the time.

as for 'serious repression' that occured as a reaction to actual advancement which came out of the Muslim lands through the crusades and reconquista. Where there was no progress there was no need for supression of advancement.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:11, Thu 26 May 2011.

[perks ears]
  Perhaps NOT with scientific observation or experiment ...
[rears back with a thought]
... save it be by live audio video feed of such events? - (depriving viewer of opportunity to develop faith in things we can not see}
[revelatory look]
But you can know via direct personal revelation or belief in testimonies of others via:

Scriptures,
Beyond to Heaven and back experiences,
Holy Spirit testifying of such events in sacred places,
....

[leans forward, boldness in his eyes]
Jesus Christ walks the Earth today, particularly in his temples, helping prepare for his Second Coming.


 |\,/|
< * * >
  \_/
   -

We do have conflicts though in that revelation.

Scripture revealing that scripture is correct is a conflict of interest and can't be included.
People claiming the holy spirit and saying scripture is correct is also a conflict of interest, but also a conflict of sources. We can't tell one person inspired by God against another, yet a significant number of our 'inspired' people disagree with one another. David Koresh said he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, yet I think we can all agree his was not the appropriate path.

Near-death experiences are an interesting example, although poorly understood. Still, scientists have successfully recreated near-death experiences in the lab via completely non-deadly scenarios. Many people experience euphoria as a result of oxygen deprivation (which is why self-asphyxiation is as common as it is), for instance.

I'm not saying such things are wrong, but they are tenuous enough that I am cautious to bet my life on them.

Additionally near death experiences tend to conform to the cultural upbringing and expectations of the dying- people from every religion have experienced near death experiences validatiing their own belief system.

Now given the numbers crunching I've just finished in teh last two threads I commented on I woudl say teh value of Jesus, if teh identiy of the bones coudl be confirmed, would probably be around $250 million, though of course there would still be great skepticism as to the validity of the find.

Hrrmm... I give silveroak disapproving eyes.

you think it would be higher or lower?

[revelatory look]
The present and rightful owner of those bones, Jesus Christ, was reunited  with them at his resurrection at the Jerusalem tomb.
(because of this, we too will be resurrected! - Which, I believe, is an exceedingly great and valuable gift of Jesus Christ unto us!)
*** The spirit and body are the soul of man ***



[widens eyes, then exhibits quizzitive look]
  Did any of the subjects report going through a tunnel towards light and visiting with beings there at the far end?



 |\,/|
< * * >
  \_/
   -

Hallucinations are Hallucinations.  What you happen to hallucinate can never make it anything other than that.

What you hallucinate, like what you dream, is dependent on you, and cannot go beyond what you could possibly obtain through what you've picked up over the course of your life.

Which is why I think, reason, and wonder in the English language, rather than Spanish or Mandarin.

Indeed, many of the symptoms are commonly documented as symptoms of hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain). Astronauts on the training centrifuge have reported tunnel vision, strange light, euphoria, a sense of peace, and full auditory hallucinations. A slew of other effects have been reproduced through the use of drugs, including reproductions of natural hormones.

Unfortunately, the other side rarely has much to support the idea that NDEs are genuine. They're usually personal revelations, oftentimes conflicting with the details of other peoples' experiences. When people can remember specific messages or details of scenes on Earth (such as owing to out-of-body experiences) what they learned is oftentimes provably wrong.

That isn't to say that true near-death experiences don't occur, but they certainly don't occur with the frequency people claim, and it's almost impossible to differentiate a genuine experience from other natural causes.

If someone nearly died and had an experience then i would say it is a genuine near death experience, the meaning of it may be unclear, and it's connection to an afterlife *may* be completely fictitious, but the experience itself is real.
Or maybe they are all real but the afterlife has trouble keeping track of *which* earth they should be getting information about...