A requested thread for Kathulos.

Jesus. . . Ieoaseus. . . Issa, Yeshua.

Jesus is my God. I believe in Jesus as the same God as the Jews. The teachings of Jesus has been responsible for the sanctity of life throughout cultures for 2,000 years. It has elevated the status of women. Please don't forget the good it has done in India by outlawing the burning of widows, the outlawing of feet binding, and other instances. Many good things have come about from Jesus and what he has both taught and what he did on the Cross.

I'm curious, what do others see the value of the authentic Jesus on our lives and the lives of countless people throughout the centuries?

Well, let's not forget the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, what happened to the Native Americans and a whole host of others. Just throwing that out there; reminding you that there's two sides to this coin.

Also I think you are giving Christianity credit for some things that didn't necessarilly come from it. "Western Culture" is not always synonymous with christianity- what I recall is a christianity which fought against "feminazis" and believed that a woman's biblically ordained place was in teh home while I was growing up. A religion that justified manifest destiny and both the slaughter of Native Americans and the abduction of their children to be raised in Christian orphanages. India is still *massively* predominantly Hindu, and the laws you mention are more a result of the UN and US governments- both secular bodies, than any Christian uprising that fought for women's rights.
Christianity is responsible for the burning of the Library at Alexandria and setting back human civilization centuries in doing so, and in the 1400s suppressing all forms of scientific inquiry and advancement, and even today it is responsible for trying to undermine school science curriculums with creationism.

Crusades: against Jesus'es teachings.
Witchhunts: against Jesus'es teachings.
Spanish Inquisition: Against Evangelical Christians, and Jews, but by Catholics.
Native Americans: Against Christ's teachings again.
Feminazis: Feminazis actually do exist, and they deserve the scorn they get.
Burning Of Alexandria: Please prove this is not just some popular urban myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...ction_of_the_library

It seemed to be an order of destruction by the Roman Empire. They didn't have seperation between Church and State in those days.

And on Creationism in Schools, what they are trying to do is not force the Creation account on schools, rather they are trying to allow Intelligent Design to be taught.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:14, Tue 24 May 2011.

In reply to silveroak (msg #4):

Sidenote: No one really knows who burned the Library just as no really knows the value of what was in it.  To say it set back civilization centuries is quite a stretch.

Also, a great deal of Indian die offs in the Americas is due to transmitted diseases the natives had no resistance to.  Alot of other native deaths are due to political and economic forces.

Christianity, like all things human, is only as good as the people practising it.

It was proven in the Court of Law via Kitzmiller v. Dover that Intelligent Design is a renaming of Creationism, and is indistinguishable in both its teachings, its motive, and its supporters.  As such, it is rejected from scientific curricula for the same reasons that Creationism is.

---
---

The scraps and remains of what we do still have from sources contemporary to the Library of Alexandria (things which allow us to determine, for example, who the head librarian was at what time) allow us an approximation of scientific value therein.  There was knowledge of things which we only began to rediscover in the Renaissance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixnM7S9tLw

Excuse me, but Creationism is not the same thing as Intelligent Design. It doesn't matter what Kitzmiller v.s Dover said.

In reply to Kathulos (msg #8):

I would have to agree with Sciencesmile.  Intelligent Design is the simple rebranding of Creationism.

Intelligent Design is a blanket concept intended to show that the scientific method alone is not adequate to explain the natural world, and that a divine creator is a required component for any complete explanation of nature.

So tell me, where does a divine creator fit into an actual scientific theory?  Sorry, that just isn't how science works.

Might I suggest taking a look at John Ankerberg, and other such promoters of Intelligent Design.

Besides, Anthony Flew is not a Christian, but he beleives in Intelligent Design. If ID was Creationism with glasses and a fake moustache disguise, then he would be Christian. But he isn't.

In reply to Sciencemile (msg #7):

The Library of Alexandria has been romantised in the extreme.  I tip my hat to Carl Sagan for that.  Although knowledge was lost in the fire it is impossible to tell what was lost and what was "rediscovered".  I am sure that a lot of incorrect "knowledge" was lost as well along with some interesting fiction and history.

Not to say it was a good thing.  Just not as bad as many make it out to be.

And I hold nobody today accountable for the bad before as if things are still going on today because of them.  Any more than I'd like it if people were blaming me for American Slavery or the Divine Mandate genocide of the Native Americans.

I will try to make amends for those things to the extent that I should feel inclined, but we are not guilty for the acts of a past we never took part in.

It's done, there's no changing that by getting angry at anybody, all we can do is make sure these things don't happen again.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:55, Tue 24 May 2011.

The authentic Jesus? As opposed to the fabricated Jesus? Or, do you mean that, if we were to assume Jesus was indeed an authentic, real figure, what value do you think he has? I'm not really sure what this means.

If you don't mind, I hope I suffice by giving my brief opinion on Jesus.

I like him. Seriously. I know I've demonstrated time and time again to be agnostic (or, at least, not a Christian), but even if he's nothing but a fictional character, I don't really have an issue with the vast majority of what he says. In fact, I don't really need the miracles to like the guy. He's a pretty neat guy, and I find him personally very likeable. Someone who's very heroic, without being violent. Very courageous, without being oppressive or pushing himself on others. Very wise, without being condescending. And, most importantly (and I feel, even by the Bible's emphasis), he is compassionate. Endlessly compassionate. Not sympathetic, but empathic. A figure who doesn't pity mankind. He's not standing outside on the mountaintop judging humanity as pitiful creatures (though, he can come off just a little aloof). He truly suffers with them, and shares in their tribulations and pain. For his time, that's pretty remarkable.

How much influence do I think he's had in society? Not as much as most would think. Actually, not as much as I would like. I rather like the idea of society being built on those ideals. But, sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. Even in America, a country that very predominately Christian in population, I don't see a lot of Christ-like behavior. Even in the political party that professes a love of Jesus as one of it's main taglines, I see a lot of hatred, and fear-mongering, and, perhaps most egregiously, victim blaming. I've seen his words twisted to promote ostracizing others, which, I understand there's a lot of individual interpretation in the Bible, but I really don't get that kind of behavior through Jesus' words and works.

I hate to think that I'm giving the impression of using Jesus as a platform for my anti-capitalist raving lunacy, but for the life of me, I seriously could never understand how anyone could take Jesus' message to heart and still espouse capitalism. For all it's merits, it's almost founded on the idea of materialistic selfishness and personal hoarding that was, in Jesus' words, was certain to doom your eternal soul. In fact, from my listing, Jesus' beliefs and his call to man seems to be very, very slanted towards outright communism, that people should only have what they need, and give any excess to those who need it more, on a level that goes even further than Marx ever did. And yet, in our "Christian" society, those who claim to be the defenders of faith seem to outright demonize that sort of system. You may disagree with my interpretation, which, is a fair position to hold, but I really don't see how capitalism and Jesus are in any way in agreement.

So, yeah, I don't think Jesus has had as much of an influence in society than even I would had liked. I think he's used a lot of society, as a platform to push one's personal beliefs (and yes, that irony of me saying that does hit me, but I do hope I have a little bit of credibility left to take the hit), but not so much his words.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:52, Tue 24 May 2011.

1) Even 'false' knowledge has some value for building on, in that it documents what has been tried. In some ways nothing we know is ever really true, it is simply less false than the previous alternative.
2) http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/...rticleView.cfm?AID=9 Christians both killed Hypatia (last librarian) and burned teh scrolls to convert it into a christian church. That is fairly well documented.
3) So evertything aforementioned is 'against the teachings of Jesus'- it still doesn't give him much value if the people who claim to follow him are doing it in his name.
4) disease killed many tribes on the east coast. west of Mississippi the doctrine of Manifest destiny played a much bigger role.

The Bible says MOST people are Unsaved, and thus, not Christian. If that is the case, then it doesn't matter that many people who claim to follow him don't, because they don't.

A poll was taken that gave the indication that 83% of people were Christian. . . When asked to be more specific, 6% of them were born again. I'm sorry, but my original point of Christ like behaviour not being practiced, still stands.

In reply to silveroak (msg #14):

1. 'Kay.

2. There is no evidence at all linking Hypatia to the library.  That little myth was created whole cloth by Edward Gibbon in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  That is the first time allegation is made.  Considering his anti-Christian prejudices it is no wonder that he lays the burning at the feet of those rascally Christians.

When it comes down to the facts the most likely culprit was good ol' J.C. himself.  Julius Caesar.

3. Someone else's point.

4. The Spanish spread disease far and wide as well.  As did the French.  The native cultures had trading routes through which many of the diseases were spread.  It wasn't just the good ol' Pilgrims in the East but the Spanish in the South and the West and the French in the North and central parts of the Americas.

Not to say that the push past the Mississippi didn't do great damage to the native peoples but they were no strangers to the ravages of European disease.

If the value of Jesus is based entirely upon those who are categorically born again then what about the millenia between Jesus and the Born again movement?

So Julius Ceaser destroyed the library in 48 BC despite the fact there is documentation of it's continued existance until at least 385 AD? That is what you call a slow burn...

In reply to silveroak (msg #17):

And that is the problem.  There is no explicit mention of the Royal Library after Caesar's visit.  That there were other libraries and other scholarly works being done in Alexandria is a fact.  It was a place of learning.

But the Great Library is a romanticized version of history that was most likely a collection of museums, libraries, and places of learning.  The four suspects are Caesar, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Caliph Omar, and, of course, the Illuminati.  Out of those four I would say that the major library was burnt down by Caeser with lesser purges done by Christian and Muslim rulers.  I won't even justify debunking the Illuminati stupidity.

Add this up with various accounts by anti-Pagan, anti-Christian, and anti-Muslim historians through the centuries and the picture becomes a hell of lot more blurred than your story of Christians burning it.

http://www.mediahistory.umn.ed...hive/alexandria.html
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Library.htm

It is pretty clear that the library survived the ravages of Ceaser's fire, and the rumor persists mainly as an apologetic to divert blame from those who were in fact responsible.

The Born again movement began 2 years, not 1900 years, after Jesus'es death and Ressurection. YOu should look up Lee Strobel, he has done research on this.

As you described it the survey asked "are you born again", not "have you been born again". Born-again christianity is an evangelical denomination which began in the late 1960's ( see http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Born_again)

Not according to the Christians at the time. According to them; all these atrocities were fully in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

Please. . . . "Born again" belief system has existed two years after Jesus died. I'm not going to bother with labels. The idea was still there.

I suppose you could put it that way, but I'm not sure the figure of Jesus specifically is what caused it. You may put the blame on Christianity, which might or might not be a valid. But, I have a hard time seeing the portrayal of Jesus in the Bible as influencing that. He seemed to espouse a message of empathy and reaching out to those who have fallen on hard times, or made unfortunate decisions.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assertion that Christianity is responsible for that kind of xenophobic persecution, but I think it easier to accredit that kind of behavior to the other portions of the Bible rather than the ones dealing with the life and words of Jesus. While I can't see Jesus approving of such atrocities, I don't think it's hard to imagine people interpreting a "conversion by the sword" interpretation from the Old Testament, and some of Peter's preachings.

That said, to be fair to Falkus and silveroak, Kathulos does seem to sort of dismiss any possible negative interpretation of Jesus offhandedly. He makes some interesting assertions that he seemed to find self-evident. Naturally, one that caught my eye.



Kathulos, do you feel Jesus would agree with that interpretation? I understand you might feel this group to be disagreeable, but, does that really deserve your scorn? Doesn't Jesus say not to judge them, but to empathize with the pain they seem to feel, for the inequities they express and that worry them so? Or does your interpretation of Jesus embrace the idea of casting out others because you disagree with the politically?

Of course, that doesn't mean embracing their proposed solutions. But, to me, scorn and dismissal doesn't seem particularly Jesus-like.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:56, Tue 24 May 2011.

I agree strongly with Vexen's first post. Even if you reject that Jesus completed any miracles, or saved humanity, he's a pretty awesome guy whose point was 'stop being dicks to each other'. Unfortunately, a lot of people have embraced Christianity for all the wrong reasons, and went on to do terrible things while justifying it to themselves however they can so they can sleep at night. That's not Jesus's fault - he spoke specifically AGAINST being a dick, then saying it's cool because you're not violating God's laws.

I don't know what to make of that 'born again' comment. In 2011, 'born again' is the name of a particular protestant denomination. Saying you're not a Born Again Christian is not the same as saying you are not born again. You may as well complain that only 20% said they're part of the catholic church, so clearly 80% of people are not part of the universal church of christians, or that 50% of people say they're not 'man', so they aren't members of humanity.

Excuse me? I am a born again Christian and I belong to no Denomination.

The idea has existed since sometime in the 1st century (I think you would have trouble documenting 2 years specifically) but the terminology as it is used today, and specifically in the way that respondants to the survey would have understood it, has it's orrigins in the 1960's. *You* may be refering to teh archaic concept, but the survey certainly wasn't, and using the 6% figure from the survey implies the latter usage.
indeed the modern usage requires a conversion experience, which raises the issue that nobody who has been raise in and remains faithfull to teh religion could be born again, which if you are to follow teh argument that only born again christians are real christians then those raised as Christians are inherantly exempt unless they have a period of falling away from teh church, in which case you should actually be encouraging everyone who has not had a conversion experience to live a life of depravity in hopes of reaching rock bottom and having such a conversion experience.
Indeed some branches of Christianity feel that the further someone falls before they have a conversion experience the better a christian that makes them. On the other claw other denominations take some form of adult confirmation or baptism to be the born again experience, bt would answer surveys that they are not born again because in the modern context it refers to something specific that is different from the classical meaning of the phrase.

In reply to silveroak (msg #19):

So the multiple stories, the different estimations in the number of scrolls/books lost, the contradictory depictions between historians of the time, the fact that THE library isn't mentioned after Caesar, the attaching of Hypatia to the burning,...  None of that gives you any pause in attaching blame?

It's those darned Christians covering their asses!

Given that we can honestly explore the Illumanati being behind it.  Such are the fruits of such loose inquiry.

In reply to katisara (msg #25):

Gotta agree with Kat and Vexen.  Jesus, as written, was a stand-up guy.  I wouldn't pin the atrocities committed by his human followers on the words I have read myself considering that I don't see where Jesus points out people to be exterminated.

I find many Christians to be quiet folk who live their lives the way they want.  Can't argue with that.  Some are real dicks though.

I find many anti-Christians to be quiet folk who live their lives the way they want.  Can't argue with that.  Some are real dicks though.

Moral?  People can be dicks.  But Jesus had some good lessons.  I don't believe he was the son of God but that doesn't invalidate some of his teachings.

You may not belong to a church, but you do have a particular set of beliefs which can be distinguished from other belief-sets, i.e., a denomination. It's not an insult, it's a fact of language and categorization. The only way you could not have a denomination is if you believed that every (or no) Christian is right; the former requires accepting contradictions (or simply that you're too uneducated to have any refined beliefs), the latter means you're not a Christian.

I don't think you guys know what Born Again means if you think it's only been around for 50 years.

My point is that Born again has multiple meanings and teh one that people responded to in teh survey has only been arround for 50 years. If you want to use another definition that is fine, in this case I even accept teh appropriatness and hisorical accuracy of the definition, but use an appropriate reference for your numbers.
as to what kind of person Jesus was, that depends on who you ask- he rampaged through the temple chasing out money changers, cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, and states that he will bring war not peace, dividing families and will be followed by death and destruction.
What value he has is a different question from what kind of value he has however. Jimmy Carter was a great guy but a worthless president. On the other hand Donald Trump can be a complete jerk but nobody describes him as worthless... the dude is worth a fortune.
Now the thread was started by crediting jesus with accomplishments supposedly done in his name by his followers (many of which simply are not historically accurate to be attributed to the christian religion), and most of that argument has fallen into the argument that 'real' christians did all the good things and 'fake' christians did all the bad things and so we should judge the value of Jesus only on the good things.
Personally I don't buy that from about seven different angles- first and foremost of which is that if we are discussing the value of jesus those who follow falsely, even if we define what that means, still count towards the ballance of outcomes.

Then, what do you people think can be attributed to Jesus?

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...