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?