The Most Influential Man in History - Amazing!

Well worth noting also....

The Buddha, Mohammed, and Confucius aren't in the running?

do you see art museums of these people on a global scale? no? .... well then the answer is obvious.
~M

Could it have anything to do with the fact that the "followers" have been the most "materialistic" people in the whole world, who love to build monuments to show-off their own self-perceived "greatness" and that underlying it all is not an honor to"Him" but to their own self-perceived "Righteousness".. ??

Nailed it.

really? Are you speaking of just the Catholic church as all Christians?? lol.
You dont understand what you speak. What about all the other Christians that do not have the materialistic nature? What about the ones that choose poverty?
~M

At one time, Michael, the Catholic Church WAS all Christians, and yes, there are many Christians that do good things, always were. There are also a lot that do bad things, in Jesus name, and always were.

Michael >

Thank YOU for posting on LYR.

THE point to consider is Ann's. Perhaps ONLY Ann's.

Wholeheartedly, I agree that the Jesus cult BY FAR exceeds impact of ALL others in OUR Western culture.

No doubt.

But dude, the west isn't The World. It may be your world. My world too. But it isn't THE WORLD.

We're not talking Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Manchester, England. What a clearly visible trap you've fallen into.

Unwittingly, you have excluded the remaining cultures ... and the spiritual leaders THEY follow, representing the gØds they lean on and look to (Buddhists? eh, not so much ‘bout da god thang) … and what? ... oh yeah ... MOST OF WORLD'S HUMAN POPULATION!!!!

Pfft.

"Jesus Christ had the most profound effect on the globe that man has ever seen."

That's a rather bold statement, considering how many other notable prophets and mythical figures that have been used to push world religions. I would offer that Horus could be considered far more influential, since the story of the Christ, as well as several other identical religious ghost stories stemmed from "him" in the first place.

Let's hear it for Horus.

Michael sir,

I circled back to respectfully interject that your appreciated words and some comments may reflect a new dynamic in our nation. This because an increasing number of savvy e-Americans are beginning to deny the e-Christianity messengers a free pass to say and do as was said and done before.

I believe that an energized sense of critical thinking has emerged … especially here on Gather and throughout the Internet.

Your jesus-think is by far the dominant zeitgeist in Houston, our country and here on Gather. This I believe.

As a newer member on Gather you should know by now that fresh winds are blowing. A recent national study revealed that the belief equation in America is being scrambled. Spirituality remains a pressing need but is not necessarily being filled by traditional beliefs.

I expect that you will get some guff for the spirit (if nor the fact) of your Jesus #1 postulation BUT if at least two champions of the shared jesu-perspective show you’ll have all the support you need (one will be ALL full of the bible, and vomit it; the other will be ALL full of himself, and deny it. ; )

This may not be Kumbaya, Michael.

But please enjoy the illuminating patois.

I will.

That’s what LYR is about.
_
_
_
_

IMnsHO. (nod to JK)

~ Peace Out

Our calendar couldn't possibly be based on Jesus the Christ's birth. No one knows when he was born! ( or if in fact he was ever born, or died ) All you have is a 2,000 year old story, with a lot of holes in it.


It was only in 525 CE that the Anno Domini ("in the year of the lord") system was devised and only in the 8th century that it was implemented. They decided to number the years based on the reign of Christ, continuing (in a sense) the tradition of basing the years on their rulers. They used the best information they had available to estimate the proper year to be labelled AD 1. Oh, and yes, if you're using the Anno Domini system, the AD goes before the year, not after.

We don't use the Anno Domini system any more. We use the Common Era system which is regarded as the de facto global standard by international organizations.

Google it!

What irks me the most is how some do evil in his name and call it good.

Kenneth: But dude, the west isn't The World. It may be your world. My world too. But it isn't THE WORLD.
--- I was refering to the world... not western culture. At this moment there is approximately 1/3 of the population consisting of Christians. It is, by far, the largest in number compared to any other religion and has been that way for ages.

Clark: I would offer that Horus could be considered far more influential, since the story of the Christ, as well as several other identical religious ghost stories stemmed from "him" in the first place.
-- 1. Horus is a term for a great number of falcon dieties. technically not just one god.
-- 2. Eventually they were combined into one... and stated to be born of Osiris and Isis. Osiris was the patron of the underworld and answered to Ra. Isis was the daughter of Nut and Geb. Mother of Horus. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. She was not a virgin.
-- 3. Horus was born in a swamp.
-- 4. Horus fought Seth for the control of Egypt.

The story of Christ is nothing like that. There are obvious similarities being that Jesus was born from a woman... but thats about it. Christ was an actual human while Horus was a mythical god. Christ impacted humanity in the physical world. Bill Maher had good spin, but when you look at the stories, they are very different.

You can also compare the story of Horus to Hitler... but that is reaching too...
~M

(Thanks, Ken. The first part is especially for you.)

The thread conjures up memories of childhood. Sister says: "Susie is the winner because her essay influenced more people to buy Girl Scout cookies than any other essay entered into the contest." Barrage of voices: "But Sister, mine was good...mine was just as influential... mine was about the cookies you like best, Sister, and Susie used black ink..."
Sister: "Calm down, children. I didn't say that yours were not also influential, or that they were not close runners up. I never said they were not excellent essays. I did say that Susie's was the most influential. Next time, you may be the winner."

In your short post, Michael, you also noted the time frame in which his ministry took place. International encyclopedias were not excluded from your evaluation. In terms of influence, I don't think you can say that he can be beaten.

Let's just take a flashback glance at this site for a second.
What's the most recent post concerning religion that Mr. Kent has published on this site? Was it about any other religion than Christianity? Do we usually see comments that are anti-religious on this site that are about other specific religions as often as they are about Christianity? The very proof is in the comments. Look at the ire they inspire. There is no other man, woman, or child who evokes such emotion, and that is a direct result of influence. Read a few of these comments and look at the anger the mention of His name evokes. That’s influence, boys and girls.


I don’t even care whether you want to call it positive or negative influence in this instance, but the very people who are here that want to dispel your claim of his most extraordinary influence are some of the very people I have seen say that Christianity is the cause of just about every evil in the entire world. That’s right. The highway is only northbound until you suddenly decide you want to go south.

People in general who "knock religions", especially Christianity, are neither putting down God or Jesus, as they also respect and admire those concepts, what they are riled up about is what "the believers" have done to said concepts in distorting and perverting the entire meaning for their own miserable need of "feeling special" and "better than" everyone else.

It is as simple as that "faithful folks" ... and those among you who are innocent, and there are many, should know full well the truth of these words as your "bad-apples" have become "the fruit" that you are all now known by.

As others have pointed out above, you're looking around in your own neighborhood, your own culture, and assuming that's all there is. I suspect the he schools, orphanages, etc. you mention are in the US, and even the "international encyclopedias" you refer to are from European countries. If you looked around in China (home to a fifth of the world's population), you'd see much less of an influence by Jesus and much more by Confucius, the Buddha, and traditional Chinese beliefs. In other words, Jesus' influence is huge in Christian countries, and minor in non-Christian ones.

So, why is America a Christian country and China isn't? Is it because Americans are more receptive to the gospel than the Chinese? Or is it because one one was colonized by a European country and the other wasn't? You know the answer.

I have to grant you, of course, that in terms of sheer numbers, Jesus has been more influential than Muhammad or the Buddha. Christians are the largest religious group in the world. But the reason they are is because Europe happened to be Christian and happened to rise to dominance about 500 years ago and colonize large parts of the world. I don't see any connection between that historical fact and any of Jesus' teachings (he said his kingdom wasn't of this world, after all), and I don't see much to be specifically proud of, either.

(There are, of course, spontaneous, faith-induced conversions to Christianity in non-Christian cultures, and I can see what it is in Jesus' message that speaks to people--as I can see why people brought up in a Christian culture might be attracted to Buddhism. But such conversions have little effect on the large numbers and the cultural influence attached to them.)

(Gather ate the previous version of that, and I can see that in the meantime, some of the things that I say there, such as Christians being the largest religious group in the world, have been covered.)

Of course, people are influenced by all sorts of things all day long, many of which they have no knowledge of. Take a look at how Christianity impacted Hinduism/a>

The collected memories and club memberships, fear turned to inflicting terror based on inclusion or adamant exclusion, us, them, then, now, is all ash blowing in the wind.

The brightest bulbs of the past and present know it's got nothing to do with identity and adherence to doctrine nor dogma. It's in personal accountability to each other and our home, the Earth. Always was always will be.

If there's any sentient trace that remains, bubbling in the gooish matrix from whence we came,

which serves to inspire we two legged uprights, it's left marveling how we still don't recognize

that it's biological diversity where any hope resides. That's something to cherish and make holy.

What a gift.

Clark... dude. Dont refer to the "pagan information center" or wiki as your references.
Post from a reputable source.
~M

Reputable being Christian Apologetic sources ?

OK Michael.

I would say the myth of Jesus has influenced many and not always in a positive way.

We have so many noteworthy people that we can actually PROVE existed.

I do think Jesus was alive but he was a mere mortal like the rest of us and not the son of some omnipresent God.

Clark,

Factual information?

"I would offer that Horus could be considered far more influential, since the story of the Christ, as well as several other identical religious ghost stories stemmed from "him" in the first place."

Since when are the dragons in the clouds of Clark's mind, factual?

Sue, yes, religions are syncretic and in flux (as are all other aspects of human culture from music to languages). Once there is contact between people, there will be influence too, and a given cultural form descends from earlier forms, usually several of them.

That, of course, applies to Christianity as well--but is frequently, as above, denied by Christians. :-)

You might be right but I feel sorry for Jesus. I can't imagine how disappointed I would be to come back centuries later and find that the people I tried to influence had misunderstood my message and were using me as an excuse for their refusal to grow.

Double Amen !!

I was wondering too about the deleted comment.

Aniko,

The fact that humans can repeat and embellish and imitate, simply does not render the logical conclusion that God cannot get a message to us intact, if there is indeed such a Being. No more than the existence of photographs or paintings of trees, means there are not real trees.

wonder about the deleted comment as you will but Clark constantly goes way off topic, doesnt comment on the thread, quotes from the "pagan center", or just berates people.

If he continues this... I will continue to delete it. Simple.
~M

So in other words Michael you just want people to agree with you?

Christianity was designed to control the masses and you serve that purpose well.

Christianity has copied from paganism and added bigotry and intolerance and eliminated a god or two.

Today we would call that plagerism.

Lori,

"Christianity was designed to control the masses and you serve that purpose well.

Christianity has copied from paganism and added bigotry and intolerance and eliminated a god or two."

Today, we call that divination. (or just believing what one images  ; )

It was Dr. James Allan Francis who penned the following words that aptly describe the influence Jesus through the history of mankind:

"Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher."

"He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself . . ."

"While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth—His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend."

"Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress."

"I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life."

-Mark

Or so they say... All of this, postulated on the assumption that he actually ever even existed, he actually did and didn't do the things the writers of the New Testament attribute to him, and that none of it was exaggerated or made up. My money's on the proven nature of man to find a sweet little niche of position for himself, through the time honored tradition of fooling some of the people, all of the time, and not on the folklore of primitive men that stood to gain all by the promotion of an entirely new religion they, themselves, controlled.

Ahhh, the atheist mentality. I see now. Funny how one of the most revered atheist converted to Christianity because "when all is said and done, it is the only thing that makes sense".

~M

I'm no atheist, my friend. I'm a Deist, as were most of the important founding fathers of this country. As for it being the only thing that made sense, I think not. There is no "sense" to religions. No logic, no provenance, just some desire to believe in something beyond ourselves. I can do that without religions.

He is the altogether lovely One. . .

Jeez Mark what do you wanna do worship him or date him...bet he has a purty mouth:)

First you might actually prove he even existed, you know, just as a start...

I have a good idea... why dont you prove to me...you exist first? You cant. All of this could be a delusion. Psychologically impossible to prove your own existence much less someone else's.
~M

Well, since you've replied to my comment, I assume you felt I was real, but you're absolutely right, you might have replied to no one, to a mere figment of your imagination. Seems plausible, since you believe in a lot more than my existence with a lot less logical proof...and I think you meant philosophically, didn't you? All in all, I have nothing against Christianity, other than I wasted a lot of my life on it, and I get a little exasperated at the subversion of it for political gain. You believe what you wish, Michael, but when you start believing you're the chosen ones, you might remember that Christianity is still a minority in the total world marketplace of spirituality, as Aniko pointed out, (as well as why it has the influence it even has).

Your assumption is wrong which surprises me being that you "wasted so much of your life on it"... The Jews are God's chosen people... that one kinda sticks out in about 100 places in the bible.

Regardless, Jesus Christ is the most influential man in history by far. You cant argue with that. Well, I guess you could, but you would sound a bit Dee De Deeee.
~M

A brazen statement, without any provenance (that I'm wrong). Quoting the Bible to justify the truth of the Bible (either testament) is kind of like saying "I said so, so there." Sorry, it's not an argument to non believers, in the slightest. Jews used their religion to unify and promote their interests (as several other groups did with their religions in that general time frame), allowing them to attain much more (temporary) power than they would have had otherwise, and if Jesus and his disciples existed, when he died, his disciples found themselves out of the gravy train they'd been riding, without a leader, and especially, since Jews didn't believe Jesus to be the Messiah, without any followers. That's why they turned to the Gentiles. Jesus, if he existed, has had very little influence (especially seeing as how he was a devout Jew, and told us to keep the old laws, which Christianity has conveniently decided isn't important), that influence has been taken for the leaders of the religion from the day of it's inception, themselves. Of course, many men have used his name to do what they wanted to do anyway. That doesn't strike me as his influence, as much as the perversion of his words. I'm hardly dee de deee, whatever that means, I've just researched the history of that "influence" from Peter, Paul and the early church, to the Pope, on up to the present time.

"Since when are the dragons in the clouds of Clark's mind, factual?"

Since when are the dragons in the clouds of John's mind factual?

Things seem to have started just fine without "proof", Ron.

Now, how do you suppose that could be . . . ?

  ; )

Ron,

I'm not claiming I saw dragons in clouds . . . I saw proof.

John did you see and talk to god? Or did you just see a cloud and offer that as proof?

Now the religion, yeah. That's been a major influencing factor down through history, allowed one group to amass great fortunes, control the lives and deaths of whole countries, given us those wonderful murderous Crusades, the Children's Crusades, that was a goody, boy. The church sent them, sold them into slavery, made big bucks on that one. Vlad the Impaler was a hero of this religion. It's given us such beneficial things as the inquisition, the burning of "witches", heretics, whole giant sections of evil and wondrous works... Yeah, influential, that religion, very influential.

you are talking about the Catholic church. I am not discussing that.
Jesus Christ never preached hate nor was he non-forgiving.
~M

I got news for you bub, first, it wasn't Catholics in Salem, maybe you should research their practice of hanging Quakers and others that wandered into their territory, and as for the Catholic Church, that was Christianity, pretty much in total, at least the part that Europe (and therefor our forefathers) experienced, till some shlub named Luther came along... As for Jesus, I value his philosophic teachings, whether he existed or was a figment of a bunch of guys imaginations bent on lining their wallets, or not. Too bad many Christians haven't, and don't emulate him a bit more, and the rest of the Bible a lot less. This post itself comes under the heading of pride, know what they called that?

no. there is no pride in the post heading at all. My statement is factual. Regardless if you disagree with it or not... your opinion doesnt make it any less true.

but nice try ;)
~M

Just because you don't understand the history of religion, and particularly the Christian one, does not equate to my being mistaken, M. Think what you wish, but I'd have to argue that Jesus would not even approve of the "influence" of the men that invented and promoted Christianity.

"Now, how do you suppose that could be . . . ?"

Greed, and PT Barnum's treatise on the nature of births of certain segment's of the population, would be my guess.

Lori,

I asked a God I did not believe existed, but knew might just the same, to relieve me of my doubts, for I could not. I was a "strong agnostic" with a decent education in science and philosophy and history etc., and I just couldn't accept what I thought of as myths and wishful thinking sorts of stuff.

I was wrong. To my utter astonishment, He demonstrated He had heard me, in a hundred remarkable ways . . . and after several weeks of explaining such things away as best I could, I just could not believe what I was witnessing was coincidence or self delusion, any longer. I have no choice, He did what I asked and more.

Well why didn't you just say so John? Jeez. I'm convinced.

Just got out of the hospital, no time for this tonight, anyway.

John so you actually talked to god?

What ways has he proven his existance?

You made a really long comment but didnt really say anything.

Ron,

It is not my intent to convince you of anything, but the folly of presuming, based on rumor and speculation. There is no possible truth that could be more significant or profound than the thing of which we speak, and those who take a stand upon second hand prophets, and intellectualizing far beyond what they actually experience themselves, have no business speaking of another's potential delusion.

I am a man of God, but also a man of science, which is to say the scientific method, not pop science groupyism. I did what that method calls for, and I report what I observed. You may laugh all you wish, but honest, it really doesn't "count" as serious information or threat to what I believe. Such "dragon's in the clouds" stuff, is just not meaningful to me. You're just one more person that figures what he figures . . just one more speculator.

and all of that coming from a man that has experienced "hundreds" of "proofs" yet refuses to name or describe any of them ... we should just believe him on "faith" I guess ...

John its a good thing you are not trying to convince anyone to believe because you suck at it:)

I would believe a dragon was in flying thru the clouds more than I would believe god or Jesus existed.

And while we are at it...here is something that has always bothered me.

People that believe in Jesus Christ say their is only 1 true god and are monothestic right?

So how come they worship god AND his son Jesus? ARe they the same? Or is it like God is his own grandpa kind of thing?

Or are they 2 people and Christians are really polythestic but dont want to admit it?

And if god and jesus are the same why did god bother with the whole virgin mary birth thing...why not just clone himself and be done with it?

And if they are the same how could jesus be the son of god but also be god?

And if thats the case is that were the saying he's his own grandpa came from?

I always thought it was from Hillbillies who marry their sisters or 1st cousins but I could be wrong.

"Such "dragon's in the clouds" stuff, is just not meaningful to me. You're just one more person that figures what he figures . . just one more speculator."

As are you, John, but I never posted an article that talks about seeing bugs that aren't there, like it was quite normal, either. Let me tell you,..for most of us,.. it's not, outside of a drug induced hallucinogenic experience, and was the first time I saw that little hint of whatever that is you accuse all others of, believing in the things they imagine, the things they just make up...sorry. As for a man of science, shall I laugh now, or just run away from you in abject horror because I actually think you believe that one. Your only interest in science is how you can twist it to fit your twisty religious views. Sorry,... you and science, other than the highly slanted variety, is an oxymoron. You either have your faith, or you haven't got a leg to stand on, and that's the playing field you stand on, like it or not, because there is no scientific justification for your beliefs, period.

Very well said Ron !!!

"There is no possible truth that could be more significant or profound than the thing of which we speak, and those who take a stand upon second hand prophets, and intellectualizing far beyond what they actually experience themselves, have no business speaking of another's potential delusion."

Jeez, yah think, John? I wonder why we all just don't bow down to your obvious higher intelligence and knowledge? I think it may be because:

"There is no possible truth that could be more significant or profound than the thing of which we speak, and those who take a stand upon second hand prophets, and intellectualizing far beyond what they actually experience themselves, have no business speaking of another's potential delusion."

John said: "The fact that humans can repeat and embellish and imitate simply does not render the logical conclusion that God cannot get a message to us intact, if there is indeed such a Being."

Agreed. (Who has ever tried to make that conclusion?)

Michael A >

You have lost my interest and respect because of the two [ 2 ] deletions of Clark’s contrary comments. That’s piss-poor post management.

If you wanted to run a tight ship, closely managed by the author, then you should have put your rules for comment engagement, upfront, in the body of your post.

Else, when you arbitrarily censor someone you are revealed as an abject coward, a close-minded, long-winded preacher … the proverbial posting Nazi.

MICHAEL, YOU’VE BEEN REVEALED.

SADLY, I HAVE NO FURTHER BUSINESS HERE … OR WITH YOU. ADIEU.

* * * * * * *

PS > I sincerely apologize to the ten [ 10 ] Gatherers who received my yesterday morning invitations to visit and read rookie Michael’s middling missive.

PSS > Spellcheck: Influential

PSS > Ppfft!

Ken, very well said !!!

<3

-Mark

Kenneth, I enjoyed your posts and Clark has a running issue with me from many threads I have made. So we have a history and he knows that cussing someone out isnt going to hold in my threads. This is a DISCUSSION board. We are here to discuss things.

By the way, I havent been REVEALED. lol. I've always said that cussing in my thread will get you deleted. It is proven that cussing just shows a lack of intelligence.

I appreciate your correction on influential. I pride myself on knowing the English language.

Just like an attorney to make a post like that and then run. You dont surprise me at all.

~M

Lori,

Religious presuppositions may be shown from non-Christians and Islam. Both of these groups assume that a God cannot have multiple centers of consciousness in Himself. In other words, God must be like us...which is a false assumption.

I will post more on this, but im late to work... have to go ;)
~M

Michael, It never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who find Clark objectionable, always for reasons that are never the real one - that his arguments are pretty hard to refute on a level playing field.

:-) !!

// This because an increasing number of savvy e-Americans are beginning to deny the e-Christianity messengers a free pass to say and do as was said and done before. //

~ Apr 7, 2009, 11:18am EDT

Ron, im very surprised that you would find "pussification neocons cant find their A**holes" a statement that is worth anything. But I dont know you. Maybe this is of interest to you.

Either way, it doesnt mean anything to me. I find it useless.
___________________________________________________________
Can we get back on topic please?
~M

Well, you know, I would prefer to not have content censored for me, Michael, so I can decide for myself, that's all. If you let it stand, it says what it says, if you take it down, it just leaves all other readers wondering, and always will.

So them Michael when you say that people feel that god must be like us and he isnt doesnt that directly contridict his "we are made in gods image" part of the bible.

I always got the feeling religion was like playing Monopoly with an 8 year old,.....they make up the rules as they go along to help their game.

Author:

Circling back to see IF that nettlesome misspelling was corrected in your title. After all, you replied: “I pride myself on knowing the English language.”

Nope. Disappointing, that.

Could this be a subliminal indicator that Michael don’t do correction ever it is irrefutably pointed out?

BUT I AM GRATIFIED TO SEE THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION REFOCUS

FROM THE SUBJECT SUGGESTED BY THE AUTHOR’S MISSPELLED TITLE

TO THE SUBJECT SUGGESTED BY THE AUTHOR’S MISGUIDED BEHAVIOR.

Well-deserved justice, that … Way cool!
_
_
_

** Run 'Cuss Check' ... working ... working ...

Cuss check negative.

Whew, this comment reads safe from possible deletion.

~ Peace out.

Lori, "Gods image" doesnt mean a duplication of Him. We are His likeness. Also, the "rules changing"... if you take the Bible as a set of rules, the 10 Commandments hasnt changed in 4000 years. Still the same 10.

There are 30 parameters that have to be perfect in order for life to be here.
The cosmological constant is another one: this is the expansion of the universe. It is so precise that the ratio chance is 1 in 100 million billion billion billion billion billion billion.

Just take those 2 parameters. Their level of fine tuning is to a precision of 1 in 100 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is like one atom in the entire universe.

For a smaller example: the strong nuclear force holds the atoms together. If it decreased as much as 1 part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion billion, there would only be hydrogen left.

this is so precise that chance is not an explanation. God exists. He's all in the details ;)

~M

GOD exists for me, God (Lord Jesus) exists for you.

// Spellcheck: Influential //

He fixed it!

Hooray.

Mikey did it at 12:01 pm EDT.

Even added capital letters.

Thanks, author.

"So in other words Michael you just want people to agree with you?"

Precisely. Poor, cowardly little mikey isn't intellectually equipped to handle dissenting points of view, so he will casually delete posts that he doesn't want to see, rather that summon the courage to engage that person. He also likes to lie, post utter BS, and fail to provide documentation to back up his wingnut nonsense. He's a pathetic little fool, and I don't mind one bit exposing him for the pathetic, cowardly little fraud that he is.

Delete away, loser.

This is exactly why I delete you. LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE TO SEE....

After this, i will continue to delete your posts if you resort to mindless namecalling. Please post something that relates to the thread.
~M

Michael, sir >

Though I never attended one of your posts it now ‘feels’ obvious to me that you and Clark have quite an adversarial history.

But the fact remains, EVERYONE should have space for their say, in their own words, UNLESS you, as author, preassert your moderator’s conditions amidst the body of your original content. That’s YOUR RIGHT.

If it is ‘cussin’ that twists your knickers, clearly state the warning that all questionable language will be deleted. If you have a thin skin for, say, insulting rants, so state. Etc.

You and I BOTH realize that religious bickering, pro and con, is fertile ground for kerfuffle.

Respectfully, I believe you do not do yourself or your post proud when you delete comments for any reason — but particularly when you’ve NOT clearly stated ground rules for newcomers and old relationships alike.

You’ve posted Man from LYR, a one-of-its kind group. This is the Big Leagues, guy. Time, perhaps, to step up your game.

I offer my comment as a sincere token of authorship assistance. Give it some thought, Mike. It's the details.

~ Ken

Aniko,

"The fact that humans can repeat and embellish and imitate simply does not render the logical conclusion that God cannot get a message to us intact, if there is indeed such a Being." (me)

"Agreed. (Who has ever tried to make that conclusion?)"


Well, are you not implying that by saying this? ;

"Sue, yes, religions are syncretic and in flux (as are all other aspects of human culture from music to languages). Once there is contact between people, there will be influence too, and a given cultural form descends from earlier forms, usually several of them.

That, of course, applies to Christianity as well--but is frequently, as above, denied by Christians. "

Are you not suggesting that the tendency for humans to "share" or adopt various concepts and behaviours, somehow renders the logical conclusion that the Book must be spoken of as an "evolved" thing, which is to say, not what it claims to be? If not, what are you "not saying" there? You were discussing origins and such, and I am saying that the mere fact that people could produce a book based on such "cross contamination" or inheritance, does not mean they did.

Such implication as you (seemed to me) to be making, has no bearing on a God's ability to "write" whatever He wished to. It serves only to justify a snap judgment that it is not genuine, but it does so across the board, and has no significant bearing on the real world fact that the particular Book in question, has indeed had an immense impact on human thought and history, despite people understanding all along what you are pointing out. Pretending that everyone who comes to believe it is the Word of God is an imbecile that doesn't realize the alternative explanations, is just not very clever, to my mind.

KERFUFFLE... LOL. nice word! Just for you... I will post the rules in my threads.

Argumentum ad hominem. Clark cant get around this.
~M

Michael is quite correct in his accertion, whether we choose to acknowledge this one individual or not. The influence of the Jesus phenomena has been felt world wide despite the fact it is one of bloodiest episodes mankind has created.

Richard,

Over a hundred million human beings were murdered in cold blood, in just the last century, by non-religious movements and their minions. There simply is no shortage of bloody episodes, and anyone that can utter a few syllables can claim to be a Christian. There's a reason the Book begins and ends the way it does, and history has demonstrated beyond a doubt that we are in desperate need of a God.

Very good point john. We choose to believe... credo ut intelligam "I believe so that I may understand". I choose this. Others may not nor do they have to, as we all have free will.

When I hear "there is no proof of God"... I would tell them to look how precise our universe is made and understand there must be a grand design. This couldnt have happened by chance (see above).

We are in desparate need of faith, goodwill, honesty, and justice.
~M

"When I hear "there is no proof of God"... I would tell them to look how precise our universe is made and understand there must be a grand design. This couldnt have happened by chance (see above)."

This is not even good reasoning. It would figure, given the physical and biological laws our existence is bound by, and the amount of time things have had to develop, things would get just as complex as those laws would allow, naturally. Not saying it may not be true, just that it is hardly an argument for God's existence, and definitely not an argument for a Christian God's existence, to exclusion of any other.

Ron,

Then try quantum physics. What them fellas have known for a hundred years and tested a thousand times, is just not "natural". Subatomic thingies change their state BECAUSE we observe them . . . That is not in the richocheting particle universe zone of possibility, is it?   ; )

And He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."
Luke 9:20

<3

-Mark

"That is not in the richocheting particle universe zone of possibility, is it? ; ) "

First off, I wasn't the one arguing it was, it was Michael's example. It also still makes as much sense as anything you or Michael have said so far. "It is because I like to think it is, and it conforms to my views", is not the same as it is, and it's proof of my views...It's not, not even reasonably, possibly, sorta kinda.

I dance different when I'm being watched, too ;o)

There are 30 parameters that have to be perfect in order for life to be here.
The cosmological constant is another one: this is the expansion of the universe.
It is so precise that the ratio chance is 1 in 100 million billion billion billion billion
billion billion.Just take those 2 parameters. Their level of fine tuning is to a
precision of 1 in 100 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is
like one atom in the entire universe.

SURE... if you won the cosmic lottery... ONE chance in
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

yeah. Do you realize how small that is?
~M

Such preciseness of numbers ... oh how impressed I am ... second only to the fact that there are so many of you too.

funny how Clark keeps renaming himself... OH HEY "JERRY"

Another ill advised and wrong assumption, M. Jerry and Clark are hardly the same person. I have known both for almost as long as I've been on Gather. Funny how people win the lottery with amazing regularity, no matter how wild the odds, isn't it?

To the self proclaimed "righteous", all opposition is the enemy ... one and the same for "their" purposes.

I am slightly offended that no one besides Michael even attempted to answer my questions....that is directed at you John.

Ron,

" "It is because I like to think it is, and it conforms to my views", :

I never said or implied that, you made it up yourself. You've really got to quit just accepting anything that pops into your head, that ain't a crystal ball in there, it's just a reactive memory machine. It ALWAYS flashes opposites and variations and exceptions, automatically. It has no wisdom, just reacts to verbal and image cues.

Until one figures that out, they are bound to go in circles endlessly, with each thought or image provoking some tangential or semi-related one, ad infinitum. It goes nowhere, cause it's not supposed to be a guide, just a generator of possibilities for one to consider, with a strong bias toward self defense. It ain't your wisdom, just echos of what you have encountered thus far, produced by shear associative and frequency correlations. If I say 'cow', it flashes stuff like 'moo', 'brown', 'jumped over the moon', 'milk', 'guernsey', etc., etc., etc., as long as you keep repeating that word. There's no real significance to any or it, you are supposed to see to that stuff.

Take your repeated mocking of me for writing about what happened to me as a six year old, for instance; Are you mocking the six year old for what happened to him? Are you mocking me for speaking of what I remember happened to that six year old? What? . . . Well, obviously you're reacting without thinking about what you're doing. Surely you don't claim to know how the mind generates what we see as reality, are you? Surely you're not advocating we all hide what has happened to us, as though it is shameful to examine what we have witnessed in that regard, are you? Of course not, you must realize such matters are extremely complex and worth investigating, and we are the only ones that can, right?

No, I think you are attacking me reactively, with whatever you can summons up, so as to defend your own endless skepticism about these religious matters, as though that was some great accomplishment unto itself. It ain't, anyone can do that, just by staring into that associative memory generator, and treating it as wisdom coming to them from some deep mystical inner being. That's child's play.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things

Teasing and mocking and endlessly finding some way to riducule and belittle "believers" just ain't worthy of a man. The hour is getting late, and the question of God is clearly before you. Take it seriously, for He has no use for those who cannot grasp that they are alive, and life is serious bussiness, I say, He says. That man is what he is in this world, and his is the name of all names, just as he said would happen, so let's not overlook the obvious possability, to avoid petty taunting from the children of our petty thoughts.

poor little johnny ...

Lori,

I suggest you not tell the person you ask questions of, that you would sooner believe there are dragons in the clouds, than take seriously what he is speaking of as solemn truth most profound. We are told to avoid casting our pearls . . . where they will be unwelcome. You crossed me up  ; )

John I know you enjoy playing the victim and you have a overly good self image but if you would READ what I wrote I said I would believe dragons flying in the sky over god existing.

Not everything is about you.

I was expressing MY opinion.

Some peoples kids.

Lori,

This is how you prefaced your question;

"John its a good thing you are not trying to convince anyone to believe because you suck at it:)

I would believe a dragon was in flying thru the clouds more than I would believe god or Jesus existed."

You covered all the bases, personal and impersonal. You did that.

OK John the supersensative.

The first comment I was teasing you hence the smiley face at the end.

The second I was being serious.

I put as much faith in a dragon being around and flying in the sky as I do god existing.

Maybe and i am only suggesting this as you seem to get your feelings hurt way to easily...maybe you should cut the religious discussion it doesnt seem your fragile ego can stand being disagreed with.

Or maybe you could grow a thicker skin.

Michael thank you for at least attempting to answer me.

John you will have to carry on your self proclaimed pity party without me I just ate and I dont think my stomach can handle it.

Super sensitive? . . .

"I am slightly offended that no one besides Michael even attempted to answer my questions....that is directed at you John."

Don't exactly need magical antennae to pick up your vibrations  ; )