Evidence for the existence of God

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:06:27 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 1:12:13 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

Jesus, if he actually existed at all, was a Jewish man

Well, half Jewish.

While He is traditionally the product of a virgin birth, presumably He was
still diploid. And He wasn't a clone of His mother, because then He would be a
she.

But in another sense of the word Jewish, He would have believed in Himself,
although the word "Christian" isn't quite the right word to use of God Himself
in one of His Persons.

John Savard

Razzmatazz:
I'm more of a fan of the Sermon on the Mount. The rest of the stories I consider plagiarized, made up or
simply the result of fading memories as told by story tellers decades and centuries later.

What's interesting there is that there is considerable agreement among Christian theologians that the Sermon on the Mount is a work of fiction, i.e., that Jesus did not make such an address.

When I served at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv it was often my duty to take visiting VIPs on a tour of the Galilee (beautiful place). Naturally that included the hillside overlooking the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret). People would ask "Where did Jesus stand." "I believe it was on that rock over there," was my reply.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 5:46:19 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Razzmatazz:
I'm more of a fan of the Sermon on the Mount. The rest of the stories I consider plagiarized, made up or
simply the result of fading memories as told by story tellers decades and centuries later.

What's interesting there is that there is considerable agreement among Christian theologians that the Sermon on the Mount is a work of fiction, i.e., that Jesus did not make such an address.

When I served at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv it was often my duty to take visiting VIPs on a tour of the Galilee (beautiful place). Naturally that included the hillside overlooking the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret). People would ask "Where did Jesus stand." "I believe it was on that rock over there," was my reply.

It may be a work of fiction. It does not matter to me, it is one of my principal guide stars. The message is one that resonates with my own ideals, which include the above 7 Principles. Can I always follow them? Perhaps not. But it is a guide, just like when guiding a telescope during Astro-photography. Perfection would be that the guide star be exactly on the crosshairs at all times. Reality is that the star bobbles back and forth and you do the best you can to bring it back to the center. And thus life bobbles back and forth, sometimes violently and it is difficult, sometimes serenely and it is easier.

Razzy

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:48:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Nevertheless, there was much concern about JFK at the time, and his
understanding as not a consideration in voters minds.

There was indeed. Which is why Kennedy addressed the nation and made
it crystal clear that his religion did not stand in the way of
representing the people.

I didn't hear it, and it probably had little effect on those who did hear it.

It is considered one of the most important and influential speeches
ever given by an American president.

Have you not listened to anything Pence has said?

No, I haven't.

Perhaps you should.

His quotes of the bible to justify foreign policy? His references to
religion is signing the odious Religious Freedom Restoration Act in
Indiana last year,

(1) I don't live in Indiana. (2) Religious freedom doesn't sound "odious"
to me.

All the RFRA laws, state and federal, are odious and stand against the
most fundamental American principles.

or the extreme anti-choice laws in that state? That kind of anti-American
behavior is about as far from Kennedy as you could get.

Does it deny abortion in the case of rape, incest or mother's life threatened?
If not, then it is NOT extreme.

It denies women autonomy over their bodies. Extreme and horrible.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:32:07 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:48:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

or the extreme anti-choice laws in that state? That kind of anti-American
behavior is about as far from Kennedy as you could get.

Does it deny abortion in the case of rape, incest or mother's life threatened?
If not, then it is NOT extreme.

It denies women autonomy over their bodies. Extreme and horrible.

Actually the law as was written would force a woman to provide a funeral for fetal remains even due to a miscarriage. A huge protest movement sprang up called "Periods for Pence"

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's staff has been dealing with a rather unusual wave of protest calls to his office over the past week -- from women describing their periods in great detail.

While the calls may be frustrating staff, it's all part of an organized effort to oppose a newly signed abortion law.

The new policy bans abortions sought due to the race or gender of the fetus, or genetic abnormalities. The bill also requires that fetal remains be either cremated or buried in addition to other restrictions.

Pence called the new law a “comprehensive pro-life measure,� but pro-choice activists say he is infringing on their rights, and any period could potentially be a miscarriage without their knowledge.

Hence, women have been calling up the Republican governor’s office and informing staff about their menstrual cycles. They've posted the conversations on the “Periods for Pence� Facebook page, which has over 34,000 likes.

"I would certainly hate for any of my fellow Hoosier women to be at risk of penalty if they do not 'properly dispose' of this or report it. Just to cover our bases, perhaps we should make sure to contact Governor Pence's office to report our periods," the anonymous founder of the page wrote.

The calls range from highly detailed to tongue-in-cheek, to a little of both. According to the Facebook page, one caller reported to Pence's staff that "My flow seems abnormally heavy, but my cramps are much better ..."

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 1:12:13 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:47:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:

The dude in the painting sure looks like Jesus to me.

As if you, or anyone else, could possibly know. That picture looks pretty
much like all the other hippy surfer portrayals as promoted throughout the
ages in the west.

Wrong. See below.

His actual appearance was almost certainly very different than those pictures.

Jesus, if he actually existed at all, was a Jewish man

Well, half Jewish.

born in the middle east, and was undoubtedly olive-skinned and swarthy.

I always wondered how T. E. Lawrence got around inspection by that Turkish
officer. The "greenish-bluish" eyes in Akiane's portrait bothered me
until I remembered that.

He was probably somewhere about 5'6" tall,

King Saul stood out in a crowd because of his height.

the average for that time frame, had a big nose, and wore his black curly
hair and beard short, as was the custom in those times.

Read all about it here...

http://tinyurl.com/jcwley8

... the "proof" is overwhelming.

Ding! Ding! Time for snell to start slobbering all over his keyboard...

Of course, what he really looks like is irrelevant to the supposed average.
The man in the portrait does indeed give a slight Jewish impression, which
has been commented on many times. I have NEVER seen a picture of Jesus
that looked like that. I found it to be, as Razzy said, stunning.

My point is that no one has a clue, a 'stunning' portrait notwithstanding. The bible provides no description whatsoever, except in Daniel (OT) and Revelation (NT), where John tells what he saw in a 'vision'. There is no first-person descriptions at all.

You can provide all the drawings and paintings available from any time frame in history, and not one of them can claim to be an authentic representation.

\Paul A

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

My point is that no one has a clue, a 'stunning' portrait notwithstanding. The bible provides no description whatsoever, except in Daniel (OT) and Revelation (NT), where John tells what he saw in a 'vision'. There is no first-person descriptions at all.

All the more true when we consider the probable lack of historicity of
many of these characters- Saul, David, Jesus... none of these people
existed, or to the extent they did they were but feeble inspirations
for the largely fictional representations presented in the Bible. We
don't even know anything about the words or actions of these myths...
let alone what they looked like.

On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 06:17:29 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

My point is that no one has a clue, a 'stunning' portrait notwithstanding. The bible provides no description whatsoever, except in Daniel (OT) and Revelation (NT), where John tells what he saw in a 'vision'. There is no first-person descriptions at all.

All the more true when we consider the probable lack of historicity of
many of these characters- Saul, David, Jesus... none of these people
existed, or to the extent they did they were but feeble inspirations
for the largely fictional representations presented in the Bible. We
don't even know anything about the words or actions of these myths...
let alone what they looked like.

Can you just imagine the result of a "Second Coming?"

Jesus, King Arthur, Robin Hood, every comic American superhero and even ufos and aliens are a misty eyed desire for basic justice for the mass of ordinary people.

Religions are rotten to the core with corruption, dyed in the wool hypocrisy and empty ritual. They have absolutely no interest in their slack-jawed flocks except as a guaranteed source of investment income.

Evey major collection of nations is an open sewer of arms deals and people trafficking. Despots walk free while billions must leave home or suffer for a lifetime under their own petty tyrant. Wars are far more profitable than putting a single Cruise missile onto Assad's palace.

Justice is no nearer today than it ever was under every murderous "ruler" throughout history. All that changes are the pompous titles of the "corrupt rulers of the day." Be they bankers, industry leaders or some other tin pot dictator out to make an easy, quick buck.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:34:35 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:06:27 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Of course, what he really looks like is irrelevant to the supposed average.
The man in the portrait does indeed give a slight Jewish impression, which
has been commented on many times. I have NEVER seen a picture of Jesus
that looked like that. I found it to be, as Razzy said, stunning.

My point is that no one has a clue, a 'stunning' portrait notwithstanding.

You are assuming the story of the portrait is false in order to come to
that "conclusion." If it's true, then your claim is false.

Gary

On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 12:54:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

You are assuming the story of the portrait is false in order to come to
that "conclusion." If it's true, then your claim is false.

Gary

Oh, come on! Hanging your faith on some kid's rendition of the "bog standard" Medieval Jesus image to confirm your alternative [fantasy] reality? What was your "absolute proof" before you discovered this particular child's artistry? How shallow is your [supposed] faith that it can be swayed by such flimsy "evidence?" Anybody with "real" faith would sneer openly at your desperation to end all doubt.

The religious are good at sneering. Their hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds. Finding themselves unable to match their Messiah's clear teachings they spend their entire lives nitpicking "house" points. As if in some lifelong competition to be "holier than thou." Can you even imagine the deafening din in Heaven? As billions of hypocrites argue where exactly they stand on the infinitely fine gradations of hierarchy in the global piety stakes?