Islam is a peaceful religion is it..

[Ben Kenobi]

Ceasar is a historical figure based upon varifiable archiological evidence. I don't believe anyone has ever found archiological evidence which proves the exists of any diety.

Would a poor shepherd be expected to leave any archaelogical evidence of his existence, compared with the glories of Caesar?

And even so, we do have some archaeological evidence that backs up many of the biblical accounts, and the descriptions given in the Gospels.

While that would not constitute proof of who Christ is, that would help establish the historicity of the Gospel accounts.

Secondly, another way we know Caesar is through the writings left behind by other historians. Why should we consider those writings more authoritative than the Gospels?

[Dinner]

I know that in the game Europa Universalis 2 the Ethiopians were considered Orthodox Christians when the game starts in 1419. I don't suppose that counts as a historical source though.

Prior to the 8th-9th centuries Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, and modern day Erotria were all Christian. The Egyptians were conquored in the 9th century but Christians remained a very high percentage until the early 19th century. Napolean wrote that when his Armies were in Egypt the Muslims and Christians seemed to each make up around 50% of the population. Nubia was officially a Christian monarchy until the mid 16th century when Arabs invaded from the north though to this day Christians dominate the south of the country, where as, Erotria was nearly all Christian until the 18th century when Arab traders succeeded in converting much of the population. Ethiopia is far more remote then these areas so it's population remained Christian.

[Sava]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me to believe BK, I would require witnessing an act that defies explanation. Something supernatural. Something beyond the bounds of what I would consider possible.

This could be any number of things.

Tonight, I'm going to pray. I'll take a leap of faith and say something to this effect:

Dear Lord Jesus, I have trouble believing in you. Please help my unbelief. if you are real, please forgive me for my faults and help me to forgive others. Thank you for taking responsibility for my faults yourself by dieing on the cross for me, and help me to overcome my faults. Please come live inside of me and enjoy life with me and through me. Be My Lord and Savior. Help me to live for you and help others find you, Amen

Part of the problem I have with Christianity is the question faith. I get the impression I'm suppose to have faith regardless of proof. And that just isn't good enough for me. I guess the only way I will know for sure is if I kill myself. I wonder if God will forgive me if I do that? If there is no God, it will be an infinitely long, endless, dreamless sleep. So either way, I'll get some closure. But I'll give prayer a chance first.

[Ramo]

Axum was a Christian state since the 4th century AD, or so. From what I understand, its highlands weren't converted to Christianity until much later.

But 1419 is too late anyhow (clearly, you'd have to reference Crusader Kings to find the date of conversion ). The Arabs got coffee around the 10th or 11th centuries IIRC.

[Ben Kenobi]

I haven't murdered anyone.

But you have still sinned.

It's like the difference between two peaks and the moon. God would be on the moon, and from his perspective, the differences between the peaks would be insignificant compared to the distance between the peaks and the moon.

Nothing short of meeting God would be proof enough for me.

Would you accept the accounts of those who say they have met God face to face?

I think Thomas Aquinas is the best you guys got, and his "proof" of the existence of God is pretty weak.

From natural law? You have to go back to your conscience. If you have a conscience, that you did not make, where did it come from?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's Greek coffee, turks got it from byzantium

Not quite. They got it from the Arabs.

'Coffee was first discovered in Eastern Africa in an area we know today as Ethiopia. A popular legend refers to a goat herder by the name of Kaldi, who observed his goats acting unusually frisky after eating berries from a bush. Curious about this phenomena, Kaldi tried eating the berries himself. He found that these berries gave him a renewed energy. The news of this energy laden fruit quickly spread throughout the region.

Monks hearing about this amazing fruit, dried the berries so that they could be transported to distant monasteries.They reconstituted these berries in water, ate the fruit, and drank the liquid to provide stimulation for a more awakened time for prayer.

Coffee berries were transported from Ethiopia to the Arabian peninsula, and were first cultivated in what today is the country of Yemen.

http://www.coffeeuniverse.com/university_hist.html

or:

Another legend gives us the name for coffee or "mocha."

An Arabian was banished to the desert with his followers to die of starvation. In desperation, Omar had his friends boil and eat the fruit from an unknown plant. Not only did the broth save the exiles, but their survival was taken as a religious sign by the residents of the nearest town, Mocha. The plant and its beverage were named Mocha to honor this event.

Prior to 1000 A.D.: Members of the Galla tribe in Ethiopia notice that they get an energy boost when they eat a certain berry, ground up and mixed with animal fat.

1000 A.D.: Arab traders bring coffee back to their homeland and cultivate the plant for the first time on plantations. They also began to boil the beans, creating a drink they call "qahwa" (literally, that which prevents sleep).

1453: Coffee is introduced to Constantinople by Ottoman Turks. The world's first coffee shop, Kiva Han, opened there in 1475. Turkish law makes it legal for a woman to divorce her husband if he fail to provide her with her daily quota of coffee. '

The Ottoman Turks were the first country to adopt it as a drink, often adding spices such as clove, cinnamon, cardamom and anise to the brew.

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/coffee/history.htm

Given the cultural/military interaction between the pre-Christian Horn of Africa and southern Arabia it comes down to whose propaganda or myth do you wish to believe.

However paiktis's ludicrous assertion (it can only have been in jest) presumably dates back to the Colonel's regime when they decided that modern Greek culture was so deficient, so in danger of being diluted by pernicious outside influences, that they had to rename Turkish coffee 'Byzantine' coffee.

'The Greeks are no strangers to the third component, the indispensable cup of coffee. However, as is expected they no longer give credit where credit is due. In the 1970s, during an American-led military dictatorship, the Colonels, as they were called, made it illegal to label as Ôïõñêéêü, or Turkish, the sort of coffee enjoyed by Greeks the world over, the kind with the grainy mud at the bottom, even though it came to them via the Ottomans. For a while, in a very backwards sort of nationalist confusion, they called their coffee Âõæáíôéíü, or Byzantine, until it was pointed out that coffee was not invented until the 16th century, long after the end of that glorious empire. In the end, their coffee became Åëëçíéêü, or Greek, and this is its moniker today. Mischievous visitors to this ancient and prickly land might with a smirk order Ôïõñêéêü, but only a few Greeks would meet their challenge and defend the Hellenic motherland—most would only be confused, so ingrained is their belief in the Greekness of the sludge at the bottom of their mini porcelain cups that they struggle to keep from swallowing.

Ironically, the Turks might just agree with them there. For in the inscrutable workings of ethnic tension and historical reinterpretation, Kemal Ataturk, at the dawn of modern Turkey decided that coffee drinking is Arabic, as it comes from the Yemen, and thus a filthy custom, ill fitting a real Turk. He encouraged instead the drinking of tea, which he saw as quintessentially Turkish—and which, as everyone knows, comes from China.'

http://kolonaki.cementhorizon.com/archives/001927.php

Along with inventing 'katharevousa'.

Sad, really.

Now with regard to London's theatres, paiktis, I suggest you tell us how many you think there are in the metropolis of London.

Then we can all start laughing.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But you have still sinned.

I don't believe in the original sin. We are born into innocence, not guilt and sin.

It's like the difference between two peaks and the moon. God would be on the moon, and from his perspective, the differences between the peaks would be insignificant compared to the distance between the peaks and the moon.

I disagree. All I know of my existence as a sentient being is this world. I cannot believe that what happens in this life is insignificant. Somehow I suspect we are held accountable for our actions. I'd like to think that our status in any kind of afterlife is somehow contigent in our actions in this life. So while I may have "sinned" in my life, my actions are certainly nowhere near the evil of someone like Hitler. Having said that, I wouldn't want to exist in a "heaven" where an evil person could get in just for having faith. If faith was the only prerequisite, all of our actions would be pointless and have no bearing on whether or not we live with God in the kingdom of heaven.

Would you accept the accounts of those who say they have met God face to face?

No. Not unless they introduce him to me.

From natural law? You have to go back to your conscience. If you have a conscience, that you did not make, where did it come from?

That's a question I cannot answer. It is presumptuous to simply conclude we are the product of a creator. Why can't it be possible that we are a random occurance? If the universe is infinite, the possibility of our random existence is a reasonable proposition. And if my conscience must be the product of a creator, would not God's consience be the product of a creator? Who created God?

[Dinner]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Would a poor shepherd be expected to leave any archaelogical evidence of his existence, compared with the glories of Caesar? [QUOTE]

No one contests that there was a historical Jesus they just question the supposed divine origins of Jesus. The proof asked was for god not Jesus (if you haven't guessed I don't buy the holy trinity).

And even so, we do have some archaeological evidence that backs up many of the biblical accounts, and the descriptions given in the Gospels.

I have a great book about Frodo and the one ring but I don't claim to use that as proof of the existance of middle earth.

The bible tends to mix myth with reality therefor I'd say the historical parts of the bible good only as far as they can verified by other sources. The biblical account of the Kingdom of Israel is excellent and has been varied though the existance of ruins, coins, writting such as the dead sea scolls, and the records of various Empirers around it. In short we have historical proof which backs up what the bible says. There really isn't proof to back up genisis or the garden of edan so most historians would cast doubt upon that part.

Secondly, another way we know Caesar is through the writings left behind by other historians. Why should we consider those writings more authoritative than the Gospels?

The fact that those writtings can be verified by ruins, ancient coins, records from other kingdoms detailing the existance of Ceasar, roads which Romans built, etc... In other words we have multiple sources all of which say the same thing. Some of those sources are written and others are archiological and can be physically touched and examined.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't believe in the original sin. We are born into innocence, not guilt and sin.

Not what I meant.

I'm just going on the principle that all have sinned, and fallen short of the standard, such that if we are gaged by the standard, we are no different from Hitler.

Original sin, that can be left for later.

I disagree. All I know of my existence as a sentient being is this world. I cannot believe that what happens in this life is insignificant. Somehow I suspect we are held accountable for our actions.

I agree, but for the purposes of salvation, all our efforts will fall short of the standard demanded by God. If we are held accountable for our actions, all of us will inevitably fall short.

That's the purpose of showing the chasm, in how far our human efforts will procure salvation.

No. Not unless they introduce him to me.

Fair enough. Why should you believe them? After all there are many holy men who claim the same thing and people can lie.

It is presumptuous to simply conclude we are the product of a creator. Why can't it be possible that we are a random occurance?

Because of the unlikelihood of such an occurance.

If the universe is infinite, the possibility of our random existence is a reasonable proposition.

Astronomy has debunked that notion of an infinite universe, so if you have a beef, take it up with them. You don't have an infinite laboratory to concoct probability experiments.

How would you determine the likelihood of a formation of the conscience? How would the conscience form? Why would the conscience form in a particular way?

We don't know any of the answers, from science to answer these questions, and there exists certain doubts as to whether this question can be adequately answered by science. Yet, our conscience exists.

It makes sense, that if we have a Creator, that he would put something in us that would allow us to draw nearer to him. For if he did not, then none of us could be saved, and all of us would be doomed to hell. So given the existence of such conscience, it seems reasonable that it would be God who put it there.

And if my conscience must be the product of a creator, would not God's consience be the product of a creator? Who created God?

He would have to be the first mover, without a creator. He would also have to be eternal, and uncreated, if this is to be so. He would have to have existed before anything else, yet still existing today.

This is the only way to resolve that problem, of who created God.

The other one is this. Suppose someone did create god. Would we not consider that creator to be God? Ergo, even if god created us, and someone created god, we would still have to acknowledge a First Mover before us, and before this intermediate cause.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, but also consider. If a religion were truly made by God, would it be possible to understand everything therein? We have our limitations, and there are limitations to the extent of our reason.

If you let me I will try to show why these scraps of 2000 year old paper ought to be construed as evidence in favour of the claims of Christ.

First of all, do you believe in the existence of Caesar?

I can show you some ancient stone circles dating back to 4 000 b.c. , and the remains of wooden circles dating back even earlier. Let's construe from them, that not only did the circle builders exist, so did their deities/deity.

How about some older Egyptian frescoes showing a god masturbating the world into existence?

'Did you know that in ancient cultures masturbation was considered creative and empowering? According to legend, the Egyptian god Osiris created the world by an act of masturbation. In Greek myth, Hermes taught Pan to masturbate. These are just two of the interesting milestones in the History of Masturbation. '

http://sexuality.about.com/b/a/086132.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation

Sounds more fun than getting crucified.


How about the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Upanishads, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or for that matter the Book of Mormon?

[Ben Kenobi]

Oerdin:

If sava and you accept that Christ was a real person, then that is all I was trying to prove. The rest of it comes later.

There really isn't proof to back up genisis or the garden of edan so most historians would cast doubt upon that part.

The fact that those writtings can be verified by ruins, ancient coins, records from other kingdoms detailing the existance of Ceasar, roads which Romans built, etc... In other words we have multiple sources all of which say the same thing. Some of those sources are written and others are archiological and can be physically touched and examined.

So consider this. The Gospels were written during the same period, and many of the details of the period come from similar sources. In confirming the Caesars, and the procurators, these can all be done outside of the Gospel, and corroborating with the Gospel.

I don't care, for the purposes of this discussion about the garden of eden, just the Gospels, so if you are willing to accept the Gospels as the historical account of the ministry of Christ on Earth, then that is all I am after. I am not asking for the affirmation of Christ's miracles, or of the Resurrection at this point.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm just going on the principle that all have sinned, and fallen short of the standard, such that if we are gaged by the standard, we are no different from Hitler.

But having such a high standard that we automatically fall short of is unfair. God is fair, no? And one thing about the Garden of Eden/Paradise. If God created a Paradise for Adam and Eve (and their "sin" being applied to all of humanity), why would he knowingly create the tree with the apple? That would not be a paradise then.

I agree, but for the purposes of salvation, all our efforts will fall short of the standard demanded by God. If we are held accountable for our actions, all of us will inevitably fall short.

As I said, that doesn't sound very fair.

That's the purpose of showing the chasm, in how far our human efforts will procure salvation.

But if God created us, he created us with that flaw. So our flaws and "sins" would be God's fault, no?

Fair enough. Why should you believe them? After all there are many holy men who claim the same thing and people can lie.

Correct.

Because of the unlikelihood of such an occurance.

But the universe is supposedly infinitely large. Improbabilities are possible in an infinitely large universe. People do win the lottery. People do get hit with lightning. If you think about it, humanity is a great improbability. We've only had civilization for about what, 10,000 years or so? Ten thousand out of 4.5 billion years of the existence of Earth. Why can't unlikelihoods be true?

Astronomy has debunked that notion of an infinite universe, so if you have a beef, take it up with them. You don't have an infinite laboratory to concoct probability experiments.

that's news to me... I've read Hawking. Is he wrong? Do you have sources for this?

How would you determine the likelihood of a formation of the conscience? How would the conscience form? Why would the conscience form in a particular way?

Questions I cannot answer. But it is presumptuous to conclude there is a creator simply because we lack the ability to understand those questions.

We don't know any of the answers, from science to answer these questions, and there exists certain doubts as to whether this question can be adequately answered by science. Yet, our conscience exists.

It makes sense, that if we have a Creator, that he would put something in us that would allow us to draw nearer to him. For if he did not, then none of us could be saved, and all of us would be doomed to hell. So given the existence of such conscience, it seems reasonable that it would be God who put it there.

And if my conscience must be the product of a creator, would not God's consience be the product of a creator? Who created God?

[Ben Kenobi]

But having such a high standard that we automatically fall short of is unfair.

Would a just God tolerate sin?

And one thing about the Garden of Eden/Paradise. If God created a Paradise for Adam and Eve (and their "sin" being applied to all of humanity), why would he knowingly create the tree with the apple? That would not be a paradise then.

Could Adam and Eve live in peace, with plenty of fresh water, and food, plus the companionship of God? They would have each other, and light work to keep them occupied.

Sounds like paradise to me. Sure, the big man in the sky is uptight about that one plant, but I can dig the rest.

But if God created us, he created us with that flaw. So our flaws and "sins" would be God's fault, no?

Would it have been better for him not to have created us in the first place?

Yes, we have our flaws, but that does not excuse us from our sins. We sin, not only through our nature, but through our desire to sin. We love sin, we glory in it and we revel in it yet we blame God for the temptations?

[Ben Kenobi]

But the universe is supposedly infinitely large.

The universe expands, and has a finite size, and finite age.

For one who has read Hawking, remember that he accepts the big bang theory, which presumes a finite universe.

People do win the lottery. People do get hit with lightning. If you think about it, humanity is a great improbability. We've only had civilization for about what, 10,000 years or so? Ten thousand out of 4.5 billion years of the existence of Earth. Why can't unlikelihoods be true?

It's like this. I'm in a poker game, and my opponent keeps pulling royal flushes. Every hand. How long do I sit before I accuse him of cheating, or is this merely random?

Questions I cannot answer. But it is presumptuous to conclude there is a creator simply because we lack the ability to understand those questions.

Why reject an explanation that does make sense, just because science cannot explain it?

Science does not claim to explain everything, since not everything can be proven empirically.

For example, how would you test God in such a way that the experiment could be replicated consistently?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So consider this. The Gospels were written during the same period, and many of the details of the period come from similar sources. In confirming the Caesars, and the procurators, these can all be done outside of the Gospel, and corroborating with the Gospel.

"It is solely to those books of Scripture which are called 'canonic' that I have learned to grant such attention and respect that I firmly believe that their authors have made no errors in writing them. When I encounter in these books a statement which seems to contradict reality, I am in no doubt that either the text (of my copy) is faulty, or that the translator has not been faithful to the original, or that my understanding is deficient."

St. Augustine


Must have had this in mind:

'The second chapter of the book of Luke states that, shortly before the birth of Jesus, the emperor Augustus ordered a census to be taken throughout the Roman world. Luke states that every person had to travel to the town of his ancestors in order for the census to be taken. He points to the census as the reason that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is said to have been born. In the book entitled Gospel Fictions, Randal Helms states that no such census was ever taken in the history of the Roman Empire. He also says that it is ridiculous to think that the practical Romans would require millions of people to travel enormous distances to towns of long-deceased ancestors merely to sign a tax form. '

Helms, Randal, Gospel Fictions, (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989). P. 59-60.

There is no actual historical confirmation of the incident which Luke recounts. Luke is our only extant source of information on this subject."

Ronald Marchant.

"THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS, The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5." Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute Research Report #4 (1980).

http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm.

Or this:

'The second chapter of the book of Matthew asserts that, shortly after the birth of Jesus, King Herod ordered the massacre of all male children two years of age or under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. In the book of Luke, which contains the only other New Testament story of Jesus' birth, there is no mention of this order. It is also not mentioned in any of the secular histories of the time, and not even by those writers who carefully described many far less wicked deeds of Herod (such as Josephus). '

Asimov, Isaac, Asimov's Guide to the Bible, (New York: Avenel Books, 1981) p. 796.

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, 2d ed., (Palo Alto and London: Mayfield Publishing, 1985). P. 275.

"When we add to that the complete lack of reference in contemporary secular histories to Herod's slaughter of the innocents, we have compelling reason to believe that this event that Matthew claimed was a prophecy fulfillment never even happened."

Farrell Till. "Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability." The Skeptical Review. 1993. Number Four.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/4/4prob93.html

Or mayhap, this one:

'Matthew 27:45

states that while Jesus was on the cross, there fell over the whole land a darkness which lasted from midday until three in the afternoon. Andrew White states that although Roman observers such as Seneca and Pliny carefully described much less striking occurrences of the same sort in more remote regions, they failed to note any such darkness occurring in Judea.

White, Andrew D., A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. I, (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1910). P. 173.

"That being true, we must wonder why no one but the synoptic writers referred to it. In superstitious times when comets and brief eclipses often produced widespread panic, such a remarkable phenomenon as three hours of darkness at midday would have created such mass hysteria that records of it would have been left all over the hemisphere that had experienced it. But no such records exist." '

Farrell Till. "Did Marco Polo Lie?" The Skeptical Review. 1996. July/August.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/4/4front96.html

'Jesus' and his contemporaries:

"Concerning the issue of the alleged historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts, Robert Ingersoll wondered why it was that the first century Jewish historian Josephus, "the best historian the Hebrews produced, said nothing about the life or death of Christ; nothing about the massacre of the infants by Herod; not one word about the wonderful star that visited the sky at the birth of Christ; nothing about the darkness that fell upon the world for several hours in the midst of day; and failed entirely to mention that hundreds of graves were opened, and that multitudes of Jews arose from the dead, and visited the Holy City?"

Ingersoll also asked: "Is it not wonderful that no historian ever mentioned any of these prodigies?"

Ingersoll's questions are particularly cogent when one considers that there are still in existence at least some of the works of more than sixty historians or chroniclers who lived in the period from 10 C.E. to 100 C.E. Those writers were contemporaries of Jesus, if in fact he ever existed. "

Robert Ingersoll. The Christian Religion, Vol. VI, 1881? p. 84.

Stein, Gordon, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1980). p. 178.

http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/history.html

and:

http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/christianity/errancy.html

'For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.'

St Anselm of Canterbury



"St. Anselm on the Existence of God,"

in Medieval Philosophy: Selections from Augustine to Buridon (1964)