First off: I'm not a student of theology or even bother about 'christianity!!!

But, lets say Jesus had never been born two thousand years ago and he had 'chosen' to arrive now. What chance would there be in this day and age of him 'converting' anyone, and what chance of survival? (leaving aside the "he had to die to save us all" argument of some people).

Personally, I think, not very long at all. No chance in fact!

He'd get some converts I think..you only have to look at Moonies,Scientologists,Mormons etc..modern religions seem to be able to sign up members..

He'd get some converts I think..you only have to look at Moonies,Scientologists,Mormons etc..modern religions seem to be able to sign up members..

Maybe so, but to proclaim himself as the Messiah? Set up a website? He'd just be ridiculed as a 'crank'....wouldn't he?

It's beyond hypothetical, because it is alternative history. You'd have to imagine a world which didn't have Christianity already in it to answer. It's open to a million interpretations.

You'd think so but people would still sign up...otherwise there'd be no modern religions as in my previous post

Q. What chance would there be in this day and age of him 'converting' anyone, and what chance of survival?

A. He's God. Easy peasy.

A. He's God. Easy peasy.

No he's not..he's a very naughty boy..

It's beyond hypothetical, because it is alternative history. You'd have to imagine a world which didn't have Christianity already in it to answer. It's open to a million interpretations.

Yes I know......nothing is beyond hypothetical! It's called imagination!...lol

Yes I know......nothing is beyond hypothetical! It's called imagination!...lol
You're asking me to sweep away the bedrock of 2,000 years of European history though.

An hypothetical lets us play with ideas to understand a basic point. This is throwing everything away to make stuff up.

"Let's have a hypothetical dragon fighting an hypothetical unicorn. Which would launch a nuclear weapon first?"

Doh, the dragon obviously.

You're asking me to sweep away the bedrock of 2,000 years of European history though.

An hypothetical lets us play with ideas to understand a basic point. This is throwing everything away to make stuff up.

"Let's have a hypothetical dragon fighting an hypothetical unicorn. Which would launch a nuclear weapon first?"

Actually it's not European history. It's middle East.

I don't see the difficulty in imagining it?

Oh, and I'm with the dragon all the way too!

I am doing OK thanks.Water into Thornbridge Jaipur at the Greystones this weekend.

He came on the earth at a different time he did all his work then he sacrificed him self for our salvation the question is hypothetical to a believer, to non believers it is a question you could make any answers up to,

First off: I'm not a student of theology or even bother about 'christianity!!!

But, lets say Jesus had never been born two thousand years ago and he had 'chosen' to arrive now. What chance would there be in this day and age of him 'converting' anyone, and what chance of survival? (leaving aside the "he had to die to save us all" argument of some people).

Personally, I think, not very long at all. No chance in fact!

Convert people to what?

Jesus, was according to Christians the Jewish Messiah, Jews are still waiting for the messiah.

If he came now and was actually the messiah chances of his survival, quite high - as the Messiah is supposed to bring world peace, he will become King of Israel, and he will usher in the Messianic era, where everyone will believe in God and all Jews will return to Israel. Thats no all of them but a summary. It would be a pretty obvious who he was.

But if Jesus came now, unless he did all those things and many more... he wouldn't 'convert' many Jews. Other people can't really anticipate, but he'd be sectioned I reckon.

He came on the earth at a different time he did all his work then he sacrificed him self for our salvation the question is hypothetical to a believer, to non believers it is a question you could make any answers up to,

I'm not asking for folk to make up things. To me it was a fairly simple 'hypothetical' question. Would he have had a chance these days? My opinion is that he wouldn't. For lots of reasons!

I didn't ask for a debate on what was the definition of hypotheses. or how ludicrous it might be. Oh well.......:huh:

No he's not..he's a very naughty boy..


:hihi::hihi::hihi: Love it

I'm not asking for folk to make up things. To me it was a fairly simple 'hypothetical' question. Would he have had a chance these days? My opinion is that he wouldn't. For lots of reasons!

:

Which are....?

Convert people to what?

Jesus, was according to Christians the Jewish Messiah, Jews are still waiting for the messiah.

Chance of survival, quite high - as the Messiah is supposed to bring world peace, he will become King of Israel, and he will usher in the Messianic era, where everyone will believe in God and all Jews will return to Israel. Thats no all of them but a summary.

So if Jesus came now, unless he did all those things and many more... he wouldn't 'convert' many Jews. Other people can't really anticipate, but he'd be sectioned I reckon.

But he is God, so he must know what it would take to convert me and everybody else no problem.

His failure to do so thus far seems to indicate that he doesn't exist.

But he is God, so he must know what it would take to convert me and everybody else no problem.
Jesus or Messiah?

For the former, early Christians didn't seem to think he was, it's only after Nicaea and Constantine this idea really got hold.

Messiah, was never meant to be God.

His failure to do so thus far seems to indicate that he doesn't exist.

Or isn't god... or hasn't came yet.

But if Jesus came now, unless he did all those things and many more... he wouldn't 'convert' many Jews.But he (or rather, those who came a little bit after him) did convert a whole load of Jews, they became the early Christians.

But he (or rather, those who came a little bit after him) did convert a whole load of Jews, they became the early Christians.
Define whole load, obviously not enough to save him, while Barabbas got spared.

Edit, about the disciples and those that came after... sure they converted some, but there have many who claimed to be Messiah who had gathered a following such as Simon bar Kokhba. The difference was with Jesus, he preached to the gentiles too.

I don't see the difficulty in imagining it?
Of course, imagine away. My point is it's too big a point to unimagine Christianity. It wouldn't teach us anything about theology (not that there is anything to learn). :)

I think I was a little rushed yesterday, trying to squeeze my arguments into my dinner hour. Apologies if I came across as overly critical.

Without Jesus there wouldn’t be Christianity or Islam, Judaism would be the dominant religion, fewer wars would have been fought, so less advancement in technology. We would probably have lower population because of the lower technical advances and the fact Jews appear to have smaller families. Any advances in technology would have been use in a more productive way than war. Everyone would be happy so no one would claim that Jesus was the son of God.

First off: I'm not a student of theology or even bother about 'christianity!!!

But, lets say Jesus had never been born two thousand years ago and he had 'chosen' to arrive now. What chance would there be in this day and age of him 'converting' anyone, and what chance of survival? (leaving aside the "he had to die to save us all" argument of some people).

Personally, I think, not very long at all. No chance in fact!
In this scenario of yours does Jesus have the magical powers that the bible attributes to him? If so it seems likely that he'd convert a fair few people.

Even without them whilst the bible doesn't suggest he was all that charismatic (many other 'prophets' 'messiahs'... have attracted much greater followings in their lifetimes than Jesus managed despite having the advantage of being able to do miracles) but he had some charisma which can't hurt.

'Prophets' as transparently fraudulent L Ron Hubbard & Joseph Smith both managed to get plenty of converts, more than Jesus in fact. If they can manage it in modernish times then why couldn't Jesus get at least a few?

As for his chances of survival if he was operating in the west they'd be extremely high, we've got no shortage of religious whack-jobs preaching every kind of nonsense and they rarely seem to get themselves killed. Of course if he was seeking converts is less developed & free places in the world his chances of survival would be much lower.

First off: I'm not a student of theology or even bother about 'christianity!!!

But, lets say Jesus had never been born two thousand years ago and he had 'chosen' to arrive now. What chance would there be in this day and age of him 'converting' anyone, and what chance of survival? (leaving aside the "he had to die to save us all" argument of some people).

Personally, I think, not very long at all. No chance in fact!Your mistake is in thinking that Christianity came about in the life and times of our lord, when in fact it took hundreds of years to get the message of the saviour out.

I am sure he would have gotten his 12 or so followers even today, if the Scientology nutters are anything to go on, then I reckon he would probably be a lot more successful in his life time today than he was back then.

But he (or rather, those who came a little bit after him) did convert a whole load of Jews, they became the early Christians.
From what I've read they had more success amongst the pagans. The continued failure to convert Jews is generally reckoned to be a major reason for the escalating levels of anti-Jewish sentiment in early Christian writings.

Converting Jews was in some ways harder than converting pagans as Jews had been taught to expect the Messiah to make some rather significant changes in this world, not get executed without having achieved anything.

Converting Jews was in some ways harder than converting pagans as Jews had been taught to expect the Messiah
Then factor in the depth of commitment (or dogma) that 1st-2nd century Judaism had in their own beliefs. They were willing to be put to death rather than eat pork or stop circumcision. A dispute about the Messiah would've taken a tidal wave to shift their views.

In this scenario of yours does Jesus have the magical powers that the bible attributes to him? If so it seems likely that he'd convert a fair few people.

Even without them whilst the bible doesn't suggest he was all that charismatic (many other 'prophets' 'messiahs'... have attracted much greater followings in their lifetimes than Jesus managed despite having the advantage of being able to do miracles) but he had some charisma which can't hurt.

'Prophets' as transparently fraudulent L Ron Hubbard & Joseph Smith both managed to get plenty of converts, more than Jesus in fact. If they can manage it in modernish times then why couldn't Jesus get at least a few?

As for his chances of survival if he was operating in the west they'd be extremely high, we've got no shortage of religious whack-jobs preaching every kind of nonsense and they rarely seem to get themselves killed. Of course if he was seeking converts is less developed & free places in the world his chances of survival would be much lower.

I was going to make this point but then saw Plek already had!

If Jesus did show up today and could perform all his miracles in a controlled environment successfully then he would certainly get some followers. I know I'd look further into his claims.

Your mistake is in thinking that Christianity came about in the life and times of our lord, when in fact it took hundreds of years to get the message of the saviour out.

I am sure he would have gotten his 12 or so followers even today, if the Scientology nutters are anything to go on, then I reckon he would probably be a lot more successful in his life time today than he was back then.

What's the difference between Christians and Scientologists that qualifies the latter as nutters?

What's the difference between Christians and Scientologists that qualifies the latter as nutters?One is following the teachings of a man that actually existed, and many think that because of his wiseness, compassion, love and forgiveness to the extent to where he died for those belief's he must have been divine and even call him the son of God. (you can debate about what God means til the cows come home)

The other is the following of a bloke that thinks we were all from another planet or something nutty.

Assuming for a moment that there is a God, and she was to send a messiah guy to pay us a visit.

What would be the reaction of the Christians today? Or the Muslims, or the Jews, for that matter?

I suspect that if there was any danger to Jesus (or whatever he was called) today, it would come from these people. The people with so much emotional investment in their dogma that they would refuse to believe this person, no matter the evidence. Some of these people can get quite annoyed and kill people because of cartoons or books. Ironically, his supporters initially could be the agnostics and atheists.

However, as I said earlier, he's God. He knows what is required to convince me, you, and everybody else. If he wanted to survive he would, if he wanted to convert he would, if he wanted peace it would happen. Makes you wonder why he has failed so miserably in the past. :huh:

One is following the teachings of a man that actually existed,
Probably existed, unlike with Hubbard it isn't certain.

and many think that because of his wiseness, compassion, love
You're talking about a guy who threatened people who failed to be convinced by his bad arguments with eternal torture after they die, yeah that's real "loving".

and forgiveness to the extent to where he died for those belief's he must have been divine and even call him the son of God. (you can debate about what God means til the cows come home)
Any number of people have 'died for their beliefs', a good portion of them killed by Jesus's followers.

The other is the following of a bloke that thinks we were all from another planet or something nutty.
Nuttier than the notion of an 'all loving', 'all merciful' sky pixie torturing us forever after we die for not believing in him when there's no good reason to believe in him as opposed to the multitude of rival gods?

I was going to make this point but then saw Plek already had!
oh come now, I'm not even a very naughty boy.

One is following the teachings of a man that actually existed, and many think that because of his wiseness, compassion, love and forgiveness to the extent to where he died for those belief's he must have been divine and even call him the son of God. (you can debate about what God means til the cows come home)

The other is the following of a bloke that thinks we were all from another planet or something nutty.

The second bloke we know existed, the first one we are less sure of.

:huh:

First off: I'm not a student of theology or even bother about 'christianity!!!

But, lets say Jesus had never been born two thousand years ago and he had 'chosen' to arrive now. What chance would there be in this day and age of him 'converting' anyone, and what chance of survival? (leaving aside the "he had to die to save us all" argument of some people).

Personally, I think, not very long at all. No chance in fact!

Hello all:D

I don't think the world would be as it is now without Jesus.

No I'm not a happy clapper.

It's just without christanity, we would not have had calvinists. No calvinists no industrial revolution ? It's not that big a stretch,

It's beyond hypothetical, because it is alternative history. You'd have to imagine a world which didn't have Christianity already in it to answer. It's open to a million interpretations.

True, we would most likely still be pre industrial pagans, ripe for a Jesus?

Hello all:D

I don't think the world would be as it is now without Jesus.

No I'm not a happy clapper.

It's just without christanity, we would not have had calvinists. No calvinists no industrial revolution ? It's not that big a stretch,

There's no guarantee that some other group wouldn't have done it..

There's no guarantee that some other group wouldn't have done it..

True. However Christianity is such a radical ideology/religion. Paganism would have just carried on as it was/is. Judaism was at that time thousands of years old so I doubt much would have changed.

So would we just have a Rose by another name?

True. However Christianity is such a radical ideology/religion. Paganism would have just carried on as it was/is. Judaism was at that time thousands of years old so I doubt much would have changed.

So would we just have a Rose by another name?

Welcome to the forum.

What do you consider Paganism to be?

What do you think is it about it exactly that prevents any progress of the type you are eager to credit Christianity for?

The second bloke we know existed, the first one we are less sure of.

:huh:

Jesus existed, it's historical fact.

Welcome to the forum.

What do you consider Paganism to be?

What do you think is it about it exactly that prevents any progress of the type you are eager to credit Christianity for?

Hi,

Paganism to me is the love and worship of the earth wind and sky etc. Nothing wrong in that. Pagans have existed for as long as humans. Yet it's only since Christianity came along that we have become what we are now, good and bad.

Calvinists being a good example of why. I'm not eager to promote Christianity, to me just an obvious fact.

Jesus existed, it's historical fact.

Thank you for letting us know of the usefulness of debating with you.

:thumbsup:

I'm puzzled why some posters would think that we wouldn't have technology like we have today without Christianity? That implies that all advancements in technology were the result, or work of being a Christian, and that's miles from reality. In my view technology wouldn't be much different from what it is now.

I just think had 'Jesus' come along today, he would have had to work some serious miracles in laboratory conditions for anyone to take anything he said seriously. Turning water into wine just wouldn't 'cut it' these days (although I'd definitely be his mate if he could do that lol).

Thank you for letting us know of the usefulness of debating with you.

:thumbsup:

No problem, just trying to help some catch up:D

Jesus existed, it's historical fact.

Apart from books what proof is there?

I'm puzzled why some posters would think that we wouldn't have technology like we have today without Christianity? That implies that all advancements in technology were the result, or work of being a Christian, and that's miles from reality. In my view technology wouldn't be much different from what it is now.

I just think had 'Jesus' come along today, he would have had to work some serious miracles in laboratory conditions for anyone to take anything he said seriously. Turning water into wine just wouldn't 'cut it' these days (although I'd definitely be his mate if he could do that lol).

True, if the world was as it is today and a Jesus came along I doubt he would get much traction. Still jesus in his day did not have many followers in his lifetime. 4 billion plus now? I doubt more than 2 billion humans were on the planet at that time.

Apart from books what proof is there?

What kind of proof do you want?

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


Only 50 lifetimes ago, 2000/40. Makes you think.

I'm puzzled why some posters would think that we wouldn't have technology like we have today without Christianity? That implies that all advancements in technology were the result, or work of being a Christian, and that's miles from reality.
It only implies that Christianity was at the core of society for a very long time. It is hard to say what point 'X' would reach if we went back in time and changed A and B.

We could have an whole alternative history where the world was 1 religion living in peace and we were vastly more technologically advanced than now, colonising other planets.

I'm puzzled why some posters would think that we wouldn't have technology like we have today without Christianity? That implies that all advancements in technology were the result, or work of being a Christian, and that's miles from reality. In my view technology wouldn't be much different from what it is now.

I just think had 'Jesus' come along today, he would have had to work some serious miracles in laboratory conditions for anyone to take anything he said seriously. Turning water into wine just wouldn't 'cut it' these days (although I'd definitely be his mate if he could do that lol).

Most of the technological advances where because of war, less religion equals less war so less technological advances.

It only implies that Christianity was at the core of society for a very long time. It is hard to say what point 'X' would reach if we went back in time and changed A and B.

We could have an whole alternative history where the world was 1 religion living in peace and we were vastly more technologically advanced than now, colonising other planets.

well pre Christianity, Judaism had 2000 years, pagans had 40000 years.

True, if the world was as it is today and a Jesus came along I doubt he would get much traction. Still jesus in his day did not have many followers in his lifetime. 4 billion plus now? I doubt more than 2 billion humans were on the planet at that time.

Less than one billion people upto 1800's. (http://colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/historical1991cc.jpg)

well pre Christianity, Judaism had 2000 years, pagans had 40000 years.

You're not suggesting that there were no inventions before Christianity came along are you?

One is following the teachings of a man that actually existed, and many think that because of his wiseness, compassion, love and forgiveness to the extent to where he died for those belief's he must have been divine and even call him the son of God. (you can debate about what God means til the cows come home)

The other is the following of a bloke that thinks we were all from another planet or something nutty.

So both follow the teachings of men that existed, that's a similarity, not a difference. Is there a difference?

You're not suggesting that there were no inventions before Christianity came along are you?

One would hope not.

I can see that 'some' technology has been inextricably linked with wars. But by no means all of it. Surely it's mans insatiable desire for answers to questions, or I wonder what would happen if I mixed this with that, or a million and one other questions which man has solved and therefore advanced scientific knowledge. It's been a natural progression, and will continue to be.

You're not suggesting that there were no inventions before Christianity came along are you?

Of course not, I am suggesting that Christianity provided the spring board for the industrial revolution, via Calvinism. Hence todays world.

I suspect that if there was any danger to Jesus (or whatever he was called) today, it would come from these people. The people with so much emotional investment in their dogma that they would refuse to believe this person, no matter the evidence. Some of these people can get quite annoyed and kill people because of cartoons or books. Ironically, his supporters initially could be the agnostics and atheists.

Very good point, and most likely, in my opinion. If a man proved himself to be God/Son of God, there would be no denying it. Therefore it would be reasonable to accept him as God/Son of God.

Of course not, I am suggesting that Christianity provided the spring board for the industrial revolution, via Calvinism. Hence todays world.

I'm puzzled how you arrive at this. (please forgive me if I'm being thick), but what has Calvinism got to do with the industrial revolution?

I suspect the Industrial revolution was mostly driven by 'greed'

Ive no doubt given a 'walking dead' type disaster , a new Jesus would appear. What would the message be though? Love or sword?

Of course not, I am suggesting that Christianity provided the spring board for the industrial revolution, via Calvinism. Hence todays world.

Would the calvanist scientists not have existed without Christianity? Would they not have had the same intellect,desire to experiment etc? Genuine question..if not why not?

I'm puzzled how you arrive at this. (please forgive me if I'm being thick), but what has Calvinism got to do with the industrial revolution?

I suspect the Industrial revolution was mostly driven by 'greed'

Capital/money, Calvinists provided it. work ethic. etc

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

http://mises.org/daily/4070

Would the calvanist scientists not have existed without Christianity? Would they not have had the same intellect,desire to experiment etc? Genuine question..if not why not?

I am sure they would have. However as I have said before, other religions had the time prior to Jesus. Yet ?

but what has Calvinism got to do with the industrial revolution?
There is a solid link between the protestant movement and modern capitalism. It would take a while to explain the whole history. As a basic explanation the Catholic church held their wealth in land, and the protestant church was made up of a merchant class which held their wealth in capital, or money, investments, etc.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism) is widely respected, but I've yet to read it myself.

Just look at this timeline map of great ideas:

http://www.1-900-870-6235.com/eLearning/GreatIdeas/TimeLineMap.htm

Notice the explosion of ideas with the advent of Christianity, and how they perfectly match the rise in Christianity.

Oh wait, they didn't and they don't.

:roll:

Just look at this timeline map of great ideas:

http://www.1-900-870-6235.com/eLearning/GreatIdeas/TimeLineMap.htm

Notice the explosion of ideas with the advent of Christianity, and how they perfectly match the rise in Christianity.

Oh wait, they didn't and they don't.

:roll:

Thanks ill print that for kids. whats your point?

Someone earlier said that the Jews had 2000 years and nothing happened (technologically), and pagans thousands of years before that.

I don't really subscribe to there being stagnation before 'Christianity'. It's more to do with the evolution of understanding. Ideas and inventions and an understanding of science, merely drives further advances. That's why since the industrial revolution there has been a quantum leap in technology. Nothing to do with any religion or creed. It's a drive to improve...Lets make something faster, or quicker, or last longer, or whatever. It's still happening now, and will continue.

The fastest and best computer you can get these days, you can bet someone is sat somewhere thinking how they can make it better, smaller, and quicker than the best there is now, and so it goes on. Admitteldly nowadays it's commercialism that probably drives it, and probably always was.

Someone earlier said that the Jews had 2000 years and nothing happened (technologically), and pagans thousands of years before that.

I don't really subscribe to there being stagnation before 'Christianity'. It's more to do with the evolution of understanding. Ideas and inventions and an understanding of science, merely drives further advances. That's why since the industrial revolution there has been a quantum leap in technology. Nothing to do with any religion or creed. It's a drive to improve...Lets make something faster, or quicker, or last longer, or whatever. It's still happening now, and will continue.

The fastest and best computer you can get these days, you can bet someone is sat somewhere thinking how they can make it better, smaller, and quicker than the best there is now, and so it goes on. Admitteldly nowadays it's commercialism that probably drives it, and probably always was.

I think we would be pre industrial revolution for valid reasons stated. good thread.

I think we would be pre industrial revolution for valid reasons stated. good thread.

You really think we would still be in the state were were 3-400 years ago?

I think we would be pre industrial revolution for valid reasons stated. good thread.

I know you said "for reasons stated"..... But why would you think that?....I don't quite 'get' the connection.

There have been advances in technology since the stone age......bronze age...iron age.....Just because we've leapt in those advancements since the industrial revolution is just a measure of mans nature.

I know you said "for reasons stated"..... But why would you think that?....I don't quite 'get' the connection.

There have been advances in technology since the stone age......bronze age...iron age.....Just because we've leapt in those advancements since the industrial revolution is just a measure of mans nature.

There have, but not quite as fast as those advances brought about by war, advances tend to be very slow until times of war, many of the technologies we have today have their roots in the 1st and 2nd WW's.

There have, but not quite as fast as those advances brought about by war, advances tend to be very slow until times of war, many of the technologies we have today have their roots in the 1st and 2nd WW's.

I'll concede that your 'partly' right about war feeding technologies. But you're assuming there wouldn't have been any wars without the advent of Christianity or other religions.

I'm sure man being 'man' we would have thought of something to fight over, even if there was no religion of any sort!

I know you said "for reasons stated"..... But why would you think that?....I don't quite 'get' the connection.

There have been advances in technology since the stone age......bronze age...iron age.....Just because we've leapt in those advancements since the industrial revolution is just a measure of mans nature.

Mans nature. Its also mans motivation. Christianity in the Calvinist form provided the funds that got us where we are now, also as the motivation. No other religion or ideology cult and fad did this. Some including some forms of Christian faith have held humans back and reversed progress.

There have, but not quite as fast as those advances brought about by war, advances tend to be very slow until times of war, many of the technologies we have today have their roots in the 1st and 2nd WW's.

Both fed capitalism, both non religious.

I'll concede that your 'partly' right about war feeding technologies. But you're assuming there wouldn't have been any wars without the advent of Christianity or other religions.

I'm sure man being 'man' we would have thought of something to fight over, even if there was no religion of any sort!

Quite possibly but the without the religions that followed Judaism it would be likely all the Christians and Muslims would be Jews, now there’s a thought, and I wouldn’t imagine there would have been anyone prepared to take them on. To my knowledge the Jews don’t usually start wars so maybe the world would be a completely different place.

There is a solid link between the protestant movement and modern capitalism.

There's a link, yes. But that's a lot different from saying that the industrial revolution straight up wouldn't have happened at all without Christianity, which is the kind of lunacy we're dealing with here.

If you're (not you specifically) going to be incredibly simplistic like and boil the causes of the industrial revolution down to one factor like that, Calvinism is going to be a long way down the list.

Quite possibly but the without the religions that followed Judaism it would be likely all the Christians and Muslims would be Jews,No, it wouldn't. In fact that would be very unlikely considering how little effort Jews put into evangelising their religion, and the inherent xenophobia and pseudo-nationalism of thinking that you're 'gods chosen people'.
Judaism was never going to take over the world, even without Christianity or Islam.

There's a link, yes. But that's a lot different from saying that the industrial revolution straight up wouldn't have happened at all without Christianity, which is the kind of lunacy we're dealing with here.

If you're (not you specifically) going to be incredibly simplistic like and boil the causes of the industrial revolution down to one factor like that, Calvinism is going to be a long way down the list.

Really, why?

No, it wouldn't. In fact that would be very unlikely considering how little effort Jews put into evangelising their religion, and the inherent nationalism and xenophobia of thinking that you're 'gods chosen people'.
Judaism was never going to take over the world, even without Christianity or Islam.

They wouldn't have looked at it as taking over the world and the followers of Christianity and Islam would have still wanted a God, as they both share the same God with Judaism and there religions are very Similar it is likely they would have followed that religion, which would have resulted in less war.

Quite possibly but the without the religions that followed Judaism it would be likely all the Christians and Muslims would be Jews, now there’s a thought, and I wouldn’t imagine there would have been anyone prepared to take them on. To my knowledge the Jews don’t usually start wars so maybe the world would be a completely different place.

It seems they do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

Jesus existed, it's historical fact.

Humour me, what year was he born?

Really, why?

You really need to explain why these things wouldn't have happened without it..?

They wouldn't have looked at it as taking over the world and the followers of Christianity and Islam would have still wanted a God, as they both share the same God with Judaism and there religions are very slimily it is likely they would have followed that religionThat does not follow at all.

Firstly, you haven't demonstrated that the green part is true, and secondly, the red part does not follow from the blue part. Unsound, invalid, and untrue.

It seems they do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

That was the Jews defending themselves from Roman occupation, the Jews didn't invade Rome.

Really, why?

I actually studied the industrial revolution a little at school (a levels) and have read quite a few books exploring the causes of it. Calvinism is very rarely mentioned if at all.

Thankfully, my a levels are long gone at this point so I'm not going to write you an essay, go read a book or something.

That does not follow at all.

Firstly, you haven't demonstrated that the green part is true, and secondly, the red part does not follow from the blue part. Unsound, invalid, and untrue.

Because that would be imposible. You couldn't posibly know just like I can't.

What religion would all the Christens and Muslims have followed if not the one they emulated?

Humour me, what year was he born?



17th June 2 bc best educated guess

I actually studied the industrial revolution a little at school (a levels) and have read quite a few books exploring the causes of it. Calvinism is very rarely mentioned if at all.

Thankfully, my a levels are long gone at this point so I'm not going to write you an essay, go read a book or something.

It is a higher ed level:o

Should have known not to try reasoning logically with a troll. :(

17th June 2 bc best educated guess

Odd thats some two years after Herod died... and some 8 years before Quirinius did he Census...

I am a christian, but I do believe that paganism is the proper and original religion of our country but like millions before me we have been converted to the roman religion that is really nothing to do with our country, paganism existed for thousands of years{and still does} before Christians came along and declared paganism as bad,I think if the Christians had not come to our country we would still be a pagan country,as for Jesus coming to our world know that would mean that he never come hear in the past so who knows what kind of religion would be here for him to save us from.

I am a christian, but I do believe that paganism is the proper and original religion of our country but like millions before me we have been converted to the roman religion that is really nothing to do with our country, paganism existed for thousands of years{and still does}.Actually the evidence suggests that the Romans did a rather good job of stifling other religions. There's no evidence that modern paganism bears anything but the most superficial resemblance to pre-Christian British religions. before Christians came along and declared paganism as bad,I think if the Christians had not come to our country we would still be a pagan country...well yeah (unless the Arab conquests had been vastly more successful than they were). Paganism is simply a catch all term for western non-abrahamic religions. So if Abrahamic religions had never come to these shores then of course we would still be pagan, by definition.

As for Jesus coming to our world know that would mean that he never come hear in the past so who knows what kind of religion would be here for him to save us from.
Who saved those before Jesus?

There's a link, yes. But that's a lot different from saying that the industrial revolution straight up wouldn't have happened at all without Christianity, which is the kind of lunacy we're dealing with here.
Indeed. As I said yesterday, alternative histories are mostly lunacy. Without Christianity it is hard to say what the Roman Empire would've used to glue itself together with during its demise, or what the Byzantine Empire would've been built upon. There are whole sections of history just eradicated. A million interpretations can come.

Indeed. As I said yesterday, alternative histories are mostly lunacy. Without Christianity it is hard to say what the Roman Empire would've used to glue itself together with during its demise, or what the Byzantine Empire would've been built upon. There are whole sections of history just eradicated. A million interpretations can come.

All very true, that's one of the reasons I love speculative history. Moreso though when it's done by actual historians than random people on internet forums.

I do believe that paganism is the proper and original religion of our country but like millions before me we have been converted to the roman religion that is really nothing to do with our country
Ireland was a huge factor in bringing Christianity to mainland Britain. It is one of the rare spots of light during the dark ages.

wiki - Celtic Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity)

Indeed. As I said yesterday, alternative histories are mostly lunacy. Without Christianity it is hard to say what the Roman Empire would've used to glue itself together with during its demise, or what the Byzantine Empire would've been built upon. There are whole sections of history just eradicated. A million interpretations can come.

Paganism would have united the empire. Islam would not have existed, and we would still be pre industrial. sounds ok.

Who saved those before Jesus?
Don't think they wanted saving they were quite happy there belief worked well for them and did for thousands of years before Jesus came along, especially here in our country you only have to look at Stonehenge to see how dedicated they were.

Don't think they wanted saving they were quite happy there belief worked well for them and did for thousands of years before Jesus came along, especially here in our country you only have to look at Stonehenge to see how dedicated they were.

Begs the question really, if they were ok beforehand, was Jesus necessary?

Paganism would have united the empire.Paganism is not one religion though, it is a catch all term for thousands of different sets of beliefs.

Hell, there were loads of different religious sects within the city of rome by itself, let alone the entire empire.

Paganism is not one religion though, it is a catch all term for thousands of different sets of beliefs.

Hell, there were loads of different religious sects within the city of rome by itself, let alone the entire empire.
I know paganism is not an English word I think it is a Roman word not sure though, our belief here had a different God for different things and seasons, there are bits of the old beliefs mixed into our modern religion know.

Paganism is not one religion though, it is a catch all term for thousands of different sets of beliefs.

Hell, there were loads of different religious sects within the city of rome by itself, let alone the entire empire.

which only fell apart after Jesus came along:o

That was the Jews defending themselves from Roman occupation, the Jews didn't invade Rome.

Hmmm...Ok, I'll concede that one!..lol....But having said that, they can't be passifists either. They've had their fair share of altrecations.

Hmmm...Ok, I'll concede that one!..lol....But having said that, they can't be passifists either. They've had their fair share of altrecations.

I think the only thing that anyone is likely to condemn them for, would be to do with the Palestinians, and that disagreement wouldn’t have happened.

Hmmm...Ok, I'll concede that one!..lol....But having said that, they can't be passifists either. They've had their fair share of altrecations.

Jews ≠ State of Israel.

Begs the question really, if they were ok beforehand, was Jesus necessary?
As a christian I cant possibly go down the road of denial, but I do believe that there were a lot of reasonable religious beliefs swept away as a result of the christian advance.

I think the only thing that anyone is likely to condemn them for, would be to do with the Palestinians, and that disagreement wouldn’t have happened.

According to the bible the Jews/Isrealites used to go to war all the time. Moses even destroyed entire civilisations apparently, killing the men and even all the livestock and taking all of the women and children as slaves, all explicitly condoned and in some cases ordered by Yahweh of course.

So with all this debate. It seems the sticking point is whether or not we would be as advanced as we are now without Christianity. My view is that we would be. (humour me).......Would Jesus, if he turned up now, with the all the technological advances and tools we have now be given a second thought?

So with all this debate. It seems the sticking point is whether or not we would be as advanced as we are now without ChristianityTo be fair it's only one person suggesting that. Imagine how much more quickly biology, astronomy, and geology would have caught on without the Christian backlash against their discoveries, the scientific revolution may well have happened a few centuries earlier. But who knows, there's just far too many variables involved to have any idea at all what might have happened over a period as long as 2000 years.

Perhaps in order to get around that problem the new Messiah could be a Jesus-like figure and that way you could just have the world as it is now anyway.
Would Jesus, if he turned up now, with the all the technological advances and tools we have now be given a second thought?

Historical Jesus: No, of course not, he'd be just another religious nut in a sea of religious nuts. Perhaps he'd have a commune somewhere with a hundred followers or so.

Mythical Jesus: Yes of course, he'd just whip up a few miracles, give the money from the James Randi foundation to charity, and then tour the world showing off his miracles and earning new converts.

So with all this debate. It seems the sticking point is whether or not we would be as advanced as we are now without Christianity. My view is that we would be. (humour me).......Would Jesus, if he turned up now, with the all the technological advances and tools we have now be given a second thought?

Yes he would as I suggested way back on post #2 :)

Historical Jesus: No, of course not, he'd be just another religious nut in a sea of religious nuts. Perhaps he'd have a commune somewhere with a hundred followers or so.

Mythical Jesus: Yes of course, he'd just whip up a few miracles, give the money from the James Randi foundation to charity, and then tour the world showing off his miracles and earning new converts.

This. qft.

So with all this debate. It seems the sticking point is whether or not we would be as advanced as we are now without Christianity. My view is that we would be. (humour me).......Would Jesus, if he turned up now, with the all the technological advances and tools we have now be given a second thought?

List of people claimed to be Jesus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus)

He may have already been back but seemingly no one believed him.:D

Historical Jesus: No, of course not, he'd be just another religious nut in a sea of religious nuts. Perhaps he'd have a commune somewhere with a hundred followers or so.

Mythical Jesus: Yes of course, he'd just whip up a few miracles, give the money from the James Randi foundation to charity, and then tour the world showing off his miracles and earning new converts.

^
This

The only thing I would add is that mythical Jesus could plant the convincing evidence of his divinity in heads of everybody simultaneously, and instantaneously. It wouldn't matter how sceptical somebody was, that scepticism could be magicked away.

List of people claimed to be Jesus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus)

He may have already been back but seemingly no one believed him.:D

Exactly my point.......I don't think anyone would.....Not unless he could indeed perform 'miracles' which would impress us in this day and age.

Exactly my point.......I don't think anyone would.....Not unless he could indeed perform 'miracles' which would impress us in this day and age.

They would have to be significantly better miracles than his first visit.:)

They would have to be significantly better miracles than his first visit.:)

Quite! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kOQ2zvBfU)

Quite! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kOQ2zvBfU)

mmmm what was that all about. :D

They would have to be significantly better miracles than his first visit.:)

The Israelites were provided with pretty convincing evidence of God's existence (so we are told). A pillar of smoke by day, a pillar of fire by night, manna from heaven.

That'd convince many today, but it didn't stop them buggrin off to worship other gods back then.

So who knows?

:huh:

Hello all:D

I don't think the world would be as it is now without Jesus.

No I'm not a happy clapper.

It's just without christanity, we would not have had calvinists. No calvinists no industrial revolution ? It's not that big a stretch,

True, we would most likely still be pre industrial pagans, ripe for a Jesus?
Yes because the advent of widespread Christianity was followed by centuries of progress and development and certainly not stagnation and regression.

There's certainly no sense in which Christian teaching which emphasised the importance of received learning not enquiry and forbade usury in any way inhibited the technological and organisational developments needed for the industrial revolution to happen.

which only fell apart after Jesus came along:o
About 400 years after.

The Israelites were provided with pretty convincing evidence of God's existence (so we are told). A pillar of smoke by day, a pillar of fire by night, manna from heaven.

That'd convince many today, but it didn't stop them buggrin off to worship other gods back then.
Of all the absurdities in the bible that always strikes me of one of the most incredible. During the exodus from Egypt the fleeing Israelites witness the 10 plagues, the pillar of fire, the splitting of the Red Sea (from within the split)... yet all it takes is Moses to go off to confer with Yahweh for 5 minutes and they give up all their gold to make idols of completely different gods to worship :huh:

Does anyone seriously that a group of people at the centre of so many miracles would be atleast as faithful to the god who did all that stuff as say Jews throughout history who've been very faithful to their god despite a decided lack of miracles?

... yet all it takes is Moses to go off to confer with Yahweh for 5 minutes and they give up all their gold to make idols of completely different gods to worship :huh:

Maybe it was more to do with the thousands of people he massacred because they didn't worship his God

Strange how one mans message has had such an effect on the world. Good job Jesus was not a slave owning child rapist warlord etc, where would we be if we followed the words of a nutter like that? It's unimaginable.

Strange how one mans message has had such an effect on the world. Good job Jesus was not a slave owning child rapist warlord etc, where would we be if we followed the words of a nutter like that? It's unimaginable.

Strange how God didn't just tell Moses to spread that message the first time round, instead of telling him to kill thousands.

Strange how God didn't just tell Moses to spread that message the first time round, instead of telling him to kill thousands.

Jesus the man had a message of peace and love. Strip away all the rubbish since and that's what's left. If he had never been born what kind of world would we have now? Probably various forms of paganism, and in a pre industrial society. Imagine though if Jesus had been a blood nut and set out his stall accordingly. He is without sin cast the first stone would have become what? He who does not throw a stone hard enough gets it next?

Jesus the man had a message of peace and love. Strip away all the rubbish since and that's what's left. If he had never been born what kind of world would we have now? Probably various forms of paganism, and in a pre industrial society.Absolute nonsense.

Jesus had a message of fear: 'worship me or else my dad will see to it that you are tortured for all of eternity'.

And your assertion that the industrial revolution was a result of Christianity is completely absurd.

Imagine though if Jesus had been a blood nut and set out his stall accordingly.

Conversely, imagine how much suffering would be avoided if Jesus had condemned slavery, rather than implicitly endorsing it with his silence.

Strange how one mans message has had such an effect on the world. Good job Jesus was not a slave owning child rapist warlordA shame though that he didn't condemn either of those things. Jesus never had a bad word to say about slavery or rape, or even war.

Also, 'one man's message' is Christian myth, the gospels are the work of many different authors.

Jesus the man, had no-where near as much impact as say, Mohammed for example, who drastically changed the world himself in his own lifetime.

Absolute nonsense.

Jesus had a message of fear: 'worship me or else my dad will see to it that you are tortured for all of eternity'.

And your assertion that the industrial revolution was a result of Christianity is completely absurd.



Conversely, imagine how much suffering would be avoided if Jesus had condemned slavery, rather than implicitly endorsing it with his silence.

Wow! Try reading the sermon on the mount. And after that google Calvinism/industrial revolution :D or just keep making yourself look silly:o


Sorry.

Wow! Try reading the sermon on the mount.I've read it, its overrated. Are you going to deny that one of the most important parts of Jesus' message was

'worship me or else I will have you tortured'

And after that google Calvinism/industrial revolution :D or just keep making yourself look silly:o

Firstly, the Calvinists were not single handedly responsible for the industrial revolution, they are a relatively insignificant factor. Go read a book or two, the causes of the industrial revolution are not something you can understand after 10 minutes on wikipedia. :rolleyes:

Secondly, the very aspects of Calvinism that were ripe for capitalism (the usury) was explicitly condemned by Jesus. They were going directly against his teachings.

The Calvinists became industrialists in spite of Jesus, not because of him.

Also, I notice a complete lack of response to my point that Jesus simply was not good enough to condemn rape or slavery. If I was making a moral code, they'd be amongst the very first things I prohibited, I guess I'm just morally superior to Jesus.

Why have you quoted and responded to this..
Strange how God didn't just tell Moses to spread that message the first time round, instead of telling him to kill thousands.

with this..
Jesus the man had a message of peace and love. Strip away all the rubbish since and that's what's left. If he had never been born what kind of world would we have now? Probably various forms of paganism, and in a pre industrial society. Imagine though if Jesus had been a blood nut and set out his stall accordingly. He is without sin cast the first stone would have become what? He who does not throw a stone hard enough gets it next?

..?

What's the relevance to my post?

I've read it, its overrated. Are you going to deny that one of the most important parts of Jesus' message was

'worship me or else I will have you tortured'



Firstly, the Calvinists were not single handedly responsible for the industrial revolution, they are a relatively insignificant factor. Go read a book or two, the causes of the industrial revolution are not something you can understand after 10 minutes on wikipedia. :rolleyes:

Secondly, the very aspects of Calvinism that were ripe for capitalism (the usury) was explicitly condemned by Jesus. They were going directly against his teachings.

The Calvinists became industrialists in spite of Jesus, not because of him.

Ha ha ha :hihi: your funny.

Jesus in his words and actions gave the world he lived in a message of love. Jesus harmed no one, he was not a slave owner or warlord. I am right you are wrong. I have proved my argument you have stamped your feet.:loopy:

Why have you quoted and responded to this..


with this..


..?

What's the relevance to my post?

Erm,:huh: I'm on topic and your not?:huh:

Jesus in his words...never once condemned rape, slavery or war, either because he was too much of a coward or because he saw nothing wrong with them.

He also explicitly condemned the very things that the Calvinists did when the became industrialists.

...gave the world he lived in a message of love.He also threatened every single person on the planet with eternal torture if they didn't worship him, that is not how I would define love. Love is unconditional, you don't let people who you love be tortured.

I have proved my argument
You haven't addressed a single one of the points I've raised, not one. You've just repeated yourself three or four times, as if you've got your fingers stuck in your ears and you're going 'la la la I can't hear you'. Conversely I have tailored responses to each of your points. Don't be a troll.

...never once condemned rape, slavery or war, either because he was too much of a coward or because he saw nothing wrong with them.

He also explicitly condemned the very things that the Calvinists did when the became industrialists.

He also threatened every single person on the planet with eternal torture if they didn't worship him, that is not how I would define love. Love is unconditional, you don't let people who you love be tortured.


You haven't addressed a single one of the points I've raised, not one. You've just repeated yourself three or four times, as if you've got your fingers stuck in your ears and you're going 'la la la I can't hear you'. Conversely I have tailored responses to each of your points. Don't be a troll.

Provide some links then. You know to prove your statement.

Provide some links then. You know to prove your statement.I think my posts on this thread stand up well enough on their own. The things I have stated a priori are pretty obvious and/or common knowledge. The conclusions I've reached from these are dependent upon my own reasoning alone and thus do not need extra substantiation.

How about you either tell me either

a. Which factual statements I have made you think are wrong

or b. Where you think my reasoning is flawed.

Y'know, kind of like I did when I demolished your argument earlier.

Erm,:huh: I'm on topic and your not?:huh:

Are you for real?

In this thread we are assuming/imagining/hypothecising that Jesus was never born (which may actually be true, but that's irrelevant here).

My post suggested that God could have told Moses to spread Jesus' message in the first place, so he need not create/incarnate Jesus later on. Totally on topic.

YOUR post was off-topic, gushing about the message given by a man who never existed (as per thread topic).

If you quote someone's post, the response you give is generally meant to be relevant to it, by the way.

Are you for real?

No, clearly he isn't. Classic troll.

No, clearly he isn't. Classic troll.

Grahame III - Return Of The Religious Troll.:hihi:

Jesus on the subject of Hell

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html

It's long but good summary at the end.

Jesus on the subject of Hell

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html

It's long but good summary at the end.

Unfortunately its also biased and wrong.

It's extremely clear that when Jesus talks about hell he means an actual physical place where people actually are tortured for actual all eternity. It's not that its been taken out of context or anything like that, its very clear.

It's only wishy washy modern apologists who try and deny this.

Jesus the man had a message of peace and love.

Assuming Jesus actually existed, and that he's not just some greeko-judaic demi god created by the religious and political powers of the times, Jesus, according to the bible, clearly states he wasn't a man with a message of peace(read Matthew 10:34-37).

He is without sin cast the first stone would have become what? He who does not throw a stone hard enough gets it next?

Despite what you have been led to believe, it's well-known amongst biblical scholars and theologians that the cast the first stone story was a 5th century addition to the bible. It doesn't appear in the earliest of reliable texts. So Jesus more than likely never even uttered those words.

Jesus in his words and actions gave the world he lived in a message of love.

If you've read Matthew 10:34-37, and noted many of "his" other texts, you'll soon find he didn't give the world a message of peace and love.

Jesus harmed no one

Only if you ignore three-quarters of the bible.

Calvinists and the industrial revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber#The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_C apitalism

Clear enough?

Jesus on the subject of Hell

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html

It's long but good summary at the end.

This is some of what according to the bible Jesus said people were condemned to:

Mark 9:43-49 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[a] 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'[c] 49Everyone will be salted with fire.

Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Luke 16:22-24 22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: [B]the rich man also died, and was buried; 23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Calvinists and the industrial revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber#The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_C apitalism

Clear enough?

No not at all.

I'm not denying that the Calvinists had an impact on the industrial revolution, they did.

What I am denying (and what you have completely failed to substantiate) is without them the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened at all.

Also, and more importantly, that the Calvinists becoming industrialists had absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, and in fact, went directly against them. They became industrialists in spite of Jesus, not because of him.

Also, you've never read that book, you just saw someone else mention it earlier in the thread and are now trying to pretend that you were already aware of it, you are transparent.

Ha ha ha :hihi: your funny.

Jesus in his words and actions gave the world he lived in a message of love. Jesus harmed no one, he was not a slave owner or warlord. I am right you are wrong. I have proved my argument you have stamped your feet.:loopy:
Here's some more of Jesus' message:

Matthew 11:20-24 20Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

21Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Can't you just feel the "love".

http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Matthew-10-34-36

Explains Matthew 10 34 36

http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Matthew-10-34-36

Explains Matthew 10 34 36
Jesus and the Interpreter. A modern-day christian helps Jesus get started. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s)

Hello all:D

I don't think the world would be as it is now without Jesus.

No I'm not a happy clapper.

It's just without christanity, we would not have had calvinists. No calvinists no industrial revolution ? It's not that big a stretch,

Post 34 I first introduce calvinists.

Post 34 I first introduce calvinists.

And the post is claptrap, at best.

And the post is claptrap, at best.

What a powerful and master debater you are.


I'll make it simple for you

No Jesus

No Christians

No calvinists

No industrial revolution.

Links provided a number of times.

As a side issue, I said imagine if Jesus was not a man of peace and love, with a message of peace and love, but a warlord slave owning child rapist mass murderer? As many of the time were. I said the world we live in would most likely not say, he who is without sin cast the first stone. Rather he who does not throw the stone hard enough gets it next.

Google sermon on the mount.

Jesus harmed no one and lived by his words.

No Jesus

No Christians

No calvinists

No industrial revolution.
The fourth line does not follow from the third.

And even if it did, you would still be wrong because the Calvinists becoming industrialists had absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, and in fact, went directly against them.


As a side issue, I said imagine if Jesus was not a man of peace and loveThere wouldn't really be all that much difference, seeing as throughout the history of Christianity Christians have had no problem at all with ignoring what Jesus said and changing their interpretations to suit the morals of the day.

http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Matthew-10-34-36

Explains Matthew 10 34 36

So, rather than be bothered to actually study the texts yourself, you've taken the time to let some apologists explain for you instead. Are you sure you are serious about your beliefs?

Again, Jesus clearly states he hadn't come to bring peace. He clearly states he has come to set people against each other. A peaceful man would do the opposite.

Where the hell would you find a virgin in this day and age?:confused: