This is a handout photo, released on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 by the British Broadcasting Corp., showing a computer-generated image of what Jesus may have looked like. The photo is part of a BBC documentary television series' attempt at a purely scientific investigation into the Messiah of Christendom. For the series, this computer-generated image was created to suggest what Jesus' face might have looked like, contrary to the fair-skinned and fine-featured image familiar since medieval times. (AP Photo/BBC/RED VISION,HO) MANDATORY CREDIT BBC; ONE TIME USE ONLY; NO ARCHIVES, NO SALES; MAGAZINES OUT EDS NOTE: This copyright image may be used only to publicize the current BBC programs or other BBC output. Any other use whatsoever without specific prior approval from the BBC may result in legal action.

-- (just@regular.dude), March 28, 2001

Answers

Needs a shave and a haircut. What did they use for scissors and Bic razors in those days?

-- (McDonald's wouldn't @ hire. him), March 28, 2001.

[What did they use for scissors and Bic razors in those days?]

for Jesus, some form of torture by Roman soldiers

Isaiah 50 - "...I gave My back to those who strike Me, And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting....I have set My face like flint..."

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 28, 2001.

http://www.jesuslaughing.com/

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 28, 2001.

...showing a computer-generated image of what Jesus may have looked like.

Computer generated from some historical source like, say, the Shroud of Turin...or computer generated according to some artist's imagination?

-- (a@key.point), March 28, 2001.

...computer generated such that publicity and discussion might be developed so as to spur interest in the upcoming TV show, so that producers and techs and others involved might be able to earn more money and buy nicer cars. That sort of Jesus head, and that sort of 'purely scientific investigation.'

-- jerry (jcarruthers@sopwithcamel.com), March 28, 2001.

for, bygrace.

-- (i like this @ one. too), March 28, 2001.

Well, it's more plausible than the blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus you see in most churches...

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@Swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 28, 2001.

Tarzan, how would you know what the inside of a church looked like? Don't you mock believers from the comfort of your living room? If you had visited many churches, you'd see that the most paintings or art depict Christ as having brown hair and brown eyes... though most do have his skin several shades lighter than might be expected. But, hey, don't let things like first-hand observations get in the way of being a smug, self-satisified prick.

-- Just (moreofTarzan@bullshit.com), March 28, 2001.

Tarzan, how would you know what the inside of a church looked like? Don't you mock believers from the comfort of your living room?

Actually, religion and religious belief fascinates me. While I myself don't share that belief, I think that the process of belief, and how one acquires that belief, to be a very interesting aspect of the human condition. I've been to several churches and other places of worship, but always as a visitor, never as a member.

If you had visited many churches, you'd see that the most paintings or art depict Christ as having brown hair and brown eyes... though most do have his skin several shades lighter than might be expected.

In your experience. In my experience, I've seen depictions Jesus with reddish brown hair, but I've also seen plenty of depictions as a blonde aryan.

But, hey, don't let things like first-hand observations get in the way of being a smug, self-satisified prick.

Oh, I get it now. My first-hand observations are invalid, but yours are to be taken as gospel truth. Well why didn't you say so?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 28, 2001.

Ah, the inevitable Tarzan shuffle. You made a sweeping statement about "most" churches. Most implies more than half. There are Christian churches in every one of the 251 countries in the world. I am quite certain you have only visited a tiny fraction of the world's churches or gazed upon a fraction of religious art. My statement only referred to my personal observations and did not make the grandiose claim of "most." I do not doubt that you saw some Aryan depictions of Christ... just as I have seen black, hispanic and impressionistic versions of Christ. You play the intellectual, but you're really just a sack of tired opinions girded in a thesaurus.

-- Even (morebullshit@Tarzan.com), March 28, 2001.

Wow. Semantics and invective. How can one stand up to such a withering attack?

Seriously though, it's a good first effort, but it lacks substance. Your homework assignment is to go back to the drawing board and try again. Good luck!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 28, 2001.

Oy veh, Jesus is such a nice Jewish boy.

-- (Barbra@LEFT.profile_only), March 28, 2001.

FLint looks like Jesus looks like FLint? What does Flint think about this?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 28, 2001.

Hi Tarzan,

I too am fascinated by the human condition and learning why people believe what they believe. I has been my experience that people go whole hog for religion for a couple of reasons:

1. They were indoctrinated as children when they were to immature to distinguish fantasy from reality (as all children are).

2. If they become "believers" as adults, it is probably due to a couple of reasons:

A. They had a tragedy occur in their life. That tragedy shook them to their core and which made them need something to hang on to. For this reason, a belief in "God" does help some people.

B. They are dependent on someone who is a "believer" and don't want to rock the boat.

C. They are afraid of what is going to happen to them after they die, thus the need for "eternal life".

Don't get me wrong, I am not an atheist so I don't scoff at our resident believers. But I do have to wonder how some people can buy into such garbage as turning wine into blood, rising from the dead and so on. I scored a 27 on cins test so you can conclude from that that I do believe we have a soul but I think it is paramount to each of us to find out what that means. I think it is intellectual, spiritual and emotional laziness that makes people believe anything they read as gospel. But, then again, maybe they have had their psyche bruised so badly the pain is too great to explore the God- given intellect they have.

This is a subject people are never going to agree on, but I appreciate your posts and I'll stick my nose back in once in a while.

Thanks

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 28, 2001.

1. They were indoctrinated as children when they were to immature to distinguish fantasy from reality (as all children are).

That doesn't apply to me, not really. I had a very strong sense of God from earliest childhood. My mother was a Christian, but my father (at that time) never darkened the door of a church except for weddings and funerals.

Nor does this explain how people such as Madeline O'Haire's son should become Christians. If anything, he was "indoctrinated" the OTHER way. It obviously didn't "stick." :)

It also doesn't explain evangelism and missions, which routinely convert people who were raised in radically different belief systems.

IMNSHO, the "indoctrination" theory sounds logical on its face, but it isn't terribly well-supported by empirical evidence. There are too many exceptions, and one must examine each exception to see WHY it occurred, thus gaining real clues into why people believe as they do.

A. They had a tragedy occur in their life. That tragedy shook them to their core and which made them need something to hang on to. For this reason, a belief in "God" does help some people.

This is true in many cases, absolutely. But there are some adults who simply decide to investigate and become believers in God as a result. C. S. Lewis is a good example.

Paul Tipler (physicist, author of Physics Of Immortality), while not a Christian, is another example; he abandoned his atheism on the basis of cosmological evidence for God's existence. In fact, he now argues that religion should become a branch of physics! (He apparently has a poor opinion of theologians ... [g])

B. They are dependent on someone who is a "believer" and don't want to rock the boat.

Also granted. But the key is to watch these people when the relationship ends. Many of them continue to be "believers" and in fact, become more attached to their faiths. They obviously found something satisfying in that belief system.

C. They are afraid of what is going to happen to them after they die, thus the need for "eternal life".

Can't argue with this one, either. I'm personally familiar with a host of such cases.

But you can't make sweeping generalizations; faith is an intensely personal thing and just about every case (speaking from experience) is different in some respect.

Don't get me wrong, I am not an atheist so I don't scoff at our resident believers. But I do have to wonder how some people can buy into such garbage as turning wine into blood, (I think you meant "water into wine") rising from the dead and so on.

If you do believe in a God who intervenes in the affairs of men, then it's not that hard to accept that miracles have occurred. Those of us who have experienced "remarkable coincidences" especially have no trouble believing in miracles.

I'll relate (just one of) my own. I was young and foolish and Dad had just bought a slick new motorcycle. I took it down Dairy Road and hit the hairpin turn WAY too fast; the tires slipped on some gravel and I was headed toward the ditch. I just had time to scream something like, "Jesus, help!" [g] when I went through the windshield/fairing and blacked out.

When I came to, I was lying in the ditch with my head on my folded arms, my helmet had been unstrapped and was placed beside me and my glasses were folded neatly by my arm, just as if I had been taking a nice nap.

There wasn't a scratch on me, but the bike was nearly totalled. I wasn't even in pain.

A woman comes along and says, "you need a ride?" No questions, no "Wha' happened here," just, "you need a ride?"

All the way to the house, she talked about how great God was. She let me out and I looked at the front door, then turned to thank and wave goodbye.

There was no sign of her or the car. I looked both ways up and down the street (a clear view of at least 1/4 mile in each direction); nothing.

Now, that doesn't prove anything. Everything that happened to me could be coincidence. Maybe while I was "blacked out," I unconsciously did the things I normally do when taking a nap; this explains the neat placement of things around me. Maybe I was confused and more time passed between my getting out of her car and turning back to say "thanks." Who knows?

One such incidence can have an effect on you, but when things like this happen repeatedly over the years, you DO begin to wonder. My life is full of such little "coincidences."

I think it is intellectual, spiritual and emotional laziness that makes people believe anything they read as gospel.

And I would FULLY agree with you there, with the provisio that it works both ways. When you begin with the strong assumption that Christianity is WRONG, you, too, will tend to reject any evidence to the contrary. People is people.

What amuses me, as a strong believer, is the conceit on the part of non-believers that something HAD to have gone "wrong," or that I am not as intelligent as I appear, or etc., etc., to explain my conversion and subsequent faith in Jesus as God.

The real answer never even occurs to them: that perhaps, just possibly, there really IS a God and that He wants to know us personally.

When I asked God to forgive me and "come into my heart," something so profound and unexplainable occurred that you'd be more likely to convince me that my wife doesn't exist. I KNOW that God exists, not because of any testable empirical evidence, but by my own experience.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 28, 2001.

*Everything that happened to me could be coincidence.*

If it wasn't coincidence you are favored over most men -- including Jesus. Why do you think that is?

One other question:

If you were "saved" by God that day, do you ever need to go to a doctor again? Why did he save you and not Jesus?

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 28, 2001.

Sorry. I realize that was more than one question. [g]

I just have one more observation to make. You said that you just had time to scream something like, "Jesus, help!" before you hit. That tells me that you were already predisposed to believing Jesus might help you. If I believed in aliens and I screamed something like, "Aliens, help!", before I crashed I would probably think that aliens saved me. And for me, that would be PROOF! Just as yours is for you.

We need to have proof that everyone can agree on.

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 28, 2001.

Everyone seems to be concentrating on the fact that the image shows a dark-skinned man with rather coarse dark hair and an unkempt beard. What I find most interesting about the image is the expression the artist chose - a beseeching, almost haunted look, like a non-combatant trying to survive in a war zone.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 28, 2001.

Thanks for the pic. Perhaps that was Jesus response to Peter when he said, "I'll never deny you, Lord."

(Devil m@y .care), not sure about your last question. If you're referring to the cross, I don't see how He could have saved Him from the cross without being a liar.

Little Nipper - yes, I was trying to figure how to describe that look. I could imagine Jesus with a similar expression in the garden of Gethsemane.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 28, 2001.

Tarzan,

Why bother with a substantive reply to a flip comment? My response has already exceeded the intellectual depth of your "most churches depict an Aryan Christ" nonsense by several fathoms... and that's not saying much. Stay with glib and mocking, Tarzan. I it suits you far better than actual discourse.

Poole,

At last an intelligent parsing of religious faith. As was written on another thread, one man stares into the void and sees nothing. Another man sees the face of God. The cynical intellectuals like Tarzan, Flint and Devil treat religion as if it is inflicted on unfortunate children. Some poor toddler hears about God and is forever handicapped by faith.

As for your questions, Devil, I don't think any man can claim to understand the mysteries of God. Even Flint and Tarzan have yet to obtain omniscience, though one could hardly tell from their writing. If the existence of God could be conclusively proven, we would have no need for faith. If one could deduce the existence of God by the immunity of Christians (or any other religion) from death, disease or hangnails, the same applies. There would be no need for faith if you pump a Christian full of bullets and have him walking around a few minutes later.

The intervention of God, if Poole's experience was such an event, is seemingly random enough to keep us all guessing. Ergo, the belief in God requires Kirkegaard's leap of faith. Why does God not reveal himself absolutely? I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Personally, I think it's about free will. As long as God remains mysterious, men can choose to believe or not. If He made daily appearances on talk shows, if the evidence were incontrovertible... where is our freedom? It is the inability to truly prove God that makes freedom possible, and faith necessary.

We can grub about and shuffle off the mortal coil in some fourscore years. By Tarzan's and Flint's standards man is nothing more than a particularly clever animal--a species of carbon-based life forms that reproduce well and have an unusual facility for tool making. For others, man has a soul, a spiritual self. The process of faith allows us to grow spiritually, precisely because we cannot use the illumination of reason as a guide.

-- The (sameold@stuff.org), March 28, 2001.

Your post is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing save your dislike for Tarzan. Get thee to a nunnery!

-- Will (shakespeare@hamlet.not), March 28, 2001.

I'd rather get me to a noonery.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 28, 2001.

bygrace,

"If you're referring to the cross, I don't see how He could have saved Him from the cross without being a liar. "

Will you please tell me if it's true that the Bible says that in the end Jesus said to God, "Why do thou forsake me?"

I'd like to make one simple statement about faith that those of you who cling to faith so adamantly will not understand, but may help you to understand us. Most of us believe that:

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith.

Until we can come up with something more substantial than a "belief" we're doomed to argue forever. Please don't get me wrong, I'm searching for answers. Like I said earlier I believe we all have souls, but that's not something we can prove. How do I know? Because I know there is something here besides my body. How does it fit with the universe? I don't know. All I know is there is something more and if we can't find a way to prove it, mankind will always be at each others throats arguing their "beliefs".

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 28, 2001.

Devil,

I don't think science offers any hope of having a species that stops arguing. Get a dozen scientists in a room and you can have a donnybrook of an argument. To believe is God is not to abandon reason. Many devout Christians have made extraordinary contributions in the realms of science and logic. Faith is the acknowledgement that science does not explain everything in the universe. It is seeing the hand of God in the complexities of life.

Faith is not a blindness, but a vision. The key to harmony is not proving the existence or nonexistence of God. It is in embracing value systems that emphasis tolerance and respect. Science cannot teach us compassion, understanding, warmth or love... although it can make a tasty milkshake or fix a flat tire.

If you go back to the actual teaching of Christ, you will find the work a revolutionary philosopher. Love one another. Minister to the poor, the sick, the outcasts. Give up material pursuits and engage in the spiritual. These are extraordinary thoughts and part of the reason Christianity has endured for two thousand years. Christian or not, if more people followed the teaching of Christ we'd have a happier, more peaceful planet.

-- Just (another@believes.com), March 28, 2001.

Same Old Stuff,

Well, I felt like I HAD to say something because of the "religious indoctrination" idea that has appeared here frequently of late. Like I said, it's one of those things that sounds reasonable on its face, but isn't supported by a great deal of empirical evidence. The largely "Christian" Western world has a "tainted" test field because MOST of us are at least partly "indoctrinated" in some form of Judeo-Christian-Moslem belief in childhood.

I didn't even mention a better test case: my wife Sandy. She was raised in anything BUT a Christian environment, and yet, had a strong faith in Christ when I met her.

Devil may care:

If it wasn't coincidence you are favored over most men -- including Jesus. Why do you think that is?

You asking me a question the premise for which I disagree to start with, but I'll get to that in a moment. The short answer is, I don't know. I have also had a host of prayers that were answered with a resounding "NO" (most recently, just yesterday, in fact). I think most believers have experienced this.

If you were "saved" by God that day, do you ever need to go to a doctor again?

Of course and I wouldn't expect otherwise. If I have a headache, I take Tylenol. If I have an infection, I go to the doctor for some antibiotics, same as most people.

One must factor NEED into the request. If I were trapped on a deserted island with nothing to eat, I might pray for God to help me find food. But here in the United States? Hey, if I'm too lazy to work (or apply for public assistance, if I'm unable to gain employment) and go to the grocery store, that would just be my own sorriness.

Why did he save you and not Jesus?

Jesus came for a mission: to die for our sins. If you're familiar with the Gospel accounts of his arrest, trial and execution, you might recall that Jesus himself even pointed out that he could have asked for a "legion of angels" to come rescue him at any time. He didn't because He knew his mission and intended to complete it.

You said that you just had time to scream something like, "Jesus, help!" before you hit. That tells me that you were already predisposed to believing Jesus might help you.

Of course I was! I don't know why you'd think otherwise. I said in the opening paragraph that I was very conscious of God as a child, did I not? Yes, I was a Christian at the time of the accident.

If I believed in aliens and I screamed something like, "Aliens, help!", before I crashed I would probably think that aliens saved me.

But ONLY if the same set of "coincidences" occurred in your case. Find me someone who has so yelled and who had the same thing happen as did to me, and I'll be glad to discuss it. Until then ...

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 28, 2001.

Damn, just another. That was beautiful; you got me in the heart there. I agree science can't teach us everything and I agree that we should learn from Jesus to be patient and love one another. I kindof wonder about this statement you made though:

* Love one another. Minister to the poor, the sick, the outcasts. Give up material pursuits and engage in the spiritual.*

Just what exactly should people minister to the poor, the sick and the outcasts? Love and patience? What good does love and patience do a poor person? No matter how good your intentions are when you "minister", all they really want is a meal and a safe place to be. Will your ministering provide them that? I am, of course, being somewhat (but not all) facetious here. But really, wouldn't the best way to honor Jesus be to live your life honorably, honestly and when people ask how did you how did you get to be such a wonderful person, answer, "Jesus showed me the way?" It seems to me that doing that would do so much more for Christians to show Jesus they love him than spewing forth all the hokus pokus that is found in the Bible. I know that I would respect those Christians much more than the hellfire and damnation xians. I think the fundies do a terrible disservice to Jesus when people like me search and find people frothing at the mouth.

Damn, you've given me alot to think about. I'll check in with you later.

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 28, 2001.

We seem to have two arguments here in favor of God:

1) Nobody can prove he does NOT exist.

2) Some people have had experiences for which they find supernatural explanations easiest. Disturbingly, these experiences tend to go unwitnessed or (as in Stephen's case) the only possible witness was herself part of the supernatural. Dang!

Well, the first is simply a logical error. As for the second, as "stuff" points out, these cases are exceedingly rare, cannot be replicated, are never recorded on film, etc. The parallels between Stephen's experience and the (equally persuasive) alien abduction stories are striking. The abductees' tales survive deep hypnosis, even. Is this not proof?

Now, I sincerely believe the *possibility* that reality is strange beyond imagining, and that there are major aspects of it "out there" which intersect what we've learned how to observe in unpredictable ways, times, and places. But these things (if they are real in some sense) are God in action no more than UFO's are alien spaceships. They are all simply unidentified or unexplained.

So we're working toward a God of the Gaps -- a handy dandy supernatural explanation for everything we think we experience, but for which we don't yet have a good explanation. People are simply not comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer. We want GOOD answers, and '"We don't understand" isn't an answer at all. "God", now, *there's* an answer. It satisfies. No more uncomfortable gaps in our knowledge. But as those gaps shrink, so does God.

Also tied in are probabilities, which we don't like either. Probability gives us some idea of how often we can expect to see something really unusual, how often coincidence will seem beyond normal. But we reject this, prefering to find God in the coincidences. We like good, clear, unambiguous answers, even when such answers are not possible. In that case, we *create* them. "God" is a good one. Works every time.

Needless to say, I won't accept a God of the Gaps. So far, though not without great effort, we've derived consistent and replicable explanations for nearly everything we've encountered in the observable universe, and God is not necessary. There is no compelling reason to believe we'll need such a construct any time in the future as we improve our understanding. Sure, God is *possible* as a creator. So is the Great Green Arkleseizure. Neither is required.

However, I have no problem with (as I see it) using "God" as a way to quell nameless fears, as a way to make death more palatable, as a meaning-free answer to poorly formed questions, as a way to personify the natural awe we all feel at the marvel of nature, even as a kind of "referee in the sky" to enforce and provide a context or backdrop for a personal sense of right and wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 28, 2001.

Well, Flint, I can understand how it is difficult to believe in God. Having another ominiscient being in the universe may seem a bit crowded for you.

-- It's (Flint@divine.com), March 28, 2001.

Devil-

I think many people have a need for magic and mystery in their lives, so they believe in things that appeal to their sense of wonder, like transubstantiation, the Loch Ness monster, milk-giving statues and the virgin birth. I don't consider this a character flaw, only a curiosity. I think your theory on how people come to be believers is a bit simplistic and too focused on religion- there's a lot of other ephemeral stuff people believe in, like ghosts, aliens, monsters, etc. that your theory doesn't encompass, yet the mechanism of belief is similar. BTW- you mention you're not an atheist. How would you describe yourself?

Stephen-

No offense, but I think you're looking for a miracle in this case. Head trauma and shock leads to gaps in a person's perception and memory. I know this because I myself had a severe head trauma when I was an adolescent. When I was twelve, I dove head first into a swimming hole without checking the depth (or checking for water moccasins for that matter). I hit bottom and all but broke my neck. I came floating up to the surface. Fortunately, my cousins and my siblings were there (at least I wasn't dumb enough to swim alone!) and they pulled me out. My dad's a doctor, so all of us knew rudimentary first aid, like CPR. One of my cousins ran to get help. I remember waking up and seeing my grandmother standing over me, smiling and telling me to get out of bed, then I remember hearing the voice of the EMTs telling me to lie still while they slipped a board under my neck. My vision of my grandmother was just an illusion- she was actually five miles away ripping peas with my mother. Neither of them had any kind of inkling I was in any trouble 'til my dad called from the hospital. Of course, grandma thought it was a miracle I didn't die, 'til the doctor told her the muddy bottom was what really kept me from breaking my neck.

Little Nipper-

Good point, I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, he looks pretty traumatized.

Same old stuff-

Make a ridiculous assertation, get proven wrong, hurl some invective, get ignored, declare victory. I see now why you don't rely on reason.

Flint-

Well said.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 29, 2001.

(Devil m@y .care),

>>>>>Will you please tell me if it's true that the Bible says that in the end Jesus said to God, "Why do thou forsake me?"

Yes, He cried out repeatedly, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

>>>>>>>Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith.

Yes, that's the kind of faith a person would need to believe in Christ as their personal Savior.....

>>>>Until we can come up with something more substantial than a "belief" we're doomed to argue forever.

I certainly can't provide you with any proof. What, if anything, would you consider substantial evidence?

>>>Please don't get me wrong,

ditto.

>>>I'm searching for answers.

I doubt we're asking the same questions, but I'm searching too.

>>>>>All I know is there is something more and if we can't find a way to prove it, mankind will always be at each others throats arguing their "beliefs".

like sameold@stuff.org said, "....If the existence of God could be conclusively proven, we would have no need for faith. "

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 29, 2001.

bygrace, I'm getting confused. I said to Poole, "If it wasn't coincidence you are favored over most men -- including Jesus. Why do you think that is?"

and

"If you were "saved" by God that day, do you ever need to go to a doctor again? Why did he save you and not Jesus?"

then you said,

If you're referring to the cross, I don't see how He could have saved Him from the cross without being a liar.

and

Yes, He cried out repeatedly, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

The reason I asked those questions is because it doesn't make ANY sense that God saved Poole and not Jesus. Apparently Jesus thought God was going to save him or he wouldn't have cried out repeatedly, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Doesn't that make your God a liar then? Doesn't that also make Poole delusional?

>>>>>>>Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith.

Yes, that's the kind of faith a person would need to believe in Christ as their personal Savior.....

You've lost me now. I can't talk with someone who rejects their intellect.

I certainly can't provide you with any proof. What, if anything, would you consider substantial evidence?

A visit from God, Jesus or you next to my bed tonight at 8:00 ;)

I doubt we're asking the same questions, but I'm searching too.

Good luck with your search. I hope we all find what we're looking for.

>>>>>All I know is there is something more and if we can't find a way to prove it, mankind will always be at each others throats arguing their "beliefs".

like sameold@stuff.org said, "....If the existence of God could be conclusively proven, we would have no need for faith. "

Have you ever wondered why your God want to toy with us and not just let us know of his existence from the start? He doesn't seem like a God of Love to me. Love is unconditional and unconfusing.

Take care.

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 29, 2001.

"I know this because I myself had a severe head trauma when I was an adolescent" Oh THAT explains it!

Flint, you believe that God doesn't exist. That's your belief and no more valid than a belief that God does exist. (When society believe that the world was flat, it was just as valid as a belief that the world was round. After the proof came, then society accepted the truth.) You accept that there is no higher purpose than "I want to do my best and be my best". I believe there's more to life than just the material world, no proof. I've found a nice explanation of why we seek to have relationships, why we strive for peace, why we have passions, and why we want to do and be our best. It's nice that you don't need any imaginary explanation, that you just follow your passions. Whatever gets you there is fine with me. But we (you and me) still end up at the same place. I guess we'll never know the answers.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 29, 2001.

If there weren't people who valued science over religion, noone would have bothered to prove the earth was flat. If people believe (like Poole) that "devine intervention" exists, there probably wouldn't be the advances in medicine that we have. Heck, if all it took was to declare myself "Christian" to keep from getting hurt, I'd become a believer right away. Everybody knows that is BS, right? There is no such thing as devine intervention and noone is favored. We all get hurt and we all die. People just wish they had a "Father Protector".

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 29, 2001.

If there weren't people who valued science over religion, noone would have bothered to prove the earth was flat. If people believe (like Poole) that "devine intervention" exists, there probably wouldn't be the advances in medicine that we have.

Now that's where we strongly disagree, and I don't really have to prove that this is incorrect: history provides all of the proof that you should need. Some of the greatest discoveries ever have come from people who were strong believers in God. Their motivation? They studied nature because they believed that, in doing so, they were learning about His creation.

This is especially the case in medicine, where Believers have worked just as hard as anyone else to combat illness and suffering for centuries. To this day, when missionairies go into a new field, they build schools and MEDICAL facilities almost from the git-go.

This is pure predjudice on your part; it's NOT supported by an objective look at the historical record. Even today, there are many believing scientists in all branches of the art who work just as hard and just as objectively as any non-believing scientist.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 29, 2001.

So long as we have a good method for figuring out what works and what does not, for identifying and rejecting snake oil, for understanding *why* things work or don't to build on from there, what difference does the nominal religion of the scientist matter?

The claim that religion may have *increased* our curiosity about how the world works is probably self-serving. Motivations vary all over the map, and religion's net effect is more likely a wash.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 29, 2001.

>>>>The reason I asked those questions is because it doesn't make ANY sense that God saved Poole and not Jesus.

Jesus didn't sin; He is the Savior, so He wouldn't have needed that kind of salvation. I don't see how God the Father could have saved God the Son, without being a liar. God had known in advance and decreed the plan of redemption in the old testament. He said it would happen that way. If it didn't, He would have been lying.

>>>>Apparently Jesus thought God was going to save him or he wouldn't have cried out repeatedly, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

That's not apparent to me. That phrase was prophecied in Ps 22, along with many other details of the crucifixion. I imagine He said it because He was in complete anguish having been separated from God for the first time in all of eternity.

>>>> Doesn't that make your God a liar then?

"if" that were true, I suppose it would.

>>>>Doesn't that also make Poole delusional?

I can't speak for Stephen's or anyone else's delusions, but I delude myself frequently.

>>>>Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith.

Yes, that's the kind of faith a person would need to believe in Christ as their personal Savior.....

>>>>You've lost me now.

I lost you? I didn't realize I had you at one time. :) That was my example of your definition of faith. (I actually thought you'd agree with it...oops) I could have said - Yes, that's the kind of faith a blind person would need to believe that a stranger would guide them safely across a busy street(does this match your definition of faith?) But the stranger can't make the blind see, so I used a different example.

>>>>I can't talk with someone who rejects their intellect.

I didn't mean to imply that was my only definition of faith. I see faith as an act of belief....at least I think I do...not quite sure how to articulate it though. By your definition of faith, are you saying that you don't have faith of any kind?

I certainly can't provide you with any proof. What, if anything, would you consider substantial evidence?

>>>>A visit from God, Jesus or you next to my bed tonight at 8:00 ;)

;) - I'm not sure if that means you're only 1/2 kidding....so I'll respond. Jesus is God. He will be next to your bed tonight at 8:00, whichever time zone your bed happens to be in. I doubt you will see Him there, unless you close you eyes, so to speak. Thankfully, He doesn't require me to give substantial evidence.......Supposing that you had such a visit from Him, is there anything Jesus could say that would lead you to believe that He died for you? What would you ask Him...anything?

>>>>Good luck with your search.

I don't know about luck.... but thanks.

>>>>>I hope we all find what we're looking for.

I hope we can all look outside of ourselves for the answers that can't be found within.

>>>>>>Have you ever wondered why your God want to toy with us and not just let us know of his existence from the start?

yes, I used to. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Ro 1)

>>>>He doesn't seem like a God of Love to me.

Me neither, if I look at it that way. But He's not just the God of love, He is love.

>>>>Love is unconditional and unconfusing.

It is.

>>>>Take care.

My Father takes good care of me.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 29, 2001.

"Jesus didn't sin"

How odd. It is apparent that Jesus took human form. It is also said that all humanity is sinful. What is the point of being "human", if one is completely inhuman in all one's actions and experiences?

This is intrigues me. Please answer, as I would lovee to hear what the appropriately "Christian" answer is to this apparent paradox.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 29, 2001.

I read about this the other day and searched for the LINK.

The skull of a Jewish man from a 1st-century burial and the latest forensic techniques were used for the computer-generated image.

snip

The skull used for the reconstruction was among a group of skeletons found by accident by a road construction team in Jerusalem. Israeli archaeologists identified the burial site as Jewish by the alignment of the graves and artefacts found near the graves. They dated them to the 1st century.

The group’s skulls were distinct from others dated to different periods of history and from different regional tribal groups. Professor Joe Zygas, of the Israeli archaeology team, selected one of the skulls as the most representative of the group.

“The Israeli experts selected one which they believed was typical of the kind of person who would have lived in that area at that time,” said Mr Neave. “Reconstruction is a very well-accepted method of identifying bodies and is very successful because the shape of the skull gives the shape of the face — including the eyebrows, the nose and jawline. Superficial features like the hair, beard and skin colour are added later.”

The BBC used 1st and 3rd-century frescoes of Christ found in synagogues in northern Iraq to give their Jesus short curly hair and a trimmed beard. The skin colour was determined by the known climate of the time.

Jean Claude Bragard, producer of Son of God, said: “Using archaeological and anatomical science rather than artistic interpretation makes this the most accurate likeness ever created. It isn’t the face of Jesus, because we were not working with the skull of Jesus, but it is the departure point for reconsidering what Jesus would have looked like.”

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), March 29, 2001.

Whoa - how did I miss this? Flint - is this how you look?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), March 30, 2001.

Devil, what bullshit. Love is almost never unconditional and almost always confusing. Would you still "unconditionally" love your friend if you found out his secret hobby was molesting and torturing children? What if it was your child he buried under his porch?

Flint, nominal? Religion must look pretty small seeing it through one nostril. From a "rational," it makes sense to weed out genetically "inferior" children and eliminate members of society who can no longer serve in a productive capacity. It may be more efficient to assign persons to jobs rather than allow them to choose one their own. The same applies to education. Perhaps a society of technocrats running the world is the most "rational" form of social organization.

You cannot prove democracy is superior to the dictatorship of an enlightened philosopher-king. You cannot prove that it is rational to allow every person a vote. All of your libertarian political values, Flint, are just another form of religion unjustified by science... nominal or not.

Nipper, are you really interested or are you just playing Flint and Tarzan's game?

-- More (and@more.com), March 30, 2001.

LOL, more and more! You must not have any children to think one can't love a molester or murderer. True Love is NOT confusing and I'm sorry you've never experienced it. I hope you do someday. It is the most liberating feeling on earth.

bygrace,

can't speak for Stephen's or anyone else's delusions, but I delude myself frequently.

At least you admit it. ;)

By your definition of faith, are you saying that you don't have faith of any kind?

That was a good question that I had to think about for a long time. I don't have faith of any kind. I think what you call faith, I call hope.

is there anything Jesus could say that would lead you to believe that He died for you?

I already believe he died for me. I believe he died for everyone so he could teach us about love and patience. I believe he died for what he believed in and that makes him one of the greatest men who ever lived in my estimation. But, that doesn't make him God by a long stretch.

What would you ask Him...anything?

My answer would take too long to post today.

I hope we can all look outside of ourselves for the answers that can't be found within.

I agree. I think we have to look outside for answers, but I think we need to work on our limited knowledge base for quantifiable answers. Why would the understanding of God and ourselves not be knowable for all people? If we quit looking for definable answers, we might as well still be in the dark ages arguing over who's right and who's wrong. We MUST be able to work for the day that we can prove, without a doubt, that Jesus or Buddah or Allah, or whoever is the way to peace, love and happiness or assume that ALL ways are the path, in some measure, for some people, to the truth. I'm glad you and Poole have found your path through Jesus, but I think there's a whole lot more to the story.

I asked: "Have you ever wondered why your God want to toy with us and not just let us know of his existence from the start?" You said,

yes, I used to. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Ro 1)

You naughty person. I asked you not to post quotes from the Bible. If you keep doing that I'm going to have to ask your mother to send you to the woodshed. ;) Please tell me in your own words how you can justify God toying with us.

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 30, 2001.

More:

Some interesting ideas you put forward, but I personally consider most of them short-sighted. The good news is, these proposals are testable. The bad news is, we might not agree on what the results mean!

[From a "rational," it makes sense to weed out genetically "inferior" children and eliminate members of society who can no longer serve in a productive capacity.]

If people were trees, this would definitely work. It even works with dogs. But people tend to notice and remember this kind of thing, and it influences their behaviors negatively. In practice, it's very hard to get the "weeds" to make this kind of sacrifice [grin].

[It may be more efficient to assign persons to jobs rather than allow them to choose one their own.]

We do this indirectly, by the implicit economic requirement that people meet at least minimal competence requirements or we fire them. But of course if we do not, the Peter Principle really does apply.

[The same applies to education.]

In places this is really done (like Britain). Tests taken at (IIRC) about age 12 determine if you will be placed on the white or blue collar track, and after that it's nearly impossible to reverse this decision.

[Perhaps a society of technocrats running the world is the most "rational" form of social organization.]

Perhaps that's what we already have, at least in large parts of the world.

[You cannot prove democracy is superior to the dictatorship of an enlightened philosopher-king.]

Sure I can. Just let me define "superior" and "enlightened", OK?

[You cannot prove that it is rational to allow every person a vote.]

I think "rational" is the wrong word here. Letting everyone vote is a *policy position*, kind of like putting ketchup on a cheeseburger. Is that "rational"? We're talking preferences more than rationality. Restricting the vote in any particular way changes things in a direction determined by the restriction. Whether the change is for the "better" depends on who you ask and what they use as a yardstick.

[All of your libertarian political values, Flint, are just another form of religion unjustified by science... nominal or not.]

Well, if you want to water down the word "religion" so that it applies to any random set of values, then this is correct. Everyone has values. Values are based on many things -- training, experiences, preferences, observations. Science does not address values except insofar as generally one must be interested in how the universe operates, and willing to assign top priority to what can be observed, tested, and placed into our overall context of learning. Science presumes that everything that exists is inherently explainable, and this is science's *policy position*. So far it seems sufficient.

[Nipper, are you really interested or are you just playing Flint and Tarzan's game?]

Tarzan and I have viewpoints (we sometimes violently disagree), and Nipper clearly has a viewpoint of his own (and sometimes we agree). But calling viewpoints "games" is misleading. Even I am uncomfortable with the idea that everyone who has an opinion about anything, however informed it may be, is simply playing a game. I do take some things seriously. I believe that knowledge can be increased, that skills can be improved, that there is an objective reality, that there are right and wrong answers to some classes of questions and not others.

Of course, if you think any viewpoint other than yours is a game and yours is "real", then the problem is yours.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 30, 2001.

I'm sorry. I left out one other question (to any Christian).

I think we can all agree that "God" (whoever or whatever that is) is a superior entity because he/she/it created the universe. One of the things I can't figure out is _ if "God" wanted us to know who he/she/it is, why would "God" play games with us in the form of a man? Why wouldn't that life-force appear to us as it is? The Bible can't be right because a superior entity wouldn't allow all the contradictions. I don't think we will ever know the "Truth" because if "God" wanted us to know the Truth, we all would have been born with that knowledge.

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 30, 2001.

Little Nipper -

>>>>It is apparent that Jesus took human form. It is also said that all humanity is sinful.

yes and yes....but Jesus wasn't "just" all human. He was all human and all divine.....yet another paradox.

>>>> What is the point of being "human", if one is completely inhuman in all one's actions and experiences?

There wouldn't be a point. But He was completely human in His actions and experiences. He was a Man of sorrows acquainted with grief. That sounds entirely human to me. Adam and Eve didn't start out with a sin nature, and I believe they were completely human. They chose to sin. Jesus, though He was tempted in all points like we are, chose not to sin.

>>>>>This is intrigues me. Please answer, as I would lovee to hear what the appropriately "Christian" answer is to this apparent paradox.

I can't say that my answer was appropriate to answer to one of the many paradox's in the bible. I doubt it was. How does one find an appropriate explanation to a paradox (2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true)? For that kind of paradox, 1 + 1 doesn't always = 2. I don't see how it could be explained though. As for "Christian" - I consider myself "Christian" in the sense that - at a point in time, I had believed in Christ's deity, and that He died personally for my sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day. I believe that is what a Christian is....it's what I consider a believer, or a saved person....I can't become or "try" to be something I already am. Some would define a Christian as a religious screwball. I don't consider myself religious, so I can't say I'm a Christian in that sense. Screwball I might agree with... by itself. ;)

Devil may care -

>>>>That was a good question that I had to think about for a long time. I don't have faith of any kind. I think what you call faith, I call hope.

ok, I would call it that too....but I doubt we'd agree on a single definition for hope.

is there anything Jesus could say that would lead you to believe that He died for you?

>>>>>>>I already believe he died for me. I believe he died for everyone so he could teach us about love and patience. I believe he died for what he believed in and that makes him one of the greatest men who ever lived in my estimation. But, that doesn't make him God by a long stretch.

I should have elaborated. I meant - ....believe that He (as the God- man) died personally for your sins, was buried, and rose on the third day.

>>>>>My answer would take too long to post today.

ok, nevermind.

>>>>Why would the understanding of God and ourselves not be knowable for all people?

Because people won't reach out in faith and accept that it's true. It seems to be upside down in the spiritual realm....He must be believed before He can be known.

>>>>>We MUST be able to work for the day that we can prove, without a doubt, that Jesus or Buddah or Allah, or whoever is the way to peace, love and happiness...

I don't think there will ever be a day (this side of eternity) where anything can be proved to those who won't believe. If I were surrounded by all the atrocities of war, and was thouroughly convinced that God is unfair....there is no way anyone could prove to me He is. But if I were in that situation and I was throuroughly convinced that God is fair, then nobody could prove to me that He isn't. If I see red and you see green, how could we expect to prove each other wrong?

>>>>You naughty person. I asked you not to post quotes from the Bible. ;)

moi? You did? I must've missed it. ;)

>>>>>If you keep doing that I'm going to have to ask your mother to send you to the woodshed. ;)

You're silly. :)

>>>>Please tell me in your own words how you can justify God toying with us.

I can't because I don't believe He does.

>>>>One of the things I can't figure out is _ if "God" wanted us to know who he/she/it is, why would "God" play games with us in the form of a man?

He wasn't playing games.

>>>>>Why wouldn't that life-force appear to us as it is?

As is - how do you mean.....what He looks like? or who He is? Jesus revealed who God is (ie - love) in every thought, word and deed, and still people rejected Him.

>>>>>The Bible can't be right because a superior entity wouldn't allow all the contradictions.

I see paradox's and differences, but no contradictions.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 30, 2001.

>>>>but I doubt we'd agree on a single definition for hope.

Why not use Webster?

>>>I should have elaborated. I meant - ....believe that He (as the God- man) died personally for your sins, was buried, and rose on the third day.

I could believe the first two but nothing short of seeing it for myself, or documentation from people I respect (like Tarzan and Flint) would convince me that anyone could rise from the dead.

>>>>Why would the understanding of God and ourselves not be knowable for all people?

>>>>He must be believed before He can be known.

I see it the other way. He must be known before he can be believed.

>>>>I don't think there will ever be a day (this side of eternity) where anything can be proved to those who won't believe.

I'm sure you're right. Unfortunately.

>>>>If I see red and you see green, how could we expect to prove each other wrong?

We have to define what is red and what is green first.

>>>>>You're silly. :)

You're right. But we're learning and having fun, aren't we? :)

>>>>>Jesus revealed who God is (ie - love) in every thought, word and deed, and still people rejected Him.

I agree that's true.

>>>>I see paradox's and differences, but no contradictions.

But, the Truth and Perfect Knowledge wouldn't have paradox's and differences. "Perfect" means without flaws.

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 30, 2001.

>>>>Why not use Webster?

Webster didn't include transliteration and definitions for Greek and Hebrew words.

>>>>I could believe the first two but nothing short of seeing it for myself, or documentation from people I respect (like Tarzan and Flint) would convince me that anyone could rise from the dead.

It would convince you, eh?

hmm....

(placing blindfold on devil may care...hope you're not scotomaphobic....Mirriam Webster didn't include that one. ha.)

Tarzan or Flint - hello. :) I'm not asking you to agree with this (I'm fairly certain you won't), and devil may care didn't suggest that you should agree with it either....so I was wondering .......I sure would be appreciative if you made this: http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+cor+15%3A3% 2C4&version=NASB&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english into a link on my behalf. Would you mind?

(removing blindfold)

>>>>I see it the other way.

ok.

(If I see red and you see green, how could we expect to prove each other wrong? )

>>>>We have to define what is red and what is green first.

Ok, supposing we are both color-blind, I don't see how we can define it. I guess my point was that you couldn't give me "proof" that you are right, and vise versa.

>>>>You're right. But we're learning and having fun, aren't we? :)

learning AND having fun? fun...like enjoyment? Umm, this may be a violation of rule #2. Good morning, Unk, your honour. The prisoner who now stands before you was caught red-handed showing feelings...showing feelings of an almost human nature. This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!....or don't .....as you wish, sir. Thanks for the forum, btw.

(Jesus revealed who God is (ie - love) in every thought, word and deed, and still people rejected Him.)

>>>>I agree that's true.

Do you also agree that He was perfect and sinless?

>>>>But, the Truth and Perfect Knowledge wouldn't have paradox's and differences

Jesus, who is truth, has perfect knowledge and wouldn't see the paradox's and differences I see. It makes perfect sense to Him. My misunderstanding of a passage does not make it contradictory.....I'd be unaware of the interpretation, but that doesn't prove anything.

>>>> "Perfect" means without flaws.

Oh look, now I'm agreeing with you. )

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 31, 2001.

gee by /grace,you never mentioned that the bible states that the carnal-minded person-cannot recieve[understand] the spiritual=hence the need to be born-again!! like LORD JESUS said--we must be humble''as a child'' to=enter the KINGDOM OF GOD)) pride keeps the blinders on!! and hows about this scripture''the wisdom of man-is FOOLISNESS TO GOD''or=''THINKING THEMSELVES WISE-THEY BECAME=FOOL,S'' OR=''THE FOOL HAS SAID-THERE IS NO GOD'' or =satan has blinded them that=pERISH' HEY ALL THE ANSWER,S ARE IN[HIS WORD]ah the intellectual,s what a decived bunch of=PROUD[satans fall]slaves. read the book of proverbs-check out what GOD say,s about=fool,s!!!!

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 31, 2001.