Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000, not including women and children. I'm not sure if that means women and children starved, or if he fed them all and the Bible only counted the men. Anyway...
Assuming he fed them all and the Bible only counted the men, and given a similar ratio of women and children in the population then as it is now (not sure how to confirm that), here are the numbers:
World population hit 6,928,198,253 in July 2011 (est.) according to index mundi, so we'll go with that number.
~3.4 billion were men.
So if you get 680,000 Jesuses, 3.4 million loaves of bread, and 1.36 million fish, you could solve world hunger. I'm just not sure where we'd get 680,000 Jesuses, since I'm not at all certain there was ever even 1.
Edit: Forgot to include the link to my source. My apologies.
http://www.indexmundi.com/world/demographics_profile.html (http://www.indexmundi.com/world/demographics_profile.html)
Hey, if they can bring out that water-to-wine trick again, I think that's a great idea!
Quote from: fester30 on March 14, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000, not including women and children.
I would have thought a person with this trick up their sleeves would be obliged for the rest of their life to feed the hungry rather than to preach salivation(sp).
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 09:42:05 PM
Quote from: fester30 on March 14, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000, not including women and children.
I would have thought a person with this trick up their sleeves would be obliged for the rest of their life to feed the hungry rather than to preach salivation(sp).
It's not this life where hunger, pain and death runs rampant that this
magician (as you seem to suggest) came to prolong...But that would require actual reading into that piece of fiction.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 09:55:16 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 14, 2012, 09:42:05 PM
Quote from: fester30 on March 14, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000, not including women and children.
I would have thought a person with this trick up their sleeves would be obliged for the rest of their life to feed the hungry rather than to preach salivation(sp).
It's not this life where hunger, pain and death runs rampant that this magician (as you seem to suggest) came to prolong...But that would require actual reading into that piece of fiction.
Then why provide any ease of suffering in this life at all? Why just a tease?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 09:55:16 PM
It's not this life where hunger, pain and death runs rampant that this magician (as you seem to suggest) came to prolong...But that would require actual reading into that piece of fiction.
I'm reading a book called Unholy Ghosts at the moment.
Ghosts are invading the earth, they have killed lots of people and most churches except for one.
The surviving church is the Church of Truth.
Their mantra
"I do not need faith because I know the Truth. I do not need to believe. Belief is unnecessary when fact is Truth. I do not pray to a god. Prayer implies faith and gods do not exist."
Cool huh?
Anyway, if I could magically multiply food, I would certainly help the starving. It seems (fictitiously YHWH gave this gift to the wrong person, such a waste)
I don't like fish. Why couldn't he conjure up a nice curry?
Or, considering what part of the world he's in, a decent kebab?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 09:55:16 PM
It's not this life where hunger, pain and death runs rampant that this magician (as you seem to suggest) came to prolong...But that would require actual reading into that piece of fiction.
Then why provide any ease of suffering in this life at all? Why just a tease?
You stated in another thread you used to be a Christian. Do you still retain some of the beliefs (not that you believe these) in that you could see that this life is a fleeting moment in the great scheme of things? We, Christians, believe that even if we suffer as the Jews of the Holocaust did or worse, the pain of this life is trivial compared to the offer of a better life. You see a tease. We (Christians) see hope. It's the cup half-full, half-empty view.
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
maybe if we all grew beards and wore a toga we could solve world hunger?
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 10:40:11 AM
Or, considering what part of the world he's in, a decent kebab?
That sir is a paradox.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 09:55:16 PM
It's not this life where hunger, pain and death runs rampant that this magician (as you seem to suggest) came to prolong...But that would require actual reading into that piece of fiction.
Then why provide any ease of suffering in this life at all? Why just a tease?
You stated in another thread you used to be a Christian. Do you still retain some of the beliefs (not that you believe these) in that you could see that this life is a fleeting moment in the great scheme of things? We, Christians, believe that even if we suffer as the Jews of the Holocaust did or worse, the pain of this life is trivial compared to the offer of a better life. You see a tease. We (Christians) see hope. It's the cup half-full, half-empty view.
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
I used to be a Christian, but I was often an unhappy one because I couldn't make sense of things exactly like this. So I just tried not to think about it too much.
I still view life as a fleeting moment, but, to me, that gives it more emphasis, not less.
If you view Jesus with the presumption that everything he does is good, then, of course, you'll see that everything he does is good. He freaked out at money lenders in a temple? That's good. He got a bunch of men to leave their live's work to follow him? That's good. He told everyone to render "unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar." That's good. There are rationalizations behind why all of those things could be good.
Is that really intellectually honest? I don't really think so. I could provide an arbitrary list of all of the things that I've done in my life and you could paint me as a saint or the devil. It could be a half-full or a half-empty analysis, depending on how much you like me (if you ask my ex-boyfriends who I am, you'll get a far different story than if you ask my husband), so I guess I agree with you on that.
I guess you're just in the unfortunately position of constantly having to defend what atheists see as arbitrary stories.
My cousin had another idea concerning my plan for world hunger. He thinks we could do this with significantly fewer Jesuses. Let all the people die... Jesus can raise from the dead, and if you set up some churches to be resurrection factories in key locations around the world and put a Jesus in there, you could revive the dead. As zombies, they would then eat the brains of the living, turning them into zombies. Before long, everybody will be zombies, and won't require food, but will simply eat brains for entertainment. You could do this with like 100 Jesuses in the world's largest cities. This effectively ends world hunger while significantly reducing the Jesus footprint required to do it. Both effective AND environmentally sound.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right? Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.
What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad? I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide. But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.
Discuss.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 15, 2012, 04:44:07 PM
I used to be a Christian, but I was often an unhappy one because I couldn't make sense of things exactly like this. So I just tried not to think about it too much.
I still view life as a fleeting moment, but, to me, that gives it more emphasis, not less.
Exactly! Life is so much more than just this. If there is more, then it is worth gaining.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietIf you view Jesus with the presumption that everything he does is good, then, of course, you'll see that everything he does is good. He freaked out at money lenders in a temple? That's good. He got a bunch of men to leave their live's work to follow him? That's good. He told everyone to render "unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar." That's good. There are rationalizations behind why all of those things could be good.
If people were to come into your house and treat it less than you would want it treated, it is not good for you to throw them out? If "God" is, then the temple was where the people met to worship God. He "got" a bunch of men to leave their work? You presume they were forced. Render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar is bad? How so? It speaks of many things, but mostly about being a citizen in harmony with your govenment (as long as that gov. isn't making you do things that would be against God), paying taxes, helping in the community...I suppose I simply just rationalized. But isn't rational good?
Quote from: DeterminedJulietI guess you're just in the unfortunately position of constantly having to defend what atheists see as arbitrary stories.
I choose to be at HAF. I do like you all. Some I may not "like" at times, but for the most part I like all the members here, Atheist or otherwise. I have to defend my position on most everything, not just my religious beliefs.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
I suppose I simply just rationalized. But isn't rational good?
Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right? Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.
What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad? I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide. But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.
Discuss.
I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life. I know no other form of living. I cannot answer this. My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now. The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual. Only God can answer that, I can't.
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 06:39:09 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
I suppose I simply just rationalized. But isn't rational good?
Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.
So point out where my rationalization is wrong in those instances.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJulietIf you view Jesus with the presumption that everything he does is good, then, of course, you'll see that everything he does is good. He freaked out at money lenders in a temple? That's good. He got a bunch of men to leave their live's work to follow him? That's good. He told everyone to render "unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar." That's good. There are rationalizations behind why all of those things could be good.
If people were to come into your house and treat it less than you would want it treated, it is not good for you to throw them out? If "God" is, then the temple was where the people met to worship God. He "got" a bunch of men to leave their work? You presume they were forced. Render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar is bad? How so? It speaks of many things, but mostly about being a citizen in harmony with your govenment (as long as that gov. isn't making you do things that would be against God), paying taxes, helping in the community...I suppose I simply just rationalized. But isn't rational good?
I wasn't trying to put those excerpts up as "bad" examples, just arbitrary. That's my point. It's easy to look at the nice things in the bible and say "oh, isn't it lovely" and it's easy to look at the bad parts and say "oh, isn't it horrid" but a whole, whole lot of it is arbitrary and has to be ascribed meaning. In fact, I think both atheists and Christians would agree that the bible is intentionally vague on a whole lot of things BECAUSE it's a text that's intended to be "interpreted".
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:40:40 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 06:39:09 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
I suppose I simply just rationalized. But isn't rational good?
Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.
So point out where my rationalization is wrong in those instances.
I did not say that any of those rationalizations are neccesarily wrong (though in my opinion you are rationalizing fiction), I was commenting on your assertion that if you can rationalize it, it automatically becomes good.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
The atheist demands objective, recreatable confirmation of theories. Otherwise how can we know that we aren't simply choosing to believe a theory based on what simply sounds desirable, or based on peer pressure etc.
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 07:04:58 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:40:40 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 06:39:09 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
I suppose I simply just rationalized. But isn't rational good?
Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.
So point out where my rationalization is wrong in those instances.
I did not say that any of those rationalizations are neccesarily wrong (though in my opinion you are rationalizing fiction), I was commenting on your assertion that if you can rationalize it, it automatically becomes good.
Like in another thread where you just provided a rationalization for slavery.
QuoteIf we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different
I don't care how you can rationalize slavery. It is wrong to own another human.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right? Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.
What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad? I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide. But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.
Discuss.
I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life. I know no other form of living. I cannot answer this. My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now. The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual. Only God can answer that, I can't.
Okay, but then doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that a sin should be empirically obvious because it's empirically destructive? Or is that not what you were trying to argue in the first place (serious question; I wasn't completely sure if that was even your point.)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 14, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 09:55:16 PM
It's not this life where hunger, pain and death runs rampant that this magician (as you seem to suggest) came to prolong...But that would require actual reading into that piece of fiction.
Then why provide any ease of suffering in this life at all? Why just a tease?
You stated in another thread you used to be a Christian. Do you still retain some of the beliefs (not that you believe these) in that you could see that this life is a fleeting moment in the great scheme of things? We, Christians, believe that even if we suffer as the Jews of the Holocaust did or worse, the pain of this life is trivial compared to the offer of a better life. You see a tease. We (Christians) see hope. It's the cup half-full, half-empty view.
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
I think it also helps to think that every wrong-doing in this life will be ultimately avenged. Revelations is all about vengeance against the evils of man - the slow, painful destruction of life and eventually the Earth and the cosmos.
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right? Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.
What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad? I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide. But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.
Discuss.
I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life. I know no other form of living. I cannot answer this. My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now. The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual. Only God can answer that, I can't.
Okay, but then doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that a sin should be empirically obvious because it's empirically destructive? Or is that not what you were trying to argue in the first place (serious question; I wasn't completely sure if that was even your point.)
It SEEMS you may be asking, "If sin IS destructive, then it should be empirically seen". I would simply say that not all sin is empirically destructive the moment after the sin occurs...or the destructive aspect of the sin is not always immediate.
If that wasn't it...please elaborate on your question. I'm not all that intelligent.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right? Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.
What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad? I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide. But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.
Discuss.
I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life. I know no other form of living. I cannot answer this. My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now. The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual. Only God can answer that, I can't.
Okay, but then doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that a sin should be empirically obvious because it's empirically destructive? Or is that not what you were trying to argue in the first place (serious question; I wasn't completely sure if that was even your point.)
It SEEMS you may be asking, "If sin IS destructive, then it should be empirically seen". I would simply say that not all sin is empirically destructive the moment after the sin occurs...or the destructive aspect of the sin is not always immediate.
If that wasn't it...please elaborate on your question. I'm not all that intelligent.
You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Sin must be completely unveiled. So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work. The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.
So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right? Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.
What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad? I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide. But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.
Discuss.
I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life. I know no other form of living. I cannot answer this. My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now. The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual. Only God can answer that, I can't.
No more a sin than a man with long hair?
Edit: Fixed quotes - Tank
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 09:05:56 PM
You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.
There is none...none this side of life that I can promote.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 09:05:56 PM
You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.
There is none...none this side of life that I can promote.
If it cannot be seen by us, then it is not empirical. Your belief in an afterlife does not qualify as empirical evidence
QuoteEmpirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience . Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data).
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 10:59:33 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Ali on March 15, 2012, 09:05:56 PM
You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.
There is none...none this side of life that I can promote.
If it cannot be seen by us, then it is not empirical. Your belief in an afterlife does not qualify as empirical evidence
Ok. LOL...I guess this means I alluded that my belief was empirical evidence? Whatever. Moving on.
Quote from: fester30 on March 14, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000, not including women and children. I'm not sure if that means women and children starved, or if he fed them all and the Bible only counted the men. Anyway...
Assuming he fed them all and the Bible only counted the men, and given a similar ratio of women and children in the population then as it is now (not sure how to confirm that), here are the numbers:
World population hit 6,928,198,253 in July 2011 (est.) according to index mundi, so we'll go with that number.
~3.4 billion were men.
So if you get 680,000 Jesuses, 3.4 million loaves of bread, and 1.36 million fish, you could solve world hunger. I'm just not sure where we'd get 680,000 Jesuses, since I'm not at all certain there was ever even 1.
Gotta love the simplest solutions. :D
LOL
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 01:54:56 AM
Quote from: fester30 on March 14, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000, not including women and children. I'm not sure if that means women and children starved, or if he fed them all and the Bible only counted the men. Anyway...
Assuming he fed them all and the Bible only counted the men, and given a similar ratio of women and children in the population then as it is now (not sure how to confirm that), here are the numbers:
World population hit 6,928,198,253 in July 2011 (est.) according to index mundi, so we'll go with that number.
~3.4 billion were men.
So if you get 680,000 Jesuses, 3.4 million loaves of bread, and 1.36 million fish, you could solve world hunger. I'm just not sure where we'd get 680,000 Jesuses, since I'm not at all certain there was ever even 1.
Gotta love the simplest solutions. :D
LOL
A++ post, Fester! :)