Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[xSilverPhinx]

Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,

Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law.  I expected better.

xSP simply pointed out that Hitler was voted into office and thus at the time had considerable popular support. When he was executed Jesus had only 12 party members and very limited popular support. I don't think xSP was making a Godwin's Law reference as such, it would be very out of character for her to do so.

No Godwin's Law intended. Hitler is one of the first examples of someone democratically elected/voted into a position of power because he was popular that popped into mind.

[Too Few Lions]

You like reading Paul's epistles. I think this is pretty clear in 2 Thessalonians 1.7-9;

'When the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus.  They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the lord and from the glory of his power'

Or do you interpret that allegorically?

II Thessalonians is not one of the generally accepted authentic epistles of Paul. They are Galatians, Romans, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon.  Choose a passage from one of those, or a generally accepted Mark or "Q" saying from Jesus, and then get back with me.  

I'm not sure that's technically correct, I think it depends on who you believe.  Some Christian scholars believe it to be a genuine letter of Paul, although admittedly others don't. It's not one of the definite known fakes, but yeah I should have picked one of the epistles that 100% of scholars think is Pauline. But either way, it's still an early Christian writing ascribed to Paul, that's been a central part of Christian teaching for 1500+ years. But Jesus also teaches the same thing in the gospels;

'This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the evil from the just, and throw the evil ones into the blazing furnace, where they will wail and grind their teeth.' (Matthew 13.49-50)

By the way, even though the earliest of all manuscripts we have are from the 2nd Century, there is general agreement among scholars that Mark, "Q" (though never found as a separate document), and the authentic epistles of Paul are all 1st Century in origin.  That's not true of the infancy gospels.  It may be true for the Gospel of Thomas, which is not canonical, and consists mainly of Q sayings with a little Gnosticim thrown in for good measure.  Almost anything Christian from the 2nd Century has some Gnostic elements or is arguing against Gnosticism in some manner.

My point is the actual gospels you read can't be dated to before the second century, which is the same date as the infancy gospels. They may well derive from earlier sources but those have yet to be found. The fact of the matter is that neither the infancy gospels nor the canonical gospels are eyewitness accounts of historical events, they were written a long time after the supposed lifetime of Jesus and both contain plenty of stories that could never have historically happened. Yet you choose to base your life around one of them. The infancy gospels may have been written in the second century, but they're clearly not Gnostic, the Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was born or had a childhood!

[Davin]

Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.

Then I value your perspective.  Tell me what autism means to you.

It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.

[Sandra Craft]

Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.

Then I value your perspective.  Tell me what autism means to you.

It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not autistic and I have no idea what that meant.  I think it was a religious perception of the mental limitations that cause atheists to disagree with them, but I'm not sure.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away:  brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill.  Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural.  Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning.  In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.

Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture.  Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part?  It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects.  Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it.  See, here's a great big smile!!   

That makes absolutely no sense. I was once a firm Christian believer (I've explained this at length in other parts here, so I'll spare everyone). I "saw" everything you are talking about, but I completely changed my world view. And I now know that everything I believed was totally balony. How could that be, it if was some kind of brain deficiency? I didn't suffer head trauma that caused me to become atheist.

[Davin]

Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.

Then I value your perspective.  Tell me what autism means to you.

It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not autistic and I have no idea what that meant.  I think it was a religious perception of the mental limitations that cause atheists to disagree with them, but I'm not sure.

Possibly, it was a very bad misunderstanding of autistic people making it a poor analogy. The other problem with it are the people that were religious and are no longer, did they suffer some kind if brain damage? Or the people that weren't religious and are now, did their brains magically heal? And the people to keep shifting back and forth. Oh well, I talk too much.

I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away:  brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill.  Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural.  Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning.  In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.

Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture.  Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part?  It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects.  Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it.  See, here's a great big smile!!   

Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.

[Tank]

I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away:  brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill.  Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural.  Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning.  In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.

Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture.  Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part?  It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects.  Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it.  See, here's a great big smile!!   

That smacks of the 'I'm not a racist but...' gambit.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.

Then I value your perspective.  Tell me what autism means to you.

It means nothing to me, it's just the way I am. The problem I have is that you said that I cannot see a face or a person. I see plenty of faces and plenty of people.

I probably should have said that people with severe autism don't really see the person behind the face.  You apparently don't have a very severe case of autism.  Mild case of Aspergers, perhaps? You have no problem communicating.  My fault for not being more clear. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not autistic and I have no idea what that meant.  I think it was a religious perception of the mental limitations that cause atheists to disagree with them, but I'm not sure.

Here's an example of what I was trying to communicate but of which I apparently did a poor job.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010418072256.htm

The phenomenon of an autistic child not being able to pick out his own mother's face is an example of not being able to distinguish certain patterns.  That was my only point, but I apparently caused confusion.

[BullyforBronto]

This topic has been utterly derailed; however, I thought I might continue to go off the tracks.

A quote that stuck with me from the documentary "Loving Lampposts" seems to sums things up quite nicely:

"You've met one autistic person, and you've met one autistic person."

Many on the autism spectrum have disparate sensory issues involving sound, vision, touch, etc. An individual experiencing issues with visual stimuli may have difficulty picking out a face from the crowd. Though, that same individual may be able to discern the audio idiosyncrasies of (to keep with the example) his/her mother's voice.

The very notion that autism is a spectrum disorder makes any sort of generalization problematic.

[Gawen]

Autism, eh...

What are the symptoms (mild to severe)of autism? Well, I looked them up and considered if maybe Jesus himself was autistic or showed signs of it:
Difficulties in:
Pretend play
Verbal and nonverbal communication [parables]
Have unusual distress when routines are changed
Perform repeated body movements
Show unusual attachments to objects
Cannot start or maintain a social conversation
Communicates with gestures instead of words
Develops language slowly or not at all
Does not adjust gaze to look at objects that others are looking at
Does not refer to self correctly
Does not point to direct others' attention to objects
Repeats words or memorized passages
Uses nonsense rhyming
Does not make friends
Does not play interactive games
Is withdrawn
May not respond to eye contact or smiles, or may avoid eye contact
May treat others as if they are objects
Prefers to spend time alone, rather than with others
Shows a lack of empathy
Does not startle at loud noises
Has heightened or low senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste
May find normal noises painful and hold hands over ears
May withdraw from physical contact because it is overstimulating or overwhelming
Rubs surfaces, mouths or licks objects
Seems to have a heightened or low response to pain
Doesn't imitate the actions of others
Prefers solitary or ritualistic play
Shows little pretend or imaginative play
"Acts up" with intense tantrums
Gets stuck on a single topic or task (perseveration)
Has a short attention span
Has very narrow interests
Is overactive or very passive
Shows aggression to others or self
Shows a strong need for sameness
Uses repetitive body movements

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.
[/quote]

In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around.  I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended.  Guess I'm still learning where the line is.  I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.

[Tank]

Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.

In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around.  I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended.  Guess I'm still learning where the line is.  I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.

I think it's a question of judging how the individual will react. I'm sure at your age you've had lots worse said and I was prepared to take a kicking if you objected and would give as good as you got. I wouldn't have said what I said to a younger, less experienced person, as there would have been a much higher chance of the person getting the hump. Your response , unique in my forum experience, also stimulated some interesting debate.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.

In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around.  I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended.  Guess I'm still learning where the line is.  I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.

I think it's a question of judging how the individual will react. I'm sure at your age you've had lots worse said and I was prepared to take a kicking if you objected and would give as good as you got. I wouldn't have said what I said to a younger, less experienced person, as there would have been a much higher chance of the person getting the hump. Your response , unique in my forum experience, also stimulated some interesting debate.

Good observation about considering how a person will react.  Since I'm new around here, I don't know the personalities.  I'll try to take your perspective to heart, as I really don't want to get into fights or insults.  I've had enough of those for several lifetimes.

[Attila]

Wow, hey there, BooksCatsEtc never said it was a deficiency (in fact BooksCatsEtc said it may have been beneficial), so please cut back the condescending attitude and insults.

In post #54 Tank told me that he truly thought I was "touched," which is a nice way of saying that he thinks I'm nuts. He encouraged honesty, so I responded. I guess it's OK for an atheist here to say something negative about a Christian, but not the other way around.  I thought that by putting the smiley face no one would be offended.  Guess I'm still learning where the line is.  I truly didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, but someone's always going to get offended, no matter what is said. Books didn't seem to mind, however.

I think it's a question of judging how the individual will react. I'm sure at your age you've had lots worse said and I was prepared to take a kicking if you objected and would give as good as you got. I wouldn't have said what I said to a younger, less experienced person, as there would have been a much higher chance of the person getting the hump. Your response , unique in my forum experience, also stimulated some interesting debate.

Good observation about considering how a person will react.  Since I'm new around here, I don't know the personalities.  I'll try to take your perspective to heart, as I really don't want to get into fights or insults.  I've had enough of those for several lifetimes.

No worries Bruce. (god I've waited years to be able to say that). Tank is just a big, warm, cuddly bear with a heart of gold. He just loves to romp and  play, that's all. And what's more he never even banned you.
ciao,
Attila