JESUS H. CHRIST!!! :-O

Is this old subject being flogged again? :-D

Cheers.

I've heard that phrase all my life. What is H. an abbreviation for? Maybe Holy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ

Grumpy Swede,

Interesting/informative wiki article. But, I heard the '... be thy name' as Howard, not Harold, when I was a kid.

'Howard be thy name' was the version circulating around here.

But, in my opinion, that article has it right when it points to the divine monogram "ihc" as the source (by the way, it was in use by more than just the Anglican/Episcopal church).

Me: Sir, I keep seeing those three letters in use all over the church. What do they mean?

Preacher: That is the Name of the Lord!

Me: I... H... C... ??

Preacher: Well, it is Greek, and they wrote 'J' as 'I'... You know... Just like the Romans wrote 'U' as 'V'...

Me: Why?

Preacher: Easier to carve in stone, I suppose...

Me: OK... makes sense... So... J... H... C.... is the name of the Lord?

Preacher: Uhh.... Yes!

Me: Thank you, sir.

I am sure that I am not the only kid to ask that, especially since the Phrase predates my birth by quite a number of decades....

Oh, and in addition to a stand-alone vulgarism, the phrase is also the first part of at least two others...

"Jesus H. Christ on a Crap**r..."

and...

"Jesus H. Christ on a crutch in living Technicolor..."

CLYDE, is a discussion of the evidence, or lack thereof, supporting the statement "there is no doubt that a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived and was crucified", an attack?

A secular "unused word that another often uses" attack is what it was called.

An "unused word that another often uses" is one that dogmatically follows a belief.

Secular = "not of religion".

When one that believed (dogmatically or not), over the course of 14 years, begins to have doubts and then no longer believes, it can neither be that the source of the questions are secular nor that there was any "unused word that another often uses" involved.

Even many religious people accept the scholarly work that led to the theory that 4 authors were behind the writing of The Torah/Pentateuch.

JESUS H. CHRIST!!! :-O

Is this old subject being flogged again? :-D

Cheers.

I've heard that phrase all my life. What is H. an abbreviation for? Maybe Holy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ

Grumpy Swede,

Interesting/informative wiki article. But, I heard the '... be thy name' as Howard, not Harold, when I was a kid.

'Howard be thy name' was the version circulating around here.

But, in my opinion, that article has it right when it points to the divine monogram "ihc" as the source (by the way, it was in use by more than just the Anglican/Episcopal church).

Me: Sir, I keep seeing those three letters in use all over the church. What do they mean?

Preacher: That is the Name of the Lord!

Me: I... H... C... ??

Preacher: Well, it is Greek, and they wrote 'J' as 'I'... You know... Just like the Romans wrote 'U' as 'V'...

Me: Why?

Preacher: Easier to carve in stone, I suppose...

Me: OK... makes sense... So... J... H... C.... is the name of the Lord?

Preacher: Uhh.... Yes!

Me: Thank you, sir.

I am sure that I am not the only kid to ask that, especially since the Phrase predates my birth by quite a number of decades....

Oh, and in addition to a stand-alone vulgarism, the phrase is also the first part of at least two others...

"Jesus H. Christ on a Crap**r..."

and...

"Jesus H. Christ on a crutch in living Technicolor..."

I also saw Holy in that article too. It makes sense to me as another expression I heard a lot in my youth was "Holy Christ!" to emphasise a statement. Like "Holy Christ, what have you done now?"

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Does anyone really believe there will be any Changing of Minds, regarding this Subject?

Unfortunately for some religions, not...


All in our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Does anyone really believe there will be any Changing of Minds, regarding this Subject?

+10 that's what I have been saying. These religion threads are a waste of space and time.

And here I am contributing to the problem.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Also it should be remembered that science at times is quite often not about the usual things of life.

You could be dealing with history, philosophy, astronomy, particle physics, or whatever you would like, but instead of perhaps looking at the complexities of the whole picture, the details are being scrutinized instead.

Does the knowledge you might be having in one particular subject field give a possible explanation for something else? In which context are you supposed to be able to explain Jesus? Is it from within the subject field of religion itself?

There are probably several scientists who believe that religion may not be a subject for scientists to be dealing with, because it either is a waste of time, or that no simple explanation can not be given. This means that any answers that might be found is not likely to be much relevant at all.

Remember about "infinity". We are able to at least define such a thing.

Like Jesus, both these terms become subjects for which there is no obvious solution or proof, because the facts become obscure and "out in the blue".

Does anyone really believe there will be any Changing of Minds, regarding this Subject?

+10 that's what I have been saying. These religion threads are a waste of space and time.

And here I am contributing to the problem.

At least we have a place to openly discuss it.
That is a huge step in the right direction.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Does anyone really believe there will be any Changing of Minds, regarding this Subject?

+10 that's what I have been saying. These religion threads are a waste of space and time.

And here I am contributing to the problem.

At least we have a place to openly discuss it.
That is a huge step in the right direction.

Steve

I think its good to discuss religous matters.
There is more than science and religous dogmas that we cannot explain.
It's not a waste of space and time :)
But do discuss it.

Does anyone really believe there will be any Changing of Minds, regarding this Subject?

+10 that's what I have been saying. These religion threads are a waste of space and time.

And here I am contributing to the problem.

No, you aren't.

Don't fall for the trap, attempting to divide.

There has been changing of minds.
(Thus, no one need "believe" whether minds have been changed when faced when incontrovertible facts.)
Evidence has been provided.

Let us continue our discussion and do not fall for the divisive trap.

http://periodic.lanl.gov/index.shtml

Please see here.

This is the Periodic Table of Elements and a quite good reference as well.

Some of the elements having an atomic number higher than 26 are likely to be found in your home, possibly even Gold inside your electronic equipment.

Most people know that the Sun is fusing Hydrogen into Helium.

If for some reason an old or heavy star tries fusing certain slightly heavier atoms together and the finishing element could be Iron, we know that this process ultimately goes wrong and the star becomes a supernova.

When such a thing happens, the cataclysmic event creates everything from Iron through at least Uranium as a result. Such a thing does not happen here, but our solar system is in fact matter which came from younger generation stars which happened to end their life in such a way.

Therefore, please do not think that things are easy. Rather it is the opposite way around. If you happen to be a believer, you should be allowed to believe in a God, but a scientist rather should be thinking about God as being the "Creator of Everything", meaning that if God happens to be of any relevance at all, he at least was able to come up with the Periodic Table of Elements.

What was before the 'Big Bang'?

What produced, what was before the 'Big Bang'?

No... I am not a God believer.

That is the enigma, and the hardest part to understand or accept about the Christian religions....
The fact that 'God always was'.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

What was before the 'Big Bang'?

What produced, what was before the 'Big Bang'?

No... I am not a God believer.

That is the enigma, and the hardest part to understand or accept about the Christian religions....
The fact that 'God always was'.

I cannot yet, scientifically refute your above statement.

And that, my friend, is why they call one's religion a 'faith'.
A belief in something that cannot be proven, but cannot be disproven either.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

What was before the 'Big Bang'?

What produced, what was before the 'Big Bang'?

No... I am not a God believer.

That is the enigma, and the hardest part to understand or accept about the Christian religions....
The fact that 'God always was'.

I cannot yet, scientifically refute your above statement.

Sunday and the bells tolls.
Religion is all about believing.
Science as well actually to most people.
We believe what scientists say to us.
I'm an agnostic just in case:)

Scientists have never been looking at the Big Bang as being the moment of creation and thinking that God was behind this creation.

God is only present to some of us by means of religion as well as historical facts.

In the same way as evolution and intelligence are synonymous with each other, we often look at evolution when it comes to animals and plants.

Most types of evolution are gradual, or in stepwise fashion, but at times such a thing takes place in greater leaps.

It always becomes a question about adaptation to changing surroundings. Such changes could be because of the laws of randomness and coincidence.

In the universe, both stars, planets, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are being created and may also die away.

Gravity is the main factor for this to happen, even though matter might be present many places, gravity is still a force which for now is not being related to the presence of energy.

If the universe happens to exist because of any laws or equations governing it, such laws should be present because of the initial creation of the universe by means of the Big Bang.

Both symmetry and perfectness, as well as coincidence and randomness being present in nature are explainable by means of mathematical laws and models.

Despite such a fact, we choose to make science of it in order to explain certain things.

One of the most important discoveries in recent times is the one which combines the Law of Electromagnetism with the Law of the Weak Forces. By means of further combining or relating (you could perhaps say merging) both these two Laws further into the Law of the Strong Force, scientists are now much closer to understanding the main principles of how the universe is supposed to be working.

Only the force of gravity has yet to be implemented into this understanding, but for now we are not able to relate these laws to any possible presence of the divine.

We do not see any presence of the Superforce in the universe, because if such a force ever existed, it only did so a short moment after the creation of the universe. For now, gravity is the only force which has yet to be put into place.

Most scientists do not believe in God, because there should be no reason to believe in miracles. If such a thing should ever happen, it rather would become a subject of myth and superstition and such things should not be related with the subject of religion and belief at all.

What was before the 'Big Bang'?

What produced, what was before the 'Big Bang'?

No... I am not a God believer.

That is the enigma, and the hardest part to understand or accept about the Christian religions....
The fact that 'God always was'.

I cannot yet, scientifically refute your above statement.

And that, my friend, is why they call one's religion a 'faith'.
A belief in something that cannot be proven, but cannot be disproven either.

Despite all the historical, and present problems regarding 'Science': Ego, economic corruption, political ideology, etc.

I still have Faith, that Science will answer this question.

I also embrace every scientific advance that sheds light on our creation and existence.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I already knew that.

But the problem is that when only using your eyes and looking into the lens of the microscope, or perhaps rather the telescope, such a thing does not always give an answer to all questions that might be around.

Because a separation always has to be made between fact and fiction, such a view is most likely present when it comes to the difference between religion and faith on one side and practical science on the other.

Only a notion about belief you might have does not make you able to prove that such a belief could be explained in a scientific matter or way.

Remember God's first commandment: You shall have no other God than me.

That is better said than nothing.

Perhaps I did not originally state that thing, but the subject of religionid not always get well with me.

Learning about the subject of astronomy already when being a youth, some 12-13 years old of age, I gradually was able to learn that the world we are living in is a world of both diversity as well as complexity.

Also the fact that not everything is always supposed to be as expected.

And because things are not supposed to be perfect, things could well go wrong. Something I have experienced myself.

When you are striving for the better, you might well be able to succeed, but such a thing could well end up becoming a disaster as well.

Perhaps when life is not going your way, or you even become a victim of a disaster happening, you might start praying for God.

Not only perhaps because you think that he is present, but because you most likely are having a soul of your own.

If such a soul should be present in your mind, it could be a sign of the presence of eternity and we are again back to the subject of religion.

This is as far as I am able to get at these things.

Right now I am busy doing other things and I might well be having something to say about other subjects as well, including both my current interests when using the computer.

There also could be a chance that this subject for now rather has become exhausted.

"There also could be a chance that this subject for now rather has become exhausted."

Spoke the raven, never more.

---

Dave Nelson

"There also could be a chance that this subject for now rather has become exhausted."
Spoke the raven, never more.

But what about Hugin and Munin?

Jesus = the most successful zombie in all of human history?

---

As an Atheist...

It's 'atheist' not 'Atheist'. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.
Since I don't think a person exists that believes in every deity, then everyone is an atheist towards some deity.
'Atheist' is a proper noun indicating a tribe of some sort of which I am not a member and not even the Atheist Political Party was able to take off due to extreme differences between the membership on all other areas of life.
Atheism is not a religion.

What exactly do you have against The Nazarene's Philosophy and Beliefs?

I'm not sure what he actually said. The bible was edited many times, translated and the various versions of the stories are not in agreement. Mary Magdalen and Thomas's gospels tell a distinctly different story, so were tossed out.
If I go by the Sermon on the Mount then many things I do favor but he also said to pick up the sword, he told slaves to obey their masters (never abolished slavery) and he never spoke against rape and continued with the traditions of women as property. He clearly stated when the gentile woman asked for his healing that he wasn't here for gentiles, only the Hebrews. The authors of the gospels wanted to widen the books to include the gentiles as part of their fight against Roman occupation of Israel/Judea.
As I read through the bible later in my life, I see more a mentally ill person with NPD, who is possibly a sociopath, than a savior of society.

Buddha was a much better messenger for self-improvement and his practices are actually used to treat Borderline Personality and other disorders where Mindfulness can increase emotional control and delay gratification so wiser choices can be made.

Not speaking of those who would use Him for Evil Purposes.

'Evil' determination comes from a combination of the Right Temporal Lobe Junction (RTPJ) balancing of fairness, oxytocin bonding to your tribe/family groups and cultural indoctrination.
The ancient Druids saw sacrificing a human as a messenger to the deities as a Good thing in order to guarantee crop success for the tribes and they combined it with capital punishment of a criminal. We still have capital punishment and many Christians think that is a 'good' thing and not 'evil' yet the Druids would see not using them as messengers to the deities as waste. It's because of the beliefs of ancient Middle Eastern tribes that we see Druidic practices as 'evil human sacrifice' even though it was capital punishment just like what happens in Texas every year.

In my opinion: He is a better person, than most.

Like I said before, you known of him only through massively edited books written by different authors and are not in agreement with each other.
You can't possibly know what he was really like but I'm sure the model of him you have designed in your mind is better than most people.

---