To all of the angry liberals who post regularly at this site, please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. And a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 20012, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great, (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "America" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or choice of computer platform of the wishee.

To everyone else....Merry Christmas!

Woa...I meant 2012. Or it could be 20012 for some depending on what planet you're from. ;)

And "Happy Holidays" to you, too, Obi.



Let's all sing along now.... "I'm dreamin' of a White Holiday...."


Well, that sure needs some work...

Good article, Joe.

Fear of being accused of not being politically correct (and to a greater degree fear of ridiculous lawsuits) has really skewed society. America must learn to honor history without euphemism. And that means accepting that our developing countrymen recognized God while escaping the persecutions of King George.

But you are incorrect regarding your "revisionist" history of Thanksgiving. First-person accounts and journals (including Colombus' own letters to the Queen of England) provide proof of the bloodshed and slavery that occurred. It doesn't mean they didn't at one time sit down and break bread together, but it is considerable enough evidence to know that it wasn't all giving intentions that we learned in school. If you can't accept that potential reality, then you shouldn't be telling others to relax and stop being so politically correct. Just sayin!

Herman Cain was right when he told people to loosen up. Unfortunately for him there's nothing to "loosen up" about when it comes to the responsibility of picking a president.

Sidenote: Jesus was born in the Spring. But that's another tangent...

And now for something completely different:

http://patriciamckeon.blogspot.com/

Manq: "If you can't accept that potential reality, then you shouldn't be telling others to relax"

I've noticed that your ideology has lots of 'potential realities', Manq. Sorry but you left yourself too wide open to pass that one up.

On a serious note...Christmas opens up lots of interesting issues. Many Christians bristle if someone doesn't say "Merry Christmas" while unwittingly embracing many pagan rituals into their Christmas celebration. On the other hand, I understand why many non-believers would find 'Christ'mas offensive because Jesus Christ is a polarizing figure. Polarizing because of the 'exclusivity' issue. While many faiths believe there are lots of ways to God, Christianity teaches there is only one way, one truth, one life. I suppose 'Christ'mas somehow stirs that up.

I think no one should be forbidden to wish someone a Merry Christmas or be offended if you're wished Happy Holidays. Peace on Earth!

It wouldn't be a normal day without OB1 attacking everyone including those who never address him.

And then taking the second to write "peace on earth." Nice.

Just in case you didn't know:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compulsion

MANQ: "It wouldn't be a normal day without OB1 attacking everyone including those who never address him."

uhhh...you just addressed me, Manq. I don't attack everyone my friend - I just respond to stupid comments. Speaking of which, wasn't it YOU that told someone to crawl back under their rock yesterday when they disagreed with you?

Just in case you didn't know:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite

OB1: "I just respond to stupid comments."

And try to 1-up them?!?

Try to control your compulsive I-must-reply-to-everything disorder.

Next.

Manq, it's not my fault that you just happen to have a plethora of stupid comments. Try to control your compulsive I-must-reply-to-everything disorder.

Very original sir.

Okay Manq, in the spirit of Christmas I will try to keep from replying to everything. It's just that you Democrats on the far-left fringe with your contradictory reasoning are such easy targets that it's almost irresistible. As for the nastiness Manq, if you don't dish it out you won't have to take it. Peace on Earth.

I am not sure why Joe talked about Thanksgiving and Columbus. As a fellow Bostonian, I am sure that Joe knows that the first Thanksgiving was celebrated by the Pilgrims (along with their Indian allies), who by the way did not celebrate Christmas - I believe because the Bible doesn't provide a defintive date for this event. I don't believe my Pilgrim forbears (from Boston, I have several) were any the less religious for this lack of celebration. Merry Christmas.

"I think no one should be forbidden to wish someone a Merry Christmas..."

Nobody is.

Manq..."Sidenote: Jesus was born in the Spring. But that's another tangent..."

Side-sidenote: Jesus never existed at all, actually.

Good point Phil. It's just a date. My wife and I moved our anniversary celebration to an arbitrary date because it was so close to our birthdays. No biggie. Merry Christmas to you, too!

Obi, I wanted to to that with my wife's birthday because it was too close to Valentine's day. Foolishly, she refused. SteveW, even the Prophet acknowledged the existence of Jesus.

What is this "war" on Christmas everyone is so angry about? Who is this war against? The Barber shop that made a business decision? A business should be able to take that stance- consumers have the choice to patronize or not. Surely, those jolly, merry, Christians who wish to celebrate Christmas from November to December can find another barber shop.

Boycott the Salvation Army​’s Santa bell-ringers? Conservative Christian groups are calling for a boycott on Macy's this 'Christmas season' because of their pro-LGBT policies. It's America. Isn't this how we do it?- we throw our money around. Money = power. Even at Christmas/Holiday time. *maybe especially?

My younger kids school covers the traditions of the major religions this time of year. And why not? School is for learning. Learning about the traditions and cultures of others doesn't frighten me. Face it - none of us have ever had to be in school on Christmas day. Ever. Hanukkah- not so lucky. There are enough messages out there for us all to understand at a very young age which religion is the majority.

Why is showing respect to all religions and all people considered an act of war? Bill O'Reilly and his manufactured us-against-them rant is ridiculous.

4eyedsue,

I find this whole issue to be basically a manufactured attempt at a ‘de facto’ Christian theocracy here in the US by many of the more motivated religious conservatives.

And the use of the word ‘war’ in the attempt is not only distasteful, but seems a common thread among conservatives that see ‘war’ as the solution to all problems.

In any event, this effort to essentially ‘shame compliance’ with the dominate religion is exactly why the Founding Fathers included the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment.

These folks knew the power of the dominate religion since many of them fled to America to remove themselves from the tyranny of such arrangements in Europe.

Personally, I don’t care what particular greeting a person gives me at this time of year.

I know plenty of Christians and they wish me a Merry Christmas and that’s great.

I use the ‘happy holidays’ greeting myself since I know that many folks are not Christians.

If everyone is really concerned about ‘peace on earth’, perhaps they should revisit the places in the world where religious sects battle each other and kill innocents to ‘enforce’ their particular belief system using suicide bombers.

Perhaps it’s time for Bill to ‘lighten up’ and perhaps reread the Bill of Rights.

I do see that Mr. Messina does not us the word "war". My enthusiasm from another discussion elsewhere has spilled over.

phil...sorry to disappoint you, but there is NO evidence for any historical Jesus. No contemporaneous writings or accounts, by either the man himself or any of his followers, or persecutors, or anyone else. No records in any of the rather extensive collections the Romans kept, no record that any such person was executed by the authorities. No mention of him at all. No artifacts, either (pieces of "the original cross" don't count :) ).

4eyedsue wrote: I do see that Mr. Messina does not us the word "war". My enthusiasm from another discussion elsewhere has spilled over.

Indy: Bill O’Reilly as well as others who promote this issue do indeed use that word in their campaign on this topic.

And while it’s true that the author doesn’t reference that word as you note, he pretty much covers many of the talking points used by Bill in his efforts.

In any event, at least Joe was polite enough to note that some of us use the ‘happy holidays’ greetingl.

Phil, are you suggesting that Stevehw does NOT believe Jesus existed? I find that stunning! (y - a - w - n)

I actually suggested we move our anniversary to the day of Valentine's, Phil. Nope, our brides want Valentines AND their special day. They deserve both!

"Side-sidenote: Jesus never existed at all, actually."


Really? That's a pretty definitive statement.

What's your proof of that assertion? How do you intend to prove that negative?

Let's see it, bud.

Alright, as you say, you can't prove a negative, so if it makes you feel better, youex win.

Nevertheless, there is still no evidence that Jesus *did* exist. So the extraordinary claim that the offspring of a magical, supernatural invisible being was prosecuted and executed by the government of the time and then rose from the dead to walk the earth and then was levitated into the sky? Well, that doesn't have any proof, either.

Let's see your contemporaneous documentation of the existence of this "person", "bud".

There's plenty of evidence, steve, of exactly the kind accepted in any courtroom in the nation. It's called "testimony", and you can read it in any Bible.

Your knowledge of legal matters is woefully lacking, isn't it?

LBond, Steve gets cranky when someone joins a conversation on this public post (though he does it all time to others) so I’ll direct my post to you. Many atheists refuse to believe in the Deity of Christ but not accepting his existence is an unnecessary extreme. The comprehensive Jewish genealogy covering 42 generations by Matthew would be enough to convince any reasonable person but since the Holy Bible singes the fingers of guys like Steve, let’s look at the secular evidence.

Though none of the historical figures I’m offering were considered to be Christians, their detailed writings confirm that Jesus did exist, he lived in the first century, Joseph was not considered to be his father, he had a brother named James, he was a teacher and a rabbi, did many wonderful works, he had many followers, some believed Jesus to be the Christ, he was tried by Pilate, he was crucified, there were rumors that he had come back to life, and he was the founder of Christianity. Here’s just a sampling:

CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.) was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity. He went to great lengths to disprove the divinity of Jesus yet never denied His actual existence.

MARA BAR-SERAPION (Post 70 A.D) does not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, but his writings mention several aspects of Jesus' life.

CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome mentioned in the New Testament and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.) was a second century Greek satirist and though he ridicules the Christians and their Christ, his writings confirm Jesus was executed via crucifixion and that He was the founder of Christianity.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.) was a first century Pharisee and historian of both priestly and royal ancestry who provided important insight into first-century Judaism. Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus.

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD is an ancient record of Jewish history, laws, and rabbinic teachings compiled throughout the centuries. Though it does not accept the divinity of Jesus, it confirms the belief he was killed on the eve of the Passover.

I’ve dealt with the “gospel according to Steve” so I already know he will dismiss this evidence before even reading it. We’re just going to have to consider our bud Steve a Christmas ‘birther’.

Yes, obi. That was going to be my next point, assuming steve's attempt at repudiation: that he was trying to make the wrong point. The issue isn't whether or not Jesus existed; the valid point of contention would be whether or not he was divine.

My point in referencing the Bible as a legal matter is that much of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, at the least -- consists of direct evidence in the form of testimony as to the existence of Jesus. In the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, we have to give credence to that testimony unless collusion or conspiracy can be asserted.

But all of those testaments were made at different times in different places, at a time when modern communications didn't exist -- it's not like they could text each other to mesh their stories -- so they have great evidentiary value.

Of course, OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" of murder, too, so people are going to believe what they want to believe, for whatever reason or to meet whatever agenda.

As far as I'm concerned, denying the actual existence of Jesus is the same as denying that OJ committed murder: you have to completely ignore the actual evidence to reach that conclusion.

PS, obi.

That was an OUTSTANDING post, and great research. Kudos!

Thanks for proving my point...there is NO direct evidence, no contemporaneous reports, no first-hand accounts, no official Roman records, no artifacts which support the assertion that Jesus existed.

All you have is hearsay, written decades or centuries later, and none of which claim to have actually seen the person, witnessed the execution, etc.

LB...I believe your knowledge of legal matters is woefully lacking, not mine.

Every one of your "witnesses" is, in fact, not a witness at all, but is instead merely hearsay evidence, a kind not allowed in court.

They're not even giving circumstantial evidence.

Thank you Lbond. No point in going any further into the *birther* issue with the Christmas fruitcakes about Jesus. Skeptics could make the same argument about someone like Socrates who was born almost 500 B.C. (Is that Before Christ? No - he didn't exist)

There is a lot of historical and secular documentation supporting the existence of Jesus. Believing that Jesus is Divine is a separate issue but you'd have to be in a tiny minority of hardened atheists to presume that he never existed. And to what point? If someone believes he was just a misguided teacher, why the *emotional* drive to prove he never existed? Not THAT's weird.

As to the Diety of Jesus, it's all about faith, LBond. Jesus himself put it best: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

steve... you're amazing.

Actually, I have extensive experience in the law, including in criminal matters. I know exactly what evidence is, including the evidentiary value of testimony, and you don't have any idea what you're babbling about.

As I said, the testimony of those apostles is just that: testimony. That IS comtemporaneous in nature, is an "account" of Jesus's existence, and isn't countered by any opposing testimony or other evidence. It's eyewitness testimony as to his existence and actions.

In fact, as Obi has shown, the Romans -- the authorities of the era -- ackowledged his existence in their own writings, the only "records" they actually kept. ALL of their "records" were of this nature. They were witness statements. Under your definition, there's actually no "evidence" that Caesar ever went to Brittania, either. Do you dispute that it happened?

You'd have fit right in with the OJ jurors.

Here's a good discussion of the issue of "records":

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

In it, he makes the point that using your yardstick, there's no "proof" that Hannibal existed, either.

Do you dispute the existence of Hannibal the Great, too?

PS, steve.

You wrote there are "no first-hand accounts", and yet that's EXACTLY what the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is. Those are "first-hand accounts".

That's what "testimony" means. It's one of the legal definitions of direct evidence. People are allowed to testify to what they themselves have personally witnessed. "Hearsay" is when someone testifies to what someone else told them. It's second-hand evidence, indirect, and therefore not admissible.

You spout legalese about "circumstantial evidence" without understanding the definition of the term. A "first-hand account", or testimony, isn't "circumstantial" in nature. It's "direct evidence", and has a specific meaning in legal matters.

Obi, you wrote: "Skeptics could make the same argument about someone like Socrates who was born almost 500 B.C. (Is that Before Christ? No - he didn't exist)"


Yeah, that's why many archeologists now use the abbreviation BCE, meaning "Before the Common Era".

I have no idea how the last 2000+ years is supposedly a "common" era. I don't see what we have in "common" with a period 1900 years ago, and why whatever those things are aren't "common" with things 2050 years ago, but there it is.

What happened 2012 years ago that seperates this "era" from that "era"?

It evidently wasn't the birth of the non-existent Jesus. What else happened then?




Steve?

BTW, another thought.

Using steve's methodology, we must also conclude that Mohammed never existed.

The only source material to support the idea that he existed is the Koran, and early biographies written two or three hundred years after his death.

Same deal with Buddha. No "contemporaneous evidence" that he really existed.

Hey, this is fun!

LBond, if you showed Jesus on youtube Steve still wouldn't believe you. His mind is totally closed. And I don't think you'll get any argument from Steve about Mohamed or Buddha. He's against all religion except evolution. I've heard his assumptions on that one. Wow, talk about a leap of faith.

Yeah, but how about Hannibal? Or Caesar's Brittania expedition?

How much history can you deny without looking completely crazy?

BTW... where's the "contemporaneous" proof of evolution?

I don't think anyone was "documenting" anything back then. Particularly since people didn't exist, and the animals couldn't keep records.

What? A bunch of fossils?

That could mean anything.

Lbond, let me save you the time of debating Steve on evolution. HIS microbiologists, paleontologists and anthropologists are smarter than YOUR microbiologists, paleontologists and anthropologists. Case closed. It's just funny how some guys can deny something so plain as the existence of Jesus and yet grasp for other beliefs so astronomically impossible. As Sue said earlier - that's America!

Well, I'm not going to debate evolution. I see no conflict whatsoever between evolution and Christianity (probably Judaism, too, though I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently).

Genesis actually embraces evolution, in the form of intelligent design.

Hey obi- look at that! LBond thinks like Jon Huntsman! uh oh.

stevehw wrote: Thanks for proving my point...there is NO direct evidence, no contemporaneous reports, no first-hand accounts, no official Roman records, no artifacts which support the assertion that Jesus existed. All you have is hearsay, written decades or centuries later, and none of which claim to have actually seen the person, witnessed the execution, etc.

Indy: Steve, you’ve got a tough road to hoe on this one . . .

Remember, ‘belief systems’ are just that, beliefs whether there’s any reality to them or not.

Thus, the folks that believe in supernatural beings do so without any necessary proof.

Or, they perceive things they see as ‘proof’ whether such proof is reasonable or not.

In any event, I get a kick out of those that assert that ‘intelligent’ design per se is a basis for evolution.

Evolution is just life on this planet adapting to the current environment and those that adapt the best, do the best. There’s no designer per se involved.

Anyway, our greatest challenge as a species is to move away from religion and deal with the reality right before us.

If we don’t, I don’t see any long run success and we’ll eventually be evolved into something else that can live in harmony with the planet.

Sue and Indy, you've both convinced me.

Sue, you make a great argument for Huntsman. I honestly don't know why he hasn't caught on more. I've not heard negatives about him serving with the Obama administration in my circles. I think it has more to do with him being a relative unknown but you've won me over.

Indy, you make a great argument for evolution. Based on your postings over the last year I see no evidence of intelligent design.

Sue, I also breathe air like Jon Hunstman, and walk on two legs.

Doesn't mean I agree with him on much.

But hey! Even a busted clock's right twice a day.

And Indy, off-topic as usual.

The debate with steve had absolutely nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with intelligent design or evolution.

Your quote of steve doesn't mention evolution at all, does it? No, instead you missed the whole point of whether or not Jesus ever actually existed, in which case your "thoughts" on evolution are completely irrelevant to that discussion.

NOT whether Jesus was a divine entity; not whether there's a God; but whether he simply existed as a mortal person.

Obi and I are the only ones discussing evolution.

LBond- the comment had to do with a discussion obi and I had earlier on Huntsman views of evolution as guided by the hand of God. Sorry it offended you.

And actually- this has gotten way off Mr. Messina's original topic of some Christians wanting to take over the entire month of December with CHRISTmas. It's a strange way to honor Jesus, “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped… but made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant.” (Philippians 2:8)

Some worry so much about the battle to keep Christ in the word Christmas that he's left out of their hearts.

And, my kid has school on Hanukkah this year.

Sue, I'm not offended. I got the humor in your observation, and was responding in kind.

To me, whether or not people want to say "Merry Christmas" is pretty much an individual decision which has in recent times gotten weighted down with a bunch of PC crap. But I don't consider it a big issue, which is why I didn't really weigh in until steverino decided to make the blanket statement that Jesus never existed at all.

THAT particular assertion is what most of this discussion has been about.

yes, and not very respectful of steve. I tend to be a live and let live kinda gal. PC~ or whatever~ I think it's right to show respect to all religions and all people. I'm not into talking anyone out of their own personal beliefs~ only into keeping them out of government.

a lot of times my humor (or attempts at) do not translate so well online. :)

LOL!

Don't worry; I "got" it.

LB...you are aware that even biblical scholars do not believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the four gospels, aren't you?

Attempts to equate lack of evidence for someone named Jesus with other historical figures, such as Socrates, fail in exactly the way I'm talking about...there *are* contemporaneous accounts of Socrates, for example (Plato, etc.). There are NO contemporaneous accounts of Jesus. None. And THAT is a fact.

I know nothing of the historical record of Muhammed, but if you say there are no records, then perhaps he, too, is mythical figure from history. If someone presented you with documents written generations after the person in question was dead, and purported that they accounted for his words and actions, wouldn't you be the least bit skeptical?

Caesar's Gallic wars...well, there's plenty of evidence for those, isn't there? Contemporary accounts, archaeological evidence, official records, etc. Oh, and his own first-hand accounts of the war. Duh.

Look, you all want to believe this person lived, that's fine...believe it. But you're trying to make claims that are not backed up by the actual data; there ARE NOT contemporaneous, first-person eyewitness accounts of him. The gospels aren't (sorry, but if you don't believe me, you need to study the historicity of the gospel authors...and yes, I have, albeit years ago, from one of the world's foremost experts in the Gospel of Mark).

"BTW... where's the "contemporaneous" proof of evolution?" Um, yes, fossils. Those are *precisely* contemporaneous proof...

"In fact, as Obi has shown, the Romans -- the authorities of the era -- ackowledged his existence in their own writings, the only "records" they actually kept. ALL of their "records" were of this nature."

This is just not true. You need to spend some time in a library. The Roman Empire kept records just like every other government...tax rolls, births, deaths, economics, laws. They didn't just rely on Tacitus and Pliny, you know.

Hahahaha, steve.

As I said, you simply have no idea what constitutes "evidence".

Sorry, bud, but the accounts of the Apostles I named are, indeed, contemporaneous testimony and evidentiary. Those are their own stories told in their own words (in some cases written by themselves). That's the definition of "testimony".



But as I said, that's okay. I never understood the OJ jurors, either, and their boneheaded refusal to pay attention to the evidence.


So... let's see.... We can discount the existence of the following people: Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Hannibal, right off the bat.

Some major rewriting of history is long overdue!


As I think about it, since there are very few written records at the time that actually named -- well, anybody! -- we can simply assume that no named individuals at all existed, other than a few kings and such who carved their images in monuments. Everyone else was just meaningless rabble, or fictional personages, and didn't really exist as individuals.

King David? Fictional! Solomon? Fictional! Hammurabi? Fictional! Spartacus? Fictional, mos' def!

Hey, I've got my groove now!


As to the fossils "proving" evolution: you must be kidding. All they prove is that certain creatures existed when the rocks were formed. They don't prove evolution at all. "Evolution" is still a THEORY. Theories, by definition, are unproven.

"The Roman Empire kept records just like every other government...tax rolls, births, deaths, economics, laws."

Wrong again. They didn't bother keeping records of criminal proceedings or other minor administrative matters. Nor did they do that kind of record keeping in the provinces, and Judea was a VERY minor province to the Romans. And that's where your thesis falls completely to pieces.

Jesus was, as far as the Romans were concerned, a very minor figure in a remote province who was executed for his crimes just like thousands and thousands of others. A "hippie" of his era who wouldn't have been worth noting.

Even in spite of that, obi listed several sources that mention him; you simply don't want to accept it.

Sorry, the gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, etc. You can't just keep saying "yes, they were", when virtually every biblical scholar says they weren't. They were written long after the alleged facts, in a different language (Greek, not Aramaic), by people who were not eyewitnesses. They may have been the first written accounts, based on previous oral accounts, but they weren't written by any of the Apostles themselves. And Obi's list is, again, not firsthand, many are suspected forgeries from centuries later, and none are contemporaneous.

And you truly don't know the first thing about science if you think evolution is "just a theory" and that theories are proven. Scientific theories are *never* "proven". General and special relativity? Theories. Electromagnetism? Theory. Quantum mechanics? Theory.

Go brush up on scientific method before you make such a wrong-headed assertion again.

To summarize...Steve doesn't believe in God and doesn't believe in Jesus. Got it. I'm sure that those who care appreciate his personal opinion. All that's left to say is...Happy Holidays, Steve!

Clearly, you accept at face value whatever the bible says as being absolutely true...David, Solomon, Moses, whomever...without any critical reasoning or willingness to accept that many of these figures were either non-existent, fabricated long after the fact, amalgamations of personages, or outright fables.

What makes you think that the Roman Empire was shoddily run, with no records of administrative matters in the provinces? They must have kept *some* records, because if the bible is to be believed, the whole reason Joseph and Mary were *in* Bethlehem was because of those records of births, deaths, taxes, etc.

So here's an interesting question...why did god not see to it that somehow, *some* record, some proof, some hard, cold evidence of the existence of his son, the man/god who would save mankind, would exist? That seems kind of odd...here you have a god who parted oceans to save his chosen people (another myth with no evidence whatsoever), flooded the entire world (myth), etc., etc., and yet the single most important event in the history of the universe left not one single solitary piece of incontrovertible proof of it ever happening.

Stranger and stranger...

Yeah, yeah, steve. You keep making those invalid assertions. Sorry, those books qualify as testimony.

Here, I'll save us both some time:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

I have no doubt you can find at least some "scholars" who dispute the eyewitness accounts; you can find anything on the web. Want links to how the Earth is flat?

Now, as to "theory":


"the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

"noun, plural the·o·ries.
"1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

"2.
"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."


It's interesting that you actually name theories, but seem to assume they've taken on the nature of laws. They haven't, which is why they're still called "theories" and still modified from time to time as new research proves necessary.

Thus it is with evolution; it's still a theory, not a "law". A good example of an actual "law" is the "law of gravity". Another would be the Newtonian laws of motion.

You're right that one of us needs more education in science. Unfortunately for you, it's you yourself. My degree happens to be in the hard sciences. What's yours in? Basket weaving?

PS.

"So here's an interesting question...why did god not see to it that somehow, *some* record, some proof, some hard, cold evidence of the existence of his son, the man/god who would save mankind, would exist?"


Irrelevant. The issue isn't Jesus's divinity or lack thereof.

YOUR assertion is that Jesus was a fictional person. That he didn't exist at all. Whether or not he was divine -- even whether or not there even is a God -- has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.



Further, if there IS a God, why would he provide some kind of solid evidentiary device to his existence, when the whole point of his requirement for admission to Heaven is that the person believe in him as an act of faith? That would seem to kind of defeat the whole purpose, wouldn't it?

And lastly, if you believe in the story of Jesus as divinity, God made it clear that by sending Jesus and allowing his torture and death, that WAS the sign you refer to.


In which case, bud, you're screwed.

I see that Rick Perry has joined in on the war but this time taking the charge to Obama with his belief that Obama now has a ‘war on religion’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97QBX3V6Ux4

Perry doesn’t like gays serving ‘openly’ in the military. This is ‘code speak’ for simply not willing to allow gay Americans, the same ones that spill their blood for our nation, to be recognized like everyone else.

And yes, Perry was misleading saying that our kids can’t pray in school.

This is code for not saying that the government will ‘support prayer’ in schools since any kid can pray to ‘themselves’ 24/7 regarding of where they are at.

I realize that this guy is pulling for the religious conservative theocrats that find it unfortunate that they can’t make the US into a Christian nation since the Founding Fathers ‘separated church and state’ in in the ‘originalist’ version of the Constitution ‘as written’.

So, he makes this a campaign issue against the President . . .

Sorry, you’re the last guy on earth that I believe deserves to lead this nation anywhere and your comments indicate to me at least you haven’t the foggiest clue about what this nation stands for and who the nation is supposed to protect. Hint: the people.

And there are no qualifications in the wording of ‘we the people’.

So please, go back to Texas since we in California don’t like people like you that want to discriminate on your own ‘private and personal’ religious beliefs. You’re entitled to them and I guess as religion starts to fade in America, you might wish to hope that in the future, Americans don’t discriminate against the minority believers.

Fortunately, for you, the Founding Fathers covered you as well in that same Bill of Rights . . . .

The Founding Fathers got it right and thankfully, they saw the interest of the nation for all citizens not just believers.

Rick Perry is a complete idiot.

You *really* don't understand science, do you?

A *law* is a *description* of a natural phenomenon, but does not explain the phenomenon.

Kepler's laws of motion, for example...they are mathematical descriptions of the orbits of planets, but they don't say a thing about *why* they orbit that way. Newton's laws of motion...same thing.

A *theory* is the ultimate achievement in science, as it *explains* the phenomenon. Theories are NEVER proven (they can't be), they are only validated or DISproven.

The ignorance of science in this country is astounding...next you're going to tell me that when a theory is "proven" it becomes a fact.

If your degree was in the "hard sciences", then I'll eat my hat, because you don't understand even the basic precepts of science.

Want some salt and pepper with that?

BS in Civil Engineering.

Hahahaha!



"The ignorance of science in this country is astounding..."

As exemplified by you.


"... next you're going to tell me that when a theory is 'proven' it becomes a fact."


When a "theory" is proven, THAT'S when it becomes a "law".


The last science course you took was... what? Junior high school earth sciences?

PS

I posted the dictonary definitions of "theory" just a few comments back. Didn't you bother to read them?

I thought you guys loved your dictionary definitions. What happened?

You have an *engineering* degree, not a science degree.

'When a "theory" is proven, THAT'S when it becomes a "law".'

National Center for Science Education:

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

National Academy of Science:

Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

You could even just use plain old Wikipedia:

Law differs from a scientific theory in that it *****does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.********* As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

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

You should bone up on scientific method...start with Popper, and look up what he had to say about falsifiability.

"You have an *engineering* degree, not a science degree."


Well... I wonder what the "S" in "BS" stands for?

Try getting a degree in engineering without studying physics, calculus, chemistry, geometry, and a bunch of other such subjects, and see what happens.


Now... as to your quotation as to what a "theory" is, let me quote it back to you:

"In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

See? It's not a law, such as the law of gravity or Newton's laws of motion. It's subject to CHANGE... just like I said.

Man, I do have to give you credit for one thing: you're certainly an Energizer Bunny for your opinions, no matter how wrong they are.

BTW, here's a little "engineering" tip for you: when the hole you're in is too deep to climb out of, stop digging.

I never said getting an engineering degree didn't mean taking courses in various sciences, only that it's not a "hard science" degree (that is, it isn't a BS in Physics or Chemistry or Biology, etc.).

But let's recap:

You: 'When a "theory" is proven, THAT'S when it becomes a "law".'

And then you turn around and say theories can change (which is true). But then they could never be *proven*, and never become (in your schema) a "law".

I'll repeat this, and you're free to "prove" it with any working scientist...a law is *less* powerful than a theory. A theory is a full, explanatory framework for a natural phenomenon, and is *more* powerful. Theories are *never proven*, only *disproven*. Theories gain acceptance by being validated over time and many experiments and observations, but they are never, ever, EVER "proven".

Your examples of laws are perfect. They explain *nothing*, merely describe the behavior.

Newton's *theory* of universal gravitational attraction, later supplanted by Einstein's *theory* of general relativity, provided an *explanation* for the observed phenomenon (as well as many others, such as Kepler's laws of planetary motion, another example of a set of "laws" which provide only descriptions of the orbits, but no reason *why* orbits behave as they do).

Look, the "S" in BS doesn't mean you are a scientist, no matter how many general studies classes in various sciences you took. And on this point about theories being "proven", there's no two ways about it. They aren't. Sorry, but you are dead wrong here.

Correction...Newton didn't provide a theory of universal gravitational attraction...mea culpa, typing too fast.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

I draw your attention to the bar on the right-hand side:

"Misconception: If evidence supports a hypothesis, it is upgraded to a theory. If the theory then garners even more support, it may be upgraded to a law.

Correction: Hypotheses cannot become theories and theories cannot become laws. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are all scientific explanations but they differ in breadth, not in level of support. Theories apply to a broader range of phenomena than do hypotheses. The term law is sometimes used to refer to an idea about how observable phenomena are related."

Follow the link to a deeper explanation:

"If evidence supports a hypothesis, it is upgraded to a theory. If the theory then garners even more support, it may be upgraded to a law.

This misconception may be reinforced by introductory science courses that treat hypotheses as "things we're not sure about yet" and that only explore established and accepted theories. In fact, hypotheses, theories, and laws are rather like apples, oranges, and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are all scientific explanations that differ in breadth — not in level of support. Hypotheses are explanations that are limited in scope, applying to fairly narrow range of phenomena. The term law is sometimes used to refer to an idea about how observable phenomena are related — but the term is also used in other ways within science. Theories are deep explanations that apply to a broad range of phenomena and that may integrate many hypotheses and laws."

You're free to argue with Berkeley scientists all you want, but I'll accept their explanation (and every other working scientist I've ever known) over yours.

Hahahaha, steve.

Put down the shovel!

"I never said getting an engineering degree didn't mean taking courses in various sciences, only that it's not a 'hard science' degree (that is, it isn't a BS in Physics or Chemistry or Biology, etc.)."

Au contraire, mon fraire. Here's EXACTLY what you wrote: "You have an *engineering* degree, not a science degree."

Man oh man. You can't even quote yourself accurately. And, sorry, engineering is considered a "hard science" discipline.

Moving on (I'm tryin' to help you out of that hole you're in).

You: "And then you turn around and say theories can change (which is true). But then they could never be *proven*, and never become (in your schema) a 'law'."

I have to say, this IS becoming tiresome. Grasshopper, where do you think "laws" of science come from? They start out as "theories". Then they're subjected to rigorous critical empirical analysis, review, duplication, observation, and if they pass all of that... why, they become "laws"!

That's the system. That's how it works. Had you any foundation at all in the sciences, you'd actually know that.



And then this: "Look, the 'S' in BS doesn't mean you are a scientist, no matter how many general studies classes in various sciences you took."


"General studies classes". How... quaint.

Clearly you have no knowledge or understanding whatsoever about college-level studies. You think an engineer can get his degree and certification based on the kind of science classes you MAYBE took in high school? Some kind of class where you learn a few basics about how oxygen reacts with hydrogen to produce water?

Puh-leeze.

I'll tell you what. I'll sit down with some "hard scientist" (your definition) who specializes in one discipline -- let's say quantum physics -- and we'll both design a major structure -- let's say a dam -- and see whose stays up the longest.


Stop digging, steve. Step away from the shovel!

" where do you think "laws" of science come from? They start out as "theories". Then they're subjected to rigorous critical empirical analysis, review, duplication, observation, and if they pass all of that... why, they become "laws"!"

You just keep saying this, and I keep providing documents from science organizations that say that's NOT the way it works, which you keep conveniently ignoring.

"I'll sit down with some "hard scientist" (your definition) who specializes ...quantum physics -- and we'll both design a major structure -- let's say a dam -- and see whose stays up the longest."

Let's see...designing a dam...engineering. Studying the fundamental properties of matter? Physics.

How about this...you sit down with a quantum physicist and tell him that Quantum Mechanics is a law, not a theory, and see what he says. Or better yet, sit down with a biologist and tell him that evolution is "just a theory, not a law" and watch him (or her) laugh at you.

"Clearly you have no knowledge or understanding whatsoever about college-level studies."

AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, my friend, if you only knew...

Don't worry, steve. I can tell simply by the quality of the drivel you write; I DO know.

BTW, you can get a BS in Nursing. Does that mean that nurses are scientists? :) How about BS degrees in Economics, or Accounting, or Parks and Recreation? Or any of a boatload of other disciplines, all of which get BS degrees, but would never have the chutzpah to call themselves scientists. Even the engineers I know and work with are careful to note that they are *not* scientists. But I guess, in your case, that's not true...

Nice retort. Now...how do you respond to those fools at Berkeley who disagree with you? (See above post, with links to UC website on science education)?

A nice explanation of laws and theories here:

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Thing is, none of my searches turned up anything that supported your claim that theories, once proven, turn into laws. So how about we turn this around...you provide us with some support for your assertion? Surely, if your position is so rock-solid, some group like NAS, AAAS, RS, etc., would have a description of scientific method, including hypotheses, laws, facts and theories, which backs you up. Let's see it, shall we?

I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but sometimes it's so concise it's hard to avoid it...

"Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[11] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#cite_note-11

Merry Christmas to all, including Steve!

82 comments? WOW!! Glad my sister is a subscriber to the paper and gave me the article to read, but it's sometimes more "fun" to read the comments, pro and con. Joe's article this week hit it out of the ballpark with the # of comments!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS Joe.
Merry Christmas to one and all.
To my Jewish friends, Happy Hanukkah!

LLS in SCV

I just got off the phone with Jesus' PR guy. He says JC is very angry that people use him as an excuse to load up on material goods. He'd like to remind everyone that materialism is a poor substitute for spirituality, and that things diminish us. Or something to that effect.

I'm pretty sure the idea that rich people are that way because they are more devout than the poor is as Unamerican as ideas get. Neo-Republicans, at the same time, seem to have a large faction that still adhere to Calvinism and Social Darwinism. Paul Ryan leaps to mind...