Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

I read once years ago, of a study that was done on the effects of speeking words on molecular activity.
Apparently, different words spoken, produced particular effects on molecular activity.

It's obvious the doubting chap who thinks he's a loser and has no hope of winning is going to do a lot worse at GT5 (or anything else) than the man who is brimming with self-confidence and the will to win. I think that belief and expectation play a huge role in determining the outcomes that life deals to us at every turn. I could tell you some stories here! So the question is, do objective studies show any positive correlation, however small, between positive thoughts (positive belief and expectation) and positive results, and/or between negative thoughts (negative belief and expectation) and negative results?

It likewise may be questioned to what degree a formalized practice of actively seeking positive results - such as prayer or meditation - actually achieves such results in objectively controlled experiments. I don't know the answer to that.

Sometimes, in very stressful "foxhole" situations, people in deep trouble - even atheists - have been known to pray or invoke the name of a deity merely on the off-chance that it might do some good. Instinct runs deep in the human animal!

Since it can be neither proved that God exists nor that God doesn't exist, the practical man might well hang fire on this decision, yet still expect and believe that his systematically applied positive thoughts and expectations will lead to a better life.

 

[Imari]

I read once years ago, of a study that was done on the effects of speeking words on molecular activity.
Apparently, different words spoken, produced particular effects on molecular activity.

I can think of several experimental setups in which that would be an expected result. Do you have any more information?

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm a Catholic, but i'm not very religious......

Yeah, and I'm a gamer, but I don't really play video games.

You are what your behaviour suggests that you are not?

and....

Gentiles can not be Jews by Blood......

This is the dangerous gear in my opinion. The stuff where nationalism, culture, and race have impregnated religion. For one thing I'd like to see the Jewish religion and the supposed Jewish "race" go by different names, since they are different things.

Greetings Dotini.
I hope you are doing well.

Interesting commentary.
I read once years ago, of a study that was done on the effects of speeking words on molecular activity.
Apparently, different words spoken, produced particular effects on molecular activity.

You're finally touching on an area that could potentially have some resonance with some here. Your "witnessing" so far has pretty much been the equivalent of Stryper throwing Bibles into the crowd at concerts in the 80s. Expecting people to jump in the deep end and swallow a predefined and rigid set of exacting details insults their intelligence, and quite possibly their experiences also. Now, to first ask people if they believe that they might be "more than the sum of their parts" as Dotini puts it might get a different result. May depend on if you are just trying to fulfill some imposed mandate on "sharing the word", or trying to actually have a genuine conversation with people on a level which doesn't ultimately amount to mutual disigenuousness and condescension.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Nope. That's a "nontheist" - someone who believes in no deities. Nontheism is an active belief in no deities. Atheism is the lack belief in deities.

By definition, that is not so.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheist?s=t
atheist
a·the·ist /ey-

thee-ɪst/ -ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

World English Dictionary
atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)
— n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods
— adj
2. of or relating to atheists or atheism

Shockingly the terms are often used (wrongly) as interchangeable. Since no-one's ever treated two terms with different meanings as the same word before.

"Nontheist" implies the same thing, since it is the opposite of "theist".

The only "no belief" position is:

God may, or maynot exist.
In that opinion, there is no position of belief taken.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand you and Danoff's position to be:
God does not exist, due to the absense of Scientific or objective evidence.
That is a position of belief, formed and based on the minimum standard of evidence, you impose.

I can think of several experimental setups in which that would be an expected result. Do you have any more information?

Sorry, but I don't.
Wished I did.

 

[Famine]

By definition, that is not so.

[...]


World English Dictionary
atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)
— n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

Imagine if you were both misusing a word and quoting a dictionary definition of it without actually reading it. That's never happened before.

"A" is a Greek prefix, meaning "absence of". A-theist is "absence of belief in deities".

"Nontheist" implies the same thing, since it is the opposite of "theist".

Simultaneously yes and no. Nontheist isn't the same thing and is the opposite of theist. A thiest believes in deities. A nontheist - also (errantly) described as a gnostic atheist - believes in no deities.

An atheist does not believe in deities.

The only "no belief" position is:

God may, or maynot exist.
In that opinion, there is no position of belief taken.

That's the "no knowledge" position - agnosticism.

You can be an agnostic nontheist or an agnostic atheist, alongside regular nontheism and atheism - you should check out the chart posted several pages ago by @Villain

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand you and Danoff's position to be:
God does not exist, due to the absense of Scientific or objective evidence.

You're wrong - insofar as my position.

The classical atheist position is "I do not believe any deities exist". This may be reinforced by the nonfalsifiability of many described deities leading to an intrinsic absence of any objective evidence by definition - but it's not necessarily the case that this can be used as cause and effect for the classic atheist position.


Thus it's a position of lack of belief.

 

[Touring Mars]

What TM is so clearly arguing is the philosophy or paradigm of reductionism, which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. Reductionist thinking and methods form the basis for many of the well-developed areas of modern science, physics, chemistry and cell biology. There are obviously benefits to reductionism, but there are also limits and problems.

Many feel that man is more than the sum of his parts, and that man is more than just his physical body, the unsolved riddle of consciousness being an obvious example. Reductionists like Dawkins will argue heatedly that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon which will be eventually solved by reductionist methods. In the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics, many interesting and relevant phenomena cannot be replicated in laboratory conditions, and thus cannot be measured or observed without influencing and changing the system in some way.

The development of systems thinking has provided methods for tackling issues in a holistic rather than a reductionist way, and many scientists approach their work in a holistic paradigm. An example of this sort of approach is a new study by researchers in Wisconsin, Spain, and France reports the first evidence of specific molecular changes in the body following a period of intensive mindfulness practice. Evidence is growing that training the mind or inducing specific modes of consciousness can have beneficial health effects.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.

The study was published in the Journal Psychoneuroendocrinology.

I had a quick look at that paper, and I am struggling to see how it supports an argument against reductionism in any way.

Everything from the basic experimental design (observing the effect of a specific type of stimulus on changes in the expression rates of specific genes in different groups of people) to the potential therapeutic effects (how these gene expression products affect relevant biological mechanisms) seems pretty reductionist to me.

Now if that is wrong, you need to explain how it is, not just claim that it is.

It has already been explained to you where you're going wrong, hence I didn't feel that it needed repeating.

Your assertion that belief is universal has been clearly refuted and is patently false, although it is still not clear whether you accept that people can operate without belief, despite being shown a clear example of an instance where belief doesn't apply. You inadvertently reinforced this point yourself by defining this particular stance as 'no belief', even though this directly contradicts all of your previous statements regarding belief i.e. that "there is no escape from belief", that "belief is universal", and that "you either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false". Danoff's example showed how all of these statements are false.

As such, there is no basis for your claim "objective evidence is established from belief" either. Furthermore, as has been pointed out at length already, belief is not required in order for something to be objective evidence - and by that I mean any evidence whose properties can be verified independently.

 

[dxld]

Yeah, and I'm a gamer, but I don't really play video games.

You are what your behaviour suggests that you are not?

and....


This is the dangerous gear in my opinion. The stuff where nationalism, culture, and race have impregnated religion. For one thing I'd like to see the Jewish religion and the supposed Jewish "race" go by different names, since they are different things.

with people on a level

Yeah, and I'm a gamer, but I don't really play video games.

You are what your behaviour suggests that you are not?

and....


This is the dangerous gear in my opinion. The stuff where nationalism, culture, and race have impregnated religion. For one thing I'd like to see the Jewish religion and the supposed Jewish "race" go by different names, since they are different things.

The Jewish can not be separated by religion and ethnicity. This is what makes the Jews unique, and to separate the Jewish Religion from their ethnicity and culture would rob the Jews of how special and unique they are.

 

[dxld]

The Jewish can not be separated by religion and ethnicity. This is what makes the Jews unique, and to separate the Jewish Religion from their ethnicity and culture would rob the Jews of how special and unique they are.

 

[Dennisch]

Please explain then how my former neighbour, a very black man from Somalia could be a Jew.

 

[Danoff]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand you and Danoff's position to be:
God does not exist, due to the absense of Scientific or objective evidence.

That's not correct. My position is that of an atheist: "I do not believe in God, due to the absence of evidence". That does not mean the same thing as "I believe there is no God". This is a distinction you yourself were very intent on making just a few posts back.

 

[dxld]

Please explain then how my former neighbour, a very black man from Somalia could be a Jew.

There are some biblical characters who were not Jews at first and then converted. In modern times Sammy Davis Jr. And Tom Arnold Converted. Not only that but some people believe Jesus and Moses were dark skinned.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

An atheist does not believe in deities.

In fact of reality, thats not a "no belief" position, but a "unbelief position" taken as exampled previously to Danoff, on belief in the opposite option.
To say you do not believe in Deities, means you have to embrace the belief they do not exist.
At least from a rational standpoint.
Otherwise there is no legitimate basis of support for the statement.

The only "no belief" position is:
God may, or maynot exist.
In that opinion, there is no position of belief taken.

That's the "no knowledge" position - agnosticism

Which if your basis is Scientific, is the correct position.
Since Deities are unfalsifiable, there is a cancel out of objective knowledge.
There is no objective evidence for or against.

Thus it's a position of lack of belief.

If thats truly the case then your position would have to be: God may, or maynot exist.

That's not correct. My position is that of an atheist: "I do not believe in God, due to the absence of evidence". That does not mean the same thing as "I believe there is no God". This is a distinction you yourself were very intent on making just a few posts back.

That appears to be quite a confusing and contradictory position.
Perhaps you could elaborate on how that is possible.

 

[Touring Mars]

In fact of reality, thats not a "no belief" position, but a "unbelief position" taken as exampled previously to Danoff, on belief in the opposite option.

I'll let your own words answer that one...

there is no such thing as unbelief.

The only "no belief" position is:
God may, or maynot exist.
In that opinion, there is no position of belief taken.

This is precisely the position of the atheist.

To say you do not believe in Deities, means you have to embrace the belief they do not exist.

I'll let your own words answer that point too.

You are confusing "unbelief" with "no belief".
They are distinctly different terms.

"No belief" means just that, you have not chosen or formed a belief.
"Unbelief", means you have actually engaged belief on one side, or switched sides of belief.
The other side then is said to be the one of unbelief.

"I do not believe in deities" does not mean the same as "I believe there is no deities". They are different statements that mean different things.

This has been said so many times now I am honestly beginning to think you are being deliberately obtuse. Surely you can see the difference between the atheist position (no belief in deities) and the nontheist position (the belief that there is no deities). It doesn't matter what you call these two different positions, but the fact that they are distinct positions is something you seem totally unwilling or incapable of appreciating.

If you continue to refuse to accept that these are two different views, then frankly we are all wasting our time here.

 

[guywithanAE86]

*read the topic*
Not really. I don't deny the possibility of one, but that's about it and I'm not gonna waste my time thinking about it.
*skives off to avoid being stabbed*

 

[Danoff]

That appears to be quite a confusing and contradictory position.
Perhaps you could elaborate on how that is possible.

The same way "I do not believe the gun will fire when the trigger is pulled" is not the same thing as saying "I believe the gun will not fire when the trigger is pulled". The first is a refusal to be certain of the outcome, the second is certainty of the opposite outcome.

 

[LeMansAid]

The Jewish can not be separated by religion and ethnicity. This is what makes the Jews unique, and to separate the Jewish Religion from their ethnicity and culture would rob the Jews of how special and unique they are.

Yet there can be Jews of any bloodline, and non-Jews of "Jewish" bloodline. This is exactly the kind of rubbish that people should be riling against, instead of blabbering on about God itself abusing humankind. The belief in a spiritual birthright and superiority is possibly the most dangerous thing about religion.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It has already been explained to you where you're going wrong, hence I didn't feel that it needed repeating.

No explanation, just denial.

Your assertion that belief is universal has been clearly refuted and is patently false, although it is still not clear whether you accept that people can operate without belief, despite being shown a clear example of an instance where belief doesn't apply. You inadvertently reinforced this point yourself by defining this particular stance as 'no belief', even though this directly contradicts all of your previous statements regarding belief i.e. that "there is no escape from belief", that "belief is universal", and that "you either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false". Danoff's example showed how all of these statements are false.

There is no falsity or contradiction in anything I said.
First you are confusing a "position" and "operative actions".
"Belief" is undeniably in use and universal for operative actions.
If you are taking action, practically without exception, you are doing so from belief.
That belief maybe well founded,and or assumptive and or rational and or factual.
Or it maybe totally the opposite.

A position does not necessarily require action.
So in that case a position of "no belief" or "belief" can be taken.

As such, there is no basis for your claim "objective evidence is established from belief" either. Furthermore, as has been pointed out at length already, belief is not required in order for something to be objective evidence - and by that I mean any evidence whose properties can be verified independently.

OK, what motivation is it being established from?
And remember, prior to establishment, there is no evidence whose properties can be verified independently.
The evidence doesn't exist yet.

 

[Famine]

Incidentally "SuperCobraJet quoted your post in the thread Do you believe in God?" has become one of the regular highlights of my day.

Moving on...

In fact of reality, thats not a "no belief" position, but a "unbelief position" taken as exampled previously to Danoff, on belief in the opposite option.
To say you do not believe in Deities, means you have to embrace the belief they do not exist.

Nope.

Belief in something is a belief.
Belief in nothing is a belief.
No belief isn't a belief.

Belief in a deity is theism.
Belief in no deities is nontheism.
No belief in deities is atheism.

The only "no belief" position is:
God may, or maynot exist.
In that opinion, there is no position of belief taken.

Partially.

Specifically the Abrahamic God cannot exist as described in the Bible - due to the nonfalsifiability of its attributes. However, that's not to say that the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran didn't get it wrong (maybe sexed up the powers a bit) and God/Jahweh/Allah doesn't exist in a falsifiable form. Nor any other deity - take your pick from them (I quite like Odin).

The position of the classical atheist is that they do not believe in the existence of any deities. That position doesn't preclude their existence - a deity or many deities may exist - just that the classic atheist has no belief in their existence.

The nontheist you're trying to lump atheism in with will say they believe that deities do not exist. That position does preclude their existence - they believe that no deities exist.


Ironically, you're a nontheist when it pertains to every religion but your own - you literally deny the existence of any other deity, even when the deity is the same one but in another sect of your religion.

Unless you believe Shiva exists, of course.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The same way "I do not believe the gun will fire when the trigger is pulled" is not the same thing as saying "I believe the gun will not fire when the trigger is pulled". The first is a refusal to be certain of the outcome, the second is certainty of the opposite outcome.

You are attempting to confuse, overlook or ignore the obvious.
There are only two outcomes possible.
If you do not believe the gun will fire when the trigger is pulled, you have to believe it will fire.
There is no other option.
And vice-versa.

 

[Exorcet]

There are only two outcomes possible.

For the gun, yes. You don't know which will happen. Should you choose to only go by fact, you won't believe an outcome will happen either. So you could believe that the gun will fire, that it won't, or not believe anything. This is a perfect case for demonstrating a lack of belief.

"I do not believe the gun will fire" =/= "I believe the gun will not fire"

 

[Touring Mars]

OK, what motivation is it being established from?
And remember, prior to establishment, there is no evidence whose properties can be verified independently.
The evidence doesn't exist yet.

I don't fully understand the question, or what you mean by "prior to establishment", so you may need to explain that more clearly, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. You say 'prior to establishment, there is no evidence whose properties can be verified independently. The evidence doesn't exist yet.'.

Objectivism is the view that real objects possess measurable physical properties independently of any observation.

That the Sun is mostly made of hydrogen is such a property. We know that the Sun is mostly made of hydrogen because there are simple measurements that can be made that establish this. The results of such measurements provide the evidence that qualifies the statement 'The Sun is mostly hydrogen' as a fact.

However, 'Objectivism' holds that the Sun's composition doesn't depend on the mere act of measurement, but is an intrinsic property of the Sun itself that, no matter who is measuring it or when, they will derive the same conclusion - it is the objective properties of the Sun itself that will define the evidence, including all future evidence. The Sun is mostly made of hydrogen whether pigeons or sea squirts know it - that we know it to be true is because we are capable of making the measurements necessary to establish it as a fact. But the view that the Sun's properties exist (or at the very least, can be defined) independently of the human mind is a different thing. That two complete strangers (minds) with no prior connection and no knowledge of each other can derive the same conclusion - and produce the exact same evidence entirely independently (which happens in science all the time) - is compelling corrobation of the objectivist view.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Incidentally "SuperCobraJet quoted your post in the thread Do you believe in God?" has become one of the regular highlights of my day

Always happy to brighten up the day, when I can.

Moving on...Nope.

Actually yes, since there is no other option.

Belief in something is a belief.
Belief in nothing is a belief.
No belief isn't a belief..

Quite true.
However, when making statements concerning such, those statements must be consistent with the position taken.

Belief in a deity is theism.
Belief in no deities is nontheism.
No belief in deities is atheism.Partially..

I agree, but see above.

Specifically the Abrahamic God cannot exist as described in the Bible - due to the nonfalsifiability of its attributes.

That is a statement of belief, based on one side of Scientific criteria.
Actually, he can be, as I can attest to, but not through the Scientific standard.

However, that's not to say that the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran didn't get it wrong (maybe sexed up the powers a bit) and God/Jahweh/Allah doesn't exist in a falsifiable form. Nor any other deity - take your pick from them (I quite like Odin).

Now you are contradicting, your former statement.
If the Abrahamic God cannot exist, then the Bible could not be right.
As I've pointed out numerous times it's "either or".

The position of the classical atheist is that they do not believe in the existence of any deities. That position doesn't preclude their existence - a deity or many deities may exist - just that the classic atheist has no belief in their existence. .

Then that position can only be stated as, God may, or may not exist, to be consistent and maintain alignment with no belief.

The nontheist you're trying to lump atheism in with will say they believe that deities do not exist. That position does preclude their existence - they believe that no deities exist..

Any statement of belief to the opposite, does preclude their existence.

Ironically, you're a nontheist when it pertains to every religion but your own - you literally deny the existence of any other deity, even when the deity is the same one but in another sect of your religion..

That is true.
EDIT: i think I need to qualify one part of this.
What exactly do you mean by the last part.

Unless you believe Shiva exists, of course.

Don't know him.



Now for the the biggest question of this round, so far.
Are you ready?

Here we go.
If using or basing your belief on Scientific criteria, that criteria is one of complete neutrality.
As stated previously, there is no objective evidence for existence, and there is no objective evidence for non-existence.
They completely balance out.
One is not weightier than the other.

That being the case, why do you choose one side and apply such significance to it, when it is absolutely balanced on both sides?

BTW, thats in complete harmony, with what I am claiming as far as the determination being available, through another dimensional standard.

 

[DQuaN]

There is no evidence for dancing penguins on Pluto.
There is no evidence against dancing penguins on Pluto.
Completely balanced.

Which side will you choose?

 

[phonyk]

If using or basing your belief on Scientific criteria, that criteria is one of complete neutrality.
As stated previously, there is no objective evidence for existence, and there is no objective evidence for non-existence.
They completely balance out.
One is not weightier than the other.

That being the case, why do you choose one side and apply such significance to it, when it is absolutely balanced on both sides?

BTW, thats in complete harmony, with what I am claiming as far as the determination being available, through another dimensional standard.

I don't think the scientific position is one of complete neutrality. Maybe that's the starting point, but let's face it, the belief in a deity is not simply an abstract concept, but one which is created as a means to explain the universe, its existence, and everything in it. If you did think of a deity in the complete abstract - something existing outside of our universe, having no measurable influence on anything observable - then potentially yes it's 50/50. But there's no reason to have any position on that whatsoever. Even then, it's illogical to believe that something exists when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Anyway, in terms of the creator deity, its existence is not supported by any current theoretical models. The existence of a deity is not required to explain the universe, and concessions need to be deliberately made to find grey areas or gaps in understanding where a deity might exist. Based on scientific understanding, it is reasonable to draw a conclusion that the weight of probability falls on the side on nonexistence. That's an educated opinion, but I don't think it constitutes a belief as such. Just merely a logical conclusion based on the facts as we currently understand them. After all, if asked the question whether anything exists, you can only really give an opinion based on the information you have to hand. Technically, I can't even prove that I exist, but I'd say on balance i'd like to say in all probability that I probably do. But is it reasonable to say it's 50/50 as to whether or not my imaginary friend Bob exists? I'd say not, and I'd basically apply the same logic in trying to answer the basic question "is there a god?"

 

[Famine]

That is a statement of belief, based on one side of Scientific criteria.

As pointed out myriad times, objective evidence is independent of belief. It is not a statement of belief to say that the Biblical (or Qu'ranic) account of your deity's powers render them non-falsifiable, nor that falsifiability is a requirement of objective evidence, nor that objective evidence is a requirement of existence

It is, however, a statement of belief to say that objective evidence is not a barrier to existence.

Thus, insofar as your specific deity as described exists, you are a theist and I am an atheist. For deities other than your specific one, you are a nontheist and I am an atheist. For deities in general you are a monotheist and I am an atheist.

You can see how your position changes depending on the deity and mine does not. This naturally leads on to your own question...

As stated previously, there is no objective evidence for existence, and there is no objective evidence for non-existence.
They completely balance out.
One is not weightier than the other.

That being the case, why do you choose one side and apply such significance to it, when it is absolutely balanced on both sides?

... which you should be asking yourself.

The atheist picks no sides. However, theists regularly flip-flop between picking the side of their deity and the side against other deities, becoming nontheists when their belief is applied to other religions. It's particularly weird when it comes to Abrahamic religion - God, Jahweh and Allah are almost identical in description (Jahweh and God more so), to the point that it's almost baffling a Christian monotheist will argue against the existence of Allah.


If I may revisit Russell's Teapot (as DQuaN alludes to above):
There is no objective evidence for a fluorescent, invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head.
There is no objective evidence against a fluorescent, invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head.

In your world, the existence of the teapot simply boils down to personal choice. Teapottists believe the teapot exists, nonteapottists believe it doesn't exist. I'm sure wars would be fought.

Ateapottists will point out that the properties of the teapot are nonfalsifiable and the teapot cannot exist in our universe in this form - but they can't preclude the existence of the teapot in some form we simply don't know about yet. They don't believe in the teapot, but nor do they believe it doesn't exist - they simply have no belief.

 

[dxld]

Yet there can be Jews of any bloodline, and non-Jews of "Jewish" bloodline. This is exactly the kind of rubbish that people should be riling against, instead of blabbering on about God itself abusing humankind. The belief in a spiritual birthright and superiority is possibly the most dangerous thing about religion.

The Jews are not better than any other race on this earth, but they are Gods chosen people. I'm Filipino, and I still believe God has blessed the Jews. God loves all people, no matter what ethnicity. God chose the Jews to represent him, later he came as a Jew in the form of Christ to bless those Gentiles(non-Jews) who believed in him.

In a way the Jews are like the Boston Celtics in Basketball... The Celtics have 17 NBA Championships.... The Jews have accomplished so many things from invention, to advances in medicine, the arts, finance, comedy, technology.... And on and on and on.

Are the Celtics perfect? No they are not, and many other teams have won NBA Championships... Others have cheated victory, especially the Lakers. In a way, the Lakers are Like the Muslims, they are blessed with money, but they play dirty.

 

[Imari]

The Jews are not better than any other race on this earth, but they are Gods chosen people. I'm Filipino, and I still believe God has blessed the Jews. God loves all people, no matter what ethnicity. God chose the Jews to represent him, later he came as a Jew in the form of Christ to bless those Gentiles(non-Jews) who believed in him.

In a way the Jews are like the Boston Celtics in Basketball... The Celtics have 17 NBA Championships.... The Jews have accomplished so many things from invention, to advances in medicine, the arts, finance, comedy, technology.... And on and on and on.

Are the Celtics perfect? No they are not, and many other teams have won NBA Championships... Others have cheated victory, especially the Lakers. In a way, the Lakers are Like the Muslims, they are blessed with money, but they play dirty.

I guess someone isn't a Lakers fan.

 

[dxld]

I guess someone isn't a Lakers fan.

Not trying to offend the Muslims, in a way they are the brothers of the Jews. Biblically speaking the Muslims have been blessed with vast amounts of prosperous land. I just wish to offend the Lakers and criticize radical extremist Muslims.

 

[Touring Mars]

The Jews are not better than any other race on this earth, but they are Gods chosen people. God chose the Jews to represent him, later he came as a Jew in the form of Christ to bless those Gentiles(non-Jews) who believed in him.

Ironic then that Judaism rejects the idea that Jesus was the son of God or was the messiah.

 

[dxld]

Ironic then that Judaism rejects the idea that Jesus was the son of God or was the messiah.

Jews, Muslims, and Gentiles(non Jews) its sort of like The Rock, Scissor, Paper game.