Nixak 77's Words.

 Nixak*77*  Nixak*77*  a month ago

The big obvious contradiction in atheists' assertions that 'science' supports atheism...

The fact is by far the most Nobel-Prize winners in STEMs fields have been folks of the Abrahamic Faiths Traditions [accounting for nearly 3/4s of STEMs based Nobel Prizes] vs just 4.5% to 9% have gone to atheists & agnostics. When it comes to Peace prizes Folks of Faith [mainly of the Abrahamic Faiths] do even better while atheists do even worse [92% vs just 3.5%]. In fact the Nobel Prize atheists most excel at is for literature [they've won 35% of lit-prizes] which literature often involves a lot of [sci-fi type] 'fiction'....

 

Nixak*77*  13 hours ago

Last week Tyler loud{mouthed}ly exclaimed this recent Gallup-Poll survey re church membership in the US in 2020: } Americans’ membership in houses of worship continued to decline last year, dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup’s eight-decade trend. In 2020, 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque, down from 50% in 2018 and 70% in 1999... {

- One thing that must be noted re any such poll taken in 2020, is that the 2020-21 COVID lock-down regime actively / has actively DISCOURAGED &/or even PENALIZED many / most church / temple / synagogue / mosque gatherings even for funerals & weddings!!

But here's another take on this Gallup-Poll, which says just because more young-adults in the US are not directly affiliated / don't regularly attend a church / temple / synagogue / mosque than in recent yrs, don't mean they're all atheists nor even agnostics.

- } The considerable decline occurring in church attendance these days, especially among young people, is garnering much attention. As a professor at a college affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, I [the author, Dr Robert Shedinger] am acutely aware of these trends. When I began teaching at Luther College twenty years ago, about 62% of students self-identified as Lutheran. Today that stat is around 30% and falling. The prevailing explanation for this rather dramatic decline in church affiliation places the blame on the rampant spread of materialist philosophy which, many believe, is driving young people toward atheism. The reality, I believe, is far more complex.

- We should not be too quick to equate church affiliation with authentic religious faith... - And it is simply not true that young people who harbor little interest in traditional religion and religious institutions are all atheists, a truth I see demonstrated time and time again when I teach my Science and Religion course.

- Many students come to my [the author, Dr Robert Shedinger's] class with a real curiosity about how scientific and religious thought might intertwine. And this curiosity betrays a spiritual hunger just looking to be filled. These students may not be involved in church, synagogue, or mosque, but they are suspicious of materialism and become very open to the suggestion of an intelligence at work in the cosmos. Cosmological fine-tuning arguments tend to fascinate them. Trying to account for the origin of life from non-life by materialist processes flummoxes them. The evidence of intelligent design in living organisms fills them with awe. The idea of reducing mind and consciousness to chemistry and physics seems utterly ridiculous to them. The fact that they have never encountered these ideas in their science and psychology classes frustrates them to no end...

- Thus we should not make the mistake of assuming that declining church attendance equates directly with rising levels of atheism. Young people have many reasons for growing disenchanted with traditional religious organizations. But many nevertheless retain an abiding interest in spirituality. Ironically, in my experience, it seems to be engagement with the theory of intelligent design that is speaking to their spiritual interests in ways that traditional religiosity isn’t. The more we can make ID accessible to young people, the better chance we have of preventing the complete takeover of our society by materialism.

- The obstacles to this are formidable of course. Students won’t be encountering ID in science classes anytime soon. But outside of science — in philosophy classes, religion classes like mine, or even in history classes that engage Darwin and Darwinism critically — the opportunity to introduce ID to a willing audience is certainly there... This may not send young people flocking back to the church, but it can still help to create an important bulwark against the rising tide of materialism. { - See @ https://evolutionnews.org/2...

 

Nixak*77*  Jonathan Hili  21 days ago

A few points of note: Alexandria was a Greek city named by Alexander after himself & set up as his capital of Egypt circa 331 BCE, after his conquest of Egypt where he then installed himself as 'King of Egypt'.

Apparently there were Jews in Alexandria dating from the time you cited, in fact such Jews apparently translated the Hebrew TaNaK [OT] in Koine Greek [aka the Septuagint]. But IMO just because many / most Alexandrian Jews spoke Greek don't mean that they 'looked' Greek.

The Bible says Yeshua's parents took him to Egypt for refuge for an unspecified period of time, but it did NOT say they took him to Alexandria. And it's not at-all clear if Yeshua even spoke Greek, tho we do know He definitely spoke Hebrew-Aramaic.

Philo was roughly a contemporary of Yeshua who was born circa 20 - 10 BCE [no one knows his exact birth yr]. Furthermore: } The position of Alexandria's Jewry began deteriorating during the Roman era, as deep antisemitic sentiment began developing amongst the city's Greek and Egyptian populations. This led to the subsequent Alexandrian pogrom in 38 CE [= within 5 - 10 yrs of Yeshua execution upon orders of the Roman imperial-colonial gov of Judea Pontius Pilate]... { - Thus Alexandria may NOT have even been such a good place of refuge for Yeshua's parents to go to.

The Ethiopian House-Beta Jews' have a legacy dating back some 2500 - 3000 YRS. - Similarly Yemenite Jews' history dates back some 2500 - 3000 Yrs [Note the Ethiopians & Yemenites have a legacy link dating back to the kingdom of the Queen of Sheba].

The Egypt's Coptic Church & Ethiopia's Orthodox Church are 2 of the earliest 'Xtian' churches known. } Then the angel of the Lord said to Philip [a Disciple], Start out and go south to the road that leads down from Jerusalem to Gaza. So he set out and was on his way when he caught sight of an Ethiopian. This man was a high official under the Kandake (Candace) Queen of Ethiopia in charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Isaiah the prophet…. (Acts, 8:26–27)

- The passage goes on to describe how Philip helped the Ethiopian treasurer understand a passage from the Book of Isaiah that the Ethiopian was reading. After Philip interpreted the passage as prophecy referring to Jesus Christ, the Ethiopian requested that Philip baptize him, and Philip did so. { - IMO this likely marked the beginning of Ethiopia's Xtian Church. This Ethiopian official was reading an OT scripture because he was already familiar w the TaNaK / OT due to the legacy of Ethiopia's House of Beta Jews.

- Re the Coptic Church of Egypt: } The early church historian, Eusebius, states in his Chronicle that Mark arrived in Egypt in the third year of Emperor Claudius (43 CE), marking the beginning of Christianity in Egypt. {

 

Nixak*77*  Jonathan Hili  22 days ago

I grant that Dr Varmah 3 [per you 'whopper'] claims were rather 'bold' while lacking supporting evidence to back them up. But when it comes to the fact that the Bible says that Yeshua's [aka 'Jesus'] parents [Yosafe & Miriam] fled to Egypt for refuge from Herod's persecution / onslaught vs Judean male-children of Yeshua's age-range, your response is that ['more likely because there was a large Jewish community there']. IMO that's also something of an unsupported claim, tho not entirely illogical -But- What do you think a [pre] 1st century Judean community in Egypt [assuming there indeed was one] would have looked like? IMO they would not have looked like Ashkenazi Jews, almost by definition ['Ashkenazi' means Jews of European descent & European Jews represented barely 3% of all Jews in the 1st & 2nd centuries]. IMO they likely would have looked much more like Ethiopian House of Beta Jews &/or Yemenite Jews [= 2 ancient Jewish communities mainly from Ethiopia & Yemen, FYI: the Bible does link Ethiopia & Egypt, note Gen 10: 6 - also note Gen 10: 8 - 12].

  

Nixak*77*  a month ago

First of all, the fact that CoD said 'IF there was a historical 'Jesus' [Yeshua]....' The very fact that Dude apparently questions whether Yeshua was even a historical person, IMO renders the rest of his screed a moot-point. IMO it's WTF pointless to assert what a mythical / A-historical character's ethnicity / racial identity would have been [based on what, exactly].

- And since Dude brought it up, anyone who's interested can look at Rev 1: 13 & 16, but in pre 1980s Eds of the KJV Bible. Also note that some / most post-1980s Eds of KJV Bible changed the original wording of that brief description of Yeshua found in Rev 1:13 - 16, to obscure its original [pre 1980s] wording describing Yeshua's feet as looking like bronze as if they had been burned in a furnace [it also says His hair was white & wooly]. If Dude's screed that that's just a mere 'misinterpretation' [per Dude 'nonsense about burnish bronze' - except that's the basically the wording that pre 1980s Eds of the KJV Bible used], then WTF did they even feel the need to substantially change the wording of Rev 1: 14 - 16 in post 1980s Eds of the KJV Bibles??!

That being said IMO tho the 2 guests may NOT have best 'articulated' the case, that don't mean they were just totally off-base / out the pocket either. The first thing to note is that the historical Yeshua was neither a European nor a Xtian, & He never intended to form a new 'religion' called Xtianity. IMO Jim kinda-sorta gets to the 'meat of the matter' in a comment below w further commentary by BTS [yeah, at-times I do agree w Jim]. 'Xtianity' took on a distinctly 'Greco-Roman' flavor w the advent of Roman Emperor Constantine & his Council of Nicea. There the indigenous Judean 'flavors' of Yehsua's & His Brother Yaakov [aka 'St James'] original movement got suppressed [ala the Ebionites & their Ebionite Gospel written in Hebrew / Aramaic], & the Nicene version of Xtianity got 'officially normalized' / standardized & pushed, w an imperial stamp of approval [& a major assist from Constantine's mother Helena]. At that point unless one's talking about the ancient Coptic &/or Ethiopian Churches [or maybe to some extent the ancient Syrian Church], almost all the main Xtian churches had a distinctly non-African [& even non-Judean] Euro-Xtian flavor, that got even more Euro-centric in the wake of the Crusades & the advent of Columbus, the Conquistadors & Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel job [all w the Vatican's 'blessings'].

Now I'm going to critique something that 2 scholars in their fields [geneticist Dr John Sanford & astronomer Dr Hugh Ross] have said re Genesis, Eden & the Edenic Rivers. Note that Dr John Sanford is author of ‘Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome’, & Dr Hugh Ross is founder of Reasons To Believe, one of the foremost Old Earth Creationist [OEC] sites.

- Tho I respect & follow much of what these 2 experts in their respective fields have to say & how they link their findings to the Bible, but they’ve both said things re Human Origins & the Genesis Edenic story that IMO are problematic. Dr Sanford has said that the Bible does not say Man originated in Africa but rather in the [so-called] ’Middle-East’ [CoD used the term Near-East - actually Dr Sanford the Bible says Man originated in Eden- even more specifically Eastward in Eden, so the question is where exactly was Eden]. FYI I’ve been reading the Bible since I was at-least 10-12 yrs old [maybe even younger] & I’ve read it cover to cover several Xs. I’ve also read the Apocrypha several Xs, of-course primarily in English [I’ve also read parts of the a Hebrew–English TaNak in Hebrew]. Of-course the most popular English version of the Bible in the KJV first published circa 1611 [Note the KJV was not the 1st English translation of the Bible]. Take any KJV of the Bible from circa 1611 to 1967 [IMO this is likely so even for more modern versions dating into the 1980s], I defy Dr Sanford or anyone else to find the term ‘Middle-East’ in there!! ‘Mid-East’ / ‘Middle-East’ is NOT a legit historical / Biblical term, it was a term first coined circa 1859-60 by the Royal British East-Africa Co around the same time they began working on the Suez Canal. Of course the Royal British East Africa & India Companies were projects to 'project' the colonial-imperial power & 'interests' of the British Empire upon British ‘subject’ colonies. Even then the term ‘mid-east / middle-east’ did not become part of the regular lexicon till it was popularized some 40 yrs later by an Anglo-American naval officer & geo-political strategist circa 1900. So NO Dr Sanford the Bible does NOT say Man originated in the so-called ‘middle-east’, maybe you meant to say in the Mesopotamia -But- Even that’s not quite right / is actually incomplete. Furthermore the term ‘Mid-East / Middle-East’ has shown to be quite ‘elastic’ over the yrs & decades. Initially it referred to Turkey, the Mesopotamia, Levant & maybe Arabia…, But- Then they began to 'stretch' it to include Egypt, & now the so-called ‘middle-east' has been 'stretched' to include virtually all of the North African Sahara / Sahel region all the way west to Africa's western Atlantic coast line, & then even hooking back to Chad, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Eretria, & Somalia [= East Africa / Horn of Africa] region. So again Dr Sanford what does it mean to say that the Bible says Man originated in the so-called ‘middle-east’ not Africa, if the currently the so-called 'middle-east' includes nearly all of N.Africa & much / most of East Africa, too??!

Dr Ross tried to tackle the ‘mystery’ of the Edenic Rivers, which generally only 2 [the 2nd pair = Rivers 3 & 4 = the Tigris & Euphrates] are mentioned. But what about the first pair of Edenic Rivers / Rivers 1 & 2? Dr Ross has tried to place them in Arabia [I think he may actually said ‘Saudi-Arabia’, which IMO is as A-historical as ‘mid-east / middle-east’] by claiming the Biblical land of ancient ‘Cush / Kush’ was in {Saudi?’} Arabia. With all due respect to Dr Ross, IMO there are multiple problems w this dubious claim. First: the Scofield Reference-Study Bible says that ‘Cush / Kush’ is the ancient Biblical name for ancient Ethiopia, & IMO no serious scholar has ever claimed that ancient Ethiopia was ever in {‘Saudi”?} Arabia, it has always been associated w East Africa / the Horn of Africa. 2nd: The 2 rivers that Dr Ross cites have [according to several sources] been dried up since at-least circa 2500 to 3000 BCE, yet when Moses wrote of the 1st pair of Edenic Rivers he wrote that they like the 2nd pair of Edenic Rivers [= the Tigris & Euphrates], were at that time currently existing & flowing rivers [FYI OT scholars traditionally say Moses wrote the Torah including Genesis circa 1450 – 1250 BCE = at-least 1000 - 15000 YRS or more after the 2 rivers Dr Ross tries to cite had already dried-up]. Furthermore Moses was apparently quite familiar w parts of Arabia so if he meant to say Arabia IMO that’s what he would have said [or perhaps he would have referred to it as the Land of Kedar].

So what’s the deal here? Both Dr Sanford & Dr Ross are 2 white Euro-Xtian men, who are making dubious claims that effectively try to de-link Eden & Africa. Uhm Dr Sanford the Bible does NOT say Man originated in the so-called ‘Middle-East’, which is NOT even a Biblical term. And NO Dr Ross ancient ‘Cush / Kush’ [= ancient Ethiopia] ain’t in {‘Saudi’?} Arabia it was / is in East Africa. That means that at-least 1 of the first pair of Edenic Rivers was 'eastward in Africa' & IMO both of them were / are eastward in Africa. IMO their more ancient Hebraic names were used in Genesis [ala the Pishon & Gehon] but their more ‘modern’ names are the White & Blue Nile!!

- Now IMO there may be more in play re Drs Sanford & Ross’ claims than just myopic Euro-Xtian based Euro-centrism. The fact is that the current neo-Darwinian ‘consensus’ is that Man [AMH] originated in [east] Africa, which really got hyped w the discovery of ‘Lucy’ in Ethiopia in 1974 as an alleged human ancestor. Of-course Drs Sanford & Ross disagree that ‘Lucy’ is a human ancestor [as do I], so IMO their ‘knee-jerk’ 'reactionary' response is to try to de-link Africa from Eden. But just because one premise is false [‘Lucy’ allegedly being a human ancestor] don’t mean the 2nd premise is also false [that Man originated in Africa]. The fact is, Darwinists only came to ‘their’ ‘Out of Africa’ consensus circa 1960. Prior to that almost all the ‘experts’ in the field were looking for the birth-place of Man everywhere else but Africa [ala Java & Peking Man {E.Asia}, Neanderthal & Cro-Magnon Man {Eur-Asia}, & let’s not forget Piltdown Man {UK} & Nebraska Man {USA]. It was the work of one Louis Leaky that led to a paradigm shift in the field of human origins, resulting in the shift of focus toward Africa. But Leaky did not initially come to Africa [mainly Kenya] as a paleontologist &/or archaeologist, but rather as a Xtian missionary. In fact I think Leaky even helped his father translate the KJV Bible into Kikuyu [a major indigenous language of Kenya, which may be part of the Afro-Asiatic language family along w Hebrew, Arabic, ancient Egyptian & Coptic language, Oromo {spoken in both Kenya & Ethiopia}, Amharic & Ge'ez {Ethiopia} & Somali- among other languages], which implies Leaky must have been something of a Bible scholar. My hypothesis is what likely inspired Leaky to look to [east] Africa as the birth-place of Man [even as all the ‘experts’ at the time were looking everywhere else but Africa], is he ‘deciphered the code’ [IMO likely w a key assist from indigenous folks’ ‘folk-lore / oral-history] re the location(s) & names of the first pair of Edenic Rivers [aka the White & Blue Nile].

  IMO it just fits that the 2 pairs of Edenic Rivers were / are the White & Blue Nile, -&- Tigris & Euphrates. The first 2 civilizations of recorded history were Sumeria [the Mesopotamia] & ancient Egypt [aka KHemit: of the Nile River Valley], the arc linking these 2 ancient civilizations has been coined as the ‘fertile crescent’ & ‘cradle of civilization’ [IMO aka the 'Garden of Eden']. Now some might claim there's NO geographical link between the White & Blue Nile, & the Tigris & Euphrates, but that ain't quite correct. There's a geological formation, a 3700 mile [some say 4300 mi] trench that runs from northern Syria deep into Tanzania & Mozambique called the 'Great Rift Valley System aka the Great Syrian-African Rift Valley. At the northern end of the Great Syrian-African Rift Valley is the source of the Tigris & Euphrates in the mountain regions of northern Syria / southern Turkey; & at towards the southern end of the Great Rift Valley system is the Great African fresh-water lakes [IE: Lake 'Victoria'] which is the source of the White Nile, & also the Ethiopian hi-lands where lies the source of the Blue Nile. Thus both river systems are indeed geologically linked.

So this CoD dude says the historical Yeshua ['IF' He even existed] had to be 'caucasian' [= white]. Yet the Bible says that Jacob / Israel's son Joseph [aka Yosafe] looked like an ancient Egyptian, & ditto for Moses, too. Then the NT says when Yeshua's parents [Yosafe & Miriam] escaped Herod's persecution of Judean male-children of Yeshua's age, they took Him & fled where- to Egypt [NOT Europe, NOT even the Mesopotamia]!! Where they sojourned for an unspecified amount of time [some say several months, others say it may well have been for several YRS]. IDK maybe dude thinks the ancient Egyptians weren't really African - Africans. Heck maybe he even denies ancient Egypt was even in Africa!! Also note that 2 of the oldest Xtian Churches are the Coptic Church [Egypt] & the Ethiopian Orthodox Church [also note the history & legacy of Ethiopian House of Beta Jews & King Menelik]. So IMO it's no coincidence that one the oldest forms of Xtianity is Egypt's Coptic Church, which is where the Bible says Yeshua's parents took Him for some time to seek refuge from Herod's persecution.

So when did the 'white Jesus' image become the standard? IMO circa 1500 w Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel [job] & other such paintings & sculptures by him &/or his associates [note the turn toward 'white' Biblical imagery began in the wake of the Crusades]. If one has a hard time envisioning this, just note that the holiest shrine in Poland is the Black Madonna & Child [popularized by Pope John Paul II, whose homeland was Poland]. But FYI Poland ain't the only place that has a Black Madonna & Child icon, there are at-least 1 [or more] in: Spain, France, Switzerland & Italy- And they all pre-date 1500 ACE!! In fact there are ancient artifacts & paintings that pre-date the Crusades, clearly depicting Yeshua His Apostles [& other Biblical persons] as non-caucasian / non-white. In-fact there's a 3rd - 4th century mural in the Xtian catacombs of Rome depicting Yeshua & His Apostles at the 'Last-Supper', & neither He nor They looked like [typical] Romans of that era- He / They are all clearly depicted w dark-brown skin & 'curly hair'. And there's another painting of Yeshua meeting His Apostles from Egypt's Coptic Church, again showing Him / Them w dark-brown skin & 'curly-hair'. Again I emphasize these iconic images are not some recent 'post-modern' depictions of Yeshua by 20th - 21st century 'Black Nationalists' [actually Dude, the more apt term is Afro-centric], they all pre-date 1500 ACE & some even pre-date the Crusades!! But w the advent of Michelangelo & his Sistine Chapel job [under the auspices of Pope Julius II in 1505], all that imagery got changed.