I liked the way you put that. IMO that was the brilliance of what Jesus recognized and taught. People have to sincerely desire and strive to change themselves from within rather simply try to create and enforce the right rules, with no internal growth.
It’s easy to be cynical in the world as it is but IMHO the only real solution is a gradual generation by generation internal change in attitude. In the meantime, laws and governments are the tools we have for now.
I wouldn’t call 2000 years a shortage of test generations.
I doubt this is true, but let’s say it is. It isn’t necessarily a point in Jesus favor, and the idea that no one is making this claim about Mohammed is a point against him.
Me neither, but looking at man’s progress, limited as it is, I think the concept shows itself to be true. The internal change in enough people brings about the social change, and the laws that follow. The laws wouldn’t exist without the internal change.
I’m thinking of women’s rights, Civil rights movement, etc. I don’t consider the lesson a failure because mankind is so slow in grasping and implementing it.
The guy / gal who succeeded in friction fire for the first time. Without the voluntary creation of fire humans would have never ventured outside the tropics, would never have developed anything resembling human culture, we would have no ceramics, no metals, no glass, no electricity, no engines, no nothing.
Just the immediate boon of fire-at-will must’ve been stupendous. Primitive cultures use fire for innumerable every-day needs, not just for warmth, light, and a way to make food safe to eat and digestible (many important early food plants are poisonous if eaten raw) - huge deals alone.
Anyone who has made fire with two sticks knows what a big gap there is between getting smoke and getting an actual flame, even with well-proven materials and instruction. The person succeeding in it without any prior knowledge must’ve been dedicated to the extreme as well as brilliant.
Nothing much changed before or after Jesus. Things didn’t get hopping until the 18th Century. That sort of implies a lack of causality.
I’d also note that the women and civil right’s movements had as many if not more Christians on the wrong side, just the same as with the current homosexual rights movement. I’m not blaming that on Christianity. But people tend to interpret their religion in a way that allows them to feel morally just in the status quo. So again, Jesus should have been able to predict that and propose a solution. Representative democracy provided a solution to protect human rights in a way that was proof against the tyranny of the majority (like the Christian majority.)
I’m unclear about what you think Jesus should have predicted and proposed a solution for.
I’m also not claiming causality.
For people abusing the absoluteness of scripture to avoid having to justify themselves. He may have predicted it happening, but he didn’t propose any solution to the problem beyond telling people “to not do that.”
If Jesus hasn’t caused anything changes in the world yet, i.e. he didn’t cause the advances we’ve made since the 18th century, then you’re basing his importance to humanity on the theoretical good he will do when we reach a state that is capable of actually incorporating his philosophies. That’s assuming that we ever do reach such a state and assuming that his ideas will work for our benefit then. That seems like a rather large leap of assumptions to make.
That reference says neither that Gutenberg took his surname when he invented the printing press nor does it say Gutenberg was not his real name…
And I chide myself for being both argumentative and OT to boot. But if you are going to be persnickity and snarky, you should at least get it right.
Indeed not. There is no one else who splits off part of the credit for the influence of Islam to anywhere near the degree to which St. Paul splits off part of the credit for the influence of Christianity.
I’m sorry, Cosmosdan, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Could you phrase it a little differently perhaps? What is it you think I’m doing - presumably that I ought not?
TIA - Jesse.
Hello again!
Are you sure you read the article. It clearly gives Mr. Gutenberg’s birth name.
Here y’go!
I’m having difficulty comprehending which part of this is unclear. Johann Gutenberg was born Johann Gensfleisch. The man changed his name, it’s not a crime, it’s just a fact.
Shalom - Jesse.
Pretty much everything you’ve said simply attests to a difference in their approach. By the way, you’ll get much better results here if you stop asserting that things that only Christians believe are the Absolute Truth[sup]tm[/sup]. It really just makes you look . . . well, for lack of a better word that I can use in GD, silly.
I’m having difficulty comprehending that you do not understand the difference between a “real” name and a birth name, particularly in the historic context of Gutenberg, and how names were assigned at the time. I suppose it’s possible you didn’t read your own cite carefully, or perhaps you had trouble with comprehending it. Casually-worded as it is, it’s not wrong the way you are wrong.
You might begin by admitting (just for practice) error for the part where you said he took that name when he invented the printing press…
In any case, Gutenberg was his real name, and if you want to argue otherwise, go read about how surnames were assigned back then, and how that was attached to a birth name.
As to when that surname became part of his “real” name, why perhaps you’d like to do some research around that, also, before you go correcting others on either point.
Perhaps you meant to say, “He was born Henne/Henchen (Johannes) zur Laden, or Gensfleisch.” Or perhaps you meant to say, “His surname zu Gudenberg was added after his birth but before his printing press years.”
Here’s a little starter primer beyond your Bible-Antiques-based cite:
“As the youngest son of the family, he is mentioned in earliest documents as Henne or Henchen (i.e. Johannes) zur Laden or as Henne Gensfleisch. At this time names were not passed on from father to son and grandson. The patricians of Mainz were called after their houses and if they had several, they could carry several names. In relation to the father, only in 1427 or 1428 a document states the name “zu Gudenberg”, while Johannes Gutenberg was mentioned in 1430 for the first time as “Henchin zu Gudenberg” in a document.”
http://www.mainz.de/gutenberg/english/zeitgum.htm
In any case, as I mentioned, there is nothing in the cite you gave that says “Gutenberg” is not his “real” name; your cite only mentions that he preferred his house surname, and what his birth name was. It is your own incorrect inference that such a surname is not a “real” name, and I am doing my best to both correct your ignorance on that point as well as help you admit to it. The latter is proving most difficult.
(Love the “L’il trivia” and the even more chipper “Here y’go!” But even more helpful would be accurate statements when proffered up so cheerfully as corrections. Most helpful of all would be an admission of error.)
Hello CC!
My understanding is that we’re to post our understanding, opinion, and belief, as to what is the truth about the subject at hand. It’s quite all right if you don’t agree with me, you certainly have plenty of company.
The argument you just used is silly IMO because everything you said to me I could say right back atcha about your beliefs. Atheists are anything but neutral.
I’m happy to ‘look silly’ for Christ any day! OTOH, maybe I really do look silly! 
Agape - Jesse.
**I understand fully how surnames came about. I also understand that birth names are kept on record as ones actual name at birth.
If he changed his name to Gutenberg then that became his name, but it wasn’t the name he was given at birth. I couldn’t care less if his name were Humphrey Cheese, but you are so persistent and impolite that I feel it is necessary to take this to its conclusion. Please read the following carefully.**
Cheers - Jesse.
The second sentence would be more accurate if you were to delete the word “maybe”. If you haven’t done so already, you might want to take a look at the “How to talk to atheists” thread.
And in another instance of your pattern of posting definitive statements without supporting evidence, there’s a grammar thread in GQ awaiting some clarification on your part.
HH,
I refuse to argue about grammar. It was a fun thread and a fun sentence to pick apart, but I have reams of books on grammar, and numerous supposedly up-to-date preferences in my favorites, but the fact is, no one agrees on grammar anymore. Apart from a few basic rules, which we all (hopefully) still follow, it has become a matter of opinion and preference. As I stated in my post on the thread, ask ten experts and you’ll get ten differing answers to most grammar questions. I write books for a living and your asking me for a citation for correct placement of commas? Come on now! This isn’t in any way contructive - you’re simply arguing for the sake of it.
Agape - Jesse.
Right, and I have no quibble with that, but in GD, you have to provide evidence for what you say. “The Bible says it, and I believe it.” doesn’t cut it.
But I don’t go preaching in practically every thread I post in, do I? Thus that argument is ineffective against me.
Looking silly tends to make your argument less effective, but maybe you’d rather do your work for God the way you want to rather than the way that actually works well.
What about his asking for a citation on the correct placement of commas? Is there a cite for contractions we can refer to?