The ONE person with the biggest impact on history.

[UK2K]

Who was it? We were having this discussion last night.

Alex the Great?
Darwin?
Shakespeare?
Charlemagne?

Who has your vote?

[iamgine]

Adam or eve

[Nanners]

genghis khan

[lakers_forever]

Aristotle
Jesus

Western civilization in a nutshell

[poido123]

It will be Putin if he decides to react to American agression.


I think a nuclear holocaust would top anything anyone else has impacted the earth with.

[UK2K]

Adam or eve

A real person.

Indiana Jones had my vote thanks to his archaeological discoveries but...

[poido123]

Ok, probably Einstein.

[plowking]

Tesla maybe.

[SpaceJam]

Kanye West

[Jasper]

Ben Franklin (they named a store after him)

[Akrazotile]

Honestly I would go with Paul of Tarsus who basically turned Jesus of nazareth's local teachings into a global religion. Cant think of any social institution that has affected that many people for that long. Closest I can think of tbh would be Muhammed and his invention of Islam.


Then maybe someone like Caesar who helped spread Latin way up into Europe which became the basis of French, Spanish, Portuguese, and parts of English and so on.

Ben Franklin is also a reasonable selection.

But again, I think it has to be Paul due to the sheer impact Christianity has had on the entire globe good and bad for 2,000+ years.

[NumberSix]

Jesus. Not even close.

[masonanddixon]

Jesus. Not even close.

How so?

[Patrick Chewing]

Clearly Jesus.



The Risen Messiah!!!

[Nick Young]

Probably Mohammad and Jesus. The two most influential people in human history. Billions of people still follow and deify them today.

[Dresta]

Probably St. Paul

[~primetime~]

Whoever the earliest 'person' is.

[DeuceWallaces]

Whoever the earliest 'person' is.

Yeah, undoubtedly the first man and woman to survive the ultimate hell long enough to procreate.

[Akrazotile]

Lincoln is also a candidate.

One million American casualties as a result of the civil war.

Reunionized the north and south.

Freed American slaves.



All three of these things had enormous multigenerational impact on the US and on the world.


Still likely does not compare to the most preeminent religious figures but in terms of secular impact he is definitely up there.

[senelcoolidge]

Jesus. Not even close.

Not a hard question.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I definitely understand the religious choices, but so many other people contributed to those religions flourishing. Genghis Khan eliminated whole people's from the earth, expanded the silk road, and fathered more children than anyone ever probably.

[sd3035]

Jesus

Aristotle

Da Vinci

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Impossible to measure but Muhammad (PBUH) most likely. Political, social, religious success on all fronts.

Hammurabi hasn't been selected nor has Alexander the Great. Nor has an Egyptian, nor Lao Tzu nor any Indian. Interesting.

[Patrick Chewing]

Impossible to measure but Muhammad (PBUH) most likely. Political, social, religious success on all fronts.




:rolleyes:

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

:rolleyes:

Don't take my word for it.

Firstly prophets shouldn't be compared as they are all the chosen elect by God. They work harmoniously to spread the Message and guide mankind into their highest destination.

With that said, Jesus (PBUH) did not effect people's marital lives, their conduct in the battlefield, their treatment of women, their day to day lives, their choices of Medicine, their dietary habits to as large of an extent. Nor was his group of people (whom he preached to) as wicked as the Makkan Pagans. He died early to whereas if you read the entire Seerah you will see the changes in Arabia in the span of a 23 years after Prophet hood.

Irregardless of the aforementioned paragraph it should be reiterated that Jesus was a Miracle sent on Earty and his original teachings ought to be adopted by all members of mankind.

Ask Michael Hart http://amaana.org/ismailim.html

[ILLsmak]

Jesus. Not even close.

prolly true, even people who wanna say Jesus is a myth would have to concede that.

Can def argue people who used Jesus and spread the idea of Jesus, but in the end I think that Jesus gets the win.

At least if we're talking about history now, as it all has settled. If you look at history as a whole and divide a person's influence by longest influence/largest, etc, then maybe not Jesus... but I assumed the question meant history leading up until now.

-Smak

[gigantes]

good answers so far, but i'll go with mitochondrial eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), not to be confused with fairytale eve or some televangelist wearing a wig and a dress.

[quote]Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Right on.

Nobody's more important than mom

[Facepalm]

Jesus/Muhammad

[SaltyMeatballs]

Jesus. Not even close.
Who knows if the dude even existed

[Nilocon165]

Adam or eve
The person has to be real

[Sarcastic]

Jesus. Not even close.


No conclusive proof he actually existed.

[poido123]

No conclusive proof he actually existed.



Here's something to ponder for those who doubt the existence of god.


If a god was to give free choice of faith to those to believe in him, why would he provide conclusive evidence and remove the need for faith as a pathway to the kingdom of heaven?


In other words, why make it so easy for people to have faith when our time on earth is the test of that faith?

Nobody said believing in god was easy. Nobody said that conclusive evidence would be provided to gain your approval of Jesus/God.


When you go to college and you learn your subjects, you are given the tools and the textbooks to achieve a goal of passing. It's that easy right? No, it requires effort, it requires YOUR INPUT to gain that result.


It is no different with christianity. Faith is what you put in and what you are prepared to open your heart to.

[gigantes]

No conclusive proof he actually existed.
there's no conclusive proof about almost ANYTHING in history, the further back you go.

IMO joshua son of joseph and mary is as real a figure as you'll find in any other age and time.

[oarabbus]

Definitely not Jesus or Mohammed.

Probably Genghis Khan. Greatest emperor the world has ever known.

[lakers_forever]

No conclusive proof he actually existed.

There is not a single one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited university in the entire world who thinks Jesus never lived.

[gigantes]

There is not a single one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited university in the entire world who thinks Jesus never lived.
oh please.

last time i checked, the scholarly doubt upon jesus' existence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus) is alive and blooming in all directions.

...

here's a question for the extremists on either side--

have you people who are absolutely sure or absolutely not sure about jesus (or hey-zeus as i like to call him) existence ever checked out the studies upon the human mind which suggest that we need to know about this kind of thing, one way or the other?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_tolerance%E2%80%93intolerance

[D-Wade316]

Easily Isaac Newton. His discoveries would be the foundation of the Industrial Revolution, and with it the modern world we live in today, and all mathematicians and physicists that immediately followed him all owe some debt in his work on mechanics, calculus, etc.

[K Xerxes]

Here's something to ponder for those who doubt the existence of god.


If a god was to give free choice of faith to those to believe in him, why would he provide conclusive evidence and remove the need for faith as a pathway to the kingdom of heaven?


In other words, why make it so easy for people to have faith when our time on earth is the test of that faith?

Nobody said believing in god was easy. Nobody said that conclusive evidence would be provided to gain your approval of Jesus/God.


When you go to college and you learn your subjects, you are given the tools and the textbooks to achieve a goal of passing. It's that easy right? No, it requires effort, it requires YOUR INPUT to gain that result.


It is no different with christianity. Faith is what you put in and what you are prepared to open your heart to.

This doesn't make me reconsider my doubt in the existence of god. Not one bit.

[sd3035]

If god exists, who created god?

[CarlosBoozer]

Jesus

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Okay this is getting ridiculous.

You can NOT not nominate Abraham, Noah, and Moses as well.

[gigantes]

If god exists, who created god?
some other asshole who magically came in to existence before him.

[Overdrive]

Easily Isaac Newton. His discoveries would be the foundation of the Industrial Revolution, and with it the modern world we live in today, and all mathematicians and physicists that immediately followed him all owe some debt in his work on mechanics, calculus, etc.

Without Newton Leibniz would take his place. Galileo was more important imo.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

If god exists, who created god?

Holy Quran Chapter 112:

https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-20/surah-ikhlas-chapter-112


He is One with none comparable to Him, without any beginning or end, unlimited by time, space or circumstances. A reality before which all others have no existence. He is the Creator, One, and everything is His creation.

A tradition from Imam Muhammad Baqir (as) says:

"Ahad' and 'wahid' both have one concept which is One with nothing comparable or similar to it, and monotheism is the confession to His Oneness".11

In the Qur’an /wapid/ and /apad/, both, refer to Allah, the One, the Only.

In the next verse, another epithet of that Holy Essence is referred to:

"Allah, the Eternal"
Many meanings are mentioned for /samad/ in Islamic narrations, commentaries, and lexicons.

Raqib cites in Mufradat that 'Samad means a Lord; one to whom reference is made in matters of importance'. Some others have said that 'Samad' means 'something whose inside is not hollow, but it is full'.

It also means 'a Lord', when applied for Allah, because affairs are dependant upon Him. 'Samad' signifies one who is high or elevated in the utmost highness, and a Lord to whom one resigns himself, has recourse to, or is in need of, or One above Whom there is no one, or One Who continues, after His creatures have perished.

Imam Husain ibn Ali (as), in a tradition, has stated five meanings for 'samad '

1. Samad is a Lord Whose Lordship has attained its utmost point or degree.

2. Samad is an Essence and Being that continues or continues for ever or is everlasting.

3. Samad is the Existence that has not a hollow inside.

4. Samad is the One Who takes no nourishment, food or drink.

5. Samad is One Who does not sleep.12

A tradition from Imam Ali-ibn-al Husain (as) says:

"Samad' is One Who has no partner and it is not difficult for Him to protect things, and nothing is hidden from Him".13

Some others have said /samad/ means 'independent of anyone' - All perfect - the One to Whom recourse is made by everything: Eternal for its needs, both for existence and for perfection; the One Who needs no sustenance of any kind-Self-existing to understand, Whose existence, every mind is captured in marvel and wonder. Nothing is hidden from His all-enveloping knowledge-is not accommodatable in anything, not even in intellect: Infinite in all aspects of existence and attributes.

The term 'samad' has such a vast meaning that we cannot mention them, completely, or in other words, the names or the attributes, mentioned to describe its nature, cannot be translated to covey the exact sense to the fullest meaning of the terms.

A tradition denotes that the citizens of Basrah wrote a letter to Imam Husain (as) and asked him the meaning of /samad/.

He replied:

"In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful:
then do not plunge in vain talk about the Qur'an and do not dispute about it and do not speak about it when you do not know (it).

Verily, I heard from my grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, who said:

'the person who talks about the Qur'an without knowing (it), his abode will be in fire'.

Allah, Himself, has rendered 'samad’ to mean:

'He begets not, nor is He begotten',
'And there is none like unto Him'...
Yes, Allah is 'samad' Who is not from anything and is not in anything or on anything; He is the Creator of everything and all are from Him by His Power; what He has created to perish will perish at His Will, and what He has created to remain will remain in His Knowledge. This is Allah; al-Samad".14

It says:

"He begets not, nor is He begotten"
Different from this is the statement of those who believe in Trinity; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.


'begets',
in the verse under discussion, has a broader meaning. It negates any material and delicate things emerging from Him, or He, the Sacred Essence, emerging from any material and delicate thing.

In the above mentioned letter of Imam Husain (as) to the people of Basrah, about the commentary of the term /samad/, he commented on the current verse, saying:

"/lamyalid/, i.e. there emitted nothing from Him - neither material things nor a child, nor other things that emit from creatures, nor a delicate thing like a soul.

Nothing appears in Him, such as sleep, imagination, grief, sadness, happiness, laughter, tears, fear and hope, courage and discouragement, hunger and satiety.

Allah is more exalted than that something should emit from Him, or that He begets something material or delicate, nor is He begotten from something material or delicate...

Similar to a living creature coming out from another one, or a plant from the earth, water from a spring, fruits from trees, nor the like, emitting delicate things from their sources, such as vision from the eye, hearing from the ears, smelling from the nose, tasting from the mouth, speech from the tongue, knowledge and understanding from the heart (insight and soul), and particles of fire from stone...”17

According to this tradition,

'begets'
conveys a vast meaning, so that it may envelop any emitting things of any kind from anything else, and this is, in fact, the second meaning of the verse whose first and apparent meaning was the meaning that was mentioned in the beginning.

Besides, the second meaning, with the analogy of the first meaning, is quite adaptable and understandable; since, if Allah has no children, it is because He is aloof from the qualities of material. This meaning is also right for other qualities of matter.

"And there is none like unto Him".
The term /kufw/ originally means 'equal from the point of position and rank', then, it is used for any similarity.

Considering this verse, the Holy Essence of Allah is free from all qualities or obstacles that creatures have, and free from all defects and limitations. This is 'Unity of Attributes' that corresponds with 'Unity of Number’.

Therefore, He is One in Essence, in attributes, and in deeds; and He is unique in every aspect.

Amir-al-Mo'mineen
Ali (as) has said:

“...no change can take place in Him and no lessening, diminishing, dwindling, decay and dissipation of His Mighty and Glory is possible, that He is not begotten from anyone nor does He beget anyone... He has no peer and no equal. He can destroy things created by Himself in such a way that they will cease to exist and disappear into nothingness...”18

This is an interesting commentary because it discusses the narrowest points of Unity. It warns us not to ascribe our qualities and attributes to Allah and thus, not to create our glorified image as a personal diety.

[Nick Young]

some other asshole who magically came in to existence before him.
What was existence like before the big bang?


There are some things that we humans simply aren't capable of comprehending.

[gigantes]

There are some things that we humans simply aren't capable of comprehending.
peace be upon you, bro.

[Dresta]

Who knows if the dude even existed
Not sure that it matters. Homer undeniably had an enormous impact on Greek culture, yet no-one knows who he is, or has any evidence relating to his existence. But someone evidently created the Homeric poems, and likewise someone evidently promulgated the message of Christ around the period in question--that a novel belief system was founded around this time around this sort of person is pretty certain.

There is actually far more evidence when it comes to Jesus, who I remember even being mentioned in Tacitus (I think, it was definitely a Roman historian).


Unrelated, but it's also largely misunderstood how incredibly important Plato was in shaping western thought, Christian theology, and more recent philosophy.

I don't see the argument for Genghis Khan because his legacy did not last--the Mongol Khanates were unadaptable and resistant to change and quickly sunk into irrelevance. There are plenty of military leaders quite a bit more influential: if not for Scipio (and Fabius too to be fair) Rome could well have fallen to Carthage; if that had happened, European history would be almost entirely different.

Then obviously there are the lawgivers, Hammurabi, Lycurgus, Solon, Justinian, etc.

[StephHamann]

Holy Quran Chapter 112:

https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-20/surah-ikhlas-chapter-112

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/4187030/monkey-peeing-in-his-own-mouth-o.gif

[sd3035]

Holy Quran Chapter 112:

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6899449.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Tunisian-presidential-bus-attack.jpg



:cheers:

[gigantes]

:cheers:
excuse me...

care to explain the message, bro?

[sd3035]

excuse me...

care to explain the message, bro?


a page from the quran :lol

[lakers_forever]

oh please.

last time i checked, the scholarly doubt upon jesus' existence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus) is alive and blooming in all directions.

..

There lies the problem. You "checked" on wikipedia. If you had ever read a book on your life about that subject, you would know that there is a consensus among historians that Jesus existed and was crucified. Atheist, agnostic, jewish, christian, scholars, it doesn't matter. They all agree that Jesus existed.

You should read "Did Jesus exist" by renowned scholar Bart Ehrman (an agnostic, for those who would claim bias). An easy book to read, where he presents all the evidence and refutes those who claim Jesus did not exist.

Who thinks Jesus did not exist? Militant atheists, who just like fundamentalist Christians use their "studies" to push an agenda: atheists saying Jesus did not exist and fundies saying everything in the New Testament is 100% true.

Like I said, there is not a single full professor anyhwere in the world of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament, who claims Jesus did not exist. You think it's a coincidence? The one Phd in Ancient History who defends Jesus did not exist is Richard Carrier, a clearly militant atheist who hates religion. Where does he teach? Wich University? None. I wonder why... Wait, he teaches online courses at the "Secular Academy". :lol


* Check Bart Ehrman interview with an ignorant militant atheist trying to say Jesus did not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

[sd3035]

Jesus almost certainly did exist. The debate over who he really was is where it gets interesting.

[UK2K]

Here's something to ponder for those who doubt the existence of god.


If a god was to give free choice of faith to those to believe in him, why would he provide conclusive evidence and remove the need for faith as a pathway to the kingdom of heaven?


In other words, why make it so easy for people to have faith when our time on earth is the test of that faith?

Nobody said believing in god was easy. Nobody said that conclusive evidence would be provided to gain your approval of Jesus/God.


When you go to college and you learn your subjects, you are given the tools and the textbooks to achieve a goal of passing. It's that easy right? No, it requires effort, it requires YOUR INPUT to gain that result.


It is no different with christianity. Faith is what you put in and what you are prepared to open your heart to.

My biggest issue with religion, particularly Christianity is...

To me, the Bible basically says 'worship me or burn in an eternal pit of fire'.

That doesn't seem like a very loving God to me.

[StephHamann]

My biggest issue with religion, particularly Christianity is...

To me, the Bible basically says 'worship me or burn in an eternal pit of fire'.

That doesn't seem like a very loving God to me.

Christianity is a slave movement. Slaves in the Roman empire were "livining in a world full of shit" to quote Kubrick.

The slaves had nothing but believed that their suffering will reward them in afterlife, while the roman gods worshipping masters will burn in hell. That's it.

Everyone that believes in relgion still has this slave mindset, Nietzsche focused most of his work on it.

[Nick Young]

Christianity is a slave movement. Slaves in the Roman empire were "livining in a world full of shit" to quote Kubrick.

The slaves had nothing but believed that their suffering will reward them in afterlife, while the roman gods worshipping masters will burn in hell. That's it.

Everyone that believes in relgion still has this slave mindset, Nietzsche focused most of his work on it.
Nietzsche also suffered from manic depression and brain damage.

[StephHamann]

Nietzsche also suffered from manic depression and brain damage.

His brain damage started 1890, he wrote all of his work before that. And he was not manic depressive. In fact many marxist authors spread such rumours because Nietzsche rekt the socialist movement even more than Christianity.

Socialism ― or the tyranny of the meanest and the most brainless, ―that is to say, the superficial, the envious, and the mummers, brought to its zenith, ―is, as a matter of fact, the logical conclusion of “modern ideas” and their latent anarchy: but in the genial atmosphere of democratic well-being the capacity for forming resolutions or even for coming to an end at all, is paralysed. Men follow―but no longer their reason. That is why socialism is on the whole a hopelessly bitter affair: and there is nothing more amusing than to observe the discord between the poisonous and desperate faces of present-day socialists―and what wretched and nonsensical feelings does not their style reveal to us! ―and the childish lamblike happiness of their hopes and desires.

[UK2K]

Christianity is a slave movement. Slaves in the Roman empire were "livining in a world full of shit" to quote Kubrick.

The slaves had nothing but believed that their suffering will reward them in afterlife, while the roman gods worshipping masters will burn in hell. That's it.

Everyone that believes in relgion still has this slave mindset, Nietzsche focused most of his work on it.

While I get your point, I don't believe that hoping for a beautiful afterlife makes you a slave.

There are many successful religious people that use their success to help others in the name of God. That can't be a bad thing.

But the idea that I MUST worship you, and no other God (which is explicitly stated as a sin), and if not I'm going to be cast into a pit of despair for all eternity...

Makes me think you're kind of a dick.

[ArbitraryWater]

Jesus Christ its not even CLOSE

[Patrick Chewing]

Jesus Christ its not even CLOSE


God Bless You!

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

:cheers:

You asked a question that demonstrated a deficit of knowledge.
You received a comprehensive reply.
And that's your response.

Here's more information on that particular subject.
*


Verses in the Holy Quran Prohibiting Killing of Oneself or Others

*

Allah, praise to Him, strongly prohibited the killing of oneself (suicide), or anybody else, or children for fear of poverty, as stated in verses 6: 151, 17: 33, 2: 195, and 4: 29 because the killing of one innocent soul is for God equal to the crime of killing all people, as stated in 5: 32.**

*

*

قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ ۖ أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا ۖ وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا ۖ*وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُم*مِّنْ إِمْلَاقٍ ۖ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ ۖ وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ ۖ*وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ*الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّـهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُم بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ**(الأنعام ، 6: 151).

*

Say, "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason"*(Al-Ana'am, 6: 151).

*

وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ*الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّـهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ۗ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنصُورًا**(الإسراء ، 17: 33).

And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in (the matter of) taking life. Indeed, he has been supported*(Al-Issra, 17: 33).

*

وَأَنفِقُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ*وَلَا تُلْقُوا بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ ۛ*وَأَحْسِنُوا ۛ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ**(البقرة ، 2: 195).

*

And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good*(Al-Baqara, 2: 195).

*

*

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُم بَيْنَكُم بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّا أَن تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَن تَرَاضٍ مِّنكُمْ ۚ*وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَنفُسَكُمْ ۚ*إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا**(النساء ، 4: 29).

*

O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves (or one another). Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful*(Al-Baqara, 2: 29).***

*

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ*مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا*بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ*(المائدة ، 5: 32).

*

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors*(Al-Ma-ida, 5: 32).

*

Explanation of Individual Suicide and Suicide Mass Shooting

*

First,*Allah, praise to Him, has taught us to avoid the conditions and circumstances that may lead individual suicides and suicide mass killing by firearms or other weapons or means, as stated in many verses of the Holy Quran.

*

The incapable, weak-minded*should not be allowed to be in a position to cause us harm, by allowing them to have control over our financial resource. By generalization, they should not be allowed to have access to weapons, which they may use to harm themselves and others, like in many incidents of suicide mass shootings in the United States.

[nightprowler10]

Jesus Christ its not even CLOSE
Technically St. Paul had a bigger impact.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Christianity is a slave movement. Slaves in the Roman empire were "livining in a world full of shit" to quote Kubrick.

The slaves had nothing but believed that their suffering will reward them in afterlife, while the roman gods worshipping masters will burn in hell. That's it.

Everyone that believes in relgion still has this slave mindset, Nietzsche focused most of his work on it.

Incorrect. Prophets were the leaders of their time and the Catholic Church in general wielded tremendous power. Dark motivational drives like remorse envy of others, insincerity, covetousness deceit and misguided are sinful and by their very nature antithetical to the forgiveness gratitude love and resolution expected of a devout Christians psychology.

The slave mindset comment is not incorrect but it should be noted that in theology the world us largely a test. Thus, having a lot versus having a little is irrelevant in regards to spiritual development.

and no its not only poor people who go to heaven and rich people go to hell. It's those with the highest degree of faith and good works that acquire the highest destination.

[Micku]

Technically St. Paul had a bigger impact.

Paul spread more the influence of Christianity and tried to reach the gentiles. It wouldn't have happened with Jesus tho. Jesus had the most impact in history. Pretty much influenced Paul who influence the Roman empire, which influence the world.


Who knows if the dude even existed

As other ppl said, if you go back further and further in the ancient world, you can make arguments that a bunch of popular figures didn't existed. What we have is just sources, and independent sources too. So, historians could only say someone "probably existed" or this is what "probably happened". No one knows for sure.

Since Jesus has more sources about him than anyone else in that time period, then he probably did exist. Plus ppl back then never denied Jesus existed. You can say some of the stories are faked (some are), and who knows if he actually performed miracles. That's another argument all together. But all the sources we have basically highlight the same thing:

Some dude named Yeshua from Nazareth went around and performed healing. Dude was on the train of duality (demons, angels, good, evil) and was a apocalyptic preacher. He got in trouble with Rome and he got crucified.

So, there's a difference between historic Jesus and a biblical Jesus. There are things we are not sure of and we'll never be sure of unless we build a time machine or something.

[Micku]

Incorrect. Prophets were the leaders of their time and the Catholic Church in general wielded tremendous power. Dark motivational drives like remorse envy of others, insincerity, covetousness deceit and misguided are sinful and by their very nature antithetical to the forgiveness gratitude love and resolution expected of a devout Christians psychology.

The slave mindset comment is not incorrect but it should be noted that in theology the world us largely a test. Thus, having a lot versus having a little is irrelevant in regards to spiritual development.

and no its not only poor people who go to heaven and rich people go to hell. It's those with the highest degree of faith and good works that acquire the highest destination.

He's not wrong that many people in poverty believed in Christianity back in the first few centuries and that's how it got spread. There was no Catholic church at the time, since Christianity itself was divided. Not even a proper bible other than the old testament and pieces of the new testament which varied depending on where you're at. And they couldn't read it either, so it was more oral tradition. They didn't agree on what exactly Jesus was or agree on the holy spirit (I think that came up later in the centuries). Granted we still have that now.

I don't remember if they were slaves or not. But Christianity did promise that after death they would live a happier life. They helped each other. They would see a person suffering or being hungry on the streets and then they would feed them. That person would convert to Christianity. And they believed that the second coming would come soon, within their life times.

Rome didn't care that much at first. They thought it was Judaism. They just wanted them to sacrifice to their gods, and they didn't. And then Nero did some shady stuff against the Christians.

This still doesn't stop Jesus for being the most significant person in the world.


In later years, Christianity spread through other means. Forcing ppl to convert and stuff. Pretty much owned the western world. Little effect on Asia tho, hardly really reached there.

[lakers_forever]

I don't remember if they were slaves or not. But Christianity did promise that after death they would live a happier life. They helped each other. They would see a person suffering or being hungry on the streets and then they would feed them. That person would convert to Christianity. And they believed that the second coming would come soon, within their life times.




Someone may dislike and criticize Christianity, but it's hard to deny Jesus revolutionary and positive influence on early Christians.


Lucian of Samosata in the 2nd century AD talking about Jesus and Christians.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day

[eliteballer]

Probably Jesus and Hitler.

[sd3035]

You asked a question that demonstrated a deficit of knowledge.
You received a comprehensive reply.


Superstition isn't my specialty, but thanks for the detailed answer :cheers:

[D-Wade316]

Without Newton Leibniz would take his place. Galileo was more important imo.
Galileo was indeed very important, but I give Newton extra credit, because he laid the mathematical formulation for basically all sciences. As for Leibniz, his notation and formulation of calculus is superior, but Newton applied it to actual physics. Still I think, both should be mentioned alongside Newton.

[NumberSix]

If you're gonna say Paul, you should really say Constantine.

[Velocirap31]

I would have said Adolf Hitler, but the Japanese, Italy, and Russia started invading well before he did. WW2 was inevitable either way, but the majority of the war would have been the US and China vs. Japan and Europe vs. Italy and possibly Russia (a much quicker war).

My vote is for Isaac Newton. The world today would possibly be unchanged from 1700 if it wasn't for him. Religion held back science for centuries. The most influential scientist of all time. If it wasn't for his work, all future scientists would have had to start from scratch rather than build on and advance Newton's theories.

If Jesus Christ never existed (if he even did) then the primary religion in North America would just be something else with near-identical characteristics. The religion is just a mish-mash of older religions anyway.

[Dresta]

I would have said Adolf Hitler, but the Japanese, Italy, and Russia started invading well before he did. WW2 was inevitable either way, but the majority of the war would have been the US and China vs. Japan and Europe vs. Italy and possibly Russia (a much quicker war).

My vote is for Isaac Newton. The world today would possibly be unchanged from 1700 if it wasn't for him. Religion held back science for centuries. The most influential scientist of all time. If it wasn't for his work, all future scientists would have had to start from scratch rather than build on and advance Newton's theories.

If Jesus Christ never existed (if he even did) then the primary religion in North America would just be something else with near-identical characteristics. The religion is just a mish-mash of older religions anyway.
You're better off looking at WW1 than WW2, because the latter was not at all inevitable if not for the former, which was a completely unnecessary and needless war. Without ww1 we would likely not have had the Soviet Union as well.

And the bolded is an absurd assertion, quite obviously false, and one needs only to look at non-Christian civilisation to know it.

Christianity is the basis of our civilisation far more than the work of Newton is. The intellectual tradition upon which Newton built could not have existed without the foundation Christianity has provided, starting with the University that he attended (the University being a Christian creation). And if Newton had not existed, others would have made the same discoveries, as Leibniz did (likely before Newton) when it came to differential calculus, and it is Leibinz's notation that survives, not Newton's. The intellectual community of this period was almost an entirely a Christian creation! Why do you think most serious (or academic) work was still done in Latin at this time?

Without Christianity, Europe may well have not emerged from its Dark Ages, after the fall of Rome.

[Lebron23]

Jesus

[FatComputerNerd]

Abraham is the only real answer here.

[lakers_forever]

You're better off looking at WW1 than WW2, because the latter was not at all inevitable if not for the former, which was a completely unnecessary and needless war. Without ww1 we would likely not have had the Soviet Union as well.

And the bolded is an absurd assertion, quite obviously false, and one needs only to look at non-Christian civilisation to know it.

Christianity is the basis of our civilisation far more than the work of Newton is. The intellectual tradition upon which Newton built could not have existed without the foundation Christianity has provided, starting with the University that he attended (the University being a Christian creation). And if Newton had not existed, others would have made the same discoveries, as Leibniz did (likely before Newton) when it came to differential calculus, and it is Leibinz's notation that survives, not Newton's. The intellectual community of this period was almost an entirely a Christian creation! Why do you think most serious (or academic) work was still done in Latin at this time?

Without Christianity, Europe may well have not emerged from its Dark Ages, after the fall of Rome.

Exactly. How can someone who claims everything would be quite the same if there was no Christianity, explain why modern science did not arise in places like China?
If not for Christianity and its monks (Catholic Church), who would have preserved the texts of Greek intellectual giants after the fall of Rome?

[UK2K]

Galileo was indeed very important, but I give Newton extra credit, because he laid the mathematical formulation for basically all sciences. As for Leibniz, his notation and formulation of calculus is superior, but Newton applied it to actual physics. Still I think, both should be mentioned alongside Newton.

I thought of Newton as well...

This dude also came to mind:


If electricity makes life easier for us, you can thank Michael Faraday. He made two big discoveries that changed our lives. In 1821, he discovered that when a wire carrying an electric current is placed next to a single magnetic pole, the wire will rotate. This led to the development of the electric motor. Ten years later, he became the first person to produce an electric current by moving a wire through a magnetic field. Faraday's experiment created the first generator, the forerunner of the huge generators that produce our electricity.

While he may not get a whole lot of credit, the motor really transformed the planet forever.

[sd3035]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/18/article-0-0900CF6F000005DC-778_634x631.jpg

[Micku]

You're better off looking at WW1 than WW2, because the latter was not at all inevitable if not for the former, which was a completely unnecessary and needless war. Without ww1 we would likely not have had the Soviet Union as well.

And the bolded is an absurd assertion, quite obviously false, and one needs only to look at non-Christian civilisation to know it.

Christianity is the basis of our civilisation far more than the work of Newton is. The intellectual tradition upon which Newton built could not have existed without the foundation Christianity has provided, starting with the University that he attended (the University being a Christian creation). And if Newton had not existed, others would have made the same discoveries, as Leibniz did (likely before Newton) when it came to differential calculus, and it is Leibinz's notation that survives, not Newton's. The intellectual community of this period was almost an entirely a Christian creation! Why do you think most serious (or academic) work was still done in Latin at this time?

Without Christianity, Europe may well have not emerged from its Dark Ages, after the fall of Rome.

Well, we don't know what would replace it.

Rome didn't care if you believed in other religions as long as you sacrifice to their gods. And since Rome is where Christianity got it's start and when Constantine made it official (don't remember if he made illegal to believe in other religions or that was another emperor), then that's when Christianity spread like wild fire and across Europe.

If that didn't happen, then I guess you'll find different religion in each region still or another religion would take its place. Maybe Islam, but if Jesus never existed, then Islam probably would not either.

I don't know what would happen if those two religions did not exist. Europe would be a different civilization. I still assume algebra would still emerged from the middle east tho.

[lakers_forever]

Well, we don't know what would replace it.

Rome didn't care if you believed in other religions as long as you sacrifice to their gods.

What? People were killed just for being Christians.


"I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed"

PLINY'S EPISTLE TO EMPEROR TRAJAN

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/pliny.html

[Dresta]

Well, we don't know what would replace it.

Rome didn't care if you believed in other religions as long as you sacrifice to their gods. And since Rome is where Christianity got it's start and when Constantine made it official (don't remember if he made illegal to believe in other religions or that was another emperor), then that's when Christianity spread like wild fire and across Europe.

If that didn't happen, then I guess you'll find different religion in each region still or another religion would take its place. Maybe Islam, but if Jesus never existed, then Islam probably would not either.

I don't know what would happen if those two religions did not exist. Europe would be a different civilization. I still assume algebra would still emerged from the middle east tho.
You don't know for sure, but I can't see it not being different in almost every respect. Our architecture is mostly Christian, our law is Christian, our music and our culture is Christian, and our morality is still largely Christian, and so are our political systems (and modern democracy emerged from Christian traditions). Perhaps the Vikings would have made further inroads into Europe, and brought their Norse Gods and the warrior life with them--they would certainly have taken the British Isles if not for the unity Christianity provided for Alfred to make use of.

There is a reason the entity described as "the West" is a collection of countries that were all Christian, for many hundreds of years. Modern secularism is the bastard child of Christianity--if you want a secular westernised country that doesn't have these Christian traditions, well, then they almost always have to be forced on the people, from the top-down, like Ataturk did, for example (and the only thing that held such a way of life in check was the power of the military). The whole thing is a process: there is nothing especially rational about democracy.

[Micku]

What? People were killed just for being Christians.


"I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed"

PLINY'S EPISTLE TO EMPEROR TRAJAN

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/pliny.html

I mentioned this before, but do you why they were killed? There was a reason why they were killed and it wasn't being Christian and worshiping Jesus to the Father. They didn't care about that. They couldn't even see the difference between being a Christian and a Jew in the beginning. Egyptians worshiped their own gods too and they were a part of the Roman Empire. Even the Jews were tolerated for their practice of their religion. They were very tolerable of other religions.

The reason why Christians were being killed was their refusal to worship the Roman gods, they worship in secret and rumors spread that they were cannibals (eating Christ's flesh) and some other crazy things, and Nero wanting to have someone to blame for the Rome fire (This is probably first on the list).


[quote]
Pagans were probably most suspicious of the Christian refusal to sacrifice to the Roman gods. This was an insult to the gods and potentially endangered the empire which they deigned to protect. Furthermore, the Christian refusal to offer sacrifices to the emperor, a semi-divine monarch, had the whiff of both sacrilege and treason about it.

...

The reasons why individual Christians were persecuted in this period were varied. In some cases they were perhaps scapegoats, their faith attacked where more personal or local hostilities were at issue.

...

Contemporary pagan and Christian sources preserve other accusations levelled against the Christians. These included charges of incest and cannibalism, probably resulting from garbled accounts of the rites which Christians celebrated in necessary secrecy, being the agape (the

[lakers_forever]

IThey were very tolerable of other religions.

The reason why Christians were being killed was their refusal to worship the Roman gods, they worship in secret and rumors spread that they were cannibals (eating Christ's flesh) and some other crazy things, and Nero wanting to have someone to blame for the Rome fire (This is probably first on the list).


My friend, that's a clear contradiction. Romans were very tolerable, yet they killed Christians because they refused to worship Roman gods. That basically means that they could not be Christians. Same thing with Jews (who were also persecuted from time to time, not as universally as Christians though), if you say you can be a Jew (a monotheist religion) as long as you worship pagan gods, you are basically saying no one can be a Jew.

You are right about the crazy rumours about Christians being cannibals and so on. Christians were also accused by Romans of being atheists because they did not believe in pagan Gods.

[Micku]

My friend, that's a clear contradiction. Romans were very tolerable, yet they killed Christians because they refused to worship Roman gods. That basically means that they could not be Christians. Same thing with Jews (who were also persecuted from time to time, not as universally as Christians though), if you say you can be a Jew (a monotheist religion) as long as you worship pagan gods, you are basically saying no one can be a Jew.

You are right about the crazy rumours about Christians being cannibals and so on. Christians were also accused by Romans of being atheists because they did not believe in pagan Gods.

It's not a contradiction if the Romans did, in fact, allowed people to worship other gods and practice their religions. They were different religions within the Roman Empire and they allowed it. They didn't care, but as long as they were public about it and worship their emperor and gods as well. That's being tolerable.

Being tolerable doesn't mean that you will accept everything, it just means that you are willing to endure or be passable. The Romans just tolerate the other religions with a price. Keep in mind, I said:


They were very tolerable of other religions.

I did not say that they tolerate all religions or freely accept religions. As I said before, they tolerated Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, and other cults within the Greeks like Bacchus and many others.

Christianity was the exception cuz of many reasons, but they did not worship the Romans gods. You are right to say that you couldn't really be a Christian if you believed in other gods and worship them as well as the Christian god. This was not acceptable by the Christians or by the Romans, hence why they got killed.

They also believed that this was supposed to happen, since they believed Jesus was coming within their life time and refused to change their beliefs and practices.

[Micku]

You don't know for sure, but I can't see it not being different in almost every respect. Our architecture is mostly Christian, our law is Christian, our music and our culture is Christian, and our morality is still largely Christian, and so are our political systems (and modern democracy emerged from Christian traditions). Perhaps the Vikings would have made further inroads into Europe, and brought their Norse Gods and the warrior life with them--they would certainly have taken the British Isles if not for the unity Christianity provided for Alfred to make use of.

There is a reason the entity described as "the West" is a collection of countries that were all Christian, for many hundreds of years. Modern secularism is the bastard child of Christianity--if you want a secular westernised country that doesn't have these Christian traditions, well, then they almost always have to be forced on the people, from the top-down, like Ataturk did, for example (and the only thing that held such a way of life in check was the power of the military). The whole thing is a process: there is nothing especially rational about democracy.

It's really hard to imagine the Western civilization without Christianity to be sure. But there are a lot of what ifs tho. Like what if the Roman Empire failed before Constantine made it official with Christianity as the main religion of the Roman Empire or if Rome were to kill all the Christians? Then history would change. As you said, a lot of our architecture is mostly Christian descent. No Hagia Sophia, Notre Dame, certain universities would not exist, and obviously events throughout history.

I don't know about modern democracy tho. I mean, America style? You don't think that wouldn't have happened without Christianity? I mean it's hard to say. Things would be so different. We had old democracy with Greece and a republic with Rome without Christianity, but I dunno. The monarchs kind'a got out during WW1, so about a century ago and that had nothing to do with religion. I think things would've been different, but still similar to modern democracy.

[BlkMambaGOAT]

Jesus Christ



Also one of the reasons Rome thought Christianity was shady was because they thought that it involved cannibalism.


If you hear people talking about eating the blood and body of a person, then you'd probably suspect cannibalism too.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Superstition isn't my specialty, but thanks for the detailed answer :cheers:

Theology is a legitimate discipline of knowledge regarding spiritual realities of the Creator of the Universe. Religion is the systematic way of life (covering all aspects of worship, morality, practices, ordinances, etc.) where the relationship between the Creator and creation man unfold. Thomas Aquinas, Imam Ghazali, hundreds of thousands of Prophets, hundreds of millions of scholars, millions of rabbis, millions of priests, millions of Imams, bear witness to the Truth of God and from reading and studying respective Scripture derive actualities from it. All of which are still applied today throughout the world. For starters, look up Brother Nathaniel and Sheikh Imran Hosein on Youtube. Then get back to me on how "superstitious" they are.

The believers of Islam believe that God is in control of ALL THINGS, that there's an unseen world (the 4th to 10th dimensions, if you will) and especially forbids superstitions and soothsayers and magicians.

Superstition are the crappy old wives tales where you hear people see birthmarks and think such and such is going to happen to the baby, or mirror shattering and then someone's gonna die, or black cats crossing and bad luck and all that.

Superstition is a disgrace to Truth.

The more you know.

[nightprowler10]

Paul spread more the influence of Christianity and tried to reach the gentiles. It wouldn't have happened with Jesus tho. Jesus had the most impact in history. Pretty much influenced Paul who influence the Roman empire, which influence the world.
Using that logic, Moses was more influential than Jesus, and Abraham before him, and so on and so forth.

Though using my logic I'm still wrong. Emperor Constantine was technically the most influential person along with Muhammad.

[nightprowler10]

I don't know about modern democracy tho. I mean, America style? You don't think that wouldn't have happened without Christianity? I mean it's hard to say. Things would be so different. We had old democracy with Greece and a republic with Rome without Christianity, but I dunno. The monarchs kind'a got out during WW1, so about a century ago and that had nothing to do with religion. I think things would've been different, but still similar to modern democracy.
I don't understand how one can relate democracy to any modern religion when the basis of that concept predates most current religions. It's really reaching. I mean yeah the modern democracy we see in America was based on things Christians wrote, though I'm not sure just how religious the founding fathers were, and you can definitely say they were influenced by other Christians, but there is nothing inherent to the Christian faith that promotes that type of thinking. In fact, you could argue that modern democracy could not exist in it's current form if not for the separation of Church and State.

Using the logic you quoted, most modern sports are Christian constructs? Most early medicial breakthroughs are Islamic? The obvious answer is no.

[Terahite]

The OP's question implies that the respondent knows something about history. Who on ISH knows even quite a bit of history let alone enough for them to answer a question like this?

Dresta and one or two others maybe?

[Mr Feeny]

For me it's Einstein by a distance. General relativity changed the way humans understood gravity. The origins of life and big bang - while technically discovered from the cosmological redshift - are derived from the 1915 field equations.

Everything you understand about physics and cosmology is from Einstein.
Lasers, photoionization and photoelectric effect were all pretty much popularised by Einstein.
GPS is based on general relativity. So many things that you take for granted are based on one paper - a masterpiece of a paper written by Einstein from which all our understanding today comes from.

Lemaitre, Hubble, Heisenberg, Born, Bhor, and Paul Dirac all gained fame all made valuable contributions in the 20th century to our understanding of physics but the greatest genius of all was the man who failed mathematics - Einstein.

I've had this discussion time and time again with different people. I'm not sure it's possibly to overstate the influence he had on science, physics and cosmology. Most of our understanding of physics today so based on what he wrote.

[fiddy]

Tesla

[Brunch@Five]

two church people that have not been mentioned: Thomas and Augustine. Heavily influenced church dogma and thus how the most powerful institution in the world acted for centuries.

When it comes to natural scientists vs. philosophers, I would tend to give my vote to the philosophers who basically create ideas that have no direct correspondence in real life, whereas natural scientists "find" and prove theorems that are more removed from the person. It seems to me that the general progress of science would have come to the same conclusions as Newton, if only a few years or decades later.

I would give my vote to the trias of Plato/Aristotle/Sokrates as the protagonists of greek philosophy, which has endured millennia and provides the seminal discussion of morality.

[MMM]

there might be a lot of Christians but not many are actually living out what he was preaching.