How Jesus got Superpowers

You don’t know there is a God any more than an atheist knows there is no god. You can believe there is a God. You can think there is a God. You can have faith there is a God. But there is nothing you can do to convince me you KNOW there is a God.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is something you can do to convince me you know there is a God. What might that be? How about if you told me God had given you the ability to walk on water? OK. Show me. Let me see you walk on water. If I see you walk on water and you told me that this ability was give to you to convince doubting Thomases like me that God exists, then, wow, yeah, I think I would be convinced.
This is a new thought for me and I think it answers a question I have pondered without resolution before. I think that the teachings of Jesus are really wonderful. Love thy neighbor. Love your enemies. Love everyone. Do not judge others. Really great stuff. My question has been why the supernatural stuff–like walking on water and virgin birth. I simply don’t believe in things that go against all of the experiences that have come to me through my god-given body. It doesn’t matter to me. The supernatural things don’t take away from the wisdom of his words that I can relate to and actually put to good use in the way I live my life.
So here is how I think the supernatural stuff came into being. There were these men, the evangelicals of their time, trying to get the masses to follow the teachings of Jesus but the masses were not buying it so they started attributing supernatural abilities to him.
Are you one of those who need to have Christ with supernatural abilities? Why? Aren’t his words powerful enough without the virgin birth, turning a fish and a loaf of bread into enough food to feed the crowd, resurrection?
This is your life; for those who believe in God, it is the life God gave you. There is so much to be explored, learned, and enjoyed in this life. There are so many challenges, like living peacefully, like having a meaningful relationship with another, like dealing with our deficiencies whether it be physical handicaps or mental handicaps. What a fantastic game has been developed for us—this game of life with its pleasures and its pain and suffering. There are video games that try to recreate parts of life. Think of life as the ultimate video game and play it well.

Climate Change Dialogue IV

In two weeks my Old Friend has not responded to either my comments on the link he sent me or on the Berkley Earth study He did send the following yesterday to his whole email group most of whom are, as nearly as I can tell, right-wingnuts.

Ihttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
It is an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon. “The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.”

My Old Friend’s note was: Who Knew????

My response: Actually, I knew; well, I knew that CO2 is used in greenhouses to stimulate growth. The ambient CO2 is about 340 ppm; when it goes down very much as can happen in greenhouses, it has an adverse effect on plants; raised to 1,000 ppm can have a positive effect. Unfortunately CO2 levels can’t be raised in the fields (if it could, you may be sure some farmers would be doing it) because CO2 doesn’t hang around near the ground but goes up into the atmosphere.
The authors of this piece are unaware of the Berkley Earth study and deny the research of 97% of the climatologists in the world; paragraph 2 is total nonsense. I was surprised that neither of them was a biologist or agronomist–even a paleontologist would have been interesting. Kinda makes you wonder where they are coming from.

Dear followers of ThomasD, I’m sorry if I have bored you with this dialogue. It has been going on for a number of years with me questioning myself occasionally: “Why am I doing this?” I think it is because I am trying to understand thought processes that fly in the face of reason. I found myself picking apart one of the pieces my friend sent me under the assumption it was a denier piece [http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/] when I realized that there was valid information in it. I read it again and found that I agreed with the author. Then I did some research on the author and found that it was a respected climatologist. My friend had misread the piece and thought it supported his denier position. We are probably all guilty at times of putting our bias ahead of objectivity.
I leave this dialogue with the following for your amusement:
OF: You do notice that the PCC wants to track changes from 1990 so they can show a tiny temperature increase, but the deniers want to use 1998 (one of the hottest years in recent history) as the starting point to get a distinct record of global cooling.
ME: Did you reread your last before sending it? It sounds like something I should have said. “The deniers want to use 1998 (one of the hottest years in recent history) as the starting point to get a distinct record of global cooling.” Yeah, take the hottest year in recent history and lo and behold the subsequent years will be cooler. Climatologists are tracking 250 years and the increase is significant.