To Thomas:

Sorry, I’ve only just returned from a vacation overseas, and haven’t had the opportunity to answer your latest vacuities.

I only just realized—you have yet to address the sinlessness (that is, moral perfection) of Christ, nor have you addressed the article regarding the origings of Christianity posted earlier (that which poses uncomfortable, historical questions).  I’ve also noticed that you seem reticent to quote directly from the Bible—you’re far more likely to slip Church doctrine over the transom.  (How to Answer Unbelievers, chap. 4, paragraph 7, line 23, etc.) Lots of spouting doctrine, very little Biblical knowledge.  For instance, you wrote this:

(I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.)

Please tell me:  where can I find this exact text in the Holy Bible? And while we’re at it, I’d like clarification on where in the Bible I can find the Books, chapters, and verses regarding the following terms:  Rapture.  Christmas.  Easter.  Trinity.

You asked me earlier to tell you how I’d been persecuted by Christians, then when I provided the answer, you 1) essentially called me a liar (or you went “oops, that might have hit too close to home” and decided to change your criteria…which leads me to ask—do you honestly believe that Christians have never made decisions based solely upon their beliefs and predispositions? If so, you must be hopelessly naive), and 2) stated that you wanted to keep our discussions on an “intellectual” level.  But, how could I have provided an instance of persecution by Christians without it having been personal? Were you expecting “public” persecution? Was I to have given an example that—somehow—wouldn’t have been personal? Had I been burned at the stake, or had thumbscrews been applied to me—would this have met your criteria?

You also continually accuse me of having been a former fundamentalist (or you display irritation at the implication that you’re a fundamentalist, which I find amusing; usually, it’s the Protestants who are offended by comparison to Catholics—“The Catholics committed the Inquisition and the Crusades, not the Protestants.”  But I digress.).  This smacks of the usual diatribe I hear constantly:  “Boy, you must really be mad at God,” or, “Man, some Christian must have really pissed you off,” or, “You’re quite rebellious against God, aren’t you?”, regarding my lack of religiosity.  This also assumes that I must have been a former believer.  But never has my initial demand—the proof of the existence of said God—been provided; you folks assume the existence of God to be a fact, and go from there.  You refuse to prove anything.  That God exists is accepted without question, and anyone that questions it must be immoral.

I find your tactics to be intellectually dishonest as a whole.  I don’t see any evidence that you believe any of this for more than personal, emotional reasons.  I have no reason to buy into your beliefs any more than I would give credence to belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Boogeyman, or the myriad other “deities” fervently believed in by weak, intellectually and morally bankrupt people throughout recorded human history.  Eternal life appeals to you, so you choose to believe it.  Moral superiority appeals to you, so you adhere to the idea that it must apply to you, ipso facto.  The notion that you are nothing more than a cosmic accident, an assemblage of cells, is distasteful, so you reject any proof of it.  And since the political and social climate of the times “happens” to fall in line—for the most part—with your beliefs, you defend it (oh, you might disagree with this notion, or dislike that representative, but the essentials are what really count, right?).

Though you seem to have a decent vocabulary, good typing skills, the ability to cut and paste, and the ability to recite doctrine verbatim, I see no essential difference between your “doctrine” and the average snake-oil salesman.  You merely have sheer numbers, political patronage, and lots more money backing you up.  You don’t accept Islam, I assume.  Why not? You don’t accept Hinduism, Scientology, Protestantism, Mormonism, Daoism, Buddhism, or Shintoism. But why not? Do you really believe that your system of belief has any more validity than the aforementioned? Or that your belief system deserves more respectability than the astral-projecting, spoon-bending, crystal-reading, tarot card-reading, Ouija board-playing, UFO-believing, Bermuda Triangle-believing, horoscope-watching scions of our undereducated and ridiculously credulous society? Why does your belief deserve more respect than Voodoo?

Of course, I’ll now get some response dictated by Pamplet 122, Chap. 45, Paragraph 30, line 9 (properly edited and approved by the Holy Church, of course) titled “How to Respond to Direct Questions Without Really Giving a Rational Answer” on your next post. 

So, I again make my offer:  Leg’s get God down here.  You pick the time and place, and I’ll gather the scientists, journalists, video cameras, and anything else required to provide ample proof of this being’s existence.  I’ll need to see miracles, of course.  And these miracles will have to be performed to the satisfaction of everyone (including Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Moonies, Scientologists, atheists, and anyone else who happens by), not merely those who stand to gain emotionally and/or monetarily.

To SHIN (#6837)

Religion does not solve the dilemma you point out, it just conceals it.  If God tells us that certain acts are good or bad, why does he do so?  Either the distinction is completely arbitrary—just something God made up for the _hell_ of it—or his moral law is based on something objective, in which case one can discover what is good and what is bad without needing God to do so.

There are many ways that atheist ethicists distinguish between good and bad acts without resorting to the divine.  For example, you may believe that suffering is bad because it causes pain (which is observable and not arbitrary), and from there extrapolate that bad acts promote suffering and good acts reduce it.  This is certainly no more arbitrary than looking to God for a moral code. In fact, given the many, many contradictions within the “morals” as practiced by many religious zealots, an atheist ethical scheme certainly offers a more consistent means for us to evaluate our actions.

I would like someone to respond directly to my concerns. I just started reading Sam Harris’s book, and am puzzled. Is he really as naive as he seems to be when you check out various topics in the index? I read what he wrote about Chomsky, and while I agree the left often falls into the pitfall of “true belief,” Harris must know little of U.S. foreign policy to think that we had nothing to do with bin Laden’s rise to ill-fame. I also noted that “capitalism” was not listed in the index, so I assume he does not turn his critique of faith on the blind acceptance of our economic system as somehow God-given. I’m currently reading James Baldwin, who was stunningly not naive and very deep in his criticism of American society, and rereading Bruce Bawer’s “Stealing Jesus,” which seems much more informed in its criticism of fundamentalism and the “moderates” who have allowed it to define American religious and cultural life. Does “The End of Faith” really have something meaningful to say?

To ontos #6830:

Thanks for the clarification.

You define an interventionist god as one who “responds to prayers” and “could be acted upon”.  Obviously, given my definition of God as pure act, I would reject the idea that God reacts.  A ‘reaction’ by definition is a distinct action.  In the divine essence there are no acts distinct from the pure act of being.  Thus God does not react.  For the same reason, God cannot be acted upon.  The notion of passivity cannot be separated from the notion of potentiality. 

The best definition of prayer, from the metaphysical point-of-view, is a participation in the will of God.  Prayer does not change the divine mind and will, but rather conforms one to it.  Prayer can also be seen as an instrument through which the will of God is realized in the world.  Thus believers often qualify their petitions with things like, “if it is your will, etc.” 

With respect to the difficultly of expressing the attributes of God, I would go even further and say that it is impossible to adequately express or conceive anything about the nature of God.  All of our thoughts and words are based upon the experience of finite things.  We must use them analogically when speaking of God, but we must do so with the recognition of their radical inadequacy. 

You wrote: “I think what you are getting at here is that god is a necessary being, and events/beings emanate from it by some sort of causality in which god, the extra-temporal cause, affects temporal events/beings (see Avicenna) , but that god does not act in time because application of temporal attributes to god is a category error.  This is correct, but it also precludes any idea of intervention because intervention is a temporal notion.”

If you define intervention as action subject to time, then I would reject the attribution of such action to God in his essence.  If, however, you define intervention as the providential direction of time by the divine essence through the “decrees” of its unchanging transcendent will – instrumentally realized through things like creation itself, revelation, miracles, etc. that are in their nature subject to time – then I agree.  That being said, as a Christian I believe also that God himself, in the person of his Son made human, is subject to time in so far as he is human.  But even this is another instance of the actualization of God’s will in the world. 

You wrote: “…(events that have not happened cannot be altered)…”

All events have virtually (i.e. by immutable decree) happened in the eternal divine will.   

You wrote: “I would love for you to explain to me how “he has no potency to be more, less or different than he is” is consistent with omnipotence.  Being bound by perfection is to not be able to be otherwise; to be necessary, but certainly not to be omnipotent.”

This is essentially the unstoppable force meets an immovable object argument.  The problem with it is that in the case of God the unstoppable force and the immovable object are the same.  These attributes cannot be opposed on account of their substantial unity.  In fact, God’s omnipotence cannot exist without his immutability.  Were God to change, i.e. lose his immutability (which is an unintelligible proposition), he would also lose his omnipotence.  Thus he would lose the very means by which he would cause himself to change.  The problem thus can be solved either (1) by denying immutability or omnipotence or both, or (2) by recognizing that they are not in themselves distinct attributes but rather one in the divine essence.     

You wrote: “How do imperfect effects arise from a perfect cause?”

Are you using ‘imperfect’ in the metaphysical or the moral sense?  If the metaphysical, then logic does not require that an effect be equal to its cause, but only that it not be greater than its cause with respect to act or potency.  God is infinite, creatures are finite.  There is no problem. 

You wrote: “How do we reconcile an infinite (i.e. without boundaries) god with beings that are not god (this question shamelessly thieved from Spinoza)? Put another way, how can there be anything that is not god, if god is infinite?”

This problem is based on a confusion of intellect with imagination.  Conceived spatially, the infinitude of God precludes the possibility of there being something that is not a part of this infinitude.  You cannot add to the infinite in this sense.  As Aristotle demonstrated, however, an infinite magnitude, i.e. that which occupies place, is impossible.  Thus, the infinitude of God is not physical but metaphysical.  God is infinite with respect to his being (esse).  In other words, nothing limits it.  The existence of a finite form does not limit the form of God.  A spatial metaphor is inapplicable.       

You wrote: “If there is nothing that is not god, does this mean everything is perfect and immutable?  Or can parts of god be subject to generation, decline and evil without god being subject to those very ideas?”

If there were nothing that was not God, then there would be no creation.  In that case, “everything”, i.e. God, would be perfect and immutable.  God has no parts.

Thomas

re: Imagine

Actually what finished off religion and theology for me was the idea that something could live outside our space-time continuum, be unchanging, have lived “forever” and would notice prayers composed of the brain waves or speeches of one individual human.

I like Apollo better anyways, at least he’s close to human and bi-sexual. As for the Christian God?

The idea of It can provide some relief for people who must endure personal tragedies.

But that’s about all.

The author recognizes suffering, evil, and other ills with the world. Yet, he can provide no basis upon which suffering is “bad”, or anything is “evil”. These are subjective standards which fail the empirical test that he is subjecting the religious beliefs of theists to. Taken to its logical conclusion, atheism is an amoral belief system. There is no true “bad” or “good”. How then, can he use the “bad things” in the world as evidence of the non-existence of a deity?

To Thomas:

I’m afraid I wasn’t terribly clear in a couple of distinctions if my first post, these things (comment boards), by necessity, are more than a bit reductive.  The first argument, opposing omniscience to omnipotence, was assuming an interventionist god, the sort that responds to prayers and the like.  I was addressing the sort of god that could be acted upon (a bit of a heretical notion of god, but is a non-interventionist god also, not a bit heretical vis-a-vis omnipotence?).    Concerning my second argument, I think we are in accord on the substantive issues.  I will respond to your points however. 

You do note:

Objection: “If god knows all that has happened and all that will happen and has always known as much, then god knows everything god has done or will do.”
    Response: But there is no “has done” or “will do”.

Precisely, I note immediately above that sentence that I am not suggesting god exists within time, but linguistically it is difficult to communicate the notion that god knows what god is, all of god’s act(s) included (here I’d like to say always, but always is a temporal idea).  So essentially, I’m saying god is omniscient with respect to god and the temporal world. 

You go on to note:

Objection: “If all that has been or will be is knowable by god (or anything else for that matter) then even god cannot intervene to change the course of events.”

Response: But God does not act “in” the course of events, but rather “outside” and “before” the course of events.

I think what you are getting at here is that god is a necessary being, and events/beings emanate from it by some sort of causality in which god, the extra-temporal cause, affects temporal events/beings (see Avicenna) , but that god does not act in time because application of temporal attributes to god is a category error.  This is correct, but it also precludes any idea of intervention because intervention is a temporal notion (events that have not happened cannot be altered).  So we have a necessary, extra-temporal being, which is thus unable to intervene because that being cannot act in time.  You may wish to argue that god acts extra-temporally to affect temporal events in progress, but this does not solve the problem that god’s omniscience requires that god know all that is, was, and will be, with respect to the temporal world. 

Further you note:

God is pure act.  He does not change.  He could not change from one state to another because he has no potency to be more, less or different than he is.  This is an attribute of pure, infinite and perfect being.  It is perfectly compatible with omnipotence and omniscience.
I agree that being pure act is a function of pure infinite and perfect being (in my prior post, this was what I meant by “some existential state”), but my very point is that this is inconsistent with omnipotence.  I would love for you to explain to me how “he has no potency to be more, less or different than he is” is consistent with omnipotence.  Being bound by perfection is to not be able to be otherwise; to be necessary, but certainly not to be omnipotent. 

Because I’m a contrarian, I’ll ask a couple of other questions:

1. How do imperfect effects arise from a perfect cause?

2. How do we reconcile an infinite (i.e. without boundaries) god with beings that are not god (this question shamelessly thieved from Spinoza)? Put another way, how can there be anything that is not god, if god is infinite?

2a. If there is nothing that is not god, does this mean everything is perfect and immutable?  Or can parts of god be subject to generation, decline and evil without god being subject to those very ideas?

To ontos #6654

Your argument fails because while you accept that some will say that God is not subject to time, nevertheless, you depend upon doing just that:

Objection: “If god knows all that has happened and all that will happen and has always known as much, then god knows everything god has done or will do.”

Response: But there is no “has done” or “will do”. 

Objection: “If all that has been or will be is knowable by god (or anything else for that matter) then even god cannot intervene to change the course of events.”

Response: But God does not act “in” the course of events, but rather “outside” and “before” the course of events.

In other words, God does not will in time.  He wills outside of time.  You have made God’s knowing independent of time and his willing dependant upon time.  But this is impossible since God’s willing and knowing are one.     

You wrote: “There are of course the arguments to be made that god exists outside of time, in something like a divine moment.  If this is the case, there is no before, during or after for god; god simply is.  If this is the case, god is unable to act (as acting is by definition a change in state) and is merely some sort of existential state.”

Response: Philosophers define “act” by opposing it to “potency”.  A potential being comes into existence when it becomes an actual being.  A potential quality comes into existence when it becomes an actual quality.  Everything subject to change, therefore, is a mixture of actual and potential being.  An actual boy is a potential man.  An actual egg is a potential chicken.  An actual tree is a potential boat, etc. 

You are incorrect to say that “acting is by definition a change in state.”  On the contrary, pure action, in the metaphysical sense, involves absolutely no change, i.e. movement from potency to act. 

God is pure act.  He does not change.  He could not change from one state to another because he has no potency to be more, less or different than he is.  This is an attribute of pure, infinite and perfect being.  It is perfectly compatible with omnipotence and omniscience.

Thomas

Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on religion:
Religions are necessary for the people, and are an inestimable benefit to them. But if they attempt to oppose the progress of mankind in the knowledge of truth, then with the utmost possible indulgence and forbearance they must be pushed on one side. And to require that even a great mind—a Shakespeare or a Goethe—should make the dogmas of any religion his implicit conviction, bona fide et sensu proprio, is like requiring a giant to put on the shoes of a dwarf.
  As religions are calculated with reference to the mental capacity of the great mass of people, they can have only an indirect, not a direct truth. To demand direct truth of them is like wanting to read the type set up in a compositor’s stick instead of its impression. Accordingly, the value of a religion will depend on the greater or lesser content of truth which it has in itself under the veil of allegory; next on the greater or lesser distinctness with which this content of truth is visible through the veil, and hence on that veil’s transparency. It almost seems that, as the oldest languages are the most perfect, so too are the oldest religions. If I wished to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I should have to concede to Buddhism pre-eminence over the others. In any case, it must be a pleasure to me to see my doctrine in such close agreement with a religion that the majority of men on earth hold as their own, for this numbers far more followers than any other. And this agreement must be yet the more pleasing to me, inasmuch as in my philosophizing I have certainly not been under its influence. For up till 1818, when my work appeared, there were to be found in Europe only a very few accounts of Buddhism, and those extremely incomplete and inadequate….

Religions have taken possession of man’s metaphysical tendency partly by paralysing it through the early inculcation of their dogmas and partly by forbidding and tabooing all free and unprejudiced expressions of it. Thus for man the free investigation concerning the most important and interesting affairs, namely his very existence, is to some extent directly forbidden, indirectly prevented, or rendered impossible subjectively through that paralysing effect; and in this way the sublimest of his faculties lies in fetters.

The origin of the gods is founded on man’s feeling of need, distress, impotence, and dependence in face of natural forces infinitely superior, unfathomable, and for the most part ominous and portentous. To this is added man’s natural inclination to personify everything; finally there is the hope of effecting something by entreaty and flattery, and even by gifts. With every human undertaking there is something that is not within our power, and does not come into our calculations; the desire to gain this for ourselves is the origin of the gods.

Man creates for himself in his own image demons, gods, and saints; then to these must be incessantly offered sacrifices, prayers, temple decorations, vows and their fulfilment, pilgrimages, salutations, adornment of images and so on. Their service is everywhere closely interwoven with reality, and indeed obscures it. Every event in life is then accepted as the counter-effect of these beings. Intercourse with them fills up half the time of life, constantly sustains hope, and, by the charm of delusion, often becomes more interesting than intercourse with real beings. It is the expression and the symptom of man’s double need, partly for help and support, partly for occupation and diversion. While it often works in direct opposition to the first need, in that, with the occurrence of accidents and dangers, valuable time and strength, instead of averting them, are uselessly wasted on prayers and sacrifices, then, by way of compensation, it serves the second need all the better by that imaginary conversation with a visionary spirit-world; and this is the advantage of all superstitions, which is by no means to be despised.

That great fundamental truth contained in Christianity as well as in Brahmanism and Buddhism, the need for salvation from an existence given up to suffering and death, and its attainability through the denial of the will, hence by a decided opposition to nature, is beyond all comparison the most important truth there can be. But it is at the same time entirely opposed to the natural tendency of mankind, and is difficult to grasp as regards its true grounds and motives; for, in fact, all that can be thought only generally and in the abstract is quite inaccessible to the great majority of people.

Many on this board have suggested that it is incumbent upon the non-believer to prove that no such thing as god exists.  While ridiculous (it would be nice if someone could prove that there are no unperceivable Martians running around the place), I think it may be possible to take up this challenge for certain definitions of god.  I have read through many of the comments here and part of the problem with having any reasonable discourse is agreeing on definitions.  Nowhere have I seen a definition of god; some list of essential characteristics that a deity must posses.  I intend to define the necessary characteristics of god and demonstrate why they cannot coexist in the same entity.  This argument will be entirely a priori, relying only upon the definitions of god’s necessary characteristics.   

Proposed characteristics of god:

1.Omniscient
Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
2.Omnipotent
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
3.Infinite
Having no boundaries or limits.

If god is indeed omnipotent its power to act is without bounds and subject to no limitations.  If god is omniscient his knowledge is complete; with respect to past, present and future (in so far as time applies to the material world, not to suggest that god exists within time).  If god knows all that has happened and all that will happen and has always known as much, then god knows everything god has done or will do.  If all that has been or will be is knowable by god (or anything else for that matter) then even god cannot intervene to change the course of events.  The set of things that are, god included, are then governed by necessary determinism.  Therefore god is not omnipotent.  If god is omnipotent, then god can act to affect change, in which case god would have to take action that god did not already know would occur.  Therefore if god is omnipotent, god is not omniscient. 

There are of course the arguments to be made that god exists outside of time, in something like a divine moment.  If this is the case, there is no before, during or after for god; god simply is.  If this is the case, god is unable to act (as acting is by definition a change in state) and is merely some sort of existential state.  This is in clear contravention of any idea that god is omnipotent.  My question then is: which of these characteristics would you like to remove from god?  It seems to me that 1 and 2 are functions of 3; so do you believe in a finite god?   

I’m sure someone will respond with something like: well you can’t apply these attributes to god because they are human constructions and god cannot be understood that way.  Does this mean that you believe in thing called god, you will make no statements about the nature of that thing, and then you say it is incumbent upon me the believer to negate the existence of the thing you believe in that you cannot define?

A fine article, but the author is indulging the same narrow point of view as theists: that there is or is not a single, omnipotent god who does or does not administer reality according to a grand plan and a single consciousness.

To me, it’s like a debate between someone who believes that those who do as they’re told during highschool will immediately become all-powerful billionaires the moment they graduate, and someone who believes that there is nought but oblivion after the prom.

It’s always amazing to me how much time people spend on this sort of thing. Believers are always amazing in the amount of knowledge they’ve accumulated about their particular stories—and that’s what they are, stories—and non-believers are sometimes quite pig-headed in their efforts to change the minds of people who are, in essence, more highly praised for using their minds less and their faith more.

Bottom line: if everyone who believes in a god or gods disappears today, the world is fundamentally unchanged. Some good works won’t get done; some human strife is lessened. No god, no big deal. But if every cyanobacteria disappears today, every oxygen-dependent thing on the planet will die in short order. Cyanobacteria 1, god 0.

Bicker all you want. Argue all you want. Philosophize all you want. It won’t make you right. Your stories are fascinating, but ultimately not important.

Dear Mike #6379,

It would be easier to answer your questions if you would summarize them a bit.  What you take to be counterevidence to my view of Scripture is sufficient in just a few examples. 

Regarding the passages concerning Hell, I see nothing there that contradicts what I said about the essence of that state.  Fire is an image used throughout the Bible.  I have given that image a spiritual interpretation.  Also, life without hope is torture; it is pain; it is hell – just ask those who live without it in this life. 

Regarding the parts of the Bible I accept, I accept the authority of the Bible as a whole.  That does not prevent me from seeing the history of the text objectively and applying literary criticism to it.  It is after all a human document.  As for the supernatural claims that the Bible makes, if I am willing to believe in God, what would prevent me from believing in the possibility of miracles?

Your questions regarding these matters seem to betray a fundamentalist outlook in you.  You object to my interpretations of things the way I would expect a fundamentalist to.  Are you a former fundamentalist?  You can reject the dogma and still retain the mindset.  Anti-religious fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism are a part of the same genera of fundamentalism.

For example, you said that my acceptance of the Nicene Creed as I gave it is fundamentalist.  Again, this use of the word ‘fundamentalist’ makes it meaningless.  For example, if I decided to use the word ‘Marxist’ to mean anyone who didn’t believe in a supreme being, then I could apply it to many people on this list that would probably not identify themselves as such.  In effect, the word would lose its conventional meaning.  For the record, fundamentalists generally reject things such as creeds on account of their anti-intellectual attitude towards the Bible, which I do not share.  What makes a fundamentalist a fundamentalist is not his belief in the articles of the Christian Faith.  It is, rather, the irrational, antiscientific and anti-modernist way he believes it.

Regarding the “voice” of American Christianity, if you are trying to suggest that the President is somehow de facto the general representative of the Catholic or the Protestant political outlook, you need to learn to distinguish religion from politics.  I imagine that that is a criticism you want to make of me.  However, I have not told you my political point-of-view, and you cannot guess it simply from my belief in God. 

A small sample of Christian criticism of popular religious figures:
http://www.modernreformation.org/mh93bcw.htm
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=366117&categoryId=29058

Regarding your personal situation, I wrote that I will not comment on it because it is your personal situation.  I am not interested in getting personal in this discussion.  I prefer to keep it on an intellectual level.  I know nothing of the details of your life and I have no opinion either way. 

Regarding persecution by Christians, the fact that our society is historically conditioned by the dominate presence of Christians easily explains the pervasive presence of Christian ideas and prejudices.  There are more of us in government, for example, because there are more of us.  That said, the evil things the vast majority of Christians do are done not because they are Christians, but because they are fallen, sinful, selfish people.  If a Jew ran over my dog with his car, I would not necessarily assume that it was because he is a Jew.  Rather, knowing a little bit about Judaism, I would probably assume that it was in spite of his being a Jew.     

Regarding my refutation of your simplistic notion of divine justice, where have I gone wrong?  Salvation, in my view, does not rest upon mere fiat to a body of beliefs.  Rather, divine justice takes into consideration every aspect of the moral/spiritual life of a person.  That should sound pretty reasonable to you.  Also, I don’t think we are not meant to question the justice of the actions of God in the Bible, as you say.  In fact, the more we question his actions the more we learn about them.  But on one level, I can appreciate your dilemma.  It is in essence the problem of evil.  Forget the Flood or Sodom, the ultimate question is why would an all-good and all-powerful God create a world in which evil was even a possibility.  I have already written on this question.  See post #5350.

Sincerely,

Thomas

To Thomas, regarding Jesus’s sinlessness:

2 Corinthians 5:21: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 

Hebrews 4:15: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

1 Peter 2:21-22: “...because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”

1John 3:5: “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

But, Wait!

Mark 10:17-18: “And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”

Matthew 19:16-17: “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God…”

Luke 18:18-19: “And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.”

Interesting!  Now Read the Following:

John 7:8-10[KJV] Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.  (Jesus broke his promise [word] by going up secretly after saying he wouldn’t.)

Matt. 5:22 “...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Yet, Jesus repeated called people fools: Matt. 23:17,19 “Ye fools and blind…” Luke 11:40 “Ye fools,...”)

John 3:13 Jesus falsely stated: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (This verse is not only inaccurate historically as 2 Kings 2:11 shows: 2 Kings 2:11”...behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” but also absurd on its face. If the son of man (Jesus) is down here on earth speaking then how could he be in heaven.)

In Matt. 5:44 Jesus told people to: Matt. 5:44 “...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, ...”  (Yet repeatedly called his opponents names and hurled epithets. (See Matt. 23:15, 23:17, 19, 27, 33, John 10:8, Luke 11:40, Matthew 12:34)

Jesus said: Matt. 19:19 “Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” while he said to his own mother:  (John 2:4 “...Woman, what have I to do with thee?” Apparently Jesus’ love escaped him. This is the same Jesus who told everyone else to “Honor thy father and mother.”)

“Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem, saying, `Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.’ But he answered and said unto them, `Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?’” (Matt. 15:1-3).  “Why do ye also” is an admission by Jesus that his disciples were violating a commandment of God. He doesn’t deny they are breaking God’s law; he simply says his critics are guilty of the same offense.

MATT. 9:18 (“While Jesus spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, my daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live”). Later, in the 24th and 25th verses Jesus said, “Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.” If the ruler’s daughter was dead, then, Jesus lied. If she was not dead, then he performed no miracle.

Numbers 15:32-36 – (32) And while the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man who gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.  (33) And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.  (34) And they put him in custody, because it was not told what should be done to him.  (35) And the L-rd said to Moses, “The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”  (36) And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Matthew 12:1-6 states: “At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.” (The “corn” referred to in the King James Version of the Bible is really referring to a grain crop.) Mark 2:23-28 describes the same incident. In Luke 6:1-5, the disciples’ sin was not to pluck and eat the ears of grain; it was the act of rubbing the ears between their hands to extract the kernels which was considered work, and thus sinful.

Conspiracy to steal animals: In Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3, and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village - perhaps Bethany. They were to locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it. Otherwise, they were simply to steal the colt without paying for it or obtaining permission.

In Matthew’s account, they were to steal both an ass and a colt, and Jesus somehow rode into Jerusalem astride both animals. Liberal theologians interpret this strange arrangement as a misunderstanding by the author of Matthew of Zechariah 9:9 “...behold, thy King cometh unto thee… lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” One commentator wrote: “Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew parallelism by which the lines were matched by sense rather than by sound.” 6 Hebrew poetry makes almost no use of rhyme and no direct use of meter. Rather, the “units of thought in each line of the poem [are] enhanced compared or emphasized by their relationship to those in a parallel line.” 7 Thus, Zechariah is referring to the same animal, twice. The author of Matthew misinterpreted the passage and believed that it referred to two separate animals. The authors of the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John did not make this mistake. In Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:14-15, they describe Jesus as riding on a single animal: a young donkey or colt.  The sin in this case was conspiracy to commit theft.

To Thomas, Re: 6355

You asserted the following:

(The concept of Hell invokes more of an emotional reaction than possibly any other article of Christian belief.  The reason is obvious.  The ways in which it is sometimes caricatured by both believers and nonbelievers is wholly unacceptable to the common sense of justice.)

(With that said, let me say what I think are some false characterizations of the Christian view of Hell.) 

{(1) It is a place of TORTURE.
(2) It is reserved for those who do not accept my beliefs. 
(3) Some SOULS will certainly go there.}

(The theological concept of Hell is far removed from the crude neo-pagan description of it often found in popular literature and well-meaning but ignorant preachers.  The theological concept of Hell is characterized by emptiness and un-fulfillment.)

These are YOUR words.

Now, your Bible says the following regarding Hell:

Psa 116:3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the PAINS of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of HELL FIRE.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to DESTROY both soul and body in hell.

Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into HELL FIRE.

Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the FIRE THAT CAN NEVER BE QUENCHED:

Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the FIRE THAT CAN NEVER BE QUENCHED:

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into HELL FIRE:

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in TORMENTS, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Jam 3:6 And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on FIRE of hell.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to HELL, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;*

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the LAKE OF FIRE. This is the second death.

I would say that we can agree that fire is definitely an instrument of torture. And I think the point has been made that “souls” (whatever that’s supposed to be) are in danger of it. And just what, do you suppose, hellfire is reserved for? The believers? *Judgment for what? Who’s going to Hell?

As regards Biblical Infallibility, you wrote the following:

(As to your question regarding the infallibility of Bible, let me say that I believe that the Spirit of God authored the sacred text through the human writers in such a way as to preserve their freedom and perspective.  This means that the literature of the Bible has to be taken seriously from a critical historical and literary point-of-view.  The authors are human and limited in their points-of-view and insight.  The text has been preserved over the centuries by fallible copyists and there exists therefore no identifiable original manuscript.  Thus, any question of infallibility must be referred to a text that no longer exists.  The substance of sacred scripture, nonetheless, is guaranteed by its divine author.  Any approach to the text that refuses to be objective about its contents is unacceptable.  Finally, the authority of the Bible and especially its divine character is ultimately a matter of faith.  It cannot - like all other Christian mysteries - be demonstrated.)

Then I just have to ask:  which parts do you accept, and which parts do you deny? And does this position change depending upon the level of Biblical understanding of the person you’re talking to? And if you’re willing to admit to errors of any kind, doesn’t that give you pause as to the rest? I guess you don’t accept talking donkeys, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, dragons, golden hemorrhoids, floating iron axe heads, or disembodied hands writing on walls, right? (These are, after all, explicitly mentioned in the Bible).

As to your beliefs in the “fundamentals”, you wrote:

(I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.)

Yep, sounds pretty “fundamental” to me.

You also wrote this gem:

(Regarding the criticisms of those who appear to speak on behalf of the Christian community in this country, please keep in mind that there is no central voice for denominational Christianity.  There is no pope.  Pseudo-Christian leaders are, however, routinely criticized from the pulpits of many Churches and in various Christian publications.)

There is no pope????? There is no president, who claims to voice good Christian morals? What are “Pseudo-Christians”? And I still have no verifiable evidence of these “criticisms”.

As to your prior request for evidence of my persecution by Christians, I gave you one personal account, and various general examples.  You then wrote:

(I do not know the details of you(r) situation.  I will not comment on it.)

So you’re calling me a liar, since you don’t know the ‘details’ of my situation? Or are you actually going to dishonestly ignore the commonplace assumption that Christians are, generally, morally superior to everyone else, an assumption that is touted day-in, day-out in newspapers, on television, and in our general national outlook? How many non-Christians currently hold office? How many networks argue against Christian beliefs?

You wrote the following regarding my Hitler scenario:

(I cannot, however, accept your hypothetical scenario of deathbed conversion for two reasons: (1) the condition of the human heart at the moment of death cannot be meaningfully isolated from the life which preceded it and (2) divine justice – which perfectly measures our every spiritual action – is not so superficial as to condemn someone for not simply giving his assent to a particular creed.  Ultimately judgment, I believe, will not weigh only the act of consent to a system of belief, but also the moral qualities of the will, chiefly among them: love.  This ought to give believers pause and unbelievers a sense of solidarity with faith rightly interpreted.}

Ah, yes, “moral qualities of the will”.  Such as the Inquisition? The Crusades? The Church’s policy regarding Nazi Germany? Gallileo’s treatment, perhaps? Or how about pedophile priests (so much for celibacy)? How about “divine justice”, which assumes we won’t question the “justice” of the destruction of the earth via the Noachian Flood (every single human being on the planet was full of sin, even the babes?), the destruction of Sodom (again, every single one of them?), the crucifixion of a being purportedly the “divine being’s” own son, for flaws He Himself created? Isaiah 45:7 tells us that God created evil, so I’m curious as to why He isn’t roasting in Hell, himself!

And you still haven’t addressed my question as to Jesus’s sinlessness.  Was Jesus completely sinless, or not?

Response to Mike #6248

The concept of Hell invokes more of an emotional reaction than possibly any other article of Christian belief.  The reason is obvious.  The ways in which it is sometimes caricatured by both believers and nonbelievers is wholly unacceptable to the common sense of justice. 

Let me first give you what I think is the gist of the Christian view of salvation: Those who desire to be with God forever, by his grace, will be.  Those who do not, by his justice, will not. 

With that said, let me say what I think are some false characterizations of the Christian view of Hell. 

(1) It is a place of torture.
(2) It is reserved for those who do not accept my beliefs. 
(3) Some souls will certainly go there.

The theological concept of Hell is far removed from the crude neo-pagan description of it often found in popular literature and well-meaning but ignorant preachers.  The theological concept of Hell is characterized by emptiness and un-fulfillment.  God has given to humans a natural desire to know him, the ultimate truth, and to possess him, the ultimate good.  This is the psychological source of the universal human pursuit of knowledge and happiness.  Although the things in the world reflect and to a certain extent offer “pieces” of this truth and goodness, these things, when we make them the objects of our ultimate happiness, always dissatisfy.  The human capacity for truth and goodness exceeds what the universe has to offer for two reasons: (1) it is infinite while the universe is finite and (2) man was made for God, the only infinite truth and goodness that can satisfy the desires of the human mind and heart.  Hell is essentially unending life without the possibility of this fulfillment.

To conclude: the desire for these ultimate things exists in every person.  It leads us – whatever we believe and wherever we are – from created truths and goods to eternal truth and goodness, unless we freely turn from that final object so as to seek satisfaction in created things.  Those who choose to search for happiness in the latter way will be left to do so forever.  That is Hell.           

Response to Mike #6257

The following should answer most of your questions (please excuse the traditional language; it has some things I like better than the modern translation):
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

**Please note that fundamentalists generally do not use or even recognize this ancient Christian creed.

As to your question regarding the infallibility of Bible, let me say that I believe that the Spirit of God authored the sacred text through the human writers in such a way as to preserve their freedom and perspective.  This means that the literature of the Bible has to be taken seriously from a critical historical and literary point-of-view.  The authors are human and limited in their points-of-view and insight.  The text has been preserved over the centuries by fallible copyists and there exists therefore no identifiable original manuscript.  Thus, any question of infallibility must be referred to a text that no longer exists.  The substance of sacred scripture, nonetheless, is guaranteed by its divine author.  Any approach to the text that refuses to be objective about its contents is unacceptable.  Finally, the authority of the Bible and especially its divine character is ultimately a matter of faith.  It cannot - like all other Christian mysteries - be demonstrated.

Regarding the criticisms of those who appear to speak on behalf of the Christian community in this country, please keep in mind that there is no central voice for denominational Christianity.  There is no pope.  Pseudo-Christian leaders are, however, routinely criticized from the pulpits of many Churches and in various Christian publications. 

Response to Mike #6259  

I do not know the details of you situation.  I will not comment on it. 

I cannot, however, accept your hypothetical scenario of deathbed conversion for two reasons: (1) the condition of the human heart at the moment of death cannot be meaningfully isolated from the life which preceded it and (2) divine justice – which perfectly measures our every spiritual action – is not so superficial as to condemn someone for not simply giving his assent to a particular creed.  Ultimately judgment, I believe, will not weigh only the act of consent to a system of belief, but also the moral qualities of the will, chiefly among them: love.  This ought to give believers pause and unbelievers a sense of solidarity with faith rightly interpreted.

Thomas

Thomas:

Join me, if you would, in a little thought experiment:

Picture Adolf Hitler (or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Torqumada) the day before he dies.  Yes, he’s committed (or ordered) endless atrocities.  Yes, hundreds of thousands have died from his direct orders and policies.  But suppose, the day before he shuffles off this mortal coil, that he converts to Christianity.  He repents, he accepts Jesus into his heart, and so on. Fire insurance bought, premium paid.

Now picture an atheist.  Say he’s a man who has led a life of solid ethics, he’s worked for numerous good causes, he’s lived a life without hurting anyone needlessly, he’s given every spare cent to help others.  He’s never cheated, never committed adultery, never killed anyone. But, he’s never accepted the tenets of Christianity.

Is it right (that is, morally defensible) that Hitler spends eternity in Heaven, while our good (albeit atheist) man spends eternity in Hell?

I know the standardized answers to this old dilemma, of course.  But I’m asking you, as one human to another, to think about this from a purely analytical point of view.  Forget your party allegiance, forget your theological training, forget the justifications, simply think of this as though you were a lab-coated scientist viewing this from the eyepiece of a microscope.

You made reference earlier to how man’s inhumanity to man need have no religious affilitation.  I understand and agree.  But I also question the very mindset that allows for such behavior.  Certainly, people have been killed for other reasons than in the name of religion, but have there really been as many killings in the name of atheism? Are you suggesting that there have been as many pogroms against the faithful as there have been of the reverse? What of Hitler, who quotes in Mein Kampf of the necessity of his actions because he believes he acts with the will of the Creator? What of Stalin, who was an altar boy in his youth? What do we say about a mindset that allows for death (or subjugation) to those who are different? It doesn’t have to be darker skin, it only has to be different beliefs, as your own religon’s history so capably reflects.

To my mind, any belief system that allows for the notion that it’s just and understandable that certain people spend eternity in Hell, will allow for just about anything else.  Including murder.  Including bigotry, in any form.  You cannot say to me, “My beliefs don’t reflect bigotry,” yet at the same time rationally countenance the notion that some will undergo horrifying, eternal punishment for not accepting that which you so readily put your faith in.

You ask, “how have Christians persecuted you?”  Well, I’ll tell you:  about ten years ago, I underwent a child custody battle.  I lost, and for only one reason—I was not a Christian.  The question was asked in court, and as the judge presiding was a good ol’ boy that firmly believed, well, I was simply not moral enough to receive custody of my children.  He even said so. And why? Because I didn’t believe as he did.  I didn’t believe in the invisible Superbeing in the sky. And this attitude isn’t limited to Protestants—this is reflected pretty much everywhere…if you’re not a Christian, you just aren’t as moral a person.

“In God We Trust” is on my currency.  How would you like it if “Allah Is Wonderful” were on yours?

The Pledge of Allegiance includes the mention of God.  How would you like it if your children had to recite the Pledge were it to mention Satan?

How many politicians have to hide their religious beliefs? No, politicians better toe the line, because if they mention that they happen to be a nonbeliever, they likely won’t be elected.

And regarding school vouchers, would you like it if your tax dollars were spent on The School of Satanism? Or for Scientology? Or for Wiccans? Why should my tax dollars be spent on “faith-based initiatives” and sectarian educations? It’s not as though these religions aren’t raking in tons of money on their own.

Thomas:

I’m curious as to your response/opinions regarding post #6012, The Origins of Christianity.

Also, I’m not sure if you actually answered my questions regarding the following:

1) Do you believe in the infallibility of the Bible? And that it is the absolute Word of God?

2)Do you believe Jesus is/was in fact the son of God, born of a virgin, perfectly sinless, performed the miracles described in the Gospels, was crucified for our sins, died and rose again, and that he will return?

3)Furthermore, do you believe he was/is the messiah foretold in the Old Testament?

Also, I was curious as to where exactly I can find these “censures” you described against the Falwells and Robertsons of our nation.

Thomas:

I’m curious about something.  I gather you are a Catholic.  (No, I won’t drum you over the head with the Inquisition, the Crusades, or the current spate of the Church’s problem with pedophilia).  So let me ask you this:  how do you feel about the concept of Hell? Does it give you any qualm at all to know that—according your belief system—many billions of people will roast in Hell (for a long, long, long, long time)because they didn’t accept something that, quite frankly, is very difficult to accept without blind faith?

My problem with the concept is simply this:  “Unless you accept the infinite love of Jesus, you will spend eternity in Hell.”

Can you tell me why this would—in any way, shape, or form—be a morally defensible oxymoron?  Furthermore, can you tell me why anyone who believes this to be s just proposition shouldn’t be written off as being completely morally bankrupt?

Here’s the way I see it.  We had Zeus and Company, we had Zoroaster, Moloch, Baal, Asmodeus, Odin, Thor, Osiris, Ra, Horus, Mithra, Astarte, Krishna, and Quetzlcoatl.  These “gods”, or “superbeings”, or “deities” were all really believed in.  They weren’t called “mythology”, at least not by those who practiced worship of said beings at the time of their ascendancy.  Oh, we smirk now and call them “quaint”, we call them “myths”, and we shrug and talk about how silly people used to be.

So why should your deity—the current era’s deity, the deity carried here from across the pond—be given any more respectability than the aforementioned cast of characters? Why shouldn’t we smirk and talk about how quaint your beliefs are? Or about how silly people can still be?

To John, RE: 6195…

Of course, you’re absolutely right.  The problem is, I live here in a country that’s full of Christians.  I’ve met only a handful of Muslims, and most of the Jews I’ve known have largely been non-practicing, or nonbelievers.

Mike, your “Guidelines for New Believers” can be said, almost word-for-word, about Muslims and Jews as well.  Jews said long before Christians that they were “God’s chosen people.”  We all know what Muslims throughout the world think of non-Muslims, especially American non-Muslims.  Women cannot enter a synogogue through the same door as men among the Orthodox.  And do women have any rights in most Muslim countries?  Re-read your list to see what I mean. 

A lot of what you said about alleged Christians in the United States was true, but by no means think of Christians as being alone.

Mike,

For a guide (pardon the pun) to some of the philosophical problems apparent in the texts of the Old Testament, as you indicated them, see the following:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486203514/ref=pd_lpo_k2a_1_txt/103-5880576-7744607?_encoding=UTF8

For a similar guide to problems in the New Testament see the following:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/026801678X/qid=1143741095/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5880576-7744607?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Thomas

RE: #6094

Mike,

From Webster’s online dictionary:

Fundamentalism

1: a: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs; 2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.

For the record, I am not a Protestant, nor do I base my faith on the “strict” “literal” interpretation of the Bible.  So, by definition, I am not a Fundamentalist.  You ought to be made aware that the literary objectivity and philosophical illegibility of the Christian interpretation of the Bible were well founded before the rise of Fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism is a small and recent phenomenon in the history of the Christian religion.  It is a momentary laps of reason among certain poorly educated Protestants in the United States.  It is normally characterized by rejection of the findings of modern science and the historical-critical interpretation of the texts of the Bible.  My faith perspective can accept neither of these omissions.       

If you can equate every sincere Christian belief with fundamentalism, lumping together educated people of faith with snake handling hillbillies, then I can just as easily lump every atheist or agnostic in with the atrocities of the French and Russian revolutions, for example.  Do you accept responsibility for everything done in the name of every godless philosophy?

Yes, I believe the articles of the Christian creed.  But, so did those who revived the study of Aristotle in the 12-13th centuries, as did those who founded the Universities of Oxford and Paris, and as did some of the most brilliant of our founding fathers.

Your abuse of the word ‘fundamentalist’ renders the word meaningless. 

You asked for evidence that faith is a rational act and not simply an emotional one.  The examples I gave you, I think, are sufficient.  The history of theology is rife with ratiocinations regarding the objects of faith.  Read a little history.  Scholastic thought, which prevailed from the 12-16th centuries, was theology ordered according to a critical revival of peripatetic philosophy.  It would be absurd to impute emotionalism to such an intellectual tradition.  The ways in which you caricature the motives and modalities of belief are not at all reflected in the greater tradition of Christian life and thought.  It may, again, apply to the few fundamentalists you have interviewed, but to extrapolate from that experience to the whole of Christianity is as unjustified as me taking the few comments on this website that I have heard from self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics and drawing the conclusion that all godless thought is as specious and pseudo-intellectual as I have experienced it here.   

You wrote: “So, let me get this straight:  you discovered this particular religion with no outside influence whatsoever? You just happen to believe in the predominant faith in this particular era in this particular nation? What a wonderful coincidence!”

I did not say that I was uninfluenced.  I said that I and many others did not reach a decision for faith through religious indoctrination as you ridiculously characterized it. 

You wrote: “As to your “theology” degrees, I can only respond that—from a purely empirical point of view—I should have about as much respect for a degree in the unknowable as I would in someone having a degree in The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars (no offence, I’m simply drawing an analogy).  As far as I’m concerned, until your degree deals with issues that have no need of faith, we can’t even have honest discourse.”

No offence taken.  It is hard to get offended by such a meaningless comparison.  What are some of those issues?  Would it include philosophy (theology has a long history of extensive engagement with philosophy), or history, psychology, politics, science, or environmental concerns?  These are all part of the contemporary discipline of academic theology.     

You wrote: “Of course, once again, you have proof for this assertion [that faith leads to humility], I assume?

Yes, I suppose the fact that humility was not a virtue in the pre-Christian world – that by all accounts it is original to the character of Christ as he appears in the Gospels – is proof of my assertion that belief in the God of the Bible ought to lead to humility rather than pride. 

You wrote: “The egoism I refer to, in any case, is that of our presumption of superiority over all other animals, in addition to the cavalier attitudes we have in regard to the well-being of our own biosphere.”

There is nothing in the Christian Faith that compels cavalier attitudes towards nature.  In fact, the Bible speaks of man’s responsibility for nature.  The actions of the industrialists that largely contributed to the pollution of the environment have no essential connection to faith.  There is no basis in fact for the widespread myth of religious anti-environmentalism. 

You wrote: “I’m sorry…once again, the irrefutable evidence please, not the standardized answers.  “Revelation”, for you, might (for the sake of argument) be persuasive indeed, but unless I have personally experienced it, it is nothing more than “hearsay”.  Why should I respect your hearsay more than, say, that of a Hindu or a Muslim?”

I hardy think my answer is “standardized” for most fundamentalists.  First, my answer was not intended to be a demonstration of the truth of the object of hope.  I simply wanted to make the point that Christian hope is formally different than wishful thinking, which is traditionally regarded as a rational fallacy.  If you think I failed to do that, then point it out.  Second, although I cannot speak with any familiarity regarding the structure of Hindu belief, the hope that a Muslim has, if it is founded upon what he perceives by faith to be the promise of God, is as justified subjectively as Christian hope.  Third, the credibility of revelation can be established in different ways by an objective analysis of the concrete medium of revelation – such as a holy book or a holy person or a holy institution.  However, the assent of faith ultimately has a subjective moral dimension subject only to divine influence. 

You wrote: “Please understand something, Thomas, I respect your right to have your views and your beliefs, but many (if not most) of your ilk will not allow others to do likewise.  How many times have you stood up to the likes of Falwell, Robertson, or any other such vitriolic (to borrow one of your words) representative of your faith (via letter, etc.)? How often have you disagreed with the right wing when they seek to legislate their beliefs onto those of us who don’t accept theirs? And do you “gently remind” your compatriots that they are not necessarily more moral, or better, simply because of their beliefs?”

I think it is a gross misrepresentation to portray most Christians as essentially bigots.  Despite what you have experienced, I have found no short supply of open-mindedness and fairness among people of faith in this country.  How are you being persecuted by Christians?  What Christian beliefs exactly are being legislated at this time?  (Please do not use the tired example of abortion.  Moral reasoning can serve as a sufficient basis for arguing against abortion without any appeal to religious dogma.)  There is constant censure coming from the Christian community of those popular personalities who while presuming to represent the Faith to the world sometimes confuse it with their own ambitions.  Presumably (notice my generosity) you criticize atheistic governments that violate human rights?

You wrote: “I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, yet I must say that you have yet to convince me—in any way—that your position is essentially different than the more hardcore of your brethren.”

I fail to see the reason for your confusion.  You will have to point out those essential qualities which you perceive that I have in common with Fundamentalism.  In fairness, you must identify specifically those qualities that characterize Fundamentalism.  An un-nuanced comparison, such as we both believe in God, is clearly unconvincing.  Fundamentalism is notoriously anti-intellectual.  Start there.

Thomas

As others here have already pointed out, the existance of evil can rightfullly be dismissed as evidence for the non-benevolence of a possibly existing god. All we have to assume is that this “evil” is a necessary part of our learning process. Without it, we would possibly not learn to change our ways, just like some children actually need to actually touch a hot stove in order to learn to avoid it. It we further assume that this not the only life we get (aka reincarnation) then loss of life is not so incredibly bad as that a benevolent god would have to intervene to avoid such.
I would also note that 99% of all religious people in the world are quite harmless. Nearly each of the conflicts you listed above also have or have had additional origins - besides religion, usually fighting for territory. Also, it is often a case of a conflict between different ethnicities, who also happen to have different religions. Therefore I would argue the leaders are often using religion as an excuse.
I will not entirely dismiss religion as a source of violence and intolerance, though, but I would not say that the fault lies entirely with religion “per se”.

Instead of religion, I think, extreme stupidity and intolerance in all its forms promotes violence in the world. Religion is possibly just the current FOTM (again) for those violent few to justify their acts. 40 years ago, it was economic ideology, before that it was racist ideology, etc.
Dogmatic disagreement it not necessarily restricted to religion, but can be applied to nearly every aspect of life. Extremely intolerant people, be they religious or athiest, will find any reason to use violence. The Tamil tigers, who are a marxist organization in Sri Lanka, used suicide bombers extensively even though they could not promise “life after death” rewards to their followers.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
  Earl Bertrand Russell
I do agree though that religion has passed it’s zenith in usefulness for humanity. But atheism is not the answer I think. Rather it’s a renewed form of universally-agreed-upon spirituality based on scientific evidence. I think will we be able to prove the reality of an independent, eternal human soul in maybe a decade or so. There is quite a lot of exciting research going on in that direction (heim theory and morphic fields, for example).

RE: #6070

Thomas:

You’re not a fundamentalist? You 1) do not credit the Bible with being infallible, 2) you do not accept that Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, perfect in every way, performed miracles, died upon the cross to pay for our sins, rose from the dead, and will return sometime in the unforseeable future, 3) you do not believe that the Bible is the absolute word of god, and that within it are all of the answers we humans need to live our lives?

If you answered yes to the above you are, indeed, a fundamentalist.  These are, essentially, the very fundamentals touted by representatives of your faith.

Next:

“This statement is unproved.  In fact, it is very easy to disprove.  Check out the following works of theology.  You will find that the rational quality of these works (both of them medieval) exposes your prejudice for what it is: vitriolic ignorance.”

Then I’m sure you’ll be happy to provide me with the iron-clad, non-emotional evidence I require, que no?

Next:

“Response: I am a convert.  I was encouraged as a child to develop my own understanding of the universe.  Many great minds in the history of Christianity were also converts.”

So, let me get this straight:  you discovered this particular religion with no outside influence whatsoever? You just happen to believe in the predominant faith in this particular era in this particular nation? What a wonderful coincidence!

Next:

“Response: What does this mean?  Are you honestly arguing that Christians do not go to college? (laugh) I have two masters in theology and am studying for a PhD in the same; and I am not unique.  The foundations of the academy in the western world are in the formal study of the Bible.  Many, if not most, of the colleges and universities in this country have religious foundations.  Many also have religious studies faculties.”

Christians going to college is no kind of answer on the face of it.  Especially when the average Christian has been fully and thoroughly brainwashed before he/she attained the ability to reason.  Because one goes to an educational institution yet retains dogma inculcated as small children is no indication that the education made any difference.

As to your “theology” degrees, I can only respond that—from a purely empirical point of view—I should have about as much respect for a degree in the unknowable as I would in someone having a degree in The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars (no offence, I’m simply drawing an analogy).  As far as I’m concerned, until your degree deals with issues that have no need of faith, we can’t even have honest discourse.

“Response: Having been created by another being – i.e. first from nothing, then from dust, does not seem to be a solid foundation for egoism.  Belief in the God of the Bible ought to lead a person to greater humility, the opposite of pride – the cause of the fall of man according to the Bible.”

Of course, once again, you have proof for this assertion, I assume? The egoism I refer to, in any case, is that of our presumption of superiority over all other animals, in addition to the cavalier attitudes we have in regard to the well-being of our own biosphere.

“Response: In other words, Christians hope for life beyond death.  True.  But hope is not irrational if it is founded upon the promise of God.  That promise is known by faith.  Faith rests upon the credibility of divine revelation.  We can debate the authority and the qualities of the Bible, however, the hope a Christian has is not without conscious objective foundation.  Thus your insinuation that Christian hope is equivalent to wishful thinking is unjustified.”

I’m sorry…once again, the irrefutable evidence please, not the standardized answers.  “Revelation”, for you, might (for the sake of argument) be persuasive indeed, but unless I have personally experienced it, it is nothing more than “hearsay”.  Why should I respect your hearsay more than, say, that of a Hindu or a Muslim?

Please understand something, Thomas, I respect your right to have your views and your beliefs, but many (if not most) of your ilk will not allow others to do likewise.  How many times have you stood up to the likes of Falwell, Robertson, or any other such vitriolic (to borrow one of your words) representative of your faith (via letter, etc.)? How often have you disagreed with the right wing when they seek to legislate their beliefs onto those of us who don’t accept theirs? And do you “gently remind” your compatriots that they are not necessarily more moral, or better, simply because of their beliefs?

I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, yet I must say that you have yet to convince me—in any way—that your position is essentially different than the more hardcore of your brethren.

I’ve read the article that Thomas linked to and I must admit that I’m unable to get anything out of it beyond:

1: Religion is necessary for Democracy because the founding fathers say it is;
2: Religion is necessary for Democracy because and Alexis de Tocqueville says it is;
3: Religion has done some good stuff in the past.

Therefore, Religion is necessary for Democracy.

The whole reference to Sam Harris is a cheap shot calling The End of Faith a “silly” book and citing a passage which states “While religious people generally are not mad, their core beliefs absolutely are,” writes Sam Harris. “In fact, it is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions.”

This article does nothing to demonstrate that the selected quote is incorrect or that the premise of the article isn’t.

The following article is a good response to the criticism of religion in public life, with reference to Sam Harris.

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2574/pub_detail.asp

Mike,

Most of your ranting against Christianity reflects an extreme fundamentalist corruption of it.  I cannot defend that.  I am not a fundamentalist.  I suggest that you get more exposure.  Those with whom you have become acquainted are obviously very very bad examples. 

Nevertheless, I will attempt to respond to some of your points.  Regarding the massive amount of references to the text of the Bible, I will not attempt to respond to them.  Take a few examples and put them in the form of an argument. 

RE: Mike #5999 “Religious belief is based on emotional impulses, nothing more.”

This statement is unproved.  In fact, it is very easy to disprove.  Check out the following works of theology.  You will find that the rational quality of these works (both of them medieval) exposes your prejudice for what it is: vitriolic ignorance:

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon05295.html

Let me assess myself using your “five major reasons for faith”:

1)Osmosis – people were born with it.  They just accepted it blindly from their parents, their “holy men”, and the bulk of society, and don’t think for themselves about anything anymore.

Response: I am a convert.  I was encouraged as a child to develop my own understanding of the universe.  Many great minds in the history of Christianity were also converts.

2)Comfort – it’s nice to believe in a large white-haired grandpa in the sky, one that cares about you and watches over you, and who is guiding your life for some celestial purpose.  It’s much like having an all-powerful Teddy Bear.

Response: The God of the Bible is nowhere presented as anything like an “all-powerful Teddy Bear”.  In fact, some of the actions and qualities of the God of the Bible to which you object contradict this caricature.  If there is one dominant existential consequence of belief in the God of the Bible, it is not comfort but accountability. 

3)Laziness – well, which is easier? Going to church every Sunday and having the Bible interpreted for you, or attending college and having to work hard in subjects that might actually force you to think?

Response: What does this mean?  Are you honestly arguing that Christians do not go to college? (laugh)  I have two masters in theology and am studying for a PhD in the same; and I am not unique.  The foundations of the academy in the western world are in the formal study of the Bible.  Many, if not most, of the colleges and universities in this country have religious foundations.  Many also have religious studies faculties.

4)Ego – it’s nice to believe that we’re special, that we were created on purpose, that the universe was created for our enjoyment, and that we are masters of all we survey.  The notion that we’re nothing more than a cosmic accident isn’t too appealing.

Response: Having been created by another being – i.e. first from nothing, then from dust, does not seem to be a solid foundation for egoism.  Belief in the God of the Bible ought to lead a person to greater humility, the opposite of pride – the cause of the fall of man according to the Bible. 

5)Terror – the fear of death.  Death scares us all.  And it’s so cold and final.  The prospect of death is horrifying, isn’t it? It’s nice to hope for eternal life, isn’t it? Nobody wants to be worm food, do they?

In other words, Christians hope for life beyond death.  True.  But hope is not irrational if it is founded upon the promise of God.  That promise is known by faith.  Faith rests upon the credibility of divine revelation.  We can debate the authority and the qualities of the Bible, however, the hope a Christian has is not without conscious objective foundation.  Thus your insinuation that Christian hope is equivalent to wishful thinking is unjustified. 

RE Mike #5170

Check out the following link for a good explanation of what the Bible actually says regarding the shape of the Earth:
 
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html (not an endorsement of the website)

RE: Mike #6001

For an excellent and authoritative description of the Christian view of the equality and value of women see the following:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

Hope this is helpful,

Thomas

Biblical Contradictions and Atrocities?
(or just a matter of “context”?)

First, a few quick questions:

Is a bat a bird; do hares have cloven hooves, and do they chew the cud; is Pi 3.0 or is it 3.14159; do donkeys talk; can iron ax heads really float (2 Kings 5:27); can disembodied hands write on walls by themselves; can sticks turn into snakes; did Noah, without a degree in calculus and engineering, and with no knowledge of shipbuilding, really build what would constitute the world’s largest wooden ship; how did Judas actually die (even if using the “hanging by the neck until the rope broke” gambit, how do you explain the 30 pieces of silver being used for buying the land? Matt. 27:3-5 VS Acts 1:18); why is Abraham admired when he was a coward, a liar and a pimp; why was it okay for people to be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath (which none of you observe accurately—it’s Saturday, NOT Sunday), yet when Jesus gathered corn (that wasn’t even his—a violation of Thou Shalt Not Steal) on the Sabbath, that was perfectly allowed; did Jesus come to keep the law, or to change it—the Bible isn’t exactly clear on this; why are Jesus’s genealogies contradictory (and don’t even try the “one of them was Mary’s”—it won’t wash); why do we overlook the Bible’s mention of unicorns, dragons, cockatrices and satyrs; can people really exist in the belly of a great fish/whale for three (?) days; why was it okay for Jesus to condemn others for saying “fool” (Matt. 5:22), yet he turned around and did it himself (Matt. 23:17, Luke 11:40); was it okay for Jesus to have been disrespectful to his mother (John 2:4); are we supposed to love our enemies or not (Matt. 5:44 VS Matt. 12:34, 23:17, 23:27, John 10:8); when is the Second Coming going to occur (actually, the Third Coming—remember the Resurrection? Would that not have been the Second Coming?) (Matt. 16:28, Rev.3: 11); does God tempt mankind or not (James 1:13 VS Gen. 22:1, Matt. 6:13, Deut. 4:34); who was Lot to Abraham, exactly (Gen. 14:12 VS Gen. 14:14-16); are we saved by faith or works (Rom. 3:20, Gal. 2:16 VS James 2:20 & 24); is God the author of evil, or isn’t he (Deut. 32:4, Psa. 19:7-8, James 1:13 VS Isa. 45:7, Jer. 18:11, Ezek. 20:25, Lam. 3:38; does God ever lie (Prov. 12:22 VS I Kings 22:23); the Ascension (John 3:13 VS 2 Kings 2:11, Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5)???

Explain the Following (contradictions?) (“matters of context”?):

-Mark 16:2, John 20:1
-John 20:1, Matt.28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10
-Luke 24:2, Matt. 28:1-2
-Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, John 20:11-12.
-Mark 16:8 VS Luke 24:8-9
-Matt. 28:9 VS John 20:14
-Matt. 28:5-6 VS Mark 16:5-6 VS Luke 24:5-6

What’s with the resurrection? Eccle. 3:19-21; Eccle. 9:5; Job 7:9; Isa. 26:14; Tim. 6:15-16.
Did Jesus raise himself from the dead? Acts 3:15; Acts 5:30; Acts 13:30.

Regarding the Crucifixion:

Color of robe? Matt. 27:28 or Mark 15:17?
When was it put on? Matt. 27:26-28 or John 19:1-2?
When did it take place? Mark 15:25 or Luke 23:43-44 or John 19:14-16?
What was written on the sign? Matt. 27:37 or Mark 15:26 or Luke 23:38 or John 19:19?
What about Jesus’s clothes?
What did Jesus drink while on the cross?
What were the women doing during all this?
What did his fellows on the crosses say to him?
What did the centurion say?
Where did all this take place?
Where did the Ascension take place?
How could Jesus be the physical descendent of David (as the Messiah must be—see 2 Sam. 7:12-13, Psa. 89:3-4, Psa. 132:11) if he was “born of a virgin”? Can’t be both, can he? He’s either PHYSICALLY descended of David—therefore the Messiah—or he’s the Son of God (i.e., virgin, spiritual birth).  Not both.  Both cannot be possible.

Other interesting verses:

Jesus was Galilean.  See John 7:52 and John 1:45-46.
Jesus was born of a woman.  See Job 14:4, Job 15:14 and Job 25:4.  Also, Dan. 2:11 and Gen. 6:3.
Jesus came to fulfill the Law.  See Matt. 5:17-18.  Guess a lot of you are in deep trouble, huh?
Jesus is God in part.  See Deut. 4:35, Deut. 4:39, Isa. 45:6, I Sam. 2:2, 2 Sam. 7:22, I Kings 8:27/2 Chron. 6:18.  See Gen. 6:3.
Can a god be created? See Col. 1:15 and Prov 8:22.
Jesus was sinless? I Peter 2:22, I John 3:5 and Eph. 4:21 says he was.  But what about John 7:8-10, Luke 6:1-4, Luke 8:43-45, Mark 3:5 (VS Matt. 5:22), Luke 12:4 (VS Matt. 12:14-16, John 7:1, John 11:53-54, John 8:59), John 2:4, Luke 2:48, Matt. 12:46-50 and Luke 14:26.  Doesn’t seem too “sinless” to me.
Analyze this carefully:  Mark 9:25-26.
Analyze this carefully:  Mark 6:10.
Analyze this carefully:  Mark 9:50.
Analyze this carefully:  Matt. 13:12.
Analyze this carefully:  John 3:13.
Analyze this carefully:  Mark 10:29-30.
Analyze this carefully:  Matt. 19-17.
Analyze this carefully:  John 5:46.  (Show me!)
Matt. 5:16 VS Matt. 6:1.
Prove these verses correct while scientists and other doubters look on, and you’ll really impress me:  Mark 9:23, John 14:14, Matt. 17:20, Mark 16:17-18.  Then, compare to Mark 9:29.
Matt. 28:20 VS Matt. 26:11, John 7:34.
John 3:35, 13:3 and Matt. 28:18 VS Matt. 20:23.
Luke 6:37 VS John 7:24.
John 12:23 VS Matt. 11:29, John 8:50.
John 12:27 VS Matt. 27:46.
Matt. 9:18 VS Matt. 9:24-25.
John 5:37 VS Gen. 3:9, Exod. 20:22, Deut. 4:12.
Does God lie? Titus 1:2 VS 2 Chron. 18:22, Jer. 20:7, 2 Thess. 2:11, I Sam. 16:2, Gen 2:17 (VS Gen. 5:5).

Assorted goodies that should alarm decent, thinking people:

Jer. 25:27.
Prov.26:10.
Judges 1:19.
Mal. 2:3.
I Kings 8:56 VS Jonah 3:4 (VS Jonah 3:10).
2 Sam. 12:11-12.
Hosea 1:2.
Hosea 3:1-2.
Num. 16:35.
Deut. 32:39.
Job 5:2 VS Deut. 13:17, Judges 3:8, Deut. 5:9, Nahum 1:2.
Jer. 23:24 and Psa. 139:7-11 VS Gen. 3:9, Gen. 4:9, Gen. 11:5, Num. 23:15, Job 1:12, Jonah 1:3.
James 1:17 VS Exod. 32:14, I Sam. 15:35, Jer. 42:10, Gen. 6:6.
Deut. 32:4 VS Exod.4”22-23, Num. 14:18, I Chron. 21:1, I Sam. 6:19, Rom. 5:12.
Deut. 10:17 and 2 Chron. 19:7 VS Deut. 7:6, Isa. 65:9, Rom. 1:16, Rom. 9:13, Isa. 51:16, 52:6, 63:8, Matt. 15:24, Gen. 4:5.
Deut. 23:2.
Ezek. 20:26.
Exod. 22:29-30.
Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10, Lev. 26:29, Deut. 28:53-57, Isa. 49:26.
Deut. 22:28-29.  (One of my favorites!)
Gen. 38:9-10.
Isa. 3:17.
Ezek. 9:6.
I Sam. 15:3.
I John 4:8, I Cor. 13:4 VS Deut. 4:24, Deut. 5:9, Nahum 1:2.

Scientific and mathematical inaccuracies:

I Chron 25:3.  5, not 6.
Josh. 15:33-36.  15, not 14.
I Kings 7:23/s Chron. 4:2.  Wrong.
I Chron. 3:19-20.  8, not 5.
Josh. 15:21-23.  36, not 29.
Ezra 1:9-11.  2499, not 5400.
Josh. 19:2-6.  14, not 13.
Ezra 2:3-64.  29,818, not 42,360.  (Off by 12, 542)
Neh. 7:8-66.  31,089, not 42,360.  (Off by 11,371)
Num. 3:17-39.  22,300, not 22,000.
Lev. 11:20-21.  Show me a four-legged fowl.
Lev. 11:22-23.  Show me a four-legged insect.
Gen. 30:37-39.  Gimme a break!
2 Peter 3:5.  Wrong.
I Sam. 2:8/Job 38.  Think again.
Josh. 10:13 and Hab. 3:11 VS 2 Kings 20:11.  Do the physics.
Gen. 11:6-9.  Totally wrong.  Besides, other languages are plainly mentioned beforehand—Gen. 10:5, 10:20, 10:31.  Duh!
John 12:24.  No ag training, I guess.
Isa. 11:12.  Flat Earth garbage.
Deut. 13:7, 28:64, I Sam. 2:10, Job 28:24.  Nice try, though.
James 5:13-15.  Let’s see this proven.
Matt. 13:31-32.  Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Deut. 32:11.  Think about it.
Lev. 13:9-13.  Tell that to people afflicted with it.
Luke 1:44.  Pure drivel.

(I won’t even bother with the Noachian Deluge, since it ranks alongside Humpty Dumpty and the Three Little Pigs nonsense.)

Teachings I question:

Eccles. 10:19.
I Tim. 4:8.
Prov. 23:13-14.
Psalms 53:1.
Eccles. 9:11.
Job 36:13-14.
James 2:10.
Matt. 7:7-8.

Why aren’t the following being done on a regular basis? :

Mark 9:23.
Matt. 17:20.
John 14:12.
Mark 16:17-18.
James 5:13-15.

Biblical anti-intellectualism (the source of the very problem):

Heb. 11:1, Eccles. 6:8, I Cor. 1:22-23, I Cor. 4:10, I Cor. 2:1-2, I Cor. 3:18-19, I Cor. 1:19-21, I Cor. 2:13-14, Eccles. 1:18, I Cor. 1:17-25, I Cor. 8:1-2, I Cor. 2:6-7, Col. 2:8.

Dislike of foreigners (source of jingoism):

Neh. 13:3, Neh. 9:2, Neh. 13:27, Isa. 1:7, Ezek. 11:9, Ezek. 28:7-10, Ezek. 30:12, Ezek. 44:7-9.

Other items that should give intelligent, moral folk pause:

Psa. 22:21, 29:6, 92:10.
Psa. 74:13, 148:7.
Psa. 58:8.
Psa. 44:20, 96:4, 97:7, 136:2.
Psa. 19:6, 93:1, 96:10.
Psa. 44:23.
Psa. 8:3, 11:4, 18:9, 18:10, 18:15.
I Sam. 6:4.
I Sam. 5:12.
I Sam. 16:23.
I Sam. 17:49-51.
I Sam. 18:27.
I Sam. 20:17, 20:30, 20:41-42.
Eccles. 3:19, 9:5, 9:10.
Isa. 11:8, 13:21-22, 14:29, 27:1, 30:6, 34:7, 34:13, 43:20, 59:5.
Isa. 13:15-18.
Isa. 34:2-3.
Lam. 1:10.
Lam. 2:20-22.
Judges 7:4-7.
I Sam. 15:7-8, 27:8-11, 30:1.  How many times can somebody “destroy” something?
Psa. 18:8, 69:22-23.
Isa. 60:16.
Jer. 6:10.
Jer. 9:11, 10:22, 14:6, 49:33, 51:37.
Ezek. 1:27, 8:2.
Ezek. 13:15-20.
Dan. 4:32-33.
Micah 1:8.
Nah. 1:5.
Hab. 3:4.
Hos. 58:3, 59:5.
Rev. 1:13-16.
Rev. 9:7-18.
Rev. 10:10.
Rev. 11:5-10.
Rev. 12:7.
Ezek. 2:9, 3:3.  Yummy!
Ezek. 5:10.
Ezek. 6:5.
Ezek. 24.3-10.
Ezek. 24:15-18.
Ezek. 37:7-10.

The Origins of Christianity and
the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ

by Acharya S.

Introduction

Around the world over the centuries, much has been written about religion, its
meaning, its relevance and contribution to humanity. In the West particularly,
sizable tomes have been composed speculating upon the nature and historical
background of the main character of Western religions, Jesus Christ. Many have
tried to dig into the precious few clues as to Jesus’s identity and come up with
a biographical sketch that either bolsters faith or reveals a more human side of
this godman to which we can all relate. Obviously, considering the time and
energy spent on them, the subjects of Christianity and its legendary founder are
very important to the Western mind and culture.

The Controversy

Despite all of this literature continuously being cranked out and the
significance of the issue, in the public at large there is a serious lack of
formal and broad education regarding religion and mythology, and most
individuals are highly uninformed in this area. Concerning the issue of
Christianity, for example, the majority of people are taught in most schools and
churches that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure and that the only
controversy regarding him is that some people accept him as the Son of God and
the Messiah, while others do not. However, whereas this is the raging debate
most evident in this field today, it is not the most important. Shocking as it
may seem to the general populace, the most enduring and profound controversy in
this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed.
Although this debate may not be evident from publications readily found in
popular bookstores, when one examines this issue closely, one will find a
tremendous volume of literature that demonstrates, logically and intelligently,
time and again that Jesus Christ is a mythological character along the same
lines as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian or other
godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths rather than historical figures.
Delving deeply into this large body of work, one uncovers evidence that the
Jesus character is based upon much older myths and heroes from around the globe.
One discovers that this story is not, therefore, a historical representation of
a Jewish rebel carpenter who had physical incarnation in the Levant 2,000 years
ago. In other words, it has been demonstrated continually for centuries that
this character, Jesus Christ, was invented and did not depict a real person who
was either the “son of God” or was “evemeristically” made into a superhuman by
enthusiastic followers.

History and Positions of the Debate

This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and the writings of the
“Church Fathers” themselves reveal that they were constantly forced by the pagan
intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians
(“heretics”) alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no
evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says,
“And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but
never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the
existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied.” Emperor Julian, who,
coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous “good Christian”
Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, “If anyone should
wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety
to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and
confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the
worst characteristics of them both.” According to these learned dissenters, the
New Testament could rightly be called, “Gospel Fictions.”
A century ago, mythicist Albert Churchward said, “The canonical gospels can be
shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology.”
In Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless states, “The gospels are all priestly
forgeries over a century after their pretended dates.” Those who concocted some
of the hundreds of “alternative” gospels and epistles that were being kicked
about during the first several centuries C.E. have even admitted that they had
forged the documents. Forgery during the first centuries of the Church’s
existence was admittedly rampant, so common in fact that a new phrase was coined
to describe it: “pious fraud.” Such prevarication is confessed to repeatedly
in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some of the “great” church fathers, such as
Eusebius, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who
regularly wrote their own fictions of what “the Lord” said and did during “his”
alleged sojourn upon the earth.

The Proof

The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the
works of dissenters and “pagans” who knew the truth - and who were viciously
refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and “Church
Fathers” fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very
statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they
knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located
throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth
because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, “What profit has not
that fable of Christ brought us!” (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, “The
proofs of my indictment are marvelously easy.”

The Gnostics

From their own admissions, the early Christians were incessantly under criticism
by scholars of great repute who were impugned as “heathens” by their Christian
adversaries. This group included many Gnostics, who strenuously objected to the
carnalization of their deity, as the Christians can be shown to have taken many
of the characteristics of their god and godman from the Gnostics, meaning “Ones
who know,” a loose designation applied to members of a variety of esoteric
schools and brotherhoods. The refutations of the Christians against the Gnostics
reveal that the Christian godman was an insult to the Gnostics, who held that
their god could never take human form.

Biblical Sources

It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the Epistles
attributed to “Paul,” never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal
exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for
hundreds to thousands of years. The few “historical” references to an actual
life of Jesus cited in the Epistles are demonstrably interpolations and
forgeries, as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were
not written by “Paul.” Aside from the brief reference to Pontius Pilate in 1
Timothy 6:13, an epistle dated ben Yehoshua to 144 CE and thus not written by
Paul, the Pauline literature (as pointed out by Edouard Dujardin) “does not
refer to Pilate, or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod, or
Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion,
and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions
absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of
allusion.” Dujardin additionally relates that other early “Christian” writings
such as Revelation do not mention any historical details or drama. Mangasarian
notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus’s purported sermons and speeches,
parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus’s supernatural birth or any of
his alleged wonders and miracles, all which one would presume would be very
important to his followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to
“Paul.”
Turning to the gospels themselves, which were composed between 170-180 C.E., their pretended authors, the apostles, give sparse histories and genealogies of
Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places. The
birthdate of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His
birth and childhood are not mentioned in “Mark,” and although he is claimed in
“Matthew” and “Luke” to have been “born of a virgin,” his lineage is traced to
the House of David through Joseph, such that he may “fulfill prophecy.” He is
said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he
died, while in “John” the number is three years. “Matthew” relates that Jesus
delivered “The Sermon on the Mount” before “the multitudes,” while “Luke” says
it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion
and Resurrection differ utterly from each other, and no one states how old he
was when he died. Wheless says, “The so-called ‘canonical’ books of the New
Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text,
to the present estimate of 150,000 and more ‘variant readings,’ as is well known
and admitted.” In addition, of the dozens of gospels, ones that were once
considered canonical or genuine were later rejected as “apocryphal” or spurious,
and vice versa. So much for the “infallible Word of God” and “infallible”
Church! The confusion exists because the Christian plagiarists over the
centuries were attempting to amalgamate and fuse practically every myth,
fairytale, legend, doctrine or bit of wisdom they could pilfer from the
innumerable different mystery religions and philosophies that existed at the
time. In doing so, they forged, interpolated, mutilated, changed, and rewrote
these texts for centuries.

Non-Biblical Sources

Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any
known historian of the time during and after Jesus’s purported advent. Walker
says, “No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing.”
Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.),
alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the
some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the
Common Era. “Enough of the writings of [these] authors…remain to form a
library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged
passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works
of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Their
silence is deafening testimony against the historicisers.
In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many
volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although
much has been made of these “references,” they have been dismissed by all
scholars and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those
referring to John the Baptist and James, “brother” of Jesus. Bishop Warburton
labeled the Josephus interpolation regarding Jesus as “a rank forgery, and a
very stupid one, too.” Wheless notes that, “The first mention ever made of
this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that ‘very dishonest
writer,’ Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century…CE [Catholic Encyclopedia]
admits… the above cited passage was not known to Origen and the earlier
patristic writers.” Wheless, a lawyer, and Taylor, a minister, agree that it was
Eusebius himself who forged the passage.
Regarding the letter to Trajan supposedly written by Pliny the Younger, which is
one of the pitifully few “references” to Jesus or Christianity held up by
Christians as evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is but one word that is
applicable - “Christian” - and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is
also suspected of the entire letter. Concerning the passage in the works of the
historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was
born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent
scholars as an interpolation and forgery. Christian defenders also like to
hold up the passage in Suetonius that refers to someone named “Chrestus” or
“Chresto” as reference to their Savior; however, while some have speculated that
there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the name “Chrestus” or
“Chrestos,” meaning “useful,” was frequently held by freed slaves. Others opine
that this passage is also an interpolation.
As to these references and their constant regurgitation by Christian apologists,
Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn says:
  “The average Christian minister who has not read outside the pale of
  accredited Church authorities will impart to any parishioner making the
  inquiry the information that no event in history is better attested by
  witness than the occurrences in the Gospel narrative of Christ’s life. He will
  go over the usual citation of the historians who mention Jesus and the letters
  claiming to have been written about him. When the credulous questioner,
  putting trust in the intelligence and good faith of his pastor, gets this
  answer, he goes away assured on the point of the veracity of the Gospel story.
  The pastor does not qualify his data with the information that the practice of
  forgery, fictionalizing and fable was rampant in the early Church. In the simple
  interest of truth, then, it is important to examine the body of alleged
  testimony from secular history and see what credibility and authority it
  possess.
  “First, as to the historians whose works record the existence of Jesus, the
  list comprises but four. They are Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus.
  There are short paragraphs in the works of each of these, two in Josephus. The
  total quantity of this material is given by Harry Elmer Barnes in The Twilight
  of Christianity as some twenty-four lines. It may total a little more, perhaps
  twice that amount. This meager testimony constitutes the body or mass of the
  evidence of ‘one of the best attested events in history.’ Even if it could be
  accepted as indisputably authentic and reliable, it would be faltering support
  for an event that has dominated the thought of half the world for eighteen
  centuries.
  “But what is the standing of this witness? Not even Catholic scholars of
  importance have dissented from a general agreement of academic investigators
  that these passages, one and all, must by put down as forgeries and
  interpolations by partisan Christian scribes who wished zealously to array the
  authority of these historians behind the historicity of the Gospel life of
  Jesus. A sum total of forty or fifty lines from secular history supporting the
  existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and they completely discredited!”
Of these “references,” Dujardin says, “But even if they are authentic, and were
derived from earlier sources, they would not carry us back earlier than the
period in which the gospel legend took form, and so could attest only the legend
of Jesus, and not his historicity.” In any case, these scarce and brief
“references” to a man who supposedly shook up the world can hardly be held up as
proof of his existence, and it is absurd that the purported historicity of the
entire Christian religion is founded upon them. As it is said, “Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof”; yet, no proof of any kind for the
historicity of Jesus has ever existed or is forthcoming.
The Characters

It is evident that there was no single historical person upon whom the Christian
religion was founded, and that “Jesus Christ” is a compilation of legends,
heroes, gods and godmen. There is not adequate room here to go into detail about
each god or godman that contributed to the formation of the Jewish Jesus
character; suffice it to say that there is plenty of documentation to show that
this issue is not a question of “faith” or “belief.” The truth is that during
the era this character supposedly lived there was an extensive library at
Alexandria and an incredibly nimble brotherhood network that stretched from
Europe to China, and this information network had access to numerous manuscripts
that told the same narrative portrayed in the New Testament with different place
names and ethnicity for the characters. In actuality, the legend of Jesus nearly
identically parallels the story of Krishna, for example, even in detail, as was
presented by noted mythologist and scholar Gerald Massey over 100 years ago, as
well as by Rev. Robert Taylor 160 years ago, among others. The Krishna tale as
told in the Hindu Vedas has been dated to at least as far back as 1400 B.C.E.
The same can be said of the well-woven Horus mythos, which also is practically
identical, in detail, to the Jesus story, but which predates the Christian
version by thousands of years.
As concerns the specious claim that the analogies between the Christ myth and
those outlined below are “non-existent” because they are not found in “primary
sources,” let us turn to the words of the early Church fathers, who acknowledged
that major important aspects of the Christ character are indeed to be found in
the stories of earlier, “Pagan” gods, but who asserted that the reason for these
similarities was because the evidently prescient devil “anticipated” Christ and
planted “foreshadowing” of his “coming” in the heathens’ minds.
In his First Apology, Christian father Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) acknowledged
the similarities between the older Pagan gods and religions and those of
Christianity, when he attempted to demonstrate, in the face of ridicule, that
Christianity was no more ridiculous than the earlier myths:
  “ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He,
  Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and
  ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe
  regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons
  your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and
  teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck
  by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had
  been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the
  flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus,
  son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven
  on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like
  her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors
  who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose
  behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to
  heaven from the funeral pyre?”
In his endless apologizing, Justin reiterates the similarities between his
godman and the gods of other cultures:
  “As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was
  common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his being
  born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the
  lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little
  more than what you say of your Aesculapius.”
In making these comparisons between Christianity and its predecessor Paganism,
however, Martyr sinisterly spluttered:
  “It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen Poets to bring forward a great
  many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in
  this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same
  characters the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove.”
In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Martyr again admits the pre-existence of
the Christian tale and then uses his standard, irrational and self-serving
apology, i.e., “the devil got there first”:
  “Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and
  faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil
  is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the
  Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when
  they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s]
  intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when
  they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and
  ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not
  perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch
  Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and
  traveled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and
  ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which
  speaks of Christ, “strong as a giant to run his race,” has been in like manner
  imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of
  the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter
  likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? . . . And when I hear,
  Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving
  serpent counterfeited also this.”
And in his Octavius, Christian writer Minucius Felix (c. 250 CE) denied that
Christians worshipped a “criminal and his cross,” and retorted that the Pagans
did esteem a crucified man:
  “Chapter XXIX.-Argument: Nor is It More True that a Man Fastened to a Cross on Account of His Crimes is Worshipped by Christians, for They Believe Not Only
  that He Was Innocent, But with Reason that He Was God. But, on the Other Hand,
  the Heathens Invoke the Divine Powers of Kings Raised into Gods by Themselves;
  They Pray to Images, and Beseech Their Genii.
  “These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear;
  it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such
  charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest
  persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that
  they were true concerning yourselves. For in that you attribute to our
  religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the
  neighborhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or
  that an earthly being was able, to be believed God… Crosses, moreover, we
  neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore
  wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well
  as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded
  and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a
  simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it…”
The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded
in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and “sons
of God,” most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom
were crucified or executed.’
  Adad of Assyria
  Adonis, Apollo, Heracles (“Hercules”) and Zeus of Greece
  Alcides of Thebes
  Attis of Phrygia
  Baal of Phoenicia
  Bali of Afghanistan
  Beddru of Japan
  Buddha of India
  Crite of Chaldea
  Deva Tat of Siam
  Hesus of the Druids
  Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was
  adopted for the Christ character’
  Indra of Tibet/India
  Jao of Nepal
  Krishna of India
  Mikado of the Sintoos
  Mithra of Persia
  Odin of the Scandinavians
  Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
  Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
  Salivahana of Bermuda
  Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the
  disciple Thomas’)
  Thor of the Gauls
  Universal Monarch of the Sibyls’
  Wittoba of the Bilingonese
  Xamolxis of Thrace
  Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
  Zoar of the Bonzes

The Major Players

Buddha

Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500
B.C.E., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to
be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both
preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.
The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:
  Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the “Queen of
  Heaven.”
  He was of royal descent.
  He crushed a serpent’s head.
  Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
  He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a “small
  basket of cakes,” and walked on water.
  He abolished idolatry, was a “sower of the word,” and preached “the
  establishment of a kingdom of righteousness.”
  He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality
  of all.
  He was transfigured on a mount.
  Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in
  hell, and was resurrected.
  He ascended to Nirvana or “heaven.”
  Buddha was considered the “Good Shepherd”, the “Carpenter”, the “Infinite
  and Everlasting.”
  He was called the “Savior of the World” and the “Light of the World.”

Horus of Egypt

The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even contributing
the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are
frequently interchangeable in the mythos (“I and my Father are one”). The
legends of Horus go back thousands of years, and he shares the following in
common with Jesus:
  Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger,
  with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three
  wise men.
  He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years
  old.
  Horus was also baptized by “Anup the Baptizer,” who becomes “John the
  Baptist.”
  He had 12 disciples.
  He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
  He walked on water.
  Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
  He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
  He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God’s Anointed Son,
  the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word” etc.
  He was “the Fisher,” and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish
  (“Ichthys”).
  Horus’s personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the
  “Father.”
  Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One,” long before the Christians
  duplicated the story.
In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by
the virgin mother Isis - the original “Madonna and Child” - and the Vatican
itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra, who shares many qualities with
Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized.
The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it
replaced. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to
wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan
mystery religions.

Mithra, Sungod of Persia

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years.
According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era,
“the most popular and widely spread ‘Pagan’ religion of the times.” Mithra has
the following in common with the Christ character:
  Mithra was born on December 25th.
  He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
  He had 12 companions or disciples.
  He performed miracles.
  He was buried in a tomb.
  After three days he rose again.
  His resurrection was celebrated every year.
  Mithra was called “the Good Shepherd.”
  He was considered “the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior,
  the Messiah.”
  He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
  His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the
  appearance of Christ.
  Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which
  time he was resurrected.
  His religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.”

Krishna of India

The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are
many. Indeed, Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian
saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his
analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier
English spelling of Krishna was “Christna,” which reveals its relation to
‘“Christ.” It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people
have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.
  Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”)
  His father was a carpenter.
  His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented
  with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
  He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of
  infants.
  He was of royal descent.
  He was baptized in the River Ganges.
  He worked miracles and wonders.
  He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
  Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
  “He lived poor and he loved the poor.”
  He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
  In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
  He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
  Krishna is called the “Shepherd God” and “Lord of lords,” and was considered
  “the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word.”
  He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the
  “Resurrection” and the “way to the Father.”
  He was considered the “Beginning, the Middle and the End,” (“Alpha and
  Omega”), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
  His disciples bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” meaning “pure essence.”
  Krishna is to return to do battle with the “Prince of Evil,” who will desolate
  the earth.

Prometheus of Greece

The Greek demigod Prometheus has been claimed to have come from Egypt, but his drama took place in the Caucasus mountains. Prometheus shares a number of striking
similarities with the Christ character.
  Prometheus descended from heaven as God incarnate as man, to save mankind.
  He was crucified, suffered and rose from the dead.
  He was called the Logos or Word.
Five centuries before the Christian era, esteemed Greek poet Aeschylus wrote
Prometheus Bound, which, according to Taylor, was presented in the theater in
Athens. Taylor claims that in the play Prometheus is crucified “on a fatal tree”
and the sky goes dark:
  “The darkness which closed the scene on the suffering Prometheus, was easily
  exhibited on the stage, by putting out the lamps; but when the tragedy was to
  become history, and the fiction to be turned into fact, the lamp of day could
  not be so easily disposed of. Nor can it be denied that the miraculous
  darkness which the Evangelists so solemnly declare to have attended the
  crucifixion of Christ, labours under precisely the same fatality of an
  absolute and total want of evidence.”
Tradition holds that Prometheus was crucified on a rock, yet some sources have
opined that legend also held he was crucified on a tree and that Christians
muddled the story and/or mutilated the text, as they did with the works of so
many ancient authors. In any case, the sun hiding in darkness parallels the
Christian fable of the darkness descending when Jesus was crucified. This
remarkable occurrence is not recorded in history but is only explainable within
the Mythos and as part of a recurring play.

The Creation of a Myth

The Christians went on a censorship rampage that led to the virtual illiteracy
of the ancient world and ensured that their secret would be hidden from the
masses, but the scholars of other schools/sects never gave up their arguments
against the historicizing of a very ancient mythological creature. We have lost
the arguments of these learned dissenters because the Christians destroyed any
traces of their works. Nonetheless, the Christians preserved the contentions of
their detractors through the Christians’ own refutations.
For example, early Church Father Tertullian (@ 160-220 C.E.), an “ex-Pagan” and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and
of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, “You say we
worship the sun; so do you.” Interestingly, a previously strident believer and
defender of the faith, Tertullian later renounced Christianity.

The “Son” of God is the “Sun” of God

The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is
crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these
stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an
astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the
sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words,
Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are
personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a
mythological formula (the “Mythos,” as mentioned above) revolving around the
movements of the sun through the heavens.
For instance, many of the world’s crucified godmen have their traditional
birthday on December 25th (“Christmas”). This is because the ancients
recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual
descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it
stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again.
During this time, the ancients declared that “God’s sun” had “died” for three
days and was “born again” on December 25th. The ancients realized quite
abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be
in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and
reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the “sun
of God’s” birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of
the “sun of God”:
  The sun “dies” for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it
  stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th,
  when it resumes its movement north.
  In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo,
  and the sun would therefore be “born of a Virgin.”
  The sun is the “Light of the World.”
  The sun “cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him.”
  The sun rising in the morning is the “Savior of mankind.”
  The sun wears a corona, “crown of thorns” or halo.
  The sun “walks on water.”
  The sun’s “followers,” “helpers” or “disciples” are the 12 months and the 12
  signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
  The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the “Most High”; thus, “he”
  begins “his Father’s work” at “age” 12.
  The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the “Sun of God”
  begins his ministry at “age” 30.
  The sun is hung on a cross or “crucified,” which represents its passing
  through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is
  then resurrected.
Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious
lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this
slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients
appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the
“light of Jesus.” The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in
their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced,
than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its
very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient
Mythos. Indeed, unlike the “superior” Christians, the true intelligentsia
amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and
atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle surely knew that Zeus,
the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was
never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete
both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are
to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered,
died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and
did not originate with, Christianity.

Etymology Tells the Story

Zeus, aka “Zeus Pateras,” who we now automatically believe to be a myth and not
a historical figure, takes his name from the Indian version, “Dyaus Pitar.”
Dyaus Pitar in turn is related to the Egyptian “Ptah,” and from both Pitar and
Ptah comes the word “pater,” or “father.” “Zeus” equals “Dyaus,” which became
“Deos,” “Deus” and “Dios” - “God.” “Zeus Pateras,” like Dyaus Pitar, means, “God
the Father,” a very ancient concept that in no way originated with “Jesus” and
Christianity. There is no question of Zeus being a historical character. Dyaus
Pitar becomes “Jupiter” in Roman mythology, and likewise is not representative
of an actual, historical character. In Egyptian mythology, Ptah, the Father, is
the unseen god-force, and the sun was viewed as Ptah’s visible proxy who brings
everlasting life to the earth; hence, the “son of God” is really the “sun of
God.” Indeed, according to Hotema, the very name “Christ” comes from the Hindi
word “Kris” (as in Krishna), which is a name for the sun.
Furthermore, since Horus was called “Iusa/Iao/Iesu” the “KRST,” and
Krishna/Christna was called “Jezeus,” centuries before any Jewish character
similarly named, it would be safe to assume that Jesus Christ is just a repeat
of Horus and Krishna, among the rest. According to Rev. Taylor, the title
“Christ” in its Hebraic form meaning “Anointed” (“Masiah”) was held by all
kings of Israel, as well as being “so commonly assumed by all sorts of
impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to supernatural communications, that the
very claim to it is in the gospel itself considered as an indication of
imposture . . .” Hotema states that the name “Jesus Christ” was not formally
adopted in its present form until after the first Council of Nicea, i.e., in 325
C.E.
In actuality, even the place names and the appellations of many other characters
in the New Testament can be revealed to be Hebraicized renderings of the Egyptian texts.
As an example, in the fable of “Lazarus,” the mummy raised from the dead by
Jesus, the Christian copyists did not change his name much, “El-Azar-us” being
the Egyptian mummy raised from the dead by Horus possibly 1,000 years or more
before the Jewish version. This story is allegory for the sun reviving its
old, dying self, or father, as in “El-Osiris.” It is not a true story.
Horus’s principal enemy - originally Horus’s other face or “dark” aspect - was
“Set” or “Sata,” whence comes “Satan.” Horus struggles with Set in the exact
manner that Jesus battles with Satan, with 40 days in the wilderness, among
other similarities. This is because this myth represents the triumph of light
over dark, or the sun’s return to relieve the terror of the night.
“Jerusalem” simply means “City of Peace,” and the actual city in Israel was
named after the holy city of peace in the Egyptian sacred texts that already
existed at the time the city was founded. Likewise, “Bethany,” site of the
famous multiplying of the loaves, means “House of God,” and is allegory for the
“multiplication of the many out of the One.” Any town of that designation was
named for the allegorical place in the texts that existed before the town’s
foundation. The Egyptian predecessor and counterpart is “Bethanu.”

The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian

One can find certain allegorical place names such as “Jerusalem” and “Israel” in
the Book of Revelation. Massey has stated that Revelation, rather than having
been written by any apostle called John during the 1st Century C.E., is a very
ancient text that dates to the beginning of this era of history, i.e. possibly
as early as 4,000 years ago. Massey asserts that Revelation relates the
Mithraic legend of Zarathustra/Zoroaster. Hotema says of this mysterious book,
which has baffled mankind for centuries: “It is expressed in terms of creative
phenomena; its hero is not Jesus but the Sun of the Universe, its heroine is the
Moon; and all its other characters are Planets, Stars and Constellations; while
its stage-setting comprises the Sky, the Earth, the Rivers and the Sea.” The
common form of this text has been attributed by Churchward to Horus’s scribe,
Aan, whose name has been passed down to us as “John.”
The word Israel itself, far from being a Jewish appellation, probably comes from
the combination of three different reigning deities: Isis, the Earth Mother
Goddess revered throughout the ancient world; Ra, the Egyptian sungod; and El,
the Semitic deity passed down in form as Saturn. El was one of the earliest
names for the god of the ancient Hebrews (hence Emmanu-El, Micha-El, Gabri-El,
Samu-El, etc.), and his worship is reflected in the fact that the Jews still
consider Saturday as “God’s Day.”
Indeed, that the Christians worship on Sunday betrays the genuine origins of
their god and godman. Their “savior” is actually the sun, which is the “Light of
the world that every eye can see.” The sun has been viewed consistently
throughout history as the savior of mankind for reasons that are obvious.
Without the sun, the planet would scarcely last one day. So important was the
sun to the ancients that they composed a “Sun Book,” or “Helio Biblia,” which
became the “Holy Bible.”

The “Patriarchs” and “Saints” are the Gods of Other Cultures

When one studies mythmaking, one can readily discern and delineate a pattern
that is repeated throughout history. Whenever an invading culture takes over its
predecessors, it either vilifies the preceding deities or makes them into lesser
gods, “patriarchs” or, in the case of Christianity, “saints.” This process is
exemplified in the adoption of the Hindu god Brahma as the Hebrew patriarch
Abraham. Another school of thought proposes that the patriarch Joshua was
based on Horus as “Iusa,” since the cult of Horus had migrated by this period to
the Levant. In this theory, the cult of Joshua, which was situated in exactly
the area where the Christ drama allegedly took place, then mutated into the
Christian story, with Joshua becoming Jesus. As Robertson says, “The Book of
Joshua leads us to think that he had several attributes of the Sun-god, and
that, like Samson and Moses, he was an ancient deity reduced to human status.”
Indeed, the legend of Moses, rather than being that of a historical Hebrew
character, is found around the ancient Middle and Far East, with the character
having different names and races, depending on the locale: “Manou” is the Indian
legislator; “Nemo the lawgiver,” who brought down the tablets from the Mountain
of God, hails from Babylon; “Mises” is found in Syria and Egypt, where also
“Manes the lawgiver” takes the stage; “Minos” is the Cretan reformer; and the
Ten Commandments are simply a repetition of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and
the Hindu Vedas, among others. Like Moses, Krishna was placed by his mother in
a reed boat and set adrift in a river to be discovered by another woman. A
century ago, Massey outlined, and Graham recently reiterated, that even the
Exodus itself is not a historical event. That the historicity of the Exodus has
been questioned is echoed by the lack of any archaeological record, as is
reported in Biblical Archaeology Review (“BAR”), September/October 1994.
Like many biblical characters, Noah is also a myth, long ago appropriated from
the Egyptians, the Sumerians and others, as any sophisticated scholar could
demonstrate, and yet we find all sorts of books - some even presumably
“channeling” the “ultimate truth” from a mystical, omniscient, omnipresent and
eternal being such as Jesus himself - prattling on about a genuine, historical
Noah, his extraordinary adventures, and the “Great Flood!”
Additionally, the “Esther” of the Old Testament Book of Esther is a remake of
the Goddess Ishtar, Astarte, Astoreth or Isis, from whom comes “Easter” and
about whose long and ubiquitous reign little is said in “God’s infallible
Word.” Per Harwood (Mythology’s Last Gods, 230), “Esther” is best
transliterated “Ishtar” and “Mordechai” is “Mardukay.” The Virgin
Mother/Goddess/Queen of Heaven motif is found around the globe, long before the
Christian era, with Isis, for instance, also being called “Mata-Meri” (“Mother
Mary”). As Walker says, “Mari” was the “basic name of the Goddess known to the
Chaldeans as Marratu, to the Jews as Marah, to the Persians as Mariham, to the
Christians as Mary . . . Semites worshipped an androgynous combination of
Goddess and God called Mari-El (Mary-God), corresponding to the Egyptian
Meri-Ra, which combined the feminine principle of water with the masculine
principle of the sun.”
Even the Hebraic name of God, “Yahweh,” was taken from the Egyptian “IAO.”
In one of the most notorious of Christian deceptions, in order to convert
followers of “Lord Buddha,” the Church canonized him as “St. Josaphat,” which
represented a Christian corruption of the buddhistic title, “Bodhisat.” (Bodhisattva.)
The “Disciples” are the Signs of the Zodiac
Moreover, it is no accident that there are 12 patriarchs and 12 disciples, 12
being the number of the astrological signs, or months. Indeed, like the 12
Herculean tasks and the 12 “helpers” of Horus, Jesus’s 12 disciples are symbolic
for the zodiacal signs and do not depict any literal figures who played out a
drama upon the earth circa 30 C.E. The disciples can be shown to have been an
earlier deity/folkloric hero/constellation. Peter is easily revealed to be a
mythological character, while Judas has been said to represent Scorpio, “the
backbiter,” the time of year when the sun’s rays are weakening and the sun
appears to be dying. James, “brother of Jesus” and “brother of the Lord,” is
equivalent to Amset, brother of Osiris and brother of the Lord. Massey says
“Taht-Matiu was the scribe of the gods, and in Christian art Matthew is depicted
as the scribe of the gods, with an angel standing near him, to dictate the
gospel.” Even the apostle Paul is a compilation of several characters: The
Old Testament Saul, Apollonius of Tyana and the Greek demigod Orpheus.

Was Jesus an Essene Master?

As regards Jesus being an Essene according to “secret” Dead Sea Scrolls, even
before the discovery of the scrolls, over the centuries there has been much
speculation to this effect, but Massey skillfully argued that many of Jesus’s
presumed teachings were either in contradiction to or were non-existent in
Essene philosophy. The Essenes did not believe in corporeal resurrection, nor
did they believe in a carnalized messiah. They did not accept the historicity of
Jesus. They were not followers of the Hebrew Bible, or its prophets, or the
concept of the original fall that must produce a savior. Massey further points
out that the Essenes were teetotalers and ate to live rather than the other way
around. Compared to this, the assumed Essene Jesus appears to be a glutton and a
drunkard. Also, whereas according to Josephus the Essenes abhorred the swearing
of oaths, Jesus was fond of “swearing unto” his disciples. While many Essenic
doctrines are included in the New Testament, the list of disparities between the
Dead Sea Scroll Essenes and their alleged great master Jesus goes on and on.

Qumran is Not an Essene Community

It should also be noted that there is another debate as to whether or not
Qumran, the site traditionally associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, was an
Essene community. In BAR, previously cited, it is reported that archaeological
finds indicate Qumran was not an Essene community but was possibly a way station
for travelers and merchants crossing the Dead Sea. In BAR, it has also been
hypothesized that the fervent tone and warrior-stance of some of the scrolls
unearthed near Qumran belie any Essene origin and indicate a possible
attribution to Jewish Zealots instead. In Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, Norman
Golb makes a very good case that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by any
Essene scribes but were a collection of tomes from various libraries that were
secreted in caves throughout eastern Israel by Jews fleeing the Roman armies
during the First Revolt of 70 C.E.  Golb also hypothesizes that Qumran itself was
a fortress, not a monastery. In any case, it is impossible to equate the
“Teacher of Righteousness” found in any scrolls with Jesus Christ.

Was the New Testament Composed by Therapeuts?

In 1829 Rev. Taylor adeptly made the case that the entire Gospel story was
already in existence long before the beginning of the Common Era and was
probably composed by the monks at Alexandria called “Therapeuts” in Greek and
“Essenes” in Egyptian, both names meaning “healers.” This theory has stemmed
in part from the statement of early church father Eusebius, who, in a rare
moment of seeming honesty, “admitted . . . that the canonical Christian gospels
and epistles were the ancient writings of the Essenes or Therapeutae reproduced
in the name of Jesus.” Taylor also opines that “the traveling Egyptian
Therapeuts brought the whole story from India to their monasteries in Egypt,
where, some time after the commencement of the Roman monarchy, it was transmuted
into Christianity.” In addition, Wheless evinces that one can find much of the
fable of “Jesus Christ” in the Book of Enoch, which predated the supposed
advent of the Jewish master by hundreds of years. According to Massey, it was
the “pagan” Gnostics - who included members of the Essene/Therapeut and
Nazarene brotherhoods, among others - who actually carried to Rome the
esoteric (gnostic) texts containing the Mythos, upon which the numerous gospels,
including the canonical four, were based. Wheless says, “Obviously, the Gospels
and other New Testament booklets, written in Greek and quoting 300 times the
Greek Septuagint, and several Greek Pagan authors, as Aratus, and Cleanthes,
were written, not by illiterate Jewish peasants, but by Greek-speaking ex-Pagan
Fathers and priests far from the Holy Land of the Jews.” Mead averred, “We
thus conclude that the autographs of our four Gospels were most probably written
in Egypt, in the reign of Hadrian.”

Conclusion

As Walker said, “Scholars’ efforts to eliminate paganism from the Gospels in
order to find a historical Jesus have proved as hopeless as searching for a core
in an onion.” The “gospel” story of Jesus is not a factual portrayal of a
historical “master” who walked the earth 2,000 years ago. It is a myth built
upon other myths and godmen, who in turn were personifications of the ubiquitous
sungod mythos.
  Gerald Massey:
“The Christ of the gospels is in no sense an historical personage or a supreme
  model of humanity, a hero who strove, and suffered, and failed to save the
  world by his death. It is impossible to establish the existence of an
  historical character even as an impostor. For such a one the two witnesses,
  astronomical mythology and gnosticism, completely prove an alibi. The Christ
  is a popular lay-figure that never lived, and a lay-figure of Pagan origin; a
  lay-figure that was once the Ram and afterwards the Fish; a lay-figure that in
  human form was the portrait and image of a dozen different gods.”
 
© 2001 Acharya S

For more information, don’t miss The Naked Truth, The Christ Conspiracy: The
Greatest Story Ever Sold, and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.
See also the Christ Conspiracy links.

Guidelines For New Believers

1. You’re always right, no matter what.
2. Everyone else, particularly atheists, humanists, and liberals, is out to get you and take away your spiritual rights.
3. It’s okay for your church not to pay taxes, and for your house of worship to be opulent and snobbish.  Christians, are, after all, God’s chosen people, the universal elite.
4. Pastors are always brilliant, and are always the most moral of people.  It’s okay to tell them all your dirty little secrets.
5. Don’t worry about the poor and homeless, especially if they’re black, Hispanic, oriental, Arabic, Catholic, Mormon, or gay:  God doesn’t like those slime balls, anyway.
6. Women are second-class citizens, and don’t you dare forget it.  Their purpose on Earth is to serve men and give birth to lots of little Christians, and that’s all.
7. The Holy Bible is always taken out of context by nonbelievers.  Only Christians can get to the true meaning of it all.
8. There are no errors or contradictions in the Bible, no matter what you may happen to find in there.
9. Don’t actually read the Bible yourself; your pastor and televangelists will interpret it for you.
10. The terms ‘rapture’, ‘abortion’, ‘Christmas’, ‘Easter’, ‘age of accountability’, and ‘trinity’ really are in the Bible; you just have to be filled with the Holy Spirit—or be able to speak Greek or Hebrew—to find them.
11. Never wear jeans or T-shirts to church.  And, ladies, no slacks!
12. It’s okay—better, in fact—to be a nosy, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, hypocritical, judgmental jerk.
13. Always thank God for the good things in life, and blame the devil for all the bad.  Ignore that God made the devil in the first place.
14. Learn to use circular logic in any situation:  “God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it’s God’s Word.”
15. Your God is the only real God; all other gods are heathen, Satan-spawned demons.  Never mind that you just happen to believe in the deity that 90% of the people in this particular country in this particular era worship.  Parental and societal pressure had NOTHING to do with it.  You just managed to find the truth yourself, without any outside influence WHATSOEVER.
16. Don’t get confused by facts, scientific evidence, or reason; just listen to your pastor and religious friends.  Blind faith is all you need.
17. When in an argument with an unbeliever, always attack him personally, not his arguments.  Unbelievers are going straight to hell, anyway.
18. Keep in mind that Pat Robertson is the Protestant Pope.  He is nearly perfect, and has a daily audience with God.  If he’s unavailable in prayer, check with Rush Limbaugh—he’s almost as good.
19. Watch nothing but the Trinity Broadcasting Network on television.  Send them any money that you haven’t forked over to your pastor.
20. Listen to gospel music exclusively.
21. Read all of the ‘Left Behind’ books.  They’re scripturally accurate.
22. Make sure your sons all join the Boy Scouts, and that your girls all take Home Economics.  Make sure the girls know their places in God’s grand scheme.
23. Have plenty of survival supplies on hand in case of the Rapture.
24. Join the Ku Klux Klan or some other such hate group.
25. Vote Republican ONLY, and participate in lots of right-wing activities, like picketing heavy metal concerts and bombing abortion clinics.
26. Beat up anyone that isn’t just like you, especially blacks and homosexuals, but only when you’ve got them heavily out-numbered.
27. Only get drunk or stoned on Saturdays.  That way, you can hurry up and repent on Sunday mornings.
28. Pray openly at school, in restaurants, and at sporting events.  And remember that God is always rooting for your favorite team.
29. Annoy everyone by constantly witnessing to him or her long after they’ve told you to go away.  They’re filthy sinners, and they need salvation.  Keep at it.
30. Always carry your Bible around, and leave it out—title showing—for everyone to see.  That way, everyone will know you’re a Christian.
31. Shout down and override anyone who argues with you for any reason, and get as angry as you possibly can in the process.
32. Beat your children mercilessly; God’s law is more important than the U.S. government’s.
33. Make fun of all the silly beliefs of others, but defend your own ferociously and irrationally.           
34.  Judge everyone based on what kinds of clothes they wear and their frequency of church-attendance, and be very smug and imperious about it.
35. Never tip well at a restaurant for an after-church luncheon.  Servers are all heathens for working on Sundays, anyway.  And when shopping after church, treat employees at retail stores like dirt, and for the same reason.
36. Don’t worry about the environment, the ozone layer, or global warming; Jesus is coming soon, so none of that matters.
37. Give all the credit for new disease cures to God, and don’t think about how He created the diseases in the first place.  Or that it took so many thousands of years for Him to reveal the cures to puny mankind.  Or that it may have been an atheist scientist that actually did all the lab work.
38. All stories in the Bible are to be taken literally unless you find yourself cornered by an unbeliever; in that case, the stories are metaphorical.
39. Don’t try to get your brain around the question of where God came from, or how the Holy Trinity could possibly work; just accept it.
40. Do your best to die early so you can be in the arms of your loving God quickly, instead of clinging desperately to life by going to the doctor and taking prescription medications and having life-saving surgeries.

RE:  Separation of Church and State (AKA:  An Exercize in Sarcasm)

I think it would be a good idea for us all to have to pay taxes so people of any given belief system can have a choice as to what schools their children will go to.  Instead of fixing the problem of our educational system (that is, paying our teachers a decent enough wage that they’ll give a damn about their jobs, followed up by strong testing of teachers), we should shell the money out and just let the chips fall where they may.  And of course, those who want to spend the money on a private school will be automatically admitted.  There are no rigorous requirements to meet.  No, most private schools just take whomsoever walks through the door.  Even the blacks and the Hispanics and the Jews and the openly gay; all have an equal chance to be admitted to the white, heterosexual, male-dominated institutions like Baptist and Methodist and Catholic and Presbyterian and Lutheran sectarian schools.  You bet!
Also, we should have the 10 Commandments posted on all government buildings.  Right alongside moral laws mentioned in the Upanishads, the Torah, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon and the Tao Te Ching.  We should also make people pray five times a day.  We should force them to attend a worship service ten—no, fifteen—times a week! We should force them to give a minimum of ten percent to the poor.  We should have ALL the deities’ names printed on our money, and ALL deities should be mentioned in the unconstitutional Pledge of Allegiance.  We should force women out of government and the workplace.  We should beat them in public squares if they mouth off or so much as look at another man.  We should beat our children for any infraction.  We should stone adulterers to death, as well as anyone who dares to engage in sodomy.  We should burn people who work on Sundays at the stake.  We should boil heretics in oil, on national TV.  We should have only religious programming on our networks, and we should do completely away with novels, motion pictures, music CDs, video games and magazines—at least those that oppose religion, or in any way offend believers (which, of course, should be all of us, right?).  We should, in other words, emulate the very countries we profess to hate, those countries that are locked in open theocracies:  Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
And we should remember the lovely Middle Ages (some call them the Dark Ages, but why quibble?), those 900 years when religion REALLY ruled! Yeah, we could let rats run rampant through the streets, we could let plagues rip our societies apart, we could keep people from being educated and force them into church so they’ll stay complacently under the thumbs of their Draconian overlords! Yeah, that’s the ticket! We could work twenty hours a day for no pay while the advantaged have orgies and feasts and spirited hunts! Oh boy, oh boy! Life spans would only be about 35, maybe 40 years, children will die in droves, women will die all the time in childbirth, and we could all run around with fleas and lice and eczema and psoriasis.  Oh, just imagine it! The possibilities! We could murder vast numbers of people who disagree with us, entire nations! We could rape and pillage! We could hack peoples’ heads off with swords and axes! We could run wild over indigenous peoples, and claim it all happened because God favored us! Yippeeeee! And then, don’t you just love it, we could put our particular slant on history so that is showed only what we wanted it to:  that anyone we wiped out deserved it because they started it all, and that we were the clean ones, and that the diseases were all their fault, and we never did nothin’ to deserve nothin’! Oh, happy day! And, get this, we could tell ourselves how morally superior we are!
I can’t wait for the Christian Coalition and the Religious Right to finally take over.  You talk about some EXCITING TIMES!

Ever notice that when someone commits a heinous crime, the Fundamentalists start wailing about how there’s not enough Christianity in our society? Especially if the perpetrator wasn’t a Christian? “If only everybody would just go to church and love the Lord, none of this would ever happen”, they say.  But if some guy hacks people up and eats them, and then we find out he was an ardent churchgoer that was raised in this belief system (like Jeffrey Dahmer), well, he wasn’t a REAL Christian.  Right? It’s the same old song and dance:  Christians only count the hits, never the misses.
It’s like this:  you see some news story about some guy who spends all his spare time helping the poor and homeless.  He gives of himself, he has no extras, he lives frugally and he puts others ahead of himself.  Now, if he’s a Christian, the Fundamentalists all jump up and down and cheer and say, “See, that’s a good Christian!” But if the guy is an atheist—or part of some other belief system—then he’s just a “goody two-shoes”, a “do-gooder”, or a “humanist phony”.
When a Christian does something good, it’s because of the Christianity; when a non-Christian does something good, it’s because they have some evil—or, at best, questionable—ulterior motive.  When a non-Christian commits a heinous crime, it’s because he’s an evil non-Christian; when a Christian commits a heinous crime, it’s because he’s not REALLY a Christian.
Christians today will accept no blame (even in part) for the following:  the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Holocaust, Apartheid, the massacre of over 20 million natives of North and South America, abortion clinic bombings, lynching of blacks and other minorities, and the brutal murders of homosexuals like Matthew Shephard.
“REAL Christians would never do any of those things,” they tell us.
Or, “Well, those were the Catholics,” we’re told by these sanctimonious, glassy-eyed, lip-licking Nervous Nellies.
All good things come from loving Christians; all bad things come from everyone else.  They count the hits (the good stuff), but never the misses (Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, Torquemada).  They get to claim moral superiority in every case, and they get to deny that any of their number ever did anything wrong because NO REAL CHRISTIAN WOULD EVER DO THOSE THINGS!
Are you getting the picture?
This is called hypocrisy.
This is called delusional denial.
Another thing that bothers me:  according to many Fundamentalists, AIDS is God’s punishment for man’s wicked ways.  People are dying in droves, even innocent children who did nothing to deserve such a horrible disease.  The Fundamentalists say, “Well, little Angie died because it was God’s will.  There’s a reason for everything.”  And then, just watch, when scientists cure AIDS, the Fundamentalists will immediately say, “Praise God! He delivered up the cure! Hallelujah!”
Never mind that, supposedly, He visited the disease upon us in the first place.
Evil man gets the blame for everything, the Good Lord gets the kudos for all the good, and nobody ever says, “Hey, why did this sadistic Superbeing give us cancer and AIDS and Cystic Fibrosis and MS and MD and Down’s Syndrome?”
If we’re afflicted by these ailments, it’s because of some inherent flaw in humanity; once the ailment is cured, God gets the credit.  Nobody, ever, says anything is ever God’s fault.  But then again, these Fundamentalists don’t allow anyone to blame them—or their entire belief system—for ANYTHING, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Tons of money are being passed back and forth among the religious, money that the rest of us have to carry the tax burden for; tons of money that should be used to help those in need, just as Christ—the person that Christians are named for—told them to.  Instead, they fork money over to their pastor or their favorite televangelists, and then turn around and complain about the welfare state in this country.  Where are these millions of dollars going? To newer and bigger and more opulent buildings, buildings that can hold more worshippers, more worshippers that will fill the church’s coffers even more.  This goes on in a never-ending, greedy cycle.  There are many pastors in this country that make more money than doctors.  It is a travesty of justice when a man who heals people, a man who endures years of education under grueling pressure, makes less money than a man who sells empty promises and distorts the truth of his followers’ “sacred” book.
But then again, the whole thing is a travesty.  That there is even one hungry person, one family without a home, one child without adequate medical care in this country (while there are thousands of posh cathedrals, all seating millions of sanctimonious and callous worshippers who, frankly, are more concerned about their own “souls”), is a crime against humanity.
Christ-like.  Right.

Religious folks are very vocal about violence in our society, and will tell anyone who will listen that it is caused by the violence our children are exposed to on television shows, movies, music, and video games.  For some reason, the Christian doesn’t mention the veritable blood bath that comprises the Bible, most significantly in the Old Testament.
Why aren’t children being taught all of the violent and foul things to be found in the Bible? Look in a children’s Bible sometime; none of the unsavory parts are included.  But why not? Are Christians afraid of being accused of promoting violence? If Christians want movies, music CDs, and video games to be given rating systems, then they’d better scan through their Holy book one more time.  The book is full of filth, with mention of “pissing on walls”, God “spreading dung” and “discovering secret parts”.  There are so-called heroes pimping their wives while in fear for their own lives, and others collecting hundreds of foreskins.  There is human sacrifice, cannibalism, and cruelty to animals among its pages, and God Himself orders murders, even of children in the womb.  The Bible promotes child abuse and anti-intellectualism. 
Perhaps someone needs to put a warning label on copies of the Bible.
And the constant chanting refrain Fundamentalist Christians spew, “The Bible is inerrant, the bible is inerrant…” is pure hogwash.  There are literally thousands of contradictions, errors—both mathematical and scientific—and just plain absurdities in it.  Christians should be taken to task for touting this book as being without mistakes.  Any other book, as full of junk as the Bible, would long ago have been relegated to a trash heap.  Christians, once again, need to apply the same yardstick to their own “heavenly” tome.

Ultimately, believers use deplorable tactics to fill their ranks.  They get you when you’re young.  Children aren’t capable of truly starting to think for themselves until they’ve reached a certain level of maturity.  Any doctrine that has been planted in a mind before that age or thereabouts is one that was put there forcefully.  How can a small child “elect” to believe in something? They cannot possibly make a well-informed and open-minded decision about something that is so controversial even among the various sects of Christianity itself.
Let’s be truthful with ourselves about this.  The only way a child can make an honest decision about something like religious faith is to go to a different service every week and view, first hand, every form of religious faith.  All of them.  Then, after having been exposed to all of the various beliefs, these same children should be taken to a school or university where they can be exposed to science, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, comparative religious studies, and anthropology.  Only after this procedure can one be expected to make a clear, unbiased, open-minded, and well-informed decision about something as important as a religious faith.
But that’s not how it’s done, is it?
No.  What actually happens is this: a child is taken to church, usually not long after they’re born; they are immersed in the belief system early; after a couple of years, the child is used to going to this nice, friendly place where they get to have Kool-Aid, candy, cookies, and cake while singing fun little songs every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening; none of the unsavory parts of the Bible are taught to them; none of the contradictions, errors, or absurdities gets pointed out.  Instead, as they grow up, they are told a rated G version of David and Goliath; they are told the story of Noah’s Ark, things carefully omitted that might cause them to question the story; they are indoctrinated into racism and misogyny—but carefully, oh so carefully; girls become used to the idea that they are somehow inferior, and the Bible obligingly backs this up quite nicely; boys are taught to suppress their natural instincts, no matter what they are, such suppression usually coming dangerously uncorked later in life, normally at the cost of a female life.
And this brainwashing is carried out under the guise of teaching these children “morals”.  They are not taught HOW to think, but WHAT to think.  Logic and hardheaded skepticism have no place in church nurseries and Sunday school classes.  If a child questions anything, sputtering and indignant obfuscation usually follows, often backed up by threats or intimidation.  “You’ll get up and come to church, or else.”  “Don’t question the existence of God, or you’ll be grounded for two weeks.”  Or, more honestly, “Don’t ask me to prove that God exists, or I’ll spank you with a belt.”
The final quote actually occurred to my oldest stepson, when he asked his natural father to “prove” that God existed.  My wife’s ex promptly threatened to whip him with a belt. 
I have come up with a name for this.  I call it “Self-Propagation By Intimidation”.  The faithful will “win” souls one way or another.  If they can’t win you over peacefully with the promise of heaven, they’ll make you accept it by force.  Just ask the natives of North, Central, and South America.  Or the victims of the Inquisition.  And if fundamentalists can’t make you accept it, now that our society is becoming more openly secular, you’ll have to suffer the smog of religiosity nevertheless under the guise of “freedom of religion”.  Check out your history books, or look in your newspaper, or at your television set and you will see for yourself.  Religion and its attendant bigotry is responsible for more bloodshed between humans than any other single reason in history, and our children are the ultimate victims of it all.

As I scan these various posts and responses, one thing occurs to me:  where is the ironclad evidence for this or any god? Why all the breathy defensiveness on the part of religionists?

The Bible clearly states that those of faith should be able to: 1) move mountains, 2) juggle poisonous snakes safely, 3) drink poison safely, 4) heal the sick.

Let us then test these propositions.  Believers:  I will not ask you to move a mountain, I will merely ask you to move the closest Wal-Mart to the other side of the street.  Go grab a handful of cottonmouths and go to it.  Throw your heads back and guzzle some Drano.  Or simply go to the nearest hospital and show us the power of your faith.

Of course, none of this will happen, and never will.  So, let us simply get god down here and have a polite debate…oh, wait, that won’t happen, either.

The onus of proof is on those who make a claim, not those who disbelieve said claim.  Were I to claim I could excrete gold ingots at will, everyone would of course be rightly skeptical of this assertion—at least until I PROVE it, that is.

But…that won’t happen, either.

RE: Thomas’s following comment:
“Woman has a central place in the Bible from the very beginning.  She is co-created with man and is his equal.”

Uh, Thomas, have you even read the Bible? Please cite the books, chapters, and verses where the “Good Book” clearly spells out where woman is “equal” with man.  And don’t bother with Paul’s admonition about “loving your wife as you love yourself”...that is not respect for women, it is a grudging permission to use them for their three of four necessary functions—while, of course, observing the Law regarding fornication.  Can’t have any premarital sex, now can we?

People who believe in something they cannot see, something they cannot prove actually exists, should be the humblest people of all.  They should be held to the same rules of accountability, the same standards of evidence that the rest of society have to live under.  Yet Christians—at least the Fundamentalists—are among the most arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, and hateful people on Earth.  They attempt to subvert and overpower anyone who doesn’t think exactly as they do, hoping that their weaknesses and bigotry will somehow be diluted, not be as noticeable. 
Christians want to have their cake and to eat it, too.  They chant their belief in the hope of eternal salvation, on the off chance that it really exists, sort of like keeping their “fire insurance” up to date.  They judge others remorselessly on their lifestyles, particularly if the others don’t believe as the Christian does, and then feel free to live their own lives however they choose, believing that they can always “repent” anytime, making what they do perfectly acceptable. 
They can partake of scientific advances, but still call scientists fools; they can make fun of the beliefs of others, but violently defend their own; they can keep children heeled with threats, but self-righteously judge others whose children are more open-minded and tolerant, contemptuously calling them “liberals”; they can keep women from attaining completely equal rights, while professing to “love” them…but only as long as they know their place; they can gripe about having to pay taxes to help the less fortunate, but do absolutely nothing else for them, all under the pretense that the poor somehow “asked for it” through lack of faith or some other such nonsense; they can justify racism by twisting verses as they see fit, but accuse unbelievers of taking verses that are objectionable or absurd “out of context”.
Fundamentalists are vile hypocrites, and are too frail to accept life as it truly is.  They are insecure with who they are, and are often too lazy to try improving themselves some other way besides giving in to their weak-minded wishful thinking.  Finally, they are fearful of what they consider to be the “unknown”, and utilize a childish belief system to make themselves feel better about being too ignorant to figure things out on their own. 
They are the ones who should be reviled, not the atheists.
The believers are the ones who should have to be resentful and keep silent, not the unbelievers.
The believers are the ones who should have to fight and scrape for their rights, not the unbelievers.
The use of logic and skepticism, and the demand for definitive evidence, is a positive attribute, not a negative one.  This Christianity bit has been tried for two millennia, and it has failed completely.  Perhaps it’s time to try something else.  Perhaps we should be applauding the thinker, instead of castigating him.  Perhaps we should be sneering at the blind follower, instead of putting him on a pedestal.
Perhaps.
And perhaps pigs will fly.

From what I’ve gathered in the many conversations and arguments I’ve had—some of them quite heated—with various Christians, there seem to be five major reasons for their faith in this particular religion.  They are:

1)Osmosis – people were born with it.  They just accepted it blindly from their parents, their “holy men”, and the bulk of society, and don’t think for themselves about anything anymore.
2)Comfort – it’s nice to believe in a large white-haired grandpa in the sky, one that cares about you and watches over you, and who is guiding your life for some celestial purpose.  It’s much like having an all-powerful Teddy Bear.
3)Laziness – well, which is easier? Going to church every Sunday and having the Bible interpreted for you, or attending college and having to work hard in subjects that might actually force you to think?
4)Ego – it’s nice to believe that we’re special, that we were created on purpose, that the universe was created for our enjoyment, and that we are masters of all we survey.  The notion that we’re nothing more than a cosmic accident isn’t too appealing.
5)Terror – the fear of death.  Death scares us all.  And it’s so cold and final.  The prospect of death is horrifying, isn’t it? It’s nice to hope for eternal life, isn’t it? Nobody wants to be worm food, do they?

Religious belief is based on emotional impulses, nothing more.

Comment # 5170 reveals woeful ignorance on Thomas’s part.  The Bible in fact speaks of the earth resting on four pillars, and Jesus supposedly looked out upon the entire earth.  Nor does the Bible speak—anywhere—of the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Harris, the person who admonished you is correct on Noah. Noah was not diagetically a Jew or Judahite. A Jew is a descendant of the Biblical character Judah (fourth son of Jacob/Israel by Leah). Judah lived diagetically centuries after Noah. His children and descendants are Judahites.

By the same token, Abraham was not a Jew either.

There it is again…

In comment 5542, by JR, he states:
“Masses of people are allowed to be killed or babies raped and little girls tortured because their is a balance in the universe.  They are allowed to be killed because of you and I, and for you and I.”

- Because of .. WHAT??
This is exactly the kind of rambling that, surprisingly enough, still works among the fairy-tale-believers. Read that again and you’ll see exactly why it is important for all “Realists” to speak up, and remind people of their responsibility for their own life and others.

I personally do not believe in God or Ala or Buddha or any other earthly gods that i have heard of. But i am not ready to dismiss the idea that perhaps something is out there. This cant be it…. There must be purpose. I happen to believe that whatever it is that did create us is just so embarassed of their mistake they have taken it upon themselves to go into hiding. Who would admit to creating a breed of raping pillaging murderers who kill for pleasure?? Not me…. It is like the mad scientist whos creation has gotten out of control… We are frankenstein’s monster… sooner or later though the film has to end and the scientist has to prevail.

remember that religions are cultural viewpoints, and if you analyze history, remember that what makes a religion a truth is if it takes control from other religions and if enough people believe it, then it is “truth”..the zoroastrian religion was another monotheistic religion of persia that got wiped out by the muslims….isnt it interesting how the power base changes?

A+ child rape lead-in was classic!  Good job!

There is no god.

If there is a god, that god is cruel beyond that of the most diabolical human.

If you are looking for purpose, don’t look to god.  Look to the survival of our species and our planet.  The same rules that will ensure our biological survival, are found in scripture, less the flowery bullcrap.

John Nash had it right.  Do what is best for yourself and the group, and you will ensure success for all.

You used the example of being an athiest with regard to Zeus and Thor, and compared it with being an athiest with respect to the God of the bible. But the bible was written by a number of people, who had different ideas of God. I suppose being an athiest with regard to the bible could be taken to mean being an athiest with regard to all the diffent gods portrayed by all the different writers in the book.

There are more than a billion Christians in the world, and they collectively must have many more ideas of God than are expressed in the bible. Can anyone know enough about all those ideas of all those people to be an athiest with respect to the Christian God? And of course, Christians are in a minority in the world, so to be a “true athiest” one would presumably have to be an athiest with respect to all the Gods of all the people in the world.

We understand now that the sun is one star of perhaps 100 billion in what we assume to be an average galaxy. We also understand there to be perhaps 100 billion galaxies. I presume that a true athiest must be an athiest with respect to any God of any person on any planet of any sun in any galaxy. Indeed, he must believe that there are no beings out there in that immensity so powerful that anyone would consider them gods. Since human history is full of stories of people being mistaken for gods, this seems unlikely.

So I prefer the term “agnostic”, suggesting that one simply doesn’t know whether there is any god, rather than the unqualified term “athiest” which implies disbelief in anybody’s conception of any god anywhere.

“If any religion was all that great, it would sell itself. It wouldn’t need hordes of self-righteous con artists (preachers) haranging the masses to keep it afloat.

The “truth” needs no justification or explanation.”

I completely agree.  Unfortunately the mass media and especially religions and their teachers pervert and distort real spirituality and the Truth so much that people sometimes need guidance.  Personally I’m grateful for people who elighten others spiritually, whether they’re an honest humble preacher (they are rare but they’re out there) or a garbage man.

My goodness there are an awful lot of people, using many, many words, in endless attempts to justify what they believe. Reminds me of modern-day rock “musicians.” They confuse VOLUME with CONTENT.

When you’ve got the “right” music, a simple acoustic instrument is all that’s required to make a stunning impact.

When you’ve got the “wrong” music, no amount of amplification or repetition will make it better.

Also reminds me of commercials on TV. It’s always the least useful, most wasteful JUNK that’s hyped to death. Quality sells itself… when was the last time you saw an ad for Rolls-Royce?

If any religion was all that great, it would sell itself. It wouldn’t need hordes of self-righteous con artists (preachers) haranging the masses to keep it afloat.

The “truth” needs no justification or explanation.

John Wander #5516

“…those who believe in God ultimately have only one honest way to support their position, they have irrational faith.”

No matter how many times this is repeated, it will not make it true.  People of faith often give reasons for their belief.  I have repeatedly referred to philosophical arguments in favor of belief.  This is not to confuse reason and belief, but only to show that there is no contradiction.  Faith would have to contradict reason to be irrational.  Those who use the description ‘irrational’ must point out the contradiction or drop the caricature.

I agree with Harris in the sense that I don’t like organized religions because they are hypocritical and miss the point of their faiths.  God does not cause human misery and mass killings but is all-powerful and allows them to happen because humans are given free will.  Masses of people are allowed to be killed or babies raped and little girls tortured because their is a balance in the universe.  They are allowed to be killed because of you and I, and for you and I.

I do not doubt that God exists and is benevolent.  People are allowed to be sacrificed for the same reason that Jesus was allowed to be sacrificed: to atone for the past, present, and future sins of all the people in the world.  God loves you and I so much that he allows others to be killed so that we are not punished for our sins (unrighteousness) as we deserve.  If God punished us as most people punish their children, making the punishment fit the crime such as a spanking if the child hits another, then can you imagine what would be a fitting punishment for a people that have destroyed and fouled the earth, air, and seas, and are filled with hatred, bitterness, coldness, vanity, selfishness, lusts for sex, violence, food, power, money and material goods and seek approval from others and do not love each other instead of being loving and forgiving, seeking approval from God and being grateful for everything that we have?  We would be wiped off the face of the earth and a new race created (which archaelogical evidence shows has likely happened several times before).

It makes perfect sense and only requires a little faith to understand, for those who are not too afraid to test out faith for themselves and find out the truth from experience.  Archaeological and historical evidence and verbal tradition overwhelmingly verify events, people, and locations in the Bible as true.  Maybe that fact will give some people someplace to start.  Or maybe the commonsense wisdom and expressions from the Bible that we know unconscously could be considered:
“‘The Golden Rule’- Treat others as you want to be treated”
“Love your neighbor”
“You reap what you sow”
“Be a good samaritan”
“Eat, drink, and be merry”
“The truth shall make you free”
“Apple of my eye”
“Sweat of your brow”
“Put your house in order”
“Red sky at morning”
“Salt of the earth”
“Eye for an eye”
“Drop in the bucket”
“By the skin of our teeth”
“Can a leopard change his spots?”
“A house divided”
“Handwriting on the wall”
“Spare the rod and spoil the child”
“Labor of love”
“No peace for the wicked”
“Pride comes before a fall”
“You can’t take it with you”
“The blind leading the blind”
“The love of money is the root of all evil”
“Nothing new under the sun”
“Twinkling of an eye”
“Suffer fools gladly”
(http://www.bibledudes.com/bible/influence.php)
What a bunch of fictional nonsense, eh?

You wrote, “That we exist and are aware of our existance at this exact point in time is a curious thing and from this springs all matter of spiritual and philosophical musings and notions-none of which prove anything or are even provable by our own standards of proof.”

Awareness of existence – not just our own specific or individual existence – but rather “actual being” itself is in fact the basis of certain “proofs” for the existence of God.  If our own “standards of proof” refuse to recognize the strength of these arguments, then we are guilty of being irrational.  See the “five ways” of St. Thomas Aquinas for evidence of the demonstrability of God’s existence.   

“On the other hand, to lump all unexplained or even any unexplainable ideas in order to conform to some religious dodma is absurd.  That is why organized religion is itself absurd.  We can’t explain something in a reasonable way and so we create religion to remove any further need to explain.”

This is wrong for two reasons, (1) Inexplicability is not the foundation for dogma.  It might be a feature of certain dogmas in the sense that something which is ‘believed’ on the basis of authority is not at the same time and in the same way ‘understood’ by the unaided intellect.  However, the source of dogma or religious teaching is divine revelation.  This is true in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  No good Christian, Jew or Muslim would suggest that their belief in their creed is based upon despair of the power of reason.  (2) Theology, by its very nature, it a combination of faith and reason.  Were there really no further “need to explain”, there would be no use for theology.  The object of faith is not unintelligible in itself, but only to the finite mind.  In Christianity it is hoped that God will give to the created intellect a vision (i.e. rational) of his own being which is the source and pattern of all created being.  Thus, the importance of reason is preserved and is integral to the eternal life of the soul.

So many of these comments are not interesting.  They are irrational or suggest no logical comment on the article.

Is there some way for an editor to organize or filter the comments so that only potentially valid comments are listed or at least grouped in one area?

From one who is agnostic, accepts most of the article and believes that those who believe in God ultimately have only one honest way to support their position, they have irrational faith.

great article….....sam is right on point…..

I deplore the shallow, rationalizing “religion” or “faith” of the Bushies, and am a former 25-year atheist myself; but I certainly can’t subscribe to the opinions of Sam Harris, either. His diatribe against all us fools who believe in any kind of god is rather sad. The proof of god which he claims is missing is right there in his fingertips as he types, but, as I did for so long, he won’t look at it. His own abject faith in the god of reason will likely kill him before his time. I hope he finds what it is he’s searching for before then.

My deepest thanks for the unsurpassed eloquence and humanity of Sam Harris’s remarks about religion and atheism.

If the world took them to heart, how much evil would be, if not abolished, at least greatly diminished.

If you wait to embrace Allah (God) until you can no longer find rational arguments against Islam and the existence of God, you are destined to a life of desperate longing and spiritual pain and emptiness.  Our nafs (ego personality) is so attached to our animal nature that our intellect will always suffer defeat, thereby stunting spiritual growth and ensuring our thorough embrace and preoccupation of that which we desire (i.e. earthly pleasures and rewards). 

We love that which we remember, so if we don’t remember Allah, we can’t/don’t love Allah, and in return we won’t recognize Allah’s love for us.

Our preoccupation with earthly pleasures and rewards enslaves us, thereby diverting our hearts from the spiritual food that nourishes our soul.

Interesting piece.  That we exist and are aware of our existance at this exact point in time is a curious thing and from this springs all matter of spiritual and philosophical musings and notions-none of which prove anything or are even provable by our own standards of proof.  Science-the true home of so-called atheists- can only side-step these ethereal ideas precisely because there is no method yet for measuring what we would call spiritual phenomina.  On the other hand, to lump all unexplained or even any unexplainable ideas in order to conform to some religious dodma is absurd.  That is why organized religion is itself absurd.  We can’t explain something in a reasonable way and so we create religion to remove any further need to explain.

“…where was this all-powerful, all-knowing, loving-god for Jonathan during the first five years of his life, as well as his final six years of survival? The silence was deafening then and it still is today…”

To J. Hocutt #5308:

It is impossible to answer the question you raise.  Why did God not act to intervene in this boy’s life?  If anyone pretends to have an answer, it is only because he is embarrassed by the fact that he doesn’t have one, at least not a convincing one.  You are right to say that trite phrases such as “it will all be alright in the end” and “God’s ways are not our ways” are inadequate responses to the reality of suffering.  It is also reasonable to be very disturbed by it.  At the same time, what is the source of your outrage?  Why is it a problem that this boy suffers?  Is it a problem for you when buildings suffer and eventually collapse?  Or when trees weaken and rot?  Or when gazelles have their living flesh torn from their bones by lions?  Why is any of this a problem?  You assume that human suffering is not good.  As you say, an all-loving God should not allow it.  Yet, if there is no all-loving God to render these things not-good – i.e. by their being a violation of his law, on what basis do you identify them as such.  In other words, when we say that a thing is not good, do we mean anything real or objective by the word ‘good’?  If not, we are simply saying that that particular thing is unappealing to me.  It may not be to someone else.  In that case, your example of the suffering boy would only be compelling to those who share your distaste for such abuse of innocence.  If, on the other hand, we mean something real and objective by the word ‘good’, we are appealing to a quality inherent in the thing itself – such as color or shape.  The objective quality of good is obviously not a physical attribute like the latter.  It cannot be grasped through the senses.  It is instead a formal quality, a spiritual quality inherent in the object through the degree to which it conforms to the absolute good, in relation to which we say that a thing is ‘more’ or ‘less’ good in itself.  That which is absolute good is also absolute being and absolute truth.  The atheist must justify his use of suffering as evidence of evil.  Yet, what is evil in an atheist’s universe?  In short, as a believer, I cannot adequately ‘solve’ the problem of evil (though I can demonstrate that it does not contain a formal contradiction), where as an atheist cannot ‘raise’ the problem of evil.     

Ultimately the question the atheist and the agnostic must answer is this: Is the moral sense (as opposed to the logical sense which does not exist in this problem) of the problem of suffering (evil) adequately addressed by saying that there really is no problem after all because there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong in a universe absent a divine reality?

Re: Paul Hamell’s Comment #4962 & God “respecting” free will…

This notion was trotted out to me as I was departing Xiantity after 35 of belief… <<Quote: “God does not cause, or even “permit” the terrible things that befall people. Like a good parent, God respects our free will, and expects us to learn about cause and effect, and to grow from our mistakes. Our failures belong to us, not God. The losses we suffer hurt, but are the price we pay for love, which is the reason we are.” Unquote>>

Do you as a good parent allow one of your children to savage the other so the aggressor can learn about cause and effect (i.e., bullying works, at least in the short term)? Wouldn’t you step in and defend the vulnerable child?

The last straw for my belief was reading a series of Des Moines Register stories about Jonathan Waller, a 5-year old boy who, because he wet his pants, was beaten into a coma by his mother’s boy friend. The doctors’ examinations of Jonathan and his sister uncovered that he had endured *years* of previous abuse including an untreated broken arm that healed without medical attention, and a “branding scar” that the boy friend applied when he punched the boy in the forehead with a massive gold ring. Jonathan managed to “recover” enough from his coma to then cope with a series ailments over six years or so before finally succumbing to a death by pneumonia I believe. Boy, that puts a different spin on “suffer not the children”, doesn’t it?

So, while it’s very tidy to say that the suffering we experience is simply god allowing us to experience the logical consequences of our actions, the rationalization falls apart here. Who in the world could countenance the brutal assault of a defenseless 5 year old boy so his mother’s boy friend could have the luxury of experiencing the logical consequences of beating a him into a coma… where was this all-powerful, all-knowing, loving-god for Jonathan during the first five years of his life, as well as his final six years of survival? The silence was deafening then and it still is today…

All the shallow and callow true believer can offer is “Everything will be OK in the end; if everything isn’t OK, then it’s not the end”... in other words, there’ll be apple pie in the sky in the by and by… gee, thanks… that and three dollars will buy me a latte.

The proposition that this loving god honors our free-will choices is just so much hooey.

Enjoyed the article. Any room here for Agnostics?  I believe it was Einstein that said he consider himself more an agnostic because he didn’t think he was smart enough to call himself an atheist.  Here, here! 
I got to this place from early childhood, by trying every religion I could while looking for a place I would fit and maybe find answers to my questions.  Eventually I would run into the hypocritical self-serving human and I would leave another dead end.  As shown by the other comments there are many intelligent folks here.  A lot smarter in this arena then I am.  But,….

Religion is manmade.  Man has an arrogant gene that continues to corrupt his forward march to enlightenment.  We see the stupidity of man every minute of the day.  We have two extremes here of the (sorry) blind faith and nonexistent faith.  With any luck in this accelerating age of electronic and biological science we can invite a third party.  The one persistent in life that always stands out to me is the constant balancing act in this dualistic world.  These scientific ambassadors of numbers may show us that both sides have parts of the picture.  We just didn’t know the correct language for understanding the world we live in.  I believe Joseph Campbell was on this path by looking at all belief systems and the collective contentiousness.  I’m just hoping that man can survive long enough for science to show us the way.  E=Mc ^2.
TIME to LOL.  Its good for the soul!  AaaaOooooUuuuuMmmmm.

Dear Mr. Oetting #4959,

You wrote, “…at one time everyone (100%) thought the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Boy were they wrong. Boy are you wrong.”

On the contrary, the Bible does not teach a flat Earth.  The notion that the Earth was thought to be flat until fairly recently is a myth.  As far back as the 12th century it was generally thought that the Earth is round.  It is true that most people thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth until early modern science demonstrated the opposite.  However, how does this weaken the credibility of the Christian Faith?  Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus – for example – does not rest on Ptolemaic astronomy, but on God’s Revelation.  Besides, do you take the discovery of the heliocentric solar system to mark the transition of the human race from ignorance into enlightenment?  It would be more historically honest to view it as a great stage in the advance of natural science.  Copernicus and Galileo were as indebted to the discoveries of the great philosophical and scientific minds that preceded them as we are indebted to the discoveries of the early modern pioneers in experimental science.  Also, given the Theory of Relativity, who is to say what moves around what?  Faith is open to the discoveries of science.  There is no fundamental opposition between them because they have completely distinct objects.  The objects of modern science are the naturally recurring phenomena in the physical universe.  The objects of faith are the supernatural truths of Revelation and the unique historical events connected with them.  You should examine your historical bias regarding the quality of thought in the pre-modern world and become aware of how influenced you are by the Cartesian fantasy of a universal method, which still dogs many great minds in our age.  Cognitive pluralism is the only true philosophy.  Different things are know in different ways.  There is not an a priori justification for opposing science to faith.  This is my main contention with Mr. Harris.

This site was “Posted” on the site I am on.
I usually don’t discuss “Created” issues that DON’T exist but I couldn’t resist this one.
I reviewed most of the replys and “As UsuaL” all I saw was the “Same Ole Crap”.
I “Am” glad the there is a group, or following, or counter belief mentality out there to “Debunk” this “Long Playing Soap Opera” that has been long over due for the “Trash” can.
Here’s the deal; try this on for size, If you can “Think” for yourself, I mean “Really” think for you self and “NOT” be swayed by the “Countless” hours of “Brainwashing” sessions in the ALL “Created” “Cult religions that have played and replayed their Idologies time and time again until their following are “Finally” hypnotized into believing that “Crap”, then you just might “See” through all the
Mirrors and Smoke” that have been “Blinding” you and the rest of all the different “Cultures” for Thousands of years.
Everytime “Someone” says there “IS” a (so called) God then it “Adds” fuel “Their” “Chosen” belief(s).
It is their “Own” way to “Convince” themselves or anyone else who will bite that “Their Way” is the “Right” way and everyone else is, you guessed it, “Wrong”. 
To “Invent” a discussion about “Nothing” is fruitless because neither side will “Give Up” their “chosen” belief(s), and beat goes on and on and on.
There has “Never” been, Never Was, Never will be ANY “Created” (Invented) “Thing”,  of a so called, God, it simply doesn’t exist.
Like I said I don’t discuss “non- entities” issues so don’t bother replying.
RFJ1

Dear Mr. Oetting #5038,

Yes, I am a Christian. 

You wrote, “You have a book that describes the beginning and that the people of God are Jews. Things go wrong so God drowns everyone except for one family so the only people in the world after the flood are Jews. So we are all Jewish and must be members of one of the twelve tribes.  Don’t you see how full of contradiction the Bible is?”

On the contrary, the events of the life of Noah and his family preceded the distinction between Jews and non-Jews.  Leaving aside the question of whether or not or to what extent these events may be regarded as true from the point-of-view of modern historiography, it can be said with certainty that the narrative of the ancient text is neither inconsistent nor contradictory on this particular point. 

Also, it follows from this that not all living people are descended from ancient Israel.  I don’t know of anyone – believer or not – who takes that position.

You wrote, “When the Jews were slaves the Japanese were making pottery for 6000 years. Your whole religion is based on this book that is obviously incorrect. It is a book that alienates all those who are not Jewish but never explains where everyone who is not Jewish came from.”

On the contrary, the biblical account of creation explains in a highly symbolic manner the origin of all people.  In fact, it explicitly recounts the origins of people of non-Jewish descent.  With regard to cultures unknown to the ancient authors of the Bible, such as the Japanese or the ancient American, it is not the purpose of the sacred text to give a scientific account of human origins and descent. 

“…we’re not sure where woman falls into this because woman is definitely not as important as man.”

Woman has a central place in the Bible from the very beginning.  She is co-created with man and is his equal.

I believe in ’ nothing ‘...
Now, let us begin…
Maurice

Thomas, #4994 I believe that it is safe to say that you are a Christian. Am I correct? Can you explain to me how the Bible which defines your religious beliefs can be considered valid when people were worshipping other gods before the Bible was written? This is a very simple point. You have a book that describes the beginning and that the people of God are Jews. Things go wrong so God drowns everyone except for one family so the only people in the world after the flood are Jews. So we are all Jewish and must be members of one of the twelve tribes.  Don’t you see how full of contradiction the Bible is? The Jews were slaves of the Egyptians. Where did the Egyptians come from? When the Jews were slaves the Japanese were making pottery for 6000 years. Your whole religion is based on this book that is obviously incorrect. It is a book that alienates all those who are not Jewish but never explains where everyone who is not Jewish came from. Another thing to look at is the list of players. We have God, angels, Satan, the sons of god, the giants, man, woman and all the animals. Each is given strengths and weaknesses. It is sort of like a big dungeons and dragons game. Satan rules the underworld. Angels can do magic but some how they aren’t as important in Gods view as man, but we’re not sure where woman falls into this because woman is definitely not as important as man. My questions may seem childish so it should be a breeze to answer them and then I will be informed. Please don’t ignore me. Inform me. One more question; who was the god who was born of a mortal woman and who’s father was a god that the Egyptions were worshipping when the Jews were slaves?

Compare the number of media outlets that espouse religious beliefs, including all the churches and other places of worship, to the number of outlets that make atheist arguments like this one. The ratio must be a thousand to one in favor of the religious dogma. So why is it that when someone does present an athiest perspective all the so-called faithful flow out of the woodwork and decry the “intellectual elite” as if this tiny whisper in the religious hurricane is somehow dangerous? Makes me wonder just how genuine their faith realy is.

Among the major flaws in Mr. Harris’ article, which several people have described enthusiastically as irrefutable or at least difficult to refute, are the following two:

(1) Mr. Harris fails to show how faith is essentially irrational.  Yet, this is his central thesis.  If he were to abandon this point, his argument would collapse.  If faith is not essentially irrational, which I maintain, then the problem of fundamentalism could be solved by calling people of faith to a greater use of reason and greater objectivity.  This is, in fact, one of the offices of the theologian or the believing philosopher or the believing scientist.  The following relevant quotes from the Manifesto illustrate how Mr. Harris assumes rather than establishes this central point: 

“Unreason is now ascendant in the United States…Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution; 68% believe in Satan.”

Mr. Harris ought to be more careful in his use of the word ‘believe’.  Biological evolution is a scientific theory subject to empirical appraisal (not belief).  Satan is proposed to faith (belief) by a sacred text.  There is no formal contradiction in belief in Satan from the perspective of one who takes the content of the Christian bible to be confirmed by the authority of God.  Neither is there empirical evidence against the existence of Satan.  Belief in the existence of such a being is not strictly irrational; it is just not relevant to the science of evolution.

“There must be some causal connection, or an appearance thereof, between the fact in question and a person’s acceptance of it. In this way, we can see that religious beliefs, to be beliefs about the way the world is, must be as evidentiary in spirit as any other.”     

This is to me an acceptable epistemic principle.  However, since Mr. Harris acknowledges that atheism is not a philosophy, it does not follow that all atheists accept it.  In fact, it smacks of realism, which is the philosophy of choice among many theologians.  The form which the causal connection between faith and its object takes is revelation.  Thomas Aquinas said it better seven hundred years ago than I can today: “We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine [the object of faith] is a science [certain knowledge] because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God [God’s knowledge which he makes known through revelation]…Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science [the ordered understanding of the object of faith] is established on principles revealed by God.”  Mr. Harris assumes, it seems, that faith cannot give a reasonable account of its relation to its object.  He is mistaken.

“The incompatibility of reason and faith has been a self-evident feature of human cognition and public discourse for centuries.”
Self-evident features of human cognition are not limited to a few centuries.  They are proper to human nature.  The laws of logic do not operate in one century but not in another.  Obviously, Mr. Harris is not using the term ‘self-evident’ in a literal way.  Therefore, the incompatibility of faith and reason is not self-evident and such a relation must instead be demonstrated.  This is the very thing Mr. Harris has not done.

“When rational inquiry supports the creed it is always championed; when it poses a threat, it is derided; sometimes in the same sentence.”   

With respect to the support rational inquiry provides to the creed, St. Thomas Aquinas says the following: “Things which can be proved by [philosophical] demonstration are reckoned among the articles of faith, not because they are believed simply by all [i.e. some people know them by reason alone and not by faith – such as the existence of God], but because they are a necessary presupposition to matters of faith.”  The ultimate object of belief, in other words, the explicit content of the Christian creed, is never subject to shear reason.  The reason for this is because it is beyond intellectual reach – not because it is opposed to reason.  When reason appears to contradict faith, the believer is not permitted to spurn reason, but rather should be motivated to “out reason” the objection to his faith.  From the believer’s point-of-view it is a forgone conclusion, because of the certainty of faith, that the fault ultimately lies not with faith, nor with reason itself, but with the poor reasoning of the mind proposing the objection to faith.  Those who deride reason itself in the name of faith are doing a disservice to reason and faith.

“Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail.” 

This is so patently a caricature that it requires little rebuttal.  It is, however, a clear sign of the superficiality of Mr. Harris’ assessment of the nature of religious faith.  One would conclude from this statement that people of faith believe what is knowingly contrary to reason.  Some religious people may indeed do that.  However, they would be advised not to because faith and reason ultimately have the same object, namely, absolute being, which is one in truth.  This criticism rests on the same straw man attack Mr. Harris has used throughout his manifesto.

(2) Mr. Harris overstates the role of religious faith among the causes of violence in the modern world.  Certainly religious differences account some of the tensions in society on a local level.  However, the most devastating wars the word has ever experienced where not fought on religious grounds, but upon ideological grounds (the myth of the medieval roots of Nazism it particularly illustrative of Mr. Harris’ less-than-rational bias).  The most potentially devastating war (the cold war) was also not fought on religious grounds, but again, on ideological ones – with a particularly atheistic flavor I might add.  The same it true of the Korean and Vietnam wars, to name just two modern conflicts.  Also included in this category are the American Revolution and the French Revolution.  Both were essentially nonreligious; and the latter was positively atheist.  Neither were the medieval wars essentially religious in nature.  There were wars of religion in the 16th century – an especially dark period in the history of Christianity – but these were far from characteristic of the era.
The qualification Mr. Harris makes, which is obviously designed to weaken the effect of the essentially nonreligious character of modern warfare on his argument, that both religious faith and political ideology are forms of dogmatism and thus equally opposed to reason, is an unproved proposition.  Some people of faith may be irrational – as all humans are capable of being – but that is not the same as saying that faith itself is essentially irrational.  Mr. Harris has not proven that point – which I take to be his basic thesis in the Manifesto – and his appeals to the modern phenomenon of fundamentalism only accidentally illustrate the irrationality of faith by pointing to people of faith who happen to hold their beliefs in an irrational way.

I would like to offer some general comments on this essay, without getting too specific, as the essay is simply too painful to read in its entirety. The anger and anguish of author Sam Harris are too palpable in his writing.

When people tell me that they don’t believe in God, my first response is to ask, “Which god is it that you don’t believe in?” Generally, we then find that we are in agreement on what we don’t believe in. Like most atheisits, particularly the angry ones, Sam Harris is confounded by his own poor understanding of God.

God does not cause, or even “permit” the terrible things that befall people. Like a good parent, God respects our free will, and expects us to learn about cause and effect, and to grow from our mistakes. Our failures belong to us, not God. The losses we suffer hurt, but are the price we pay for love, which is the reason we are. And, of course, all will be restored. (Everything will be OK in the end; if everything isn’t OK, then it’s not the end.)

Although denial of God is the only sin, the one human act from which all behavior that has rightfully been called sinful grows, I have recently come to see that belief in God is irrelevant, and of no consequence. It is the experience of God that is all, it is the experience that removes our fear and places us in Heaven, even while we continue to live on earth. Living in a state of sin (denial) precludes us from Heaven, because it precludes us from experiencing God.

Sam Harris and his like might just as profitably argue that there is no air. I know that there is air, because, although I cannot see it, I have experienced it, and know that it sustains me.

It is my prayer that we will finally allow God’s love to illuminate every corner of our world and every angry and fearful heart, and bring us, at last, to peace.

(What if Deuteronemy 6:5 wasn’t a commandment, but a prophesy? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your might.”)

To: Thomas # 4924. People were worshipping gods before Moses or whoever wrote the first books of the Bible.
There are several gods who preceded Jesus who were born of a mortal woman and fathered by a god, who died and arose from the dead. So what makes Jesus special? A good PR man by the name of Paul who started Christianty to piss off his would be father-in-law. Why did it work? There were a bunch of gentiles out there who needed a religion. Paul, by the way, didn’t add all the miracles and virgin birth. They came after because Jesus as Paul was teaching him wasn’t anything special so others elaborated.
The 87% sounds like something out of the CIA fact book, which is a crock, but at one time everyone (100%) thought the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Boy were they wrong. Boy are you wrong.

To: 4901 by Double - Edison also said the following:

“Religion is all bunk.”

“I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul…. No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end.”

A few statements in the introduction to the article I thought worth refuting:

“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.” 

I thought atheism was a refusal to assent to the existence of God.  Does he believe that the non-existence of God is obvious?  I’d like to see that argument developed. 

“The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence.”

Let us define doubt.  Doubt is, like opinion, an assent to a particular truth the certitude of which is not based upon the quality of the intuition of the object itself, but rather on an act of the will.  It is characterized by a fear of the truth of the opposite of the truth to which it has chosen to assent.  Faith is similarly an act of the will because the believer does not intuit the object of faith – otherwise it would not be an object of faith.  Faith however does not fear the opposite of its object of assent because faith – in Christian belief – is a gift of God and its certitude rests upon him.  Thus, the claim of 260 million Americans to not doubt the existence of God is certainly not proof that he exists.  However, neither is it psychologically specious.   

“Most of us believe in a God that *is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to **religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy.”

*In an earlier post I have already refuted the equivocation in this sentence.

**What exactly are the taboos and superstitions of a medieval theocracy to which our country conforms?  This is shear rhetoric unworthy of a philosopher.  Is he talking about the medieval English kingdom which gave us common law and magna carta; or the medieval Italian states which gave us literary renaissance; or the medieval German Empire which gave us universities and renewed Roman jurisprudence; or is he talking about the medieval Papacy which oversaw the most just legal system the world ever knew before that time?

“We live in a world where all things, good and bad, are finally destroyed by change.”   

He claimed that atheism is not a philosophy.  This opinion then must not be held by all atheists seeing that it is positively a philosophical opinion, the opinion of Hericlides to be exact.

“Of course, *overly rational people and other rabble will be kept out of this happy place [heaven], and those who **suspended their disbelief while alive will be free to enjoy themselves for all eternity.” 

*The assumption here is that faith fears reason.  On the contrary, reason is the chief faculty of the soul according to much traditional Christian theology.  To be deliberately irrational is a sin.  Reason is the glory of man.  This caricature of the perspective of faith is just that.

**Faith is not a suspension of disbelief.  I don’t know how you would even define such a state.  Faith is in fact belief.  Neither is it a suspension of reason.

“We live in a world of unimaginable surprises—from the fusion energy that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this [sic] lights dancing for eons upon the Earth—*and yet Paradise conforms to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn’t know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.”
   
*The misjudgment of authentic Christian belief here is astounding.  The Christian view of the “afterlife” is not a place but rather a state of being in perfect possession of the ultimate object of intellectual knowledge (science in the truest sense), namely the divine essence, and the ultimate object of the human will, namely the divine goodness.  No grander more complete vision of the end of human existence can be conceived.

Here is another example of the poor clarity of thought in Mr. Harris’ article: “As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different.”  This point is argumentatively ineffective – though one would think that it is rhetorically persuasive to people like Mr. Harris – because it is an obvious equivocation.  The biblical god is different.  There is no essential likeness between the ancient Greek idea of the gods and the Judeo/Christian idea of God.  I might as well say that “we are all skeptics with respect to Democritus’ theory of atoms.  Only the septic has realized that the modern theory of the atomic structure of matter is no different.”  In the Greek imagination the gods were petty finite begins who took their origin in time from other petty finite beings.  They were in certain respects immortal, but still subject to becoming, change and destruction.  They neither created the universe nor did they exercise a sovereign providence over it.  The rational absurdity of such a notion of divinity was exposed as far back as the 4th century B.C. by the metaphysical doctrines of the platonic and peripatetic schools of philosophy with thier use of a scientifically ordered rational method of reflection.  These same Greeks bequeathed to the ancient Christian church certain notions essential to a scientifically intelligible account of divinity.  These notions, such as eternity, unity, perfection and simplicity, were easily combined – one could say providentially combined – with the biblical notions of personality, transcendence, immanence, providence, power and creatio ex nihilo to produce the most morally and rationally compelling “definition” of divinity the world has ever known.  To dismiss the gods of the ancient Greeks does not require refuting the arguments for their existence.  Such arguments – when they were rarely made – were refuted a millennia ago.  To dismiss the God of the Bible, specifically his existence, in the same manner is to ignore the unrefuted rational arguments made on his behalf by the Christian philosophical tradition living today.

Atheists don’t Exist.

If you think you are an atheist because you believe in rational thought and scientific proof, then I will prove that by being an atheist you are contradicting yourself. You’re just as guilty of “blind faith” as anyone who believes in God. Don’t believe me?

I think Ray Comfort put it best when he said:

“There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let’s imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don’t. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don’t know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Let’s say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn’t be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon’s great-grandmother’s black cat’s fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, “We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything.” Let me repeat: Let’s say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven’t yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let’s look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, “There is no gold in China,” what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, “There is gold in China,” I don’t need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, “There is no God,” is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don’t know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an “agnostic” - one who claims he “doesn’t know” if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is “ignoramus.” The Bible tells us that this ignorance is “willful” (Psalm 10:4). It’s not that a person can’t find God, but that he won’t. It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, “God, if you are there, strike me dead!” When God didn’t immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then proclaimed that there was no God. However, his challenge was answered some time later.”

Many of the response posts on this website (who has the time to read them all?) in support of Mr. Harris reflect a one-dimensional, almost comic book view of religion (let’s be honest, Christianity is their target.  There’s not a lot of Buddhist, Jewish or Islamic bashing going on).  Some of the anti-religious stereotypes, unhistorical assertions and oversimplifications reflected by the “rational elite” on these pages (which I take to be a fairly good sampling of grassroots “atheism/agnosticism/irreligion”) are examples of the danger of pseudo intellectualism, regardless of one’s ideological point-of-view.  A clear minded atheist, it seems, would want to be as objective and honest as possible.  Caricatures of religious faith – typical of suburban pop culture – are unscientific.  If you are going to refute a particular point-of-view, the most scientific approach is to attack the very best arguments for that particular perspective.  Televangelists, creation scientists, and ultra conservative religio-political gurus are not the best arguments in favor of religious faith.  In fact, to those who tout their awareness – I won’t say ‘grasp’ – of logic, these examples are straw men.  If you want scientific evidence for the existence of God or the reasonableness of faith, gently remind those who offer citations from the Bible that arguments from sacred writings are only persuasive to those who already have faith.  Thomas Aquinas made the same point in the 13th c., “The reasons employed…to prove things that are of faith, are not demonstrations [i.e. scientific]; they are either persuasive arguments showing that what is proposed to our faith is not impossible, or else they are proofs drawn from the principles of faith, i.e. from the authority of Holy Writ…Whatever is based on these principles is as well proved in the eyes of the faithful, as a conclusion drawn from self-evident principles [i.e. scientific] is in the eyes of all.”  Regarding the authority of reason operating on its own principles, the same medieval theologian says that “the argument from authority based on human reason [i.e. with respect to science] is the weakest.”  While Mr. Harris’ article may make good fodder for zealous defenders of Christianity anxious to make their case in venues such as this, it probably won’t even appear on the radar screen of believing intellectuals, academics and other educated faithful folk who are as wary of internet atheism as they are of internet fundamentalism.

There is only one truth that all religions can promote and that is the only way to heaven is acceptance of Christ’s gift.  The rest is doctrinal differences.
I see alot of people praising this discussion and its mediator/author.  This is why the nation is so off its path, because we have forgotten “One nation under God”.  Not the God of Islam, Budha, or Witchcraft but the one true God.
We are designed too complex to be a simple mistake of the cosmos, a hit or miss from some unforseen climatic event.  If God does not exist, how do you explain our natural drive to help each other, to better ourselves, to be part of a greater whole?
I do thank you for this website and the discussions within.  To be confronted with ideas and opinions that are contrary to my beliefs is like a knife being sharpened against a sharpening stone.

Why does God have to be a loving God? That’s the big confusion. Nothing makes sense in human history if God is in fact a loving deity that seeks to protect us and intervenes in human affairs from time to time. But what if God was something more like HP Lovecraft’s Cthulhu? That is, a god who did in fact create the universe and us along with everything else, but did not create us to be anything other than tools or pawns or playthings? The Cthonic gods get great pleasure out of human suffering. Praying enrages them.

People seem to come up with an idea of God that he is somehow how a divine lifeguard, a supernatural Eliot Ness, a fearless protector, savior, and defender of the weak and helpless and faithful. Anyone can see that faithful people die every day by the millions (or high numbers). Why does God “answer” some prayers and save people from terminal diseases, and then not “answer” other prayers that are just as fervent? Maybe God is not interventionist and that’s where we are going wrong. God could still have created everything, but then split the scene. We are on our own. How does that conflict with anything? It does not. This could all be a grand experiment and at the end of one’s life you get a scorecard on how you did.

Organized religions, however, are all stupid, are all convinced they are the only truth, and are all peddling some madness to gulls who need to believe that by some strange means they will have their wishes fulfilled while their neighbors will not. What is the word for someone who has no problem with the concept of God but also feels that none of the religions have gotten it remotely correct yet? To call oneself an atheist is to invite scorn. It’s too loaded a term.

And Jesus would never type in ALL CAPS, you fools.

To all of the religious people who took the time out to read this work, I applaud you.

As an atheist, I too try my hardest to at least understand the basics of every religion.

I will say that this is the most comprehensive account of atheist ideals I have ever read.

I won’t say anything to cause an uproar among other readers, just that I think it’s pretty hard to refute this essay.

Thank you Sam Harris for putting into words what I have thought for most of my life.

The fact that you can have an intelligent and well-thought out discussion of your belief in No God, I think, proves His existence.
Random events do not find their existence in chance, there is always the ability to discover the order within these seemingly random things.
You say I cannot prove the existence of God.  You cannot disprove it either.

Thank you for a complete and enlightening writeup on atheism.  I’ve been an atheist since age 13, before that having been basically brainwashed into a belief in God.  Since I began to doubt, and finally flat out disbelieve in the exsistance of a God, I have always been quiet about it, only talking with close friends, and no family members, about my beliefs.  Many of the piece’s I’ve read on it fail to address this point, thank you very much for doing so.

“He was a clever man, he who invented God.” -Unknown

It is a shame that Mr. Harris chose to argue for atheism by means of a completely unnuanced caricature of the nature of religious faith.  Not every sincere believer is a fundamentalist.  In fact, fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon.  Take for example this statement from the section entitle The Nature of Belief (never mind the fact that Mr. Harris does not actually give us a definition of the nature of belief), “The incompatibility of reason and faith has been a self-evident feature of human cognition and public discourse for centuries.”  Which centuries are those exactly?  Explain how this incompatibility is “self evident”.  It is not an argument to simply assert it.  Does Mr. Harris mean experimental science and faith are incompatible or philosophy and faith or something else?  I’m thinking of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas (13th c.).  Certainly his is as substantial a presentation of the compatibility of reason and faith as there ever was, and one constructed by a medieval (yeah, believe it) champion of the powers and autonomy of reason.  Does Mr. Harris deliberately ignore such sources?  Certainly it is much easier and quicker to dispatch fundamentalists! 

Take another example from the same section.  Mr. Harris writes that, “Only when the evidence for a religious doctrine is thin or nonexistent, or there is compelling evidence against it, do its adherents invoke “faith.””  This is completely false.  Faith is not a back-up for when reason fails.  It has never functioned in this way in – at least – traditional Christian belief.  One wonders how acquainted Mr. Harris really is with the history of religious thought.  According to St. Thomas Aquinas, faith and reason differ with regard to their formal objects.  He [Aquinas] readily admits the superiority of reason (intuition/inference) to arguments from authority (revelation) in matters of natural knowledge (i.e. the province of philosophy, science, experience, etc).  However, reliance upon the authority of revelation, when the object of knowledge (the subject of revelation) exceeds the intelligible grasp of the finite mind, is not unreasonable.  An informed “believer” would never suggest that reason can establish the truth of every religious doctrine, precisely because of their character as supernatural mysteries.  On the other hand, there are other religious beliefs that have been transformed into religious knowledge in virtue of demonstrative (rational) arguments in support of them, such as the arguments for the existence of God set forth by – again – St. Thomas Aquinas.  But alas, Mr. Harris is only interested in refuting fundamentalists (kind of like shooting fish in a barrel).

AN ATHEIST MANIFESTO

Here, Sam Harris has provided me with the most sensible conclusions concerning this topic that I’ve ever read.  He has looked at it from all angles and arrived at the same point every time.  Any thinker cannot accept an all-powerful, benelovent entity somewhere up there in the sky looking out for our welfare.  No doubt, there are plenty of pretenders who dare not argue the subject for fear of being ostracized, cast out and labled an Atheist.

When young we’re given such entities as the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.  By the time we’re able to walk and talk, we’re given God.  We go to school and it isn’t long before we’re informed that the first three doesn’t exist but no one dare suggest that god doesn’t exist either.

My own religious endoctrination was on the extreme side; the Southern Baptist hell fire and brimstone type.  It was as if they couldn’t urge one into belief, they’d sure as hell scare one into it.  I’d leave the church when the service was over, shaking and terrified that I’d go to hell.  I believe I was around ten years of age when I first began doubting but I never mentioned it to anyone and this pretense lasted until I left the South and took up the study of philosophy at the U. of Chicago.  There, I met others who bore no pretense and dropped my own, never to pretend again.

Practically from birth, Americans are brainbwashed into this belief.  We are endoctrinated at an age that we have no choice and it carries on throughout the lives of too many.  It is the cause of unrest, dissention, discrimination and other negative aspects within our society.  Particularly in the case of GW Bush’s predidency, it played a major part in putting him in the Oval Office twice.  In my opinion, this is the most damnable effect of religion in our country’s history.  It has converted “America the beautiful” to “America the ugly” and brought it to it’s knees, but not in prayer.

I contend that philosophy should be taught in our schools, beginning in some forms as early as kindergarten.  By the time a student graduates from high school, he/she will have developed the ability of logic and reason.  I do not suggest that this is the whole answer to the problem, but it is a darn good start.

I am sonmetimes asked why I don’t believe in god.  My answer is another question, who made him.

I am an atheist for some time already which are few in our country and I don’t consider defending my claims about it to anyone who questions it because whenever I will a ‘child of god’or someone who ‘believes his belief is right’ will either criticize me or say that they will help me to the right path. Fools. I appreciate Mr. Harris for making this article knowing that everytime a religious person reads it a negative response will return. His ideas prove that atheism has its own identity and not just a negation of anything theistic. We can never force them to realize what the truth is. I as an atheist can never prove what I KNOW does not exist such as a God. How did I KNOW? Because nobody has proven it indubitably. We all have our fears and to some it is their fear to deny god or even question their faith. For me religion and god is an Argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument, wherein it concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that If many believe so, it is so… which I found immoral and stupid for people to use as their basis.

“If you want me to believe in God, you must make me touch him.”     
                      - Denis Diderot

When I created the universe, then I split into many parts so I could have friends.
In fact, first I split into male and female so I could celebrate the big bang.
No, not everybody is an atheist when it comes to Thor and Loki.
While I believe that both God and Allah are dieties, I believe that they are badly treated by their followers, not being allowed to have wives. Let’s face it, one sex act in 2000 years for one of them and no sex for the other is bound to make any man cranky.
More people believe in Santa Claus, and he has a wife, and besides the obvious benefits of a wife, legend says she bakes cookies, too.
Sure it is in our benefit to believe in the constitution, and religious plualism, and tolerance. God and Goddess are as real to me as the rocks and trees. An certainly more real than the president’s (any president’s veracity)
In the interests of religious pluralism I believe in as many beliefs as don’t conflict. Well, I believe I am a Witch, but Jesus told me I’m a Christian.
Anyway, the purpose of belief is not so you get presents. Or conversely, so you can argue with other people serving the same god over minor differneces of opinion.
And certainly not so that in time of disaster you will not die. Being a Jew during the time of the Holocaust did not save me, because it was not my God that was trying to kill me but other worshipers of the same God (Germany was 85% Catholic in the 1930’s, but do not the Catholics serve the same God as the Jews) who did not listen to God’s protests to their hearts.
There are just three religious groups. The good, the bad, and those who aren’t doing as good as they want to. Most of us belong to the third group. And most of the people I knew who were sure they belonged to the first group were more likely to belong to the second.
Lots of people who call themselves religious tell me I’m no better than an athiest. No, and no worse either.
My daughter when the hurricane happened said “Looks like the Goddess wants the Christians to get a clue” If she would have heard of the disaster in the mideast, she would have said the same, because we Pagans regard Christians and Muslims as the same. We are not sure what the theological differences are between Christianity and Islam, except females and Pagans are boths victim of choice. Sure they will substitute Jews, Native Americans or other infidel, including atheists, but I don’t see where it matters. 
Just three kinds of religionists, those who think my religion nasty, those who think it is cool, and those who think it is my business.
I think Atheists are cool, though the because disaster happens arguement is lame. When we agree to reincarnate we agree to die. A short life means you get 100% of credit for a perfect life for almost no work.
The last atheist I talked to was really cool. He said, sure god talked to me, but I still don’t believe in god.
And the last believer I talked to said god has never talked to me, I believe because I read the bible.
I told him I didn’t believe in the bible because it was writen by failible people just like me. Told him god had something he wanted him to do. Told him god wasn’t Santa Claus, he should listen as well as asking for what he wanted.
The bottom line on Katrina was that our government was too busy looking out for bottom lines than rescue work. If you look at what Jesus said a good follower of his was: Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me.
So when these “good christians” of our government find Jesus judging them as they have stated they prefer Jusus is going to say: I was hungry and I was thirsty, and I even had to die, so you and your friends could increase your bottom line. I might have been black, I might have been white, but I was what you should have been worried about not just green.

Stan in 4276, Let’s jump back a hundred thousand years. There is no Bible. There is nobody we would want to invite home for dinner. There was no God. He hadn’t been invented yet so what is the point of nitpicking passages in a book that finds it’s roots in fiction. You might as well be defending paragraphs out of “Gone With the Wind” Lets grow up and face the facts. There is no God, and if there was I certainly wouldn’t want it to be the mean bastard in the “Old Testament.” This world would be better off if we unite as a species. See that’s where morality comes from. It is instinctive. It is what has allowed us to survive, but don’t just assign morality to humans. We only have to look at nature to see over and over again how other species have set their rules. For some reason people can’t accept that one species has to be the biggest and another the fastest and another the smartest. We were born into the latter. Now all we have to do is act the part.

G*D is love. If there is no G*D then there is no love. Religions however since they are man made are like man full of hate. When you read a religious book whether it is the Bible, the Qur’an or the Torah and they talk of hate it is the word of man, when they talk of love it is the word 0f G*D.

William: um…that’s what i was just talking about. I think you have to go back and read all of Matthew, especially chapter 10, and not quote that verse out of context. (plus translations don’t really help much!) The verses that follow talk about disputes between family members etc, over the subject of Christianity. What it boils down to is the fact that people will end up killing each other all because of disputes in religious belief. But, he is not saying that that is his “purpose” or “goal” in bringing about violence, just that it will be an inevitable outcome of his teachings. People kill each other over less significant things than religious belief, after all.

As a resident of New Orleans and a confirmed rational agnostic I congratulate Sam Harris on this article. The people of New Orleans are among the most, at least superficially, religious in the country.  God did not warn them, but the Weather Channel did.  Another example of the cities stupid religiosity is something I saw in the schools here.  I was a teacher in the New Orleans public schools. We had a high stakes test that 8th graders needed to take to move to high school.  More than one pricipal tried to lead group prayers before the test. Forget studying, lets just pray to pass. Another example of the stupidity of evangelicals.

I think your essay should be translated into Arabic and Farsi and spread throughout the Middle East- maybe it will knock some sense into the heads of people there.

Stan: I’d like to see the argument for this one made up by people who are trying to create a benevolent image.

“Think not that I [Jesus] have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

William, im no Bible expert but i am familiar with it. I think much of your problem comes from a failure to understand the context and meaning of some of the passages you quote. For example, “those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” is a call for peace, not violence as you would have us believe. It points out that when you attack someone with violence, your own fate will be to get the same in return (if only in self defense!). When Jesus talked about bringing “divison” etc, he wasn’t talking about advocating vioence, as your twisted interpretation would like us to assume. He was prophesizing about how people would react to his message (a prophecy which obviously has come true) Free will always permits people to draw stupid conclusions and do stupid things because they are too blind to see the truth. Please ask a Christian who is better versed in the bible to explain further, im admittedly not the best candidate.

Peter: Take it from this ex-lawyer, your ‘facts’ do not meet the definition of “stealing” even if true. It’s not like the Iraqui people were reaping the benefits of their country’s oil under Sadam, i might add. And your conclusion about supporting a sectarian puppet govt is so convoluted and filled with speculation that it almost makes me sympathetic to Bush…ouch, did i say that?
now back to scheduled programming…

Bigotry: I do respect your right to beleive what you want.  I am glad you have found something that gives you comfort.  We all beleive things that we hold close which do not have a foundation.  I beleive people are basically good despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Now that being said I don’t think your beleifs should be paid for by me.  I should not be giving your church a tax concesion.  I think it is all a bunch of bunk and the collective beleifs are damaging (which I can still respectfully beleive). 

As a personal and respectful piece of advice, though, I think you should examine this new found beleifs and determine where they come from.  Then you may be able to throw them back away with the other superstitions you have had during your lifetime like Santa and the tooth fairy.  Again, all with due repect.

Liberal altruism is as morally obscene and unconsciounable as religion. Both dogmas demand faith, self-sacrifice and the beleif that the ends justify the means.

Being a former Atheist myself, I can understand the skepticism the author expresses, i’ve been there myself. There were times in my life when, if you had told me I would one day become a believer in god, I would have laughed.

I was so obessed with trying to understand why God could not prove himself to mankind, if he existed. It took me a long time to realize that it is not God’s job to prove himself to man, but rather, it is Man’s challenge to prove himself to God.

If you are looking to Christians for proof of the existance of God, you will be dissopointed. There is nothing that I could say to you, that would truly convince you of God’s existance. I know because I had to find God on my own, nobody could ever show me the way.

So you don’t believe in God, do you? Thats fine with me, I’ve been there before. But when you come to me, and demand that I prove to you that God exists, I will refuse.

I don’t have to prove ANYTHING to you. My belief in God is a very personal belief, and I hope that one day you will learn to respect that.

“Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day - Give a man a religion and he will starve to death while praying for a fish.”

Stan (#3388) asked ‘exitstan: i hesitate to ask, but what exactly did the U.S. attempt to “steal” from Iraq? and could you clarify how the U.S. “created” a civil war?’

1) Paul Wolfowitz and others openly stated before the war that it would really not cost the US anything because Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction - that is, that these revenues would be stolen to pay Halliburton et al to build what war contractors were paid to help the military trash.  In other words, I burn down your house and pay to rebuild it with your 401(k).  Moreover, contrary to the Hague Convention, Order 39 of the occupation government privatized the Iraqi economy so that American companies could buy the assets for nothing - very much the way the German occupation bought assets of the occupied counries in WW2.
2) After the April 2004 fighting, in which Muqtada as-Sadr’s militia largely closed the roads against American convoys to help the resistance in Fallujah repel the American Marines, the occupiers undertook a deliberate policy of using Shi’a militiamen in Sunni areas, notably in Fallujah in Nov 2004, and unleashed Shi’a death squads of the Badr Organization in the same fashion as in El Salvador in 1980 - “the Salvador option” they denied they were considering when Newsweek broke the story in March 2005 that they were considering it (which they denied doing in 1980, but they deny planning to do now what they denied then that they were doing!).  But from the very beginning, the occupation set up a puppet government on sectarian lines in order to emphasize sectarian differences.

For me, God is just a word, a word that attempts to describe the transcendent beyond for which we have no words or thoughts.

Religious intolerance is the cause of most wars.