Thanks Richard!

Your comments are a breath of fresh air!

Wish there were more sensible, inspiring folk like you on this earth!

With love & best wishes to all,

Malini

PS:  God seems to have overlooked the suffering of countless humans and animals… If he was responsible for making them appear on this earth, then why all the mistreatment???

You may think some god cares more for this planet than people do. I’m sure there are a lot of people who would say the aren’t feeling it.

Many millions more would say they never had a chance to feel one way or another, if their voices could be heard again. Unfortunately, they died from starvation or AIDS before their first birthday, got crushed in an earthquake, or swept away in a tsunami.

As horrifying as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, the sad truth is those atomic bombs brought an end to a war that would have gone on much longer, and ended the brutality of a totalitarian regime.

I repeat: more people have died from mosquito bites than all of the wars in history combined. Where is your caring god, who could have “designed” us all resistant to malaria?

Men haven’t made near as much of a mess as what we’ve straightened out. Science and technology have been our only Savior.

We make mistakes, as with pouring carbon into our atmosphere. We know how to correct our mistakes too, like we did with lead.

Things are probably going to get tough for a while. Technology policy hasn’t been helping, and deliberately manufactured “skepticism” by a fundamentalist administration has hurt us a great deal.

But so far, throughout history, we have had only ourselves to rely on. And we’ve done it in spite of people who get in the way, using God for their justification, killing those who disagree with sacred doctrine, or just being misanthropes, preaching that the threat of eternal pain is required to ensure ethical behavior.

We are learning amazing things just looking at societies and comparing—as religiosity decreases, so does violent crime. As trust increases, so does wealth. The least religious countries are the most trusting and wealthiest (Norway, I think).

There is no god to help us survive catastrophe, build cooperative societies, improve our lives, or correct our own past mistakes. That is what I conclude every time I watch the news.

Sure, we hurt ourselves, but it’s nothing compared to complete reliance on gods that don’t give a shit. More human beings have died from mosquito bites than all of the wars in history combined. Where’s the god who cares about that problem?

I have a group of atheist friends, and we’re going to invite this pastor to a huge celebration—the pastor who said the world will end in a couple of years.

We’ll have the party on the night the world is supposed to end. We will celebrate how wrong this guy is, saying that everybody deserves to die, have their corpses lie about in the fields for the birds to eat, and then to be resurrected so we can all be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

We will celebrate the fact that people are basically good, and that none of this preaching is even needed.

He wasn’t just preaching justice in a spiritual afterlife though. Maybe that’s what I found so hurtful about what he said. He said God is going to collapse the whole universe. Imagine. . . not just everybody you love, everything we’ve built, all we’ve worked for. Multiply that by 400 billion galaxies (in visible range). All of those lives, just ended by a capricous God. That God must be imaginary. We will celebrate life on the night he dies instead of us.

Had a great trip (sans illegal drugs I don’t use). I had a great laugh, too, listening to the radio. But I learned a lot:

1. The entire universe will end on 22 May 2011, as predicted by logical analysis of Biblical prophecy and the Mayan calendar (which go together like love and marriage). Nevermind the fact that it’s 87 billion lightyears in every direction, and nothing moves faster than light. It will all collapse to a point under the power of Almighty Gawd on the Day of the Lawd. We should stop attending church because they no longer teach the true Gawspel. We should also stop giving money to the poor, and purchase Baahbles instead.

2. It cost the LA PD $30K to escort Brittney Spears to rehab. The mayor won’t sign a bill promising equal protection to other celbs from the paparazzi; too ambiguous—what’s a celeb, and what’s a paparazzi?

3. The Federal Government, however, is spending millions to protect the Pope (despite a clause in our constitution saying no respect should be shown to any religious institution).

The Pope should just keep his psycho-babble in Rome. Instead he’s over here condemning priests for sexual abuse and bishops for protecting them. He hasn’t gone so far as to condemn Pope John Paul II for protecting Cardinal Law, however.

I’ll believe the rhetoric when I see Cardinal Law strung up by his balls. Instead, the Papacy seems to be asking the public for forgiveness so it can be infallible once more.

And the evangelical, Republican president took his wife and daughter to kiss the pope’s hideous hand, while Methodist Hillary knocked back whiskey with Catholics in PA.

4. Enrollment is down in Catholic schools across the nation, despite approval to use vouchers for tuition. Say it ain’t so! Maybe the nuns should sharpen their rulers and visit a few parents in their sacred penguin costumes.

“Wired in” sounds more like Maani’s good karma, dry water, and other hippy stuff than it does, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” or “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

If you think they’re related though, perhaps you should send $10 to the Church of the Sacred Bleedin’ Heart of Jesus [located somewhere in Los Angeles]. They’ll say your prayers on the radio, and you’ll really get wired in. All of your dreams will come true.

Ha! Ha! I’m just teasing. Have a great weekend. I’ll be out of touch, up in the forest of Northern CA with my own hippy friends. I’ll be throwing discs and fantasizing about a girl with far-away eyes.

I never said anything about conspiracy.  I said maybe there was a rabbi named Jesus, and maybe there wasn’t. The stories were not corroborated, and that’s as far as I’ll go with it. I’m not alone here. I think Hitchens did say that historians never mentioned Jesus. There are a lot of skeptics besides Harris, Hitchins and Dawkins too. I’ve read these arguments in other places.

I don’t know. When was the first time somebody disputed the historical Odyssus, from Homer?

But that wasn’t my main point. My main point was, so what? Do you guys really believe that the creator of this vast universe visited Palestine and walked around in sandals?

Joan, you said God somehow helps you through the dark times. Do you really believe that invisible beings, controlled by the creator, are buzzing around us, controlling the outcome of events, or do you just “believe in belief?” It’s a nice story, sort of like Santa Claus for grown-ups?

And my key point for you, Maani, is still this: You say you believe in peace. Did God, or did he not, kill more than 2 million human beings in the sacred book? If Jesus is all about peace, why revere the murderous Father? What is the point of becoming the “lamb” to satisfy his own requirement for blood sacrifice?

And the killing still isn’t over. Does the message of Jesus, or does it not, threaten me with a second death if I refuse to believe?

I’ll re-visit my views of Karma and Dharma [Robert M. Pirsig described them more like yin and yang in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance]. You need to say something more convincing if you want me to re-visit my views of Jesus.

That’s exactly what I’m afraid of. The text of the ten commandments (Exodus 20 or Deut 5)even tells you how to treat your slaves.

I don’t think I’m dogmatic. I’m realistic about what acceptance of a leather-bound book with gold-foil edges can lead to. I’m also dedicated to saying “BS” when somebody doesn’t present a good argument.

How can you separate belief in the main characters from belief in the things the book says? Does it or does it not threaten me with a second death if I refuse to accept it? Saying “peace, and love” doesn’t remove that threat. It just creates a ridiculous contradiction.

It’s interesting that you coughed up the word “karma.” I think that’s what this whole argument is about—judgment. [By the way, karma is always a bad thing, so I don’t think you were using the word correctly. It means “you get what you deserve,” but always in a fearful sense. The opposite in Hindu philosophy was “dharma,” which means “justice,” or getting your due reward. The word “karma” is used very loosely these days to signify some sort of good feeling . . . “Give me a tie-died t-shirt, some rainbow suspenders and a pair of sandals. Let’s sit back, burn one and just dig on how much love there is, man. Wow, this life is far out."]

Getting back to judgment though. Why should the concept always be presented as the decision of the gods about us? Why should there be an acceptance bias towards the idea that invisible beings have the power to observe everything we do (and don’t forget those thought crimes), then either “save” us or torment us after we’re dead?

What about our judgment of them? This backlash by Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens et all, is really just that. They are saying, both to the main characters of the stories, the believablility of the stories themselves, and the history they have caused . . . “MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN: You have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.”

I’m a skeptic, not a revisionist.Go back and read what I said. I postulated that maybe Paul invented the whole thing towards the end of the first century. I find it very interesting that the long list of historians didn’t mention Jesus or his cult.

The earliest Christian writings, outside of the NT are letters from Ignatius of Antioch and 2 Clement. A date in the second half of Trajan’s reign (A.D. 98-117) or a bit later fits the picture reflected in Ignatius. Eusebius says Ignatius was martyred around that time. The so-called “long recension” is a 4th century revision. The “middle recension” is generally accepted as authentic, although arguments have always been made calling it into question.

The approximate date of the written sermon by Clement is A.D. 140-160. 2 Clement cited the Old Testament and an apocryphal gospel that has not survived.

Clearly these texts were written for a reason, and there was a church that they addressed. By that time the members of that church probably accepted Jesus as the name of their Messiah, and they were being killed for that name. None of this proves that Paul didn’t invent the whole thing towards the end of the first century.

The revisionists were the people who controlled the libraries, and did things like the 4th century revision of Ignatius, emendation of Josephus, and very early dates for things with the word “Saint” in front of them.

The texts about women keeping their mouths shut are supposedly the “command of the lord.” The text also says you can’t have your own interpretation. If you’re going to expurgate the text to do away with those things, why not just believe in “love thy neighbor” and throw out all of the remaining baggage?

What’s so lovable about the God of the Bible or the Jesus who supposedly issued the threats in Revelation?

Maani:

I think we’ve discussed this topic before, and I didn’t agree with you then. You say that Jesus was only about peace, but please remember the Jesus of Matthew, who said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”

You may choose to interpret this passage differently than I do. That doesn’t change the brutal history of Christian civilization, or one word of “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching off to war.” Get with it. Don’t you know your buddies are gearing up for another one in Iran?

And if Jesus is so in love with peace, why did he also adore “the Father” so much? If you go through the Bible and count the number of people killed by the Father, you come up with 2,270,365. And that greatly underestimates God’s total death toll, since it only includes those killings for which a body count is provided. It does not include a count for the victims of Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc., with which he killed human beings. You should add tens of millions more if you want to include those souls. Also, don’t forget those killed in the crusades by his agents, millions of Jews killed by Hitler for being “Christ killers,” or millions of hottentots killed by the Dutch, who believed they had a new [tertiary] covenant with Christ to move into their promised land.

I would agree that we should not count the more than Afghans and Iraqis killed in our latest holy wars. That was all after the whole world was taught about your peace loving Jesus.

How many human beings were killed by “The Satan” in the Bible? We can only find ten (all in Job 1). And those killings, he also shares with “the Father,” because Yahweh instructed “The Satan” go go do it. The Satan was not a dweller of the netherworld at that time, but a member of the Lord’s court. He only became the master of hell after the Greeks had their way with Biblical truth, as I’ve also pointed out.

Throughout the remainder of history, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anybody who killed in the name of Satan. Occasionally some teenagers freak out and sacrifice a black cat on Halloween. It’s a holiday that probably wouldn’t exist if not for superstitions like yours.

The very last story of the Bible is a tale of future events, in which the Father will do even more killing. Following a prolonged series of very nasty plagues that he causes, he ends human history. Once and for all, he tosses everybody who does not agree with him into the lake of fire (today that number would be about 6.5 billion minus the 144,000 who get a border of red on their glistening white garments). The father even wakes up the dead (including the ones he recently killed), so he can kill them a second time! This was supposedly the “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him” and he then he gave to John.

Not your favorite Jesus? Mine either, but it’s all good. You can make up some story of your own, bind it in leather, and in a few decades people will think it’s the absolute truth. It worked for the Book of Mormon.

Have a Nice Day

PS: If you love truth, justice, etc., why would you need this Jesus to begin with? I’d rather believe that we all live and die just once (the love we receive equal to the love we give). I’d rather not think that anybody will ever suffer and die twice, just for falling short of the “glory” of your murdering God.

The following historians of that period did not mention Jesus or his cult:

Dio Chrysostom, Dion of Prusa or Dio Cocceianus (ca. 40–ca. 120): Greek orator, writer, philosopher and historian of the Roman Empire.

Justus of Tiberias (second half of first century AD): wrote a chronicle of the Jewish people from Moses to Agrippa II; blamed Josephus for the troubles in Galilee.

Livy or Titus Livius (59 BC – AD 17): wrote Ab Urbe Condita, a history of Rome from around 753 BC through the reign of Augustus.

Lucius Anneus Florus (Time of Trajan and Hadrian [ca. 53-ca. 138]): Author of Epitome de T. Livio Bellorum omnium annorum DCC Libri duo, a brief sketch of Rome from around 753 BC to the closing of the temple 25 BC); also identified as the poet Publius Annus Florus.

Philo or Philo of Alexandria or Philo Judaeus (20 BC - 50 AD): Philo used allegory to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. There is record that the early Christians enthusiastically received Philo, but he never mentioned them.

Phlegon of Tralles (Second Century AD): Author of the Olympiads, sixteen books of history covering 776 BC to AD 137. Also of interest was his book On Marvels, with stories about ghosts, prophecies by heads, Siamese twins, hermaphrodites and giant skeletons. A lover of the fantastic might have been expected to mention several resurrections.

Pliny the Elder or Caius Plinius Secundus, (AD 23 – August 24, AD 79): Natural philosopher and military commander who wrote Naturalis Historia. Famous for saying “True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.” But he never wrote one word about the “glory” of Jesus or supposed doings, or of his followers.”

Plutarch or Mestrius Plutarchus (46 AD - 120 AD):  Wrote primarily about Lives of Greeks and comparable Romans. There are many lost Lives. His works contain many details absent in other sources. He also dedicated a great deal of effort to discussing the moral character of great men. The Lives would have been a great opportunity to plug the tremendous moral character of the “historical” Jesus, whom the NT portrays as more Greek than Hebrew.

Quintilian or Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (ca. 35 – ca. 100): Wrote a twelve-volume textbook on Rhetoric titled, Institutio Oratoria. What, and he didn’t mention the greatest Preacher of them all?

Quintus Curtius or Quintus Curtius Rufus (reign of Emperor Claudius [41-54 CE]): Wrote Historiae Alexandri Magni, a ten-volume biography of Alexander the Great. Two volumes are lost, and the remaining are incomplete. Ignorant of geography, chronology and technical military knowledge. Focused on character without mentioning the (supposedly) greatest character in history.

Seneca The Elder or Lucius or Marcus, Annaeus Seneca (ca. 54 BC- ca. 39 AD): Wrote a history of Rome from the beginning of the civil wars almost down to his own death, after which it was published by his son. Also wrote ten books of imaginary legal cases called Controversiae.

I’ve seen lists with many other names that I’ve been unable to confirm. Others were poets or geographers I could confirm, but whom I didn’t think deserved inclusion. 

While it would be very easy for the Church to destroy writings of somebody who disputed the historicity of a Rabbi named Jesus, it would be a lot harder for them to add mention of Jesus and his cult. Then you end up with the kind of thing that appears in Josephus.

Come on, Joan! You know better than that. You said you were a philosophy teacher. You must understand logic. You can’t really decide that something did happen because of what you don’t see. You can guess that something didn’t happen because of what you do or don’t see though.  Extrordinary claims demand extrordinary evidence, and so forth.

I’m willing to say maybe there was a Rabbi named Jesus. So what if there was? I also think it’s fair to be skeptical that Jesus ever lived. There’s good evidence that there was a would-be messiah named Theudus, whom the Romans beheaded. Maybe somebody with a lisp tried to say Theudus and it sounded like Jesus, and he also had a very active imagination, so now we have all of these stories.

Even if I do allow for a Rabbi named Jesus, I’m certainly not going to conclude that he raised people from the dead. People who die stay dead everywhere but in fiction. I’m not going to believe he cured diseases by casting out demons. No disease has ever been caused by a demon. Demons only exist in the mind of superstitious people. I’m not going to believe the other things that follow, like ascent into heaven in bodily form. I’m certainly not going to believe he was the creator of the universe, walking around in sandals!

You’re right. I won’t give your argument from lack of evidence any weight. You’re insisting that silence of the historians (I’ve listed them below) is evidence that the Gospel accounts are indisputable. Maybe the gospel accounts were just ignored for the first three centuries because they weren’t considered significant, or they were thought to be “figurative” from the start. It’s also possible that historians who heard didn’t make it a priority to pay for copies, and then waste paper disputing such unbelievable stories. The stories did a good job of discrediting themselves. Paper wasn’t cheap back then, so perhaps the historians had a policy of focusing on less fantastic material.

Haven’t you ever just ignored somebody because what they said was too crazy to even dignify it with a response?

And here we go again with fallacious comparison to theoretical physics. Feynman may have an argument that’s convincing, mathematically. I don’t know because I’m not a physicist or mathematician. Because of the physics homework, this may seem worthwhile enough to try to devise instruments for testing the idea. No serious scientist will worry too much about the particles before tests can be devised though. We’re not going to fall down and woship them, that’s for sure.

It sounds like the kind of thing a “young earth” creationist would love. Yahweh created a universe that’s 78 billion lightyears in every direction, and expanding (just to F#$% with our heads and test our faith in the Word), then created particles that travel backwards in time so the speed of light can’t be used to reliably measure its age. Then he appeared on this one little planet so he could do a magic act and come back to life after being dead for more than a day. Wow! That makes this little earth (and me) seem way more important than I ever previously thought.

I definitely don’t see the cosmos as something that’s “precisely coordinated” to support human life. I see struggle for survival, and a tremendous amount of suffering around the world.  The poor beasts are even worse off than humans. I have been very lucky. Others have not. I find great fault with the idea that this was all deliberate and I was “chosen” for some reason. It must be random, and I’m just lucky to have had such a good life.

If you claim Christianity, it shoves you into a box. People point out scriptures you’re supposed to abide by, or ask you to go fight a war. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Stand up and salute. Kneel down and pray. Don’t you dare revile the Great Leader. Don’t use vulgarisms. Keep your shirt buttoned up.

Christ’s death provides “salvation” and “redemption” from what? Only the very fear it creates! It’s like paying the mob for protection. Name one other other thing it “saves” me from, and I’ll name a bunch of BS that it compels me into—a way of life I can’t stand. How about going to church (which is boring as hell)? “Do not neglect the assembling of yourselves together as is the habit of some.” Hebrews 10:25.

How about paying tithes or offerings to those who conduct that boring BS? “Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.” 1 Cor. 9:13-14.

Money have I none. What I have is kids to put through college and a tase for expensive wines. I also work my ass off, and I want my reward for doing it to be a nice house, car, furniture and clothing. Occasionally I contribute to fundraisers, food bank, toys for tots, etc. When most people approach me with their hand out though, my answer is “I gave at the office!” It’s a different age we live in, with welfare being paid for out of our tax dollars and thousands being taken away every year for that and holy wars.

Love of money is supposed to be the root of all sorts of evil (I Timothy 6:10), and it’s real convenient for the church to tell you that, then ask you to give yours to them. But money is what I get in exchange for the hours of my life that I spend at work. If I don’t love money, I don’t love my own life. Of course, I’m not supposed to do that either. I’m supposed to “take up my cross and follow him.”

[Demanding money for goods and services is the best way to deal with one another. The only alternative is coercion—providing goods and services because you have a gun in your face. I love money. Bible lovers have historically favored slavery.]

Perhaps Joan would like to comment on some other aspects of expected Christian behavior:

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Corinthians 14:33-38).

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (I Timothy 2:10-14).

Maybe she wouldn’t mind giving up her jewelry and makeup. She could walk around like an SDA woman from Australia. “I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.” I Timothy 2:9.

The injunction against pre-marital sex just interferes with what people want to do with their own bodies. It manufactures guilt over something people shouldn’t feel guilty about. The Church continues to shpeel this BS in the third world where the only thing taught should be condom use.

And where in the hell we get the law, in some US states, that the “missionary position” is the only proper way for a husband and wife to make love? From the Church, of course. Those paternalistic SOBs want to govern what goes on in my bedroom? I wish there was a hell so they could all just go there. My wife and I are going to keep doing it real nice and nasty.

The injuction against divorce remains, along with the Sarlet Letter. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” If somebody can’t stand spending the rest of their life with somebody else, the situation should be permitted to end. Common sense dictates an equitable arrangement with regard to property and child custody. It isn’t always the outcome of the courts, and men typically get the shaft, even if it’s the woman decides to quit the marriage.  That is mostly because of the passages above telling women to keep quiet, which made also men responsible for their welfare.

I’m revolted by the idea of sex with a man, but I must admit that homosexuality has become socially acceptable. There also seems to be some evidence that people are born into it. It isn’t moral, according to the NT though (Romans 1). This passage also appears to prohibit anal sex. As if that’s anybody’s business but two people behind a closed door.

Any of these things can be and are moralized over constantly by the clergy, because they are the sacred word. The clergy are just other people sticking their noses into people’s lives because they are invited to do so, to say what morality is or what Jesus would do. There’s no other good reason. The priests are the absolute worst.

The unnecessary “faith v. science” propaganda of the latter day Christians is a prime example of the box you get shoved into once you claim the faith. Scientific discoveries may have seemed like an outgrowth of faith on the part of some people. I’m inclined to think that those people accomplished what they did in spite of faith. Or maybe people simply would have done those things with or without faith. There are many people who manage to produce while having very strange beliefs. I’ve known a few who are so heavenly minded that they’re no earthly good.

Joan and Maani:

Your responses were predictable and catholic (in the adjectival sense I described). Your method of reasoning allows you to maintain faith in something there’s every reason to disbelieve.
Let me reason a different way: Let’s suppose that 300 years from now the Encyclopedia of North American Sports History says that in 2007 the Red Sox beat the Rockies in the World Series. The Encyclopedia has various statistics about the game, etc., but says nothing terribly surprising. Why not believe it? Somebody then hands you a book, recently published, that says the Red Sox beat the Rockies in2007, and the final game was delayed because a flying saucer landed in the infield, and little green men came out demanding to see the President of the United States. Which account should you believe? Imagine the story offers, as evidence, that everybody in the stands witnessed this, but it never gives a single name or corroborated testimony. Imagine it also says that the little green men are now assisting our Government, and it is our manifest destiny to control the world, but only a select few are allowed to talk to the little green men. Imagine the book tells you it’s the most important truth in life, and that faith in it is the key to eternal happiness. Ask the people in your Bible study class what they think of that scenario, Maani! It’s a better analogy than remembrance of the BMOC.
Conflicting stories about the BMOC would be innocuous. I was never asked to dedicate my entire existence to the BMOC, to believe that his death is the answer to every question, to live by his idea of what constitutes true morality, decide which science is true or false based on the writings of his forbears, or worse, to decide when to go to war against other peoples who teach differently, with the high ideal in mind of giving up my life for the cause.
Your three types of scripture are very convenient. Those categories can be used to make the whole collection essentially impervious to logical analysis. Whenever there’s something that evidence backs up, you say, “Look how the LORD is bringing the truth to light.” Whenever something is blatantly wrong, it was just “figurative.” Things that haven’t been tested yet are automatically true. Severe criticism is always based on “mere human wisdom.” Lack of faith is just evidence that you are in love with sin.
The boy with epilepsy (Mark 9), cured by the casting out of a squealing demon—truth or figure? The resurrection of dead people—truth or figure? Bodily ascent into the clouds—truth or figure? How about going back to the beginning. . . an earth hewn out of a watery “deep” and existing before the sun (Gen 1)—truth or figure? Yahweh battling Leviathan in the “deep” (Job 41)—truth or figure? Jonah visiting the “deep” in the belly of a fish—truth or figure? Jesus calming the surface of the waves—truth or figure? And if that one was figure, why believe any of the other miracles? Let’s go to prediction of the end. . . a new world with no ocean (Rev 21)—truth or figure? What will the new creation look like, or is it a spiritual realm? Should I even care? Why would I want to spend eternity with a god who ever required blood sacrifice? Or was that just figurative too?

What is the mechanism by which faith in a blood sacrifice gives me eternal life? Do I change the mind of the creator of this universe? Was this universe created by an invisible man who watches everything I do and requires a scapegoat? Was that scapegoat a man in sandals who lived on a very small piece of land, thousands of miles away from my home, and thousands of years ago, and who wasn’t mentioned in the history books? I think it’s all figurative, fictional and absurd.

Have a nice day.

Joan and Maani:

Your allegories are not very helpful, in the way you used them. However, Joan’s scenario presents a very real possibility. Fric and Frac from Xenex find books, videos and recorded blogs saying that Muslim fanatics never drove airplanes into the twin towers and Pentagon. The airplanes that disappeared were taken somewhere else and the people were disposed of. Then agents of the U.S. Government piloted unmanned aerial vehicles laden with explosives into the twin towers, and then also set off explosives that were pre-planted in the buildings. They also flew a missile into their own command center, the Pentagon. Lots of people died on that day, but no Jews. They were all forewarned to stay home from work.

Translation from ancient languages will be the least of their problems. The real problem will be looking at all of the physial evidence, analysis that was done by engineers, historians, etc., and then deciding what happened based on the most believable accounts and reduction of data. Without question, they will be able to determine that something flew into the twin towers, and they came down. Reducto ad absurdum will probably convince them that madmen committed the acts.

A better way to look at this is to not to consider the life of Jesus and his mythical works of wonder, but an important building that all historical accounts said existed and then fell. We know that the Second Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in CE 70.

However, if 300 years from now, somebody steps forward in a $3,000 Halloween costume with a tall hat, and says that 40 years before the twin towers fell, there was a man roaming around the United States, curing diseases by casting out demons, raising the dead, and turning water into wine, and that he had left one man in charge of the earth (the predecessor of the man in the costume, through the laying-on of hands). . . . You get my point.

The gospel writers told many interesting stories. Their tales have been disputed since the day they surfaced. And let’s not forget that there was a long period in history, beginning at a key juncture, when you would risk death by torture if you questioned one word of the cannon.

It’s very revealing that dozens of historians recorded the events of that period. None of them make credible mention of Jesus or even Christianity. I will list them under separate cover. 

It’s no use poisoning the Harris, Dawkins, Hitchins well. Their books are bestsellers for a reason. I have listened to Harris. I just don’t remember him saying anything specific about the NT. I reiterate that I recommend The End of Faith and Hithins’ God is Not Great to anybody who is questioning their beliefs. There’s very good news. According to a recent news story, that is at least 44 percent of Americans. They have either changed religions or given up religion altogether. Perhaps Popper is right, and episteme is dead. Hopefully the day will come when the vast majority of people believe only in things there’s reason to believe, and that won’t include magic, even if it is described in a leather-bound book with gold foil on the edges.

PS: I never read anything Dawkins or Harris said about the NT. I studied theology at a Christian institution and made up my own mind after considering the textual and historical evidence.

There’s no way for it to make sense unless you “wrest the scriptures,” and change things from what they say to what they specifically do not say or rule out. You can also decide that the contradictions really shouldn’t affect faith in the story. We have a special word for that—“catholic,” used as an adjective. It’s just not the way I think.

Maani:

There may have been a traveling Rabbi named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans during Pontius Pilate’s rule. I don’t think it’s an absolute certainty. The gospels can hardly be called historical. They were written by anonymous authors, probably living quite far from the area, after the fall of Jerusalem. Problems affecting their credibility are almost countless.

Josephus’ history of the period is very large, and there is only one brief mention of the Christian cult. That passage appears only in Greek translations controlled by the Church, and has obviously been tainted by emendation. Its authenticity has been called into question since the day it was first quoted by Eusebius in 324 AD.

Even if you were to have picked up a copy of one of the gospels in the second century, you couldn’t have called it “history.” You would have to lend it credibility based on faith, or decide there’s no reason to believe any of it. The same is true of many claims in Paul and the pastorals.

Pick a book. You don’t get very far before you start to have doubts. Matthew and Luke both open by saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. Right there we have good reason to consider the books very nice works of fiction. Then, when you compare books, you notice that the gospel writers cannot agree with one another. They all copy Mark and the hypothetical source, “Q.” Then they add their own, confilicting stories of the nativity, death and resurrection.

Mark is the oldest by textual evidence, so I’ll use it as a baseline.

Matthew says Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Egypt from Bethlehem until the death of Herod, to escape the “massacre of the innocents,” and then they returned to Nazareth. Luke says they went from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for the circumcision of Jesus, then they went to Nazareth. The historicity of the “massacre of the innocents” is highly questionable anyway. No other contemporary source mentions it, and I find it impossible that they would fail to mention Herod ordering up the slaughter of all Jewish boys under two years old.

In what order did Jesus meet his disciples? Matthew and Mark say he met Andrew and Simon at the same time, as they were casting nets, then they met James and John. The book of John says he met Andrew and “one other,” Andrew then went and found Simon and brought him to Jesus, then they met Philip and Nathanael. 

Mark says Jesus’ first miracles were the casting out of demons and healings in Capernaum. John makes a big deal of saying that turning water into wine was the “first of his miraculous signs.”

The stories of Jesus calming the wind and waves (Mark 4) and walking on the water (Mark 6) are very mythological. They harken back to the day of creation and primordial battles with Rahab (or Leviathan).

In Mark 5 Jesus cast a legion of demons out of a man, making them enter a herd of 2,000 pigs, which ran off and drowned in the lake. If it was known that the pigs acted on his command, he would have been held accountable for destruction of enormously valuable property, not just asked to leave the area.

In Mark 5 Jesus also resurrected a dead 12 year-old girl. Unbelievable.

Mark 9—The transfiguration, Elijah and Moses appear beside Jesus. Very mythological!

In Mark 9 a boy has epilepsy. Jesus heals him by casting out a demon. Epilepsy is not caused by demons.

Mark 11—“The Triumphal Entry” In John this happens five days before Passover. Jews hailing Jesus as king and chanting “Hosannah” would have been met with immediate violence by Pontius Pilate. In CE 45 a would-be messiah named Theudas claimed he was going to cross the Jordan with dry feet and liberate Israel. The Romans beheaded him and killed many of his followers, and the group disbanded. This is an example of an authentic messiah story by Josephus, by the way.

The portrait of Pilate as symathetic is contrary to the only other contemporary accounts. Philo of Alexandria and Josephus both say Pilate was removed from office for being excessively brutal. The NT makes him appear incompetent and wishy-washy. He wanted to release Jesus but only executed him because he was intimidated by the Jews?”

The clearing of the Temple. Mark has it after the “Triumphal Entry” to Jerusalem. John has it much earlier, before most of his miracles in