Readers’ Responses to Our Question (80)

Moody,
You are almost correct. Jesus was sent FIRST to the nation of Israel.

But, as the Bible indicates, his coming to the earth would eventually benefit all mankind

God's Word, the Bible, promises everlasting life under perfect conditions on earth. (Luke 23:43; John 17:3) And it is available to all who desire it. "[God's] will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth."(1 Timothy 2:3, 4).

The apostle Paul wrote: "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

Jesus' death is a means of rescuing "everyone exercising faith" in him from sin, disease, old age, and death itself. Jesus himself said: "God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

djKXeK U cool ))

djKXeK U cool ))

Jesus (a.s.) was sent ONLY for Banu Israel(nation of Israel).

To the west are you from Israel?????

The answer is NO!

SO AT THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT WHEN YOU WILL BE ASKED WHOSE NATION ARE YOU FROM, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO REPLY????????????

Jesus doesn’t need to be reincarnated. He came to earth to fulfill a purpose and he fulfilled that purpose.

The real question is, who is Jesus Christ?

In the Hebrew and Greek languages, the words usually translated “Messiah” and “Christ” mean “Anointed One.” Jesus was the Anointed One, or the Chosen One of God—the promised Leader. The Scriptures contained prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the Jews at the time were in expectation of him. Luke 3:15: “Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John {John the Baptist}: “May he perhaps be the Christ?”
The Bible shows that Jesus really was God’s Chosen One. In the year 29 C.E. when Jesus was 30 years of age, he went to John the Baptizer to be baptized by him in the waters of the Jordan River. The Bible states: “After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: ‘This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’” (Matthew 3:16, 17)
By pouring out His holy spirit on Jesus, Jehovah God anointed him, or appointed him, to be the King of His coming Kingdom. Thus, Jesus became Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Anointed One.
Jesus’ life course might be divided into three stages. The first began long before his human birth. His origin was “from early times, from the days of time indefinite,” says Micah 5:2. Jesus himself said: “I am from the realms above”—that is, from heaven. (John 8:23) He had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.
Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Jesus was his first creation. The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. Therefore, he is called God’s “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) The firstborn Son also bears the title “the Word” (John 1:14) because before being born as a human, he served in heaven as one who spoke for God.
“The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”
That close association with Jehovah for untold ages deeply affected God’s Son. This obedient Son came to be just like his Father, Jehovah. In fact, Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God.” This is one reason why knowledge about Jesus is vital in satisfying our spiritual need and our natural desire to know God. Everything Jesus did while on earth is exactly what Jehovah expected him to do. Getting to know Jesus also means increasing our knowledge of Jehovah. (John 8:28; 14:8-10)
The second stage of Jesus’ life course began when God sent his Son to the earth. Jehovah did this by miraculously transferring the life of Jesus from heaven to the womb of a faithful Jewish virgin named Mary. Jesus inherited no imperfections because he did not have a human father. Jehovah’s holy spirit, or active force, came upon Mary, and his power ‘overshadowed’ her, miraculously causing her to become pregnant. (Luke 1:34, 35) Mary therefore gave birth to a perfect child. As the adopted son of the carpenter Joseph, he was brought up in a humble home and was the first of several children in the family.—Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22, 23; Mark 6:3.
Little is known about Jesus’ childhood. When Jesus was 12 years old, his parents took him on their annual visit to Jerusalem for the Passover. While there, he spent quite some time at the temple, “sitting in the midst of the teachers and listening to them and questioning them.” “All those listening to him were in constant amazement at his understanding and his answers.” The young Jesus could not only ask thought-provoking, spiritually oriented questions but also give intelligent answers that amazed others. (Luke 2:41-50) As he grew up in the city of Nazareth, he learned to be a carpenter, undoubtedly from his adoptive father, Joseph.—Matthew 13:55.
Jesus lived in Nazareth until he was 30 years old. Then he went to John to be baptized. Following his baptism, Jesus embarked on his dynamic ministry. For three and a half years, he traveled throughout his homeland declaring the good news of God’s Kingdom. He gave evidence that he had been sent by God by performing many miracles—powerful works that were beyond human ability.—Matthew 4:17; Luke 19:37, 38.
Jesus devoted his energy to his God-assigned work. He was also a man of tender warmth and deep feelings. His tenderness was especially evident in the way he viewed and treated others. Because Jesus was approachable and kind, people were attracted to him. Even children felt at ease in his presence. (Mark 10:13-16) Jesus treated women with respect, even though some in his day looked down on them. (John 4:9, 27) He helped the poor and oppressed to ‘find refreshment for their souls.’ (Matthew 11:28-30) His manner of teaching was clear, simple, and practical. And what he taught reflected his heartfelt desire to acquaint his listeners with the true God, Jehovah.—John 17:6-8.
Using God’s holy spirit to perform miracles, Jesus compassionately healed the sick and the afflicted. (Matthew 15:30, 31)Jesus even willingly gave his perfect human life so that imperfect mankind would have a hope for the future. Jesus had profound love for people.
Jesus died on a torture stake at the age of 33 1/2. But death was not the end of his life course. The third stage of his life began about three days later when Jehovah God resurrected his Son as a spirit person. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people living in the first century C.E. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) Thereafter, he “sat down at the right hand of God” and waited to receive kingly power. (Hebrews 10:12, 13) When that time came, Jesus began ruling as King. Jesus today is neither a man nor God Almighty. He is a mighty spirit creature, a reigning King. Very soon now, he will manifest his rulership over our troubled earth.
Using symbolic language, Revelation 19:11-16 describes Jesus Christ as a king seated upon a white horse and coming to judge and carry on war in righteousness. He has “a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it.” Jesus will use his great power to destroy the wicked. He and his Father will preserve those, who strive to follow the example he set while on earth, through the upcoming “war of the great day of God the Almighty”—often called Armageddon—so that they can live forever as earthly subjects of God’s heavenly Kingdom.—Revelation 7:9, 14; 16:14, 16; 21:3, 4.
During his reign of peace, Jesus will miracles perform in behalf of all mankind. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; 11:1-10) He will cure sickness and bring an end to death. Jesus will be used by God to resurrect billions, giving them an opportunity to live forever on earth. (John 5:28, 29)

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

CONCEPT OF GOD IN CHRISTIANITY
by Dr. Zakir Naik

I
Position of Jesus (pbuh) in Islam:

(i)
Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh).

(ii)
We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt).

(iii)
We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe.

(iv)
We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh).


(v)
We believe that he gave life to the dead with God’s permission.

(iv)
We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God’s permission.

II
CONCEPT OF GOD IN CHRISTIANITY:

1.
Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity

One may ask, if both Muslims and Christians love and respect Jesus (pbuh), where exactly is the parting of ways? The major difference between Islam and Christianity is the Christians’ insistence on the supposed divinity of Christ (pbuh). A study of the Christian scriptures reveals that Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, "I am God" or where he says, "worship me". In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the contrary. The following statements in the Bible are attributed to Jesus Christ (pbuh):

(i) "My Father is greater than I."
[The Bible, John 14:28]

(ii) "My Father is greater than all."
[The Bible, John 10:29]

(iii) "…I cast out devils by the Spirit of God…."
[The Bible, Mathew 12:28]

(iv) "…I with the finger of God cast out devils…."
[The Bible, Luke 11:20]

(v) "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
[The Bible, John 5:30]


2.
The Mission of Jesus Christ (pbuh) – to Fulfill the Law

Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity for himself. He clearly announced the nature of his mission. Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God to confirm the previous Judaic law. This is clearly evident in the following statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of Mathew:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
[The Bible, Mathew 5:17-20]


3.
God Sent Jesus' (pbuh)

The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following verses:

(i)
"… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."
[The Bible, John 14:24]


(ii)
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent."
[The Bible, John 17:3]


4.
Jesus Refuted even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity

Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:

"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: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]

Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).


5.
Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth – a Man Approved of God

The following statement from the Bible supports the Islamic belief that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of God.

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."
[The Bible, Acts 2:22]


6.
The First Commandment is that God is One

The Bible does not support the Christian belief in trinity at all. One of the scribes once asked Jesus (pbuh) as to which was the first commandment of all, to which Jesus (pbuh) merely repeated what Moses (pbuh) had said earlier:

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad."

This is a Hebrew quotation, which means:

"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."
[The Bible, Mark 12:29]

It is striking that the basic teachings of the Church such as Trinity and vicarious atonement find no mention in the Bible. In fact, various verses of the Bible point to Jesus’ (pbuh) actual mission, which was to fulfill the law revealed to Prophet Moses (pbuh). Indeed Jesus (pbuh) rejected any suggestions that attributed divinity to him, and explained his miracles as the power of the One True God.

Jesus (pbuh) thus reiterated the message of monotheism that was given by all earlier prophets of Almighty God.

NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.

III
CONCEPT OF GOD IN OLD TESTAMENT:

1.
God is One

The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses (pbuh):

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad".
It is a Hebrew quotation which means:
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]


2.
Unity of God in the Book of Isaiah

The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:

(i)
"I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]


(ii)
"I am Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 45:5]


(iii)
"I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]


3.
Old Testament condemns idol worship


(i)
Old Testament condemns idol worship in the following verses:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]


(ii)
A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]

INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM
by Dr. Zakir Naik

(I) INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM:

Judaism is one of the important Semitic religions. Its followers are known as Jews and they believe in the prophetic mission of Prophet Moses (pbuh).

(II) CONCEPT OF GOD IN JUDAISM:

(i) The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses (pbuh):

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad"

It is a Hebrew quotation which means:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]

The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:

(ii) "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]

(iii) "I am Lord, and there is none else There is no God besides me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 45 : 5]

(iv) "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]

(v) Judaism condemns idol worship in the following verses:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]

(iv) A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]

In Judaism too, we find the same thread of monotheism, that is seen in other religions.

(III) MUHAMMAD IN JEWISH SCRIPTURES (THE OLD TESTAMENT):

1) Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the book of Deuteronomy:

a) God Almighty speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

b) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is like Moses (pbuh):

i) Both had a father and a mother.

ii) Both were married and had children.

iii) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime.

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment.

v) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people.

vi) Both died a natural death.

c) Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac. The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

d) Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from God Almighty he repeated it verbatim.

Deuteronomy (18:18):

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

2) Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, ‘Read this, I pray thee’; and he saith, ‘I am not learned’.

"When Archangel Gabriel commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying ‘Iqra’, he replied "I am not learned".

3) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon

chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehrace Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: ye, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughter of Jerusalem."

All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians (H Q. 61:6).

Apart from this guy being stark raving mad, I always thought that the second coming of Jesus would only occurr after the Jews rebuilt their temple (as described in the Bible) and judgement day was upon us?

Sorry, I meant Chip!

Chris,

You are absolutely right! I lived as an atheist for many years, but the feeling wasn't right either. Then a few years ago it struck me, it wasn't that I couldn't believe in god, it was that I couldn't believe in religion.

I now created my very own god based on what made sense to me and I'm very content with my belief. I don't have to pray, go to church, read religious texts, I just need to live what is commonly considered a ethical and moral life. Secular ethics and morals, that is.

This may have been a silly question but it certainly spawned an entertaining thread. I'm rather sad to see it drop off the front page so quickly.

Gaby and E Fav, thanks! I cracked myself up with that one. E Fav, as far as I know it's original, but who knows where half the stuff rattling around in my brain came from.

I think atheism is both more difficult and easier than faith, depending on what angle you view it from. I struggled with religion when I was a kid. It just never made sense to me, and I always had that same feeling I had about Santa and the Tooth Fairy - that adults were trying to pull my leg. I intuitively felt insulted by it. I like what Hitchens said in his recent video interview about coming to realize that he never believed rather than losing belief. When I came to that realization myself it was like the lifting of an enormous burden and the world opened up before me. On the other hand, atheism provides no simple answers and offers no easy reassurances, and the knowledge that this is likely the one and only life we get, for better or worse, can both make everything more meaningful or more tragic, depending on the luck of the draw.

DITLD,

Deep thoughts yet again. The nature of truth in the context of faith. Hmmmm...

Here we are a day later, and this topic has drawn columns from only 5 of On Faith's regular columnists...and nary a column from any of the contributors who I find compelling.

Gentlemen, I believe we have a loser (of a topic, that is).

This is for Jihadist

You, and many Muslims, seem to set a great store by the fact that Islam does not have a "trinity" of Gods, like Christianity, but only one true God, known as Allah.

I have often made the comment that Christianity and Islam are mirrors of each other; this is why:

The "trinity" is a very complicated theological explanation; most Christians, like most Muslims, are not theologians. Most Christians do not know anything at all, not a thing, about the theological meaning of the trinity; most Christians think of God, in EXACTLY the same way that you think of Allah, and most Muslims think of Mohammed in EXACTLY the same way that Christians think of Jesus. Most Christians venerate the Bible as a special and holy object, but most Christians seldom, if ever, read the Bible; most Christians know a very few famous verses from the Bible, and some know particular verses that promote a particular political agenda, but that is about it. Is this also true of Islam and the Koran?

In that case, wouldn't you agree that they are mirrors of each other?

Mary Cunningham writes:

"But hey! I wrote that earlier...don't want to repeat myself like CCNL--God, can you imagine anything worse?"

You realize, don't you, Mary, that you just took the Lord's name in vain? Last I looked, that's breaking the Second Commandment.

Three "Hail Marys" and a week in a hair shirt fro you, my dear.

I think that the more that a relgious belief approaches fundamentalism, the easier it becomes, which is, in fact, its purpose, less thinking to do about "things" and more peace of mind.

Mary Cunningham has an extremely odd way of looking at the world, from my Protestant point of view. Merely declaring things does not make them so. Merely stating that a Catholic cannot have an "unapproved idea or belief" does not mean anything, since Catholic belief is quite varied, in this modern world where the Catholic Church has no political power at all, to enforece its doctrine; people are bound to bubble over with their own thoughts.

I would like to ask Mary Cunningham, what do you do if you do not believe something that Catholics "must" beleive? Does that never happen? If that never happens, how do you always maintain inner compliance with what you are told to believe? Do you just make up your mind in advance to mental conformity, no matter what? I do not see how you can do that. When I have a doubt about something, I cannot wish it away; it stays until I can resolve it.

Jihadist seems to think that people pick and choose their beliefs, that atheists, do not believe in God because it is easy. But whether it is easy or difficult is a side issue and not relevant; atheists do not believe in God, well, because they do not believe in God. It is a belief, which you wish they had, or which you suppose is normal for everyone to have, that they do not have. You only notice it because you think they should have it; you are noticing its absence; you think there is a hole in their beliefs, when they just experience "their belief" by not experiencing anything.

To me, truth is somehow related to utility derived from the order of the universe. If you say that you have the truth about God, or about Jesus, or about Mohammed, then you are using the wrong words. If you were only using the wrong word, it would just be semantics. But it is often more than that; it is often a confusion of concepts.

If you believe in God, then that is something that you hope is true. If you have faith in something, it is what you belief without knowing that it is true. This is called the "Faith Forum" not the knowledge forum. When a person becomes confused over their own personal beliefs and universal truth, then they become intolerant. However, acknowledging the limitation of religious belief helps a person to be more humble and tolerant of others.

When a person says that he knows that God exists, he is attributing universal truth to his own subjective feelings, and he is then promoting what he would say he hates most, relative truth, that is different for each person.

Mary Cunningham: “I...don't want to repeat myself like CCNL--God, can you imagine anything worse? Endlessly pasting the same paras forever and ever throughout the blogosphere? Now *that* would be hell on earth for sure.”

Reminds me of those people who quote the same scripture over and over, except that CCNL’s material is fact based and he provides references that can easily be checked for accuracy and legitimacy. Actually, part of what I just wrote is a repeat of something I wrote a couple of days ago on the Jacoby thread – because its just as appropriate here as it was there. Considering that myth-based biblical material has been circulating for millenia, CCNL has a lot of catching up to do.

Jeff P – I’m still working on “Don’t Believe What you Think” and enjoying it thoroughly.

Chris Everett: I agree completely with your characterization of Religion v Atheism. However, for me, atheism is easier, just because it makes sense. Religion never made sense to me, even when I “believed” it. Whenever I thought about it in any depth (which was infrequent) I’d eventually just cut off the thoughts because they didn’t add up. Ultimately, checking the claims of Christianity and finding them unsupported by history came as a great relief.

It doesn’t matter to me that some things in the universe are unknown, and will probably remain that way. My mind was opened by no longer trying to make sense out of nonsense.

Chip: “I think religion is a lot like a box of Crackerjacks - mostly bits of puffed air with a candy coating, some nuts, and a cheap prize that turns out to be a disappointment.”

Brilliant – I’ll use it - with proper attribution, assuming it’s original – every chance I get.

Jeff P,

Thanks for the Chet Raymo link. I browsed his titles on Amazon and bought "Skeptics and True Believers: The Exhilarating Connection Between Science and Spirituality." How apropos can one get?!

Chris:

"I think religion is a lot like a box of Crackerjacks - mostly bits of puffed air with a candy coating, some nuts, and a cheap prize that turns out to be a disappointment."

I just loved your analogy!

Mary Cunniingham,

You say, "We believe in Christianity because it is true in itself."

Can't you see the absurdity of this statement?! You (mistakenly) took Mr. Mark to task for what you thought was a logical fallacy, but look at what you wrote: You believe it because it's true!!! Talk about begging the question!!! You say I set up a straw man, but you just demonstrated that the straw man is REAL and attired in WHOLE CLOTH!!!

Honestly, why DO you believe in Christianity? What is your selection criteria, and how do you relate the criteria to the concept of truth? What is it about Christianity that allows you to CONCLUDE that it is true, as opposed to all the other supposedly "false" religions, such as, say:

Unitarianism
Pentacostalism
Presbyterianism
Christian Scientist
Seventh Day Adventist
Quakerism
Amish
Mennonite
Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Sunni Muslim
Shiite Muslim
Orthodox Judaism
Conservative Judaism
Reform Judaism
Buddhism
Jainism
Hinduism
Sufi Muslim
Zoroastrianism
Paganism
Hellenism
Mormonism
Vissarionism
Scientology
Santaria
Voodoo

Well, Chris E. and other atheists I think what you're doing here is setting up a straw man:
religion = pat answers embellished over centuries, "convenient" answers to life's hard question

versus atheism=elegance and open ended knowledge.

But we don't believe in Christianity because it gives us anything material (it doesn't and certainly Christ never promised as much) and that includes answers about existence and suffering.

No, authentic religion is a duty owed to God because he exists. We believe in Christianity because it is true in itself. It is above all an account of the Creator and his involvement with his creation...

But hey! I wrote that earlier...don't want to repeat myself like CCNL--God, can you imagine anything worse? Endlessly pasting the same paras forever and ever throughout the blogosphere? Now *that* would be hell on earth for sure.

So I'll stop and say no more. Promise.

Jihadist,

You say (and have said), "surely athiesm is not hard or harder than belief? It is simple."

Atheism isn't simple - it's elegant. There's a difference.

"Simple" is having convenient answers to life's hard questions - regardless of whether those answers are consonant with experience. What is this universe? God's creation. Why are we here? God made us and put us here to praise him. Why is there suffering? Original sin. What is true? It's all right here in this book. And so on.

The fact that these pat answers have been embellished and embroidered over the centuries by the organizations that hold power does not make religion any less simple, just convoluted.

Atheism, on the other hand, is hard. What is this universe? Well, we've been studying it for centuries now and we've figured out the basic outlines going back around 14 billion years, but there's still alot we don't know, particularly what happened prior to the big bang, or what the big bang even was. Why are we here? Well, mechanistically we can explain our presence here through Darwinian evolution, but we still don't have a good handle on the molecular precursors to replicative life, and besides, the question is a teleological one, not a mechanistic one, and that gets into the nature of consciousness as a creator of meaning, along the lines of Sartre's "being for itself" as opposed to "being in itself," but the fact is we really don't know what consciousness is or how it arises, and it seems that we are all responsible for creating meaning in our own lives. Why is there suffering? Well, the question itself begs the idea that justice is the organizing principle of the universe, such that we all "get our just deserts," but the evidence indicates that that is nothing more than wishful thinking, and the truth is that we are all impacted by circumstance in ways that has no relation to any notion of moral culpability. What is true? Nature is true, but presents us with facts, not meaning, so it is up to us to discipline ourselves to the point where we can query nature in a sufficiently structured way that we might reveal its organizing principles, the existince of which, by the way, we can't even begin to explain... And so on.

Religion: Pat answers. God as explanation. The dull comfort of absolute certainty. Manufactured complexity.

Atheism: No answers, just evidence - you have to generate the answers from the evidence yourself. Science as explanation, but never absolute and always fundamentally mysterious. No certainty, only contingency. Nature's complexity.

It is all in the eye of the beholder, resp. in the brain of the believer. There is no other truth.

The source of religion is the limitation of our senses and the limitation of our knowledge, imagination and intelligence. We place some entity into the void and call it god, and since people are different, creeds consequently are and have always necessarily been different. And since people have to organize their social life somehow, religions spring up - all on the basis of a vacuum.

Funny, however, that people base the claim of "eternal truths" on such a shaky ground of ignorance. Funny. "Truths" based on the absence of insight, reason, knowledge, the absence of everything on which anybody can build the concept of human dignity. Religious truth is based solely on the lack of something, not on the affirmative perception of anything.

Tim: thanks for the Goodenough quote.

Wouldn't folks do well to read this brilliant lady, who relays such a spirituality about the observable "what is" that it would take a lifetime to appreciate simply those things that we CAN observe?!

I think it would answer a lot of questions that people have regarding "atheists surely can't appreciate a spirituality without god(s)" perceptions.

Also, if you like Ursula Goodenough, might I suggest anything by Professor Chet Raymo, his blog is

www.sciencemusings.com.

He's my daily dose of wisdom. Enjoy!

Mary Cunningham,

Getting back to the foundation basics:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

OBTW

Well, as I wrote previously OBTW, Thomas More really settled this question 500 years ago (and paid with his life,) John Henry Newman studied the middle way in the mid 1800's and converted to Catholicism, and more recently Edward Norman, former dean of Peterhouse College, Oxford, has studied this phenomenon and followed Newman's example.

This is not the place to discuss authority in the Catholic Church versus the Via Media but I would note currently the Anglican Church seems not so much a middle way as a muddied path.

Anyway, here is Edward Norman.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/misc/norman98.html

CCNL,
I'm well, thank you, mighty glad I have followed the inspiration that was emphasized by Gordon B Hinckley that said, "get out of debt as much as you can, prepare for the unexpected in your lives, live conservatively (including financial investments--excellent advice recently and in 2000); not unique advice, but if you let it sink in, then you are more apt to think to yourself, "Hey, I'd better be listening."

'Mighty glad also that I'm not inspired by those who use language to ridicule, defame, or to make it appear that the government will solve their problems from not having lived to prepare for the unexpected. Have as good a day as you can.

"Protestant—which btw is exactly what Henry was"

mary cunningham...

anglicans are NOT protestants. they are "via media" a middle path- not reformationists.

Jihadist writes: "On a another note, surely athiesm is not hard or harder than belief?"

I've spent about equal portions of my life as a Christian and then as an atheist.

Atheism is considerably more difficult. Don't listen to me though, try it and draw your own conclusions.

As for cognitive dissonance and delusion, I readily admit that religions, both organized and personal, meet some need that some, certainly not all, humans have. I suspect that a large portion of this 'need' is due to socialization. I fought through this personally. As I deconverted I struggled with the internal need for some god or grand scheme to believe in. The universe is a pretty different place when you don't have an invisible buddy that's in control of everything on your side. When I really got down to brass tacks I found that I had no such internal need and that what I perceived as an internal need was the result of socialization, the result of being told I had such a need.

I view those that legitimately feel that need as immature and needing special remedial mental health care (religion). As a bystander, the best I can do is hope for their eventual maturation into whole human beings.

The only difference between 'true' and 'false' revelation appears to be faith.

Well, let’s back up.

Core of Christianity

At its heart Christianity is dependent for its authority on uniquely revealed knowledge: an account of the Creator and his involvement with Creation, about human fallibility and redemption. This knowledge is primarily found in what Christians call the Old and New Testament, what others (like Henry James, a Mormon here, a Jew in Fr Reese’s blog) call the Hebrew and Greek Bibles.

Why do Protestants and Catholics Differ?

Ask a Catholic about some facet of Christianity and she will answer “The Church says...” Ask a Protestant the same question and he will answer: “The Bible says...”

The latter generally feels free to interpret what the Bible says which is why if he differs, say, with his pastor in said interpretation he can and often does found another church. There are some 30,000 Protestant churches all interpreting the Bible in various ways. The Catholic belongs to the Catholic Church, an institution that hews to a single interpretation which it then disseminates amongst the faithful.

If the Catholic differs with any facet of Church interpretation she cannot leave the Catholic Church and found another Church and *still* be called a Catholic. Oh! she might call herself a Catholic but the matter was settled 500 years ago in England when Thomas More wrote that even though Henry VIII proclaimed his church Catholic, if the Church in France or Spain and, especially, Rome did not agree then his church was not Catholic..A dissatisfied Catholic who leaves the church to found another becomes a Protestant—which btw is exactly what Henry was.

The Church speaking through its teaching office can modify doctrine—limbo is a good example—but individual Catholics cannot and do not...not if they wish to remain Catholic.

Re: belief in reincarnation in Judaism

I have little knowledge of the Kabbaleh but I do not believe it is an intrinsic part of rabbinical Judaism.

Re: the Siberian charlatan

Since no part of the New Testament talks of coming back in another body, either as an animal or another human, and since none of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible prophesized their own return in the same phenomenon, we can see that our Siberian friend’s assertion lies entirely outside the core beliefs of Christianity.

As I stated earlier he seems to be using a Buddhist model and fashioning himself as a Christian Dalai Lama, an oxymoron if there ever was one!

It;s been interesting, folks.

Regards
MC

Parker, Parker, Parker,

And how is everything doing in the land of "Mormon con" this morning???

The pope "lightened up" about infants going to limbo not purgatory. He failed to make limbo the myth that it is since that would completely eliminate the guilt trip of original sin. And what is the Catholic Church and Christianity and Mormonism without guilt trips and myths???

How can we distinguish "true" personal revelation from "false"? If we define the question narrowly to focus only on personal revelation, that is, an internal feeling that is alleged to be strongly felt and that is "sincerely" expressed as something "spiritual," then we can't distinguish the "true" revelation from the "false" revelation. All such revelations are equally valid and equally suspect, and we might just as well call these "revelations" hunches or delusions.

But sooner or later, someone who claims to have had a profound "revelation" will make a testable claim about the real world (a prediction, a prophecy, etc.) and will tie it to his or her revelations or alleged semi-divine status. Then the jig will be up. When a testable claim is made by one of these religious nutjobs, the claim is either coincidentally true (and often jejune), a good guess, or a lie.

I don't waste my time examining any of the claims of someone who claims to be the reincarnation of a mostly fictional character.

Jihadist wrote "On a another note, surely athiesm is not hard or harder than belief? It is simple. Did I not, somewhere in another thread, joshed that atheism is like a hamburger with all the trimmings excluded?"

Atheism doesn't preclude philosophy (quite the contrary), and that's a veritable smörgåsbord. Religions are like philosophy, just with most of the actual philosophy removed, substituted with supernatural claims and promises of reward.

Atheism can be low calorie or a burger so decked out with fixin's you'd need to unhinge your jaw to get a bite. There's no dogma to restrict what philosophical choices are available on the menu. The only things off limits are truth claims that can't be tested, and for most people, things that would cause harm to others (since that goes against human nature for all but sociopaths).

Look at the Bible, for example. If you cut out all the filler and just distill it down to the philosophical bits there's not a whole lot left. It's like a CliffsNotes version of a lightweight treatise on empathy. (Anyone know exactly how much Jefferson cut out of his edited bible and how much of what's left is biographical rather than philosophical?) The parables, talking shrubbery, flying brass bands, and all the rest don't give it any more substance. It simply masks its lack of nutritional value with colorful bits of marshmallow in interesting shapes. Even god's distilled version in the ten commandments contains several things of no nutritional value. No graven images is right up there with red dye #40.

I think religion is a lot like a box of Crackerjacks - mostly bits of puffed air with a candy coating, some nuts, and a cheap prize that turns out to be a disappointment.

Jeff-

Ursula Goodenough reminds me of Annie Dillard.

"The point of the dragonfly's terrible lip, the giant water bug, birdsong, or the beautiful dazzle and flash of sunlighted minnows, is not that it all fits together like clockwork- for it doesn't particularly, not even inside the goldfish bowl- but that it all flows so freely wild, like the creek, that it surges in such a free, fringed tangle. Freedom is the world's water and weather, the world's nourishment freely given, its soil and sap ...."

from Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek

Note about Henry James' comment:
I guess when HJ left Mormonism, they changed the definition of the word "revelation" or perhaps he wasn't paying attention when the idea of "personal revelation" was explained. I think every person who lives a good, moral life can receive revelation for the good of themselves and/or their family. Also, every inventor even in the midst of the trials and errors of their inventions, every participant in humanitarian aid seeking to find those needing help and to find ways to help them even amidst insurmountable odds. "Revelation" and "inspiration" are synonymous, and often require "perspiration".

So throw out HJ's "definition" of "Mormon revelation"--it's not as he described at all. I think the pope was inspired to lighten up about infants going to purgatory, and I hope he gets inspired to allow married priests, as that would be a good thing. "Whatsoever thing is good is inspired of Christ." The light of Christ is given to every person born into the world. Just because they don't acknowledge it or recognize the source, doesn't make the content of the inspiration any less true. Darwin's inpiration about the valid and important role religion plays in society was just that--inspiration. Call it revelation. Same difference.

This is a test feed, since server wasn't working before.

Jihadist:

Thanks again for your response. I expected there might be any number of the "weird" types of religionists who would find a following, but it was interesting to hear of the Teapot Cult folks.

And yes, I agree we all have those problems with cognitive dissonance: I'm guilty as charged. (Recent good book: "Mistakes were made, but not by me" by Tavris and Aronson--E-Favorite, did you finish it?)

My next re-read is a book by a biologist named Ursula Goodenough, called "The Sacred Depths of Nature." I would love for you to be able to read it (and let me know what you think,) and would be happy to send you a copy if you let me know how to do that. I think you would find it interesting, if not inspiring.

Dr. Goodenough is refreshingly innovative in her ability to show how a non-theistic approach to life can and does allow wonder, awe, & reverence (her coined phrase is "religious naturalism.")

I know this was a little off topic, but your post made me think of her book. I'd say Dr. Goodenough's book was one of the 10 best reads of my life--well worth the effort. Here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Depths-Nature-Ursula-Goodenough/dp/0195136292/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202352521&sr=8-1

Thanks again for your post, and I hope you have opportunity to read the book.

Hello Obfuscating Jihadist,

Hmmm, you noted problems with Christianity and Muslims subcults but again failed to address the flaws in your own religion.

So once again we address them for her:

1. Believes in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teaches her children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believes that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That being a Sunni she is superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed

Hello Chris Everett and Jeff P,

I can alway count on you both for substantive posts giving food for thought.

I recognise this Vissarion phenomena in Islam itself. After the Prophet died, there were others who said they are prophets and right up to Babi who started Bahaism and Ahmadiyya in the 19th and early 20th century. Both the founders and their followers were rejected by mainstream Muslims and/or persecuted by the rulers in their time.

Today, Muslims regard Bahaism not as an off-shot of Islam, but a seperate religion. As for Ahmaddiya, mainstream Muslims are as ambivalent and divided on it as mainstream Christians are on Mormons as fellow Christians. There are conflicting accounts by the Ahmaddiyas as to whether their founder is a prophet or a Muslim reformer.

What is interesting is that, when the founders of Bahaism and Ahmadiyya within Islam started, their societies Iran and India respectively) seem increasingly fragmented, lost, listless,and fossilized. Neither rulers nor the ulema provide satisfactory responses to the needs and concerns of the people who are in dire need of some measure of sanity and meaning in their live and what is happening to their societies to better come to terms with it.

What is also interesting is that, both the founders of Bahaism and Ahmaddiya were young men when they start their message and found followers. What they taught, what their message was, in fact, the reassertion, refinement and some modifications, updating of the fundamental beliefs of the established religion they sprang from, ridding it of the baggage of accumulated and institutionalised religious traditions and dogmas. Their worded message is one that seem coherent, elegant, simple and hopeful.

The religious extablishment of organised or established religions always opposed what it see as "upstarts" or "rebels" (as in the case of Jesus) of new or refreshed or freshened thinking on faith. Or alternate versions and visions that is more immediate and responsive to the spiritual beliefs of some or many.

It would, perhaps, be ideal if the religious establishment were confident enough to engage these religious "mavericks" or sometimes innovators. But religious establishment are not too fond of them and dismiss them perhaps as challenges instead of looking within them to see why people find these "mavericks" appealing, whether they are out of touch with the spiritual side of people, or people have no respect and lost confidence in them as "authorities" on faith and religion.

All these religious "mavericks" spoke of human excess, on materialism, on finding spirituality and values most dear to us and we to care for. And most important, a better world for all. As in politics where rebels rise to challenge and overthrow the old order (say from monarchy then to communism than to democracy), so in religion, neo prophets rise to challenge the established religious' order on faith, spirituality, ethics and values.

So we have Martin Luther in Christianity rising against the Catholic Church, the established church of Europe in his time. In contemporary Islam, as there is not central "religious" authority, religious "mavericks" or rebels are seen to to be in the fold of the faith, are usually leaders of religious-based organisations with a particular interpretation or versions of the faith.

Of course there are some that are considered to be "deviant" cults as Jim Jones or David Koresh were. There was one in Malaysia a few years back -the hilariously called "Teapot Cult". And their leader and members were harassed by lawsuits and the state. Which is most unfortunate for human rights advocates on freedom of faith, but building brightly multi-coloured house sized teapot for people to go in and get a spiritual experience is a bit startling for most.

On a another note, surely athiesm is not hard or harder than belief? It is simple. Did I not, somewhere in another thread, joshed that atheism is like a hamburger with all the trimmings excluded? Trimmings as in religious dogmas, creeds, traditions, tenets that makes life spicier and more interesting, and believers taking on trimmings that is more palatable to them and leaving out those that are personally distasteful to them never mind what the clergy say? After all, it is between God/gods and them.

Having taken out the traditional trimmings from the hamburger, atheist can always pile on new trimmings, say - soy sauce, salsa, piri-piri sauce. And they put mustard on their hamburgers in Montreal. If same for believers, why not same for atheists? There are atheist-Buddhists too.

If atheism's only option is reality, then we have to look at cognitive dissonance and delusions (allegedly the special characterstic of believers) in atheists too, in not seeing, considering and accepting the reality that religion survived in various forms through the ages. That religion do have options for believers on their personal beliefs and religious practices, including different interpretations.

The larger questions still remain thought:

- why belief survived in various forms till now even in societies as advanced as the United States.

- why the religious establishments are quick to dismiss religious innovators, mavericks, reinterpreters, recasters, reformers and what have you.

Cognitive consonance anyone?

Thanks and regards

"J"

Jihadist,

You say "Beliefs and leaders of beliefs have appeal when what they are saying have more meaning and hope than that by offered by secular leaders and states... Faith comes when people percieve their world is going to hell in a handbasket and want some relief from it in forging new hope and faith of a better and 'cleansed' world."

I agree, but the question for me is the value of truth, which is being sacrificed on the alter of "meaning and hope." I can't tell if you're arguing FOR palliative delusion or just explaining it, but I, and I suspect atheists generally, choke on the false promises that believers swallow with impunity. Of course, it is difficult to be entirely dogmatic on the issue since, for example, there is a near universal consensus that under certain circumstances "little white lies" may in fact be moral, so the question is, "Is religion a little white lie?" I don't think so.

From a practical perspective one can admit that certain conditions foster the kind of desparation, or even just existential despair, that promotes superstitious escapism. I don't know what the conditions in Siberia are - the situation there may be one where a religious population has had its religious prohibition removed, and charlatans are rushing in to fill the vacuum. I don't know - we have our fair share in the US as well. But another missing ingredient is plain ignorance - the inability to evaluate a claim, due to a lack of knowing HOW to evaluate a claim. I see that so frequently it's downright frightening.

From a ethical perspective, what can you say about a guy like "Vissarion?" He's either deluded or a fraud. If he's deluded, does society have a responsibility to protect its citizens from him? Would you let your children spend the summer at his compound? If he's a fraud, how can he be condoned? Because his believers believe? Because his followers follow? Because he bribes the authorities (one would assume)? If it's OK to have a "Vissarion" in our midst, where do we draw the line? Faith healers? Astrologists? Psychic surgeons? David Koresh? Jim Jones?

Athiesm is hard - harder than belief. There are fewer options in atheism. In fact, with atheism there's only ONE option - reality! Religion has infinitely many options, each with promises more grandiose than the next. That makes religion appealing to those who judge it on its claims, revolting to those who judge it on its merits.

This Siberian con man should have declared himself the new Jesus and new Mohammed incarnated into one. Or maybe Jesus, Mohammed and Joseph Smith for a new trinity? Hmmm, the Obfuscating Jihadist then would have to deal with old Mo up front and personal. Since she never does that, we reiterate her true thinking about the warmongering, long dead and "stenchifying" Arab and his hallucinogen-based religion.

1. Believes in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teaches her children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believes that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That being a Sunni she is superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Well this is turning out more interesting that I thought it could!

J-:
I don't really see this as "bad news" for atheists and "good news" for believers. For myself at least, it just confirms that anyone can have a crazy belief, and that there will always be someone to follow a leader.

Science will never try to "control" human nature, impulses, or spiritual needs--that's a misrepresentation of the scientific method--although it would make a neat "mad-scientist" story.

Claimants to be the reincarnation of Jesus are mentally ill--nothing more nothing less--, and are not carrying some divine new and enlightening reason, ethic or method for the masses.

I live near Waco, Texas, where David Koresh offered his followers "a new hope, salvation from their current state" that resulted in all of their deaths in a flaming Branch Davidian complex with a botched government standoff.

Another "leader" Jim Jones with the cyanide "kool-aid" disaster in Guyana, who promised and convinced his followers of "new hope and faith of a better and "cleansed" world", resulted in disaster for all the faithful.

More recently, the Applewhite "Heaven's Gate" crew who joined their souls with the supposed spaceship following behind comet Hale-Bopp, at the cost of 38 lives of believers willing to follow an ascetic, religious lifestyle.

The list goes on and on.

I see little value in "belief" for the sake of "belief." Some belief is better than other belief, just as some knowledge is better than other knowledge.

I just hope this guy doesn't decide all of his followers need to pony up to some kool-aid and join the heavenly host. In that sense, this is "bad news" for us all.

Mary Cunningham,

Catholics modify things all the time.

I should know. My brother married a devout Catholic who runs to church at every opportunity, whose parents are deeply involved in the church, who has crosses and rosaries and angels hanging in her house, who tells me that the Catholic faith is the only true faith and who keeps trying to convert my Protestant brother, and who is indoctrinating her 2-year old daughter already.

Yet, she has had at least 3 sexual relationships prior to marrying my brother, takes the pill, her sister is a closet lesbian who has to hide her sexual orientation from her parents, her mother doesn't speak to her own sister because of a fall-out over inheritance money, etc. etc.

So please, don't tell me that the pope is the final authority in a Catholics life. Catholics modify anything and everthing they don't like about their church, even when they only do so in private.

Mary C said:

"So Catholics cannot modify anything, although Protestants can--and do"

You're talking about the writing in the book, with the grand imperial seal of approval of the head theologian and bottle washer; I am talking about inner belief, what each of us hold in our hearts.

Ah so.......

So, someone in Siberia named "Vissarion" has 5,000 followers in claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

And some wee reasons why that is bad for atheists and good for believers are:

- Beliefs never die. They come back in revised, reshaped, modified or back to original form.

- Beliefs and leaders of beliefs have appeal when what they are saying have more meaning and hope than that by offered by secular leaders and states.

- Science and reason can grasp but never control human nature, impulses, desires and needs, and especially faith and hope that is personal and collective.

- Claimants to be the reincarnation of Jesus are complimenting the original and his continuing power of appeal in his teachings and messages.

- That Vissarion is in Siberia, now part of Russia, formerly part of the the godless Soviet Union, proves that even atheists can reverb to religion.

- Faith comes when people percieve their world is going to hell in a handbasket and want some relief from it in forging new hope and faith of a better and "cleansed" world.

- Vissarion may have offered some people a new hope, salvation from their current state.

.....and what in the world is Vissarion is saying to the people that he now has 5,000 followers?

A revelation is true when people grasp what is stated have meaning and understanding on their state and impulses.

A revelation is false when people regard it not to correlate with their human nature and impulses.

The test of revelations is whether it continue to survive the ages and held as evident and timeless truths on human nature and human impulses.

Jesus is love.
All you need is love - The Beatles.
Love is the answer - John Lennon

But, of course, Jesus is associated with love first. If all you need is love, and love is the answer, then Jesus is the answer, no?

Vissarion saw that, and who knows, he could be just another rebel agaist the Russian state and religiious establishment just as the original Jesus was.

And this could be the Second Coming, the End of Days, the Armageddon already here and a clear and present danger that I don't know of. Is all that supposed to be in Jerusalem/Israel/Palestine and not Siberia?

"J"

What a crock. Can't be any more clear than that.

Most of my species has fallen for one of these iron age diseases, generally speaking the one their parents were infected with. Don't you people ever question your sanity? I certainly do.

It appears that we will never be free of it, doesn't it.

I just had a revelation from God. He told me there are no true revelations. And now I'm telling you. Take heed.

Well, I checked out Jesus's website. Pretty nice digs I have to say. Wouldn't want to live there in winter, but a summer visit would be cool.

Please see for youselves. Browse around, some really cool scenery.

http://en.vissarion.eu/

Mary C writes:

"So Catholics cannot modify anything, although Protestants can--and do."

Yep, last-year's RCC reversal on limbo proved that.

Mary Cunningham,

Reincarnation is part of the Jewish Kabbalistic tradition. As I understand it, Kabbalistic beliefs come from the Zohar, which is a mystical interpretation of the Torah that was written in the twelfth century, and which has astrology and reincarnation at its foundation. Kabbalah itself is said to be ancient, but that may just be due to the pseudepigraphical ancient authorship of many of its texts.

Also, you accuse Mr. Mark of the fallacy of composition, which isn't the case at all. He didn't say that since Vissarion was false, all prophets are false (including Jesus). In fact, he didn't even say that Vissarion was false. Instead, he simply pointed out that there is really no more reason to believe the truth of one over the other, and given how extraordinary (I would say preposterous) both claims are, the burden of proof is on whomever asserts the claim as true.

Salvation is Gods work not mans. Sorry what you do has little to do with it. True Godly works are a response in joy to a salvation freely given by God who chose to rescue a sinner from his peril and opened his eyes to his fallen state. And no that isn't Roman Catholic Doctrine.