All Comments (45)

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Quoted: From "Myth Became Fact"-(essentials by C.S. Lewis)

True Myth

"Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be a myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens--at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from Balder and Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle."

Concerned,

You wrote: "Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. And the book where we "find" his "biography" is so tainted with myths, none of it is reliable history."

Nonsense, all of it. Pure speculation that ignores the actual historical reliablity of the literature from whence it comes.
1) Abraham did not 'found' anything - he was called by God to promise.
2) Christianity is the fulfillment of this promise through the ideal man - Jesus Christ - it is the natural outgrowth of Judaism and Israelite history. To remain a Jew is not to follow Abraham - who trusted in God - it is, unfortunately, to lose sight of the fact that the true "child of Abraham" trusts in God's revelation - the final part of which is Jesus ("God who in diverse ways spoke to the fathers and the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us in His son" - Hebrews 1:1).
3) Islam has no claim on Abraham except by it's own declaration - but, that declaration has no true historical or theological linkage. It ignores the very elements of God's promise to Abraham and that the son - Jesus - is the final and fullest revelation of God (indeed, He is God in humanity). This does not mean God does not love the Muslim (nor that Christians should not love them as well - we should) - but that their religion has no real basis in truth.
4) Why Christianity over Judiasm or Islam? Because the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ are historically demonstrable events - to the degree that it is reasonable to believe in those events as real events. He has indeed been raised and the evidence is potent. The number of appearances; the rationality of the testimony of the witnesses and their willingness to go to the death for this testimony (in spite of the fact that it brought them NO earthly reward; only suffering).
5) Given the veracity of Christianity - Jesus as the centerpiece - we can trust in the way Jesus regarded the Scriptures (he believed the OT text was reliable as God's word and that Abraham was a real man).
6) The book where we find his story is NOT tainted with myths and you have no legitimate proof for that. a) the account of creation is given in language (figurative, in fact) that is fitting of the historical and literary features of the day (1500 BC). Your problem is that you are trying to read it through the lens of the scientific, literalist age in which you live - a huge error that only an unbiased and open-minded study can overcome. The creation account was to let the Hebrews know that God was the creator and all the elements (that many worshiped as gods) were not gods at all, but simply part of creation.

One could go on - but there is an abundance of evidence contrary to your assertions. Of course, one has to be willing to honestly investigate the evidence. Such is obviously not in the cards as evinced by the kind of statements you've made.

Nevertheless, while many believe in religion and God ONLY b/c they need to - and many do "make up" their religion - the religion of the Bible is not man-made - but, God-made. It is His revelation to man of Himself and His will. The evidence is there. The only question is, will we be 'believing' of the evidence or irrationally faithless?

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
No, since I do not live amongst the ancients and their myths.

Yes, those ancients were so stupid and dumb. I'm so glad that we are so superior to them and that when we interpret their literature, we can look at it from our perfect enlightenment perspective.

No, since I do not live amongst the ancients and their myths.

Concerned - You posted the following:
1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. And the book where we "find" his "biography" is so tainted with myths, none of it is reliable history.
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. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic but even these sayings and ways have roots in prior religions. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian/Gentile/Jewish sects.

Once again, your comments above do not represent orthodox Christianity, which refers to the early church fathers and the creeds. Yes, I know fully well that there are many bible scholars who espouse your view of Jesus, but this is not in line with orthodox Christianity. Does this bother you?

To Concerned:

Some people like to grease the wheels of chaos, if we want a real conversation it would be helpful to see what the point is and follow that up (even when we disagree). As it is your response says more about you than it does about the substance of Wright's piece. The fact that people can not make a considered or coherent response says something, but not about the point Wright was making!

If you follow up the source you cite, Raymond Brown,Introduction, you can go a long way in correcting some of the confusion about "myths and fables" you have referred to. I presume because there is bad money out there (counterfeit) does not mean you say there is no good money to be had or that you have stopped using it!

Peace,

Ben Wiebe

Ba'al --- just quit reading it!!!!

Anon,

You cannot get anymore orthodox than Father Raymond Brown as shown in his book, An Introduction to the New Testament. He and his book are referenced on the cited website.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated states:

"For a review of Christianity within, see the biographies and books of the contemporary experts on the historical Jesus posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html. (Most of these exegetes are Christians. Four of them are On Faith panelists.)"

Again, the big point here is that this does not reflect orthodox Christianity. You are playing ball in a different stadium. My role in these posts is to bring to light this very important differentiation.

Anon,

For a review of Christianity within, see the biographies and books of the contemporary experts on the historical Jesus posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html. (Most of these exegetes are Christians. Four of them are On Faith panelists.)

And if what is in the NT about angels, fortune telling, nativities/GPS stars, bodily resurrections, ascensions, talking clouds, etc. were not the hallucinations of the historical Jesus, they definitely were hallucinations/embellishments of the authors of the NT.

Dave
There is one ultimate truth, but our way of visualizing and describing it is bound by culture and language. Therefore we can try to articulate what we know to be true, but the picture we evoke may not look "right" to others.
I think that many confirmed atheists are primarily reacting to their own inability to accept whichever exclusive truth model has been pushed at them by society. If only one answer is possible and you find that answer implausible, then you are likely to reject the question.
There are many causes for the disconnect, but over-reliance on miracles and insistence on authoritarian codes figure prominently.
Whoa, I need some sleep....

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated states:
Is religion "man-made"?

"Based on analyses of the founders of said contemporary religions, the answer would be a resounding YES, INDEED !!!!!!"

For crying out loud, Concerned, you're missing the point. Orthodox Christianity claims something very different from what you are saying in your posts about hallucinations, etc. The posts by Bishop Wright articulate the basic framework of the Christian faith. Your positional statement about religion is not reflective of the basic orthodox understanding of Christianity.

You remind me of someone outside of the medical professional trying to tell someone in the medical profession that the foundation of the field of the science of medicine is faulty. Your version of religion is like comparing apples to oranges. You're not even in the same stadium where the game is being played.

Bishop Wright is writing to a public which includes many secularists (and sadly many Christians) who do not have a decent grasp on the basic framework of the Christian faith according to the orthodox faith tradition. Your bunny trail of hallucinations is light years from the Christian understanding of God. If you think Christianity is based on hallucinations, don't call it "Christianity." Give it a different name.

What a lot of nonsense

Yes, ANN O. Jacob does make sense. Only those who don't want to understand can't. They are not ECLATi-ONS, they're ECLATi-OFFs.

Ya Ya Mons.

Viejita del oeste, perhaps a good hermenuetical point. Are we to conclude from this, however, that there is, in fact, no real "last word" as you put it? Granted that isn't stated in your post, but I sense, perhaps mistakenly, a hint of religious anti-realism there. If I'm misreading you or reading too much into what you're saying, I apologize.

Sound Mind is right. Those of us who like to discuss religion (as opposed to make speeches and affect conversions) are drawn by the fact that other points of view can add to our understanding. Individually we each may believe in a "last word" of what is or is not true, but we need to recognize that our gut conclusions may appear obviously untrue to other individuals. Thus it is unknowable what will work in the heart of another, but we can try to share what works for us.

SOUND MIND: "...arguing with strangers all day on the internet about the unknowable..."

Interesting. What is it about religious discourse or beliefs that is "unknowable?" What is knowable?

Why would a powerful fellow like God waste his time on humans, instead of on parakeets or oddly shaped mice? Humans have absolutely no shame in claiming that God dotes on them! What self serving tripe. And that is before one even gets to the immaculate conception. Try pulling that line in a court of law and see how far you get.

So, Bish, why do you take myths so seriously? I know Hitchens is on the booze and unpleasant and ranting and raving, but are you any better in your own smug and sanctimonious way?

ANONYMOUS tells us: JaCob makes NO sense whaTsoEvR. ya ya :4//

ANN O. replies: But he *does* make sense. I don't agree with it all, but I admire his energy and enthusiasm and his appreciation of all the good things in life. He's a poet, a lot better one than lot's I've read. See? Even you have started using his language. So, ya ya! to you too :-)

JaCob makes NO sense whaTsoEvR. ya ya :4//

Is Eclatarianism a religion that worships chocolate Eclares? If so, then where do i swear my allegiance?

Is Eclatarianism a religion that worships chocolate Eclares? If so, then where do i swear my allegiance?

Hahah, you are too funny, Jacob! Are you trying to convert E Favorite to Eclatarianism?

Efav,

I get what Concerned is saying, and agree for the most part. But every thread?

Andrea - for newcomers hearing "Concerned's" message for the 1st time, it's not noise, and bears repeating. People have been hearing myth and superstition repeatedly -- and they believe it as fact!

Sporkmaster - please it's RAMEN, not Amen

Christianity is schizophrenic:

On the one hand, human beings are the highest and most interesting creatures there are, and a direct reflection of "God" himself--we are uniquely chosen to be made in his image.

On the other hand, human beings are also inherently flawed and sinful creatures, who will take their deserved place in hell if they don't voluntarily capitulate to their supposed savior.

Which one is it? Are we the greatest and highest creature in the universe, made in the image of God, or are we inherently flawed and untrustworthy sinners, who rightfully deserve to burn in hell?

Besides, if you *really* want to move a mountain,

Talk to an ant. :)

The optimum frequency used in marketing practices is 3-5 times. Any more and your message becomes "noise."

Concerned, I apologize, but I believe your message has become noise.

"For the secularist, is not the human being the highest and most interesting creature there is? Should we not take the inventions of this creature very seriously?"

NO.

This is the attitude of the Christian: that the human being is the highest and most interesting creature, and therefore must be made in the image of "God".

The Native Americans place the human being somewhere between an ant and a mountain. That is a reasonable, and appropriately humble, attitude--very non-Christian.

'Concerned' should have gotten bored by now. Or accidentally deleted the file with the same text.

I have tried to read Jacov's posts. But frankly they don't make sense (at least initially) so I simply skip over them. At least it is easy to identify them.

the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands equal time in schools! Your children shall be touched by his noodly appendage. In the name of the pasta, the sauce, and the spicy meatball, amen.

We also learn to disregard things by repetition. :)

PAGANPLACE,

We learn by repetition. Also, you apparently did not notice the added commentary adding credence to the need for repetition.

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!

Allow yourself to be touched by his noodly appendage....

/|||\

I think part of the problem there, Strangely, is that the religious authoritarians have redefined "secular" to mean "Anti-religion" when the real meaning is more akin to 'Aside from religious authority.'

This would probably be because 'religion' has succumbed again to the siren song of promises of political control and all the corruption which that brings, not only to society, but to religion itself.

Not to say that a great deal of harm doesn't seem to keep happening within the spheres left to the authority of churches, but we all *used* to take 'Secular' to mean 'what's of the world,' and people on 'both sides of the divide' used to more or less agree that mixing church and state only leads to great grief.

Dear N. Thomas,

This point of view is false. There is no such thing as purely "secularist" or "sacred". These are human-created devices for the gain of political advantage -- whether it be governmental or religious.

An honest human being sees the world for what it is and what it isn't. This has nothing to with biases -- either religiously or secularistly derived. Both are a bias. It’s the bias that is the problem.

Hitchens' bias is that G-d is only religiously derived and we all must accept that religion is a human creation, therefore it is mandatorily dismissible. Your bias is that anything anti-religionist is also by default anti-G-d. This is not true.

G-d is beyond all human bounds. If one accepts this fully then one must see that human limitation codified within science and religion must be human derived. A responsible, mature person deals honestly with this.

While I do not agree with Hitchens' view that G-d does not exist -- I do agree that the human religiously derived G-d not only doesn't exist but has outlived its currently incarnated usefulness and requires a massive reformation to be consonant with the 21st century.

For this very reason a critique of religionists by an outside source is most efficacious. While we might quibble about details it still affords us a view to our blindness in an honest self-analysis. I think it is this to which you object in Hitchens’ criticism -- covered over by flowery words.

sw

Hey, *I* read Jacob's posts. Not *all the time,* admittedly, but I do read. :) Better than Concerned repeating the same ones on every thread, anyway.

I think the question of *what of religion is man-made* is a *very* valid question when so often claims are made that *everything a religion says* is *better-than-man-made.*

As a reason to impose, say, "Moral Obedience" upon others.

I mean, hey, if you believe that telling your male children that the ultimate authority in the universe condemns masturbation brings them closer to the Divine, rather than messing up their relationship with their d*** and any potential receptacles for such, including the human beings involved, well, it's possible that's not all that transcendent, but it doesn't mean nothing *is.* :)

Is religion "man-made"?

Based on analyses of the founders of said contemporary religions, the answer would be a resounding YES, INDEED !!!!!!

As previously noted:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. And the book where we "find" his "biography" is so tainted with myths, none of it is reliable history.

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. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic but even these sayings and ways have roots in prior religions. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian/Gentile/Jewish sects.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

Paul, the Great Embellisher, promulgated the "word" but they were the words borrowed from Cynics and other ancient religions/races. His attempt at "prophecy/fortune telling" i.e. the imminent second coming, failed historically but was quite successful in conversions and financial support. Contemporary evangelists continue to be financially rewarded with the "second coming" scenario. Easy money to say the least!!!!

As per Professor Crossan in his book, Who is Jesus?, the accounts of Jesus' last days are "prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered". A better view would be "fortune telling turned into money, rather than the reality of it all."

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

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

5. Hinduism - (from an on-line Hindu site)- "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: Contemporary religion is the evolution of "humankind's" views of good conduct first formulated by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Hittites, Canaanites, Cynics, Persians, various Chinese dynasties and Common Sense.

Note: The On Faith webmaster limits web site references to two per commentary. Added references provided as so desired.

John Jay:

I beg to differ! I find Jacob extremely entertaining. Just because he speaks a different language than you does not make him any less valuable to these discussions.

By the way, if you were to try to decypher his posts (I know it takes some time) you may find that he is actually right.

We ARE part of a cosmic heartbeat. The God of the Bible does not exist, he IS man-made. God is not a he or a she, IT is IT. IT exists everywhere, in all matter, and we are part of IT. Thus, we can never die.

Eclat = Great brilliance

Thus, ECLATi-ON = Great brilliance in me.

Got it?

Look who's sneering now:

"For the secularist, is not the human being the highest and most interesting creature there is? Should we not take the inventions of t is [sic]creature very seriouly? [sic]" NT Wright

Jacob:

You do realize that nobody actually reads your posts. Don't you?

Speak for yourself BA'AL,

I find that arguing with strangers all day on the internet about the unknowable to be very useful and illuminating.

One wonders when this series of tiresome, unresolvable and divisive questions will cease and the Post will mercifully euthanize this forum. It was fun for awhile. It has long stopped being informative or entertaining.