All Comments (71)

Lots of misinformation here.

1st Biblically speaking neither I nor any other Christian can make anyone else a Christian. It is God who saves not man. My only duty as a Christian is to act as a watchmen and warn people of the consequences of sin which is hell and ultimate separation from God.

2nd This means that not only is it stupid to force people to be baptized (Baptism doesn't save you any more than Circumcision saved the morally corrupt Caiaphas) it is equally pointless and in fact down right dangerous for the church to compel unbelievers to attend services.

Hi Karen:

I agree with your idea about the difference between acceptance and tolerance. There is an important place where we differ though. I am happy to explain to one who is interested how my system works for me, but I will never attempt to tell you that you should believe as I do. My practice tells me that it doesn't matter how one comes by their relationship with the Divine, as long as you feel that you have established a relationship that works for you. As we are wont to say, All paths lead to center.

Having said that, I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about how Christians see the world. I was raised Jewish and therefore have a limited knowledge, although we do learn a LOT about the formation and influence of the Church. How many of the holidays currently celebrated still have Pagan themes throughout. And when I try to ask, I seem to often end up in discussion with those that are out for conversion, rather than discussion. And sometimes it really saddens me, that one's faith isn't so strong that it can't be talked about without trying to persuade someone else to join it too.

And what really fascinates me is how someone comes to their current decisions on faith (or even lack thereof), whatever it may be.

Dear GK -

Thanks for the response. I also appreciate the dialogue.

A few comments:

You wrote, "I dispute your 2nd century dating." Fine, but the dating isn't mine. It comes from the website earlychristianwritings.com. I think we can both agree that this is an unbiased reference site and that the dating provided for the composition of various ancient texts is pretty much the standard you'll see everywhere else.

Second - I realize that there are many other texts I didn't mention. My listing wasn't meant to be comprehensive. The fact remains that if only ONE Gnostic Gospel has its composition dated to the same period as the writing of the 4 Gospels, it puts the lie to your statement that "the Gnostic gospels came much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." Indeed, the website I linked to above shows OVER 40 non-canonical texts that were written in the same time period as the 4 Gospels (though not all of these are Gnostic texts and not all are Gospels).

Third - my original post was not limited to the discussion of Gnostic texts. I only gave them as an example of texts that were in use by various sects of the church. My whole point was to counter the thrust of your argument which seemed to me to argue that Xianity was set in place and grew quickly as some unified movement. Your post also gave the impression that the 4 Gospels were agreed on early on in the church's history and that the competing texts all came well after. That's simply false.

Fourth - you wrote, "See The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, & I Clement. I could name several more that you didn't list above, not to mention several other works by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Minucuis Felix (the list goes on and on!) You certainly will not find any significant theological variations within these works."

That's call loading the deck. Of course you won't find "significant theological variations" in those PARTICULAR books, but those aren't Gnostic books, are they? I'm trying to have a discussion here on the striking differences between the canonic/Gnostic differences that is like unto a political discussion of the significant differences between Democrats and Republicans, and you're limiting the discussion to only the various Republicans.

And, it's not insignificant that the ARE some theological differences even between the books you cite. That's why they were left out of the canon...which is the whole point of my post above with the references to Nicea and the homogenizing of Xian dogma.

Thanks again for the chat.

Freedom of Speech Challenged in Canada-

PLEASE READ AND WATCH YOUTUBE-

A controversial conservative commentator was unrepentant going into a Human Rights and Citizenship Commission hearing yesterday, using his Web site to republish the same cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that got him into trouble in the first place.

"Contriteness implies that you've done something wrong for which you need to apologize or atone," Ezra Levant said moments before his 90-minute meeting with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission in Calgary.

"I have not done anything wrong."

Mr. Levant's dispute with some members of Alberta's Muslim community became even more personal, as the head of a Calgary Muslim group said he now fears for the safety of his family due to "lies" Mr. Levant has been spreading about him.

The commission is investigating Mr. Levant's decision two years ago, as publisher of the Western Standard, to print a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The same cartoons had already ignited violent protests and death threats from Muslims around the world after the images appeared in a Danish newspaper.

Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed a complaint after the Western Standard published the cartoons, which included a Muslim man with a bomb-shaped turban, and the commission is now investigating.

Mr. Levant, his lawyer and his wife attended a 90-minute meeting yesterday with a human rights officer.

Mr. Levant, who occasionally writes for the National Post, said he was asked about his rationale for publishing the cartoons.

"I don't need to be reasons-able. I have maximum rights of free speech," he said later.

"I have the right to publish this for the most offensive reason, for the most unreasonable reasons."

The commission's director said it would hear from both sides and decide whether the complaint should be dismissed, go to an arbitrator, or go to a full human rights complaint hearing.

"We don't talk about individual complaints until they get to the public stage," said Marie Riddle, the commission's director.

For Mr. Soharwardy, the issue has become intensely personal.

He fired off a letter to Calgary police yesterday, complaining about statements made by Mr. Levant on his blog that refer to the Muslim leader as a "radical, Saudi-trained imam who has publicly called for shariah law to be imposed in Canada."

"I have asked him what kind of training did I get in Saudi Arabia?" an angry Mr. Soharwardy said from Calgary.

He said Mr. Levant has also called him anti-Semitic, despite the fact Mr. Soharwardy's mosque celebrates Hannukah with the local Jewish community.

"These people have the intent to incite hate against Muslims," Mr. Soharwardy said.

"God forbid if somebody reads from his Web site -- [if ] any fanatic reads it -- and he attacks me, who's responsible?

"If any crime [is] committed against me or my family, I will hold Mr. Ezra Levant responsible."

Calgary police said they were actively investigating the complaint, as well as another complaint Mr. Soharwardy made in December.

That complaint centred on comments made on a blog connected to the Western Standard Web site.

The comments, from an unknown user, included "There is no such thing as innocent Muslims," and "They must all be killed. All of them."

"The file is still open and we are still actively pursuing it," Insp. Bob Couture said.

Mr. Levant called his appearance before the human rights commission "an interrogation.""To me, this is offensive," he said.

"A secular government bureaucracy has essentially been hijacked by a radical Muslim imam," he said. "It's being used to further his fatwa against these cartoons."

"We have a great tradition of free speech in Canada," he said.

"My freedom to publish a cartoon that some radical Muslim imam doesn't like, well that's the free West for ya."

There are 6 youtubes posted. Go to related videos to link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

"To assert that the writings of Paul and the 4 Biblical Gospels preceded the writing of the Gnostic Gospels by one to three centuries is ludicrous.

I'll stand by all of my statements made above."

Mr. Mark,

If that's what you really want to do, be my guest!

Based on your earlier comment regarding the early church in which you posted, "The "way" it started was with many different sects who didn't even agree on the basic tenets of the faith - like, was Jesus a man or a pure spirit" I offer the following in response to your texts cited above:

First Point - Some of the non-canonical texts that you cite above DO reflect great theological unity with the canonical Gospels. See The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, & I Clement. I could name several more that you didn't list above, not to mention several other works by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Minucuis Felix (the list goes on and on!) You certainly will not find any significant theological variations within these works - in comparison with the theology (and the belief that Jesus was bodily raised) of the canonical gospels which are most assuredly written all within the 1st century. (I dispute your 2nd century dating.)

Second Point - Your citing of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts and dating: Yes, these texts represent a VERY significant departure from the canonical texts because obviously they are gnostic. Regarding the canonical understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, they aren't even in the same ballpark with the New Testament! They represent a completely different Jewish sect, taking bits and pieces from the Christian movement and deviate greatly from the strong Jewish belief that creation is good and will be redeemed by God.

Third Point - I date the gnostic gospels on the upper end of the range you cite above based on the work of several scholars and because gnostic theology began to gain considerable ground within mainstream Judaism especially following the last Jewish revolt in the 2nd century.

I appreciate the exchange while respecting our difference of opinion.

GK wrtites:

"The gnostic gospels (2nd to 4th centuries) came much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John (last 3rd of 1st century) so your comments which imply that there were significant variances within the 1st century Christian sect are not historically accurate and do nothing to explain why Christianity grew while all the other messianic movements ceased."

Sorry, that's just not true.

There are estimated date ranges for the composition of all of these ancient texts. The only way to support your statement is by assigning the earliest possible date of composition to the canonical books while assigning the latest possible date of composition to the Gnostic texts.

Here are the canonical books of the NT set along a few Gnostic texts with a range of dates given for their possible composition, beginning with the earliest composed:

Date Written Order in Bible Book Name Description

50-60CE 13 1 Thessalonians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Thessalonica, Greece

50-60 11 Philippians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Philippi, Greece

50-60 9 Galatians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Galatia, in modern Turkey

50-60 7 1 Corinthians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Corinth, Greece

50-60 8 2 Corinthians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Corinth, Greece

50-60 6 Romans Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Rome

50-60 18 Philemon Generally accepted as authentic letter of Paul written to Philemon of Colossae

50-80 12 Colossians Disputed letter of Paul, written to congregation in Colossae, in modern Turkey

50-95 19 Book of Hebrews Anonymous work of a Jewish nature that refers to Christ as an apostle and high priest

50-120 NA Didache Anonymous work that is almost impossible to date. Contains sayings like those in the Gospels, but not attributed to Jesus. Has description of Eucharist rituals, but not associated with the death or body of Jesus.

50-140 NA Gospel of Thomas Anonymous "Gnostic" sayings gospel with statements attributed to Jesus. No mention of Christ, and most sayings contradict the canonical Gospels, though a small number are shared by both. There is no narrative or details of a life of Jesus.

50-140 NA Oxyrhynchus Gospel Scraps of a sayings gospel (possibly Gnostic), mentions Jesus approaching "in a vision"

50-200 NA Sophia of Jesus Christ Anonymous Gnostic story about Jesus, possibly written after "the Gospels", but dating is difficult

65-80 2 Gospel of Mark Anonymous narrative story about the life of Jesus starting with his baptism

70-100 20 Epistle of James Letter of disputed authorship. Traditionally attributed to "James the brother of Jesus", though the work itself makes no such claim.

70-120 NA Egerton Gospel Anonymous scrap of a narrative Gospel. One of the oldest original pieces of text about Jesus.

70-160 NA Gospel of Peter Anonymous "Gnostic" passion narrative similar to that in the Gospel of Mark

80-100 14 2 Thessalonians Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name

80-100 10 Ephesians Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name

80-100 1 Gospel of Matthew Anonymous narrative about Jesus based on Mark, but with the addition of the virgin birth story and other elements

80-110 21 1 Peter Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Peter's name

80-120 NA Epistle of Barnabas Letter about the sacrifice of Jesus. Refers to Jesus as "the calf" who is sacrificed for sins

80-130 3 Gospel of Luke Was perhaps signed at one time, but original signer in unknown. The work is written in the form of a researched historical account for someone named Theophilus. Luke is based on Mark with additional elements.

80-130 5 Acts of the Apostles Written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, also as a history for Theophilus. The work covers the period from the resurrection of Jesus to the imprisonment of Paul.

80-140 NA 1 Clement Letter regarding problems befalling Christian communities.

80-150 NA Gospel of the Egyptians Writing about "Salome", a woman in the Gospel of Mark. It states that the end of suffering will only come when all women stop giving birth, then the end of the world will come.

80-150 NA Gospel of the Hebrews A story that may have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic about "James the Just"

80-250 NA Christian Sibyllines Book of Gnostic prophecies about the future

90-95 27 Apocalypse of John Letter written by an unknown John, though traditionally ascribed to "John the disciple of Jesus". The work is metaphorical tale of coming destruction in the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic literature.

90-120 4 Gospel of John Anonymous narrative story about Jesus, which has traditionally been ascribed to "John the disciple of Jesus". Scholars agree that this is not the case and that the author of this Gospel is also not the same as the author of Apocalypse of John or the epistles of John. May have been written in two stages.

90-120 23 1 John Letter by someone named John warning against deceivers who say that Jesus was not real

90-120 24 2 John Letter by someone named John warning against deceivers who say that Jesus was not real

90-120 25 3 John Letter by someone named John emphasizing that their witness is true

90-120 26 Epistle of Jude Letter which claims to have been written by a Jude, brother of James, but is generally considered by scholars to be of unknown authorship. The letter is a polemic against "godless men" who don't believe in Jesus, and it also begins to outline the concept of the trinity.

100-150 15 1 Timothy Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name, which seeks to support elements of Catholic doctrine

100-150 16 2 Timothy Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name, which seeks to support elements of Catholic doctrine

100-150 17 Titus Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name, which seeks to support elements of Catholic doctrine

100-150 NA Apocalypse of Peter A work attributed to Peter by Clement, though only fragments remain. Talks about the coming end of the world.

100-150 NA Secret Book of James A letter claimed to have been written by James which talks about Jesus and salvation

100-160 NA Gospel of the Ebionites A work that attempted to harmonize the Gospels of Matthew and Luke

100-160 NA Gospel of the Nazoreans A work that quotes many passages from Matthew, but it also has several variants that are different from the current Matthew

100-160 22 2 Peter A letter written under the name of Simon Peter, but regarded by scholars as of unknown authorship. The letter is a polemic against false prophets and seeks to downplay expectations for the end of the world, addressing questions that were rising about why the world had not yet ended "as Jesus had promised"

Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

As you can see, some of the Gnostic gospels (like that of Thomas) could have been written as early as 50CE OR as late as 140CE. Similarly, the Gospel of Luke could have been written as early as 80CE and as late as 130CE.

To assert that the writings of Paul and the 4 Biblical Gospels preceded the writing of the Gnostic Gospels by one to three centuries is ludicrous.

I'll stand by all of my statements made above.

Priver,

Thank you for your kind response as well.

I think that the reason people end up being so hostile on these threads is that many do not understand the difference between tolerance on one hand, and agreement or acceptance on the other. I disagree with your worldview, and given the opportunity to meet you one day, I'd love to engage with you in a debate and try to convince you of my faith, as you may be interested in sharing with me why the pagan worlview may be the way to go. We will likely not convice each other, but neither will we villify the other on the basis of our beliefs. I think that many people on these threads feel that they have to villify the other side. It is not enough for them to reject other points of view, they have to be hostile and insulting as well. Me saying that I respect your right to be a Pagan does not mean that I agree with Paganism, it just means this is a free country, religion is a matter of free will and each of us has to worship, or not, according to her/his freely made choice. I do not see any contradiction between respecting other people's right to believe whatever they want and my own deeply held Christian beliefs. As I said before, I may believe that others are wrong, but that is their choice to make.
Jesus said He came into this world not to condemn us but to save us. Then we turn around and condemn everybody... instead of showing Grace, as it was shown to us.

"The Christian church existed as many different sects with many different beliefs. There was no unanimity of belief among sects and there wasn't even "one church." The Gnostics, for example, didn't believe in a corporeal Jesus."

The gnostic gospels (2nd to 4th centuries) came much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John (last 3rd of 1st century) so your comments which imply that there were significant variances within the 1st century Christian sect are not historically accurate and do nothing to explain why Christianity grew while all the other messianic movements ceased.

I'll try to be gracious and allow you the last word if you so choose.

As always, nice chatting with you as well.

Dear GK -

Your last comment relies on any number of common misunderstandings of the Bible, Jesus and the early church.

Your statement that, "in trying to explain how the Christian movement grew as rapidly as it did and the way it did, and here's the important part - in the 1st century Jewish worldview that we know to be true - one viable explanation is that Jesus actually was resurrected from the dead," gives one the impression that Jesus came to earth, died, was resurrected, the church was formed and it was off to the races, with the church enjoying a QUICK and steady rise as some unified faith movement. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The Christian church existed as many different sects with many different beliefs. There was no unanimity of belief among sects and there wasn't even "one church." The Gnostics, for example, didn't believe in a corporeal Jesus.

No, the church started very slowly. The "way" it started was with many different sects who didn't even agree on the basic tenets of the faith - like, was Jesus a man or a pure spirit. It was hardly a smooth ride. Indeed, we have documented proof in the Roman histories of Xians easily rejecting their faith to be spared death that rivals reports of Xians being led to their deaths for their faiths. The point is that early Xians were just as adept at chucking their faith when it meant life or death as any pagan.

I don't blame them. Why die for a lie? In fact, I would would be willing to wager that 99.999% of Xians living today would reject their faith in a heartbeat if not renouncing Christ meant that they watched as their children's brains were splattered on the wall by the agents of some competing power (political or religious).

But back to the days of the early church, these sects existed and competed with each other for dominance for 300 YEARS until Constantine called together his Nicean council and told the boys to get their story straight so he could sell it throughout the Roman Empire. Out went most of the 200-odd "Gospels" that the Xians were using, along with MOST of the suddenly heretical beliefs of most of the Xian sects. What the world was left with was the homogenized version of Xianity that we see today.

Perhaps you believe 300 years of vastly competing beliefs and incessant squabbling among the same qualifies as a "rapid" rise of a particular religion, but I would hardly characterize it as such.

Contrary to what you think, I do not de-Juadize Jesus. Indeed, Jesus could not exist without a firm basis in Jewish mythology and its apocalyptic and messianic teachings. What I DO attempt to do is to de-legitimize illegitimate claims about the Bible, a-historic claims about the "quick" spread of Xianity, and the whole-cloth belief that the "only viable" explanation for the Jesus resurrection story is that it among all resurrected god stories must be the only true story for the sole reason that the New Testament as decided upon in 326CE said so.

Nice chatting.

Mr. Mark,

Not much to say that hasn't already been said!

When you dismiss the gospels as non-biographies (biograhpies are their proper ancient history genre which you conveniently ignore) I wonder who is wearing the blinders!

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, in the context of a Jewish worldview that held the following beliefs...

a)The term, "resurrection" was not seen simply as metaphorical but was a reference to "transformed bodily physicality."

b) Jewish messianic movements did not continue after the death of the Messiah if that Messiah was unsuccessful in defeating the empire that was controlling Israel at the time.

c) After the death of a Jewish Messiah, followers of that Messiah would select a relative of the Messiah to continue that particular messianic movement. Never, did the followers of the crucified Messiah continue to refer to that person as the Messiah!

...and based on the particular messianic movement of Jesus in the context of this worldview,

a) the followers of Jesus used the specific and distinctive Jewish term of "resurrection" in describing what happened to Jesus three days after his crucifixion. (Note: It is highly unlikely that 1st century Jews would have used this term in any other way, since it had a very specific meaning.)

b) Jesus didn't defeat the Romans and yet his followers continued and Christianity spread! (Note: One of the expectations of the messiah was to defeat the pagans ruling over them.)

c) James, Jesus' brother, and one of the leaders of the early church, was never considered as someone to take over the Jesus' messianic movement - a very odd and strange thing based on the other Jewish messianic movements of that era! And yet, even after Jesus' death, Jesus' followers continued to give Jesus the title, "Messiah."

Therefore, in trying to explain how the Christian movement grew as rapidly as it did and the way it did, and here's the important part - in the 1st century Jewish worldview that we know to be true - one viable explanation is that Jesus actually was resurrected from the dead.

The only way around this historical problem of the rise of Christianity is to do what a lot of people have done and what you seem to do, Mr. Mark and that is to take Jesus out of his Jewish world and worldview thereby de-Judaizing him. See, I have even given you an out but my hunch is you've already taken it. The problem with taking that route only leads to another historical problem and that is - the four gospels are thoroughly set in a Jewish worldview context which has been described above!

Last but not least, I'm bewildered by your assumption that I have not read books that question the historicity of the Bible.

Sincerely,

GK

Dear GK -

OK, this will be the last comment (maybe).

You wrote:

"We have a lot of "corroborating evidence" that Christianity, a sect within Judaism, grew rapidly because the early Christians said Jesus was bodily raised from the dead in the Jewish sense of resurrection. No other Messiah movements in the time of Jesus continued after the deaths of these "Messiahs." Observation: The historian asks why a Messianic sect within 1st century Judaism grew rapidly and one of the strong possible explanations is that it's because Jesus did in fact rise from the dead."

You are correct that there were many Messianic sects about in the first century. In fact, the life story events of all of those Messianic figures were strangely similar at the time they supposedly existed. But that fact that the Jesus story is still active while, say, the Mithras story is long forgotten has to do precisely with the fact that the Gospel writers decided to make Jesus a real-world figure, rather than a spiritual-world figure.

So what if Jesus emerged as the "preferred format" for belief in a resurrected god? Out of the lot of them, one and only one would emerge as THE resurrected god. Jesus had a leg up on the rest because the men who wrote the Xian religion brought Jesus into the realm of the natural world. They put a human face on their "god," and people bought it.

In modern times, one can look at the early NASA programs which were quite successful at launching chimps into space. But the public felt no attachment to chimps, so NASA starting launching humans into space, even though those humans were along for the ride just as surely as the chimps had been along for the ride. Every school kid knows the names Alan Shepherd and John Glenn, but none of them have ever heard of Albert II or Able and Baker - ie: monkeys who were launched into space years before men made the trip.

Here's a question to ask yourself: why does the Jesus of the Bible bear absolutely no resemblance to the Messiah promised in the OT (which is why Jews have never accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah. God told them what to look for and Jesus ain't it) while at the same time bearing striking resemblance to many of the resurrection gods who you yourself admit were in vogue in the first century? What's more likely? That the Jesus myth is just a version of a very common manmade resurrected god story that was popular at the time, OR that the OT god decided to abandon the Messiah model he had promised the Jews (the Messiah who UPON HIS ARRIVAL would usher in an era of justice & peace) and decided to send a Messiah whose life story comported in great detail to that of every other "false" resurrected god?

As far as the "corroborating evidence" you imagine, it is at best circumstantial evidence. There's quite a difference between the two.

For example, both of my cars unexpectedly went on the fritz on Wednesday. Out of the blue, the both started chugging and misfiring, and both had been serviced less than a week prior. I started wondering how both cars could suddenly exhibit the same symptoms, when it suddenly hit me: I had filled both cars at the same service station on the same day. They both started acting up at exactly the same time (in fact, I got in one and turned it over, and when it starting sputtering, I got in the other and had the same problem. Both cars had been purring like kittens only hours previously).

The logical conclusion was that I had gotten bad gas from the service station. What could be more obvious? The circumstantial evidence was quite clear.

So, my mechanic friend came over to look at the cars, prepared to drain both gas tanks if necessary. Imagine my surprise when he checked under the hood and found that the one car was sputtering because a clamp had broken and a wire to the engine had popped loose, while the other car had a problem with the spark plugs. Both were the result of normal-use part fatigue. Nothing more, nothing less. My friend diagnosed and fixed both problems in under 10 minutes.

So, it turned out that the problems had nothing to do with bad gas, but were mechanical, and different mechanical problems for each car. The problems happening at exactly the same time on exactly the same day WERE PURE COINCIDENCE! The truth of the situation did not support the hypothesis that I developed purely through observation and my surface knowledge of automobile mechanics.

Now, would I need to exactly replicate the problem with my two cars to confirm what had actually happened? No, and I probably couldn't. What's clear is that no matter what I tried, I was NOT going to find a way to make the explanation for the problem conform to my hypothesis that I had put bad gas in each car. No matter how great my faith in my hypothesis, it turned out to be dead wrong.

Think about it.

Dear GK -

Thanks for staying engaged in the chat.

If we are to agree to disagree, then I would add only one final comment to your last post, and that is that what you offer to support your belief is at best the rosiest of the rosiest takes on the early church and the spread of Xianity, coupled with a description of the Bible (and the 4 Gospels, in particular) that does not stand up to even a cursory examination of the sources and the actual words contained within.

Far from being 4 "biographies" of Jesus, the 4 Gospels range from Mark's allegorical fiction to Matthew and Luke's reworking of the same into a "real life story" to John's not-always-successful attempt to combine Matthew's reworking with references to OT prophecies that are supposedly confirmed through the Jesus story.

These 4 "biographies" as you call them can't agree on salient "facts" in the "life" of Jesus, not because the writers had access to eyewitnesses who couldn't agree on events, but because the events themselves weren't meant as real-life experiences in the first place. Worse, when the writers decide that it's time to add a whiff of historic verisimilitude to their tales by referencing REAL historic people and events, they often get it wrong. When they attempt to portray the godly wisdom of Jesus through his observations of what we would now call the "knowing scientific view" of the world, he gets it wrong as well.

Don't get me wrong, the study of the Bible is both fascinating and rewarding, but not if one approaches it with a blinders-on attempt to justify the myths contained therein.

I'd encourage you to read a few books that challenge the historic validity of the Bible, if for no other reason than to challenge your faith. You may be surprised at what you learn.

Thanks again for the chat.

Mad Love -

Agreed that Jung is a modern Socrates of sorts & went where few would dare to go in his day. His ongoing interest and even identification with Gnosticism and transformation seems to permeate his work. I aspired to collect all of his works at one time, but stopped after half a dozen of his core treatises - very dense reading and who can give it the time these days??

Both he and Abraham Maslow well understood the goal (of self-completion) that individuals should aspire to - and all too often religion (in it's exoteric form) obstructs rather than facilitates that goal.

Mr. Mark aka CSI Grissom -

Great work as always removing the 'non' from
'nonsense' and separating fact from fiction - always a joy to read!

"The resurrection of Jesus is not on par with real events. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed outside of the Bible, and the Bible is rife with inaccuracies and inconsistencies and can't be trusted to get anything right, including the birth year of Jesus. To move a fictional character into the world of reality AND to find corroborating evidence for ANY event in his life is impossible. HOWEVER, IF Jesus did exist and IF he was indeed resurrected, THEN there would be a GREAT CHANCE that there would be corroborating evidence to support such a claim, and that evidence would be both physical and supported by histories outside of the Bible, just as physical evidence exists for events documented in Greek, Roman and Egyptian history."

A couple of responses:

We have a lot of "corroborating evidence" that Christianity, a sect within Judaism, grew rapidly because the early Christians said Jesus was bodily raised from the dead in the Jewish sense of resurrection. No other Messiah movements in the time of Jesus continued after the deaths of these "Messiahs." Observation: The historian asks why a Messianic sect within 1st century Judaism grew rapidly and one of the strong possible explanations is that it's because Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Even if I wasn't approaching this topic as a professing Christian, I would concede that this is a viable and very possible explanation.

Regarding the bible, just because the books of the bible became canonized in the 4th century, doesn't mean that we can't look at each book separately and as collaborative documents when they were first written. We have 4 biographies of Jesus that tell the story of Jesus that were written within the lifetime of the first followers of Jesus.

Long story short - no deal, Mr. Mark. We'll have to agree to disagree. Until the next topic...

Dear GK -

I wanted to address one other point you made when you wrote:

"The task of the historian or philospher is to accept this as a given and from that point, examine the information that is available to us (as well as our own biases) and from this information draw plausible conclusions."

You are correct. ALL of us who so severely criticize the Bible as a historical document do so under the scenario you outline. I hope you realize this.

"One can not totally prove something unless it is a repeatable event, hence we would turn to science experiments, etc."

It goes without saying that if one cannot offer total proof for contemporaneous events that one doesn't demand total proof for events from antiquity.

"Total" proof is NOT the standard of science. Never has been, never will be. The strength of science is that it always questions, tests and proves conclusions, always allowing for revision even if that revision amounts to .00001% of a change.

This is why science never asserts total proof, only proof to an extremely high degree of probability that may well be statistically as close to "total" as we'll ever get.

"Total" and "absolutes" are the stock-in-trade of religion, not science. But they are absolutes that demand no proof, and are, therefore, not of equal value to scientific proof. How could they be. They are opinions, and they remain opinions, even if a third of the world falsely believes them to be facts.

"But obviously we can't come to objective conclusions when we study unrepeatable events, such as the resurrection of Jesus. We can only determine viable options."

Not true by any shred of the imagination. There have been many, many singular events in earth's history that cannot be repeated (especially in a controlled situation) for which exists ample evidence that corroborates the event's occurrence. One cannot, for instance, recreate exactly the Challenger disaster, yet myriad evidence exists to corroborate the event's singular occurrence.

We know Hadrian built his wall, for there it is. We know Julius Caesar existed because physical evidence exists to support his written life story (battle field artifacts, coinage, buildings, etc), yet we don't believe that the very real Caesar was a god, even though he asserted that he was one.

The resurrection of Jesus is not on par with real events. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed outside of the Bible, and the Bible is rife with inaccuracies and inconsistencies and can't be trusted to get anything right, including the birth year of Jesus. To move a fictional character into the world of reality AND to find corroborating evidence for ANY event in his life is impossible. HOWEVER, IF Jesus did exist and IF he was indeed resurrected, THEN there would be a GREAT CHANCE that there would be corroborating evidence to support such a claim, and that evidence would be both physical and supported by histories outside of the Bible, just as physical evidence exists for events documented in Greek, Roman and Egyptian history.

But even in those histories, there is one thing for which any corroborating evidence is lacking, and that is proof that THEIR GODS were real, just as there's no proof that Jesus was real.

That's the problem with gods - even the most-powerful and the most-interventionist of them LEAVE NO TRACE of their existence outside of the fanciful words that litter the holy books of their respective religions.

What's that tell you about Yahweh and Yeshua?

Anonymous-

I am familiar with Fred Alan Wolf from his book "The Dreaming Universe". Good stuff.

I agree with you regarding monism vs dualism. There is a lot to be gained by attempting to unite the opposites. I would add the Alchemists and the theories of Carl Jung to the list of those who have seen the wisdom of this. If there is any advantage to a dualist point of view I can't see it.

DITLD-

What is it you would like to see here that this forum isn't providing? To me it seems like a pretty wild exchange of views sometimes positive, sometimes negative.

Mr. Mark-

Our GK Chesterton, like his namesake, uses rhetoric paradoxes that sound convincing to the already convinced. In my opinion the original wasn't much better.

GK- No offense, just saying...

Dear GK -

Thanks for the comment.

The reason I ask for objective facts from the religionists is because the religionists like to present hearsay, opinion, tradition, legend, myth and personal belief as if they were objective fact, or, if not objective fact, on a par with objective fact. They are not.

One may call a dozen witnesses into testify in a trial, but contrary forensic evidence will always offer greater proof of the truth. I like to use the Liberty Valance example. Who killed him? If you're Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart), you aimed your gun and pulled the trigger. You believe you shot him. From a certain view of the shooting, people believe you shot him. If you're Tom Doniphon (John Wayne), you know that you actually shot Valance. The whole town comes out of the bar and hails Stoddard as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance because they see Stoddard, Liberty's corpse and a smoking gun. Doniphon is hidden in the shadows.

However, were forensic evidence taken, we'd know immediately that Stoddard didn't shoot Valance. The angle of the entry wound and the caliber of the bullet would all point to Doniphon's across-the-street rifle, not Stoddard's head-on positioned pistol.

The objective facts would override not only the received opinion of every witness, but of Stoddard and probably Liberty himself, had he lived.

Ryan wrote, "the reality of our God and the unreality of other so-called "gods" is not a matter of opinion, but of fact, whether embraced as such or rejected by whomever." I asked Ryan for an objective fact to prove his statement to be factual, and you (GK) answered, "I have 66 books that bear this out. OK, maybe 65 since "God" isn't mentioned in the Book of Esther."

Why call it a fact when it isn't a fact? Facts BY DEFINITION are based upon objective reality. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I expect better from somebody of your intellect.

"Let's make a deal: when you're objective enough to consider the possibility that Jesus was a totally mythical character, that Thor and Zeus were "real" gods and the Biblical god is quite false, then we can maybe have a discussion. Until then, you are "showing me that you are very far from the objectivity you demand from others" when it comes to matters religious."

When you ask for objectivity in proving the existence of God or whatever else you are trying to "prove," you are asking for the impossible, Mr. Mark. Once you demand objectivity as it relates to historical research or philosophical world origin explanations, you are defeated before you even get started. Why? Because none of us are objective in the technical sense of that word, primarily because of our own particular worldviews and experiences. And for that matter, people writing during the time period of said events are not totally objective either.

The task of the historian or philospher is to accept this as a given and from that point, examine the information that is available to us (as well as our own biases) and from this information draw plausible conclusions. One can not totally prove something unless it is a repeatable event, hence we would turn to science experiments, etc. But obviously we can't come to objective conclusions when we study unrepeatable events, such as the resurrection of Jesus. We can only determine viable options.

So in a way, I think we have some agreement if I'm reading your previous post correctly. I'm still not sure that we can make a deal, though.

I fail to understand why you demand "objective facts," assuming you agree with me that non-repeatable events can't be proven. I find that to be a silly demand, especially of someone of your intellect.

Sincerely,

GK

Dear GKC -

Thanks for the comment.

My comments no more drip with sarcasm than do yours.

Objective means, "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum."

Your beliefs are purely subjective. Why not just admit that and move on, as does the man running this blog (Jon Meecham) who admits this faith is totally irrational but prefers to believe anyway? Why do you feel that you need the imprimatur of science/reality to justify and explain your beliefs?

BTW - is there anything more patronizing than religious belief? Is there anything more haughty than believing you not only know god but know his thoughts?

Let's make a deal: when you're objective enough to consider the possibility that Jesus was a totally mythical character, that Thor and Zeus were "real" gods and the Biblical god is quite false, then we can maybe have a discussion. Until then, you are "showing me that you are very far from the objectivity you demand from others" when it comes to matters religious.

Think about it.

"Well, he proves that the eye did evolve, but apparently, the eye is not fully evolved in the humans who call themselves Christians, for where the rest of us can read dictionary definitions of words like "fact" with no problem whatsoever, the Xian eye apparently can't read the word "OBJECTIVE" when it appears in such a definition."

Your dripping sarcasm is nauseating and patronizing, Mr. Mark. Ironically, your use of the word "objective" in the discussion of the existence of God (not to mention as it applies to historiography) is revealing of your own post-modern bias.

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who lives within a "closed universe" worldview to ever be objective enough to study such weighty matters. I was quite serious about the books of the Bible being evidence of the existence of God.

Your refusal to even allow for the plausible historical argument that the rise of Christianity could have been the result of the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ based on the context of other 1st century Messiahs who died and whose followings dissapeared, shows me that you are very far from the objectivity you demand from others.

Hi Karen,

Thanks for the kind response. I understand to a degree why you feel that way. When it comes to something as monstrous as the Nazis, the intense and very narrow focus of energy, skills, resources and time and effort into dehumanizing the Jews far outweighs anything put out by the Jews. It's sort of like the duel in Indiana Jones where the guy has a machete or a whip and is impressively swinging it around and Indiana Jones gets annoyed and shoots him. The bigger guns, and the most ammunition tend to decide such things.

There's an interesting book out called 'On Killing' that was written by a soldier/psychologist that talks about the ways in which armies across the centuries trained their soldiers to fight and kill other people. One of the most hopeful things was to learn that the closer in proximity one has to the enemy, the less likely they are to want to kill them. There is an innate human response to not kill- which has been systematically broken down by armies in the more 'modern age of warfare'.

It's reminding people by looking into the faces of the survivors that we stand the best chance of prevention. I also have worked in hospitals and now work with developmentally disabled children in the inner city under 3 years old, some of whose parents are struggling in other kinds of war zones. I still hold out hope though. Because if one person is helped by your work or what I do, they can begin to choose a better life for themselves. And that's what makes it worth it.

You also wrote: "Because I believe very strongly in free will and personal choice, I could never abide the idea of forcing any beliefs on others, even if I am convinced that I am right and they are wrong. For example, I disagree with my Jewish friends when it comes to who Jesus is, we have great conversations about it, but at the end of the day, we agree to disagree and I would be the first in the public square to defend your right to be a Pagan and live your life as you see fit,even if I totally disagree with your faith. My faith is not a weapon that I use to clobber others. It is a source of comfort and hope."

And I would also stand up and defend your rights as a Christian. That's the beauty of this country. And many thanks for saying that too. It gives me hope that Christianity, like any religion, can be about inspiring people to be the best they can be.

It's sometimes hard to know, especially on these threads when I'm going to run into one of those folks who aren't content to live and let live. It's happened a couple of times, where I thought I was getting into an actual debate and end up getting bashed on the head with the bible.

Thank you for not being one of them.

Blessed be.

Dear Daniel -

Thanks for your comments.

I was raised Lutheran in a town of about 20,000. There was a RCC down at the other corner from my church. The nuns would walk by our church on occasion - we assumed they were witches and called them so! I don't recall anyone correcting our childish observations.

I always felt sorry for my Catholic friends as they had to go to church more than once a week, and on Saturday, to boot!

Being Lutheran didn't mean that one learned anything about the anti-semitic, anti-intellect founder of the sect. Oh no! We just knew that those Missouri-Synod Lutherans weren't "real" Lutherans like us Ohio-synod types!

Looking back in retrospect, I don't think that learning tolerance was anywhere on our religious agenda.

Priver,
Thank you for your detailed response. I apologize for not answering sooner due to a very busy day.
I appreciate your explanation but it still seems a little bit of picking and choosing as to when your world view of the rule of three applies and when it does not ie, it applied to the nazis bringing their defeat upon themselves, but it does not apply to the victims of the holocaust bringing calamity upon themselves. Maybe I am being dense and just not getting what you are trying to say. It's friday... and brain is slowing down...

I would like to clarify one thing though. Yes I believe that we live in a fallen world, but I absolutely do not believe that we do not have choices. We are born with the potential to do good and to do bad and every day we are confronted with choosing either, many times over. Looking around us, it is clear to me that most people, most of the time, choose the bad over the good. I don't think that this is a pessimistic view of the world, I think it is very realistic. Plus, I grew up in a war zone, and I have worked for 15 years in an inner city hospital and everytime I think I have seen the most eggregious thing that one human being can do to another, there is more.

Because I believe very strongly in free will and personal choice, I could never abide the idea of forcing any beliefs on others, even if I am convinced that I am right and they are wrong. For example, I disagree with my Jewish friends when it comes to who Jesus is, we have great conversations about it, but at the end of the day, we agree to disagree and I would be the first in the public square to defend your right to be a Pagan and live your life as you see fit,even if I totally disagree with your faith. My faith is not a weapon that I use to clobber others. It is a source of comfort and hope.

Dear Mr. Mark

Is it me, or does it seem that this whole "On Faith" forum seems to have taken a sudden turn for the worse?

You asked me before, in another thread, how I come to have my relligious beliefs. At first, I didn't understand what you meant; I thought you were asking a deep philosophical question, but when I saw you give your own background, then I understood that perhaps you were referring to something like that.

I grew up in a small southern town with less than 3,000 people. We had 12 churches; I know, because when I was about 12 years old, I counted them. Even to a little boy, it seemed like alot, for such a small town.

I was a Methodist; three doors down from our church was the Baptist Church. There was alot of rivalry and one-ups-manship among the many churches. Our church always championed "ecumenicalism." If we invited the Baptists to conduct a joint service with us, they always hated it, but felt that they had to do it. They didn't like us for compelling them to associate with non-Baptists, and we enjoyed rubbing their noses in their delusions of superiority.

I was taught from early childhood to beware of the Baptists, and other people like them. I think this sort of rivalry and competition perhaps makes it easier to question things with an open mind, and learn more, than say, for example, if I had been brought up in a fundamentalist church off in the country, with no other church rivals.

Even though the Baptists were the dominating cultural influence in town, they were famous and well-known for being difficult people. They were often mocked behind their backs, by all the others, from whom they did not try to disguise their imagined superiority.

I must admit, that I carry these childhood impressions into adulthood and they seem valid today as well. I think that I learned one of the most important lessons about being a Christian from my Baptist neighbors, that being a Christian does not make a person better than anyone else. So, I thank them for that.

I wrote:
"Please provide a SINGLE FACT to support the reality of the Biblical god."

GK CHESTERTON replied:
"I have 66 books that bear this out. OK, maybe 65 since "God" isn't mentioned in the Book of Esther."

Our friend GK provides interesting evidence to support evolution with his statement.

How, you may ask?

Well, he proves that the eye did evolve, but apparently, the eye is not fully evolved in the humans who call themselves Christians, for where the rest of us can read dictionary definitions of words like "fact" with no problem whatsoever, the Xian eye apparently can't read the word "OBJECTIVE" when it appears in such a definition.

Similarly, when Xians like Ryan read the definition for the word, "proof," they apparently see some form of the Bible code within that definition that says, "see: opinion; sub. pure conjecture."

Whowouldathunkit?

Dear Ryan Haber

The existence of God cannot be proven. Therefore, if your religion and religous belief depend upon such a proof, then you are up the creek. Merely stating "how can it be otherwise?" is not a proof; it may be your particular reason for believing in God, but it is not proof that would appear on the headlines of all of the newspapers, not proof that would change the thinking of non-believers. It might be better to give your particular and personal reasons for believing in God, without calling it proof.

Also, the divorce rate in modern America is the highest in the Bible belt and it is the lowest in the liberal Northeast. Being a Christian does not make a person better or superior to people who are not Christians. This can be observed in all aspects of life, among many different kinds of people, in all kinds of places, any day of the week.

Also, Christians, including Evangelical Christians in the South believed in slavery and defended iit by force of arms. And also, the people who kidnapped Africans and brought them to America were Christians, and he people who bought them were Christians, who promoted Christian principles and attended Christian services on a regular basis.

Remember the scene in Gone with the Wind, when the family said their prayers in their personal chapel, the night before the barbecue? (A fictional story, but it was an approximate representation of life in that culture).

I am not trying to run down Christianity, but just making observations, and pointing out that your arguments and not convincing to people who may be truely skeptical.

Mad Love -

Talbot's book is a good one.

Try 'Parallel Universes' by Fred Alan Wolf - I'd say somewhere in between Talbot and Bohm. A physicist that dropped out of the university life to become a novelist in the 'esoteric' field of literature, his books are still dosed up with plenty of physics, but an easier read than Bohm.

Goswami's 'The Self-Aware Universe' is also filled with quantum ideas. He does take up the idea that mysticism and mystical experience through the ages has always pointed to the unitive nature of reality, rather than the false dualism of the 'exoteric' doctrines preached by the Abrahamic faiths (in particular) - their mystical traditions are another matter altogether.

Mystics from all the various religious traditions seem to confirm what is now being hypothesized by a number of quantum physicists regarding the holistic 'hidden' nature of reality (e.g. monism vs dualism).

Eventually science and religion may find common ground, but not while fundamentalist thinking (in both areas) reigns supreme. Many quantum physicists are still emotionally committed hard-core material realists, contrary to what their own evidence demonstrates!

best -

"Please provide a SINGLE FACT to support the reality of the Biblical god."

I have 66 books that bear this out. OK, maybe 65 since "God" isn't mentioned in the Book of Esther.

"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred."

Utter rubbish and post-enlightenment snobbery.

Anonymous-

Great post!

I tried reading David Bohm a while back but a lot of it was over my head. A book by Michael Talbot, "The Holographic Universe' broke it down where I could get a handle on it. You're probably familiar with that one, I would guess.

Well Ryan, I've always found semantic arguments to be tedious so I'll let you have it. But I'll maintain that any religion that states that everyone out side of their faith is the enemy is bankrupt and brings nothing good to the table.

Karen,

There's a difference between projected energy (what you put out when you set out to put a plan into action- in this case, the Nazis) and absorbed energy (those who receive it- in this case the Jews and the Germans and the others who were killed for trying to stop it). The Nazis invested a whole lot of energy in trying to exterminate people. I don't think that even the most imaginative Jewish person could have dreamed up what the Nazis did. A lot of the German population didn't believe it until they actually walked through some of the camps with American and Allied forces. And some people deny it to this day. And therein lies the danger.

At a governmental level, it doesn't matter what the reality of a situation IS if the government is able to convince people to go along with it. (Think how we got into Iraq). I think that the Holocaust happened because people failed to do nothing about the situation that was created. People didn't challenge the propaganda machine. It was so effective that even to this day there are people who would like to finish what was started. People created an image of what they were told a Jew was, and stopped seeing them for who they were. And that image became the 'reality'- the idea of the 'devil' linked with Jews so completely in their minds that nothing could undo that. And a LOT of innocents died.

And I think a lot of it was done in the name of national unity. I think a lot of our perception shapes our reality. The Jews were able to be villified to play upon people's fears of a people who were, in essence, different. They weren't allowed even to come here for many years.

Actually I think that the freeing of the camps and the ultimate fall of the Reich was the Rule of Three coming back to the Nazis. The Jews were massacred in unconscionable actions by the government. They didn't ASK to be put in camps, but the government at that time sure wanted them to. And when you've got an army behind you, the
bets are pretty good you're going to get your way. For a little while, at least.

As a Pagan, I am aware that I've gone from the frying pan into the fire, so to speak. There is a special hatred reserved for those of us who seek to learn from Nature and find our transendence IN the natural world, and in each other. It's probably somewhat similar to what folks like Mr. Mark and other atheist posters have had to deal with from the more virulent fundamentalists here. The only difference as I see it is that people are still fired and lose children for being Pagan.

Homosexuality and Paganism are probably some of the last acceptable prejudices here in the US. In other parts of the world, women, minorities and anyone considered 'different' is automatically suspect. We're making progress, but it's slow.

I understand your confusion. I really do. I also think the outside world had to be taught 'this is what can happen when you sit by and do nothing'. It got to an unbearable extreme before the world said 'hey, maybe we should do something'. The rumblings were there, and had people taken notice earlier, it could have been if not avoided, much less effective than it was.

Which incidentally, is why I'm glad people can see through the current presidency. But that's a different story.

I am a Jew, culturally and through my family. From my mother and her lineage. And I'm EXTREMELY proud of my heritage.

I will not say your or my view is somehow more ethical than another. Just different. From my point of view, if you start off with a 'fallen' world and believe that people don't have a choice whether or not to do the right thing, then that is the energy that will be attracted. It becomes a self defeating cycle, especially for children, who don't even know who they are yet but know that they're somehow 'sinful' just for being human.

What I see these days is Israeli actions that are hurting people. And I see Palestinian actions that are hurting people. Both groups should know better. As a Jew, I don't agree with all of Israel's actions. If Israel wants to be respected as a democracy then it must act like one and include all of its citizens. But throwing rockets every other day isn't helping the other side be heard.

I believe strongly that everyone has a choice as to determining the kind of person they want to be.

Blessed be.

On this:

"Ah, see, you still wouldn't get there by going south. And going north, you would be taking a faster method, not a different direction."

What if I start from Maine? Or the North Pole? And what if it's not about being the fastest?
It all depends on perspective. And it really is OK to have a different one than most people.

"Unbalanced, chaotic, bad people do real harm to themselves and to those around them. No, not every experience is a flower to be smelled. Some are best just left alone; when we are talking about getting to God, that is, to Goodness Itself, the most direct route will be the best for all involved."

People's definition of what the 'most direct route' will differ, too. Doesn't make them wrong.

"Some are best left alone."

True, but how will you know them unless you've had experience with them before? A child has to touch a hot stove sometimes to find out why Mommy says 'no'. Often it's the experience, and sometimes how one reacts to it, that teaches us to be more cautious in the future. If these forums have taught me anything, it's that.

For me, the things to learn are so subtly given and often easily missed until they get to a point where I can't ignore a situation anymore. At that point I say 'Ok, what am I not learning here?' Once I get the point, and make the necessary changes, the next one comes along. All part of the process.

Mr. Mark:
Very well put. Thanks. :)

I agree that some people are asleep through the scenic route. There's so much to be discovered below the surface if we only stopped to look.

Priver, you said: "As I am a Pagan, and have a much different definition of what constitutes Divinity, I do not subscribe to the biblical ethos. I subscribe to the rule of Three, in which whatever I do comes back to me threefold. Sort of the karmic idea, but much more immediate."
According to your world view, the victims of the holocaust and other genocides would have brought their torment upon themselves because what ones does comes back to them threefold. Is that a more ethical perspective than to say that there is a loving God who cares for us but that suffering still happens because we live in a fallen world and are subjected to the actions of wicked people (ie Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)

If I drink and drive then wreck my car and kill someone, yes my own actions came back to haunt me. But if I am a moral Jew (or gypsy etc.)living in Germany and Hitler decides to exterminate me, how does the rule of 3 apply to me? Or does your world view work in some cases but not others?

"What if I decided to fly a helicopter to NY?"

Ryan sez:
"Ah, see, you still wouldn't get there by going south. And going north, you would be taking a faster method, not a different direction."

Sure you would. You might have to circle the world to get there, but you'd still get there. Hate to break it to you, but the world isn't flat. In fact, you'd get there faster in an airplane going south than you would on foot going north. The different direction still gets you there, which was Priver's point.

It's all about what one wants out of the journey, a quick commute or a more-scenic route...which isn't to sat that some people don't sleep thru the entire scenic route.

"Now I understand why guys don't stop for directions. :)"

Lol.

"For me it's less about arriving at all and enjoying the path, and stopping to smell the flowers and enjoy the people also in the maze."

If we were talking about nice experiences, then I'd agree with you entirely. I'm 30 and so far I've spent most of my life smelling nice flowers around the world. But in the spiritual life, we are talking about how to be a good person, a peaceful person, a balanced person. Unbalanced, chaotic, bad people do real harm to themselves and to those around them. No, not every experience is a flower to be smelled. Some are best just left alone; when we are talking about getting to God, that is, to Goodness Itself, the most direct route will be the best for all involved.

"But please don't try to tell me that your way is the ONLY way to get there."

I wouldn't dream of telling someone that they are wasting their time, or on the wrong path, if they are genuinely seeking truth. They will find it. That is not the same thing as to say that all roads are the same.

"What if I decided to fly a helicopter to NY?"

Ah, see, you still wouldn't get there by going south. And going north, you would be taking a faster method, not a different direction.

"Well, not in real life. In real life.."

Now I understand why guys don't stop for directions. :)

What does this have to do with anything? The way to transcendence is different for people but people can still come out with a Divine that speaks to them just as much without subscribing to your worldview. Consider it like a labyrinth, with openings all around the outer parts that may not get there right away, but will ultimately lead to the destination. And along the way, it's about learning what needs to be learned. For me it's less about arriving at all and enjoying the path, and stopping to smell the flowers and enjoy the people also in the maze.

You've found what works for you.. and that's great. But please don't try to tell me that your way is the ONLY way to get there. I have found what works for me, and it's not the same as yours. And that's ok too. To expand on your analogy, what if I decided to fly a helicopter to NY? Which road to take becomes unnecessary, yet I still get there. And by driving the helicopter I had a hand in getting myself there.

We all create our own meaning. And if we expect to find it we will. And no two people's definitions will be alike.

On this: "The Holocaust, and other large-scale crimes, are composits of hundreds of thousands of little, individual deeds of wickedness and indifference."

Actually the Holocaust is probably one of the few examples where there isn't just little composite deeds.. but a systematic failure on an unprecedented scale. It's far too simple to say 'well if this person had done something, things would have been different'. In fact, a lot of people did little things that prevented it from getting even worse than it was, by harboring Jews and others in their homes at their own personal risk. But the failure was systemic.

You want to look at 'little composites of individual deeds', look no further than our 'compassionate conservative' President.