Dare to Wonder

Author James Aten also made some interesting comments about the Bible on his site http://authortree.com/james_aten and in his book The Truth About Wicca and Witchcraft-Finding Your True Power. He says that many passages in the Bible are "baseless" and even suggests that the Wiccan Rede is very similar to what Jesus is said to have taught. Guess what? I agree1

KS8hos U cool ))

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

To the truly up-set,

You seem to take umbrage with my use of the term "saved". The reason I put it in quotations is because I NEVER use the term myself. I find that to be the most worthless and worn out term used by Christians today. You ask the question I continually ask of my more fundamentalist brethren; Saved from what??

The truth is for many Christians it is EXACTLY about the internal process you describe.

You have attacked me with some assumptions that are totally unwarranted. You have NO IDEA of my motivations or methods, judging by your criticisms. You would do well to try to refrain from throwing every "Christian" you encounter into the same box. There are as many different Christians as there are atheists.

Peace

Au contraire, Greg.

What you are describing is one of the most serious issues I have with Christianity -- the need to force it on everyone else, even if the forcing is passive-aggressive. If Christianity were limited to an internal process, whereby the individual strived to develop a personal relationship with their version of the Divine with a live and let live mentality, society might have a chance. However, that's not the truth of it; that's not the case.

How dare you assume that others will want or need or accept your 'blessings' your prayers that they will forsake their own relationship with the Divine to submit to yours? No one asked you for that; no one asked to be "saved" ... saved from WHAT???

How would you feel if a Peruvian Shaman drenched you in the blood of a live chicken and paraded you naked throught the Village in the name of 'healing and salvation?"

Well that's exactly how I feel when I have to look at that half naked, bloody, vile, piece of meat hanging from a cross in public places; when my children are forced to view that violent obscenity and be subjected to the sugarcoated language of love -- that this guys father loved him sooo much, he allowed this to happen -- he did this, oh and wait! There's more,... he did it for YOU!!! ---GREAT!! Well I didn't ask him to do that for me and it's not particularly the value I want shoved down the throat of society.

So stop it with the sanctimony of your gratitutious 'service.' If you can do that service, accomplish that work, give to those people without ever once mentioning your religion, your god or your motivation -- just do the work without all the strings attached - then perhaps you will have accomplished somethign truly altruistic and remarkable.

Nice to be back after a week away.

I spent the last week in Belize doing construction of schools the 'Third World Way'.

My thoughts on what is "right" about Christianity and what is "wrong" about it;

You do Christianity wrong when you make it about "saving" your self.
You do it right when you make it about "saving" others.

You do Christianity wrong when you claim God will bless you with things if you just believe the right way.
You do it right when you are willing to bless others by working to right the injustices that are affecting them.

You do Christianity wrong when you act as if only some are "in".
You do it right when your efforts are directed towards breaking down exclusionary and discriminatory practices anywhere and everywhere.

There are many things wrong with Christianity today but it is the people who are doing it wrong not vice versa.

peace

I have further thoughts and it’s good to get them in writing.

For centuries the Roman church ruled over Christianity. The creed was set in the fouth century. Then, over a thousand years later, the reformation and the enlightenment happened. Scholars uncovered the mysteries of the Bible.

Now in the 21 century, moderate clergy say among themselves, “We know how the bible was written and how it’s supposed to be read and interpreted, but we’re not going to tell people in church because they’re not ready to accept it and it might shake their faith.”

Then the fundies come along and shout, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it!”

Then out come the atheists with “God’s a delusion and the Bible is myth.”

What’s the likely outcome of this? Certainly the atheists and the moderates are going to fight against the fundamentalists. How do the moderates do that while preserving their faith? How do they hold on to what’s real in Christianity while tossing the extremist view? Is it ridiculous to think the Bible is inerrant, but sensible to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven? Is it silly to deny the lack of evidence for Exodus, but smart to believe in the God who, as it turns out, didn’t free the Jews or give them their promised land, after all? Is it a show of faith to give God credit for anything good that happens and irreverent to hold him responsible for the bad stuff?

I think the faithful, who are not also clergy or biblical scholars who treasure the Bible and who have dedicated their lives to Christianity, will be thinking more about these things. I’ll be interested to see how the dedicated professionals handle the proletariat. Maybe the outcome will be my dream of Christian Humanism.

Interested – the more I think about your Bible as “source book” the more I like it – as long as all non-fundamentalist clergy would drive the point home every chance they got, e.g., in sermons, in the Sunday bulletin and other church communications (newsletter, website), adult education and Sunday school. This would mean putting the Bible in perspective -- distinguishing it from a guide book or a magic book and comparing it to other “source” books and other literature, ancient and otherwise. It would mean reasonable Episcopalians wouldn’t entertain arguments about discriminatory scripture from their unreasonable peers.

Maybe improved public education would help some people remain Christian. I’d probably be fine with those people, assuming the education was of the same standard as other decent education. I’m not against religion, just against magic and indoctrination. Though people harmed by fundamentalism are a portion of atheists, among the atheists I’m getting to know there are a lot of former Catholics, Jews and mainline Protestants who have relatively mild experiences losing their faith, for instance:

– perceiving religion as organized superstition that’s way out of tune with the otherwise reason-based modern world;
– realizing the idea of God or the basic story line of a particular religion didn’t make sense;
– learning through their own research that what their church-based religious education was terribly limited, misleading or simply not factual;
– determining that belief didn’t add anything to their lives and in fact, detracted from their enjoyment of the present;
– realizing that the religious hierarchy was all about human power;
– becoming alarmed by the current damage being done by the fundamentalists and the blurring of church and state.

There are other reasons too, I’m sure.

I realize that biblical scholars differ just as scholars on other subjects differ. That’s fine when they’re in their ivory tower. Still, I do think they generally agree on basics, such as when/how the gospels were written – the kind of thing that you’d find in a respected theology text used widely at the college level or in div school. Even so, clergy don’t get their stories straight (as I indicated in a previous post) about the basics. One will say straight up that Exodus is a myth. One will refer to Exodus in context as if it’s a fact, never directly addressing its status. One will defend it as fact until forced to admit it’s a myth. It’s this kind of situation to which I think clergy could and should have a consistent and ready response – and it should be factual. Grown adults shouldn’t be treated like children who will be disillusioned to learn there’s no Santa. It may not be easy to for clergy to change this pattern of protection/deceit, considering what they’ve done to perpetuate it, but it has to be done for anyone to make a mature choice about religion. It’s too easy for clergy to lament their parishioners’ ignorance and childish notions of faith. Clergy needs to make a concerted effort to change it. But I doubt they will. I think at some level, many people want to believe and many clergy want them to believe. It’s a hard job for clergy to change that. I think they consciously or unconsciously fear it will ultimately not be in their best interest. I’d be delighted to be wrong about that.

Unlike you, I’m not so sure change will take an earthquake. There are major tremors now that could hasten the shift in thinking away from “faith.” I think the recent bestsellers on atheism (none written by former fundamentalists, by the way) indicate that something different is happening now. More people are willing to be open about their lack of belief. I think any serious scrutiny of faith will cause a lot of lazy believers (like I was) to see the obvious – religions are made-up stories. Supernatural events don’t happen. So far, science has explained phenomena once attributed to God and will continue to do so. It’s the theists who have odd notions, not the atheists , etc., etc. If people don’t come to those conclusions and can still manage to practice a religion that enhances their lives and doesn’t impinge on others, fine.

The recent fundamentalist shift may turn out to be a good thing. It could result in clergy being forthright about what they know about the bible and church history, more atheists recognizing their lack of belief and coming out of the closet, and more moderate believers examining their faith in an adult and modern context. I’m sure people like us will be watching closely to see what happens.

To E. Fav and others:

Here's where I get off the boat. If we were all sitting in a diner somewhere, I'd love to talk about the big issues of God's existence and whether religion has made a mess of things. But these forums don't seem to be a place to get much done on those issues.

Let me clarify that I think that the Bible should be read as we would any other book. I don't expect a 2,000 year old text to give me a science lesson, and I would expect to find discrepancies in an epic narrative to which many writers contributed over a period of several generations. We should read the Bible by trying to understand it on its own terms, like we would any book.

Your statement that I view the Bible as a "treasure" is right on. This is an aesthetic judgment that puts the Bible in the class of great literature. But separate from and in addition to that, I am a Christian who uses the Bible as a "source book" for how I think about God, myself and my community and for how I live my life. I am liberal/progressive in my thinking about the Bible, but I am a rather Orthodox Christian. I have no opinion about whether the Bible has some intangible difference from other great literature or religious texts. But as a Christian I accept the Christian story as the story that informs my life.

Like you, I would like to see better public education about biblical scholarship. But unlike you, I think that it would help some people remain Christians. Testimonials by people who abandon Christianity often mention the discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. If the fundamentalists hadn't blown so much air into the balloon, it wouldn't be so easy to pop. And contemporary biblical scholarship is not necessarily discrediting to Christianity.

Concerning your "truth in advertising" moment, you seem to believe that there is a broad consensus among biblical scholars and liberal clergy about the historicity of biblical events, but there isn't. This isn’t a situation where lifting a veil of obfuscation by religious professionals will reveal an agreed upon set of facts. Like any healthy academic discipline, biblical scholarship is a diverse and dynamic field, and there are serious scholars of various stripes. Some of them have religious beliefs, and their views on the Bible do not accurately predict their theology (I am an example of that). If scholars come out and say what they really think, they will say all sorts of different things, just like they are already doing. People will continue to disagree.

The most that would be achieved is a helpful shift. The influence of the religious right has tilted public dialogue of religion in very conservative direction. Better coverage of biblical scholarship will bring topics to the table (e.g., the Exodus) that the media has considered too sensitive. But that shift will not be an earthquake. There is simply do much diversity of opinion to get a consistent result. You and I are an example. We may agree on many issues about the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative, but we disagree on the implications of that and we are in opposite camps in terms of the existence of God and the authenticity of religion.

Since "truth in advertising" includes more than just biblical scholarship, I would extrapolate what I said here to other issues like whether religion has made a mess of things.

Interested, I think I covered your points 1 and 2 in my recent post. Regarding point 3 – clergy obfuscating – I’ve seen it a lot. I recently commented (in private conversation) to a priest that he discussed Exodus in a sermon as if it were real, when he knew it was a myth. He actually started telling me about how some people disagreed with that view. When I pressed the point that serious, respected scholars and archeologists felt sure it was a myth, he backed off. He was obviously primed to disabuse me of my notion, and gave up only when he saw I didn’t trust his response. In an earlier conversation, another minister in the same parish acknowledged the Exodus myth immediately.

Yet another minister was waxing eloquent about how ancient Jews were all agog about the resurrection because such a thing was previously unheard of. When I mentioned the various dying and rising Gods I’d learned about the previous week in a class held in that church, his face reddened, he began to stutter, then repeated several times that those gods were “mythic echoes” of Jesus. Having embarrassed him so, I didn’t have the nerve to point out that these gods preceded Jesus, thus could not be echoes.

Hello - posting this before reading posts since my last one.

INTERESTED -- You seem to view the Bible like a treasure, the way some people treasure Chaucer, Shakespeare or Greek mythology. I have a variation of that view – that while the Bible (like other ancient literature and myth) is very valuable and should be preserved and honored, it’s vastly over-rated and misunderstood in terms of its role in modern life. And not just by the fundamentalists – by any person or group who considers it not just as a treasure, but as being in a completely different category, (i.e., holy, magic, authoritative) than any other valuable book. If biblical scholars and clergy don’t think it’s holy, magic and authoritative, I think they should shout it from the rooftops for everyone to hear, fundamentalists and past perceptions of the Bible be damned. As Up-Set says, It’s time for “truth in advertising.”

If the Bible is so complex and so different from most other books that modern people are expected to read and understand, then it should be taught only in a way for people to understand it properly, or it shouldn’t be taught at all. I realize that these restrictions can’t be effectively imposed, but they could at least be understood by all and accepted as best practice. For instance, with Chaucer, in order to even understand it, not to mention appreciate it, you need to decipher the original middle-English and be familiar with its historical setting. Then it changes from gibberish, to beautiful and moving literature. Still, it’s not holy. Even though it very powerfully takes you to another time, it’s not magic. Even though it’s instructive about human nature, it’s not the final authority – such a thing does not exist in a book. It’s not the fundamentalists’ fault that the Bible is misperceived. For centuries, Christianity has held it up as the Word of God, figuratively or literally. Episcopal bishops are currently cherry-picking from the OT to justify discrimination against homosexuals. People give the Bible as a gift for life’s most significant occasions as if it’s a talisman. No wonder people assume it has special powers. No wonder it’s a bestseller.

From what I can gather from people (including myself) who have taken rather sophisticated church-offered classes on the bible, they are taught a lot of this context, but still, in the end, are expected to “believe.” The assumption is that our faith won’t and shouldn’t waver, despite what we learn. In a class on the fundamentals of Christianity, the professor (and they were all seminary professors, also teaching adult ed at a church), would entertain any question, with the proviso that the course was being taught from the perspective of belief. He was a real silver-tongued wizard on the subject of the Trinity.

GREG – I’m really glad to find a Christian humanist out there. I suspect there are few and that they move quickly to atheism, feeling uncomfortable (speaking for myself) with the duplicity, intended or not, of Christianity. I wanted to tell you that Dan Dennett, does indeed suggest an alternative to Christianity (Breaking the Spell, p33) in which “Religions transform themselves into institutions unlike anything seen before on the planet: basically creedless associations selling self-help and enabling moral teamwork, using ceremony and tradition to cement relationships and build “long-term fan loyalty.” It’s my favorite of his five theories on the future of religion.

Now to UPSET. Thank You. When I read your piece, I shouted “Yes!” Complete change is the only viable route, after the mess religion has made of things. Many biblical scholars and clergy may be talented, lovely, humane people, but too bad – at their core they’re perpetuating myth as truth and it has done way more harm than good. I think of clergy as having a triple major – in social work, ancient literature and performing arts. They tend to be very well-rounded and religious life offers an outlet for their many talents. I think there will always be a valued place in society for people with this set of talents. Too bad – it’s no reason to keep religion going. As much as I’d like to see a benign form of Christian humanism emerge and survive, I fear there’s little motivation as long as clergy can coast along, “mutating,” as you put it, without ever facing up to the vast disservice they done by not being honest with their flock.

I have more to say, but will post this now to avoid further delay.

To E. Fav:

Although my last post was horribly long, I was disappointed in two points I made.

1. When I say that I am disappointed that popular critics of the Bible swallow the fundamentalist view, can you imagine an irreligious person reading the Bhaghavad Gita because they want to understand its meaning and then holding it up to criticism for being unhistorical and unscientific? Of course not. They will labor to read it on its own terms (i.e., not as a science text) so as understand its meaning. They will do the same with Homer, Buddhist texts, or Native American creation stories. But when the same person reads the Book of Genesis, that person criticizes it for disagreeing with modern science. Huh?

The authors of the creation stories of Genesis did not intend the stories to be taken literally. In this, we belie our lack of sophistication, but impute it to the ancient authors as their lack of sophistication. I criticize the fundamentalists for misreading Genesis. But I hold their critics under greater criticism, because their critics claim to have given the Bible a fresh, honest read.

2. I must clarify that I have never personally seen a clergy person lie, obfuscate, or be insincere. I'm sure that some have; I just haven't seen it personally. I have seen clergy gauge their audience and find a constructive way to introduce them to new ideas or a new way of thinking. In do so, they are trying to be clear.

Hello Interested, Greg and Upset - downloaded your posts and will reply at next opportunity.

I'm sorry I missed part of this; I've been camping and out of electronic communication for a few days.

I realize that my last post sounded pretty irritable but the subject matter really clips a nerve with me.

Christianity is largely based on fabrication. There is minimal fact to support any of its tenets. The Romans and the Jews of the day were excellent record-keepers and yet there is no reference made to Jesus during his actual purported lifetime.

Not only is there no reference made to him personally but nothing that recognizes any of his works either. No record of the wedding at Caanan where the water was turned to wine, there is no record of the raising of Lazarus, no record of the calming of the sea, of the sermon on the mount and the feeding of the loaves and fishes. There is no such custom within the Jewish tradition, at Passover, that allows a criminal to go free and no record of any criminal within the prison ranks named Barabas. There is no record of an actual place called Golgatha, no thieves on the crosses, nothing of the darkening of the skies, the shaking of the earth (that converted the Centurion) or the renting of the temple veil. You’d think that as spectacular as any of these events were, someone, somewhere, would have written something down in the official records of the time.

From there let’s take a look at the redeemer complex which arose out of the early Christian movement; the components of which supported the enormous wave of violence within the converts to the Salvationist creed who pinned their faith on the Divine Redeemer because they believed their god had uniquely sanctioned them to inflict suffering to further his cause. Belief in the redemptive value of suffering is the core dynamic of Christianity and coupled with the will to conquer, and the genocide, it drove the rise of Roman Christianity and released an ever-spreading ever-expanding wave of destruction across the planet, stealing stories and traditions from other religions as it went.

One example of many would be the origins of the Holy Ghost, something that factors largely in Christianity. The Holy Ghost was a Gnostic creation and the original name was Sophia. Valentinian Gnostics said, “The world was born of Sophia’s smile.”

Humans may commit violence for many reasons, they may seek to oppress and dominate others for a variety of reasons, but when domination by violent force, both physical and psychological is infused with righteousness and underwritten by divine authority, violence takes on another dimension. It becomes inhuman and deviant. What kind of world results if the desire to dominate and control others, inflicting enormous suffering in the process, is sanctioned by a divine being who can at the same time redeem that suffering and release the perpetrators and their victims from the world’s evil?

The bible was written the way it was for a reason; with intent. The concept of these passages have been stolen from the Homeric Hymns, from the works of Hypatia, from the poetry of Sappho and a host of other works that were burned or destroyed by Christians with the goal of obliteration of Pagan ways. What was left of these works were then twisted and mutated to support the idea of one jealous and angry male God, with authority over all creatures; a God who is judgmental and horribly punitive with adherence to his ways the only means of redemption!

The Church as a business has amassed an incomprehensible fortune by forcing these beliefs upon others on the risk of torture and death. This book and this religion has been the cause of more war and bloodshed than any other cause. To consider the story of Jesus as anything more serious than folklore is absurd.

What I find the most frustrating though is that recently there appears to be yet another version of Christianity on the rise, those who purport to separate themselves from the fundamentalists; to distance themselves from their roots and to embrace some sort of new age white light interpretations of the religion. Women are more accepted now, when they used to be pariahs of filth and sin. In some denominations they even get to be ordained. Priests and clergy are no longer protected by the old boys club and they are actually being criminally prosecuted for their rapes and pedophilia.

It hasn't always been this way -- and yet there's this phenomenon happening, this sleight of hand magic trick – as though an attempt were being made to re-write history, as though things have always been this way, this new way, the one that gets along with other religions instead of trying to kill off those who elect to decline salvation, the one that portrays god as a loving and compassionate creator instead of some egomaniacal judge, jury and executioner sentencing non-compliant souls to an eternity of excruciating pain.

There’s a new ad campaign happening now to make this religion more appealing to the customers. Move along folks, nothing to see here… We never sent missionaries to wipe out entire cultures or accused widows of war of witchcraft because they refused to send their sons into battle for the cause of Christianity and we needed their land and their assets to support our wars. And even more recently, we never denied water to the US soldiers in Iraq unless they agreed to be baptized…that’s not us…that’s The Fundamentalists we’ve never subscribed to that kind of behavior, it’s un-Christian. Jesus loves you now put your check in the wicker basket.

Why? Why is this shift happening? Because people are leaving the churches in droves, sick of being chastised and fire and brimstoned to death. They are tired of being beaten over the head with god's love and they are realizing that they are no longer willing to give their clergy the respect they command because it is undeserved -- because they've been lied to, duped, and relegated with fairy tales that used to be touted as literal truth and at the end of the day it’s really all about brainwashing, control and financial gain.

In my mind when something this evil has been permitted to run rampant across the world for this long without being exposed for what it is, there is no redeeming it. If it were a person it would have been put to death. No other business would ever be permitted to continue on with such blatant disregard of truth in advertising -- scamming money out of the old, the infirm and the frightened. Truly this religion is an infection that needs to be stopped, not mutated yet again into something else.

To E. Fav and Gregg (especially E. Fav):

When I wrote about how Isaiah 7:14, I was trying to state the facts as best as I could without prejudice. But when I called the Bible a “source book,” I was not using scholarly terminology. I was dropping my guard--that's me.

I am a Christian, and I think that the Bible should be vitally important to Christians. But I think that contemporary talk among conservative Christians of the Bible as "inerrant" or "infallible” is unfortunate and often idolatrous. Traditionally, Christians hold that Jesus is the revelation of God and of God's disposition toward humanity. But conservative Christians divinize the Bible so that it displaces Jesus. This is contrary to classical Christian thought and contrary to scripture.

Let me explain my phrase “source book.” The phrase is a response to conservative Christians who say "guide book." The ancient authors and editors who gave us the Bible were as sophisticated as any thinkers in the 21st century. Also, if we could get them around a table, they would argue with each other. The Bible often leaves questions open and makes you think. For some of the most important questions, the Bible contains multiple answers. In fact, most ethics in the Bible are not propositional, but situational.

Two examples:
1. God asks Abraham to kill his son and Abraham does what God asks, apparently because it was God who asked. (But don't pigeon-hole this story too quickly; it is a thoughtful, philosophical story.) In Job, God treats a just human being in a horribly unjust way, and Job spends most of the book trying to put God on trial. (Terminology in Job appears to be drawn from ancient lawsuits.) So, which is it? Do you obey God because it's God, or do you struggle with God based on your conscience? The Bible thoughtfully defined the two extreme poles, and most believers live out their lives moving between the two.
2. Deuteronomy is famous for its theology of "do right and prosper; do wrong and fail." If you were an ancient Judean and extended this theology as far as you could, you would have to ask, "Since the Babylonians not only prospered but also destroyed Jerusalem, does this mean that the Babylonians at some point repented from polytheism, followed the God of Israel and obeyed the Mosaic law?" Hence, the little Book of Jonah--a fictional, farcical short story--tells of a reluctant prophet who preaches to the capital of the Babylonian empire and the king and people repent. Everyone knew that this never happened. But as a comedy and farce, the story of Jonah criticizes anyone who takes the theology of Deuteronomy too far.

Through its internal diversity the Bible explores important issues and arrives at a range of views within a monotheistic perspective. The Bible is a dialogue. Hence, it is a source book, not a guide book.

If the Bible were a guide book--internally consistent, filled with clear answers, never posing problematic ideas--it would have been relevant for a generation or two and then thrown on the ash heap of history. Religious, existential and ethical questions are not constructively discussed with the inductive simplicity of the hard sciences. The Bible's diversity is what makes it compelling, relevant and powerful.

You may say that these ideas are well and good, but they have no relevance because this isn’t how most U.S. Christians treat the Bible. But I see it in the opposite way. The ideas that conservative Christians have about the Bible (inerrant, infallible) are passing fads, part of the spirit of the age. In fact, these ideas are instances of Christians applying an Enlightenment and/or scientific mentality to the Bible. If I put on the dispassionate hat of a historian of religions, I would say that internal diversity/dialogue is true of the scriptures of all major religions and that this is a defining feature of “scripture” as a phenomenon among the religions. The fact that the Bible has survived so long and will survive through the unfortunate ideas of this generation is a function of its dialogical nature.

Not seeing the diversity in the Bible as a strong point is a modern prejudice. Ancient and medieval thinkers were more comfortable with ambiguity and diversity in thought than moderns. For this reason, I think that the recent post by James Carroll, “Is ‘God’ the root of all evil?” is right on. We may be very good at science, but the ancients had strengths that we could learn from. So when I read participants in these blogs say that the Bible can't be "God's Word" because it is full of contradictions, etc., I feel disappointment that they have swallowed the fundamentalist view of scripture.

On scholars and clergy, I don’t perceive the same problem that you do. Most biblical scholars that I know spend a lot of time lecturing in churches, synagogues and public gatherings.

Concerning clergy, I agree that some soften their teaching about the Bible. But even a clergy person who is a progressive on the Bible has enthusiastic beliefs about God and Jesus and about what God asks of the church community. Hence, the pastor may give higher priority to building a healthy loving community that worships God than to clarifying how to think about the Bible. If you think that their priorities should be different, you simply disagree with them. It’s not that they are being disingenuous.

A balance has to be struck. Progressive pastors try to give their congregations “food for thought” so that step-by-step they reach a better understanding of the Bible. This is good pedagogy. “Dropping bombs” would backfire. Most clergy are overworked people who give 110%. They do not pull punches to maintain cushy jobs.

Finally, conservative churches are informed by conservative biblical scholars, who got their PhDs at Harvard, Yale, and impressive European schools. They know the data and have read all the literature. When such scholars publish on topics like the Dead Sea Scrolls--a safe area that does not impinge on the historicity of the Bible--their publications are often judged to be at the very top of the field internationally. I may think that their research on biblical issues is skewed, but they disagree.

E Fav,

When I say "If the Bible were never compiled we would have plenty of evidence..." I am only referring to the fact that much of the Bible is about taking the Jesus stories from numerous sources and compiling them with a common theme. Had the Bible not been compiled the stories about Jesus' life would have still been there. There were the early followers of "The Way" who were pre Bible disciples of Jesus' ministry.

I could not agree more with your comment about Christian humanism. That is what Jesus himself would encourage IMO.
My current thinking about Christianity has many sources. I love listening to Rob Bell and Robin Meyers preach and I spend a lot of time reading books by Marcus Borg.

My comment regarding the creation of atheists is quite simple really. By framing the argument the following way; God is the creator of everything, the Bible IS Gods word, Jesus is God incarnate (and all the usual "facts" about Jesus) and only by believing these things will we be "saved", you will automatically create a class of "outsiders", the atheists.

Your last comment is what I've been arguing in response to people like Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris, all of whom I have a great deal of respect for and think are thoughtful, intelligent men. However when they call for "abolishing" religion I simply think we need better religion. If you listen to people like Rob Bell "do" church you would view church differently.

My only problem with most religion is that it has nothing to do with God and everything to do with power over people, which is almost always destructive in some form.

Peace

Interested, Yes, what you say helps a lot. Some of it I knew in a sketchy way, but it helps to have details and analysis. What I find most interesting is your reference to the bible as a “source book.” I think I understand what that means, but have never heard that terminology. It’s certainly different from “authoritative,” or “trustworthy” or the stronger “holy” or “inerrant.” I don‘t doubt that this is the way scholars speak in all good conscience. However, I’m afraid that when lay people hear this, they hear “Respected scholars agree that the bible is a dependable source of information about Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and Saviour.” I’m fairly sure that clergy would do nothing to discourage this perception and would be more likely to encourage it. Makes their lives simpler. Stimulates membership. Scholars may not have an academic responsibility to clear this up, but I do think they have a civic responsibility to clarify matters. For instance, when using the term “source book,” scholars could make the distinction between “source” and “authority” and the other terms, saying not only what the bible is, but what it is not.

Clergy have more responsibility, perhaps, because they have more direct contact with the public.
Thinking about what you said earlier about the PBS shows and popular books, perhaps scholars are in fact trying hard to improve public awareness. It’s so difficult, because there seem to be few standards on what can get published. In the book stores you can find authoritative academic research on Exodus a shelve away from books that provide modern insight and supposed research on OT stories as if they happened exactly as written. Because the Bible is a matter of faith (i.e., whatever a person wants to believe), serious academic research is placed on a par (in the public eye) with individual belief. Anything goes. Perhaps another thing scholars and the responsible reason-based media could work on is educating the public on the difference between religious studies/research and religious faith.

Greg - I wonder why you say “If the Bible were never compiled we would still have evidence of Jesus' remarkable life,” considering there is so little about Jesus outside the Bible. What does exist is sketchy, not contemporaneous and in some cases is disputed and likely forged. I seriously doubt a Jesus figure would have emerged at all without the Bible because there would not have been a concerted effort to find and piece together information about him. My feeling, is whether or not Jesus is “real” or if his basic message is original or unique, it’s still quite good and worthy of continued practice. I’d like to see Christian humanism take hold – all the good teachings Jesus, minus all the supernatural embellishments. How about you? Also I’m curious how you arrived at your current thinking about Christianity.

Your comment, “This [insistence on ‘believing’] is what has poisoned religion and created atheists” is something I’m pondering too. While I think there’s something to it, I don’t think it’s quite that simple. From talking to numerous atheists lately, I’m finding are many roads to atheism. Some are born that way – they have an innate awareness, regardless of what they’re taught. I do think what you say may apply somewhat to me and other former liberal or moderate Christians. I respect the idea of ritual and value the community and good that churches provide – and love the music (with some changed words). Get rid of the dogma, indoctrination and supernatural and I’m fine.

This describes the Unitarian church, I know, but, I like to think there will be a way of preserving what’s good about Christianity when we finally are able to unload what is destructive about it. What do you think? (I’m addressing Interested, too).

Interested, Yes, what you say helps a lot. Some of it I knew in a sketchy way, but it helps to have details and analysis. What I find most interesting is your reference to the bible as a “source book.” I think I understand what that means, but have never heard that terminology. It’s certainly different from “authoritative,” or “trustworthy” or the stronger “holy” or “inerrant.” I don‘t doubt that this is the way scholars speak in all good conscience. However, I’m afraid that when lay people hear this, they hear “Respected scholars agree that the bible is a dependable source of information about Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and Saviour.” I’m fairly sure that clergy would do nothing to discourage this perception and would be more likely to encourage it. Makes their lives simpler. Stimulates membership. Scholars may not have an academic responsibility to clear this up, but I do think they have a civic responsibility to clarify matters. For instance, when using the term “source book,” scholars could make the distinction between “source” and “authority” and the other terms, saying not only what the bible is, but what it is not.

Clergy have more responsibility, perhaps, because they have more direct contact with the public.
Thinking about what you said earlier about the PBS shows and popular books, perhaps scholars are in fact trying hard to improve public awareness. It’s so difficult, because there seem to be few standards on what can get published. In the book stores you can find authoritative academic research on Exodus a shelve away from books that provide modern insight and supposed research on OT stories as if they happened exactly as written. Because the Bible is a matter of faith (i.e., whatever a person wants to believe), serious academic research is placed on a par (in the public eye) with individual belief. Anything goes. Perhaps another thing scholars and the responsible reason-based media could work on is educating the public on the difference between religious studies/research and religious faith.

Greg - I wonder why you say “If the Bible were never compiled we would still have evidence of Jesus' remarkable life,” considering there is so little about Jesus outside the Bible. What does exist is sketchy, not contemporaneous and in some cases is disputed and likely forged. I seriously doubt a Jesus figure would have emerged at all without the Bible because there would not have been a concerted effort to find and piece together information about him. My feeling, is whether or not Jesus is “real” or if his basic message is original or unique, it’s still quite good and worthy of continued practice. I’d like to see Christian humanism take hold – all the good teachings Jesus, minus all the supernatural embellishments. How about you? Also I’m curious how you arrived at your current thinking about Christianity.

Your comment, “This [insistence on ‘believing’] is what has poisoned religion and created atheists” is something I’m pondering too. While I think there’s something to it, I don’t think it’s quite that simple. From talking to numerous atheists lately, I’m finding are many roads to atheism. Some are born that way – they have an innate awareness, regardless of what they’re taught. I do think what you say may apply somewhat to me and other former liberal or moderate Christians. I respect the idea of ritual and value the community and good that churches provide – and love the music (with some changed words). Get rid of the dogma, indoctrination and supernatural and I’m fine.

This describes the Unitarian church, I know, but, I like to think there will be a way of preserving what’s good about Christianity when we finally are able to unload what is destructive about it. What do you think? (I’m addressing Interested, too).

Greg and Interested - thanks for your responses. I have limited interenst access for a while and will respond to your posts when I can - hope you're back here to check.

Interested,

Thanks for your input, you obviously have studied your Biblical history. I rely on others and have not taken the time my self.

My main problem is that too many people who call themselves Christians are actually WORSHIPING THE BIBLE! That to me is idolatry. If the Bible were never compiled we would still have evidence of Jesus' remarkable life and have plenty of reason to emulate his behavior. In addition, by learning "the way" of Jesus and putting it into practice our world would be much less tortured than it currently is. The fact that he has been elevated to the status that he has would be quite repugnant to him I believe, especially since so many "facts" about his life are used as a litmus test for ones faith.

I think E fav and many others (myself included)are simply weary of the Christian paradigm that has dominated our history. It is a tired, old and quite un compelling world view. All this talk about him fulfilling prophecy and all the end times BS is simply crap. The efforts of most evangelicals today is not to change peoples lives but to change their minds. They simply want them to profess certain beliefs, period. By professing these beliefs they will be saved?? Cmon, gimme a break, especially since most of these things we are told to believe are quite implausible to the modern mind.

As a Christian I have never felt the desire to persuade anyone to believe anything ABOUT Jesus, its pointless. However it is clear to me that his way of ministering to the early Jewish peasants, who were living under extreme oppression from Rome, is the most effective way to exert ones humanity when the dominant forces are trying to extinguish it. His clear path of non violence is what should be emphasized today. That should be his transcendant message, not any of this "saving" stuff.

My rant for the day

peace

To E. Fav and Greg:

Since we seem to be the only ones left on this thread, I will take the liberty to explain an example.

1. On Isaiah 7:14, this is a great example. The 1611 King James translation translates the Hebrew text as: "... a virgin will conceive...." When the Revised Standard Version (a translation sponsored by mainline denominations) came out sometime in the 1950s (?), conservative Christians piled them up and burned them, because the RSV translated this verse, an important verse to Christians, as "... a young woman will conceive...."

The Hebrew word here is "almah" which means a young woman, apparently a young woman prior to being married or prior to becoming pregnant for the first time. While the Hebrew word "almah" is inclusive of virgins, it does not refer exclusively to virgins. Hence, the RSV is the better translation, and nowadays even conservative Christians accept this translation. It just took them time to get used to it.

The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish Bible translated for Greek-speaking Jews between about 300 BC and 150 BC, uses the Greek word "parthena" which does mean "virgin." (Notice the discussion in posts above about Parthenogenesis = virgin birth.) But just as we have multiple English translations today, the Jewish scriptures were translated more than once into Greek in the ancient world. Ancient translations from the 2nd century CE use "neanis" which means "young woman." So, ancient Jewish translators also struggled with this verse from Isaiah.

The Greek version of Isaiah available to the writers of the New Testament was the Septuagint. Hence, the New Testament quotes Isaiah 7:14 as prophecy that a virgin would conceive. Now, does this mean that the NT writers were confused by a bad translation and mistakenly understood Isaiah 7:14 as prophecy of a virgin birth? Hence, they concocted a story of a virgin birth so that Jesus would be the fulfillment of the prophecy. This is a valid way to understand what happened.

For Christians who believe in the virgin birth, here is another way to understand it. Isaiah 7:14 successfully points to, or hints of, the birth of Jesus, but the virgin birth of Jesus, while consistent with Isaiah 7:14, exceeds what would be necessary to fulfill that prophecy. The New Testament never claims that you can construct an accurate picture of Jesus the messiah from the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The NT starts with the assertion that Jesus is the awaited messiah and on that basis recognizes pointers and hints of him in the Old Testament. In fact, this would be only one of many instances in which the Bible includes both a prophecy and later a claimed fulfillment of that prophecy, and the fulfillment exceeds the prophecy.

(Personally, I am somewhere in between these two views.)

Here we have a verse with a problematic history. It is a controversial verse, and translations, both ancient and modern, messed it up. But we have manuscripts that provide the original Hebrew for this verse, and we can reconstruct what happened with the translations. We also have two ways of understanding how the New Testament uses Isaiah 7:14. Both understandings are honest to the evidence.

So, are the hard-core fundamentalists right when they claim that God "preserved his word through time without change"? No. They are dead wrong. Among the manuscripts of the Bible are thousands of differences. The majority are so minor that they don't affect the meaning. But some are significant. For many of them, we have enough evidence to reconstruct what happened and understand why the manuscripts differ. For others, we don't have enough evidence, so we aren't sure how to resolve a difference among the manuscripts and a passage of the Bible remains "fuzzy." In a few cases, the differences show that different editions of certain biblical books circulated in antiquity (Psalms, Jeremiah, and the Books of Samuel).

But are these differences among manuscripts and the unresolved ambiguities so extensive as to disquality the Bible as a source book for Christians? No, not at all. (But yes, if you are a hard-core fundamentalist or a skeptic who has swallowed the fundamentalist view.)

It's possible to have all sorts of objections to the Bible and to its reliability as a source book for religious life. But the history of its transmission through time (all those differences among the manuscripts and all those translations) is not one of them.

2. What are the oldest manuscripts used for modern translations?
For the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls include fragmentary biblical manuscripts dating from 250 BCE to 50 CE, and one complete manuscript of Isaiah dating to about 125 BCE. The oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Jewish Bible dates to about 1005 CE.

For the New Testament, we have a couple fragmentary papyri from as early as the second century (one may be as early as 125 CE). From the 3rd and 4th centuries we have lots of papyri. We have nearly complete manuscripts of the New Testament on parchment from the middle of the 4th century.

E. Fav.--I hope this helps. I've tried to give a few facts, and at least one perspective on what they mean.

If I may chime in EFav and Interested, your discussion is very interesting to me.

Regarding translation from old languages (I too read Erhards book and loved it), what Interested has not addressed is issues like the word "Virgin" being chosen as the meaning from a word that was more commonly used as "young woman". By "choosing" virgin, the whole story gets changed. Whats worse is that certain people insist that what is important is actually "believing" virgin and will actually use falling from grace as a punishment for not believing virgin. This is what has poisoned religion and created atheists.

By making a "religion" out of Christs message the early romans actually killed his VERY COMPELLING message. Was that their goal?? Maybe. As it was Jesus' message gave power to the people, Rome made it so the power was in the church.

Regarding Christianity and science I would just have to say that there has been times when the two coexist well but mostly they are at odds. Oddly enough right now, when our society has the most to gain from science , religion is becoming maybe the most hostile its ever been to science (fundamentalist Christianity anyway).

I am encouraged by the large number of "Christian" apologists who are moving away from the dogmatic language. Interestingly enough, when you hear a good Bible scholar you find that much of the dogmatic language used is not on very solid ground in scripture.

As a Christian, I find it appalling what so many Christians claim and actually stand for (or against) while mis-using scripture to support their claim.

Peace

Interested – thanks for the comments and especially the addendum. I always learn from you.

My musings on the dependability of the Bible come mainly from the highly respected biblical Scholar, Bart Erhman’s book, ‘Misquoting the Bible.” And it’s not just retranslations – it’s copying and recopying – lots of opportunity for error. How old are the earliest copies used for translating into modern languages?

Regarding “fraud” – as I mentioned, I’m using it in a modern sense. I and most modern people aren’t familiar with the ancient sense of the word, and not being steeped in ancient history, should not be accused of “modern prejudices.” Also, I’m not shouting it or being accusatory. I meant it as synonymous with “inauthentic” and wish I had retrieved that word earlier.

Certainly I recognize that there is much in Christian writings that is compelling. That doesn’t mean it’s factual or that everyone who reads it should “believe” it and accept it as their religion. And of course, I never said “people choose to be Christians and remain Christians primarily because they are manipulated and ill-informed.” I do think many Christians are both manipulated and ill-informed, however, and yes, I DO think clergy and scholars bear major responsibility. I learned about “From Jesus to Christ” long after it aired. Why? Because at the time (1998? 2003? can’t tell in a few minutes of googling) I was not yet interested in the subject. I was church-goer, then, however, and doubt strongly that the series was recommended or even mentioned in the announcements or the Sunday bulletin. I wonder how many churches did inform their parishioners about this. Do you know if there was any effort? I’ve heard it was a great series, but how many believing Christians even watch PBS or keep up with it’s offerings? Maybe if it had been prime time on a major network, more people would have heard about it. It’s pretty important stuff, so I wish it would have been publicized more. Regarding the religion sections of bookstores, I have spent a lot of time there – I received a major part of my recent religious education there and in public libraries. But you have to be motivated to do that. If people think they already know and/or are getting whatever they need in church, why bother?

When archaeologists found new evidence about Stonehenge, it was on the front page of the papers and featured in the evening news. When historians realized that the Druids had nothing to do with Stonehenge, they changed the history books and on site audio-tours to set the record straight. In contrast, when archeologists determined there was no evidence for Exodus, it was hidden on the back pages of the papers. I never saw it, until years later, when I googled. I read the paper, so would have noticed if it were on the front page. I don’t recall, but would be surprised if it made the TV news at all. Most people still don’t know about it and think I’m crazy when I tell them (and I’m very careful whom I tell – no religious Jews or Christians). I understand – it’s ingrained folklore; it’s religiously controversial; it could really hurt holy-land tourism. But what about the TRUTH? The level of ignorance is shocking. That’s why I think scholars and clergy need to be pro-active.

Regarding Christians planting the seeds for scientific growth – fine – and very interesting. However, it reminds me of my mother, who strongly encouraged and supported my education, but then did everything in her power to thwart me when she saw the new ideas I’d acquired at college would take me far from home. In her case it was just intercepting a couple of job-offer letters and threatening to die if I left the country (she actually did come down with an impressive rash). In the Christian church, the penalties were a lot stiffer, but the sentiment was the same – don’t get too big for your britches.

I’ll give the church credit for encouraging incipient scientific investigation and expect it to take the blame for trying to stop scientific discovery in its tracks when the church felt threatened by it.

To E. Favorite:

Sorry if my rhetoric got away from me in my last post. I didn't mean to sound combative.

I thought I'd add one note about Christianity and science: As I mentioned above, some historians of science argue that Christian monotheism had a fundamental role in the advancement of science in the West. Christianity taught Europeans that because God is rational, the universe is intelligible and its principles can be discovered. This gave science fertile ground not just to get started, but also to keep growing until it permeated society.

If this is correct (and such a big generalization is very debatable), then the positive influence of Christianity on the growth of science is extensive. Conflicts about whether the earth is the center of the universe or about contemporary creationism are mere footnotes. They have to do with specific scientific findings at specific times in history, and the controversies fade before long. In the sweep of history, monotheism gave science a foothold in the West, and they have been holding hands ever since.

To E. Fav:

1. When you said that the Bible's history/story "is not dependable as it has been translated and retranslated," this seems to say that the Bible has been garbled by successive translations and retranslations. This simply isn't true.

Modern English translations, for example, are translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek, the original languages in which the Bible was written, without an intermediary translation. Technical questions always require going back to the original languages, but this does not constitute a problem. When college students study Sigmund Freud they read an English translation, but if the professor encounters a technical question, the professor will check the German. Where's the crisis in this?

Comtemporary translations are based on the manuscripts that survive. There are differences among the manuscripts, and some of these differences are important. But none of the differences are so vast and so great as to somehow shift the story of the Bible so that we can say it's been garbled.

I mentioned the "Protestant Old Testament" because the books it includes are identical to the Bible of Judaism and are included in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles. That is, the list of books in the Protestant Old Testament is the list of books shared by all Christians and Jews. All of the books in the Protestant Old Testament are available in their original languages (and there were no "retranslations"). As you know, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles include additional books sometimes called the Apocrypha. Some of the books of the Apocrypha have not been preserved in their entirety in their original languages. Generally, we have ancient Greek translations of Hebrew or Aramaic originals. No doubt nuances have been lost in transation, but again this is not a looming crisis for the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox faithful.

2. Yes, modern scholars have compared the language used in the various letters ascribed to Paul in the New Testament and have come to the judgment that some of those letters were not written by Paul. If this sparks horror in anyone ("Fraud!"), then you are simply revealing your modern prejudices, which are different from ancient prejudices. These biblical books are not "frauds," and you are just trying to stir the pot by calling them that.

3. Yes, the christian message has been used to manipulate people through the ages. But this does not mean that its spread hasn't also been due to its beauty and its compelling qualities. Buddhism became popular in the U.S. in the 1960s and 70s, and surely some people manipulated Buddhism for profit, etc. But many Americans gravitated to Buddhism, because they found it compelling. I am not a Buddhist, but I freely admit that Buddhism IS compelling. I am a Christian and I find the Christian gospel compelling. I haven't been manipulated by anyone. To say that people choose to be Christians and remain Christians primarily because they are manipulated and ill-informed is to denigrate other people--some of them very thoughtful people--in an arrogant manner.

Finally, E. Fav, you constantly complain that scholars and clergy aren't trying to communicate modern scholarship to the public. Have you been in the religion section of a good bookstore lately? Alongside the obligatory religious fluff are all sorts of books by scholars trying to communicate to the wider public. The book by Richard Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?," made the best seller lists a few years ago. Several top rung biblical scholars are taking time out to write for On Faith. A few years ago PBS ran the series "From Jesus to Christ" that features America's leading biblical scholars.

We've been doing Parthenogenesis with chickens since I was in high school. And I graduated in 1966.

The argument vs the virgin birth always struct me as a bit silly. After all a God who could create the entire universe out of whole cloth shouldn't find cloning a humanbeing and imparting to him the personality he desired difficult at all.

Implied knowledge - what everyone knows

The most significant implied knowledge of today is???

E FAV, I, et al.

When it comes to translating ancient documents there's an element known, or perhaps better said ignored as *implied knowledge*. Example: "...the eye of the needle..." recently retransladed, "...the eye of a needle..." When the original author refered to "the eye of the needle" what it was and in trun his meaning were widley known, like saying "slam dunk" or "home run." Today it is necessary to educate in all the ancient *implied knowledge* before anything close to a proper translation is possible.

Implied knowledge leaves the door wide open to interpret as one chooses, make whatever point that is to be made whether or not it is valid.

I respsectfully disagree that the Bible is not real history. It's just been retranslated, implied knowledge warped to translator's desires and, of course as YKW says, the very first translations came from Egypt and were faulty to a grievious fault from their beginning.

You make very good points from the platform of the reestablished "implied knowledge* of the past 1,700 years. Take that back to the origin of modern god, 3,300 years ago. It will be necessary to know the bulk of the implied knowledge of that age. Implied knowledge is the key.

Hello, Interested. Thanks for joining the conversation. For those who haven’t talked with Interested before, he/she is somewhat of an expert – I suspect an actual biblical scholar, though that’s never been established.

1. Regarding translations of the Bible. The fact that “Both the Old and New Testaments of the Protestant Christian Bible are available today in their original languages” doesn’t negate the fact that many copies of the Bible are the result of numerous translations. Also, Bibles in their original languages can only be read by people, perhaps like you, who understand those ancient languages and can translate them for the rest of us. Also, I find it odd that you specify the “Protestant Christian Bible” since bibles before the 16th century Reformation were Roman Catholic (or at least not Protestant). Does this imply that these bibles you speak of were translated back into their original languages at that time? If not, just what is the significance of translating the “Protestant Christian Bible?”

2. I have no problem with your comment “I for one do not think that the Old Testament is an accurate record of history, but I also don't think that its writers intended it to be” and don’t doubt that I use the term “Fraud” differently than biblical scholars do. Semantics is important, I know, and is often used intentionally or unintentionally to confuse people. I use “fraud” in a conventional, modern, plebian sense – not what it seems to be, or what it’s thought to be. I was thinking of some of the epistles of Paul, that modern scholars have analyzed as not being among the original works of Paul. You could probably rattle them off. I certainly don’t swallow the fundamentalist’s view of the bible – but I know from firsthand experience, that there are non-fundamentalists who do not accept the overwhelming lack of evidence for Exodus and clergy who actively or passively support that misconception.

As I’ve said before in our conversations, I feel it’s incumbent upon clergy and other experts to make a concerted effort to be crystal clear when talking with the public. There are grave misunderstandings out there that I believe will continue and proliferate as long as experts obfuscate and regular folks want to hold on to their comfortable beliefs.

3. Regarding “Church dogma [being] compiled by those asserting power” – thanks for you explication of this period in early Christian history. Again, I think the nuance is often lost on people trying to make a case for the spread of Christianity being totally or mainly a matter of the amazing divine power of the Christian message. I think those in the know, whether scholars or clergy, have some responsibility for sorting out the nuance and not just covering themselves by using explanations that people can and do easily misconstrue.

Regarding some people’s assertions that religion has retarded science, you seem to be agreeing, while also giving religion its due in scientific progress. That’s fine, but AGAIN, I think it’s very important to put religion’s very mixed role in scientific progress in proper perspective. Has it done more harm than good? Is it still retarding progress? I’d say yes, but would love to see an unbiased analysis weighing these issues.

Thanks, Interested, for elevating the conversation. Please keep it up.

Ron Paul is a much more qualified and better man.

IF you make less then 1 million a year, you better vote for RON PAUL in 2008!!!!!!!!!!!

RON PAUL IS THE BEST! 2008

(((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Wrap, Mitt ROMNEY, For Prez, 2008 Ya! )))))))))))))

Hi E. Favorite:

I couldn't resist.

1. You say that the Bible has been translated and retranslated. Huh? Both the Old and New Testaments of the Protestant Christian Bible are available today in their original languages (Hebrew with some Aramaic, and Greek).

2. Modern technology has shown some biblical books to be frauds. Do you have an example? To say that some books of the Bible are not historically accurate and to say that they are frauds are two very, very different things. I for one do not think that the Old Testament is an accurate record of history, but I also don't think that its writers intended it to be. Using historical accuracy as a criterion for "weighing" the Bible is a hang up of Christian fundamentalists and their non-religious critics. In this I am more critical of the critics of fundamentalism than I am of the fundamentalists themselves. The fundamentalists are guilty of misconstruing the Bible, but their non-religious critics, while claiming a more historically accurate understanding of the Bible, swallow wholesale the fundamentalist view that the value of the Bible is tied to its historicity.

3. Church dogma compiled by those asserting power? Yes and no. I am no fan of Constantine, and would agree completely that he asked the church leaders of his day to unify Christian dogma so that he could in turn unify the empire. In his hands, dogma became a club. But many of the bishops who traveled to Constantinople to discuss the beliefs of Christendom had scars on their backs from being tortured by previous Roman emperors. When they formulated some of the first creeds, they were unifying doctrines that had already been thought through while under persecution. So was Christian doctrine used as a club of the empire?--yes. Were those who developed that doctrine wielders of that club?--not necessarily.

Some have said in this thread that religion has retarded science. Right or wrong, a number of historians of science have argued that monotheism in Western culture made a major contribution to the emergence of science. Monotheism helped science take hold in Christian European culture. In polytheistic religions, natural phenomena could be perceived as resulting from conflicts among gods, hence without discoverable laws or principles. However, in Christian monotheism, the one God was understood as rational. Hence, God's design of the universe around us should be intelligible and discoverable. This gave Christian Europeans the confidence to try to discover the 'laws' of nature.

I love the analogy Brian uses about a map from the internet (mainly because I've been led astray by mapquest more than once) and I think it highlights the main problem with "faith" today.

Too many people simply accept someone elses faith as their own and are encouraged to do so. Too many pastors and "Christian" leaders tell their people that they have the map to a destination. They ask people to have faith in their maps. The real problem is where the "map" will supposedly lead. They are told often times that the map will lead to prosperity, happiness, comfort etc etc and the "traveler" finds that destination hard to reach. The traveler is then told they are not following the map when in fact the destination does not exist.

Having "faith" in someone elses map is the problem. Having "faith" in someone else is the problem. Place your faith in the fact that other travelers on the same road as you will make your journey more meaningful (with no guarantee of prosperity of ANY sort).

Look forward to our journey and KNOW that others are with you.

peace

UP-SET, judging from your post, I guess you are and with "just cause" too. You make a real good case.

Interesting tidbit, sermon on the mount predating Jesus oN by 800 years and Jesus predating Nazareth by 100 years. According to BH, SOM predates by that much and more, 1,300 years but then the calendar gets real faulty as one goes back. Amenophis IV did a lot of preaching to the builders, (Israelites) of Akhetaten, as pictured on the walls that still stand, mostly in caves and had a liason, individual rep. from each of the 12 tribes, (apostles no doubt). Maybe Amenophis IV really is the foundation figure of the Gospels?

I enjoyed your post very much.

Parthenogenesis (virgin birth) is not unheard of in nature. See the following link for evidence that it is still happening today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/12/20/virgin-komodo-dragon-preg_n_36805.html

There are theories about the Amazon cultures which suggest that a female can impregnate herself by "disturbing the egg." Much of this data is in the process of being re-discovered as we uncover finds such as most recently, the graveyard of women warriors in the Steppes. If this turns out to actually be the case it would certainly explain the ferocity of the patriarchy.

Unfortunately we are starting from square one, having to re-do all of the work to piece these things back together because religions such as Christianity and Islam have retarded our development as a species with their silly fairy tales, controlling restrictions and rule by fear modalities.

Wiping out entire civilizations and cultures whose knowledge of the sciences could have lended to our being significantly further along in our progression is an atrocity that can be likened to an insidious viral infection. The concealment and destruction of records alone is at minimun, criminal; the motives for doing so are obscene and absurd.

These prophet based ideaologies have done far more damage than good for humankind and the earth in general. Using the dominance theory, coupled with the fear of the unknown, attached to the threat of eternal damnation in hell for non-compliance is nothing more than politics and government abusing its power by playing the 'god' card. I'll bet the body politic of the day was snickering behind their palm fronds as one innocent,trusting soul, after another bought into their nonsense like sheep -- as if they really had a choice. I believe the alternative was to be burned alive at the stake.

The fact that there are still educated, intelligent adults continuing to fall for the ploy today is astounding to me. That they ply millions of their hard earned dollars into the likes of the Jimmy Swigerts, Jim Bakers, and who's the most recent pot calling the kettle black, pedophile to fall...? Ted Haggard? is incomprehensible to me.

Ignoring such things as Nazareth not being formed as a city until 100 CE -- (so how could he have been Jesus of Nazareth...) or that the Beatitudes/Sermon on the Mount predated the alleged lifespan of Jesus by 800 years, and refered to god as female appears to me to be irresponsible.

Thankfully these religions are dying -- gasping out their last breath -- like a priest on an altar boy; and not a moment too soon!

Take the red pill people!
Wake up!

@ BGONE

I think "impregnation by God" would not a virgin birth make.

A claim of immaculate conception is supernatural in nature, so it is not verifiable, whereas, I am merely noting that virgin births are possible in nature.

As you note, interesting.

@BGONE

I'm no scientist, but I asked my biology professor that very question just yesterday and from what I understand, modern science's best efforts at creating a viable zygote without joining male and female gametes have been entirely unsuccessful. I'm skeptical that any primitive society could engineer such a deft feat.

thanks to you, too, BGone

PS to Anon - I'm not trying to "support" my "lack of belief in God" just to explain my views, and I stand by what I've said.

To Up-set -- thanks - It's good to know that someone here thinks what I'm saying is worthwhile.

Interesting John Griffith. Of course those female mammals were impregnated by God?

More interesting. Amenophis IV, her granny, Mutemweya, the leader of the pack and her mother, queen Tiye (sounds like Mary) that group of women had a plan. It's not that far out to say they intended to do without male human beings altogether, continue the human race by self impregnations. The "Amarna" tabs and other writings of theirs can eaisly be interpreted that way. Why was a woman with a wife so detailed and paranoid like about her sexual activities, feet never touching floor for example,, with another woman?

It appears that queen Tiye explained her unexpected pregnancy as having been done by the sun,, God. That would be the same ball-of-fire God Moses made the deal with, leaving little or no doubt at all that A4 is the Biblical figure Moses. Of course that plan fell apart when the high priest "spoke to God" and got authority to break up the playhouse.

Amazon women are not all that uncomon. Can they actually reproduce without males?

I'm really appreciating the points and comments made by E Favorite. Thank you for articulating so well the absurdity of buying into the Christian Mythos. I am not an atheist however, I also do not believe that Jesus ever existed historically. The evidence refuting his existence far surpasses what's available to support it. Something that might shed a little light -- the etemology of the word virgin indicates that in the time period that Mary might have lived had she existed, referred to a woman who had never been married; not to one who had never had sexual relations.

@ E FAVORITE

One small correction: virgin births are possible--whether possible in humans is still a question to be answered, however, in mammals, other than humans, females have asexually reproduced in populations where male sexual partners were not present.

Dave – you’re right, we can’t verify things in the ancient world using all the same methods we would today. Even in the modern world, our methods have recently changed dramatically. For instance, earlier forms of verifiability (human witnesses) are giving way to DNA evidence. Now we don’t have to rely on human honesty and memory. If we had a lock of Jesus’ hair, we could test to see if he had no signs of male heritage. If not – it’s pretty conclusive proof (as far as I know) that he was not conceived in the usual human way. It still doesn’t prove that he rose from the dead or ascended into heaven, but suggests that a supernaturally-conceived person could be capable of other supernatural feats.

Regarding your specific question: “what are the right criteria for proper verification for such subjects?” I personally don’t know. And doubt that the term “proper verification” can be applied to ancient history in the same way we’d use it today. Scholars may determine, using their methods, that’s it’s more likely that Jesus existed as a human being than it is (for instance) that Joseph of Arimathea existed. Scholars still couldn’t verify whether Jesus rose from the dead. The supernatural is beyond scholarly purview. It’s my own view, after careful research, that scholars can’t say and will never be able to say with any conviction whether Jesus lived or not and they certainly can’t say he was divine – only that some followers thought he was.

All ministers are Christs, do what they say and get past the boogie demon, (don't forget to RENDER to God) don't do what they say and go straight to hell. Prostitution is not the oldest profession, minister, scaring people with imaginary demons is much older.

Daivd L.D. There are methods for extracting information from information. If a person is lying for example simply asking the same question with different wording does the trick. That's how they nailed Mr Clinton.

The Bible does that for us, many authors rather than a single liar. They are all trying to tell the same story and get their version of God verified. I think that's how Bill Hunt came up with the 'base' story of Exodus and the Gospels, other critical parts as well.

As archaeologists sift through the sands of Palestine and find nothing he sifted through the sands of El Amarna and fornd the foundation of Christianity, hell to be exact. Christ/Savior is a word like 'faith' meaningless without something to be SAVED FROM.

All FAITH is in hell is what that says. Christs get folks past the boogie demon on the nebol bridge that joins this world with the next world. Religion put the demon there in the first place and charges a toll to get past it, what Christs do for a living. Arguments to the contrary?

What did Jesus do to earn His daily bread?

Dear E FAVORITE,

Your post does indeed help me to understand where you are coming from. I don't think I'll adress the issues brought forth in your post because I can get a bit long-winded. I will say, however, that it seems to me that most of what you had to say with regards to Christian origins will not stand up to serious historical scrutiny.

That being said, my main question was on verifiability itself. Perhaps I can put it differently than I did. What is it about verifiability that makes a theory, any theory, not just a theory about early Christianity or Jesus in particular, preferable to a theory that isn't verifiable, as it were? It should not be taken from my question that I think theories about the historical figure of Jesus or the earliest Christians cannot be verified. I do indeed think they can just as any figure or movement in the ancient world can. Perhaps a better question would be what are the right criteria for proper verification for such subjects? Certainly it couldn't be the same type of verification that we would have for, say, the natural sciences since we weren't there and can't 'test anything in a lab', as it were. I'd be interested to here your's or anyone else's thoughts on this methodological and epistemological issue.

Cheers,
Dave

Hi, Jake Means –
I’m speaking in the context of the times in which we live. If I’d lived in the first century, in a pre-scientific age, I might have believed that an earthquake was a curse from God. Now I know earthquakes are caused by shifting tectonic plates. I’m not a geologist, so I’m not an expert on this, but I do know about it, because it’s common knowledge in the time in which we live.

I remember maybe 15 years ago when I first sent a fax to England. I watched in awe as the paper slid through the fax machine and I tried to imagine a copy of it simultaneously popping up across the ocean. Amazing. Now email has practically made the fax obsolete. If we were to live several centuries from now, probably things that seem incredible now would be commonplace.

E Favorite, you say this in response to JR's assertion that “It is foolish to think that the human mind can comprehend all things”:

"I can’t personally comprehend all things, but I know what can and cannot happen. I know that it’s not supernatural, thus possible, for planes to fly and that it is supernatural, thus impossible, for virgins to give birth or people to ascend into heaven"

Sorry, bro, but what a profoundly ridiculous statement! You know what you know based solely on what you know, and my friend, you don't know everything.

Think about it. When you state you know what can and cannot happen, well, you are limiting what can be experienced anywhere by anyone solely to what E Favorite has knowledge of. Based on that logic, a stone age primitive would be completely correct if he didn't believe in the airplane you cite.

In fact, when one considers the infinite amount of things in this universe that you do not know, it's safe to say you don't know anything. You have no idea what can and cannot happen.

Even tossing arguments of faith and supernatural acts of God out of the argument (for argument's sake), in a couple of hundred years the rational world of science you hold in such esteem (providing we don't blow ourselves up or otherwise kill ourselves off) will have made such advances in knowledge that what passes for scientific truth now-a-days will seem completely arcane!

"I know what can and cannot happen" Ha Ha Ha!!!

E Favorite, JR is perhaps uninterested in getting a bit of his own back, but just in case you use your arguments with Christians in the future, I should like to point out a few shaky bits in your logic:

anip Yes, and still it’s (science) better for the good things it’s given us>> (parens added)

Many could say the same things about belief in God. Out of a belief in God has sprung many hospitals and hospices, for instance. Many things a person believes in - whether science or God - produce both good and bad consequences. On balance, this doesn't make them necessarily true or untrue, just complex.

(snip)Many people reading through the OT have come to similar conclusions about a God.

Many people have come to conclusions about great gobs of things, but that doesn't mean their conclusions are valid or verifiable. You are suspicious of many people's conclusions that belief in God is a good thing, whilst trusting "many people's conclusions" as support for your views. Granted, probably you can say that these "many people" are part of several things that support your lack of belief in God, but still it's a shaky support to use - as you no doubt spotted when religious people have used it.

The difference with the bible is that we have made it into a holy book with special status over all other learning.

The Magna Carta is one of the foundations of English law and society...giving it fairly "holy" special status where I live. Fewer extant copies of the MC exist than many Biblical texts. My point is not that the Bible is more valid than the Magna Carta, but that "special status" is accorded to many documents which few have seen in person or verified.

"I can’t personally comprehend all things, but I know what can and cannot happen"

Rather a hubristic statement to make, isn't it? Curious you used an airplane as an example; many people didn't believe in airplanes (before they became widely built) because they couldn't believe it was possible, or even natural, for man to fly. Now we accept flying as a matter of course. I don't we'll discover proof positive of the Virgin Birth in the future, but to say "I know what's possible" as support for discerning what is fact and what is not - well, again it's a sketchy support for your argument. You know what is possible now, all of the things that are possible? You know what will be possible 20 years in the future as well? You must be a learned person indeed - and an able researcher with access to every single scientific text in every conceivable language. If I were a believing woman, I'd say _you_ were God.

At base, one chooses to believe what one chooses to believe. Atheism may be defined as a lack of belief in God, but it certainly has many of the earmarks of a belief system nonetheless. Just like religion often aims to "prove" God exists, atheism often aims to "prove" God doesn't exist. Both sides of the aisle can use similiar circular or illogical or unsupportable arguments to support their claims.

The difference, to my mind, is that many religious people often do recognize that what they believe cannot be considered fact. Atheists often do not recognize this.

E Favorite, JR is perhaps uninterested in getting a bit of his own back, but just in case you use your arguments with Christians in the future, I should like to point out a few shaky bits in your logic:

anip > (parens added)

Many could say the same things about belief in God. Out of a belief in God has sprung many hospitals and hospices, for instance. Many things a person believes in - whether science or God - produce both good and bad consequences. On balance, this doesn't make them necessarily true or untrue, just complex.

(snip)>

Many people have come to conclusions about great gobs of things, but that doesn't mean their conclusions are valid or verifiable. You are suspicious of many people's conclusions that belief in God is a good thing, whilst trusting "many people's conclusions" as support for your views. Granted, probably you can say that these "many people" are part of several things that support your lack of belief in God, but still it's a shaky support to use - as you no doubt spotted when religious people have used it.

>

The Magna Carta is one of the foundations of English law and society...giving it fairly "holy" special status where I live. Fewer extant copies of the MC exist than many Biblical texts. My point is not that the Bible is more valid than the Magna Carta, but that "special status" is accorded to many documents which few have seen in person or verified.

>>"I can’t personally comprehend all things, but I know what can and cannot happen">> Rather a hubristic statement to make, isn't it? Curious you used an airplane as an example; many people didn't believe in airplanes (before they became widely built) because they couldn't believe it was possible, or even natural, for man to fly. Now we accept flying as a matter of course. I don't we'll discover proof positive of the Virgin Birth in the future, but to say "I know what's possible" as support for discerning what is fact and what is not - well, again it's a sketchy support for your argument. You know what is possible now, all of the things that are possible? You know what will be possible 20 years in the future as well? You must be a learned person indeed - and an able researcher with access to every single scientific text in every conceivable language. If I were a believing woman, I'd say _you_ were God.

At base, one chooses to believe what one chooses to believe. Atheism may be defined as a lack of belief in God, but it certainly has many of the earmarks of a belief system nonetheless. Just like religion often aims to "prove" God exists, atheism often aims to "prove" God doesn't exist. Both sides of the aisle can use similiar circular or illogical or unsupportable arguments to support their claims.

The difference, to my mind, is that many religious people often do recognize that what they believe cannot be considered fact. Atheists often do not recognize this.

Faith is what we call it when "The search for what makes sense", fails, yet, through arrogance, we insist on believing.

I hope not there are already too many freedom thieves in positions oif power in this country.

Giuliani is embracing secularism and will win in the biggest landslide since George Washington, or was that landslide Lyndon who won Texas by 27 votes.

(((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Wrap, Mitt ROMNEY, For Prez, 2008 Ya! ))))))))))))

Again the problem isn't inherent in the question but the faith of the one doing the asking.

McLaren says there can be arrogant questions. Then he says there can also be an arrogant unwillingness to ask questions. This guy McLaren is a very tricky man. If you don't question, possible about things he thinks you should question, maybe like the Bible's admonishments regarding homosexuality, then he might just call you arrogant. If you do question, maybe his pet ideas and interpretations and philosophies, then he might just call your questions, well arrogant. McLaren wins. Does God really consider any question you ask about your faith arrogant? I don't know but this lighten bolt just hit and barely missed me. Does God consider it arrogant to not ask some questions. I don't know but some fire and brimstone just hit my roof. I just don't know the right questions to ask or how to ask them. My teachers always said none of my questions were stupid so I may be safe in that regard.

I was under the Impression that the wals of Jericho had indeed fallen in according to most Archeologists.

What is faith? Faith is the word used to describe the condition where questions being asked reveal the untenability of a belief system. Faith is what happens when we stop being able to answer questions adaquately.

JR - in response to your comments --

>”Excavations have found much evidence of the ancient Israelite kingdoms”
Finding evidence of ancient Israelite kingdoms is not the same as finding evidence for bible stories. There’s no tumbled wall on Jericho, for instance. And no evidence for Exodus. The conservative Jews officially recognize this in the Biblical Archeology section of their new prayer book. This is pretty important.

>”Similarity doesn't mean that it has a common source.”
When the similarities are about supernatural events (virgin births, resurrections) it suggests both a common source and that the source is myth and fantasy.

> “It is foolish to think that the human mind can comprehend all things”
I can’t personally comprehend all things, but I know what can and cannot happen. I know that it’s not supernatural, thus possible, for planes to fly and that it is supernatural, thus impossible, for virgins to give birth or people to ascend into heaven.

>”The writings of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, etc., have been translated and retranslated.”
The difference with the bible is that we have made it into a holy book with special status over all other learning.

> “If Jesus never existed, one is hard-pressed to explain the appeal of Christianity in the first or second centuries A.D.”
Not really, the Gods preceding Jesus that we now consider mythological – Zeus, Mars, Mithras, etc. – were all considered real among the people who worshipped them. That the Christian movement was considered a threat is not related to its founder, long-dead (if he ever existed) by that time.

>”Just because you feel something is wrong because it isn't "nice" [i.e. the God of the OT] doesn't make it so.”
I don't think I'm alone on this assessment. Many people reading through the OT have come to similar conclusions about a God who, for instance, ordered a father to kill his son and ordered his chosen people to slaughter villages, including small children and women, except for virgins, which his people could take as their own.

> Regarding the origins of the church – I think back to Emperor Constantine and the council of Nicaea and see a huge power play.

> “The scientific age has given us the atomic bomb, high explosives, the gas chamber…”
Yes, and still it’s better for the good things it’s given us and the hope that humankind can use its knowledge for good purposes. I think there are few people who would trade today’s technology and medical advancements to live in medieval times or even a century ago.

>Regarding Marxism, etc. They were political ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology– it is the absence of belief.

>”It's a lie that the Catholic Church excommunicated Galileo because he said the Sun revolved around the Earth”
I didn’t mention Galileo, but I do know this from the NY Times, Nov 1 1992: “Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA1F31F932A35752C1A964958260

If it is supposed to possible but very difficult why are Christ's words in response to the Disciples Querry "Who then can be saved?" With man this is impossible But through God all things are possible.

And one other thing the problem of money isn't wealth itself but your response too it.

MR MARK: I went to biblegateway and searched for your quote. Seems it's only in the King James version, carelessly edited out of the newer ones like the "The New International" or "The New American"

Here's another one of the E-jobs. "..a camel through the eye of THE needle..." changed to "...a camel through the eye of A needle..." Amazing how much the meaning changes with such a little change.

the eye of THE needle - a geographic place, a hole in the mountain where camels had to be unloaded and "shoved" through along the trade route to east asia.

the eye of A needle - where the thread goes

That statement "eye of A needle" refering to rich men getting into heaven is used to extort estates from dying wealthy.

Ecclesiastes 10:19
A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.

Jeremiah 10:23
O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Proverbs 16:9
A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Well, EF, prophecy realized. JR is as stuck as a bug on fly paper. No amount of evidence will change mind.

JR favor me with your arguments that the creature in the ball of fire Moses made the deal with was really God.

Just in case you missed it JR, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Is this a legitimate interpretation of the Bible? The same argument, Devil and not God at all, can be made anywhere God is used in or out of the Bible. Is the whole Bible allegory or just the parts that suits one's arguments at the time?

Waiting to hear your arguments that was God and not Devil. Remember, calling Devil God does NOT make Devil God but does make Devil happy. And, of course, the big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to Devil's kingdom, hell.

"There’s more, of course, but that should suffice to explain why I reject Christianity based on rationality"

>>E Favorite. I doubt it. From my experience most people reject Christianity because it clashes with their egocentrism, and likely it's not much different with you.

happened a long time ago, thus hard to verify.
- Attempts to verify have been disappointing – marginal or no historical or archeological evidence after centuries of searching by people who really wanted to find positive evidence

>>Quite the contrary. Excavations have found much evidence of the ancient Israelite kingdoms, plus there is substantial amount of extra-biblical evidence related to many of the events related to in the Bible. Besides, not all of the stories in the Bible were meant to be taken literally. Try reading Philo of Alexandria sometime because he relates, as did the early Christian Fathers after him, that books such as Genesis should be taken allegorically. Oh the limitations of the Western mind.

- major elements of the story are similar to earlier myths

>>So what. Similarity doesn't mean that it has a common source.

- central beliefs require acceptance of the supernatural

>>What gives you the egotistical belief that all that exists is what you can see or comprehend? Try rationally explaining, say, how light can be simultaneously a particle and a wave, or how subatomic particles come into existence, ex nihilo. It is foolish to think that the human mind can comprehend all things.

-the story’s chronicle (the Bible) is not dependable as it has been translated and retranslated, and appears to have been written long after the supposed events occurred.

>>The writings of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, etc., have been translated and retranslated. Besides, many of the early manuscripts no longer exist, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, are substantially the same as what we have today. Additionally, many of the events of the Bible are stories that reveal a deeper spiritual meaning, not just a literal event.

Plus not all biblical writings were included in the official bible and some of those included have recently (thanks to advanced technology) been proven to be frauds

So what. The early Christians rejected the writings of the Gnostics because they were second-rate knock-offs written apart from those in apostolic succession from the original apostles who followed Jesus. If Jesus never existed, one is hard-pressed to explain the appeal of Christianity in the first or second centuries A.D., and why the Jews and Romans saw it as a threat early on. Try reading St. Clement of Rome or St. Ignatios of Antioch sometime because they wrote a mere 60 years after Christ's death.

- The God portrayed in the bible is not a very pleasant fellow, and this is before he sends his son to be murdered to atone for sins he’s given us at birth.

Your reasoning isn't that rational considering that your assumption rests upon a belief truth rests upon being nice, pleasant or hedonistic.
I find the limited emotivism of today's world patently absurd. Just because you feel something is wrong because it isn't "nice" doesn't make it so.

All emotionalism, not rationality. Additionally, the theory of the atonement was one that is particular to Western Christianity, originating with St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century A.D. Eastern Christians don't believe in that theological opinion, and they never have.

- the Church dogma was written and set by men who’s goal was to control world power, not to show compassion to God’s people.

And your proof is? Try reading the pre-Medieval Church Fathers sometime. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers

The Christianity I believe in is the one of the Desert Fathers who went into the deserts and wastes of 4th century Egypt and Palestine to escape the corruption of the Imperial Church. The Christianity they taught was one built upon humility, self-sacrifice, charity and community.

- the world does not seem to be a better place because of religion. In fact, often religion seems to make it worse – through religious-based wars, through controlling people’s actions in ways harmful to the individual (but helpful to the church) and through denying scientific advancements that are in conflict with God’s supposed word, in his holy book, which was written in a pre-scientific age.

>>And the scientific age has been better. All I need to do is look at the great acheivements of science, say apart from advances in medicine and certain other areas.

The scientific age has given us the atomic bomb, high explosives, the gas chamber, chemical weapons and other ways to kill people in ways unimaginable to even the worst medieval despot.

>>My priestly ancestor lost his head in the French Revolution, solely because he was a Catholic bishop who refused to reject his faith. Since 1789, approximately 100 million people have been murdered in the name of atheistic ideologies, such as Jacobinism, Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, etc.

>>Do you think the mass murder of people for the sole reason they believe in the supernatural is acceptable? The "Enlightenment" has brought certain positive things, such as the abolition of the caste system that divided people into peasants and nobility, but it's proponents need to own up to the murderous consequences of its more extreme believers?

>>It's a lie that the Catholic Church excommunicated Galileo because he said the Sun revolved around the Earth. He was excommunicated because he wandered into matters of theology where he was ignorant, not becuase he spoke as a scientist. Additionally, Galileo's theory of heliocentrism couldn't be proven with the tools available in the early 17th century, although we know it is true today.

Galileo's arrogance is what got him into trouble with the Church, not his theories. The Church relied, not upon the Bible, for it's belief in Geocentrism, but rather, upon the pagan astronomer Ptolemy whose theory stood unchallenged for over 1,000 years.

>>I find the arrogance of atheists staggering becuase they always make themselves the center of the universe.

E. FAVORITE: me thinks that's an argument stopper but I've been fooled many times before.

The government, (supposed to be we the people) is itself a victim. It relys on experts at the Rand Corporation, others perhaps. They are telling our leaders that religion is a social soother, prevents rioting in the streets. And they say that if UFO information was made public it would cause the disintegration of world religions. Horrors!!!! What would the world be like without jihads? Unlivable!!!

Bottom line: your government, both major PPs are working hard to keep the dream alive.

The Rand Corporation could use a change of managment or just cut off their funding. Tax payers are paying through the nose for that kind of advice that must be taken.

ALM: It's far easier to identify the *wolf in sheeps clothing* than *the sheep in wolf's clothing* "The goblins 'ill getcha if ya don't watch out"

The big question of course is faith itself. The word faith by self is meaningless, must be faith is something. What is the real question.

For that we must rely on scriptures. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says it all. Faith is in scriptures first and foremost, that they are the word of God. Are they? Was the being in the *ball of fire* really God. If it wasn't then faith is in Devil and not God at all.

Ah, but scriptures are too complex, complicated for the average person to read. Therefore the masses must rely on experts. So faith is not really in scriptures but rather in experts. Beware of sheep in wolf's clothing is in order when relying on experts.

I think the average person can examine the evidence presented in the above web page and 'get it' I did and I'm a genuine nobody. Maybe the experts could counter those arguments with something besides faith?

David La Dow - I'll address a related issue instead - Why accept a belief system based on a story that is highly unlikely to be true?

Here are some of the things about the Christian story that make it hard to accept:

- happened a long time ago, thus hard to verify.
- Attempts to verify have been disappointing – marginal or no historical or archeological evidence after centuries of searching by people who really wanted to find positive evidence
- major elements of the story are similar to earlier myths
- central beliefs require acceptance of the supernatural
-the story’s chronicle (the Bible) is not dependable as it has been translated and retranslated, and appears to have been written long after the supposed events occurred. Plus not all biblical writings were included in the official bible and some of those included have recently (thanks to advanced technology) been proven to be frauds
- The God portrayed in the bible is not a very pleasant fellow, and this is before he sends his son to be murdered to atone for sins he’s given us at birth.
- the Church dogma was written and set by men who’s goal was to control world power, not to show compassion to God’s people.
- the world does not seem to be a better place because of religion. In fact, often religion seems to make it worse – through religious-based wars, through controlling people’s actions in ways harmful to the individual (but helpful to the church) and through denying scientific advancements that are in conflict with God’s supposed word, in his holy book, which was written in a pre-scientific age.

There’s more, of course, but that should suffice to explain why I reject Christianity based on rationality. I’ve taken some leaps of faith in my life. They involved some unknowns, some doubt, some good gut feeling, and some reasoning. I once had faith in Christianity – I’d just been born into it. Once I really started to think about it and to study it, I saw it didn’t deserve my faith.

It’s not just that “verifiability that makes it the criterion par excellence.” It’s more a matter of weighing an overwhelming lack of verifiability, questionable motives and negative experiences and coming up short.

Hope this helps.

Dear E FAVORITE,

I take it from the general tenor of your post that you hold verifiability in very high esteem as a criterion of knowledge or rationality. If I have misread you, please forgive me. The question I would like to pose is as follows: what is it that supports verifiability as a means towards rational belief or knowledge? What is it about verifiability that makes it the criterion par excellence, as it were? I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Cheers,
Dave

USDA CHOICE'S post peaked my curiosity as the poster was alleging that "mainstream" Christians were attacking Brian McLaren as a "wolf in sheep's clothing"

So I googled the first name mentioned, Ingrid Schleuter, and discovered that on her website she has listed "Roman Catholicism" as well as many other faiths, such as Buddhism, and Hinduism as cults!

Mainstream???!!!

BTW if Brian is USDA Choice Heretic, sign me up as USDA Prime!

Terra Gazelle, if you think we should always be questioning, always journeying - read ch 5 of the Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis.

In Wicca there is one huge truth...at the end of all desire...there is mystery. The more we seek to find the answer to the mystery the deeper the mystery gets.

I have had students ask me what is the mystery...and I say..its the journey.

Questioning is a part of the journey, how can you make that connection to the All without questioning your view of it? If anyone is afraid to question for fear that their faith would melt away, then how strong is their faith?

Scientists have said that they have gone back to the "big bang"...and can go no further...beyond is mystery. Should they stop seeking? no...science will suffer if they do...just like religions suffer when their followers follow blind.

terra

Definition of a heretic “one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine”

Lump me in there too then.

Heresy is so often associated as being bad or evil. This is not the case. Since the base question is about questioning let’s ask the question. What if Brian is right?

On the thread from Susan Jacoby’s post we are bantering back on how questions move us forward.

I think we are short changing ourselves if we believe that what is currently taught is 100% correct. God is so much more than what we envision and yet we think a few books (any religion or all religions for that matter) contains the complete wisdom of spirituality.

11 of the 12 most adhered to religions have multiple branches so apparently the whole planet is made up of heretics.

All great truth starts as heresy.

This man is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Many main stream Christians have called him out on the heresies he teaches: read the Truth Wars, listen to Way of the Master Radio, or Crosstalk with Ingrid Schlueter. Also emergentno and teampyro blogs have excellent resources on this character. Do a little research before you accept what this guy is peddling, no matter how much he masquerades as a source of light.

Hello Brian - When you say, “there's an arrogant kind of questioning that's harmful to the spiritual life. It involves an unwillingness to acknowledge mystery and a hasty rejection of wisdom from others, including wisdom from tradition.” This is how it sounds to me: “there's an direct kind of questioning that is likely to make you very skeptical about your religion, for good reason. It involves an unwillingness to accept mystery at face value, or to accept unverifiable assertions and tradition presented as fact.”

I realize Chris might consider the above as a “raging anti-religious statement” but you seem like an open-minded guy, so I thought you might want to hear my point of view. That’s what this forum is all about – hearing different points of view.

Hi Brian,

I am not sure if you read the responses to your article but if you do, thank you for representing an intellegent well thought out Christian perspective. So often the discussion on this forum is reduced to blind fundamentalism and raging anti-religous statements, unfortunately those are the posts on the top of the list while reasonably responses representative of large chunks of the population are relegated to the bottom of the list. Anyway, keeping running the race.