Both Sides Need Help with Facts, Truth

TO ROB ADAMS:

Thank you for your posting, we are all in this together.

One day some of the people that call themselves "christian" will find out what the word means.

If God's Plan isn't for all of His children, HUMANITY, to be with Him in His Kingdom, then God is not much of a God.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

All,

Nice debating with you, even though it got a bit raucous at times. It's time to move on to the next topic!

Happy Reformation Day / All Saints Day / Halloween !!

Mr Mark: “There's no boogeyman out there, Candiron. No supernatural babysitter who watches everyone 24/7. No god who condemns men for their very thoughts, even when asleep. No god-as-Santa who, "knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or god."”

Playing the devil’s advocate, liberal Christians could respond by pointing out that “their God” is not the boogeyman, babysitter, judge or Santa that you describe. Their God is a loving God who is strictly a benign force in the universe. And they are modern, rational humans who are fully supportive of scientific progress and protecting our environment for future generations.

To them I’d say, please think about how your God can be the same god, with the same 2,000 year old story as the boogeyman/babysitter/judge/Santa God that the fundamentalists worship.

Please think of ways to maintain what’s good about your religion (music, community, ritual, charity) without harboring, feigning or perpetuating beliefs in ancient supernaturally-based myths.

CANDIRON – please give me a few examples of atheists and gay rights activists “forcing propaganda” in public schools. My recollection of an attempt at “forcing propaganda” is the Dover, PA school district case in which a judge ruled against the school board’s attempt to teach intelligent design.

You say: “If you stick to actual biology and forgo teaching evolutionary speculation about the origin of life and speciation, I'd be glad to drop ID and YEC. Is it a deal?”

No deals trading facts for fantasy. Darwin is not “evolutionary speculation” and the cause of education is not advanced by making deals with biblical literalists.

Candiron – are you for real? The more I read your stuff, the more you sound like an atheist or a liberal Christian deviously trying to make fundamentalists look as bad as possible. If that’s the case, please cut it out. I don’t want to waste my time on a parody of fundamentalism; the real thing is enough of a challenge.

Mr Mark, this was developed to get this generation to see their guilt when they are convinced of their righteousness:
Take the Good Test - http://www.livingwaters.com/good/AreYouGood.html

Not all fear is irrational: Proverbs 1:7 The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

E Favorite: Conservative Christians value religious freedom as well, they just don't want atheists and gay rights activists forcing propaganda on their children in public schools. That's not what public schools are for. If you stick to actual biology and forgo teaching evolutionary speculation about the origin of life and speciation, I'd be glad to drop ID and YEC. Is it a deal? Is the secular left truly interested in freedom of belief?

And why are secularists so concerned about the environment? Even on their own view - it's a lost cause. Whether entropy destroys the human race in a million years or ecological problems in a few thousand, the human race will as certainly be annihilated as that you and I will be dead in 100 years. It will be as if it had never existed, so why the concern?

I assume you'd respect C.S. Lewis? He's not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination yet he says, 'There will come a time when every culture, every institution, every nation, the human race, all biological life is extinct and every one of us is still alive. Immortality is promised to us...' 'The Church will outlive the universe; in it the individual person will outlive the universe.' (Weight of Glory, essay on membership).

CANDIRON writes:
Mr. Mark, E Fav- please examine yourselves. Why are you so comfortable with liberal Christians? Christianity pricks the conscience. It says there is none righteous, no, not one."

I've examined myself, and I found that I'm an intelligent adult.

I examined Xianity and it's claims - including the claim that no one is righteous and that there is some god hovering around who is - and found them to be infantile.

Xianity hardly pricks the conscience. On the contrary. It bludgeons the intellect, leaving in its wake emotional and spiritual damage from which many never recover.

I, for one, have put away such childish things.

There's no boogeyman out there, Candiron. No supernatural babysitter who watches everyone 24/7. No god who condemns men for their very thoughts, even when asleep. No god-as-Santa who, "knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake, knows when you've been bad or god."

Candiron, your fear is showing. Your fear is being fed by ignorance of things real and TRUTHFUL. Your adult mind is trapped in a child's fantasy world of gods and devils, all kept in line and working to keep you trapped by a guilt that your religion has pounded into you for years.

How any intelligent, self-confident adult can allow such childish fears and undeserved guilt to rule their lives is unfathomable, even to those of us who have long ago broken free of Xianity's embarrassing celebration of mankind's first and worst attempt to explain life's mysteries.

Look at the moat in your own life view, Candiron. E Fav and I are doing just fine.

Candiron - What makes you think I'm so comfortable with liberal Christians?. True, they don't scare me, the way some fundamentalists do, but they can really irk me, because, (with exceptions like UCCer) they align themselves more with people like you - fellow followers of Jesus - than they do with atheists - fellow reasonable people who value religious freedom and aren't counting on Jesus to swope down and rapture them into heaven before we completely destroy our environment.

I'm GB and I'm not in anybody's "group". (unfortunately it gets pretty lonely in here)

I don't know/care if you are a mainliner, fundamentalist, liberal christian... whatever. I know/care that you are calling a group of people "pigs" in one breath while talking about the love of Jesus in another. That is what I have a problem with.

Jesus died for those "pigs" too. You believe that don't you.

I don't care if you are bashing Sam Harris, Jerry Falwell, Hillary Clinton or Bozo the Clown, show some respect for the faith you claim.

You can do better. I have hope for you. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered chatting wit' cha.

Mr. Mark, E Fav- please examine yourselves. Why are you so comfortable with liberal Christians? Christianity pricks the conscience. It says there is none righteous, no, not one.
Fundamentalists aren't 'oppressing' you any more than liberal Christians, but liberal Christians make no moral claims on your conscience. Could this be the root of your reaction?

UCCER: re 'worship'. Please, do you think anyone is actually buying this? Of course I don't think you or your congregation genuflects in front of human beings. I merely observe that your denomination values human sinful desires above the word of God, and rejects Biblical statements when contradicted by human 'wisdom'. From ucc.org and essay on 'Taking the Bible Seriously' by John Thomas, UCC president:

"[The Bible] won't solve our dilemmas over homosexuality or abortion or euthanasia or genetic engineering or the economy. In other words, none of it is terribly useful. Indeed, it is often more like a confusing cacophony of conflicting testimony or, as Brueggemann puts it, of core testimony and countertestimony, of hiddenness, ambiguity, and negativity."

If you don't believe this, you are better than your denomination and should leave. But I'm certainly not slandering anybody. I could multiply example after example.

Mr Mark: "What I can't understand about the religious is why they reject historical information that is truly interesting and compelling"

I think one reason might be that it's so dissonant - So different from everything they've heard from trusted people their whole lives, not to mention the media.

UCCER - when you ask why Mr Mark wants to "disprove god it makes me wonder a couple of things – if it seems that way, i.e., that he’s taking on a monumental and completely disrespectful task that shouldn’t be done. That perhaps what he’s saying is starting to have that effect on you – you’re hearing what sounds like dependable information that you’ve never heard or thought about before, and you’d rather not think about it, so you challenge the purveyor of the information about his motives. If someone gave you another kind of “bad news” (e.g., you’ve got a flat tire, an old teacher you respected is an embezzler) you might have a different reaction – disappointed, angry, perhaps, but not questioning of the other person’s motives in telling you.

Also, ditto Mr Mark on your reaction to Candiron. I believe it’s the first time on this forum I’ve seen a liberal Christian respond “in kind” to a fundamentalist. It should happen more often. I think you have much more in common with atheists than with their ilk. I can say that with some confidence because I was recently a liberal Christian.

Dear E Fav -

Your story about the Bible study group is all-too familiar. I have been in such situations myself.

I don't think that such willing ignorance or compartmentalization is limited to religious study. In my work with non-profit entities, I am constantly dealing with Boards of Directors/Trustees. These boards are typically made up of business leaders in the community. They all contain marketing committees comprised of local businessmen. Yet it is not uncommon for these experienced businessmen to set aside their marketing acumen and defer to the opinions of a non-profit's Executive Director on how best to market the institution. These ED's typically have no background in marketing. Many of them are actually antagonistic to the idea of "marketing" their cherished non-profit, feeling it demeans the mission of the institution. They equate marketing with cheap commercialization. Somehow, they convince these businessmen/Board members that the rules and norms of typical marketing don't apply to their institution.

I don't think that I need to expound on the effectiveness of marketing efforts in such situations.

What I can't understand about the religious is why they reject historical information that is truly interesting and compelling. Tracing the various incarnations of archetypical gods throughout history is fascinating. To learn that gods being resurrected is the norm, not the exception, gives us insight into the human psyche. It's a much more compelling subject line to follow than the tired and useless belief that "MY god is the one true god" crapola we're all fed from conception. Yet the religious chose to ignore history and embrace the myth as truth. And why? Well, I can't say exactly why, but I would imagine that there is a healthy dose of fear of death - and, truth be told, life -involved, coupled with a huge dollop of self-centered-ness.

Thanks for the chat.

Dear Uccer -

I greatly enjoyed your rejoinder to Candiron. It was spot-on.

As an American, I join you in protecting your right to believe in any way you wish, even if I don't find truth within your beliefs.

And, as a patriotic American, I share your contempt for the bush administration.

There is common ground between us.

Candiron,

Although I should know better than to take the bait, here goes.

You wrote: "Liberal Christianity commits the error of worshiping man (read Romans 1)."

Thank you for making my point for me. In one statement, you have slandered and illigitimized the faith of millions of good people. I do not wish to argue theology with you, but really, your slander is just plain silly. I don't know of a single person in my faith community who considers themselves to be "worshiping man." That's just laughable.

I will say, that I thank God for being able to worship and choose my faith community freely without intimidation from extremist thugs or the government. With a few exceptions (e.g. Simi Valley), most mainliners are able to gather for worship without being disrupted and harrassed by your skinhead allies. Also, most liberal-leaning churches are able to operate without being investigated and harassed by "fundamentalist" Republicans and their pawns in the Bush administration. When those incidents have happened recently, they have been anomalous.

Our constitution guarantees the freedom of worship. I will not be intimidated. Also, I will not apologize for my earlier posts. When fundamentalists start apologizing for their slander of mainliners, only then will I consider apologizing.

Mr Mark – I just tuned into this conversation. You say, “Most Xians I have met have almost no knowledge of Biblical scholarship….And the sorry truth is that they don't want to know.”

I’ve found that even some of those who make an effort to learn about it, still don’t want to know, or forget they knew or reinterpret it in their minds. I’ve been in church-sponsored adult-education classes with practicing Christians, in which accurate scholarly information on biblical writings is presented. It seems to go right over people’s heads. They are glassy-eyed and silent. Then, in subsequent comments, they reveal their childhood thinking hasn’t changed; e.g., a Ph.D. college professor explained how the gospels were written anonymously. No comment. The next week, a student (educated and in her 50’s) commented that Mathew’s point of view could have come from him being a tax collector. No comment from others in the class. No comment from the teacher, whom I noticed had his lips firmly buttoned closed as if determined to let the awkward moment pass. I had promised myself before the class started not to impose any of my newfound information on the class, but rather to see how the class was taught and how the students responded. But this was different – this was something we had actually been taught as a group just a week before. Finally I asked teacher, if he hadn’t told us last week that the Gospel writers are unknown. He nodded, with his lip still buttoned. Silence in the class. No further comment on that issue and the discussion moved on.

Interesting, eh, Mr Mark? What do you make of that?

UCCER: "Am I supposed to feel intimidated by your remarks, that you might judge me not to be a Christian?"

Not intimidated, just convicted in your heart of your error. Liberal Christianity commits the error of worshiping man (read Romans 1).

Dear Uccer -

Thanks for your comments.

You wrote:

UCCER:
"Mr. Mark,

"I really don't understand how you could have felt that I was being disrespectful to you simply because I suggested reading something that, to me, is very uplifting. How could that be offensive. If a Muslim suggested to me to read the Koran, I would not be offended."

If your opinions or writings indicated that you hadn't a clue about the Koran, then, no, it wouldn't be offensive for someone to suggest you read up on it.

People don't mean to be disrespectful when - knowing my atheist beliefs - they tell me, "well, I'm gonna pray for you anyway," even though such sentiments translate into the equivalent of saying, "your atheist belief system is total sh*t, I know better than you, there is a god, I don't respect your beliefs one iota, and just to prove it, I'm going to pray to my god for you because my god can beat up your non-god for all eternity."

But the point is that I said that I did NOT consider that you were being disrespectful to me when you suggested I read Mark's Gospel, anymore than I could imagine that anything I said to you was meant in a disrespectful way.

"RG Price's article on the Gospel of Mark is interesting to be sure, but many, many papers have been written on the topic of the Gospels from many faith perspectives. Why should Price's suddenly be the most credible?"

I didn't say that it was the most credible. I said that it was interesting. Beyond interesting, I found it compelling, more compelling than stories of people being resurrected from the dead, for instance. It's easy to say that something is "interesting" and leave it at that, in effect, dropping the subject.

What I find puzzling is when an interesting idea is presented that makes a lot of sense from an historic and literary sense (ie; Mark as an a-historic allegory) the faithful can so readily shrug it off as being merely a diversion. Perhaps the idea of god, man's corruption, a savior being sent to die for our "sins" and an eternity in heaven make a more-compelling fairy tale, but such elements certainly don't make for a more BELIEVABLE tale.

"Given than Price recognizes the interaction between Paul and the apostles, how can he then claim that Jesus was never a person? Clearly, the apostles witnessed Jesus' ministry. Also, Paul refers to Jesus' crucifiction in his letters, which is also inconstent with Price's claim...Finally, what about the Q source?"

Those are good questions which are handled in Price's earlier article on the Case Against a Historic Christ. Perhaps he should have readdressed these points in the article that was specific to Mark.

"One thing I am not clear on, why is it so important for you to "disprove" God or to "disprove" Jesus' existence? What are you trying to accomplish?"

I'm not trying to disprove anything. I am simply asking for proof that is based on something besides hearsay and "tradition." I'm asking for "proof" that isn't conjecture or whimsy.

Most Xians I have met have almost no knowledge of Biblical scholarship. Most believe that the 4 Gospels were written by the disciples after whom those Gospels were named. Most don't know that the story of the adulterous woman was a later addition to the Gospels, a tale most Biblical scholars now say couldn't possibly have been an historic event. Most Xians I know have no idea that the life story of Jesus - from virgin birth, to having disciples, to being executed to being resurrected - are simply rehashes of the stories of earlier gods. Most Xians I know see the Jesus story as a break from Judaism, rather than a continuation of Jewish mythology.

And the sorry truth is that they don't want to know.

I can respect a person like Jon Meecham who runs this blog who HAS looked at all of the counter evidence and can say that he knows that his belief in god is an IRRATIONAL belief, but he's going to keep it anyway (spoken during a segment of Tim Russerts's Saturday program a few months ago). And I can certainly respect those who allow their fantastical religious evaluations of what constitutes history and fact to be moderated by scholarship, science and logic and look for a way to keep their faith alive in the ever-shrinking gaps that their particular version of god occupies in this increasingly fact-based world, but I have little patience with those who heartily embrace Bronze-aged idiocies and fears and bestow upon them the mantle of historic truth.

If that's trying to disprove god, then I stand rightly accused. If that's trying to argue from a position of truth and reason, then I don't see how any such accusation may be leveled.

Pablo still around:
"God is a person. The created order came from a personal God. He is the source of all things great and small. His magnificence is seen in all that He has made."

Just an unfounded statement out of nowhere. Together with complaining that others produce no arguments! Simply ridiculous.

Does god think with a brain, as you try to? Or does he use other creative organs? Does a person have organs? If having a brain to think with is a condition of calling a person a person, and if god has no brain, he cannot exist. God is a product of human brains, mirroring human brains, even brains with an extremely sloppy and desperate way of thinking.

Nature's magnificence does not depend on a god image. A little cruel tribal god from a small tribe 3000 years ago contrasts heavily even with simply looking at Google Earth, both the earth itself and the billions of stars billions of light years away you can ACTUALLY SEE through the Hubble telescope. (Of course, there are people who don't even believe this and maintain it is a Hollywood scam). Hardly, if you can find your own house zooming in from the globe picture.

But then, "faith", aka superstition trumps even sensory perception. For the superstitious mind, evidence does not exist.

Mr. Mark,

First of all, I really don't understand how you could have felt that I was being disrespectful to you simply because I suggested reading something that, to me, is very uplifting. How could that be offensive. If a Muslim suggested to me to read the Koran, I would not be offended.

RG Price's article on the Gospel of Mark is interesting to be sure, but many, many papers have been written on the topic of the Gospels from many faith perspectives. Why should Price's suddenly be the most credible?

There are actually some gaps in Price's hypothesis. For example, he claims that the author of Mark (let's call that person "Mark") was familiar with the Pauline letters and agreed with Paul - fine so far. He also says that Paul felt that Peter, James, and John did not fully understand Christ - perhaps, there is some suggestion of discord in the letters. However, given than Price recognizes the interaction between Paul and the apostles, how can he then claim that Jesus was never a person? Clearly, the apostles witnessed Jesus' ministry. Also, Paul refers to Jesus' crucifiction in his letters, which is also inconstent with Price's claim.

Finally, what about the Q source? This was the independent source which, together with the Gospel of Mark, were used by the authors of Matthew and Luke. It would seem that in Price's hypothesis, Mark would need to be the sole primary source for Matthew and Luke, where in fact there are two sources.

One thing I am not clear on, why is it so important for you to "disprove" God or to "disprove" Jesus' existence? What are you trying to accomplish?

Candiron and Anonymous,

Am I supposed to feel intimidated by your remarks, that you might judge me not to be a Christian? Well, if being a Christian means being in your in-group, then I'd rather not be a Christian. In that case, I'll call myself a follower of Jesus instead. There.

"GB", you must hope that when UCCER studies the word of God in depth, he'll finally see who it is who is that is trampling the pearls of scripture underfoot, and turning to rend those who respect it (liberal seminaries, anyone?).

But there is nothing wrong with calling a pig a pig, or a brood of vipers a brood of vipers. Calling a spade a spade isn't inconsistent with loving someone enough to tell them that they are wrong. Just be honest and consistent about your definitions.

The postmoderns use the problems of verbal communications as a toolbox for obfuscation, not as an opportunity to clarify the word to their worldly contemporaries, which is shameful and depressing. McLaren is a prime example of this.

To answer an earlier question by "anonymous", why do I call the fundamentalists "pigs"? The answer is that is what they are. For the record...

Wow, labeling a group of people as "pigs", while talking about how great Jesus is. What profound insight.

Here's the rub Uccer, Jesus also said this about your enemies. These pigs are your enemies, right?:

Luke 6:27-36

Now, say your sorry.

Mr. Mark, I still won't join your side, no matter how hard these "christians" try to convince me to do otherwise. But like I said at the end of our last conversation, if I weren't a christian (whatever that means on this site) I'd probly by just like you.

Somebody get me some Tylenol.

GB

Uccer writes:

"My understanding is that, in Josephus for example, some of the references to Jesus are regarded as fully redacted but others not. In particular, Josephus mentions James, Jesus' brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church. Most scholars regard James as an historic figure."

Again, I would direct you to http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10
where both the Testimonium Flavianum and the topic of "James, brother of Jesus" in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" are fully discussed.

:)

Mad Love wrote of one of my posts:

"...though you generally present your case very well, I've noticed that you occasionally feel the need to reduce peoples view points into charactertures in order to set up a straw man argument.

"I bring these up because, while I don't always agree with all your beliefs, I generally like the way you handle yourself, and think you do an unnecessary disservice to yourself on occasions like this."

First off, thanks for the kind words.

Second - yes, I sometimes resort to caricature to make a point, but I consider most Biblical "arguments" a caricature of a reasoned argument.

Third - as far as doing a "disservice to myself," nobody bats a thousand.

That said, as a lifelong left-wing liberal, I tend to ignore the "helpful comments" I receive from my RW/religious opponents that I should moderate my views. I certainly don't see those on the Right moderating their statements.

We left-wingers are always being warned that saying this or that "may backfire" on us. Strangely, you never hear this warning directed at RW positions. Indeed, RWers can say the most-outrageous things and never pay a price. They close ranks and defend the most-egregious behaviour imaginable.

But let a leftie say something even a bit off-center and there are immediate calls for apologies and worse (case in point: Rep Pete Stark apologizing for his spot-on comments that the grinning ghoul who is posing as our president is amused by our soldiers' deaths, while John Boehner faced no penalty and generated zero publicity for stating that American deaths in Iraq were "worth it.")

So, while I'm happy that you generally appreciate my posts, I wouldn't be Mr Mark if I didn't occasionally tell people "what I really think" about certain things.

And I will never, EVER take advice that is presented to me in an, "aren't you afraid it might backfire on you" scenario. Such advice simply confirms to me that I'm striking a nerve somewhere.

Thanx again for the comments.

UCCER:
"To answer an earlier question by "anonymous", why do I call the fundamentalists "pigs"? The answer is that is what they are. For the record, I also call Republicans criminals, because they are. Jesus made a point to call the pharisees on their hypocracy and insincere proclamations."

This is actually a hopeful sign. You are distinguishing between judging and observation. If you see someone stealing, it's not 'judging' to point this out. it's merely observation.

'Judging' would mean hypocritical, unjust judgment (as the man in Mt 18 who would not forgive the one who owed him as he had been forgiven), or the Pharisees in Mt 12 who accused Jesus of doing his miracles by the power of Satan.

But many times when conservatives make simple observations, liberals will try to refute them by speculating about their motives and not addressing their points. Ie. it is liberals who 'judge', as did the angry mob in Gen 19:9, when they responded to Lot's plea for mercy by calling him 'judgmental'. For example in Pastor Mohler's thread 'A Failure Of Courage' about ELCA you say:

"Jesus taught repeatedly to love as God loves and not to judge others. Pauls letters are full of such instructions (e.g. Romans 14)."

Yet Mohler is simply making observations. He does not say he is more worthy of divine mercy than they are. He's not saying they should not be forgiven if they repent, as he has repented of his own sins. How was he 'judging' in that post? Was Paul being judgmental or loving in 1 Co 5:11?

And Romans 14 that you bring up is really not applicable since it concerns 'adiaphora'. ELCA isn't doing the equivalent of supporting differing views on holidays or diet.

You can't expect conservative evangelicals to just change their minds when you criticize then. People who are pricked in their conscience will often attack the character of those who behave morally rather than face up to their own conscience, so when liberals criticize mainly on the basis of speculating about motives, it's not a convincing reason to change beliefs.

You need to take all the relevant verses into account and make a case for why they are as wrong as you obviously feel they are. Does that seem reasonable?

One more important point. Some conservatives definitely do act from base motives (Osteen, Hinn, etc.), but in a way that's irrelevant to you. You can't use that as an excuse to ignore the Bible. If a criminal stands before a judge, let's say he's had to deal with corrupt police officers in the past. That would be tragic and ought to be corrected, but it's a separate issue. It does not excuse the criminal's guilt. Jesus never suggested that people should *use* the Pharisees' hypocrisy as an excuse to be unconcerned about morality.

Dear Uccer -

Sorry that the link I provided doesn't work for you. It works for me - just tried it from my above post.

Second - I don't mean any disrespect in anything I wrote, anymore than I imagine you meant to be disrespectful when you suggested I read the Gospel of Mark, presumably for the first time. I really can't imagine anything in my writings that would lead you to believe I wasn't intimately familiar with the Book of Mark and much of the Bible in general. Still, you felt the need to make the statement you did. I didn't take it as being disrespectful. Was that your intention?

If came off as being disrespectful, I beg your forgiveness.

Third - I'd be surprised if you went to the link based on my past experience with religionists on this blog. Forgive me for lumping you in with them. That wasn't being fair.

Fourth - IIRC, Talmudic references to Jesus are not contemporaneous to his "life" anymore than those of Josephus. In fact, they were written 300 YEARS AFTER Jesus' "death." At least Josephus was born in 37CE, ie: within a decade of Jesus' "death."

Fifth - alleging that Jesus was a real historical figure because James was a "real" figure is like asserting that Indiana Jones was a real person because Hitler was a real person (they met face to face in a movie, after all). By your reasoning, the literary telling of a meeting between a historical person and a fictional character bestows upon both the mantle of reality. I beg to differ.

I don't know why you accept hearsay and tradition as "proof" for such things. Surely, if the Bible stories and message are true they can stand up to the best and most-rigorous inquiry available, can't they?

Mr. Mark,

First, the link you provided in your most recent response to me does not seem to work. Do you have an alternate URL?

Second, why did you say that you would be surprised if I went to the link? Do you think that, because I am a follower of Jesus, I have a closed mind and am afraid of reading things from a different perspective?

Third, there is another source that you didn't mention: the Talmud. Jesus actually appears under a variety of names (This obfuscation was done so the church authorities would not confiscate copies of the Talmud or persecute the Jews).

Fourth, I have actually read claims similar to those you cite. My understanding is that, in Josephus for example, some of the references to Jesus are regarded as fully redacted but others not. In particular, Josephus mentions James, Jesus' brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church. Most scholars regard James as an historic figure.

Finally, I would like to think that I am being respectful with you. Please offer me the same courtesy. I have no problem with having honest discussions with people of any perspective on faith as long as they are respectful.

Uccer writes:

"Since you are Mr. Mark, you may wish to read through the Gospel according to Mark some day - it is generally regarded to be the earliest and most historically accurate Gospel."

I've read Mark, and you've read Mark - BUT - what if I told you that the Gospel of Mark was not a historic document that offered proof of a real living Jesus, but an allegory on the destruction of Judea in 70CE?

Sound intriguing? There's a very interesting article that was just posted on 10/20 by RG Price entitled, "The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory." You may wish to check it out if you have a few hours to blow (it's not an article that abides a quick scan - too many OT and NT references to read to allow the author to make his case). The article is here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm

NB: the article needs a few clean-ups in the typo department, but that doesn't lessen the interest of the premise nor the strength of the argument.

Here's a bit of a preview for you:

"Summary and Conclusion

"The extent to which what we call the Gospel of Mark was based on existing writings significantly undermines the idea that this is a story based on reality. Many additional elements further undermine such notions, from the supernatural phenomena to historically inconceivable scenes, such as the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus during a religious festival (which just happens to bolster the symbolism of the event).

"In analyzing the Gospel of Mark we also find that the Gospel of Mark is the most in line with Pauline theology of all Gospels. In fact, it is the only Gospel that is really in line with Pauline theology. The Gospel of Matthew, while clearly copied from the Gospel of Mark, is also clearly intent on completely changing the theology of the story and attempting to bring the story more in line with traditional Judaism.

"All three of the later Gospels are clearly attempts at producing an authoritative document of some kind, while the Gospel of Mark is not. The other Gospels all struggle to produce a foundational document out of a story that was not intended for such a purpose. Why then would these other writers work so hard at taking a story that is so pessimistic, hostile, and unfit to found a religion upon, and use it as the basis for their religious narratives? The only answer can be simply because there was so little else to go on. The Gospel of Mark must have become somewhat popular in its own time, and this is why it became so influential and why other writers built off of it and felt some need to be true to it, even while they clearly disagreed with its theology and sought to radically change aspects of it.

"What is so peculiar is that this story must have been, at the same time, both popular and yet mysteriously unknown, because none of even the earliest apologists and church fathers gave any indication that either they or anyone else suspected that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were copied in any way from the Gospel of Mark, nor did any of them believe that the Gospel of Mark was the oldest of the Gospels. Within 100 years of its writing not only had the true author become completely unknown, but the understanding of the story had become lost and the knowledge that it had been written before the other Gospels had become lost. In addition, the dependency of the other Gospels upon it had become unknown as well.

"It is probably very significant that the people who adopted these works as sacred texts were not from the cultures that produced them. The Greek and Roman "Gentiles" who became enamored with these works and with this religion were complete outsiders looking in on something that they really had no understanding of. The Jewish scriptures were foreign and exotic to them, and in them they saw all kinds of correlations and "predictions" and truths that were, in fact, merely a product of the writing style of the Jewish story tellers. The Jewish scriptures have a few themes which they repeat over and over and over again, and they had a relatively small set of important stories, which they made allusions to repeatedly in new stories. Often, new stories in the ancient Jewish tradition were re-castings of old stories and old scriptures in ways that fit the present situations. Because old stories were the basis of new stories, the new stories often "fulfilled" the prophecies of the old stories.

"The Jewish scriptures were preoccupied with destruction and punishment from their god because the Jewish people were surrounded by superpower civilizations. The Jews were often conquered and were often the subjects of others. The result is that there are many tales and predictions of destruction in the Jewish scriptures because Jewish people were frequently being conquered and having their cities destroyed. Not only did this result in many scriptures dealing with destruction, but it also led to a sense among the Jewish people that they, or some elements among them, were causing their god to be angry at them.

"What had been a self-critical tendency within Jewish religion and scripture was turned into a weapon in the hands of the Romans. Many Jewish scriptures, and the Gospels themselves, are critical of Jewish society and the Jewish priesthood in ways that were, to some extent, healthy and fostered vigilance against corruption. However, these same scriptures became the very testimony that was used against the Jews by their enemies, essentially condemning them with their own words.

"What better way to condemn a people (an insurrectionist group that made up about 10% of the population of the Roman Empire) than to point at their own scriptures and point out that they themselves had predicted their own demise and brought it upon themselves (according to the Gospels) just as they themselves had predicted. The Jewish scriptures themselves became one of the ultimate justifications for the condemnation and suppression of the Jewish population.

"What Christians have pointed to as "prophecy fulfillment" in the Gospels ever since they first began analyzing and writing about the Gospels is nothing of the sort. Instead, the parallels between the Gospels and the Hebrew scriptures are the core evidences which demonstrate that the Gospel stories are "fabricated". It is important to note that there was nothing intentionally subversive in this fabrication, it was simply a style of writing. The author of the Gospel of Mark was no-doubt writing a fictional story with no intention that the story become a foundational religious document or be passed off as a historically true. The symbolism of the Gospel of Mark is lost upon anyone who takes the story is literal history, and thus the whole point of the story would be lost on anyone who didn't acknowledge it as an allegorical fiction, certainly not something that the author would intend.

"The motives and intentions of the other Gospel writers is harder to discern, and some or all of those writers may have believed that Jesus was a real person, though at least the authors of Matthew and John had to have also known that they were embellishing portions of the story with their own additions, though they themselves, in a religious mindset, may have seen these additions as legitimate and "true". They may also have believed that the story they were copying from was literally true.

"Regardless, what we find upon close inspection is that the Gospels are in no way historically believable, every single detail from them is best explained as fabricated fiction."

I'd be very interested to hear your reaction should you bother reading the article.

Thomas Baum.

As usual your are the rational Christian voice.

Keep it up. You even have some of the none Christians cheering for you :)

Peace.

SPONGJOHN SQUAREPANTHEIST wrote (apparently in response to one of my posts):
"That doesn't surprise me, seeing as how you get your knowledge of evolution watching specials on the boob tube, as you've admitted to Pablo.

Here's a good starting point:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/

Come back once you've done some actual preparation on the matter."

Wow. That's a really pathetic response. Presumptuous in both content and attitude. Is that the bus you're going to drive to the debate? Let me spell it out for you:

Presumption #1: "seeing as how you get your knowledge of evolution watching specials on the boob tube."

Who - besides a person with limited powers of comprehension or a difficult-to-support-with-facts ax to grind - would presume that just because I referenced A TV show in A post that I get my information ONLY from the boob tube?

Presumption #2: I don't know who William Lane Craig is, so I must be an idiot who has no standing to post about anything at On Faith.

Here's a test for you, SpongJohn: do a poll of On Faith bloggers and see how many have ever heard of this guy. I'm sure that I'm in good company.

BTW - I did a search on the Dr's name, and I found an alternative site called:

"Contra Craig -Dedicated To Our Favorite Living Christian Apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig, Christian Advocate of Self-Induced Insanity"

That site can be found here:

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm

Amazing. I don't know one of the knuckle-draggers at the laughable and discredited Discovery Institute, and SpongJohn thinks that invalidates anything I might have to say about evolution.

Typical religionist "thinking." Not even inventive religiousthink.

Uccer writes:

"As Richmond defended, the historicity of Jesus is backed up by non-Biblical sources."

Who? Josephus? Pliny? Tacitus? I hope you're not depending on these as your non-Biblical sources.

I know you won't bother, but you can read all about how, "All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims," by clicking here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10

Let me say again that I have little or no hope that you will bother clicking on this link and reading a well-documented and well-argued article that will disencumber you of the myth that there are non-Biblical sources that mention Jesus.

Or, maybe you'll surprise me.

TO EVERYBODY:

I have been glancing at some of the postings here and I have a few comments:

First, God is Real and He is a Trinity, He is Love, a Consuming Fire of Pure Love. God-Incarnate was a Man but God is not a male, a female or an it, I say "He" because there really isn't an appropriate pronoun to use.

Second, some of the people that know God's Name, that seems to be about the only thing that they know about God.

Third, it does matter what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Fourth, it is really sad that some of the people that believe in the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God seem to believe that God asked us to be more godly than God Himself.

Fifth, God has a Plan which at least some of the people that call themselves "christians" don't seem to approve of.

Sixth, people that call themselves "christian" should maybe actually become christian instead of telling other people to become one.

Seventh, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Eighth, if you don't know didly-squat about God maybe you should admit it.

Ninth, knowing God's Name is not some kind of magic as some people seem to think, does hate-filled, judgemental, condemning people calling themselves "christians" come to mind?

Tenth, we are "ALL MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE", this is addressed to the bible thumpers that seem to hate page one and have conveniently ripped it out.

Eleventh, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise whether you agree with God's Plan or not.

12th, we will all be judged, since we are responsible for what we do, considering that we are the ones that do what we do, free will, what is the big deal?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dear Mad Love -

Thanks for your comment.

You wrote:

"I think you'll agree that if scientists are allowed to challenge and discard their own theories as they see fit, the theologians should be extended the same courtesy."

Your statement ignores the very basic difference between scientific theories and religious belief.

Scientific theory ALWAYS allows that there is more to be revealed, even if it's a matter of small details and clarification. Occasionally, a scientific belief can be totally overthrown, such as the former belief that all life on Earth needed to have contact with sunlight to flourish, a belief that was overthrown through deep-sea exploration and the discovery of life that did just fine existing in complete darkness. Science is always ready and eager to embrace new discoveries. In fact, ignorance is the driving force behind scientific discovery.

Then, there's religion, where dogmas like limbo are treated as "the Gospel truth," fervently believed to have been handed down by god himself and interpreted to the masses through his middlemen on Earth, the clergy and those who set church doctrine. Belief in these dogmas drive believers to kill, maim and destroy.

For centuries, belief in limbo caused pain to millions of Catholic parents who lost a child, while at the same time having the not-accidental effect of filling the Church's coffers with indulgences to help pray/buy those limbo-entrapped souls a way into heaven.

I won't even get into the subject of heresy and apostacy, ie: the church's position on those within its ranks who dare to "challenge and discard their [the church's] theories as they see fit." Are you really averring that the church - any church - welcomes incessant efforts to falsify its doctrinal claims as does the scientific method as applied to every single branch of scientific theory? C'mon. Even dolts like Vinnie and Canyon wouldn't make such a claim.

I think your argument is straddling the path between an apple and an orange grove. Try again.

Sorry about the extra paragraph with all the spelling errors.

Mr Mark:
Mr. Mark, you wrote (to other posters):

"Golly gee, if we're not talking about Genesis, then what are we talking about? Where else in the Bible are creation and species discussed?

If you choose not to interpret Genesis literally, then the field is wide open to whatever whims you wish, isn't it? That's a convenient way to argue around the Bible's explanation of creation, isn't it? It's a little like having a discussion about baseball pitchers without discussing pitches."

also:

The RC Church just tossed aside the dogma of limbo this year, a dogma it inflicted on its followers for centuries, gone in an Emily Latella "never mind" moment. Were Catholics "trusting in God" throughout the centuries when limbo was an operational dogma of the Catholic Church? Are they trusting in god now that the dogma has been cast aside? Or, did god change his mind about limbo in 2007?

I point these out because though you generally present your case very well, I've noticed that you occasionally feel the need to reduce peoples view points into charactertures in order to set up a straw man argument. In the other example, I think you'll agree that if scientists are allowed to challange and discard theier own theories as they see fit, the theologions should be extended the same courticies.

I point these out because though you generally present your case very well, I've noticed that you occasionally feel the need to reduce peoples view points into caricatures in order to set up a straw man argument. In the other example, I think you'll agree that if scientists are allowed to challenge and discard their own theories as they see fit, the theologians should be extended the same courtesy.

I bring these up because, while I don't always agree with all your beliefs, I generally like the way you handle yourself, and think you do an unnecessary disservice to yourself on occasions like this.

Just my two pesos...

*sigh* do I really have to forgive more than once? ; ) ok!!!

At the risk of further diverting this thread, I wanted to make one comment I was thinking about regarding that historicity link/claim. A lot of the myth-claimers are examining the Pauline texts and saying that Paul seems to be describing a mythical figure as much as he is describing the biological details of the historical person named Jesus Bar Joseph of Nazareth.

... and the reply is that the critics are spot on. It is a very Jewish/Hebrew/Torah way of thinking to connect the specific to the timeless... to connect the story of one person to the story of a People... to look at a person as being representative of a larger story/narrative/history.

In that sense the critics rightly sense that Paul is not describing simply a Gallilean biography, but the story of the Messiah, the Christ... God's Anointed One... God's Immaneul (God-With-Us) that was foretold by the scriptures and then actually came and dwelt among us.

... I am using all these big dramatic keywords not because I think the flourishes will convince you that Jesus was the Messiah, but because I feel that it is not a great critique of the New Testament to say that it speaks in Mythic/epic terms... of course it does!!!! (is my response) because it (supposedly) tells a story bigger than the specific biographical or geographical details that the Smithsonian would want collected. Frankly I can't think of the kind of details that could reasonably be expected to have been preserved in writing. Are you looking for a diary of a person who says "September 24, 30AD: today I met Jesus"... I am not sure (really I have no clue) whether this or other kinds of evidence were really preserved by (mostly illiterate??) Hebrews in those days. We are talking about documenting the life of a largely homeless itinerant preacher who lived among poor people and told his disciples to not cary much with them in a Jewish society that was dominated by exchanging oral histories and hanging out at the temple.

Anyways, what I am trying to say is twofold: (1) Jesus' story in the New Testament IS larger than life because that's how Hebrews processed God/reality and (2) not sure what concrete evidence the skeptics think history has deleted.

Peace,
RT

A. thorn,

You said:

"No, it really doesn't. In fact, evolution needs for those forces to have changed in order to fuel evolution. Evolution is predicated around the fact that when life began, situations on earth were MUCH different than they are today."

How do you know that the situations on the earth were much different? This is just an un-supported statement.

You said:
"Meanwhile, creationism is predicated on the fact that the Earth has been a constant since God created man. This is something we know is not true. It also bases itself around the 'fact' that the world is much younger than we know it to be through scientific evidence."

How do you know it is not true? Support what you have said.

You said:
"Saying that our assumptions make for a worse argument than your assumptions is hypocritical at worst, a delusion at best."

Why is it hypocritical? Why is it a delusion?

I said:
"It is true that we all assume certain things when we look at our world. I assume the existence of God. This presupposition is the only presupposition that makes sense out of the world. Naturalism cannot account for abstract things that we all know exist like morality, logic, and justice Thus the empirical method is a limited way of knowing things."

"God existing is NOT the only presupposition that makes sense out of the world. The world can make a lot of sense without his existence if you open your mind a bit. Nothing in this world necessitates an all-powerful God. Morality, logic and justice can all come about without one God. In fact, societies around the world came to have systems of morality, logic and justice while being either polytheistic or nontheistic. Saying that God is the only way to get morality dismisses facts we have from human cultures around the world."

Where did morality originate? If there is no God then what is the source of morality, reason, and justice?

"The Christian God is true because the impossibility of the contrary. He is the one that makes all knowing possible. He is the source of the creative order. He makes the scientific method possible. Logic then comes from a logical God. Morality from a moral God. Nature does not process the ability to create, it does not think, it does not have a moral code of right and wrong. These things find their source in a person."

"Really? So only a person can be moral? Take, for example, the many studies done on primates where they display basic morality. A monkey that needs to pull a lever to get food will starve himself if he knows that by pulling the lever, his companion gets shocked. Does this work with your concept of a moral God that only displays morality in humans? Because it works with evolution."

"Then you should have no problem with being put into a cage with a lion or a bear."

"You are right that Nature does not process the ability to create, but it also has no need to. It doesn't need to do anything. But then again, neither did God. He didn't need to be able to create, but he did. Does that make him much different than nature?"

Yes because God is a person. The created order came from a personal God. He is the source of all things great and small. His magnificence is seen in all that He has made.

"Well, maybe if you showed a good hand yourself, we'd be more willing to show ours. You offer very little in the way of fact in your posts. You show a lot of belief, which is not a bad thing, but you try to play it as fact, which is a bad thing. You show nothing about God that nature couldn't have done on its own. And that is a problem for many of us. Shows us something that exists that science can't disprove was create by God, and maybe you'll win some supporters, but right now you have done none of this. You have just made assumptions based on your own beliefs. But these are not necessarily true."

You say there are no facts in what I have said and you have declared that you have stated many facts but I see no support for one thing you have stated.

Mr. Mark,

The question of which portion of the Bible should be read literally versus which should be read allegorically is an interesting question, but I sort of think it misses the real point. Again, I suspect that what you are (rightly) rallying against are intolerance and bigotry of many Christians as well as abuses and atrocities by Christians in the past. I will get to the Biblical interpretation issue, but I think it is important to address the problems within Christianity that you are so correctly raising.

The problem with fundamentalism today is the pervasive judgmentalism and hypocracy. Fundamentalists argue with passion that salvation is by faith alone (sola fide) and that, for this reason, they feel that how one lives one's life is not important as long as one proclaims one's beliefs. This attitude, together with wooden literalism, leads to all kinds of intolerance, defining "in-groups" and "out-groups". Of course, this is all in complete violation to everything Jesus stands for (He regularly dined with sinners, much to the dismay of pharisees.)

To answer an earlier question by "anonymous", why do I call the fundamentalists "pigs"? The answer is that is what they are. For the record, I also call Republicans criminals, because they are. Jesus made a point to call the pharisees on their hypocracy and insincere proclamations.

Rest assured, Mr. Mark, that if there will be a culture war, I will fight alongside the secularists rather than the fundamentalists. Regarding your correctly pointing out the many historical attrocities commited by Christians in the past, we Chrsitians should be ashamed of our sordid past and should repent. The world needs now, more than ever, to hear the message of Christ Jesus; a message of love, forgiveness, compassion, salvation, peace, and justice. Candiron, if you want me to produce passages to back up that statement, I'll be happy to.

Finally, Mr. Mark, you brought up the issue of the historicity and divinity of Jesus. As Richmond defended, the historicity of Jesus is backed up by non-Biblical sources. The divinity of Jesus is a matter of faith. Since you are Mr. Mark, you may wish to read through the Gospel according to Mark some day - it is generally regarded to be the earliest and most historically accurate Gospel. You may be touched.

mr mark

you are the exemplicfication of a gentleman

for slapping yourself on the metaphorical wrist

to atone for callling Richmond Richard.

and for your unremitting wisdom in your submissions to these discissions.

That doesn't surprise me, seeing as how you get your knowledge of evolution watching specials on the boob tube, as you've admitted to Pablo.

Here's a good starting point:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/

Come back once you've done some actual preparation on the matter.

Dear Spongjohn -

The list of quotes a posted were just a few from the many quotes that are to be found at the link I posted. My experience in the past has been that religionists at On Faith rarely bother exploring links provided by guys like me, so I pulled a few quotes out at random as samples. I didn't make that clear at the time and you had no way of knowing it.

That clarified, perhaps YOU would like to be the one that provides me with the names and credentials of the "atheist archaeologists" who aver that Jesus was a real person. Richmond wasn't interested in backing up his claim with specifics. How about you?

That would further the discussion more than taking issue with the quotes I posted, wouldn't it? Better yet - perhaps a poll exists of archaeologists that proves beyond all doubt that the vast majority of them believe that the archaeological record proves that Jesus really existed, including those that are atheists.

I'd like to see such a thing if it exists.

Thanx.

"Ever hear of William Lane Craig?"

To be honest, no, I haven't.

Mr. Mark: Spong? McKinsey? Lightweight clowns. Popularizers. They are NOT academics. Why would you ever bring them up?

Ever hear of William Lane Craig? One of the greatest living philosophers, one of his PhDs in Christian history. Why don't you mention him?

Dear RichMOND -

Please excuse me for calling you Richard in all these posts.

I assure you that I just slapped myself on my wrist.

You're forgiven!!! : ) : ) : )

( just so you know I did skim the link... I'll let you know if/when I renounce Christianity :p : ) : )

Richard -

While I appreciate your responding, you'll forgive me if I fail to find a one-sided Wikipedia article written by and exclusively referencing Xian apologists to be legitimate and compelling evidence that "atheist archaeologists" accept that Jesus was a real person.

I could direct you to similar sites that make a much more compelling case for Jesus being an a-historic personage, sites that present all kinds of evidence, perspective and - yes - speculation that provides a helluva lot more detail to support their arguments than the "take my word for it" apologias at the Wiki page you linked. In fact, here's just such a link: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

I also don't want to spend time arguing. And I won't - if you'll stop making unsupportable blanket statements about atheist archaeologists believing Jesus existed. :)

Sorry we simul-posted...

You said "Per your last post: please provide the names and credentials of the "atheist archaeologists" you had in mind."

In all honesty, I have to admit I am not that interested in discussing "the historical Jesus" because I personally feel there are better ways to spend my time. If you are seriously interested I found some sources for you but I am not that interested in having a debate since netierh of us was there. All I am saying is that there is no home run evidence due to there not being TV camara's back then... and you'll probably end up believing what you want so I am not that serious about trying to convince you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Mainstream_scholarly_reception

Michael Grant "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (1977) "

George Albert Wells -- seems to have repudiated his radical mythologism in favor of skepticism about the details of Jesus' life.

Peace,
RT

Working upwards in your list of quotes...

Bible Review -- that the Gospels aren't read strictly as a historical account does not demonstrate that Jesus did not exist. Various Roman and Jewish accounts of Jesus' existance are available, and the Gospels do record other historical events that have a basis in history. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for keywords of prominent Jesus Scholars and the like.

Bishop Shelby Spong -- Spong is not a Christian in the "theistic" sense (his words, not mine) ... Spong is not known as a Biblical archaologist... and his interpretations of Jesus tend to be mythic because he believes only in the abstract truth of Christianity.

Paul Q. Beeching, Paula Fredriksen, C. Dennis McKinsey, Robert J. Miller, David Noel Freedman -- these five Christian theologians are making points about the importance of the Christian message that is conveyed in the Bible. They are not saying that Jesus did not exist... they are making an argument about how the Gospels are not merely historical accounts but have a didactic and theological purpose. I think it is a strong and reliable assertion to say that these five Christian theologians and 99% of Christian theologians believe in the actual birth and existence of Jesus of Nazareth. We sometimes quibble about the details but his existence is well settled in the Christian world. To take their statements as Jesus denial is to take them completely out of context. Some events like Jesus atop the mountain with Moses and Elijah (two Hebrew prophets who had been dead or missing for hundreds of years) says more about Jesus as Messiah than the historicity of whether he liked hiking in the mountains.

Peace,
RT

Richard -

Per your last post: please provide the names and credentials of the "atheist archaeologists" you had in mind.

Thanks.

PPS notice how I used the construction "even atheist archaologists" ... : )

What I am trying to say with this construction is that *not only* do I (an admittedly biased Christian) think you are wrong, people who mostly agree with your atheistic point of view think that you are wrong on this particular point.

Peace,
RT

Richard writes:

"Actually, even atheist archaologists do not doubt the existence of the person known as Jesus of Nazareth and the basic historicity of the events of his life."

Richard, that blanket statement simply is not true. In fact, many historians and even Biblical historians admit freely that there is a lower standard of historic proof for the "truth" of the Bible and that much of that perceived "truth" is based on tradition, NOT on evidence.

As far as archeological evidence for the existence of Jesus, you know as well as I that there is absolutely no such evidence available. None. Zip. Nada. Niente.

There's a decent deconstruction of your point here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

If you scroll down to the end of the cited article you'll find quotes by many Biblical scholars/historians who admit that there's no proof that Jesus was a historic figure. I'd ask that you check out these quotes then get back to me.

"It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a common symbol of the Christian faith."

-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)

"When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards."

-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)

"What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things."

-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6,

"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."

-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies."

-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

"The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical record of that year."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3

"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."

-Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

"David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as sources of historical information."

-Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39

Mr. Mark said... "Yet there's nothing in the historic record to vouch for Jesus' existence, his life story copies many elements that are present in the life stories of gods that pre-dated his showing up"

Actually, even atheist archaologists do not doubt the existence of the person known as Jesus of Nazareth and the basic historicity of the events of his life. You can be like Jefferson and deny all the "unreasonable" miracles, but you can't deny that Jesus lived, preached, and died on a cross. To do so would be to deny the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

re: literalism... Jesus said "I am a rock" ... but ... if I have evidence that he was NOT made out of granite, does this singlehandedly discount the whole Bible? (credit to Don Neiderfrank at uccforums.com for this example of absurd literality.) I refer to this as "Granite Jesus theology". Even if there were adherents to Granite Jesus theories, that doesn't mean that all Christians take "I am a rock" in the literal way... but rather we take it in the way Jesus intended.

Similarly, it's hard to believe in a literal seven day creation when the sun was not "created" until day four. Perhaps the text means something other than days-where-the-sun-rose-and-set

Peace,
RT

PS Mr Mark: I noticed that you omitted an anti-religious diatribe in your post to UCCER (oct 25 12:21 PM) ... I must say I very much appreciated that post!!!!

Candiron,

Your posts are shockingly presumptuous to the point of being dishonest. You have read far more into my post than the post itself merits. What's up with that? Are you trying to show that you know the Bible better than others? Is that what faith is to you, you fundamentalist pig?

Let's take a look at a couple of exchanges to see what I am referring to.

You said "Mr. Uccer, you illustrate the problem clearly: if you think of the Bible as merely an allegory (albeit beautiful), you reduce being Christian to being nothing more than a Bible fanboy. "I'm into Star Trek!", "I'm into Buffy the Vampire Slayer!", "I think the Bible is a real spiritual allegory, I'm into it, man!". God tries his best to get through to you and say things clearly to you, but you turn aside and say "it's allegory", and teach others to do the same."

Actually, all I said was that I view the creation accounts in Genesis as allegory, and very meaningful ones at that. You just assumed that I meant the whole Bible and went on with your egotistical browbeating. Incidentally, there is strong scientific evidence for the earth being millions of years old. Do you prefer to ignore such evidence in your search for the truth?

Here's another example. I wrote

"For many other Christians, the faith is about loving God, loving your neighbor, and getting back to Mr. McLaren's point, loving creation."

to which you wrote (among other things...)

"Again, why throw around rhetorical phrases without getting into specifics? Why redefine Biblical concepts without being up front about what you are doing? I apologize to you if you haven't read the Bible thoroughly enough to realize what you were being told in your church is not Biblical."

Actually I was referring to the Great Commandment, in all three synoptics. Here it is in Matthew 22:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

So there you have it, directly from Jesus. I guess they don't teach that in your church since you are so busy sitting on your high horse condemning others as heretics and apostates.

Dear A Thorn -

Thanks for your reply to Pablo.

Pablo is one of those religionists who has his fingers firmly planted in his ears. He doesn't want to learn and he probably never will.

I caught a show on Earth's origins on the Science Channel last month. Topics discussed were how the Earth rotated at a much faster speed than it does today, how 100 foot waves were once common, how the temperature of the Earth was once too hot to support any life at all, and on and on it goes.

Then along comes a Pablo with his uninformed and willingly ignorant statements about what "science says," comments that - typically for a creationist - are the opposite of what science actually "says."

Advice to Pablo: get off your knees, turn on your TV, switch to the Science/Discovery/National Geographic Channels and LEARN SOMETHING about science before continuing to make a fool of yourself.

pwned

Dear Uccer -

Thanks for the comment.

You wrote:

"Many Christians, perhaps the majority worldwide (certainly Catholics and mainline protestants), do not take a literal view of the creation account in Genesis. I view it as a beautiful allegory of great spiritual value. It's not worth trying to explain to you because you do not seem to be open to trusting in God...."

You bring us back to the basic question - what in the Bible is to be interpreted literally and what is allegory and metaphor? You say Genesis is an allegory. Fine. I say that Jesus never existed and that he's just a rehash of a well-established mythical archetype.

I would guess that most Xians would agree with you on Genesis while vehemently disagreeing with me on Jesus. Yet there's nothing in the historic record to vouch for Jesus' existence, his life story copies many elements that are present in the life stories of gods that pre-dated his showing up, and one can read Paul's epistles and easily interpret them as allegories about a Jesus who was never man incarnate but, rather, a spirit who fought his battles in the spirit world.

In other words, the story of Jesus reads as much as allegory as does the story of Genesis.

So, which interpretation is accurate? You may discount my interpretation of Jesus today, but who's to say you won't change your mind tomorrow? The RC Church just tossed aside the dogma of limbo this year, a dogma it inflicted on its followers for centuries, gone in an Emily Latella "never mind" moment. Were Catholics "trusting in God" throughout the centuries when limbo was an operational dogma of the Catholic Church? Are they trusting in god now that the dogma has been cast aside? Or, did god change his mind about limbo in 2007?

Comments?

Pablo:

"Evolution assumes (all that there is is what is inside the closed system of the universe) naturalism and the uniformity of nature (The wind, waves, natural forces are the same now as they were in the past). Theses assumptions cannot be proved by the scientific method that is why they are assumptions."

No, it really doesn't. In fact, evolution needs for those forces to have changed in order to fuel evolution. Evolution is predicated around the fact that when life began, situations on earth were MUCH different than they are today.

Meanwhile, creationism is predicated on the fact that the Earth has been a constant since God created man. This is something we know is not true. It also bases itself around the 'fact' that the world is much younger than we know it to be through scientific evidence.

Saying that our assumptions make for a worse argument than your assumptions is hypocritical at worst, a delusion at best.

"It is true that we all assume certain things when we look at our world. I assume the existence of God. This presupposition is the only presupposition that makes sense out of the world. Naturalism cannot account for abstract things that we all know exist like morality, logic, and justice Thus the empirical method is a limited way of knowing things."

God existing is NOT the only presupposition that makes sense out of the world. The world can make a lot of sense without his existence if you open your mind a bit. Nothing in this world necessitates an all-powerful God. Morality, logic and justice can all come about without one God. In fact, societies around the world came to have systems of morality, logic and justice while being either polytheistic or nontheistic. Saying that God is the only way to get morality dismisses facts we have from human cultures around the world.

"The Christian God is true because the impossibility of the contrary. He is the one that make all knowing possible. He is the source of the creative order. He makes the scientific method possible. Logic then comes from a logical God. Morality from a moral God. Nature does not process the ability to create, it does not think, it does not have a moral code of right and wrong. These things find their source in a person."

Really? So only a person can be moral? Take, for example, the many studies done on primates where they display basic morality. A monkey that needs to pull a lever to get food will starve himself if he knows that by pulling the lever, his companion gets shocked. Does this work with your concept of a moral God that only displays morality in humans? Because it works with evolution.

You are right that Nature does not process the ability to create, but it also has no need to. It doesn't need to do anything. But then again, neither did God. He didn't need to be able to create, but he did. Does that make him much different than nature?

"Now instead of simply saying I do not understand evolution give me a reasoned response. If you do not I will know that you are bluffing and that you really do not have a good hand of cards to play."

Well, maybe if you showed a good hand yourself, we'd be more willing to show ours. You offer very little in the way of fact in your posts. You show a lot of belief, which is not a bad thing, but you try to play it as fact, which is a bad thing. You show nothing about God that nature couldn't have done on its own. And that is a problem for many of us. Shows us something that exists that science can't disprove was create by God, and maybe you'll win some supporters, but right now you have done none of this. You have just made assumptions based on your own beliefs. But these are not necessarily true.

"For many other Christians, the faith is about loving God, loving your neighbor, and getting back to Mr. McLaren's point, loving creation."

No fundamentalist would disagree with you, but they might take issue with your redefining Biblical words without telling anyone.
"loving God" - John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." NOT he that regardeth my commandments as poetry so he can disregardeth them.

"loving your neighbor", Mt 19:19- "though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." quoting from Lev 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge nor bear grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, I am the Lord." But rebuking your neighbor for his sin risks (*gasp*) hurting his feelings. But do temporarily hurt feelings count more than warning people about their sins for their own good? Please.

Again, why throw around rhetorical phrases without getting into specifics? Why redefine Biblical concepts without being up front about what you are doing? I apologize to you if you haven't read the Bible thoroughly enough to realize what you were being told in your church is not Biblical.

Pablo:

You're a very funny guy. You are a classic example of a person who blindly was raised and taught what to believe. You question nothing about your religion because you were taught not to, and you obviously cannot think for yourself.

Ever had an original thought? Are you a follower? Most followers don't think for themselves because if they do think for themselves, they might realize how stupid they have been acting. And for the person that realizes he is wrong, that can be a the most terrifying thing he ever has to encounter.

Self realization is scarier than your so-called "hell". Hell can be dealt with. Figuring out who you are and what you know to be true are the true obstacle.

Mr. Uccer, you illustrate the problem clearly: if you think of the Bible as merely an allegory (albeit beautiful), you reduce being Christian to being nothing more than a Bible fanboy. "I'm into Star Trek!", "I'm into Buffy the Vampire Slayer!", "I think the Bible is a real spiritual allegory, I'm into it, man!". God tries his best to get through to you and say things clearly to you, but you turn aside and say "it's allegory", and teach others to do the same.

Remember the old adage "What you win them with is what you win them to". If you convince Mark of your point of view, you will not have led someone to be a true disciple of Christ, but would merely have created another secular McLarenite.

Typical McLaren. He advises scientists to accept Christians, since they can be "useful" in promoting their views. thus encouraging hypocritical manipulation.

He then advises them to open the window and let the Holy Spirit waft in, since this might give them an actual basis for thinking beyond materialism and nihilism. Does he seriously think anyone is going to change his worldview on the basis of such an insipid, vague witness? Is this the faith the apostles and martyrs earnestly contended for, even to the point of death?

Then the gloves come off and he reveals his postmodern agenda: pretend to have respect for the Bible while telling you to ignore most of it, but relegate small parts of it to the role of a comforting bedtime story you turn to in order to motivate you to "save the world" (which will ultimately be destroyed 2 Pe 3:10-12), as if something inanimate and transitory such as the world is more valuable than men's souls.

He throws around words such as "wooden literalism", "poetry", "parable, "vision", "prophecy", but of course he never gets into specifics. Does he think the Decalogue is a poetry? You see, he's not trying to get you to read the Bible more accurately, but to disregard it altogether, except as a vague motivator to support his secular humanist causes.

Uccer,

If you are a Christian why do you call your brothers and sisters "fundamentalist pigs." Why then do you preach to us about love?

rafael,

Evolution assumes (all that there is is what is inside the closed system of the universe) naturalism and the uniformity of nature (The wind, waves, natural forces are the same now as they were in the past). Theses assumptions cannot be proved by the scientific method that is why they are assumptions.

It is true that we all assume certain things when we look at our world. I assume the existence of God. This presupposition is the only presupposition that makes sense out of the world. Naturalism cannot account for abstract things that we all know exist like morality, logic, and justice Thus the empirical method is a limited way of knowing things. The Christian God is true because the impossibility of the contrary. He is the one that make all knowing possible. He is the source of the creative order. He makes the scientific method possible. Logic then comes from a logical God. Morality from a moral God. Nature does not process the ability to create, it does not think, it does not have a moral code of right and wrong. These things find their source in a person.

Now instead of simply saying I do not understand evolution give me a reasoned response. If you do not I will know that you are bluffing and that you really do not have a good hand of cards to play.

Mr. Mark,

You wrote "If you choose not to interpret Genesis literally, then the field is wide open to whatever whims you wish, isn't it? That's a convenient way to argue around the Bible's explanation of creation, isn't it? It's a little like having a discussion about baseball pitchers without discussing pitches."

Not necessarily. Many Christians, perhaps the majority worldwide (certainly Catholics and mainline protestants), do not take a literal view of the creation account in Genesis. I view it as a beautiful allegory of great spiritual value. It's not worth trying to explain to you because you do not seem to be open to trusting in God....

Since the fundamentalist pigs shout the loudest, many people like you just assume that all Christians are fundamentalists whose theology is about "thinking right". For many other Christians, the faith is about loving God, loving your neighbor, and getting back to Mr. McLaren's point, loving creation.

To Mr. McLaren:
As a mainline protestant, I'd say that most of us mainliners would be in agreement with your excellent post. Thank you and keep up the nice work, sir. You are very inspirational.

Mr. Mark,

You wrote "If you choose not to interpret Genesis literally, then the field is wide open to whatever whims you wish, isn't it? That's a convenient way to argue around the Bible's explanation of creation, isn't it? It's a little like having a discussion about baseball pitchers without discussing pitches."

Not necessarily. Many Christians, perhaps the majority worldwide (certainly Catholics and mainline protestants), do not take a literal view of the creation account in Genesis. I view it as a beautiful allegory of great spiritual value. It's not worth trying to explain to you because you do not seem to be open to trusting in God....

Since the fundamentalist pigs shout the loudest, many people like you just assume that all Christians are fundamentalists whose theology is about "thinking right". For many other Christians, the faith is about loving God, loving your neighbor, and getting back to Mr. McLaren's point, loving creation.

To Mr. McLaren:
As a mainline protestant, I'd say that most of us mainliners would be in agreement with your excellent post. Thank you and keep up the nice work, sir. You are very inspirational.

Dear Uccer -

Golly gee, if we're not talking about Genesis, then what are we talking about? Where else in the Bible are creation and species discussed?

If you choose not to interpret Genesis literally, then the field is wide open to whatever whims you wish, isn't it? That's a convenient way to argue around the Bible's explanation of creation, isn't it? It's a little like having a discussion about baseball pitchers without discussing pitches.

Here's a quick Q & A synopsis from the Talk Origins website that does a much better job of than could I:

2. Evolution and Religion

Q1. Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.
Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.

Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.

Q2. Isn't evolution a religion?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.
Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles, but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of gold.

So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other scientific theory.

Q3. Does evolution contradict creationism?

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.
Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain.

3. Evolution and God

Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?

While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.

Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?

Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.

Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Mr. Mark,

You wrote "Where's the scientific evidence to support your statement? I can provide plenty of evidence that proves the opposite is true, ie: the theory of evolution argues strongly against the involvement of a creator."

Let's see it. Where does the theory of evolution generate evidence against a divine creator? I am not talking here about the literal interpretation of Genesis. I challenge you to find evidence in ANY scientific theory against the existence of divinity, be it theistic, deistic, or panentheistic.

Pablo, by your statement I see that you don't understand the first thing about evolution. Ignorance is not a strong starting point for debate.

Getting away from the loose term "believability", which depends more on the way you were indoctrinated than on the evidence you bring forth, are you saying there is more evidence for the Bible's story than for an evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? What is your evidence?

rafael,

The Bible is much more believable than the evolutionary fairytale of inert nature somehow processing creative power and thus being the source of all living, thinking moral beings.

Pablo:
Henry James,
By what standard do you say atheists are moral?
___

Pablo:
By what standard do you say they are not?

Pablo:
By what standard do you say you are moral?

Earth to Pablo?

Nothing is given real meaning by stories that are made up to give it meaning. I suppose having believed that the tooth fairy left a quarter under my pillow made the experience more "meaningful" for me, but the story didn't create the existence of a tooth fairy. If I had been able to use greater powers of reason at the time, it would have been obvious that the quarter arrived via the people that actually had access to my pillow. Although it didn't seem so at that stage, love from my parents should have been meaning enough.

I agree with Mr Mark that your perspective all depends on how narrowly you define the word "meaning." To me there is more meaning provided through our remarkable capacities for discovery about this world and the depths to which we can explore it. The greatest story in the history of this planet is the evolution and relatedness of all living things, for which we have abundant evidence. We can already recognize far more meaning to our lives than can, I presume, most other organisms.

Theists seem to me like fretful children looking for meaning in a world that already has plenty to offer.

Henry James,

By what standard do you say atheists are moral?

Dear Mr. Wilson,

We must do our best to be good stewards of the planet but destruction is inevitable. You know this yourself since you must know the law of entropy. The planet is decaying because it is under the curse of God's judgment due to humankind’s treasonous acts of sin. But God is merciful and He has provided a way of escape and forgiveness.

The City of Man in the scriptures named Babylon is destined to destruction no matter how much man tries to save the planet but there is a city whose builder and maker is God. His kingdom will have no end and in it righteousness will dwell forever. God's word instructs His people that they are not of this world. The Scriptures teach that this world's system is passing away and so you see that happening before your eyes. You can hold on to a sinking ship or you can trust the God Man Jesus Christ.

Faith is only as good as the object of faith. You can believe in the flawed finite theories and philosophies of man that shift like the sands on the sea shore if you would like. Man has been reaching and grasping for the wind trying to solve the world's problems. Like a boy building a sand castles men have built their kingdoms and watched utopian dreams decimated by the waves of human pride and sin. In this the voice of god calls, "Look to Me all the ends of the earth for I am God and there is no other."

God is the transcendent One with no beginning and no End. He says, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). I rest in the “everlasting arms of God.” He is a dwelling place. His Kingdom, His power, and His Reign have no end. He is my source of life not the fleeting hope of the naturalists or beliefs in one of the isms of the world. May you know the peace of God that transcends all understanding (See Philippians 4)?

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways” (Romans 11:33)!

God Bless!

MJ writes:

". I find it laughable how those who study the many laws and complexities of nature cannot see the evidence a Creator."

Laughable? Really?

Where's the scientific evidence to support your statement? I can provide plenty of evidence that proves the opposite is true, ie: the theory of evolution argues strongly against the involvement of a creator.

Your ignorance is showing. Please remedy the situation.

Guys:

All of us have benefited from science and will continue to do so. Those who have spewed their atheistic, anti-religious diatribes need to be reminded that history is replete with hundreds of Christians who are renowned scientists. I find it laughable how those who study the many laws and complexities of nature cannot see the evidence a Creator. It is reasonable and prudent that all of us do what we can to reduce impacts on our environment (source reduction, recycling, renewable energy, etc). Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism and Christian leaders need to stick to their area of calling - the Gospel. Let the scientist do their thing and define workable solutions to address environmental issues.

Dear R Stallgiss -

Thanks for your comment.

I should point out that the phrase "even Dawkins" doesn't mean much to me. I have read Dawkins and I agree with what he writes, but I haven't based my atheism on what Dawkins or any other single writer says. To use the word "even" implies some kind of authority that isn't warranted here, as in, "even the UN said that bush's war was illegal."

I think I know what your intention was, but there's nuance in my belief that isn't party to phrases like "even Dawkins."

Mr Stallgiss and Mr McLaren

while Science doesn't deal with moral frameworks (unless it is social science)

human beings deal with moral frameworks

WHETHER OR NOT they believe in a supernatural god.

Atheists are just as moral as believers

and "godless societies" like Holland are at least as moral as the pious US of A.

Mr. Mark... : ) indeeed.

btw Even Dawkins admits science doesn't deal in moral frameworks. Dawkins leaves that to the philosophers... primarily Kant and Singer, and the utilitarians.

These issues of meaning and purpose... also not within the realm of science. IMHO philospohy does a piss poor job of explaining meaning and reference. There's this miracle of "awareness" that nobody seems to be able to get their heads around.

Dear Richard T Stallgiss -

I must ask you: what would a post from Mr Mark be if it didn't include an anti-religious diatribe? I thought I did pretty good keeping it to the last 3 paragraphs. :)

Besides, I feel I owe that diatribe to my supporters AND my detractors, sort of the way Judge Smails in the movie "Caddyshack" sent young boys to the gas chamber (he remarked, "I didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them.")

BTW - I disagree with your statement that "science doesn't provide the meaning of life." One would have to take an extremely limited view of the word "meaning" to make such a statement. I COULD agree with the statement that "science doesn't provide the meaning of life any more than religion or tiddly-winks provide the meaning of life."

Think about it.

There's a basic assumption carried along in the "rapids of scientific community" that there is a scientific faith. Any scientist that faiths anything is not a scientists, Christian Science Religion being an exception by name only.

There is no science organization as such. There are "academy's of science" but they are "old boy's clubs" for the most part.

Giving any "scientific community" the mantel of speaking for all is problematic. Carl Sagan hit a homer when he noted "the dogmas of science" that may not be questioned. Questioning is the foundation of science.

There has been no hard core scientific advancement since Relativity was dogmafied. Yes, astronomy has looked deeper into the universe and several new theories of creation spawned. But the real deal, "not how much things work but HOW things work" has been/is being neglected, but not by all.

Let me suggest PhDs in Physics from Liberty U and Notre Dame get together with the pope and Pat Robertson to decide how the Bible has the "real science" (We need God only) so we can shut down a lot of redundant and error prone research.

Or, http://www.hoax-buster.org and let the real scientists, the ones straining their brains with "string theory" and advancing "quantum theory" along with renegades like Steven Hawkins with "multiple universe theory" get a dollar or two of government money for their research efforts.

Money? What does money have to do with anything? Oh yeah. The big tax money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Hurry! Hell is filling fast.

The Bible is a proved hoax. You're beating a dead horse.

I agree with Mr. Mark up until the last three paragraphs.

In his first seven paragraphs, he rightly discusses how the Bible has little if anything to say about global warming and that it is up to the scientific community to diagnose and provide solutions for the crisis. (It is important to note that many in the scientific community ARE religious people)

Mr. Mark then loses me in his last three paragraphs. He casts his objective scientific worldview and descends into an astoundingly ignorant and disrespectful diatribe about religious people.

Lose the chip-on-shoulder. Respect religion and science in their own areas of inquiry. Science doesn't provide the meaning of life, and religion doesn't diagnose the impact of carbon emissions on atmospheric temperature.

Peace,
RT

What drivel.

The plain fact - FACT - is that it is science that has discovered the problem of global warming and science that will provide solutions to the same. Period.

Religion doesn't enter into it as religion offers no solutions to global warming. Period.

Science need not make ANY concession to religion or the religious on this subject, any more than science needs to learn to get along with The Shriners if there's any hope to reverse global warming.

The worst one can say is that a person's religious beliefs will somehow inspire them to act as stewards of the earth - a pretty pathetic inspiration if you think about it, as if religious belief trumps basic survival instinct. If the religious need religious belief to take global warming seriously and to turn to science for answers, then from where do scientists - who are largely atheist/agnostics - draw their inspiration?

At the end of the day, both believer and non-believer must trust the scientific community to provide the answers. You don't look in the Gospels for actionable solutions to global warming. Is the solution to develop alternative fuels and technologies that help to lessen carbon emissions and extend gas mileage, or should we just pray about it and hope Jesus waves his magic wand?

Sadly, one thing we can be sure of is that no matter how fervently religionists embrace science in the area of global warming, they will reserve unto themselves the conceit of disbelieving that same science when it confirms evolution as fact. The ability of the religious to compartmentalize fact and fiction is astounding, and the subject of global warming will be no different.

Just as religion itself is the outright theft of humanity's hard-won and evolution-developed sense of community and morals, I have no doubt that 20 years down the road the religionists will dredge up the writings of a few of their brethren who were hip to global warming at the time and will champion them as the "leaders who made global warming a concern," the same way they did with the abolition of slavery and womens' sufferage.

Yes, 20 years hence, the solution to global warming will be averred to have been an initiative of the faith (fantasy?)-based community! Look here, Joel Osteen once said that Xians should have at least one fuel-efficient car in the garage (and with his gospel of living the rich life of a "have it all now" Xian, you can afford a couple of VW Beetles to park next to your Hummer!). If that's not a sign that Xians identified the problem of global warming, what is?

My advice to the religious? It's time to put away childish things. Get with the program. Embrace reality and cast off fantasy. You - and the rest of the world - will be glad you did.

Mr. McClaren,

The Bible teaches that the earth is the kingdom of satan. No matter what opinion Christians hold pertaining to ecological stewardship, the ecological condition of the earth will continue to spiral downward as our population grows and more prime land is encroached upon by human beings. As Christians our focus should be squarely on the life-changing, soul-saving Gospel of the Kingdom of God that was preached by our Lord, Jesus the Christ. May I suggest as a Pastor you direct your all of your energies to calling people to repentance and pointing them to Calvary.