Religulous, or Just Ridiculous?

Timmy,
God gives us the facility to think for ourselves and to choose.

I believe just the opposite as you do considering abortion. Jesus certainly deonounced murder. And I want the government to protect the innocent. (not the mother's right to kill her offspring for her own privacy or convenience). Protecting people's rights (particularly those most vulnerable) is a role government should play.

Paul,

Another comment on your statement: "I haven't decided how to vote today but there are more factors than taxing the wealthy. There is also an issue with abortion to reconcile"

Just to give you a little help here on weighing these two factors.
Jesus spent all of his time talking about one. And none of his time talking about the other. it seems pretty obvious to me which was the most important thing to Jesus.

Paul,

You said: "I haven't decided how to vote today but there are more factors than taxing the wealthy. There is also an issue with abortion to reconcile"

So you don't want government telling people what to do with their money, but you do want government telling people what they can do with their body. Like your religion, you are full of contradictions. You think that people should decide for themselves whether or not they want to follow God's wishes where money is concerned, but government should decide for the people whether or not they follow God's wishes on reproduction issues. You do not have a consistent point of view. Your scruples on government involvement in our life flip flop back and forth based on whether or not it suits your myth. You are not a conscientious voter, you are an opportunist voter.

You said: "God does not judge for us. He gave us the tools and the facilities to judge (as well as helpful conscience hints) but judging is a human operation"

Yes. And if we make bad judgments, then there must be something wrong with the "tools and facilities" we have been given to judge with, which, as you just stated yourself, we got from God. So as I said, God gave us bad tools and facilities, obviously, or we would be making good decisions. But we are apparently making bad decisions, so the tools and facilities that we have been given to make decisions with are clearly faulty. It is inescapable, Paul. God created everything. God is responsible for everything. But he blames us. This is the logical fallacy of your religion. Actually it is just one of many that makes your story impossible to be true.

Timmy,
I haven't decided how to vote today but there are more factors than taxing the wealthy. There is also an issue with abortion to reconcile. You see, neither candidate is clean from a Catholic point of view.

God does not judge for us. He gave us the tools and the facilities to judge (as well as helpful conscience hints) but judging is a human operation. We each have own perspective and insights that play into this. This is not a logical fallacy. This is a problem with your understanding.

Paul,

You said: "I am personally in favor of restribution of wealth but would prefer to choose who gets that wealth myself, rather than have the government dictate it"

Ahhh that old line. I got news for you buddy. You live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. Your government is a government of the people. The government is not an entity that makes decisions for you without your permission as your line above suggests. The government IS the people. When the government makes a decision, that is the people making a decision. We decide collectively that we want to be a society that redistributes wealth to the needy, and the only way to do that fairly for all of the needy people in the country is through government policy. If it is left up to individuals, the redistribution would be unfair and show favoritism to certain groups. When you say, you want to choose who gets that wealth instead of the government, you seem completely ignorant of the fact that you are the government. We live in a democracy.

If you are voting this year for the man who is currently making fun of Barrack Obama for wanting raise taxes on the extremely wealthy so that he can give a little tax relief to the poor, then you are a typical Christian hypocrite.

You said: "As for the free will discussion, I don't think you can separate the decision making process from the action that follows it"

You don't "think"??? So you are not sure about this? You haven't given it much thought? I guess not because you are flat wrong. The decision making process is completely separate from the action. One is physical, and one is mental.

You said: "Sure, God gave you the raw materials but its up to you on how you use them"

By raw materials you mean our reasoning and judgement. "How" we "use" them, is to make decisions. We use our reasoning and judgement to make decisions. That is "how" we "use" them. And there is nothing wrong with using our reasoning and judgement to make decisions. That is what we're supposed to do with it. But if our reasoning and judgement lead us to bad decisions, then our reasoning and judgement (raw materials) are flawed. And we got that from God. You can not escape this, Paul. God created flawed humans, and can not blame us for being that way.

You said: "Don't blame God if you make faulty judgements"

I don't blame God. I don't believe that God exists.
In my world view, I, and I alone, am responsible for my own bad decisions.
I am simply pointing out the logical fallacy that exists in your world view. You are the ones who created a myth that has holes in it. And the most glaring of all is staring you in the face right now. If God created everything including us and everything about us, then he is responsible for our faulty reasoning and judgement. It's that simple. It is inescapable. But I hear you covering your eyes and plugging your ears, and ignoring logic because it destroys the myth that defines your life.

Timmy,
Catholics are typically swing voters, mirroring the electorate as a whole. They are not hard right like evangelicals. As you suggested, there is significant support among Catholics for redistribution of wealth and support of labor. Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker's were in fact, staunch socialists. This is of course balanced by the left's embrace of abortion, which the Catholic church fights mightily against. I am personally in favor of restribution of wealth but would prefer to choose who gets that wealth myself, rather than have the government dictate it.

As for the free will discussion, I don't think you can separate the decision making process from the action that follows it. Sure, God gave you the raw materials but its up to you on how you use them. Don't blame God if you make faulty judgements. Oh, and by the way, God grades on a curve...Luke 12: 48==> Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

Again, I greatly appreciate this ongoing conversation. It has caused me to reflect on my faith and has in fact, strengthened it further. Good Bless you..

Hi Paul,

I didn't say that Christians had to be destitute. If all Christians, at their next church meeting, decided to all do as Jesus asked and give all of their material wealth to the poor, no one would be destitute. That is the whole point of the teachings of Jesus. Those better off give their money to the poor, and now no one is rich, and no one is destitute. Everyone has their basic needs taken care of by the collective brotherhood. But you Christians won't do that simple thing. If you all led by example instead of by waving a Bible around, the world would be transformed. The Christian gesture would be so phenomenal that everyone would follow suit. But not only will you guys not do that, you won't even go as far as to vote socialist. Christians by and large vote right wing. How the hell does that make sense? The Christian right? Because to hell with giving money to the poor if it means non Christian judges on the supreme court.

Most Christians vote right wing, every election, no matter what.
While you may be right that Jesus does not expect everyone to be perfect, he most certainly would be appalled by the fact that most Christians in America vote right wing. I think it clearly shows that most Christians are clueless hypocrites. But I'm sure that you always vote for Nader. Right?

You said: "You are abdicating your personal responsibility by saying that "Everything we do wrong, is God's fault".

Not at all. God created me and everything about me. Flaws and all.

You said: You have the ability to choose right and wrong... What you do with that is completely up to you (free will). That's what makes you human (as opposed to an automaton).

Yes I understand free will. But it doesn't seem that you do. So here goes another attempt to explain a simple concept to you. I have the free will to go out and kill my neighbor. God will not stop me from doing that. If I did not have this free will, I would be an automaton like you said. But I do not go out and kill my neighbor, Paul. But why not? I have the free will? Obviously free will is not the thing we use to makes decisions with. It is simply the lack of a barrier to acting on the decisions that we make. What we use to make our decisions is our judgement, and reasoning. If we make flawed decisions, it has nothing to do with free will. Free will does not come into play until after the bad decision has been made. Then you may use your free will, to act on the bad decision already made. But it is your REASONING and your JUDGEMENT that you use to come to the bad decision. If you make a bad decision, you obviously have faulty judgement or reasoning. And we get our judgement and our reasoning, where we get everything else. From the man who created everything. God.

So if I have flawed Judgement and reasoning,the manufacturer is to blame?

God created everything, therefore anything that goes wrong is God's fault. If humans use the free will that God gave them to do bad things, that could only be because God gave them bad judgement and reasoning. And we know that he is perfect, so he could not have done this by mistake. But if he punishes us for making bad decisions with the faulty reasoning and judgement that he gave us, that makes him a malicious prick, which kind of ruins the "being of pure love" claim. The whole thing is a logical fallacy at it's core.

But you must understand that free will has nothing to do with making bad decisions. It is simply the lack of a barrier to us acting on bad decisions. It is not me who is mistakenly blaming God for our bad decisions, it is you, who is mistakenly blaming free will for our bad decisions.

You need to come to grip with the fact that God gave us faulty reasoning and judgement. I know it screws up your story, but it's a fact jack.

The Catholic church does not teach that you have to take the 6 days of creation at face value. It is an allegory. By the way, the current scientific theories put the age of the universe at around 14 billion years (not hundreds of millions of years) and in general terms, creation occurred roughly in the order described in genesis (which really is only interested in the theological aspects of it).

You are stretching to say that all Christians have to be paupers. When asked what it took to go to heaven, Jesus said to follow the commandments which he summed up as love God and love your neighbor. He further elaborated with the Beatitudes. To be fair, he did say to be PERFECT, you should give away your possessions and follow him. But that's to be perfect, not a Christian. Clearly, a Good Christian can not love money more than God, but that doesn't mean they have to be destitute.

You are abdicating your personal responsibility by saying that "Everything we do wrong, is God's fault". You have the ability to choose right and wrong and you have the spirit of God within you giving you insight (your conscience, which you already recognize, although you thing it is an evolutionary adaptation). What you do with that is completely up to you (free will). That's what makes you human (as opposed to an automaton).

I now appreciate that you think you searched for God in good faith as a youth. Fair enough. I'm sorry you didn't get the response you think you needed. It still may come when you least expect it. We have several former athiests on this board who suddenly and unexpectedly linked with God. I can understand the despair involved and I understand why you have studied so much. You know, Mother Teresa got a very, very vivid vision of Jesus early in her vocation but after she was established, her direct contact with God vanished for 50 years, forcing her to do good for good's sake without the direct positive feedback from God that she once enjoyed. Having had that intimacy with God, its absence was doubly painful, yet she lived the kind of Catholic life you detailed. I personally have had only glimpses of the glory and Joy of God's presence. Yet I feel myself compelled to learn more and more about it and to spend more and more time in mass, teaching and in charity. Others have had much more direct contact with God but they also have far more responsibility. Thomas Baum talks about that.

In any case, this has been a compelling conversation for me. I appreciate all the time you have spent on it and I pray that you do get that contact with God that you at one time craved. It will surprise you when it happens.

Paul,

You said: "You Do NOT know with certainty that my God is non-existent"

You are correct. I am not certain. And I do not "know" that your God is non-existent. And if we are playing by these rules, then you must also admit that you do not "know" and are not certain that your God does exist. You must admit that if we are playing by these rules. So I'll assume that you do. I admit that I do not know, and am not certain that God does not exist, and you admit that you do not know, and are not certain that he does. We are in agreement here.

So neither of us "knows", or is "certain" about how the universe came into being.

For me, all options are on the table. I do not even lean toward any theory. It is a complete mystery to me, because it is a complete mystery to science, and science is nothing more than our most effective way of discovering things about our world and circumstance, with intellectual honesty, and reason. So I consider it a complete mystery. And so I have nothing more to prove. The onus now lies on those proposing a theory, to back up their theory with evidence and logic. And if a theory proposed has neither evidence, nor logic, and in fact has a mountain of evidence showing that it was invented by people who didn't know what they were talking about, then that theory gains no more likelihood of being true than does a magic dragon.

Thus, while I am not certain that the hair brained theory that you propose is not true, I can, with confidence, be 99.99999% certain that it is not true. As small a percentage point less than certain that is humanly possible. Because there is no evidence, it is not logical, and the purveyors of this theory have been caught in many lies and contradictions.

You said: "Genesis is a story to explain the theological and moral underpinnings of society. It is not a science text. It doesn't state that the sun is the center of the universe or that the sky is solid"

One word. Firmament. Look it up.

You said: "The 6 days could be taken to mean six periods of time"

"Could be taken to mean"??? Why would it? What do you mean "could be taken to mean"??? Are you or are you not a Catholic? Where in the Catholic faith does it teach that "days" means six periods of time that really add up to hundreds of billions of years. "Could be taken to mean"??? Is everything in the Bible arbitrary and open for interpretation like this? How about all of those verses I quoted about killing and raping. Are those verses that "could be taken to mean" a variety of things. You know, open for interpretation?

Not only is there nothing in the Bible that indicates that it is not to be taken literally, but quite the opposite. The Bible was clearly meant to be taken literally. And it says DAYS. Why would the Bible use a word like DAY that has a specific meaning. Why would it purposely confuse?

So when you say "it COULD be taken to indicate a period of time" .
Only if you are trying to cover for a lie.
These are all justifications for being caught in a lie.
"Uh, yeah, well, what God really meant when he said "days" was, six periods of time. Yeah that's it"
Why didn't the church teach this "six periods of time" theory before science proved the six days theory to be wrong?
Also, the earth formed gradually into what it is today over hundreds of billions of years. There are no six periods of time where it developed in stages of earth, sky, light and dark, etc.
Why do you plug your ears and cover your eyes in the face of evidence and reason, and obvious lies told by your religion. Why do you believe the lamest excuses of all time for being caught in a lie? It is ridiculous. "It could be taken to mean"???? Do you not see how you have to bend around common rules of evidence, and logic, to justify the nonsensical holy book written by ignorant desert nomads having heat induce hallucinations in times of great despair?

Wake up Paul. You've been duped. You don't even realize that you are not a Christian. I have read the teachings of Jesus. There is no doubt about it, it is clear as day in both intention and in literal terms, to be a deciple of Christ, a Christian must sell everything he owns and give it to the poor. Easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a man of great possessions to enter the kingdom of heaven. As long as you are richer than the peasants living in your community, Paul, you are not a Christian. You are a Bible thumper. All talk. No real Jesus action. Show me where Jesus allowed for you to only give 10% to charity and 10% to the church and you can keep the rest for yourself. You are typing on a computer, most likely in a comfortable home, while children in your state go hungry and have holes in their shoes. And you thing that what ever you give to charity is enough in the eyes of Jesus? Not even close buddy. You are a rich rich man compared to the poor people around you. If everyone who claimed to be a christian sold everything they owned and gave it to the poor, the world would be transformed. But none of you are actual Christians. Just Bible thumpers. Justifying lies with the most ridiculous and laughable excuses imaginable, to keep from having to admit that the club they belong to is bogus.

You said: "Where is your documentation that there were pre-Christian Gods that were born of a virgin on December 25th and that subsequently were crucified and resurrected?"

History books. You need to study early human history. it is filled to the brim with all kinds of gods and prophets before the time of Jesus with similar stories, and in some cases, virtually identical stories. These are all documented parts of human history. If you want exact references, look them up yourself. Here is a good link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

You said: "Your charges that it is God's fault that you are an unbeliever are spurious. You have free will and personal responsibility for what you do. To deny that would be to make you an automaton"

Free will means I am free to make what ever choices that I choose.
I am free to choose to do the right thing. And I am free to choose to do the wrong thing.
It simply means that there is no barrier stopping me from choosing either path.
However, I must still use my judgement and reasoning, to decide whether or not I want to do the right thing, or the wrong thing.
You need to understand this. I do not use my free will to make my decision. Free will is what allows me to act out my decision after I have made it. But my decision to do the wrong thing, is something that I come to, using my reasoning and judgement. So if I come to the wrong decision using my reasoning and judgement, then my reason and judgement are flawed. And where did I get my reasoning and judgement from? God.

Free will is not the cause of us doing bad things. It is simply the lack of a barrier to doing the wrong thing. The choice to do the wrong thing came from our reasoning and judgement. And we got those from God. Everything we do wrong, is God's fault. He created us and everything about us including our reasoning and judgement. That is why an all powerful and perfect, loving God, who created everything as it is, and punishes us for being flawed is a logical fallacy.

You said: "And as for you humbly seeking God, its hard from this week's long discussion seeing you do anything humbly"

Are you questioning my sincerity in my search for God as a church going child, teenager, and young man? I can't help you there. All I can tell you is that I was told as a child that God exists, and I believed it completely. I believed what the priest said when I went to church. I did what the priest told me to do by asking Jesus to come into my heart. I believed more than anyone could, and I wanted to feel Jesus so badly I was quite literally in tears when after many many attempts, under all sorts of circumstances, I was unable to feel any presence. I thought something was wrong with me and feared for my soul. It was only after I was fully mature, and read the Bible cover to cover, and studied history, anthropology, and biology and cosmology that I realized that I had been lied to. And yes, that makes me angry. What a horrible horrible lie. Not the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (as opposed to christ) The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (a character who is most likely real, although embellished) are a beautiful philosophy full of enlightened wisdom that we can all benefit from greatly. But not until we surgically remove them from religion. Jesus was a beautiful enlightened soul who I feel cosmically connected to. Religion is a lie.

Timmy,
You Do NOT know with certainty that my God is non-existent and your statistics are without substance. Be that what it my may, let me attempt to answer your specific charges.

Genesis is a story to explain the theological and moral underpinnings of society. It is not a science text. It doesn't state that the sun is the center of the universe or that the sky is solid. The 6 days could be taken to mean six periods of time and therefore the 6000 years isn't a valid calculation, either. Where is your documentation that there were pre-Christian Gods that were born of a virgin on December 25th and that subsequently were crucified and resurrected?

Your charges that it is God's fault that you are an unbeliever are spurious. You have free will and personal responsibility for what you do. To deny that would be to make you an automaton. And as for you humbly seeking God, its hard from this week's long discussion seeing you do anything humbly.

As for all the scripture readings you posted. First of all, Good for you in knowing or researching scriptures that thoroughly. Secondly, most of the examples you state as God's lack of love are actually describing harsh penalties for failure to live the desired moral code. Notice that every reference but one was from the old testament. The Israelites were God's chosen people, a people set apart from the rest because from them, the savior would be born. It was imperative for them to be as holy as possible, thus the harsh penalties for failure to live up to those standards were designed to eliminate evil from their midst. The only new testament reading you identified:

Col 3:22-24
22Slaves, obey your earthly masters* in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.* 23Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters,* 24since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve* the Lord Christ.

This Does not fit in with the rest. This demands that slaves love their masters, regardless of circumstance. There are no penalties associated with it.

Hello Paul,

You saud:"Well, you did say that you don't know how the universe was created, so that makes you an agnostic"

Although I am technically agnostic to the idea of a creator entity of some kind, I am an atheist to any God proposed by humans in any one of the known religions. I do not have to prove that they do not exist any more than I have to prove that the universe wasn't created by a magic dragon. It is up to the person proposing the magic dragon theory to bring evidence in support of their wacko theory.

In the particular case of your Bible God. We start with the complete void of empirical evidence, and the extremely suspect nature of the 2000 year old hearsay. We then look at the lies that the Bible has been caught red handed telling. You know, like the sky being solid, and the earth being the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it. And the world only being 6000 years old with God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days and on and on and on. We look at all of the logical fallacies in the God story and contradictions in the Bible. We look at things like, thousands of years before Jesus, there were other Gods worshiped throughout the fertile crescent, who were born of a virgin, on December 25th, and rose from the dead three days later, and died on a cross and on and on and on.

We look at all of these things, and correlate it with human history and human nature and we can say with almost absolute certainty that Bible God is not real. We can be 99.999999999% certain. And that is as certain as anything gets. Even Science. So I can say that I am certain that your God did not create the universe. Just as certain as I am that a magic dragon didn't create it.

You said: "It is not a logic fallacy that a perfect God chose to make imperfect creatures"

If he punishes them for the flaws that he created on purpose, then it is not logical that he is all loving. How much crueler can you get than creating a creature flawed on purpose, and then punishing them for being flawed.

You said: "It is not a logic fallacy that God doesn't show himself to you in the way you wish, either"

It is a logical fallacy that it could be anyone's fault but God's that I don't believe in him. He supposedly created me. So if I am flawed in some way, that I can not see the obvious evidence for God, that flaw in me was created by God, so he is to blame.

You said: "I don't believe that it is God's wish to force people to believe in him through some overwhelming proof. I think he wants us to humbly search for him"

Bin there. Done that.

You said: "By the way, Catholics do not beleive that you burn in Hell if you question your faith. We do not believe in blind faith, but faith through reason"

Faith through reason is an oxymoron.

What about that Bible verse I quoted?
Do you think that only men with evil minds might mistake that for commands to war with other religions and cultures.

Here are some more of God's words that only evil men might take to mean anything other than, we should all love one another.

Deut 25:11-12
If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, 12you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.

Gen 38:8-10
8Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. 10What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

Deut 21:18-21
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, 19then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. 20They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

Ex 35:2
2 For six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Lev 20:13
13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Isaiah 13:13-16
13Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,  and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
   on the day of his fierce anger. 
14Like a hunted gazelle,
   or like sheep with no one to gather them all will turn to their own people,
   and all will flee to their own lands. 
15Whoever is found will be thrust through,
   and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 
16Their infants will be dashed to pieces
   before their eyes: their houses will be plundered,
 and their wives ravished.

Ex 21:20-21
20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

Num 31:14-18
14Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15Moses said to them, ‘Have you allowed all the women to live? 16These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Col 3:22-24
2Slaves, obey your earthly masters* in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.* 23Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters,* 24since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve* the Lord Christ.

Deut 22:13-21
13 Suppose a man marries a woman, but after going in to her, he dislikes her 14and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, ‘I married this woman; but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.’ 15The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man but he dislikes her; 17now he has made up charges against her, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.” But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. 18The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 19they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Isaiah 40:8 
The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Oh yes. Clearly a being of pure love.

Timmy,
Well, you did say that you don't know how the universe was created, so that makes you an agnostic. However, you also said " I am certain that it was not created by YOUR God". Frankly, you can believe that but you can not prove it. I will not call you a liar, though.

It is not a logic fallacy that a perfect God chose to make imperfect creatures. You have your own ideas about what a perfect God should do. However, I believe you recognize that you, yourself are imperfect so perhaps you are wrong about what is appropriate for a perfect being to do.

It is not a logic fallacy that God doesn't show himself to you in the way you wish, either. In your current state, he could show himself to you in all clarity and you wouldn't even recognize him. I don't believe that it is God's wish to force people to believe in him through some overwhelming proof. I think he wants us to humbly search for him.

You seem to favor a God whose wishes are unmistakeable to everyone because he's completely available and obvious to all. Because that God would be omnipresent, and all of his creations would be perfect, everything would be perfect. Perhaps, however, a perfect God has different ideas about what would work best.

By the way, Catholics do not beleive that you burn in Hell if you question your faith. We do not believe in blind faith, but faith through reason.

As for other faiths, this is the official Catholic position from the Catechism:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Hello Paul,

You said: "I'm sorry, but what are you proving in a court of law, that God doesn't exist? Good luck with that. What would be your evidence?"

I have told you, over and over again, I do not make the claim that God does not exist. I do not have anything to prove in court. I am not the one making a claim of certainty. I admit I do not know how the universe got here. You are the one claiming to "know" that God of the Bible created the universe, so you are the one who needs to provide evidence for this claim.

You keep mistaking my argument for being that "there is no God".
My argument is that you, like me, don't "know" if there is or isn't a God.
And so you certainly don't know who God is and what he wants from us.

You can decide to believe 2000 year old hearsay, from a time when people believed in all sorts of gods, and supposedly witnessed all kinds of miracles. You can believe that, sincerely, and not be a liar. But if you say that you know it to be true, then you are lying, because you don't know it. But this is a conundrum for you because your faith teaches that you are supposed to convince yourself that you know it for sure, in fact if you don't do so, according to your faith, you go to hell. Your faith had to put that rule in there, and invent hell, otherwise people would have been too skeptical about all of the things that make no sense about God, and eventually stop believing. Because the story is so ridiculously full of holes. They had to invent concepts like, have faith in the face of overwhelming evidence against, or burn in Hell.

You said: "In 1996, Lee Strobel, a court reporter wrote a book called "A case for Christ" ..... You might enjoy the intellectual exercise of trying to pick apart his arguments"

Bin there. Done that.

You said: "As for calling me a liar, I could easily apply the same logic to you"

No you can not. Saying "I don't know how the universe got here" is not a lie. I really don't know.

You said: "You are saying that my God is not your creator"

Wrong. You are saying that God of the Bible created the universe, and I am not believing your claim. I do not believe it based on lack of evidence or logic.

You said: "Can you prove it? I doubt it. Does that make you a liar?"

I have no claim to prove. You do. So I am not a liar. One more time. Saying "I don't know how the universe got here" is not a lie. because I really don't know.

You said: "you say that I didn't answer your questions. I think I did, you just didn't accept my answers..."

No you did not. You tried, but failed to make any logic of the logical fallacies that I pointed out.

You said: "For instance, you want a perfect God to make everyone perfect?"

I don't want God to do anything, I don't believe that he exists. One of the many reasons I don't believe that he exists, is because of the logical fallacy that the Bible says that God is perfect, but humans are flawed. Well then simple logic follows that God must have made us flawed on purpose, since he could not have done it by mistake, being perfect and all.

You said: "Who is to declare what is perfect?"

Um. Your Bible.
It claims that God is perfect. Perfect means without flaw.

You said: "Perfect for what job?"

Well if God's job was to create the universe and mankind, then he should be perfect for that job. and yet he made flawed sinners as human beings. This is not logical. It makes no sense. And there is no evidence for it. So I don't believe it.

You said: "And we believe that God wants us to seek him out, and he does show himself as we discussed to those interested in looking for him"

I was interested in looking for him, with all sincerity as a child and as a teenager and as a young adult. I sought him out under the guidance of clergy. He did not show himself to me. So when you say that God shows himself to those who seek him out, you are lying. So was the priest who told me the same thing so long ago. When I called you on this, you then reverted to the position that God actually chooses who he reveals himself to, and he is select, so he chooses people like you to spread his word, which conflicts with the statement you made above, where you said that God reveals himself to all those who seek him out. Which is it?

And this is one of the questions that you claim to have answered, but haven't. I asked you why God won't clear up the confusion about him? You answered that reveals himself to those who seek him out, which I know is a lie, and it also conflicts with your other claim that he reveals himself through a select few, chosen at whim by him, such as yourself. But either way, that is not an answer to the question "Why doesn't he clear up the confusion?". That is an answer to the question "What does God do to reveal himself?" So I am now aware of what you claim God is doing to reveal himself and his wishes. And I am making the obvious observation that his method is not working. Everyone believes something different. A billion Muslims, and hundreds of millions of Hindus, have it wrong. All of the atheists and Buddhists have it wrong. All of the Lutherans have it wrong. Etc.

So the question is, if God is all powerful, as your faith says, he could clear up the confusion here on earth about his presence and his wishes with the snap of a finger. But he does not. He chooses to leave most of the world confused about his presence and wishes. Why? This is one of the many questions you claim to have answered, but you have not. There is no answer for why God allows all of this confusion about his existence. It is a logical fallacy. He can not be all powerful, and want us to believe, and not be able to make us believe.

You said: "Can you really blame religion when people who don't live up to its creed do bad things? I think not"

Well think again. When it's "creed" can be so easily interpreted to make people do horrible things to each other, then yes.

According to your lord and savior, the words of the bible were breathed out by God through it's earthly writers. So according to your religion, these are the words of your god.

Deut 20:10-18
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

You're right, Paul. There is nothing in this book that could make people act badly who are not bad people to begin with. It is a book of pure love. Only corrupt evil people could take anything but love for their fellow human being away from this book. Right? Right Paul?

Good grief!
Or I should say, God grief!

Wake up and smell the coffee bud. You've been duped.

Timmy,
I'm sorry, but what are you proving in a court of law, that God doesn't exist? Good luck with that. What would be your evidence?

In 1996, Lee Strobel, a court reporter wrote a book called "A case for Christ" where he used techniques used in court to demonstrate that Christ was exactly who he said he is. Its an interesting read. You might enjoy the intellectual exercise of trying to pick apart his arguments.

As for calling me a liar, I could easily apply the same logic to you. You are saying the my God is not your creator. Can you prove it? I doubt it. Does that make you a liar?

you say that I didn't answer your questions. I think I did, you just didn't accept my answers because they didn't conform to your predetermined ideals. For instance, you want a perfect God to make everyone perfect? Who is to declare what is perfect? Perfect for what job? Everyone and everything was made for its unique purpose. And we believe that God wants us to seek him out, and he does show himself as we discussed to those interested in looking for him.

Can you really blame religion when people who don't live up to its creed do bad things? I think not.

Hello Paul,

You said: "You are hung up on stating that if you state you know something that can't be proven, you are a liar"

It's not a hang up. It's just the way things are. It's how our society works.
We don't go around saying we "know" things that are not verifiable with evidence. And 2000 year old hearsay does not qualify as evidence in our society. If that is all you have, you may not say "I know" without ridicule. Legally you can say you "know" whatever you want. But you are open for ridicule if you do not have any credible evidence. You will, and should be called a liar. A cop can't just say, "I "know" this guy is a criminal, because I heard it through the grapevine, and I feel it in my bones. We require evidence.

You say: "The problem is that much of what we "know" doesn't meet this criteria and that makes everyone a liar"

Flat wrong. If it can't be verified, then we don't "know" it.

You say: "Do you know that love exists?"

Love is not a physical thing. It is word we use to describe a feeling that we can all relate to. You can have love, where others might not have love, so love is an individual thing. God is not the same. You are claiming that God exists physically, not just as a feeling inside you. You are saying that God is my creator as well, not just yours. And you are pretending to know something that you do not know. That makes you a liar, unless of course you admit that it is just a belief that you have, and not a fact. Then you would not be a liar. Just someone who believes in something silly and ridiculous.

You said: "Most of this discussion has centered around one question. I believe that a pain and suffering can coexist with a loving creator. You do not"

No that is but one very small part of this discussion. The pain and suffering issue is just one of thousands of logical fallacies that make your religion seem impossible to be true. It only seems to you that it has been the main part of our discussion because you were unable to answer it with an answer that makes sense. I put several other fallacies to you that you were also unable to clear up. Remember not being able to give a good and logical reason why God won't clear up all of the confusion about his existence? How about why a supposedly perfect God who created fallible humans? How is that possible. He is either not perfect, or he made us flawed on purpose. Which is it?

I could go on and on. The pain and suffering is just one of thousands of logical fallacies with the God story in your religion. You said that you could answer all of them, and you have not been able to answer one. So we got stuck on that one, but do not be deceived into thinking that is all I got against your religion. I could go on for days with the logical fallacies in your religion but you can't even get past the first one I brought up.

You said: "Neither of us can absolutely prove our positions but both of us have conviction in our beliefs"

I can prove my position. I point to the court system. We humans, in order to live in a civil society, came up with a set of laws and procedures for enforcing those laws. With that, we decided what constitutes evidence (things we "know"). And none of the evidence you present for your God holds up in a court of law or in a science lab. Therefore, by the definition we set out in our society of what we "know" verses what we "speculate", your religion can not be stated as something that anyone "knows". Legally you can say you "know" if you like. But in our society, we call people who say that they "know" something that they do not "know" liars. So I have indeed proven my position. You don't "know" by the definition our society gives to that word.

You said: "Its not religion that causes this, its bad men using religion as an excuse"

Yes. And it wasn't a nuclear bomb that destroyed Nagasaki, it was bed men, using the nuclear bomb in a bad bad way. There is nothing wrong with religion or nuclear bombs. They are both completely fine and harmless things until bad men come along. Right?

Timmy,
This has been an interesting conversation. Your perspective on knowledge is really a philosophical and definitional one. You are hung up on stating that if you state you know something that can't be proven, you are a liar. The problem is that much of what we "know" doesn't meet this criteria and that makes everyone a liar. Do you know that love exists? Can you prove it or even define it effectively? Does that make you a liar? Frankly, using the word liar in this context is just being provocative.

Most of this discussion has centered around one question. I believe that a pain and suffering can co-exist with a loving creator. You do not. I have my reasons to believe this, you have yours. Neither of us can absolutely prove our positions but both of us have conviction in our beliefs. Sometimes that happens to rational people because they have different perspectives and experiences and different ways to analyze the same data. Ultimately, one of us is wrong and we're both convinced that it is the other. I don't think either of us is a liar in this context, nor do I think there is any bad faith. Just two opinions of what the truth really is.

Oh and by the way, I don't think you can substantiate your point that religion is a net loss to humanity. Afterall, if people love God and love their neighbor, how can that be bad? Sure, some people synically exploit religion but I maintain that if there wasn't religion, they would have found something else to exploit. Its not religion that causes this, its bad men using religion as an excuse.

Take Care.

Hi Paul,

You said: "Your posts seem to have a lot of anger directed against the Christian God"

One more time. No they don't. A person can not be angry at something that they don't believe exists. You know perfectly well my anger lies in the senseless horror caused by belief with certainty in God.

You said: "perhaps in time that anger will dissipate and allow you to rethink your positions"

In time that anger will dissipate, because the fastest growing demographic in the world right now is "non religious". People are waking up. But rethink my position? My position is that people can believe what they want to believe, but if they claim to know that their God exists, and that their religion is right and the only truth, they are lying. And that lying creates wars and unspeakable horror.

You said: "My only suggestion to you is not to use words like liars when discussing people of faith. That term implies bad intent, which I think is inappropriate"

If they say they believe. Not liars.
If they say they know. Liars.

We can not live in a civil society with people walking around all claiming to "know" things, especially things of such a volatile nature, that are not verified. We formed laws and a court system to decide what constitutes evidence for this reason. There is not a scrap of such qualified evidence for the outlandish God claim of any religion. Couple that with the fact that most religious claims must be lies because there is no one religion that dominates the world and if one is right, then the rest must be wrong, so if the people in the wrong religions are claiming that they "know", they are lying. Couple that with the thousands of logical fallacies that exist in every religion. And we come to the conclusion that no one should claim to know how the universe got here, because no one does.

You said: "You might feel I'm misguided, but hopefully you really don't think I'm lying about what I believe"

Only if you claim to know.
Get it?
Or do you still think that I am angry at something I don't believe in?

Timmy,
I don't feel insulted that you think you are smarter than I am. Given that you don't know much about me other than that I am a Catholic and you can only gather from what I write here, its a bold but perhaps true statement. The fact is we see things through our own prisms, based on our experiences, expectations and personality styles, and yes, intellect. I had a high school teacher once who told me, " things aren't always as you see them." While a lot of what he told me turned out to be untrue, this one bit of wisdom has stuck with me and has stood the test of time. Your posts seem to have a lot of anger directed against the Christian God, perhaps in time that anger will dissipate and allow you to rethink your positions. Maybe not. In any case, I wish you the best. My only suggestion to you is not to use words like liars when discussing people of faith. That term implies bad intent, which I think is inappropriate, because at least in my case, I am not trying to convince anyone of something I know to be false. You might feel I'm misguided, but hopefully you really don't think I'm lying about what I believe..

"Born of a virgin"

lol

I have some swampland for sale in florida for you.
You'd probably buy that too.

Paul,

Believe what you want to believe. I have no problem with that.
My only point here was that if you say that you know how the universe got here, you are lying. No one knows. But by all means, believe till your little heart's content. I don't care what people believe. I Only care about people claiming to know something they don't know. But go ahead and believe.

Believe that a Billion muslims are wrong. And that millions of Mormons are wrong, and that hundreds of millions of Hindus are wrong, and that millions of Buddhists are wrong, but you Christians are right. And of you Christians, believe that the Catholics are right And millions of lutherans are wrong. And millions of Presbyterians are wrong, and evangelicals are wrong, and anglicans are wrong, but you are right. Believe to your little heart's content. I really don't care.

I do feel superior to you though, in intellect. I apologize if that sounds insulting to you but I can't help how I feel. I'm just being brutally honest. Your beliefs are as primitive to me as the volcano gods of the North American natives must seem to you. A bunch of monkeys dancing around pointing to the sky and bowing down to what they don't understand. So sad. So primitive. And the cause of unspeakable horror and violence, and divisiveness between fellow human beings for millennia.

Nevertheless, peace be with you.

Timmy,

You are way more worried about winning a debate and showing how smart you are in actually understanding the truth. You focus all your attention on tangential questions that have nothing to do with the core of the faith. You state that my faith is illogical because I don't know why animals get diseases. Why does it matter? As for endorsing a cure, why wouldn't God want us to seek out cures for diseases. That's part of compassion for others.

If you were really interested in testing the core of the faith, you would focus on attacking the apostle's creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried and He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again and sits at the right hand of the Father, He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church , the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen

None of this can be proved or disproved through science. You either believe it through the eyewitness accounts of those that were there or you don't. Its as simple as that. I believe that the church fathers and gospel writers were credible. After all, they were willing (and did) give up their lives for what they taught. It is very doubtful that anyone would do that for something they know is a lie. In addition, there have been 2000 continuous years of miracles to support this thinking. This includes the dancing of the Sun at Fatima witnessed by 70,000 people in 1917, the creation of the Lourdes stream in 1858 and the subsequent cures, and the stigmata of Padre Pio (died 1968).

Hi Paul,

We're getting close to where we can just agree to disagree.

You said: "As for why animals get diseases, I don't have the answer"

Neither does your religion. That is one of the many logical fallacies that exist in your religion. You told me that there wasn't any. You said that you could explain any of the logical fallacies that I brought up. But here is one. You said that God gives us cancer as a test of our compassion and love. But cancer happens in animals the same way it happens in Humans. And it can't be because God is testing their love and compassion because they don't have any. So it stands to reason, to any reasonable person, that this story of Cancer being a test of our love and compassion doesn't really fly does it? It calls into question the credibility of those who told you that Cancer in children is God's way of testing our love and compassion. But you just overlook this glaring inconsistency because you have blind faith. Cover your eyes and plug your ears in the face of info that suggests your religious elders have been lying to you. It's pathetic. Just look at the logic. There isn't any in your religion. Your religion has been caught in a million lies over thousands of years. Wake up and smell the BS boy.

The you said: "One thing we do know, is that we use the fact that they have diseases to help us understand and cure similar diseases in humans"

Again, like I said to HSWJLS or whatever his name is, why would you endorse us curing a disease that God has given us to bring out our love and compassion. God has given us suffering as a gift and you are endorsing us intervening in God's plan of suffering for us. Not logical. it makes your argument for why children get bone cancer illogical. Can you not see that? Are you plugging your ears and covering your eyes again in the face of logic?

You said: "I know you think that the religious are absolutist, but from my vantage point, you are every bit as much an absolutist about your own point of view"

How on earth can someone who says, "I don't know" as an answer for how our universe came into being, be an absolutist? How? You may have me confused with another type of atheist who tells you he knows for sure that there is no creator. I don't. There may be a creator. I am open minded about that. But I am also logical enough, and not gullible enough, and I've studied it enough, and looked into it enough, to know for a fact that the people who wrote the bible were LYING! and or CONFUSED. It's obvious. Because the story that they wrote has been proven to be false a hundred times over. And each time they say, "oh yeah, well that part of the book is just allegorical, but the rest of it is true. Until something else in there gets destroyed by science and then again it's "oh yeah, that part is allegorical too. But the rest of it is true. And so on and so on and so on until, "well most of it is allegorical but the basic premise is true"

Lies lies and more lies to cover the lies. No one knows how the universe got here. No one knows if there is or is not a creator. Those who pretend to know are dupes, or lying.

If there is a creator. we will only ever discover it through scientific methods. It will fall into the realm of science. It is logical and everything about the creator would be logical and scientific. That is because science is nothing more than our most intellectually honest method of discovery of information about our universe. There are no other methods of discovery that lie outside of science. The notion that there would be, is to believe in magic.

HSNKHWJ

You said:

"Science can not compress evolution that way. We can see fossils of different evolutionary stages but not see the actual transformation of one species into two or more new species. That does not mean that evolution does not happen"

Yes sir. You are certainly correct here.

Then you said:

"The problem is that many people think that most scientists are non-believers. Nothing can be farther from the truth"

No sir. You are certainly incorrect here. The vast majority of scientists (world wide) are atheists or agnostics. (I think you might be looking at American statistics which are misleading because America is by far the most religious country in the western civilized world. American is more like a third world country when it comes to it's religiosity. And even with that, most American scientists are still agnostic or atheist.

You said: "I see no contradiction in my faith in God and evolution"

If your God is the God from the bible then of course there is contradiction with evolution. Adam and Eve? Hello? We evolved from a single celled organism. How did God create the first man and woman? Why would the Bible not mention evolution or any of the creatures who wandered the earth for billions of years before humans? How could the Bible not mention Homo erectus? Another creature that is almost identical to us but not us. At one time, Homo Sapiens shared the planet with other hominids. In fact were killed them off. How could the bible not mention any of this when it is supposedly talking to the first humans?

You saud: "That is my perspective. I see evolution and religion belonging to two separate domains of the human experience"

There is no such thing as two separate domains of human experience. We have one domain of experience. Religion and evolution can not be separated. This is a ploy by the liars who invented your faith that religion does not have to satisfy logic like everything else. POPPYCOCK! Everything must satisfy logic, especially if it is to be taken seriously as a theory of how we all got here and who our moral leader is.

You said to Paul: "Animals don't get diseases for our sake. They get diseases through similar biological and physical/chemical processes humans do. Animals and plants have the same natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and gene flow"

Correct.

Then you said: "those are the processes designed by God to work this world in an orderly fashion"

No the God of the Bible. He created the first man from dust and the first woman from the man's rib. Have you read the Bible?

PaulC2 wrote:

"One thing we do know, is that we use the fact that they have diseases to help us understand and cure similar diseases in humans."

********************************************************************

No disrespect to you, Paul. Animals don't get diseases for our sake. They get diseases through similar biological and physical/chemical processes humans do. Animals and plants have the same natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Those are the processes designed by God to work this world in an orderly fashion.

Animals are neither ugly, nor beautiful. It is we humans who designate what is beautiful and what is ugly. The purpose of flowers is to reproduce. God's process has designed a variety of ways (smell, color etc) to achieve that goal.

There are many other ways that plants and sometimes animals propagate their own kind. It called asexual reproduction.

Timmy,
Thanks for the generally cordial exchange.

I would be very interested in the details of how you can show experimentally that conscience is an evolutionary trait. You state it with confidence, back it up with facts. This is only fair, since this is what you've been asking me to do.

I said that I believe life is a test and I explained how that belief structure could apply to your child with bone cancer (sorry about the fact he/she has suffered). Of course, you will have none of it because you don't believe a just God would allow pain into the world. I believe that your conclusion that therefore is no just God is biased by that first supposition. I believe that a pain and a just, loving God could co-exist for the reasons I stated, you don't. Neither of us will know the answer in this life.

As for why animals get diseases, I don't have the answer (obviously) and its probably for a bunch of reasons. One thing we do know, is that we use the fact that they have diseases to help us understand and cure similar diseases in humans.

I know you think that the religious are absolutist, but from my vantage point, you are every bit as much an absolutist about your own point of view.

Timmy2, Paul:

The world is not random. The sun rises from the east and sets in the West. The earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun etc. It is not a "hit and miss" proposition.

In the same way, evolution is a process that God has designed. The problem is that some people demand to "see" evolution the same way they can see a chick coming out of an egg.

Science can not compress evolution that way. We can see fossils of different evolutionary stages but not see the actual transformation of one species into two or more new species. That does not mean that evolution does not happen.

The problem is that many people think that most scientists are non-believers. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

God has given us the capacity to comprehend evolution without the necessity of "seeing" the actual transformation of one species into other species. Natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and gene flow can bring about changes in frequencies of gene from one generation to subsequent generations. Hence evolution.

I see no contradiction in my faith in God and evolution. That is my perspective. I see evolution and religion belonging to two separate domains of the human experience.

Hi paul,

You said: "You say that you know more about evolution and biology than I do"

No I did not.

I said that "If you know as much about evolution and biology as I did, then you wouldn't need an explanation like God for the voice of conscience." So if you do in fact know as much about evolution and biology as I do, then I am baffled that you explain our moral inner voice with God. That's all. Most people who understand evolution and biology do not believe that our moral conscience is God, that's all.

You said: "For what its worth, science can not answer the question about the essence of a conscience"

Neither can religion.
The difference is, science doesn't pretend to know the answer and religion does.

You said: "Someone, who might even be a scientist, could theorize that the conscience is an evolutionary trait, but what is the scientific experiment that could prove or disprove this theory? Remember, science is a method where a theory is proven or disproven through experimentation. This theory of yours is no more "scientific" than my theory, which is that the conscience is the spirit of God within us. Both are simply theories to explain an observed trait in humans"

Oh how wrong you are here. There has been extensive experimentation into conscience and morality as it relates to evolution. If you believe in evolution, and you study anthropology, and neurology, the evidence is quite clear what our conscience is. Now is this absolute proof? No. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Everything in science is a theory until proven wrong. But my explanation of conscience is a million times more scientific than your theory based on 2000 year old hearsay.

You said: "Your entire argument against my faith is that a loving God would not allow suffering, either in the innocent or in your more recent post, animals"

My argument against your religion is a dump truck full of marbles, and the "innocent suffering" thing is just one marble. There are thousands of more logical fallacies in your religion. I only started with a few, and you can not even answer any of them.

Again, on the issue of God giving children bone cancer, your reply is now "Why does a loving God have to give you everything you want? Does a loving parent give his children everything they want, or does he give his children everything they need?"

Everything I want? God gives children bone cancer because he doesn't have to give me everything I want?
You are right, Paul, Parents should not give a child everything it wants, but they shouldn't give it bone cancer either. There's a middle ground, don't you think?

You said: "I think you would agree with me that people who are pampered their whole lives don't amount to very much"

Neither do people with bone cancer you ignorant fool.
God gives people bone cancer so they can amount to something one day? Do you hear yourself speaking?

You said: "I've told you in several posts that the life is a test and that people need to have challenges to create a valid test"

Yes you did tell me that, but that doesn't make it true. You don't know that life is a test. It might not be. It might just be a struggle. You state that "life is a test" like it is a fact but you don't know that it is. That is just part of your religion. So it doesn't fly with me as an explanation for why God gives bone cancer to children. It is a terrible explanation and you know it.

If life is a test, that is because God decided that it should be a test, right? According to your religion, right? Life didn't have to be a test, but God decided that it should be a test so he made it a test. And then he decided, for no reason other than it is his will, to make bone cancer one of the ways that he would test innocent children. This was God's decision. He could have chosen any way he wanted to test us. But at his whim, he went with bone cancer for children as one of many torturous and excruciating ways that he would test us.

Does this sound like a being of pure love to you?
This makes sense to you?

And you did not answer the question, why is he testing the animals when they have no compassion to show him? You have no answer. It makes no sense. Admit it.

You said: "As for your question about why God isn't clear with his wishes, well he is very clear to those that listen. He told us through the prophets, the apostles and the mystics"

And like I said, none of that has worked. Has it? thousands of different religions and gods. People warring over religion for millennia. God either doesn't care if we believe the right thing, or he is being stupid. Why not make his wishes obvious, instead of being so cryptic that you and Thomas can't even figure it out between you? There is no good reason. It makes no sense.

You said: "No one can make you believe"

Wrong! God can. That's my point.

You said: "Remember, you started off this thread by calling all those who are religious liars"

No I did not. Once again, I said that anyone who does not answer "I don't know" to the question "How did it all get here" is a liar. You religious people are can avoid being liars by answering that question with "I don't know, but here's what I believe". In other words, you can avoid being a liar, by being honest.

Timmy,
One thing you need to recognize is that on the internet, you never know who you are talking to or what their experience is. You say that you know more about evolution and biology than I do. How can you be so sure? Is this not a product of your bias against the intelligence of believers?

For what its worth, science can not answer the question about the essence of a conscience. Someone, who might even be a scientist, could theorize that the conscience is an evolutionary trait, but what is the scientific experiment that could prove or disprove this theory? Remember, science is a method where a theory is proven or disproven through experimentation. This theory of yours is no more "scientific" than my theory, which is that the conscience is the spirit of God within us. Both are simply theories to explain an observed trait in humans.

Your entire argument against my faith is that a loving God would not allow suffering, either in the innocent or in your more recent post, animals. Why does a loving God have to give you everything you want? Does a loving parent give his children everything they want, or does he give his children everything they need? I've told you in several posts that the life is a test and that people need to have challenges to create a valid test. If everything was just handed to them, how would they ever grow? I think you would agree with me that people who are pampered their whole lives don't amount to very much.

As for your question about why God isn't clear with his wishes, well he is very clear to those that listen. He told us through the prophets, the apostles and the mystics. He placed consciences within us to help guide us day to day. He even gave us the ability to reason through it. But he didn't mandate that we do so. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be open to you. No one can make you believe. We can only explain why we believe and the rest is up to you. And wisdom doesn't come in a day, at least to most people. For people like me the search never ends and that's why you see me questioning Thomas Baum on his views..

Remember, you started off this thread by calling all those who are religious liars. By definition, that means we are trying to defraud. In fact, I try to be very meticulous in describing what I believe and why I believe it. Do you still think I'm a liar? Or maybe now, you just believe I'm misguided? That would at least be progress.

Timmy2: Here is the reproduction of my comment pertaining to the functions of religion in human societies:

It is interesting to read how people here are concentrating on specific names, their origins and their teachings. The central point that religion is relevant or irrelevant has been lost.

Maher ridicules religions and the belief systems but forgets that religion performs important social functions in human societies. Maher simply focuses on how religion is dysfunctional and destructive.

All religions are based on faith which gives meaning to life to the people and gives them the map to navigate their lives. These belief systems have two important components in their belief systems. These are (1) the presence of the sacred, and (2) rituals.

The sacred is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the holy cross made of a piece of silver is sacred to the believer. But it is simply a piece of silver to someone outside that faith.

A ritual is a prescribed way of performing a religious act. Rituals are repetitive in nature, i.e., they are repeated which means that people are affirming their faith repeatedly. Repetition also helps the younger (or a newcomer to the religion) generation to learn about the religion.

Religion performs several important functions in human societies. It asks the believers to conform to the norms of the society.

The conformity or lack of it carries both a carrot and a stick. They are in a seamless web with the faith.

For example, in monotheistic religions the belief in heaven or hell is the system of reward or punishment. Religion offers you a choice.

In Buddhism the belief in karma and reincarnation provides the same reward and punishment. Life is seen as an endless birth and rebirth. The latter is determined in your deeds. You can get get nirvana through your conforming to the standards set by the society.

Religion strives for social solidarity by giving people the "we feeling".

A consequence of this is that human groups are divided between "us" vs. "them"--the biggest source of conflict among humans.

The biggest challenge for humans in modern day life is how to eliminate conflicts and violence.

That is where interfaith dialogue comes in.

There is often a distortion of religion because people get mixed up with religion, cultural tradition and race.

IGNORANT PEOPLE (No, NOT YOU) SIMPLY TAKE THE LITERAL WORDS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (SUCH AS REINCARNATION OF BUDDHA OR MUHAMMAD VISITING HEAVEN ON A HORSE) FORGETTING THE ETHOS BEHIND THOSE THINGS.

Timmy 2: Perhaps you did not read my earlier comment mentioning Averroes, which is as follows:

Averroes stated centuries ago that man was neither in full control of his destiny nor does his destiny fully control him. Averroes lived in an Age of Reason.

I never said that disease, pain and suffering are given by God. I would never advise a heart patient to depend upon God's will and eat everything against the advice of his/her cardiologist, nor would I advise anybody "go and chase a tornado."

But if the patient dies or the tornado strikes, I am not going to blame God for such calamities.

If things happen beyond the control of humans, then I would say they were destined to be that way. This has psychological meaning for human beings i.e giving us humility.

You did not read my earlier comment carefully on the question of "Where did matter come from?". The scientist failed to answer that question. Because the scientist has to provide empirical verification of the answer.

Religous person's answer is: The Creator. This is based on faith. Faith is not subject to empirical verification.

Man's increasing control of the physical world (which is still a tiny fraction of the cosmos) brings the danger of humans becoming arrogant.

Perhaps, you did not read my earlier comment on the functions religion performs in human societies.

Hello HSNKHWJ

I would like to respond to your comments.

YOU: "What a boring world it would be if we all lived in UTOPIA !"

Seriously? How so? We would have everything we have now, minus the suffering. How does suffering make life worth while. Diversity is good I guess. But suffering? Do you really think to yourself "Gee if I had everything I have now, but all of a sudden, all of the suffering that I have, and the suffering of all those around me disappeared, I wouldn't know what to do with myself. I would have no more reason to live"

?????

This makes sense to you?
Isn't heaven Utopia?
Isn't that where you are all trying to get?
Are you saying that heaven will be boring?
Or will there be plenty of suffering in heaven?
Is all of that suffering in hell creating a mountain of love and compassion down there? I guess there would be way more love and compassion in Hell than in Heaven, right? There would have to be.

Do you see how insane this reasoning is?

YOU SAID:
"Pain and suffering must lead to compassion for the victims of pain and enhance the value of the do-gooder"

This is circular reasoning. If people didn't suffer pain in the first place, there would be no need for compassion for those suffering from pain. It's a wash. There is no need for suffering.

YOU SAID:
"The pain and suffering make us search for the causes of pain. This is how science advances..... Today, we have oncology to treat or determine the causes of cancer (it is not one disease)"

Wait a minute. I thought the pain and suffering are gifts from God. Why do you endorse searching for ways to end the pain and suffering? If modern medicine takes away cancer (which God has given us for a purpose) it takes away the compassion that God was trying to give us all.

Again, circular reasoning. God has given us cancer so that we can have love and compassion, and so that we can learn how to cure cancer and end the pain and suffering, thereby ending the love and compassion?

Does this really make sense to you?
Give them cancer, so they can learn how to cure cancer?

YOU SAID:
"Athiests have never been able to answer the question: WHERE DID MATTER COME FROM ?"

True.
And neither have Christians.
Anyone can just blurt out an answer. But when your answer has been shot full of holes, and you haven't got a scrap of credible evidence for it, you should really be humbled and admit that you don't know how the universe got here.

There is nothing wrong with being spiritual, and feeling like you have a greater purpose, and searching honestly for that purpose, and for signs of the creator, if there is one. And you can listen to that moral voice inside of yourself and let it guide you. It knows better than the Bible what is right and wrong, you know that. You know that there are some abhorrent things in the old testament about owning slaves and killing people, that you didn't need any preacher telling you were not right. Your conscience did. So be spiritual. Listen to that voice. Do good for man kind. But you've got to give up on connecting all of that spirituality to what a bunch of primitive desert wanderers imagined thousands of ears ago, and what Roman emperors turned into a tool for attaining power and wealth and subjugating the masses. And what people have been warring over for thousands of years. You are trying to connect a good thing within yourself, to a very bad thing that was created by confused people, and perverted by very bad people.

Hope this helps

Timmy2 wrote:

"And you are still suggesting that god gives babies bone cancer to bring out the love in people. God is all powerful and could have created a world where suffering is not necessary to bring out love. Where people could have love, without suffering. Why not? What's wrong with that? Now that would be a God worth worshiping."

*****************************************************************

What a boring world it would be if we all lived in UTOPIA !

The diversity of life, the good, the bad, and the ugly make our lives meaningful.

The pain and suffering make us search for the causes of pain. This is how science advances. To be specific, God did not make this world to be random . There is an order in the perceived disorder. Today, we have oncology to treat or determine the causes of cancer (it is not one disease).

Pain and suffering must lead to compassion for the victims of pain and enhance the value of the do-gooder. We derive our values from a variety of experiences--both good and bad and things outside this binary categorization.

All these things give us a purpose in life and gives us a recognition that there is a force beyond human control.

Athiests have never been able to answer the question: WHERE DID MATTER COME FROM ?

Religious believe in the CREATOR.

Do you see guys, how God can not even be clear enough about his plan and wishes to two Christians. Even fellow Christians can't see eye to eye on it? How is this a perfect God. He is either not perfect. Or he his playing head games for sport.

The insanity of your beliefs is mind numbing.

Paul,

You ask me: " Do you recognize your conscience, that voice within that tells you right from wrong?"

Yes.
Science has an answer for that. If you knew as much as I did about biology and evolution you would not need any more explanation about that little voice. It's you and your biology calculating what your best option is for every situation, to ensure your own survival, as well as the survival of your species. Often it is in your best interest to do the altruistic thing. Compassion for family and neighbors is helpful to our own survival. So when it seems sometimes that you are doing a selfless thing, you are in fact, doing the selfish thing. Compassion and love are natural biological and evolutionary survival mechanisms. That little voice is is not a mystery that needs to be explained by an imaginary God.

And you are still suggesting that god gives babies bone cancer to bring out the love in people. God is all powerful and could have created a world where suffering is not necessary to bring out love. Where people could have love, without suffering. Why not? What's wrong with that? Now that would be a God worth worshiping.

Also, why do animals get cancer?
Animals do not have the same capacity for love and compassion as we do. We know for a fact when an animal gets sick, the rest of the heard just leave it to die because it is a weak link that will just slow them down? So why does God give animals cancer and other diseases that cause them to suffer with no love as a reward? Can you answer this?

You were unable to to answer my question about why God does not do something more to clear up the confusion about his presence and wishes. You just said that he appears through people like you. But that is clearly not doing the trick. People are confused and no one is doing the right thing. So if God wants us to do the right thing, and believe in him, why not end the confusion? You can not answer that. There is no good reason. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

You ask: "Let's say there is no God. In the absence of a God, then everything happens by chance and without purpose. Do you really believe that nothing has a purpose?

I am not arguing against the possibility that there may be some creator entity, and that there may be some purpose. I am arguing that no one knows who or what that creator entity is if it exists at all. Most certainly I am arguing that you nor anyone in your church knows why we are here. It is a mystery. There may be a reason and purpose for our existence, there may not be. No one knows. And there is nothing depressing about thinking about the world with an open mind. It is a mystery. I do not need the mystery to be solved to enjoy life. In fact, I find the mystery of it all an invigorating and motivating reason to get up every day. It is a joyous mystery to me. What would be depressing is believing that I am here but for no other reason that to worship and please my master who uses childhood cancer to express his love. Now that's depressing.

You say God wants us to worship him because "he can create anything he lacks for nothing. God wants us to worship him , not for his benefit but for ours"

This makes no sense. This is not an answer to the question "Why?"
How does worshiping God benefit us?

The way I see it you have completely struck out.
None of your answers to these logical problems with your God make any of it even slightly logical. It makes no sense.

What does make perfect sense, is that people long ago, who knew so little about our universe that they thought the sky was solid, and that the stars were light from heaven shining through little pin prick holes in the solid sky, it makes perfect sense that these people made up a bunch of stuff to explain it all, and that more people came along and tried to use this powerful idea of a creator god who punishes people, to gain personal power here on earth by pretending to know what the creator wants for us. This makes perfect sense. Your god story does not.

PAULC2

You wrote, "Where do you get this view? How do you reconcile it with Matthew 7:13-14? :
==> Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.".

Do you think that you know exactly what this means?

Jesus also said, "The mysteries of the Kingdom has been revealed to the little ones whereas it has been hidden from the wise and learned", did He not?

I have heard it said by some that all of the prophecies of the bible have come about, do you really believe that, when it is obvious that some have not come about yet?

God becoming One of Us is just part of God's Plan for humanity and His Plan is still unfolding before our very eyes.

The Jews being chosen and formed by God so that God could become One of Us is also part of God's Plan.

God has had His Plan since before creation and His Whole Plan will come to Fruition.

There are many places in the bible where it says that it is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED, does it not?

Some are in very simple and straight-forward language and others are alluded too.

Since it is God's Will, do you think that we should align our will with His or do you think that we should do otherwise?

If there is a purgatory and I do not KNOW if there is because I have experienced hell and spiritual death not purgatory, then the BIG difference between hell and purgatory is that those in hell do not know that they are getting out.

When Jesus said, "Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build My Church", did He not also say, "And the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It"?

The "netherworld" is hell and spiritual death and they are different.

By the way, hell is not some kind of monolithic place, if someone dies and wakes up in hell, so to speak, they will know that they built it themself.

As you may or may not believe, Jesus, Himself, went to hell, did He or did He not take ALL OF THE SINS OF HUMANITY upon Himself?

Jesus won the keys to hell and spiritual death and He will use them in due time, do you think that He needed to win the keys to His Own Place, so to speak?

As I have said before, "The captives shall be released and the dead shall rise", it also says that in the bible, the captives [those in hell], the dead [those in spiritual death].

Jesus said, "Night is coming, there is work to be done", "Night" here refers to the night of the sixth day but the dawning of the seventh day will also arrive, the new heavens and the new earth.

Thanks for asking. You know what, it could be said that God's Plan is catholic as in universal and inclusive as opposed to exclusive.

I would also like to repeat what I have written previously, God is not a loving God as in Love being an attribute of God but God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE, big difference.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

" paulc2 Author Profile Page:

Timmy,
I am so glad you answered. You keep coming back to the question of why a loving God would allow suffering. It is a thorny question, I grant you, but not an unsurmountable one. I've given you some answers already in previous posts but let me try again:"

*************************************************************
The answer to this question could be found in the medieval Islamic philosopher and wiseman, Averroes' (Ibn Rushd), statement which stated that man was neither in full control of his destiny nor does his destiny fully control him.

Timmy,
I am so glad you answered. You keep coming back to the question of why a loving God would allow suffering. It is a thorny question, I grant you, but not an unsurmountable one. I've given you some answers already in previous posts but let me try again:

1) God gave us all free will so that we can decide for ourselves what we believe and what we will do. If he had not, then we would have had not role in our salvation. God wants us to choose what is right for us and he gives us ample signals to know what that is. Do you recognize your conscience, that voice within that tells you right from wrong?

2) He then allows us to be challenged to give us opportunity to exercise that free will. Without challenges, humans do not grow. Surely you see that. Those challenges can be physical, they cna be internal or external. They can be challenges of success or failure. They happen to us every minute or every day and we make decisions based on our free will that demonstrate what is in our hearts. Suffering often has its good attributes as well. I already related to you Pope John Paul II's view of suffering generating love. Let me give you a case in point. I coach a 16 year old girl (in softball) who has cancer. Although the cancer was painful and the treatments were debilitating, the community banded together for this girl and showed her and her family tremendous love and support. It was awe inspiring in its totality and the entire family knows that despite the pain and concern of the cancer itself (which is now in remission), they were blessed with tremendous positive experiences that they never would have had otherwise. Likewise, those people that helped them were also changed for the better.

3) God reveals himself in a myriad of ways. To a select few, he appears distinctly as you wished. We call the recipients of these messages prophets or mystics and their job is to offer witness to God. They have very great responsibilities and often suffer much for those graces. For most, God appears indistinctly through his works and through the witness of others. This forces people to do the right thing, because its the right thing to do, not because the see an overwhelming God looking over their shoulders.

Timmy, lets change gears for a second and take your position. Let's say there is no God. In the absence of a God, then everything happens by chance and without purpose. Do you really believe that nothing has a purpose? In my experience, everything happens for a reason and everything has a reason to exist. Without purpose, there is no reason to exist. Doesn't it seem depressing to think in that fashion?

By the way, you aks why God want us to worship him. Because he can create anything he lacks for nothing. God wants us to worship him , not for his benefit but for ours. You see, worshiping God is simply acknowledging the truth of our existence and is a way of demnostrate our love. When we do that, we turn toward God and our salvation, which is what he wants for us.

Finally, you speak of the Aztecs. Well when shown a better way to reach God, many of them converted.

Paul,

You say I have not pointed out any logical problems with your religion yet but I have. You have already failed to provide an adequate answer to the most glaring logical fallacy to your religion. A God who is supposedly pure love and all powerful and perfect who causes indescribable human suffering all day every day. Now you are telling me that God gives babies bone cancer because it brings out the love in people? Does this really make sense to you? It makes absolutely no sense to me. So that is one logical fallacy that you have failed to answer other than with the old "we can not know what God's motives are" cop out.

How about this one. If God is perfect and all powerful, why did he create fallible creatures instead of perfect creatures? Is it a sick game with him? Create imperfect humans and then spend eternity punishing them for being flawed?

Why do we have to believe in God with no tangible evidence?
Why doesn't he just reveal his presence and wishes in a way that would not be so confusing and so easily misinterpreted that thousands of conflicting religions would emerge all arguing with each other and warring with each other over him for thousands and thousands of years? Why would he let all of this confusion go on causing so much strife when he could clear up all of the confusion at the snap of a finger?

Why does God need us to worship him? What's that all about?
Does he have no friends? Is he insecure?

Start there. There is no logic in any of that.

And yes I am angry. But not at God of course.
I am rightfully angry at the needless horror and suffering that religion causes in the world.

To put yourself in my shoes Paul, Imagine yourself suddenly transported to a time and place where you are suddenly surrounded by the ancient Aztecs, and you were forced to live in their society where they prayed to hundreds of different gods and made human sacrifices at every solstice. And you were stuck in this place, and time, knowing what you know now. Would you not be angry at the insanity going on around you?

That is how I feel living in this world today. Like I was born a thousand years too early, in a time when humans still prayed to Gods that they pretended to know. It's pretty frustrating. I don't know if the Aztec analogy can help you relate to my suffering and where my anger comes from. Probably not. (Sigh)

Thomas,
I've been meaning to ask you this for a while. You have said that the kingdom of God follows Heaven and that all people will eventually be reunited with God there. In your view, it is necessary for no one to be lost because of the supremacy of God's love. I suppose that means that Hell is really more like Purgatory, where souls are purified.

Where do you get this view? How do you reconcile it with Matthew 7:13-14? :
==> Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

This view would suggest that heaven is more exclusive.

Timmy,
For all the bluster in your posts, you haven't identified any inconsistency or fallacy in my faith that would justify your statement that my faith is illogical. I'd be happy to debate specifics. What you have is a lot of anger. Perhaps you don't recognize it but it is very apparent in your posts.

As for suffering. When Pope John Paul II got old and was racked with pain, he said that he now understood the value of human suffering. He said that suffering brought out love in others. Why is that important? Because love is the "currency" of God and is what allows people to attain heaven (and as Thomas would say, the Kingdom). I don't expect you to understand this, because your pain and anger are too palpable.

And by the way,

Earlier one of you said what a sad sad place this world would be if all we had was logic. I agree. That is why it is good that we can have both logic and love. Together. At the same time even. There is nothing illogical about love, and the two go together quite well. One does not need to toss logic aside to have love. Nor does one need to toss love aside to have logic.

But this does not work for you because your God makes no logical sense, so you pretend that logic and love are incompatible. That is simply the church's way of getting you to forget about logic, because logic screws up their story. They needed to find a way to deal with logic so they came up with the most lame excuse of all time. The old shrug of the shoulders and a "well we are not one to question God's way, after all, he is God". LMAO

Faith = Gullible

Paul,

You are confused and I shall try and make you unconfused if I can.

You say:
"For someone who started out the conversation with the statement that the only honest answer about how the universe began is " I don't know", you have become very sure that it was not through a God. Don't you see the inconsistency there?"

I didn't say that I was certain that the universe was not created by A God. I said that I am certain that it was not created by YOUR God.

In other words. How the universe got here, I don't know. No one does. It is certainly possible that it was created by some entity. I am debating you thought on the validity of a very very specific creator, one called God, as laid out in the Jewish bible and then the new testament. I am as certain that YOUR God does not exist as you are certain that volcanos are not Gods themselves, or that elves and ferries exist.

There is no inconsistency here Paul. If you ask me how the universe got here, I still say "I don't know"
Any other answer is a lie.

I can dispute the validity of your God claim, without having to replace it with a theory of my own. I can say, "I don't know how it got here, but your theory has no validity because A) no evidence and B) it makes no sense. It is full of logical fallacies.

So we're back to, "I don't know, and neither do you"
No hypocrisy, No contradictions.
Just an unanswered question that remains unanswered because the theory that you propose doesn't make a lick of sense and has mountains of evidence against it. (i.e. all of the lies and inconsistencies in the Bible)

You can not preach about an all loving all powerful God, and have your answer for childhood cancer be a shrug of the shoulders and a "Well we can not question Gods ways or his motives"

Do you even hear yourself speaking when you say these things?
All loving God is giving babies bone cancer as a test of their devotion to him? Are you insane? It sure looks like it from my perspective.

Your religion is a disgusting, invented by man, celestial dictatorship with the most sadistic totalitarian leader (completely invented of course) who makes Hitler look like a friendly B&B owner. Gee I wonder why it leads to so much violence and misery? Not.

Good grief.
Or I guess I should say, God grief!

PAULC2

You wrote, " In the end, the measure of this test is the love we show for God and Neighbor and the reward is heaven.", I don't look at it that way at all, as a matter of fact, I look past Heaven to the Kingdom.

God has a Plan and His Plan is for ALL to be with Him in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, if His Plan wasn't for ALL then it would not be Total Victory but a tie and a tie is totally unacceptable.

As you know Christ is not Jesus's last name and since we are called to be "Christ" to others then that means that we are called to be GOOD FRIDAY people, are we not?

As Jesus said, "Night is coming and there is work to be done", right?

In that "work", since we are all individuals, we all have different "jobs", just as you alluded to when you wrote, " (and this means what God recognizes as right for them)".

You also wrote, " In my world, there are many devoted Catholics who see the light of God in each other and feel his presence (although maybe not as mystically as Thomas does).", I try to write as plain and simple as I can, I do not even try to see the "Light of God" in others, I just take seriously page one where it says, "Let Us make man in Our Image", man as in absolutely everyone that was, is or will be, also even tho I have been thru more than some of the specifics that I have mentioned, I only met God the Father once and like I said, "He did not say anything word-wise but He did not have too, also I just knew that it was Him, I was not told, I just knew".

God's Plan, which He has had since before creation is for ALL OF HUMANITY and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy,
For someone who started out the conversation with the statement that the only honest answer about how the universe began is " I don't know", you have become very sure that it was not through a God. Don't you see the inconsistency there?

==> You say this, "You say to me: "You are disappointed that you don't have a personal relation with God" No sir. I do not believe that God exists. I can not be disappointed by something that isn't there.

But you also said this: I asked him to come into my heart with all sincerity several times as a child, and as a teenager. I was attending church and asking Jesus to come into my heart under the guidance of clergy. He did not oblige. Why not? I felt nothing tangible. Am I not worthy of God? Does he choose favorites? Why you and not me?

==> You follow up with this: You say: "You are angry with God because he allows suffering and hardship in the world" Again, I can not be angry with God because I do not believe that God exists

But then you go on: Do you know how horribly painful it is to die of bone cancer? You are telling me that the child deserves this for something it did, or that a child needs to suffer this horrible pain and death to prove it's devotion to the God who is putting him through this horrible pain? Or worse, is God putting the innocent child through the most horrible pain and suffering imaginable, to test his or her parents?

==> Finally, to my statement: "In the end, you think that believing in and following God's will will restrict your freedom. Actually, the opposite is true. The truth will set you free" you say: It already has my friend. It already has.

But then your first post in this thread had this summary: I don't know = Intellectual honesty. Religion = Lying! and it included this nugget: You miss the point entirely that riding the world of our primitive beliefs in God and gods, in itself would improve the lives of every human being on this planet more than anything ever has.

==> Timmy, you are far from free. You are a prisoner of your anger toward God because he doesn't do what you want him to do. Your response is to simply deny his existence and mock those that disagree with you, calling them ignorant liars. Someday, perhaps you will recognize that you are merely a man, one of billions on this earth, here today and gone tomorrow, and that its preposterous for you to think you can dictate to God, creator of the universe.

Paul,

You say to me: "You are disappointed that you don't have a personal relation with God"

No sir. I do not believe that God exists. I can not be disappointed by something that isn't there.

You say: "You are angry with God because he allows suffering and hardship in the world"

Again, I can not be angry with God because I do not believe that God exists. This is a tired old argument by believers to cover for the fact that they can not reconcile a supposedly all loving all powerful God who allows birth defects and floods. I bring up these things that your God is supposedly allowing to go on, to point out that your claim that God is pure love is an oxymoron. I am not angry at God for allowing these things because he does not exist. You on the other hand should be mad at him, because you know that childhood disease, and babies being born with their heart outside of their body and suffering a horrible death on a cold steel operating table, is part of God's will. Some sick twisted test of faith and devotion to God because he is so wonderful. It would make me puke if I thought it was real, but I know that it can't be, so it just makes me puke to think that you not only believe that, but you are joyous in your complete submission to this ruthless dictator. (who does not exist)

You say: "Well, I believe that life is a test to see whether each individual will choose to do God's will (and this means what God recognizes as right for them) or their own will. Sometimes that test involves suffering and hardship"

What is the test for a child dying of bone cancer? Do you know how horribly painful it is to die of bone cancer? You are telling me that the child deserves this for something it did, or that a child needs to suffer this horrible pain and death to prove it's devotion to the God who is putting him through this horrible pain? Or worse, is God putting the innocent child through the most horrible pain and suffering imaginable, to test his or her parents?

These are the questions that you can not answer with anything other than the old "We can not know God's intentions. We can only believe that God is doing what's best"

It is despicable to explain the horror and suffering of innocence with a shrug of the shoulders and a "Who are we to question God?" Pathetic. You don't have to question God. You need to question his existence. Once you discover that he does not exist, he can't get you anymore.

You say: "In the end, you think that believing in and following God's will will restrict your freedom. Actually, the opposite is true. The truth will set you free"

It already has my friend. It already has.

Timmy,
Three things seem to be at the root of your problem with God:

1) You are disappointed that you don't have a personal relation with God. The problem with this may be you want the relationship to be on your terms, rather than on God's. If you want to develop a relationship with God it will be on his terms and you need to be open to it. This is what Thomas Baum was explaining. You are definitely not open to it now. I can't say what it was like in the past for you.

2) You are angry with God because he allows suffering and hardship in the world. Well, I believe that life is a test to see whether each individual will choose to do God's will (and this means what God recognizes as right for them) or their own will. Sometimes that test involves suffering and hardship. Sometimes it involves happiness and success. Both tests can be difficult and most people get a share of both in their lifetimes. The second test is particularly difficult for the arrogant, who think their success is of their own doing and lord it over others, rather that giving God credit. In the end, the measure of this test is the love we show for God and Neighbor and the reward is heaven. My definition of Love, by the way, is doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return. We catholics use love and charity pretty interchangeably.

3) In the end, you think that believing in and following God's will will restrict your freedom. Actually, the opposite is true. The truth will set you free.

Timmy, you condemn that which you do not understand. On earth, there are all kinds of mini communities that only see each other in the most insubstantial of ways because our perception is so limited. In my world, there are many devoted Catholics who see the light of God in each other and feel his presence (although maybe not as mystically as Thomas does). They love God and each other and they look forward to a life and an afterlife of service. To them, these great questions of life have been answered in their hearts and in their minds. I know you consider us hopelessly deluded and "unscientific" but you do so without having walked in our shoes and without the benefit of our experiences, observations and analysis. Remember, the meek will inherit the earth. I suspect (but do not know) that you will not understand this without being humbled first. This might be one of those situations where a humbling catastrophe might actually do your soul good. Without that, you will continue to believe that you control your own destiny

ThomasBaum

You said: "why God chooses some and not others is beyond me, He is God, I am not, I am just a messenger"

I see.

I wrote: "He is all powerful and yet he oversees war, rape, murder, birth defects, natural disasters, torture, disease, brain cancer in babies, honor killings in his name, children born with their hearts on the outside of their body, and so on. Where oh where is the love?"

You answered: "God did give us free will and there is plenty that I can not explain, but as far as "where is the love?", we are made in His Image and the Love should be forthcoming from us and if it is then we are letting His Image shine thru and if not then we aren't.

This is your answer for childhood brain cancer, and children being born with horrible birth defects, and God fearing Christians dying horrific painful deaths by cancer, earthquake, Lou Gerrigs disease, Floods, Tsunamis, colon cancer, spinal menengitis etc.

Free will and "Love should be forthcoming from us and if it is then we are letting His Image shine thru and if not then we aren't"

What a pathetic explanation. What a transparent cop out. Shameful to explain such horrors on innocents with such rubbish.

You close with: "if all that we had on this earth was logic, what a sad, sad place"

If our only purpose in life is to believe in, and serve our master what a sad sad fate of enslavement and totalitarianism.
And what a maniacal insecure God who needs constant praise and worship from his minions. What an insane and horrible thing you believe in.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "I asked him to come into my heart with all sincerity several times as a child, and as a teenager.", actually, I didn't ask God to come into my heart, I prayed to God to rip my heart out, I likened it to a black hole, whether or not a black hole is real is immaterial, and for God the Father to come into my heart was, to say the least, a shock.

Then you wrote, "He did not oblige. Why not? I felt nothing tangible. Am I not worthy of God? Does he choose favorites? Why you and not me?", why God chooses some and not others is beyond me, He is God, I am not, I am just a messenger.

By the way, being chosen by God does not mean that someone is better or anything of the sort, sometimes, as far as I am concerned, it seems that someone has been worse, whether you believe in anything that is in the bible or not, look at some of those that God has chosen.

It does say, "Many are called but few are chosen" and also, "I have chosen you, you have not chosen Me" and with being chosen, comes an awesome responsibility.

Then you wrote, "You say: "Personally, I do not know how God created the universe but I most definitely believe that He did create the universe and that He created it out of nothing"

He told you this?"

No, He did not, actually, when God the Father came into my heart, He did not say a word, I just knew that It was God the Father and if you look at what I wrote, I did say that I BELIEVE not Know that He created the universe out of nothing.

There seems to be quite a few people that believe in God and that God is a Trinity but also seem to make God into their image rather then the other way around and make God out to be so puny.

Then you wrote, "He is all powerful and oversees war, rape, murder, birth defects, natural disasters, torture, disease, brain cancer in babies, honor killings in his name, children born with their hearts on the outside of their body, and so on. Where oh where is the love?"

God did give us free will and there is plenty that I can not explain, but as far as "where is the love?", we are made in His Image and the Love should be forthcoming from us and if it is then we are letting His Image shine thru and if not then we aren't.

Knowing God's Name does not make one a "Christian" and the bible if one has eyes is very clear about that.

Also, I do not think of the bible as the "Word of God" but as something that "might" lead someone to God considering that right in the bible it says, "That the Word became Flesh", well, Jesus became Flesh, the bible didn't.

It is not about the 'rules and regulations', it is not about 'dogma', it is about God's Plan for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom, God knew that not all would repent, as in taking responsibility for their actions, and He came up with a Plan that is ALL-ENCOMPASSING.

That is what I meant by the "GOOD NEWS" and what I meant by the 'good-enough news' is both those that only seem to care if they get to the "good place" and also those that don't want some to get there.

You also wrote, " You can consider it as one possibility, but there is no reason to "believe" it to be true.", as I said, I do not believe it to be true but I know it.

I am just here to do what God chose me to do, it doesn't matter if anyone believes me or not, I have been chosen to speak and somehow God will see me thru.

As I said, "God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof", and this statement which is simple and straight-forward says that only God can look into our hearts so who are we to judge?

But as you and I and whoever else may read this can surmise, what Jesus said about: "Judge not and ye shall not be judged" is something that a lot of "Christians" seem to conveniently ignore, by the way, this is not a judgement but an observation and I would say that it is very valid.

This is not to say that we are to ignore wrongdoing on this earth but if someone calls themself a "Christian", then maybe they should stop condemning but like I said, we have free will and that choice is up to them.

I did not ask to be chosen but I have said YES.

You also wrote, "Statistical logic tells us that none of you are.", if all that we had on this earth was logic, what a sad, sad place.

I, for one, can not accept logic as being more important than Love.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Astoria:

We can only speculate the answers to your questions. My guess is that some people are not worth a dime in the real world and so they sell their soul to the highest bidder.

The highest bidder might be a hate group, or the name of this person is fictitious. It is not difficult to learn about the culture and religion of any society and then go on the blog and pretend that the person is from that society. The purpose here seems to be to demonize Islam, hoping that would be for the good of another theocratic country which is conducting warfare against Muslims and Palestinians.

HI THOMASBAUM

You say: "God the Father came in to my heart" and "God the Holy Spirit came in to my body and He also revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus"

I asked him to come into my heart with all sincerity several times as a child, and as a teenager. I was attending church and asking Jesus to come into my heart under the guidance of clergy. He did not oblige. Why not? I felt nothing tangible. Am I not worthy of God? Does he choose favorites? Why you and not me?

Have you considered that those feelings that you had, where you say that you experienced God (of the Bible) were not just feelings of overwhelmeant and joy, when thinking about the beautiful spirit that the man "Jesus" must have been to have preached and lived such a beautiful, altruistic life and philosophy? His words touch all of us in a very deep deep way. There is a common altruism and spiritual connection between all human beings, and these words touch us all so deeply that we feel something when thinking about their meaning. But this in no way validates any truthfulness about the specific claims of bronze age nomads who were trying to figure out the same mystery that we are still today trying to figure out, that no one knows the answer to.

You say: "Just because someone dies does not in any respect take away from that person being an eyewitness"

Their eyewitness accounts were not verified in any court proceeding or official manner. Somebody just wrote it down, and they could have made it up or exaggerated, or hallucinated. This was an era when people reported miracles and supernatural phenomenon all the time. People see Elvis Presley every day. They are eye witnesses. And they are alive today to give their testimony. Why do you not believe them? Or maybe you do, I don't want to presume.

You say: "Personally, I do not know how God created the universe but I most definitely believe that He did create the universe and that He created it out of nothing"

He told you this?

You say: "God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE"

He is all powerful and oversees war, rape, murder, birth defects, natural disasters, torture, disease, brain cancer in babies, honor killings in his name, children born with their hearts on the outside of their body, and so on. Where oh where is the love?

Thomas, when you say that you "know that God is real", and a Hindu says that he "knows that God is real", you are both talking about two completely different Gods. You can't both "know", because one of you has to be wrong. My logic tell me that neither of you "know". You may choose to believe. But it is illogical and not necessary to believe something to be true, that you do not know is true. You can consider it as one possibility, but there is no reason to "believe" it to be true. The case of how it all got here is currently unsolved.

When people pretend to know for sure that their particular God is true, it causes conflict and wars with people who pretend to know for sure that a different God and his different wishes are true. Get it? You all supposedly "know" something different. At best, only one of you can be right. Statistical logic tells us that none of you are.

Paul C

You say: " While most atheist may feel as you do, most are not honest or brazen enough to declare themselves more advanced than the rest of us.

More and more are every day. Thank God. ;)
But let me try and put my feelings on this into terms that you can relate to. The native North Americans believe that volcanoes are angry gods. Is this not silly and primitive thinking? Do you not feel superior to these people and their ridiculous belief? How about the mormons. I believe you include them in your stat of 95% of the people believe what you believe. And yet the Mormons believe something very different than you. And they believe some extremely ridiculous things. Do you not consider Mormons to be gullible for believing the bs story of Joseph Smith? Do you not consider yourself and your beliefs more advanced and superior to that the Native North Americans or the Pagans? I would think that you must. And if so, then you should be able to relate to how I feel about people of your faith. You are an atheist to thousands and thousands of proposed gods. I just go one god further than you.

You say: "By the way, the 2008 Pew report on religion says that 1.6% of americans are atheists and 2.4% are agnostic"

When I talk about demographics I speak in terms of world population. Christians may dominate America, but the US is an anomaly in the civilized western world. In places like Canada, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, UK, and on and on and on, agnosticism dominates. Religion is on the way out. The fastest growing demographic in the world is "non religious". Using American statistics is very insular thinking and quite misleading to this discussion.

You say: "When I see an orderly universe, following a set of physical laws (like gravity), built on a common set of building blocks (like neutrons, electrons, protons) and managed in a set of predictable rations (like pi and phi), I see an order that can only have come from a creator with extreme power and intelligence. You might see it differently.

The power and intelligence to oversee war, rape, murder, birth defects, natural disasters, torture, disease, brain cancer in babies, honor killings in his name, children born with their hearts on the outside of their body, and so on. Yes Paul, we sure do see it differently. I see neither power or intelligence in any of that. Certainly no compassion.

You say: "As for the origins of Christianity, you are greatly deceived if you think it began with the Edict of Milan in 313"

I didn't say Christianity started with Constantine. It obviously started with a man called Jesus. I said that Catholicism started 300 years later. And it did. It was created with the council of Nicea, a political invention of of doctrine for purposes of power and subjugation that Jesus would never have endorsed. Catholicism is a political abomination in the face of the true teachings of Jesus.

You say: "Also, I think you are being a little overzealous if you think you can disprove the validity of the Bible"

I don't need to disprove it any more than you need to disprove that volcanoes are gods. Can you disprove that? No. You just dismiss it, like me. Because it's ridiculous. Like the bible.

You say: "Any serious Catholic spends considerable time thinking about their faith, the nature of God and how we can do his will"

Do his will?
You mean like slaves?
Or is it more like a dictatorship?
It's definitely one of those two.
Sounds horrible to me.
But you go girl!

TIMMY2

In your posting to PAULC2 you wrote, "There is zero evidence for God."

I take this as being true for you but it is not true for me, God has given me evidence that "He Truly Is" by the facts that: "God the Father came in to my heart" and "God the Holy Spirit came in to my body and He also revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus".

I would also believe that these two experiences of mine would mean absolutely nothing to you and that is fine but that does not in the least take away from those experiences.

You wrote, " The eyewitnesses you speak of are not eyewitnesses because they are dead. Eyewitnesses have to be alive to be eye witnesses.", may I ask you what kind of statement this is?

Just because someone dies does not in any respect take away from that person being an eyewitness.

As far as I know these "eyewitnesses" were alive at the time of their eyewitnessing, weren't they?

I think that it would be a safe bet that there is no one alive now that met Abraham Lincoln but does that mean that people that met him were not eyewitnesses to the fact that Abraham Lincoln was alive at one time, because these eyewitnesses have since died?

Personally, I do not know how God created the universe but I most definitely believe that He did create the universe and that He created it out of nothing.

I have met God and God is a Trinity and He is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and even tho God-Incarnate was a Man, God is neither a He, a She or an It but as I have said God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

Also even tho I know that God is Real, there is still plenty that I have to believe because I do not know it for a fact and I do try to state the difference between what I believe and what I know.

Some know God's Name and that seems to be about the extent of what some know about God considering some of the absolute bile being spewed out in His Name.

Jesus never forced Himself on anyone and anyone that tries to force Jesus on another is not following what Jesus asked us to do, which is "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS", not to be confused with the 'good enough news'.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Timmy,
I've got to hand it to you. While most atheist may feel as you do, most are not honest or brazen enough to declare themselves more advanced than the rest of us. By the way, the 2008 Pew report on religion says that 1.6% of americans are athiests and 2.4% are agnostic and they have basically the same education and income skew as Catholics and the nation as a whole. You can google "Pew report on religion" to validate for yourself.

First of all, you put too much credence in Science. It is simply a method for inducing the truth by testing hypotheses generated by observation with experimentation. However, you clearly can't test the hypotheses of God's existence or non-existence with experimentation. The best you can do is use observation and logic. The evidence of God has nothing to do with eyewitness accounts or ancient traditions. The evidence for God is in the universe around you, which you can observe as well as I. The difference is in how we interpret that evidence. When I see an orderly universe, following a set of physical laws (like gravity), built on a common set of building blocks (like neutrons, electrons, protons) and managed in a set of predictable rations (like pi and phi), I see an order that can only have come from a creator wiht extreme power and intelligence. You might see it differently.

As for the origins of Christianity, you are greatly decieved if you think it began with the Edict of Milan in 313. Constantine merely stopped the persecutions of Christians that had been ongoing since Nero in 64 AD. Christianity started with Christ, without a doubt. There is over 250 years of documentation in and out of the church to demonstrate that prior to the Edict of Milan.

Also, I think you are being a little overzealous if you think you can disprove the validity of the Bible. I think a knowledgeable Catholic could answer any questions you have on its validity and interpretation. Beyond that, If you want to try me or others on this board on the "lies' of our faith, I'm sure we can show you that they are in fact based on reality and are not lies.

Finally, Don't disregard the fact that other people have experience and information that formed their faith that you may not have. It would be a mistake on your part to believe that we have blind faith. In fact, Catholics believe that you should be able to validate the faith through reason. Any serious Catholic spends considerable time thinking about their faith, the nature of God and how we can do his will.

PAULC2

Just to be clear, I do not call people liars for what they choose to believe. But if I asked you how the universe got here? You would have to say "I don't know" before then saying "but I believe that God created the universe".

The reason you have to preface your belief with "I don't know" is because you don't know. You just believe. If I asked you how the universe got here and you just said, "God created it". And I clarified by asking you "Do you know that for sure?" And you replied "Yes". You would be a liar. Because you don't know.
Having faith does not excuse you from being a liar in this instance. We don't say that we know things that we do not know. There is zero evidence for God.

The evidence you speak of is 2000 to 6000 year-old hearsay that contradicts itself thousands of times. Not credible in any way shape or form. In fact, it is quite laughable. The eyewitnesses you speak of are not eyewitnesses because they are dead. Eyewitnesses have to be alive to be eye witnesses. Quite frankly I'm shocked that any adult could believe such things that come from a time when humans reported miracles every day, and people thought that the sky was solid. You are welcome to believe the heat-induced hallucinations of bronze age nomadic goat herders if you like, but just don't tell anyone that you know how the universe got here, because if the best science does not know, then you most certainly do not know.

I stand by my statement that if you do not answer "I don't know" to the question, "how did it all get here?" then you are lying. Once you have admitted that you don't know though, you are then more than welcome to go on and tell me what you believe. But you'll have to excuse me if I laugh when you do.

PAULC2 you ask: "How would the absence of belief in God, improve the lives of the people?

If they all believed in one God, things probably wouldn't be too bad. I don't know if you've noticed though, but there are many different beliefs in many different versions of God. The Christians alone have over 30,000 sects. When people pretend to know something that they do not know, and when that thing they pretend to know is something as volatile as "who the creator of the universe is" and "what his moral laws are for us", it causes wars and the most vicious fighting and horror imaginable. Have you not noticed this? I find your question here ridiculous. Religion has caused most of the strife in this world for millennia.

You ask: "Did state-mandated Atheism improve life in China or the Soviet Union?"

Who said anything about state mandated atheism? What a horrible idea. No wonder it turned out bad. I think you and I are on the same page here. State mandated atheism is a very bad idea.

You ask: "Further, you call believe in God primitive. Does that make you (presumably an Atheist) more advanced than the 95% of the rest of us who maintain a belief in God?

Yes.
And it's no where near 95%.
And you all believe in different versions of God. Does that alone not tell you something? Did you just happen to be born into a family that believes in the right God? Are a billion Muslims going to Hell?

I could ask you a million more questions about things in your religion that don't make a lick of sense and are obviously man made lies. I have never seen a lie that is easier to see through than the Bible. To me, the words faith and gullible are not that far apart in meaning.

And your particular religion was invented by a Roman emperor 300 years after the death of Jesus and for political reasons.

But you are welcome to believe what you want to believe, Paul.
Just don't tell me that you "know" how the universe got here, because you don't. And that kind of inflammatory rhetoric starts wars.

"CCNL :
Observer, Observer, Observer,

Jesus would not be happy with your recent rants."

Moron:

Somehow, I don't think Jesus chose you to speak for him or should I say grunt?

CCNL:
John tells us that after Lazarus was raised from the dead, the inhabitants of Jerusalem led him in a procession into the city, where they sang his praises and the Jewish leaders, worried about how the Romans would take it, decided that the best thing to do was to use the Romans to rid themselves of a leading critic and threat to their way of life. They did this because they valued their traditions and their social standing more than they valued the word of God. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified so that by rising from the dead, he could give them the ultimate proof of his divinity, while at the same time, demonstrating how to sacrifice yourself for God's will in the most difficult way. Isn't this consistent with the scenario you laid out, only with a different conclusion. I am praying that you will see the truth..

Observer, Observer, Observer,

Jesus would not be happy with your recent rants.

Farnaz wrote: "Have you read her? She doesn't say Yehoshua did not exist, btw." (in reference to Ruether)

I guess I am confused. I thought you were posting that bibliography in support of your earlier statement that "JC NEVER EXISTED".

Paul:

Re: CCNL

CCNL worhsips a human being. He thinks JC was human and worships him. Now, what would you call that?

He reads only those books that support his views. He's an anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim racist and homophobe who fabricated his own brand of Christianity which he considers empirically based.

In other words, he's a moron bigot. Don't waste your time on him.

Paul, Paul, Paul,

Walking on water and raising Lazarus from the dead would have been the "talk" of the town and cities of the Roman Empire. Since neither event happened, the simple preacher man's life was summarily ended as was the case for all non-Roman trouble makers in the conquered territories.

In your original note about talking to your parish priests about the real authors of the NT, you used the words "What if I told you". Sounds more like something you were thinking about. Did the parish priests give you any references to read? Again the best of the best of the approved Catholic discourses on the subject is Father Raymond Brown's epic reference book, (878 pages), An Introduction to the New Testament.

And as you know, "pretty, wingie thingies" are angels and "demons of the demented" are devils and satans both part of the voodoo of orthodox Catholicism as is the changing of wine and bread into blood and flesh. If your parish priests are still filling their "pew peasants" heads with sermons about "angels", they simply, without really knowing what they are doing, promoting the paranormal.

MORE ON IDENTITY:

From paleolithic times, human populations have grown, migrated to differing environments, and in the process given birth to more than 3,000 different languages, cultures, and innumerable religions--resulting in the creation of competing identities.

Consider the racial, linguistic, class, caste, nationalistic, religious, and sectarian identities that have given rise to ethnocentrism.

This has perpetuated deep-rooted prejudices resulting in deplorable atrocities.

In India, the upper castes (Brahmins, Rajputs, and Kshatriyas) consider 240 million Dalits as untouchables and consider them to be polluted even if they come across their shadow.

Three years ago, thousands of Dalits (the untouchables) suffered protests and disrespect from Brahmins and other upper castes when the government implemented the quotas in government jobs, and university admissions aimed at improving Dalit representation in the Indian social profile.

Lst year, and again this year, Christian churches are being burnt in the States of Orissa and Karnataka in India. The Hindu terrorists belong to Hindu fanatic parties like BJP, Bajrang Dal, RSS etc.

The genocide in Darfur is both linguistic and ethnic in its character.

halozcel1 :

Nouriel Roudini is right here in the US, where he has been warning and warning again and again, predicting our current crisis.

There is also Paul Krugman, who made the same predictions, warnings, etc., and who just won the Nobel Prize.

Still, I don't hold the Christians responsible for the economic meltdown. Even born again Poulson wasn't alone making billions on derivatives.

Everyone was in on it, all religions, no religions.

"My emphasis is on the power of culture. Religion is only one component of culture."

Maybe.

" halozcel1 Author Profile Page:

HSNKHWJ,

You say,*it(religion/cult) asks the believers(cult followers) to conform to the norms of the society.
Wrong,terrible wrong.On the contrary,the cult followers try,fight and cast fear/terror to change the norms of the society and adapt the contemporary values to their own ill-minded norms.

*...not the religion itself that is the culprit.The culprit is the identity of ''us'' vs ''them'' *
Wrong.Yes,wrong again.
What creates the identity of *us* vs *them* ?
What begets the identity of *believers* vs *non-believers/infidels* ?"
**************************************************
Your verdict is questionable.

Moses said, "Let my people go." (a fight against the norm of the time).

Hinduism had the practice of Sati (burning alive of widows, regardless of age). The reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy fought hard to abolish the barbaric practice. By and large, he succeeded. But occasionally, it still happens.

Pre-Islamic Arabs buried female infants alive and women had no inheritance rights. Muhammad condemned female infanticide and gave women the inheritance rights.

Buddha witnessed pain and suffering and offered the solution of renunciation of the material world.

When a religion took hold against the oppressive order, a new order is created. It became part of the culture. It is the culture that creates the identity (not necessarily through conscious mind). There are many identities that are not religious. The examples would be linguistic identities, class identities, or caste identities.

When Christian missionaries went on a mission to a tribe that was polygynous, they realized that the head of the village will not agree to give up many wives just to accept Christianity. So, the missionaries had to compromise to spread the gospel hoping the future generations will adopt "new" ways.

My emphasis is on the power of culture. Religion is only one component of culture.

We learn much by example. e.g.

The Jericho Massacre:

"The people raised the war cry, the trumpets sounded. When the people heard the sound of the trumpet, they raised a mighty war cry and the wall collapsed then and there. At once the people stormed the city, each man going straight forward; and the captured the city. They enforced the curse of destruction on everyone in the city; men and women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep, and the donkeys, slaughtering them all. -- Joshua 6:20-21 "

HSNKHWJ,

You say,*it(religion/cult) asks the believers(cult followers) to conform to the norms of the society.
Wrong,terrible wrong.On the contrary,the cult followers try,fight and cast fear/terror to change the norms of the society and adapt the contemporary values to their own ill-minded norms.

*...not the religion itself that is the culprit.The culprit is the identity of ''us'' vs ''them'' *
Wrong.Yes,wrong again.
What creates the identity of *us* vs *them* ?
What begets the identity of *believers* vs *non-believers/infidels* ?

Farnaz,

*Paul,you seem like a good person*
Does it mean *other bloggers are not good person* ?
-*I think this is true of Thomas Baum*
Correct one,I think this is true FOR Thomas Baum,but,keep in mind,Hitler and Duce(Mussolini) were church goer catholics(I dont mean that Thomas Baum is not good.Yes,he is as good as others)
-His way is not my way.Best way is Frank Sinatra *My way* and *I've got you on the my skin,I've got you deep in my heart*

Farnaz,
Be ready.We will go to Kingdom.Yes,we will go to United Kingdom and speak with Iranian Jew Nouriel Roubini(my favorite,Diane Garnick from Invesco,Lady in Red,Female Robin Hood) about markets.Vix/Fear/Tension Index more than 70 and *Financial Hurricane*(category 5) from US to England,Russia to India,Indonesia.

respected ebo,

the world is tired of drama,melodrama and comedy,hollywood is full of it .the time is very ripe to be for real.

since you are a scholar of sociology and into interfaith issues please let me suggest the following,

1-discus and study the *juchristianseculardarwinisticapitalistc* society that we live in .

2-examine and study the think and morality tanks that support the ideology and the methodology of the society that we live in .

Paul,

I think I was specific.

I don't know you, but from your posts you seem like a good person whom religion serves well. I think this is true of Thomas Baum, who is possibly the most remarkable blogger I've ever seen, gentle even with atheists.

I can't agree with him. His way is not my way, but there you have it. I respect him, will not argue with him. What would be the point?

Farnaz,
While it is clear that some unscupulous people use religion to further their own agenda, it is also truth that most religions are based on peace and morality. You say: Homophobia, Xenophobia, Racisms, Sexism are part and parcel of religion. This is simply not true, at least not of Catholicism, which is universal in its reach, excluding no one. If you are going to condemn a religion, be specific and support your position.. Only in that way, can you be answered.

hsnkhwj

Thank you for your reply. You write:

"In the name of religion, people have gone to war or remained in peace, planted crops or fasted, drunk alcohol or abstained from it, invoked God to rain death upon enemies or brought peace to troubled minds.

So, it is the distortion or misuse of religion and not the religion itself that is the culprit. The culprit, as I said earlier, is the identity of "us" vs. "them" that has serious consequences for humanity."

Hinduism, Chrstianity (incl. Catholicsim), Judaism, Islam, etc., have historically been wedded to nationalism and/or patriotism, patriarchy. There was such a thing as the Holy Roman Empire, and there was more than one Islamic empire.

Many high ranking nazis, whose names I've posted again and again were Catholic or Lutheran. Then there were the ordinary Christian citizens of other European countries who took the opportunity on their own to kill, just kill and plunder, even before the nazis arrived to create more orderly genocide.

There is example after example among the Puritans, Pilgrims, etc., of genoicide. Example after example of the Spaniards, etc.

To say that these people, e.g., the Puritans weren't Christian is circular reasoning.

Homophobia, Xenophobia, Racisms, Sexism are part and parcel of religion. There is no such thing as a religion that exists in a vaccuum, that is ahistorical.

It is also true that in the name of religion some good fights have been fought, but I'm afraid they are few and far between compared to the bad ones.

The real question is whether we would be less savage without organized religion, and that I doubt. I suspect we'd be just about the same.

Btw, you can just call me Farnaz. Somehow WaPo took my email name instead of my moniker, Farnaz. As far as I know, I'm the only Farnaz-person around here.

Farnaz2:

In the name of religion, people have gone to war or remained in peace, planted crops or fasted, drunk alcohol or abstained from it, invoked God to rain death upon enemies or brought peace to troubled minds.

So, it is the distortion or misuse of religion and not the religion itself that is the culprit. The culprit, as I said earlier, is the identity of "us" vs. "them" that has serious consequences for humanity.

CCNL:
Didn't you read my previous post concerning my parish priest? Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again, even after I answer you? You and I both know that there are two basic opinions out there on Gospel authorship. There isn't a lot of debate on Luke or Mark. The question is really on Matthew and the whole question derives from your viewpoint on whether Matthew used Mark as a source or Mark used Matthew. If Matthew elaborated on Mark, then there is a question about whether an apostle would have used a non-apostle as a source. One potential argument is that Mark is quoting Peter and Matthew might have wanted to supplement his work with that from Peter, who had better access to Jesus than he did. The other possibility is that Mark used Matthew as a source but streamlined it, adding some details from Peter. No one will ever know for sure which way it went and I would submit, its not hugely important either way. Does Mark have less moral authority because he wrote down what Peter taught?

You said, " Had he did all that P, M, M, L and J said he did, he would have been declared a god before his crucifixion and said crucifixion would never have occurred as even the Romans would have been overwhelmed by one who walked on water, changed water into wine, raised dead bodies to life and cured the blind etc." Well at the time of his crucifixion, the Romans and Herod did not see these miracles with their own eyes, and just like you, eyewitness accounts weren't enough to sway them. Scripture says that Herod asked to see a miracle as proof of Jesus' divinity because he had heard about them, but Jesus refused to oblige. We also know that Pontius Pilate was not eager to carry out the crucifixion either but did so to avoid a riot.

Paul, Paul, Paul,

So you did talk to your parish priests and/or local Catholic theology/history preachers? Or is still something you are thinking about.

With respect to the simple preacher man, you will have to read the books of many of the contemporary historical Jesus books to see why indeed Jesus was simply a simple preacher man.

Had he did all that P, M, M, L and J said he did, he would have been declared a god before his crucifixion and said crucifixion would never have occurred as even the Romans would have been overwhelmed by one who walked on water, changed water into wine, raised dead bodies to life and cured the blind etc.

Farnaz:
No organized religion isn't always wedded to destructive isms.. Why would you think it is?

Posted on October 13, 2008 17:26

hsnkhwj :

You write: There is often a distortion of religion because people get mixed up with religion, cultural tradition and race.
______________________
I agree. I would ask, isn't institionalized religion always wedded to destructive isms? Can we even speak of it apart from them?

Farnaz

Posted on October 13, 2008 15:41
Notsogreatscot :
Farnaz - doesn't the passage you cite from L. Michael White only dispute whether Josephus actually wrote the "Testimonium Flavianum" as we have it today? (as many other authors have)

That seems quite different than denying that Jesus even existed as a person.
-----------------------------------------

Many have disputed various sections of Josephus. Also, many have questioned JOspehu's motives in writing most of the Antiquities, summoning very convincing evidence in their arguments. I haven't posted these writers yet.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be, White took up more than authorship of certain passages. HOwever, more than Josephus is covered in the bibliography I posted. To all N-J's I recommend beginning with Ruether, former Harvard professor, Catholic.

Have you read her? She doesn't say Yehoshua did not exist, btw.

Farnaz

It is interesting to read how people here are concentrating on specific names, their origins and their teachings. The central point that religion is relevant or irrelevant has been lost.

Maher ridicules religions and the belief systems but forgets that religion performs important social functions in human societies. Maher simply focuses on how religion is dysfunctional and destructive.

All religions are based on faith which gives meaning to life to the people and gives them the map to navigate their lives. These belief systems have two important components in their belief systems. These are (1) the presence of the sacred, and (2) rituals.

The sacred is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the holy cross made of a piece of silver is sacred to the believer. But it is simply a piece of silver to someone outside that faith.

A ritual is a prescribed way of performing a religious act. Rituals are repetitive in nature, i.e., they are repeated which means that people are affirming their faith repeatedly. Repetition also helps the younger (or a newcomer to the religion) generation to learn about the religion.

Religion performs several important functions in human societies. It asks the believers to conform to the norms of the society.

The conformity or lack of it carries both a carrot and a stick. They are in a seamless web with the faith.

For example, in monotheistic religions the belief in heaven or hell is the system of reward or punishment. Religion offers you a choice.

In Buddhism the belief in karma and reincarnation provides the same reward and punishment. Life is seen as an endless birth and rebirth. The latter is determined in your deeds. You can get get nirvana through your conforming to the standards set by the society.

Religion strives for social solidarity by giving people the "we feeling".

A consequence of this is that human groups are divided between "us" vs. "them"--the biggest source of conflict among humans.

The biggest challenge for humans in modern day life is how to eliminate conflicts and violence.

That is where interfaith dialogue comes in.

There is often a distortion of religion because people get mixed up with religion, cultural tradition and race.

Timmy2:
You write," In answer to the question of how we got here? Why we are here? What does it all mean? and what happens after we die? There is only one answer that any human can give without lying. That answer is "I don't know". Anyone who answers that question any other way is pretending to know something that they do not know. i.e lying. That's a fact Jack. Spirituality is wondering about these things with an open mind. There is nothing wrong with spirituality. Religion, on the other hand, is pretending that you know the answers to these questions outright. i.e. lying."

Your last statement is strongly biased by your personal analysis of the available data. We Catholics believe that Jesus Christ told us the answers to these questions and that as the self-proclaimed son of God, he was in a position to know. We further believe that his miracles, his ressurection from the dead and ascension into heaven demonstrated the veracity of his claims. Further, we believe this based on eyewitness testimony of people who were willing to die, rather than deny these claims. Further still, we see modern day miracles (like at Lourdes and Fatima) that still testify to these truths.

Now, you may not know about any of these things or you may know about them but choose to disbelieve them. Either way, it is incorrect to say that people who believe these things are liars. In fact, these are people of good faith, who simply see things differently than you do.

You also say, " You miss the point entirely that riding the world of our primitive beliefs in God and gods, in itself would improve the lives of every human being on this planet more than anything ever has." Please support such an inflammatory statement. How would the absence of belief in God, improve the lives of the people? Did state-mandated Athiesm improve life in China or the Soviet Union? Further, you call beleive in God primative. Does that make you (presumably an Athiest) more advanced than the 95% of the rest of us who maintain a belief in God? How can you be so sure in your superiority?

CCNL:
What if I told you I discussed the new testment authors with my parish priest and he said that Matthew and John were Apostles and that Luke was a companion of Paul and that Mark was a companion of Peter. What if he further stated that there is inconclusive debate on whether Matthew or Mark was actually the first of the Gospels to be written. Are you ready to accept it now?

As for your statement:" And considering your belief in the creation of blood and flesh from wine and bread on a 24/7 basis and your belief in "pretty, wingie thingies" and demons of the demented, leads to only one conclusion, you are a member of the "voodood" Catholic cult, I don't think of my beliefs in those terms. I beleive that when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, it becomes the real presence of Jesus. I don't know what 24/7 hour basis you are taling about. I believe that God has spiritual messengers but I don't know anything about pretty, wingie thingies. I don't know what you are talking about in terms of demons of the demented. And I definitely do not believe in voodoo. I am a Catholic, believing in the tenets of the Apostles Creed.

By the way, I have read several other authors that have described the Josephus accounts in a similar way that Maier did. Don't you think that the account in Josephus 20:200 defining Jesus as the Christ at least acknowledges that he was aware of the claims at that early date. Why do you persist in calling him a simply preacher man?

Farnaz - doesn't the passage you cite from L. Michael White only dispute whether Josephus actually wrote the "Testimonium Flavianum" as we have it today? (as many other authors have)

That seems quite different than denying that Jesus even existed as a person.

Dear Eboo,

In answer to the question of how we got here? Why we are here? What does it all mean? and what happens after we die? There is only one answer that any human can give without lying. That answer is "I don't know". Anyone who answers that question any other way is pretending to know something that they do not know. i.e lying. That's a fact Jack.

Spirituality is wondering about these things with an open mind. There is nothing wrong with spirituality.

Religion, on the other hand, is pretending that you know the answers to these questions outright. i.e. lying.

Bill Maher is under no obligation to show the positive side of lying. There isn't one. Anything good that comes from someone's religion is countered tenfold by the horror that it is based on a lie. A lie that has caused unspeakable horror and grief throughout the world for millennia.

You say Bill offers only criticism and provides nothing positive to change the world. You miss the point entirely that riding the world of our primitive beliefs in God and gods, in itself would improve the lives of every human being on this planet more than anything ever has.

If your answer to the mysteries of life is not also "I don't know", then what is it?
And if you have an ounce of respect for those who answer those questions that science can not answer with anything other than "I don't know" Why? Why do you think we need to show respect to these liars? Why?

I don't know = Intellectual honesty

Religion = Lying!

Posted on October 13, 2008 10:49

Anonymous:
CCNL:

References on the fictional nature of Josephus, cribbing of Tacitus, mythic nature of the"trial."

Here ia a partial list of references showing the fictive nature of Josephus, along with the impossibility of the "trial." Many more to come. I've included as many Catholic/Christian writers as possible, which is, of course, problematic, since try as some do, and they do, they can't quite explain any of it as Jewish scholars would, and last time I checked, Passover was a Jewish holy period, the Sanhedrin, a Jewish court. Ruether tries mightily.

But how could you not know that the Sanhedrin could not meet during Passover, that this is considered NT myth.

Surely, you know what Passover has always been? From the beginning, there is only one reason to break it:

To save a human life. The life must be at risk, do you get it?

And of course, the Sanhedrin never met at night.

ROSEMARY RUETHER, FAITH AND FRATRICIDE

Craveri, Life of Jesus: 380-381, 384

Hinnels, Dictionary of Religions: 251, 279, 285

Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: 71-74;202, 251

Martin, New Testament Foundations I: 86-87

Guignebert, Jesus: 463

Nineham, Saint Mark: 400-401, 403, 406
quoted in Yerby, Judas, My Brother: 515
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: 103,407
Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p203

Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition,

Schonfield, The Passover Plot: 141

Actually, you should read through all of them, but minimally Ruether, a Catholic, to get a handle on this discussion from a C-person perspective. Also, she does not believe in JC's divinity. Get back to me when you're done reading and I"ll post the next list. Meantime keep us J people, including Moses, out of your lists, and I shall keep your JC person et al out of m

October 12, 2008 11:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 12, 2008 23:53

Anonymous:

More on fiction writer, Josephus-

Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, . 990–91

Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christianity. Harper Collins 2004. 97–98

Egal Feldman, Catholics and Jews in twentieth-century America. Highly readable discussion of the Sanhedrin myth.

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated

Read all about it!! Read all about it!!

"Josephus on Jesus
from Josephus - The Essential Works
by Paul Maier

For Christians, books 18 through 20 of the Antiquities are far and away the most important sections in all of Josephus' writings, since they provide a rich background for the entire New Testament era. Happily, they are also the most authoritative chapters in the Antiquities since at long last Josephus is either an eyewitness of direct contemporary of the events he is reporting. His paragraphs on John the Baptist show Jesus' forerunner from a fresh vantage point, while his portrayal of crucial events in the career of Pontius Pilate help explain that governor's pressured performance at the trial of Jesus. In the case of Jesus' brother James, he even provides crucial addenda to the New Testatment, which does not tell us how James died. Josephus does!

His two celebrated references to Jesus - Antiquities 18:63 and 20:200 - have provoked an enormous quantity of scholarly literature. The constitute the largest block of first-century evidence for Jesus outside of biblical or Christian sources, and may well be the reason that the vast works of Josephus survived manuscript transmission across the centuries almost intact when other great works, like those of Nicolas of Damascus, where totally lost. But are the Jesus references authentic?

Scholars fall into three main camps on the first and longer paragraph on Jesus (18:63) which occurs amid events during Pilate's administration: 1) it is entirely authentic; 2) it is entirely a Christian forgery; or 3) it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus. The first option, held by very few, would seem hopeless: no Jew could have claimed Jesus as the Messiah who rose from the dead without converting to Christianity, and Josephus did not convert. The second position, popular in late nineteenth-century skeptical scholarship, has some minor current support. A large majority of scholars today, however, share the third position (favored in these pages), particularly in view of the newly-discovered Agapian text which shows no signs of interpolation.

Josephus must have mentioned Jesus in authentic core material at 18:63 since this passage is present in all Greek manuscripts of Josephus, and the Agapian version accords well with his vocabulary and grammar elsewhere. Moreover, Jesus is portrayed as a "wise man" [sophos aner], a phrase not used by Christians but employed by Josephus for such Old Testament figures as David and Solomon. Furthermore, his claim that Jesus won over "many of the Greeks" is not substantiated in the New Testament, and thus hardly a Christian interpolation but rather something that Josephus would have noted in his own day. Finally, the fact that the second reference to Jesus at 20:200 merely calls him the Christos without further explanation implies that a previous fuller identification had already taken place.

Josephus' second reference to Jesus in connection with the death of his half-brother James (20:200) shows no tampering whatever and is present in all Josephus manuscripts. Had there been Christian interpolation, more material would doubtless have been presented than this brief, passing notice. James would likely have been wreathed in laudatory language and styled "the brother of the Lord," as the New Testament defines him, rather than, as Josephus, "the brother of Jesus." Nor could the New Testatment have served as Josephus' source since it provides no detail on James' death. For Josephus to further define Jesus as the one "who was called the Christos" was both credible and necessary in view of the twenty other Jesuses he cites in his works. In fact, the very high priest who succeeded Ananus, who instigated the death of James, was Jesus, son of Damnaeus. Accordingly, most scholars concur with ranking Josephus authority Louis H. Feldman in his notation in the Loeb edition of Josephus: "...few have doubted the genuineness of the passage [20:200] on James" (Louis H. Feldman, tr., Josephus, IX [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965] 496).

The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages. He did so in a manner totally congruent with the New Testatment portrait of Jesus, and his description, from the vantage point of a non-Christian, seems remarkably fair, particularly in view of his known proclivity of roasting false messiahs as the sorts who misled the people and brought on the Romans."

Paul, Paul, Paul,

Hmmm, and you have asked your parish priests and/or the local Catholic theology/history professors about the real authors of the NT??

And considering your belief in the creation of blood and flesh from wine and bread on a 24/7 basis and your belief in "pretty, wingie thingies" and demons of the demented, leads to only one conclusion, you are a member of the "voodood" Catholic cult.

CCNL and Farnaz:
I find it very amusing to see you two go after each other with list of Apostate Authors each rendering an unsupported opinion that supports your individual theses. When your only proof for a position is that "these experts have this opinion.", you are on very shaky ground.

For the record, you can not be a Catholic and not believe in the divinity of Christ. You can call yourself one, but you would merely be lying to yourself and others. To be a Catholic, you need to believe in the tenets of the Apostle and Nicene Creeds.

More on fiction writer, Josephus-

Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, . 990–91

Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christianity. Harper Collins 2004. 97–98

Egal Feldman, Catholics and Jews in twentieth-century America. Highly readable discussion of the Sanhedrin myth.

CCNL:

You asked for references on the fictional nature of Josephus, cribbing of Tacitus, mythic nature of the"trial."

Here ia a partial list of references showing the fictive nature of Josephus, along with the impossibility of the "trial." Many more to come. I've included as many Catholic/Christian writers as possible, which is, of course, problematic, since try as some do, and they do, they can't quite explain any of it as Jewish scholars would, and last time I checked, Passover was a Jewish holy period, the Sanhedrin, a Jewish court. Ruether tries mightily.

But how could you not know that the Sanhedrin could not meet during Passover, that this is considered NT myth.

Surely, you know what Passover has always been? From the beginning, there is only one reason to break it:

To save a human life. The life must be at risk, do you get it?

And of course, the Sanhedrin never met at night.

ROSEMARY RUETHER, FAITH AND FRATRICIDE

Craveri, Life of Jesus: 380-381, 384

Hinnels, Dictionary of Religions: 251, 279, 285

Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: 71-74;202, 251

Martin, New Testament Foundations I: 86-87

Guignebert, Jesus: 463

Nineham, Saint Mark: 400-401, 403, 406
quoted in Yerby, Judas, My Brother: 515
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: 103,407
Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p203

Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition,

Schonfield, The Passover Plot: 141

Actually, you should read through all of them, but minimally Ruether, a Catholic, to get a handle on this discussion from a C-person perspective. Also, she does not believe in JC's divinity. Get back to me when you're done reading and I"ll post the next list. Meantime keep us J people, including Moses, out of your lists, and I shall keep your JC person et al out of mine.

As per Rabbi Wolpe, a recent guest commentator on the On Faith Blog, Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis (e.g. Rabbi Wolpe) have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:
Realization that the Jews are not god's not chosen people.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

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

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

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

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

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

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology. .

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

Current crises:

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Hmmm, many historical Jesus exegetes believe there was no trial of Jesus i.e. no meeting of the Sanhedrin etc. and yet still there are some that are not happy with that conclusion. Very strange!!

CCNL

"http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/270_Priests_Question

Note that Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist, does not believe that Jesus had a trial before the Jewish priests or anyone else. The simple preacher man caused a disturbance in the Temple. For that, he was nailed to a "tree". No trials were ever given to lowly Jewish peasants or preachers according to the Professor. More details in the Professor's book, The Historical Jesus, The Life of Mediterranean Jewish Peasant."

Crossan is just a tad outnumbered and very controversial. You wanted references and you have them. Many more to come. List for list. You wanted Jewish and Christian scholars--you got them. Many more to come. List for list.

NB: "Since proclaiming oneself Moshiach is not forbidden under halakha (there were many springing up at the time), but was illegal under Roman law as a challenge to imperial authority, perhaps this may be a more likely alternative. However, John 19:12 cites the religious Sanhedrin using this argument to sway Pilate."

As I told you before, leave Jews out of your lists, including Moses, and vade in pace. I will leave your JC et al alone. Live and let live. Do good, and do no harm.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/270_Priests_Question

Note that Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist, does not believe that Jesus had a trial before the Jewish priests or anyone else. The simple preacher man caused a disturbance in the Temple. For that, he was nailed to a "tree". No trials were ever given to lowly Jewish peasants or preachers according to the Professor. More details in the Professor's book, The Historical Jesus, The Life of Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.

CCNL:

More on Josephus-

Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, . 990–91

Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christianity. Harper Collins 2004. 97–98

Egal Feldman, Catholics and Jews in twentieth-century America. Highly readable discussion of the Sanhedrin myth.

CCNL,

I think you are probably a good person, but need to chill. Live and let live. Do good, and do no harm.

CCNL (Bagel, Donut, etc.), My Dear Friend:

References? So glad you asked.

Here ia a partial list of references. Many more to come. I've included as many Catholic/Christian writers as possible, which is, of course, problematic, since try as some do, and they do, they can't quite explain any of it as Jewish scholars would, and last time I checked, Passover was a Jewish holy period, the Sanhedrin, a Jewish court. Ruether tries mightily.

But how could you not know that the Sanhedrin could not meet during Passover, that this is considered NT myth.

Surely, you know what Passover has always been? From the beginning, there is only one reason to break it:

To save a human life. The life must be at risk, do you get it?

And of course, the Sanhedrin never met at night.

ROSEMARY RUETHER, FAITH AND FRATRICIDE

Craveri, Life of Jesus: 380-381, 384

Hinnels, Dictionary of Religions: 251, 279, 285

Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: 71-74;202, 251

Martin, New Testament Foundations I: 86-87

Guignebert, Jesus: 463

Nineham, Saint Mark: 400-401, 403, 406
quoted in Yerby, Judas, My Brother: 515
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: 103,407
Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p203

Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition,

Schonfield, The Passover Plot: 141

Actually, you should read through all of them, but minimally Ruether, a Catholic, to get a handle on this discussion from a C-person perspective. Also, she does not believe in JC's divinity. Get back to me when you're done reading and I"ll post the next list. Meantime keep us J people, including Moses, out of your lists, and I shall keep your JC person et al out of mine.

"Scholars (references??) started discrediting Josephus in the 1950s and have just about finished the job as many bloggers (references??), all Christian (references??), except me (are you sure), have told Bagel.

Tacitus cribbed from Josephus (references??). Pharisees had nothing to do with the Temple (references??). The Sanhedrin never met on Passover. Both Christian and Jewish scholars (references??) consider that whole business to have been myth. Etc., Etc., Etc.""

Confused Cornmeal-bagel Nervously Listing:

In brief:

Scholars started discrediting Josephus in the 1950s and have just about finished the job as many bloggers, all Christian, except me, have told Bagel.

Tacitus cribbed from Josephus. Pharisees had nothing to do with the Temple. The Sanhedrin never met on Passover. Both Christian and Jewish scholars consider that whole business to have been myth. Etc., Etc., Etc.

Documents one needs to read before becoming a NT and/or historical Jesus exegete. (i.e. some of the references found in the books of the exegetes previously noted):

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

halozcel1

CC Bagel probably meant Tacitus. It doesn't matter. Scholars started discrediting Josephus in the 1950s and have just about finished the job as many bloggers, all Christian, except me, have told Bagel.

Tacitus cribbed from Josephus. Pharisees had nothing to do with the Temple. The Sanhedrin never met on Passover. Both Christian and Jewish scholars consider that whole business to have been myth. Etc., Etc., Etc.

But like I always say. Whatever gets Bagel through the night. Leave Jews out of it and we'll be just fine.

CORRECTION

Publis Cornelius Tacitus(56-117),Roman/Pagan historian
I couldnt concentrate Titus and Tacitus.

I am watching England's soccer match and later Denmark's match.

Have a good conversation.

CCNL,

*Josephus* was the Roman name of Yosef Ben Matityahu.

He became a Roman citizen as Titus Flavius Josephus.

Titus and Josephus are the names of the *Same Person*
Briefly,
His Jewish name Yosef Ben Matityahu
His Roman name Titus Flavius Josephus

BOB2DAVIS

You wrote, "Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply one scientific fact: Since there is absolutely no concrete evidence of a god or gods, then there cannot be a god or gods"

Actually atheism might not be a "belief system" but it is a belief and that belief is that there is not a God.

As far as it being a scientific fact well that is not true either, a scientific fact is something that is proven true, not declared false, is that not how science works?

As far as saying since there is no concrete evidence than there cannot be, I would think that any reputable scientist would totally disagree with that statement and also say that it is a very unscientific statement, I am no scientist but if there are any scientists out there, do you agree or disagree?

You also worte, " Now if just one person would show us some actual proof of a god, then a dialog could begin.", why would anyone need a dialogue then?

You also wrote, " If all the religionists would just google "veracity of bible", then s/he would quickly see that the stories in the bible are just that. There is no outside evidence of Abraham or Moses or the virgin mother; there is virtually no evidence of David, Solomon or even Jesus."

It seems as if you are putting all of your "faith" in the "veracity of bible" google site, does it not? It would not be the first time that "experts" have been wrong and I can tell you that some of the "experts" of the bible don't know what they are talking about either.

You start out as saying "all of the stories" translated as totally fabricated out of thin-air then go on to say "no outside evidence of" then to "virtually no evidence of" so even you seem to think that at least some of the bible is not out of "thin-air".

I have met God and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love and I have also met satan, I can not prove to you that God the Father is Real or that God the Holy Spirit is Real or that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus but it is True, nevertheless, and one day all will know that it is True.

As I have said before, something is true because it is true not because someone can prove that it is true.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Confused Croissant (Bagel, CCNL, etc.)

"The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus"

Josephus discredited, Tacitus cribbed from Josephus.

All gone bye bye.

Read all about it, Read all about it:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Other NT exegetes who discuss the crucifixion and life of the simple preacher man, aka Jesus:

H.S. Reimarus, R. Bultmann, E. Kasemann, Alvar Ellegård, G. A. Wells, Gregory Riley, Robert Eisenman, RoberFunk, Burton Mack, Stephen J. Patterson, Marcus Borg - An On Faith panelist, Stevan Davies, Geza Vermes, Richard Horsley, Hyam Maccoby, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen- an On Faith Panelist, Gerd Lüdemann John P. Meier, E. P. Sanders, Robert H. Stein Karen Armstrong- an On Faith panelist, Albert Schweitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus), Mahlon Smith, Karen Pagels-an On Faith Panelist, Bishop NT Wright - an On Faith Panelist, Father Raymond Brown in his epic reference book, 878 pages, "An Introduction to the New Testament".

http://www.faithfutures.org/HJst.../ HJstudies.html, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Then there are these scriptural references:

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.-

(read them all at

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus

Paul, Paul, Paul,

Minor miracles at best. Maybe a more independent group of investigators like the FBI and Mayo Clinic would put more authenticity on said miracles i.e. groups not on the Vatican payroll.

You noted: "

"God allows some miracles to happen to show his love and to strengthen the faith of those receptive to his words. It is necessary for those to be the exception rather than the rule to highlight their uniqueness."

Your defining of god fails miserably with the "all merciful, all knowing, all good, all powerful" definition of the RCC.

But again you believe in "pretty wingie thingies" and the "demons of the demented" and JC's revelations in grilled cheese sandwiches.

Paul C.,

It occurs to me that you may not understand where I'm coming from. What I posted is fact. However, I don't care what others believe so long as it is ethical and doesn't threaten others.

The Pharisees were among the greatest minds and souls in Jewish history. They succeeded in severing Judaism from the temple culture of the wealthy Sadducees, ended the priestly culture and were the center of Jewish life in the first century. Their wisdom and knowledge were undeniable. They codified Tikkun Olam (NB Ryan Haber, if you are there), and despite everything they were up against, refused "rendering unto Cesar," not only for Jews of the period, but for Jews of all time.

Maligning them does not sit will with me or with any person, knowledgeable of who they were. All of it, from three-personned gods to eucharists was foreign to them. "Hear O Israel, the Lord...The Lord is one." ONE.
And then there is the Kashrut. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Paul C: Your argument that the existence of Jesus Christ depends on Josephus is without merit. Are you honestly arguing that a religion with 2Billion adherents worldwide and a 2000 year history was created out of thin air? Where's the logic in that? Besides there are plenty of textual witnesses of Jesus Christ that are actually far older and better attested than the Talmud, which as far as I can tell was put together after 300AD.

Moi: There is no such thing as a textual witness. The only definsible source had been Josephus from whom Tacitus cribbed. With Josephus largely discredited, there is nothing, other than myths written from myths written from myths. Like events and figures from the illiad.

Paul C: And who were your sages to declare an end to prophesy anyway? Could they stop God from sending messengers? All you are saying is that this group of people became effective athiests over 2000 years ago, abandoning their historic belief in God and his messengers in favor of science, much the same as athiests do today. This is why they were so often berated by the Son of God for following their own rules instead of God's.

Moi:The sages to whom you refer were the Pharisees, of blessed memory, a number of whom were tortured to death by the Romans. They were not "my sages." They ushered in the Rabbinic Age, codified the Tanakh, etc. They were the center of Jewish life, the scholars, of the House of Hillel. They stood apart from Temple Culture, obviously, given what I say above. This sets them in contrast to the Sadduccees, who were the wealthy ruling class.

Moi: Neither sect had nothing to do with Greeks or Romans should there have been any who wished to declare themselves prophets. Since the Pharisees were codifying the Bible determining which prophets to include etc., they found themselves in a lot of trouble, as PROPHETS WERE DROPPING FROM THE TREES WITH THE OCCUPATION. ONE TRIPPED OVER THEM AS ONE WALKED. For this reason, they declared an end to them, left them in peace as they posed no danger, continued with their work and persisted in codifying the Bible, and furthering monotheism.

Paul C: As for your arguments that a Sanhedrin could never have met over passover even in the adhoc fashion described in the gospel account, well things happen. Why is it completely inconceiveable that the high priest couldn't have just once called a meeting when a unique opportunity presented itself (due to Judas' betrayal) to rid themselves of someone who he percieved to be a threat to the Jewish nation and who was in the habit of calling them hypocrits? As you have already effectively stated, they didn't really believe in God anyway so why wouldn't they have done business on Passover?

Moi: There are no "exceptions" during Passover. NONE. The Pharisees would not have made an exception to observing Passover unless someone was dying at their feet, literally, and needed to be transported somewhere to get help. The same is true today. The trial you reference is now held to be myth.

Paul C: As for your concern that the Jews would not understand the eucharist, it is true. John says as much in Chapter 6:60-62==> Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Moi: I did not say that ancient Jews would not understand the wafer and wine. Some were associated with Greeks and Romans, a few Pharisees, many Sadducees. I said they would have abominated it. The kashrut goes back thousands of years. The association of flesh with bread, wine with blood would have disgusted, repelled them. No one credible denies this. How, given the Kashrut, could it have been otherwise.

Paul C:This doesn't mean Jesus wasn't Jewish, it just means he was bringing new ideas to the table (i.e., the New Testament). And he showed that the ideas were valid through his life, death, ressurection and ascension into heaven, just as he said he would.

Moi: Whatever gets you through the night.

Carstiono says:
"Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply one scientific fact: Since there is absolutely no concrete evidence of a god or gods, then there cannot be a god or gods.”
Those who do not believe in God do not believe in ghosts either. Yet science using scientific tools have proved the existence of ghosts. This should prove even to you that there is a dimension other than the physical one. Many believers had spiritual encounters, but many more believe by faith. Few years ago many people scuffed at the idea of invisible electromagnetic waves. Yet now when they see their effects on the TV screen they do not question the existence of TV waves.
Check out this video
http://www.ghoststudy.com/new6/new/gettysburg13.htm -
Also check out this cite
http://www.ghoststudy.com/

Replying to Mary Cunningham.

Defending faith as a basis for choice on grounds that "religion and faith are about dealing with the problem of existence and discovering the nature of God," confines faith to the supernatural. If faith is relevant to only the things you cannot know and can't affect, then such confined faith is irrelevant to the choices we must make.

Religious faith, however, does not confine itself to the supernatural. It reaches many conclusions about the natural world and demands certain decisions that affect the natural world. When it does that, it "interfere[s] with making successful choices in day to day life." Faith-based decisions are bad decisions.

Finally, that "religious folk have just as successful and fulfilling lives as do non-religious," is no evidence that faith is a good basis for a decision. Even the most devout can make fact-based rational decisions, and for most parts of their life they do. Who prays when trying to buy the right refrigerator? The problem is that the devout are not consistent in the basis for their decisions.

CCNL:
Notable Lourdes' cases (courtesy of Wikipedia article on Lourdes' Medical Bureau). Hopefully, these are good enough miracles for you.

Notable cases:

Jeanne Fretel
Visited Lourdes: 10 May 1948.

Age 31, a student nurse from Rennes, France. Tubercular peritonitis with complications for seven years, extreme emaciation and oscillating fever. Comatose when brought to Lourdes, was given a tiny fragment of the Eucharist and awoke. Reported being "instantly and permanently cured" later that night while lying in her wheelchair beside the spring. She had not yet bathed in or drunk the water. Her cure was recognised officially on 11 November 1950.

Brother Léo Schwager
Visited Lourdes: 30 April 1952.

Age 28, from Fribourg, Switzerland. Multiple sclerosis for five years. His cure was recognised on 18 December 1960.

Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon
Visited Lourdes: 15 May 1952.

Age 34, from Bouille-Loretz, France. Multiple sclerosis for three years. Her cure was recognised on 16 July 1956.

Marie Bigot
Visited Lourdes: 8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954.

Age 32, from La Richardais, France. Arachnoiditis of posterior fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia). Her cure was recognised on 15 August 1956.

Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre
Visited Lourdes: 21 September 1954.

Age 26, from Carmaux, France. Budd-Chiari syndrome (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis). Her cure was recognised on 31 May 1963.

Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
Visited Lourdes: 5 June 1958.

Age 27, from Patti, Italy. Tuberculous osteoarthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right leg. Her cure was recognised on 26 May 1965.

Juliette Tamburini
Visited Lourdes: 17 July 1959.

Age 22, from Marseilles, France. Femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years. Her cure was recognised on 11 May 1965.

Vittorio Micheli
Visited Lourdes: 1 June 1963.

Age 23, from Scurelle, Italy. Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. His cure was recognized on 26 May 1976.

Serge Perrin
Visited Lourdes: 1 May 1970.

Age 41, from Lion D'Angers, France. Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became wheelchair-confined, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. His cure was recognised on 17 June 1978.

Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
Visited Lourdes: 24 December 1976.

Age 12, from Paterno, Italy. Ewing's sarcoma of right knee. Offered amputation by her doctors, her mother refused and took her to Lourdes instead. On returning to Italy, her tumour rapidly regressed until no remaining evidence existed, although it left her tibia angulated, which required an operation (osteotomy) to correct. Her cure was recognised on 28 June 1989. She went on to become a nurse.

Jean-Pierre Bély
Visited Lourdes: 9 October 1987.

Age 51, French. Multiple sclerosis. His cure was recognised on 9 February 1999.

As for your complaints about God not curing everyone, when they want it, where they want it, well that's just not how life works. Life is a test to see how we will use our free will. If we use it to love God and Love others, we will get to continue to do that in Heaven. If, on the other hand, we chose to server ourselves and shut God out, we will be chosing to do so forever. Sometimes those tests are tests of health and success and sometimes they are tests of sickness and failure. God allows some miracles to happen to show his love and to strengthen the faith of those receptive to his words. It is necessary for those to be the exception rather than the rule to highlight their uniqueness.

I am praying for you to cease your unbelief..

Farnaz:
Your argument that the existence of Jesus Christ depends on Josephus is without merit. Are you honestly arguing that a religion with 2Billion adherents worldwide and a 2000 year history was created out of thin air? Where's the logic in that? Besides there are plenty of textual witnesses of Jesus Christ that are actually far older and better attested than the Talmud, which as far as I can tell was put together after 300AD.

And who were your sages to declare an end to prophesy anyway? Could they stop God from sending messengers? All you are saying is that this group of people became effective athiests over 2000 years ago, abandoning their historic belief in God and his messengers in favor of science, much the same as athiests do today. This is why they were so often berated by the Son of God for following their own rules instead of God's.

As for your arguments that a Sanhedrin could never have met over passover even in the adhoc fashion described in the gospel account, well things happen. Why is it completely inconceiveable that the high priest couldn't have just once called a meeting when a unique opportunity presented itself (due to Judas' betrayal) to rid themselves of someone who he percieved to be a threat to the Jewish nation and who was in the habit of calling them hypocrits? As you have already effectively stated, they didn't really believe in God anyway so why wouldn't they have done business on Passover?

As for your concern that the Jews would not understand the eucharist, it is true. John says as much in Chapter 6:60-62==> Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

This doesn't mean Jesus wasn't Jewish, it just means he was bringing new ideas to the table (i.e., the New Testament). And he showed that the ideas were valid through his life, death, ressurection and ascension into heaven, just as he said he would.

Paul, Paul, Paul,

EWTN is an independent source of information about Pio????

Based on the 1000's of crutches hanging in the grottos, one expects to have 1000's of miracles. So there are actually only 66 "authentic" ones and these were maybe one in a million from the those that visited the shrines?? Hmmm, no doubt modern diagnostic tools would eliminate even these 66. And the so called miracles are so limited i.e. no new legs or arms have ever materialized for those with missing limbs, no new eyes or vocal cords have ever materialized. Our BV therefore must be very limited in her power.

And why if indeed these 66 individuals were actually cured, what about the millions that were not? Are they somehow being punished by the BV/JC/God? And if God is so powerful, why should anyone have to travel to some far off grotto for a cure??? It simply does not compute!!! And what about all those babies born with birth defects? Where is their god????

Again you might want to check with your parish priests and local Catholic university professors after you talk to them about the real authors of the NT.

CCNL writes:

"This is the 21st century and it is time to delete the superstitions of our ancestors."

Glad to hear it. As you've been told endlessly, Josephus has been tossed and with him all those who copied from his fraudulent work.

JC NEVER EXISTED, THEREFORE. Even without Josephus the NT is so riddled with wholes it makes swiss cheese look like cheddar. First: The Pharisees codified the TANAKH, began the TALMUD and started the rabbinic age. These sages declared an end to prophecy before the birth of the alleged JC since Messiahs were dropping from the trees. Their number was endless no doubt due to the savagery of the Romans. The Pharisees having declared an end to the nonsense dealt with it no more. They were busy with reality and matters intellectual. It is true as Observe12 notes on Jacoby's thread that a Sadducee might have spoken with JC, or hallucinated that he spoke with such a phantom, but why a wealthy Sadducee would want to deal with any of the dozens of prophets is hard to imagine.

AS ANY CREDIBLE SOURCE WILL TELL YOU, THE SANHEDRIN NEVER MET ON PASSOVER. NEVER. As Observer correctly notes on Jacoby's thread, no Jew in history would ever have associated blood with wine, bread with flesh and suggested eating it symbolically or no. Yuck and Double Yuck. Consider the Kashrut. The very notion of such a ceremony is unacceptable from a Judaic perspective. That was a Greek/Arabian/African thing, in different guises.

If JC lived he was surely no Jew. See Jacoby's thread for more from Observer12.

CCNL:
I just read the attachments you posted. You basically clipped in the pertinent parts into your post anyway. The first one on Lourdes is fair and balanced. They recognize the 66 miracles identified by the church. Why don't you?

As for your article on Padre Pio, it was written with the expressed reason to highlight controversy. There are far better sources on the life of Padre Pio, why don't you read those?

CCNL:
You are right, I didn't read your Pio references. However, I've read books on Pio's life and before I sent that note, I googled Padre Pio and read the EWTN biography.
The questions being asked of Padre Pio's sanctity is by the inevitable skeptics, whose position becomes untenable in the face of his supernatural capabilities.

don't you understand that those messages had to come to Children for maximum credibility. If Pope John Paul II had seen the Virgin Mary (and who is to say he didn't) could he have been any more convincing than the Bernadette. I think not. As described by St. Paul, everyone has different roles in the Body of Christ. The Popes lead us, others see visions and witness miracles. Nothing strange or new about that. There is no superstition involved here. We are talking about contemporary, well documented miracles, witnessed by thousands at a time. Get out of denial and come back into the light.

Paul, Paul, Paul,

Did you even bother reading the cited references?

"Who was he (Pio), and why should we care?

An uneducated Capuchin friar from the town of San Giovanni Rotondo in the Gargano peninsula of Puglia, southern Italy, Padre Pio became the most charismatic holy man in the modern history of the Catholic Church, widely hailed as a saint during his lifetime and credited with at least 1,000 miracle cures. The most famous signs of his claimed sanctity were the stigmata – the Christ-like wounds that he bore in the palms of his hands and his side. "

So is the Padre a true miracle worker?

Yes...

* The seven million pilgrims who flock to San Giovanni Rotondo every year can't be wrong

* He's done more to turn around the economy of rural southern Italy than 61 Italian governments

* He's forced an often intransigent Church to accommodate him and his deeds

No...

* While some in the Church establishment have accepted him, others remain hostile

* While John Paul II declared him a saint, Pope Benedict has yet to visit San Giovanni

* The awkward questions about the origin of his stigmata won't go away

Getting back to Lourdes and Fatima: So why not make all these BV revelations to our head guy, the post-Peter Popes? Did JC change his mind about his rock of a leader and he/she has reverted to the simple, uneducated, impressionable people??

This is the 21st century and it is time to delete the superstitions of our ancestors.

*If you want to make successful choice,sell Pound,buy Dollar*

It was 1.72 twentyfour hours ago,and 1.67 in the early morning and now 1.70

England is obligated to cut the rates(otherwise Barclays will collapse) and GBP continues to plunge.

Matthew 6:19 says *Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth*
How can we interprete ?

CCNL:
You are wrong that the church is skeptical of either Lourdes or Fatima. Both have been firmly approved and as you know have been visited by the recent Popes. You note from 1947-1990, there were 'only 56" verifiable cures at Lourdes. You scoff at the yearly average of 1.3 Isn't one enough to prove the point? One of the reasons that their are less verified cures at Lourdes is because the bar becomes increasingly higher as medical science can cure more maladies. That doesn't necessarily mean there are less cures (there might be) , but that there are less maladies that are currently incurrable through medical means.

The reason that I believe that God Chose Bernadette Soubirous as the vissionary at Lourdes is because her simplicity made her more credible. she was in fact, so simple that people knew she couldn't have made up the vissions. And despite that simplicity, she held up under tremendous scrutiny and pressure from both the govenrment and the church.

As for Padre Pio, you are badly informed. He was not uneducated, he had the equivalent of 6 years of college leading to his ordination. His stigmata was viewed by many doctors under the direction of his superiors, despite the obvious discomfort to Padre Pio, who was a humble man. The excitement generated by the supernatural events was so strong that in 1922, his superiors were began to control access to him. A situation that continued for roughly 10 years. He had a very open ministry the last 35 years of his life, sayin gmas and hearing confessions for up ot 19 hours per day.

The church is always very careful with mystics, knowing full well that if they support the claims of a false mystic, it would do great harm to the faith. Because there is no corresponding advantage to the faithful to believe the mystics, the church only identifies them as credible after significant investigation, including the claims of the most vehement skeptics to insure that they can be answered. The documentation is open to all, I believe through the vatican website.

CCNL, you look for every reason not to believe. Why aren't 56 documented miracles over 43 years enough for you?

--" If you want to make successful choices, drop the faith."

Well, *that* is the fallacy of a False choice, Hewitt1. Religion and faith are about dealing with the problem of existence and discovering the nature of God. How do either of these characteristics interfere with making successful choices in day to day life? Religious folk have just as successful and fulfilling lives as do non-religious.

Concerned the CroissantConcerned the Croissant Concerned the Croissant:

What a Pharisee you are!! So stupid of Christ preaching only to the poor and obscure and the Virgin appearing to the humble and pure of heart. They should have appeared to you, eh? But you are too brainwashed to have recognized them. You'd have had to check with Crossan first in any case.

You cannot be negative about negativity or else you become negative; therefore, you must approve of negativity. That is the essence of Giess's argument. To state it, is to refute it.

There is nothing illogical about Bill Maher criticizing instead of praising organized religion. Is there something wrong about pointing out fallacy without describing its emotional benefits?

Maher is is simply correct. Faith, which is defined as belief regardless of fact or reason, is irrational. Irrational belief, particularly when it is organized, hurts more people than it can help. Take faith into a casino and see how far it gets you. Life is no different. If you want to make successful choices, drop the faith.

Paul, Paul, Paul,

Even the RCC is very skeptical about the hallucinations at Lourdes and Fatima i.e. no requirement that RCs even need to believe in them.

And you don't find it odd that the virgin only appears to the very impressionable and uneducated ??

The Lourde's "Miracles"

"Faith or pharmacy?

http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/02/life/33.php

It is interesting to compare the number of cures recognised before and after the establishment of the medical bureau in 1947. The ratio of cures to sick pilgrims before 1914 was 1:100. From 1914 to 1928 it was 1:700, but from 1928 to 1947 it was 1:1600. In all, 5000 cures were claimed before 1947. From 1947 to 1990, only 1000 cures were claimed and only 56 were recognised in that time, averaging 1.3 cures a year, against 57 a year before 1914.

It can be inferred from this that medicine has transformed society and the faithful sick no longer came to Lourdes for a cure but rely on medicine. Since the 1960s we have seen a consistent decline in the number of possible cures claimed. The doctors working in the medical bureau have presented philosophical problems in serving both science and the church. As we make progress in medical knowledge, the area of the medically inexplicable grows smaller and deciding that treatments did not play a part in a cure is more difficult. Medical progress has, in a way, threatened the church for which miraculous healings were supreme in the worldly manifestation of faith. "

Pio, another of the uneducated miracle workers/intervenors was cannonized to keep the Italians in the fold and to increase the sales of Pio baseball hats and useless trinkets. Very strange that he would never allow the Vatican authorities to check his claims of a stigmata!!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-who-was-padre-pio-and-why-is-he-the-cause-of-such-controversy-815377.html

"The friars responsible for his exhumation have firmly denied rumours that a finger of the saint is to be removed and presented to the Pope, or that any other relics are to be plundered from the corpse, but if they were there is no doubt that they would be in great demand. As it is, the tawdry souvenir shops around San Giovanni Rotondo, crammed with life-size and half-size Padre Pio statues as well as, ashtrays, pens, keyrings, mugs, T-shirts, calendars, rosaries, cigarette lighters, snowstorms and much else adorned with his image, bear witness to the fact that any tangible reminder of the saint is regarded as better than none by his followers. "

"For several decades spanning the Second World War, when the Church saw its task as seeking a rapprochement with the modern, secular world rather than confronting it head on, Padre Pio was a grave embarrassment. It was not just the miracle cures, which brought a powerful reek of the Middle Ages; he was also widely suspected of being a fraud. Doubters noted that he wore fingerless mittens to cover the ugly sores. Padre Pio claimed that the blood was constantly flowing from the wounds, but many in the church maintained that the wounds were self-inflicted and that he kept them open by dousing them with acid, a view supposedly confirmed last year in a new book containing the account of a woman who procured acid from him from a chemist's shop.

Were there other doubts about his authenticity?

No fewer than 23 separate claims that he had faked miracles and had sex with women parishioners, in the confessional box or in his cell, were investigated. The "odour of sanctity" that followed him around was believed to have been obtained from eau de cologne, and for the long periods that these claims were investigated the friar was banned from celebrating Mass. Pope John XXIII, the modernising Pope behind the Second Vatican Council, was even reported to have had the turbulent friar's confessionals bugged, to keep tabs on his activities.

So all these accusations were found to be groundless?

Let's say that Padre Pio benefited from a dramatic change of mood at the Vatican, coinciding with the arrival of Pope John Paul II. The Polish pope had been a devotee of Padre Pio's from his youth, travelling all the way from Warsaw to Puglia in 1947 so that the friar could hear his confession. Many years later, when Karol Wojtyla was auxiliary Bishop of Krakow, he asked the friar's intercession for a woman friend suffering from throat cancer who dramatically recovered 11 days later.

With this conviction of the authenticity of Padre Pio's sanctity in his past, John Paul II was quick to rehabilitate him, and in June 2002, before a crowd of half a million in St Peter's Square in Rome he pronounced him a saint, the 462nd saint he had created, as St Pio of Pietrelcina, the name of the village where he was born.

San Giovanni's friars hope that their patron's rehabilitation will be cemented by a visit from Pope Benedict – though for now the Vatican is remaining silent on the matter.

So is the Padre a true miracle worker?

Yes...

* The seven million pilgrims who flock to San Giovanni Rotondo every year can't be wrong

* He's done more to turn around the economy of rural southern Italy than 61 Italian governments

* He's forced an often intransigent Church to accommodate him and his deeds

No...

* While some in the Church establishment have accepted him, others remain hostile

* While John Paul II declared him a saint, Pope Benedict has yet to visit San Giovanni

* The awkward questions about the origin of his stigmata won't go away"

As noted by many religious exegetes:

"Miracles do not happen except through a mental desire or faith to be cured since miracles violate natural law. If God were involved in our daily lives, cures would not be needed. You cannot have it both ways."

"Curing the sick in the NT?? There is no medical documentation of this because there was no diagnostic tools for said sicknesses in first century Palestine. And many miracles, are single attestations and were added to the NT to embellish Jesus' biography. "

"Also the "miracles" were added to the NT to compete with the local "voodooers of the hoodoo", the resurrection was added to compete with Roman and Greek gods and the "pretty wingie thingies" and "demons of the demented added to continue the fear and superstitions of the ancients!!!!!"

And please for your own safety, never stare at the Sun. It does not spin but it can burn your corneas real quick!!

God is a metaphor with different meanings accross different cultures.

I don't want to be so crass as to use insults to people who differ in opinion from me.

There are believers I love in my family and there are non-believers I don't think are very good people....and vice versa.

Satire is a good tool to open one's mind if it cuts both ways.

In the end, the dangerous thing is the belief of the possession of absolute knowledge, which both non-believers and believers can be drawn into.

Luckily, most of us keep a healthy doubt in our mind.

Paul C2,

Yes,you are right.

Let me tell you *concrete evidance*
2000 years ago,the World was flat,but,at present time,the World is round.
Only God(s),who is/are too immense for us to measure,can make *flat world* round one.
Nobody can deny this *concrete evidence*

The main difference between the Christian right and those that mock them?

Those that mock the Christian right aren't fighting to deny them health care, housing, jobs, and a decent shot at a stable life.

Whereas the Christian right is fighting hard to deny me and my gay friends all those things.

It's funny how they are outraged when they are mocked, but they think nothing of trying to destroy the lives and families of others.

This comment: "Since there is absolutely no concrete evidence of a god or gods, then there cannot be a god or gods. Now if just one person would show us some actual proof of a god, then a dialog could begin." is false on two fronts.

==> Just because you don't have "concrete" evidence of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For instance, you don't have concrete that love exists, but do you deny its existence?

==> there actually is plenty of concrete evidence that God exists. Although God is too immense for us to measure directly, we can observe the universe around us and infer his existence by his works (same principle used to infer the existence of black holes, for instance). We can see that the universe is orderly, following a set of physical rules (like gravity), built on a common set of building subatomic building blocks (photons, electrons, neutrons),and following a set of universal constants (like pi, phi, etc). Such order requires extreme intelligence and extreme power to put into and maintain in place. Our word for the entity capable of doing this is God.

Getting into more detail, we have eyewitness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and an additional 2000 years of supernatural events that support his claim that he is the son of God. In recent times, we have the miraculaous creating of the stream at Lourdes in 1858 and the numerous well documented, miraculous healings that have occured there since that time. We have the dancing of the sun, witnessed by 70,000 people (including many previous skeptics) at Fatima in 1917. We have the stigmata of Padre Pio, who died in 1969. We have the incorruptability of many Catholic saints, long dead but yet perserved. I know the skeptics will wave all of this away without investigating it at all, but to those that have witnessed or investigated these things, they are powerful proof of the truth of the Christian faith. The proof is there for those who look. For those whose eyes are closed to the possibility, nothing can help them but a change of heart.

Satire is better than reason in attacking religion. Believers do not respond to reason but no one wants to be ridiculous. Keep the satire going. Voltaire did it and succeeded in de-Christianizing a large part of the French middle and upper classes.

Saw the movie and loved it - as I think most of the packed cinema did, too.

I can only hope that Americans are becoming tired of the religious idiots who deny fact for faith in fiction.

Why are they selective in the myths that they perpetuate. Other than Santa Clause, which keeps the winter econmoy running, why aren't there any Jack In The Beanstalk or Humpty Dumpty Churches? They are just as believable. . .

onofrio :

Well said, brother.

Carstonio :

These myths started before humans began to write them down. They provide reference points in the complexities that is our existence. If they didn't contain war, ignorance, and hate - they wouldn't be human. But, of course, they also contain peace, knowledge, and love - the true ingrediants to live a content life.

If one reads them as historical facts, and there is history in them, I think the point is missed. Religion a relection of our soul (I mean it metaphorically).

bartedson :

And what about the fascinating and often beautiful intricacies and paradoxes of the belief the Elvis is still alive?

Yes, there is nothing in our modern culture that is more like the fervant religious feeling of being truely alive than a rock concert. The music and lyrics fill that hole.

God - John Lennon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3ic6OOXns

God Part 2 - U2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHXkv0A5IaE

Religions aren't the cause of wars, the struggle for natural and human resources causes wars. Religion is used to fire up the troops...

Love

*the Gods are not concrete,however evident*

If it is *evident*,how can not it be concrete ?

": Since there is absolutely no concrete evidence of a god or gods, then there cannot be a god or gods. Now if just one person would show us some actual proof of a god, then a dialog could begin."

Well, I'd say the Gods are not concrete, however evident.

Frankly, if authoritarian monotheists and atheists both could get over whatever this is supposed to 'prove,' then maybe we could all get on with life.

What a ridiculous article!

I especially enjoyed the line about the "fascinating and often beautiful intricacies and paradoxes of religious belief."

Yeah. Uh-huh.

And what about the fascinating and often beautiful intricacies and paradoxes of the belief the Elvis is still alive?

Or what about the fascinating and often beautiful intricacies and paradoxes of the belief that Zeus and Apollo rule the universe from atop Mt. Olympus?

I guess to the author, it is obvious that Bill Maher is just a shallow man who isn't "for" anything.

Newflash: being against irrational, destructive belief systems that elect morons to the US Presidency is being "for" the United States of America.

What's the problem? Maher is simply saying religion is ridiculous...hence - Religulous.

And he's right, it is!

It's also very very dangerous as we learned on 9/11.
And that was perhaps Maher's main point.

Because if religion was just silly and harmless, atheists like Maher, and Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and others, wouldn't be so opposed to it.
But it IS dangerous as well as ridiculous and that's a problem we should all be worried about.

Religion destroyed the World Trade Center.

It's religulous.

Science can tell me how a tree grows, and classify its type, and explain its properties, but it can’t give me words to express my delight in a tree’s shade. Science is the language of facts; it cannot mediate the values, impressions, hopes, and convictions that are the essence of human experience. Such subjectivities are addressed by religion, metaphysics, visual art, music, poetry – all of which can be done well or poorly, and can be used for good or ill. By all means, let folly be ridiculed, but let it not be at the expense of wisdom.

FriendEnemy,

"A myth isn't a fairy tale that has no truth. It is a story that uses metaphor to explain
the universe and human existence and experiences."

That's certainly a good way for audiences to read myths. Part of the issue is how did the authors of the myths intend for them to be read or received - as teaching stories, as literal historical and scientific fact, or some of both? The other part of the issue is that many people do insist that their religions' myths are literal historical and scientific fact. When they do so, then challenging the factual accuracy of the myths is not only fair but necessary.

Religion is not about science.

A mythology is an organization of symbolic images and narratives, metaphorical of the possibilities of human experience and the fulfillment of a given culture at a given time. A myth isn't a fairy tale that has no truth. It is a story that uses metaphor to explain
the universe and human existence and experiences.

I think Maher is funny in the say way Bill O'Reilly is funny.

"Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply one scientific fact: Since there is absolutely no concrete evidence of a god or gods, then there cannot be a god or gods. Now if just one person would show us some actual proof of a god, then a dialog could begin."

While you're right about the lack of evidence, in the interest of intellectual honesty I cannot flatly rule out the possibility of gods, however remote that possibility may be.

And for the title of the sequel, "Pagadupidity", "Wiccaposterous", "god, going, going Gone", "Mcholycow", and/or "Buddhabsese"?????

Can't fault a satire for being satire. It's called 'Religulous,' ...ie the Bush-esque malapropism, not 'Religious.' I haven't seen it yet, myself, but the mere fact he only makes fun of the make-funnable... That doesn't bother me.

I don't go to the guy for my theology, ...frankly, I wouldn't understand him to *get* it unless he applied himself. I go to him for *satire,* ....So he's smug. Occupational hazard.

Currency Trader,

There is only one *truth*
English Pound tumbles,plunges,slumps,dives,drops,declines.Now,1.72
When I asked your opinion about GBP,it was 1.78
Freefall.

*Catholic* Tony Blair resigned and England is marching to economic meltdown.
Barclays,RBS,HSBC(cult banks of England) needs 50 Billion Pound.B&B gone.

There is only one *truth*,if there are *truths*(although the truths differ),that means they are not.

I haven't seen the film, but I probably will. Maher is a gadfly and so far, we haven't been burning his type at the stake, although he has paid for defending his right to free speech. His television show was canceled because he said something our Born Again prez didn't like.

I doubt that his film is going to net 700,000,000 for him as did the hate film The Passion of the Christ for Mel Gibson. That would be the same film that first opened in Dubai and then was given weeks of publicity by all the major TV networks. Its first scheduled US opening was in a Muslim community, but as the days went on and the hype escalated, openings were announced elsewhere. I doubt too that Maher, who does have a mind, will have Biblical figures speaking in Latin, providing for unintentionally hilarious scenes.

We cannot deny that religion has often figured in horrific conflicts, has fomented hate and still does. I congratulate Maher for his courage. Believers and agnostics, even atheists/cultural Catholics,Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc., need to take a good hard look at themselves and they need to do it every day.

Here's the trailer for City of Ember:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hF72jiaj5Y

As a athiest/agnostic/panthiest/Catholic, I say read a good book or hang out with your family.

You can take your kids to see the 'City of Ember' which comes out this weekend instead. I read the book and it was really good. I hear Bill Murray is playing the mayor.

Love.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply one scientific fact: Since there is absolutely no concrete evidence of a god or gods, then there cannot be a god or gods. Now if just one person would show us some actual proof of a god, then a dialog could begin. If all the religionists would just google "veracity of bible", then s/he would quickly see that the stories in the bible are just that. There is no outside evidence of Abraham or Moses or the virgin mother; there is virtually no evidence of David, Solomon or even Jesus. The whole Jesus mythology was taken from earlier Egyptian, Persian and Indian myths almost word for word. So don't mock atheists unless you have some real proof of your belief system. Up to now, bible stories, torah stories, koran stories and mormon stories are no different than fairy tales, santa claus or the easter bunny. Thanks, Bill Maher, for helping to point this out.

Astoria: "Does it make me laugh? If it does, it is a successful comedy (IMHO)."

Of course the movie was probably funny. But it's not being billed as a comedy, but as a documentary.

I asked this question on a review of the movie: What's the difference between a documentary and a hatchet-job? I still haven't received a decent answer...

Mary Cunningham wrote, "Maher is a two-bit comedian looking to make a buck from fellow athiest. More power to him but don't pretend he's saying anything profound. He's not."

I haven't seen the movie, nor am I likely to. According to the reviews I've read, Mr. Maher only talks to regular religious folks or anyone who might have an intellectual approach to their faith. Instead, he seems to focus on the fringe elements and (like the militant atheists he claims to despise) uses them as strawmen to knock down all religion.

But of course, he's under no obligation to be profound and actually say something valuable. As the trial of Socrates proved so long ago, it's so much easier to mock than to actually argue. Unfortunately, much of intellectualism today is focused solely on mocking, so maybe Mr. Maher thinks he is being profound...

Religion has been part of the human experience since the dawn of time. One wonders that if it is so dangerous, why it hasn't destroyed us prior to this point?

I have a simple criteria for comedies.

Does it make me laugh? If it does, it is a successful comedy (IMHO).

Intolerance of any kind accomplishes nothing.

Religion deals with the problem of existence and the nature of God. All religions have rituals in their attempt to access these 'truths', although the truths differ. Most, but not all, of humankind also possess a yearning towards, well, the numinous for want of a better word, of which CBorn1 wrote.

Maher is a two-bit comedian looking to make a buck from fellow athiest. More power to him but don't pretend he's saying anything profound. He's not.

One can certainly discuss whether ridicule is politically the most effective critique, but the fact is that most religions make truth claims which, though possibly hard to evaluate, are ultimately true or false. Therefore, these questions really are the province of science.

Many religious intellectuals profess to hold "nuanced" beliefs, but I have never seen a "nuanced" religious belief that is more than an obfuscation of an irrational belief.

Religious truth claims should be tested by science even if some religious people say they cannot. (And many religious people, after claiming that their beliefs are fundamentally untestable, flock to any scientific study that seems at first blush to support their worldviews.)

It is worth noting that people like Maher, along with atheist intellectuals like Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, are constantly tarred with the "intolerant" epithet, often by supposedly tolerant, "nuanced," happy interfaith people who hold the belief that their god will punish the rest of us with an eternity in hell.

Sure, there are other important questions besides whether some religion or other is true. I'm happy that people of different faiths try to get together and work for the common good, just like Republicans and Democrats sometimes do (as long as they include those of us with no faith). But that does not mean we should shy away from questioning each other's beliefs, especially when religious belief has such profound consequences on human behavior.

Despite all the arguments of Maher's ridiculing of religions and their ideological quirks, the author quotes Maher, "'but merely questions the "bells and whistles" of organized religion, calling it "the ultimate hustle.'" Well, putting all the minutiae aside, Maher is spot on. What is the dominant religious force striving for hegemony in America today is the "Faith and Values Industry". The building of corporate style morality on a scale that would impress Henry Ford. Combine the desire with the ability to reach prospective followers worldwide via mass media techniques and you have a powerful force seeking more than just souls.

To answer "conversationalatheist" above...

A beautifully intricate religious belief could be something along the lines of standing on a mountain top at sunset and looking out and feeling a sense of sheer awe and contingency...feeling the sense that, somehow, we are part of something bigger. It is in a pull to believe in something "greater".

Religious belief at its core is not dogmas and rules. It is a sensation or, as Rudolf Otto puts it, an experience of the holy - mysterium tremendum et fascinations. This is not irrational - it is arational. The issue comes when these feelings have to be made manifest in some way. Humans tend to want to concretize the religious feeling into rituals and dogmas. This is where conflict arises among religions and between the religious and atheistic and agnostic.

The paradox is that reason tries to pull us one way while another sense (the religious sense) pulls us another. But humans have a hard time living with paradox...so we try to explain the religious feeling and make it rational. It will never be rational or reasonable to believe in something one cannot prove (or disprove for that matter). But this does not mean that the religious feeling itself needs to be dismissed.

Hope this helps.

Maher has to be right in his mind, just as the next person does.

Simple acceptance of the "other" and their views is not of the nature of the human ego. This is the root of all conflict. If one needs a personification or label, the ego could be called the "devil" on this planet.

Bill Maher has a conditioned set of beliefs, so does a religious person....and each one has a need to be "right". Egos are nothing more than bundles of habits, memories and contradictory beliefs; wars are fought over the inherent differences.

When the bible says to die daily, it must be referring to the ego in each of us. A tough job, clearly. Basically, nothing of a fundamental nature seems to change in most humans, no matter the age. Plato and others lamented on these core frailties 2400 years ago.

Religion has all the veracity of Astrology,and SHOULD be ridiculed in this scientific age.

I'm sure astrology was ridiculed before it was dumped as a source of knowledge.

Religion is about two hundred years past its best before date. We have science now. We don't need silly old superstitions as a guide to anything.

Out with religion.

Religulous is not 'ridiculous;' It is ridicule.

And as Thomas Jefferson suggested, at some point ridicule is the only weapon against nonsense.

When it comes to the nonsense of religion, that point has long since been passed.

The thing that always gets me about the outrage over 'Religulous' is that Maher's documentary doesn't do anything that theists/believers haven't been doing for centuries. You want (and honestly I want) more attention to nuance and subtlety when discussing religion. I also want more attention to nuance and subtlety when discussing non-belief. I encourage the author to take an internet stroll through the threads here on 'On Faith' to see the way that non-believers are discussed, dismissed, and demeaned by theists with far less attention to facts, let alone subtleties, than Mr. Maher uses in 'Religulous.'

"They do it so we should do it too" is a poor argument for anything. And in reality, I'm not making it. (If Maher had intended to foster real discussion I'm sure he could have done much better, though it probably would have cut into his profits.) But I wonder why his documentary is singled out for attack for engaging in dubious arguments while the dubious arguments of the religious community are treated as sacred cows.

According to Colin Kerr, author of "A Heaven-Backed Rebellion," today's polarization between the religious right and the secular left is weakening both sides. Kerr builds the contrarian's case that theologically conservative Christians should actually be political liberals while the typically Christo-phobic Left must reinstall an explicitly Christ-centered engine to the progressive movement. Please weigh this viewpoint in future reports!

You won't get any specifics because the writer falls into the commits the same erros she accuses Bill Maher has committed.

I quote:

"It's easier to point out the flaws of people who are not like you."

"He paints a flat picture of religious belief - irrational, unscientific, even moronic - without exploring the fascinating and often beautiful intricacies and paradoxes of religious belief."

I'd be really interested in an elaboration about what kinds of things the author is referring to in this statement.

Would the belief in the virgin birth of Jesus count as a irrational belief that's being unfairly targeted?

Or the physical resurrection of Jesus?

What would count as a beautifully intricate religious belief that's not irrational, unscientific, or moronic?

I'd really like to see some specifics...