Caesar Renders Unto the Holiday

Dear Mr. Niebuhr,

I like what you said about it being out of place for Americans to have to protect or affirm our Constitutional freedoms. But I believe those freedoms are unfortunately under attack, and so I support HR 847.

I don't believe, however, that there is any whiff of an establishment of a state religion with this resolution. The Constitution (Amendment 1) reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”. First, HR 847 is not a law, and second, it does not seek to establish Christianity as our nation’s religion.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution is about protecting religion and free speech, and HR 847 is only protecting Christianity and Christmas, not establishing it as a state religion. It is just sad to me that there is a need to protect it.

Finally, I believe in Jesus Christ, and testify that He is the Son of God. I respect the good, peaceful beliefs of others, and encourage them to peaceably worship however they wish.

Wwaaawww! What about the ToothFairy and the Great Pumpkin; this is raank discrimination!

Dear Jihadist -

Thanks for the response.

I defended Hichens because I took exception to your post that suggested very strongly that excessive drinking or smoking or the over-indulgence of any other vice equated to being a disqualifying factor in assessing the quality and value of anybody's writings, or, indeed, of their world view.

Set that as a standard and you need to toss out 95% of the art, music and literature ever created by men. I think you'd agree that while Mickey Mantle's heavy drinking may have well hurt his own hitting statistics, it didn't make his enviable achievements any less enviable, and it certainly didn't elevate the mediocre achievements of others to a higher status that they otherwise failed to achieve.

Your comparing Hitchens to other contemporary "atheist" writers, on the other hand, is more than acceptable, as are any conclusions you draw for yourself.

Later.

Mr. Mark : "Yes. Isn't it amazing that Christopher Hitchens can run circles of erudition around all of us, even when and if he's in his cups?"

I know you are a fan of Mr. Christopher Hitchens and took on Hitchens' term to describe himself, "anti-theist", as yours too.

One has to rate atheist writers with other atheist writers too. Of contemporary atheist writers, I rate Dawkins', Berlinerblau's and Jacoby's books as better informed, better researched and more erudite than his.

So, Hitchens is my favourite clown prince among atheists. No accounting for taste, eh? :)

Regards
"J"

Dear TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

Wow. You are a piss-poor debater.

Read your last post and notice how many times your answers start with the words, "I believe that," or, "I don't think," or with replies that amount to nothing more than pure, unsubstantiated opinion

Anyone can play that game. Let me answer some of your points:

"Are your eyes closed to the government's scandalous intrusion into Christian's beliefs?"

My eyes are wide open and I see no such intrusion. Indeed, all of the evidence points to the opposite being true.

"Have you not found a whiff of indignation here?"

I smell your whiff of indination, but I don't see why it's there.

"Have you closed your eyes to the “Piss Christ” piece, the winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts?"

It was great piece of art that well-deserved every award it garnered. What's your point?

"Did Chris Ofili's “The Virgin Mary” equally pique your ire when displayed in the Brooklyn Museum? It depicted a Black African Mary surrounded by images from blaxploitation movies and close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, and elephant dung? "

It's symbolism was both effective and timely, especially in light of the RCC's fighting the use of condoms in Africa.

"Was it not an insult to Catholicism?"

No, it wasn't. Is it an insult to bush to say he went to war in Iraq based on lies that he knew were lies?

BTW - re: Constantine and the pagan religions. Christianity itself is based on pagan beliefs, no more so than in what miraculous attributes accrue to a godman.

CAESAR RENDERS UNTO THE HOLIDAY

IN REPLY TO:
“I couldn't vote for this bill. I don't like that whiff of defensiveness that clings to it, as if the authors had spent too much time thinking about an alleged 'war on Christmas'."

ANS:
Recognizing the great contributions of Christianity has a bad smell? Christianity doesn’t need recognition for what it has accomplished? Those unique Founding Father's ideas you mention didn’t just come out of thin air. They came from some two thousand years of Christian teachings of traditional moral wisdom. They are the defense of human nature and the moral laws that this country was founded on.

Some nations don’t get it; we did. Nations like Russia, China, the Middle East, Pakistan, and India are societies in turmoil and constantly in unrest because they denounce Christian morality.

Moreover, it is not an alleged war. I believe it is a concerted, perverse, and pervasive effort to X Christ out of Christmas, namely, XMAS for Christmas.

Wal-Mart’s attempt to take Christmas out of Wal-Mart was not just subjective or alleged. Government taking the Creech and the “Ten Commandments,” the moral basis for our nation, out of the Public Square isn't alleged.

Are your eyes closed to the government's scandalous intrusion into Christian's beliefs? Have you not found a whiff of indignation here? Have you closed your eyes to the “Piss Christ” piece, the winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts?

Did Chris Ofili's “The Virgin Mary” equally pique your ire when displayed in the Brooklyn Museum? It depicted a Black African Mary surrounded by images from blaxploitation movies and close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, and elephant dung? Was it not an insult to Catholicism?

Ofili's porn images were formed into shapes reminiscent of the cherubim and seraphim commonly depicted in images of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

This opprobrious scandal by Ofili prompted Bernard Goldberg to rank Ofili #86 in "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. " Moreover, the abomination was unwittingly subsidized by the government. A protest against it was labeled by the mainstream media as censorship.

Moreover, there is a premeditated assault on religion in the public schools. I don’t think permitting gay club and not Christian club meetings after school hours in public schools was alleged. Banning Christian expression from public school students, even in prayers before meals isn’t just alleged. Bans on Christian expression are ubiquitous.

Christmas is no longer called Christmas in many public forums; that should tell you something. It's officially called winter holidays.

Subsequently, the Court has manifested an all out war on Christian moral principles, a.k.a. the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and has effectively redefined the nature of man and marriage.

Consequently, Justice Stevens, heading the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg--proscribed the basic foundations of Civil Law. In Lawrence v. Texas, Stephens wrote that Traditional Moral Values serve no useful purpose to society, and therefore have no standing in Civil Law. More over the apocalyptic court has caused the legal murder over 48 million unborn.

IN REPLY TO:
“Don't be overly impressed by crowds, I recall him saying. Wise and memorable words.”

No, don’t be impressed by numbers; be impressed by what Christianity has accomplished not only in the world but for our country alone.

During the foundation of this country, Christianity was the vanguard of education, hospitals orphanages, charities, and was the moral basis guaranteeing our inalienable rights, stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

IN REPLY TO:
“If Congress wants to honor Christianity... Gee, I can't finish that sentence. It seems out of place here in America,

ANS:
I don’t’ think eulogizing the successes of Christianity is making it a State religion, nor does HR847 make politicians theologians. To the contrary, the encomium is paying a debt of well-deserved gratitude and recognition to the Christian moral guidance our country has relied on since its existence and its greatness.

IN REPLY TO:
HR 847 "a near recognition of a state religion and taking us back to Emperor Constantine"

ANS:
I believe the people under Constantine the Great were fortunate. Yes, he made Christianity the State’s religion, thank God, he did, and Rome was the better for it.

Though not perfect, Constantine sought to elevate morality, and punished with great severity the offenses against morals that the pagan worship had encouraged. He aided the emancipation of slaves and ameliorated their punishment, while polytheism was allowed. Constantine did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker members of society whom the old Roman law had treated harshly.

Christians were severely persecuted by the barbarians, children were exposed, mutilated, and sold on the open markets. Thanks to Christianity under the auspices of Constantine that was put to a stop.

Nowhere has Christianity cause the destruction of a nation. To the contrary, its refutation has destroyed and caused the upheaval of many.

JIHADIST writes:
"I spoke to God."

Atheist : Impossible!

Agnotic : Improbable.

Thiest : Preposterous!

Hitchens : Ridiculous! Hic! Burrrppp......cough, cough."

Yes. Isn't it amazing that Christopher Hitchens can run circles of erudition around all of us, even when and if he's in his cups?

"I spoke to God."

Atheist : Impossible!

Agnotic : Improbable.

Thiest : Preposterous!

Hitchens : Ridiculous! Hic! Burrrppp......cough, cough.

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

I prefer the term "preposterous". Improbable implies a rational basis for postulating gods' existence. Preposterous correctly indicates that the idea has no basis in fact. And of course, the preposterousness rises with the presentation of specifics. And when the specifics blatantly fly in the face of fact the word "ridiculous" is appropriate. Lest anyone think this too harsh, I would ask, "If THAT'S not ridiculous, what IS?"

Dear Pam -

Anon wrote that it was "impossible" that I ever thought like him, when the more-exact word would have been "improbable."

I have never said that it is impossible that god(s) exists, just that it is highly improbable that he (they) does (do). I'd also think that the degree of improbability rises the more-specifically one defines any particular god.

The word "improbable" is a perfectly good word. It's a shame we don't use it more.

Anon wrote:

"My lengthy post above argues that the atheist argument logically leads to the conclusion that life is a series of sensations because our existence is just that. Yet atheists do see a purpose to their lives just like everyone else. And there lies the paradox of atheism."

Hmm. Two-thirds of the people on earth don't believe in the Judeo-Xian god. They believe in different gods or no gods. Those people also see a purpose to their lives, but they're believing in what Xians would term false or even non-existent gods. In your words, we might say, "non-Xian theists want to appreciate the meaning of life while stating that there is no God but their god, which isn't the Xian god." I guess there's a paradox there as well.

16% of the world's population are atheists. Their disbelief in the Xian god is on par with the disbelief of the religious people on earth who aren't Xians. Seems to me that the raw numbers indicate that the paradox lies not with the atheists or the non-Xian religious, but with the Xians being able to find purpose in life as they're the minority that's out-of-step with the disbelief of the rest of us.

"A promise fulfilled is by definition, not empty."

And your proof that a promise had been fulfilled would be...? The dictionary defines "fulfilled" as "to be converted into reality." The dictionary defines "reality" as, "the quality or state of being real." The dictionary defines "real" as, "occurring or existing in actuality; existing as a physical entity; having OBJECTIVE independent existence."

Can you offer any proof whatsoever beyond mere opinion or conjecture, ie: OBJECTIVE proof, that the Bible's promises of eternal life have been "converted into reality?" Would your proof of a religious promise being fulfilled meet the level of proof you would demand for a non-religious promise to be considered fulfilled, say, if your wife had promised to make pork chops for dinner, or is the bar for religious "proof" set so low as to require no bar at all?

"No. Atheists and Christians are all God's children, all have a higher purpose and all their lives have meaning."

That's an opinion, and an opinion formed out of whole cloth, to boot. That's not a fact. A few facts would be: Atheists and Christians are all primates, or, atheists and Xians are all biological life forms.

You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but you're not entitled to your facts. As long as you started with citing the dictionary, here's the definition for the word fact:

"the quality of being actual: actuality; something that has actual existence; b: an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality."

Objective reality. I like that! Where's the objective proof for god that forms the basis of your statements and your beliefs, and for your statement that your religion's promises have been fulfilled?

Later.

Anony wrote (way up above): "Just a philosophical point to make that it is logical that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting God exists and (b) there will be no evidence for Him".

I'm amazed that no one called him on this. I certainly got a big belly laugh out of it. LOGICAL??? Are you serious?? Whatever this might be, it has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

Anony, you state (not so far above) that it is impossible (you used all caps) that Mr. Mark ever believed as you do. It may seem so to your tortuous worldview, but stranger things have certainly happened. Have you ever heard of Bart Ehrman? He was so religious that he made himself fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek, just so he could read the ancient texts that became the Bible in their original, untainted language. He felt that he couldn't get close enough to the Truth any other way. Read the WaPo story on the result:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

I recommend his books.

"a-HA! Now I understand what you mean, and am no longer insulted. :-)"

Im glad.

"My lengthy post above argues that the atheist argument logically leads to the conclusion that life is a series of sensations because our existence is just that. Yet atheists do see a purpose to their lives just like everyone else. And there lies the paradox of atheism."

a-HA! Now I understand what you mean, and am no longer insulted. :-)

ADDENDUM:

"But what empty promises they are."

A promise fulfilled is by definition, not empty.

"

Dear Anon -

Thanks for the response.

It's clear that you have bought the promises of the Christian religion lock, stock and barrel. But what empty promises they are.

Later."

Well I guess the exchange of ideas is over. Alls well that ends well.

"So I'm not really an atheist, just an agnostic."

That is an entirely different issue from my lengthy, "sensational" (pun intended) post.

"To clarify, you are saying then that, because I don't believe in God, my feelings are "just sensation with no purpose or meaning," despite my belief to the contrary?"

No. Atheists and Christians are all God's children, all have a higher purpose and all their lives have meaning. You can accept or reject God, that is use of the free will granted to us.

My lengthy post above argues that the atheist argument logically leads to the conclusion that life is a series of sensations because our existence is just that. Yet atheists do see a purpose to their lives just like everyone else. And there lies the paradox of atheism.

Anonymous:
"Louiselilly, that is precisely my point. Atheists want to appreciate the meaning of life while stating that there is no God. The content of my writing simply argues that that is an illogical stance."

To clarify, you are saying then that, because I don't believe in God, my feelings are "just sensation with no purpose or meaning," despite my belief to the contrary?

"Frankly, I find the idea that human beings evolved into the amazing creatures that they are no less miraculous than the idea that a supreme being created them."

From Dictionary.com

mi·rac·u·lous

1. performed by or involving a supernatural power or agency: a miraculous cure.
2. of the nature of a miracle; marvelous.
3. having or seeming to have the power to work miracles: miraculous drugs.

Something miraculous, means attributable or having the qualities as derived from a higher being.

Evolution and God are not diametrically opposed regardless of what some might say. Personally, I think a lump of clay let alone us is just as miraculous.

Dear Anon -

Thanks for the response.

It's clear that you have bought the promises of the Christian religion lock, stock and barrel. But what empty promises they are.

Later.

Just wanted to add: while I cannot in honesty say I believe in the Christian God, I also in honesty cannot say I DISbelieve that there could be a God. So I'm not really an atheist, just an agnostic. In some ways, I envy those who DO believe because I've seen how faith can sustain people during difficult times (my mother, for instance). But what makes someone believe? I asked this of a good friend who is very religious, and he said he simply made a choice to believe. But how does one simply choose to believe something for which one has no evidence? How does making the intellectual decision to believe in God translate into actual belief if the questions and doubts you have are still unaddressed?

Louiselilly, that is precisely my point. Atheists want to appreciate the meaning of life while stating that there is no God. The content of my writing simply argues that that is an illogical stance.

anonymous writes:

"Without God, our lives are nothing more than mere sensation. It matters nothing if people laugh or cry, live or die, writhe in pain or ecstasy. Its just sensation with no purpose or meaning. There is no such thing as purpose or meaning to anything, if existence is without a relationship with God.

"Who cares if your kids live or die, be happy, go to school, learn how to drive...Life would mean nothing. Yet atheists attempt to create a blend of the beauty of life while dismissing the originator of that beauty. Im sure you disagree and will internalize and propagate some humanist school of thought. But that too means nothing, whats the difference between a human and a lump of clay (DNA? just a bunch of molecules just like silicon and iron, reproduction? just a really big complicated chemical reaction_a glorified metal rusting, brain activity: again just bunch of molecules working together)."

Are you saying that those of us who do not believe in a higher being or The One God are deceiving themselves if they believe they care whether "people laugh or cry, live or die, writhe in pain or ecstasy..."? I don't believe that my feelings are more or less genuine than yours just because I don't believe Jesus was the son of God or because I don't believe in Heaven and Hell. If my feelings are "just sensation with no purpose or meaning," then why do I bother to do my best to keep my parents happy and healthy? Why do I try to help my nephews who have lost their mother to cancer and who need all the love and support they can get? Just because I don't believe in God does not mean that my feelings and actions don't mean something to THEM. Could it be that, while you get meaning in your life from your faith, I get mine from a different source? Frankly, I find the idea that human beings evolved into the amazing creatures that they are no less miraculous than the idea that a supreme being created them.

"Do you actually believe that our survival as a species has no meaning unless there's an afterlife, and an afterlife ruled by a supernatural dictator?"

2 problems: I never said that an afterlife is THE reason a Christian's life has meaning. The afterlife of a true Christian is a continuation (albeit easier) of the relationship with God. It is you who deems God as a dictator, I never said or implied that. Quite the opposite, a loving Father is how true Christians see Him. And thus the beauty of an eternal relationship with Him.

"Your view of the world smacks of self-importance married to self-loathing. "

Quite the opposite, remember the tenet" Love thy neighbor AS THYSELF. Love of God leads to love of self.

"By your own measure, your life IS meaningless and worthless, as are those of your children and their children. Think about that the next time you look in their eyes."

By my own measure (after all, who best can describe my own measure but me) my life is meaningFUL because of the relationship with God. When I look in my child's eyes I see the grace and wonder of God. Thats is how my life receives warmth, joy, fulfillment and more importantly, meaning. Not because of some destination but because of my journey.

"How sad that you refuse to embrace the "godhood" of your own humanity..."

"...would give you the appearance of being a god to the MAN Jesus himself."

Very telling. That was the problem of the Fall of man. The desire to be like God. Strange that these Bronze Agers were spot on to use a timeless human element as the pivotal event in our separation from God. Aaah their insidious ploy!

"Let go of your religion-induced fear, guilt and lack of meaning. "

A little fear is a good thing, but too much fear also seperates us from God because we become blinded from his goodness (harken to John Paul II inaugural call: Do not be afraid!) By the same token, while it is true that guilt can be a destructive thing, a little guilt is good. Imagine a world without any guilt?!! A little guilt is the impetus to a correction. Lack of meaning? To you perhaps but not to all...

"No, I don't understand people like you, even though I thought like you do for most of my life."

Thats IMPOSSIBLE. From your posts and description of your viewpoints on what Christianity, Jesus and God is you most definitely NEVER thought like me, regardless of the Christian label.

"Best of luck to you in your life journey."

Luck has nothing to do with it. God be with you.

Dear Anonymous -

Thanks for your lengthy response.

Has it never occurred to you that life has meaning BECAUSE we are biological life forms with the ability to reason, and IN SPITE OF the fact that there is no god? Who says that god or an afterlife must exist for our present lives to have meaning? Are all baseball games played by the teams that don't win this year's World Series meaningless? Does working at a soup kitchen have no meaning if there's no god around to embrace the homeless once they die?

Do you actually believe that our survival as a species has no meaning unless there's an afterlife, and an afterlife ruled by a supernatural dictator? What if there's an afterlife and there's no god? Would that be meaningless as well? Is it possible that there's a meaningless eternity?

You are really hung up on god being THE item that gives your life purpose and meaning. How sad for you! Family, children, love, pleasure - all meaningless (and, ultimately, worthless) UNLESS something exists after death, a something for which there is absolutely no proof. Incredible that the PROOF of life's meaning standing before your very eyes means NOTHING to you when set against the UNPROVABLE fables of our species' Age of Fear.

Here's a philosophical morsel for you to chew on: what if (as George Carlin says) the only reason human beings evolved was to invent plastic so that Mother Earth might cover herself in a protective covering? No god, no afterlife, not even a chance that we'll be around for many more millennia. Guess what? Carlin's joke has as much validity as your belief in god.

Your view of the world smacks of self-importance married to self-loathing. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, yes, this world and this existence IS all we have. By your own measure, your life IS meaningless and worthless, as are those of your children and their children. Think about that the next time you look in their eyes.

How pathetic that you find no marvel or purpose in how things actually are! How sad that you refuse to embrace the "godhood" of your own humanity because the writings of a few men - MEN! - who knew less about the world around them and the heavens above them than does today's average fifth grader, and who codified their deep ignorance and overwhelming fears into a book of fiction - and who had the presumption to assert that THEIR words were the words of some omnipotent super being. How mind-boggling to learn that you live your life based on the proven ignorance of a few self-important Bronze Agers, rather than on your own humanity and a knowledge set that - were you alive in Biblical times - would give you the appearance of being a god to the MAN Jesus himself.

No, I don't understand people like you, even though I thought like you do for most of my life. Let go of your religion-induced fear, guilt and lack of meaning. Put away childish things and embrace the wonder and meaning of reality.

Best of luck to you in your life journey.

"So, you're the exception of which I wrote. I tempered my remarks by using the word "average." Roughly 210-million Americans self-identify as Xians. Would you term the majority of them, "Christians worth their love of God," who will, "tell you that it is a continual journey of revelation?" I"

Again your comment parallels Christian doctrine:

Matthew 7:13
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

"If most of them are on that journey, then can we agree that the Xians can now cut the crap about the USA going to hell in a hand basket because Xianity isn't a dominate enough force in our society?"

I would argue that 90% of Christians in the USA do not agree with the above statement (I realize how Unscientific my estimate, call it an educated guess). However, this also depends on what you deem as Christian-domination? Complaints about excessive sex and violence in our society? Mild attrition and purging of religious traditions due to to extremist interpretations of the Constitution? (I did say mild mind you).

"The show would examine the various versions of Xianity that flourished in the ancient world before Constantine brought down his Roman hammer."

You have a way with words to change the view of certain events. Allow me: Lets examine the various versions of governance that flourished in the ancient world before the Greeks brought down their democracy hammer. Changes the take on things doesnt it?
Various versions of Christianity were deemed heretical, it wasn't a whim of Constantine. Look up the constituents of Nicea. They were from all over the ancient world. An author of the Nicene Creed (aka the Orthodox Creed) was a young deacon at the time (future Pope, St.Athanasius). Your knee-jerk (as well as that of other liberals) against Constantine (and the established Churches) is symptomatic of the lets-fight-the-establishment mentality espoused by hippies of your generation (dont take this personally please, this comment is a sociological criticism).

"How many American Xians on their "continual journey of revelation" would 1) bother to tune in, and 2) having tuned in, would hear a whole bunch of stuff about their religion that they never heard from their church?"

For true Christians: Who cares? In both the OT and NT, we are not asked to have faith because of evidence or sign, that would not be faith. I realize thats your big beef but Im simply answering your query on people tuning in to your favorite show. Christian doctrine from 2000 yrs ago teaches that blessed are those who believe without seeing (could this have been an ancient ploy to dupe people through the ages...?? Or simply what was told to be the correct way for a trusting, loving relationship with God)

Your use of quotation marks regarding a continual journey...begs the question as to whether most American Christians are on such a journey:

Honestly. I do not know. That is the truthful answer. Because I cannot look in people's hearts, nor can I survey their lives and journeys through tribulations, sorrows, joy and relationship (if any) with their Maker. Even if I had the power I wouldnt make heads or toes of such a tapestry, or even find a comprehensible pattern. To put it jovially, my head would explode, simply because Im human.

Your arguments and posts focus on minute, minute aspects of the Christian faith. Church rules, politics, the fossil record. All these things are a drop in an ocean of the majesty and beauty of human existence and the purpose and relationship with God. You would disagree to the latter but may agree to the former. But you cant have it both ways.

Without God, our lives are nothing more than mere sensation. It matters nothing if people laugh or cry, live or die, writhe in pain or ecstasy. Its just sensation with no purpose or meaning. There is no such thing as purpose or meaning to anything, if existence is without a relationship with God.

Who cares if your kids live or die, be happy, go to school, learn how to drive...Life would mean nothing. Yet atheists attempt to create a blend of the beauty of life while dismissing the originator of that beauty. Im sure you disagree and will internalize and propagate some humanist school of thought. But that too means nothing, whats the difference between a human and a lump of clay (DNA? just a bunch of molecules just like silicon and iron, reproduction? just a really big complicated chemical reaction_a glorified metal rusting, brain activity: again just bunch of molecules working together).

Right and wrong? So what? Herd Instinct you say to prolong our survival? Our survival to what? To the oblivion/nothingness invariably found at the end. Life and death become synonyms for sensation and lack thereof respectively. Your sitting at your computer about to furiously type in keystrokes to rebut also mean nothing. Debate? So what? Existence becomes a bland tasteless series of sensation. Pride in your children, love of your wife, enjoyment of a good cup of coffee loses the importance you accord it because all it is sensation.

Just a philosophical morsel to chew on.

PS I prefer "Anonymous", its the most honest name.

Dear Anonymous -

So, you're the exception of which I wrote. I tempered my remarks by using the word "average." Roughly 210-million Americans self-identify as Xians. Would you term the majority of them, "Christians worth their love of God," who will, "tell you that it is a continual journey of revelation?" If most of them are on that journey, then can we agree that the Xians can now cut the crap about the USA going to hell in a hand basket because Xianity isn't a dominate enough force in our society?

Here's an idea: let's develop a TV show like Myth Busters that deals with the Bible. We could call it Biblical Myth Busters. The show would examine all of the "historical" aspects of the Bible and would present the pro and con evidence for things like the exodus, and how the laws of nature were suspended when the sun stood still for Joshua. We'd examine the life story of Jesus and compare the salient and miraculous events of his life to other gods from the ancient world. The show would examine the various versions of Xianity that flourished in the ancient world before Constantine brought down his Roman hammer. You get the idea.

How many American Xians on their "continual journey of revelation" would 1) bother to tune in, and 2) having tuned in, would hear a whole bunch of stuff about their religion that they never heard from their church?

BTW - can't you come up with a moniker for yourself besides Anonymous?

"When it comes to religion, we've learned everything there possibly is to know by the time we leave high school. For the average religionist, our "learning" about religion ends then."

Bunk. Pure Bunk.

Ask any Christian worth his love of God and he/she will tell you that it is a continual journey of revelation whether your'e a laymen or a Pope.

Never ceases to amuse me when atheists speak on behalf of..whats the term du jour..."religionists"?

Hahaha...

"We are creatures of habit, and when the acquisition of religious knowledge ends, we default to the habit of it all. This is aided and abetted by the rituals of the church itself and by the church calendar and the events that surround it."

Jesus didnt like that modus operandi either. Check out his attacks on the Pharisees and comments regarding the Word of God in hearts vs stone, they listen but do not hear, etc etc.

Perhaps any insight not paralleling basic Christian doctrine?

"As much as I disagree with the hardcore religionists on this blog, I do admire them for having an active interest in their religion and for their willingness to engage with we atheists, even if it means wading through a ton of fear, ignorance and guilt cloaked in the mantle of faith."

Wow, a complement followed by a sneering mocking. Nice.

Mr. Mark--

I've really enjoyed reading your posts on this subject. I was brought up in a Presbyterian household, but could never have told you what being a Presbyterian meant (as opposed to being, for instance, Methodist). For years I was a non-church-goer, but identified myself as Presby. When my cousin came out to me as gay, and I further learned that the Presbyterian church discriminates against gay people, I realized that I could no longer call myself a Presbyterian. After a great deal of self-examination, I realized that the strongest statement of faith that I could make was that, although I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, I don't 100% DISBELIEVE it--that is, at any given time humanity believes it knows all the answers, but is generally proven wrong. I have found spiritual peace in acknowledging that, while I don't believe Jesus was the son of God (if there IS a god), I can still value his teachings. And the teachings of Buddha. Or Ghandhi. I think the best any of us can do is live according to what we think is right, whether that belief comes from our religion, ourselves, or what have you. AND the more we work to understand the faith and motivations of all those around us, the better off we will be.

NO MORE MR. & MRS. NICE GUY!

You killed "ALLAH" and now Allah is no-more "AKBAR" (Not Great!)!

We, not American's , but ECLATi-ON(s), of Space-Ship Earth, Will annhilliate your KABBA & your AL AQSA mosque in JERUSALEM !

Pleas, you have 72 Hours from this post , or else!!!!

Islam will be NO MORE! Good bye KABBA! Good bye AL AQSA!

Remember, surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden , et al, or else!

The Destruction of the Kabba, like World trade Center's will be the fault of the Bin Ladin FAMILY!

We will Execute All your 73 Children & ALL of Mr. Osama's Family! et al!

WE win you loose! Ya Ya!

G-D Bless E*C*L*A*Ti-ON's!

'Chara' Islam & 'Gondoo' Islam! [Shiiiiit] Ya Ya!

O.U.R. PEOPLE are in position!

Good bye KABBA, good bye Al AQSA DOME!

This is not a game not a Test! You weill see!

Mr. Osama Bin Ladin et al, Last Time, Please

"Surrender" (DEAD or ALIVE), surrender in less than seventy two hours!!!!! Ya Ya!

P.S.: Pakisatan is "The VANGUARD of ISLAM" yet ECLATi-ON(s) are the VANGUARDS of SPACE-SHIP PLANET EARTH!

This is O.U.R. Prophecy not your's Islam!

Dear Meg -

Thanks for your kind comments.

The religious aren't the only people resistant to learning. Many of the scientific "facts" we learned as kids stick with us throughout our lives, and they seem impervious to revision and updating.

Case in point: when I was in elementary school in the 60s, we were always told that "we use only 10% of our brains." That bromide has been proven to be quite false, but I run into people of my generation all the time who still believe that we're all 10-percenters.

How many people believe that water drains backwards in the southern hemisphere, or that hair and nails continue to grow after death? How many kids of my generation believed that "it takes more energy to turn a light off and on than to just leave it on?"

I swear, it doesn't take viewing too many episodes of "Myth Busters" to come away with the impression that everything you learned as a kid was dead wrong.

When it comes to religion, we've learned everything there possibly is to know by the time we leave high school. For the average religionist, our "learning" about religion ends then. Church becomes a social affair, and we attend out of habit, or for the kids, or for the business contacts or whatever. Basically, most of us stop thinking about it seriously, just as we stop worrying about algebra and English Lit once our formal education ends. We are creatures of habit, and when the acquisition of religious knowledge ends, we default to the habit of it all. This is aided and abetted by the rituals of the church itself and by the church calendar and the events that surround it.

Similarly, once most of us get out of structured learning situations, our quest for knowledge slows. In our spare time, we begin to default to those things we like to do, avoiding those things we need to do. In the fall, we may even blow off church on Sunday to catch the NFL games, though we promise the wife that we'll go on Xmas Eve, come hell or high water.

When one presents information that is counter to that knowledge that we acquired as kids, we tend to distrust it, be it info about how our brains work or the energy consumption of light bulbs, or be it about the myths behind our religions. It's the feeling of, "I've already learned all that stuff, I've gotten this far in life without your corrective info, this stuff is always changing back and forth (ie: high carb/low carb diets), so why should I bother listening? Tomorrow, you'll tell me we really DO use only 10% of our brains. Go away, the playoffs are on."

My feeling is that people believe that they HAVE learned the truth about their religion, and that they learned about that religion at the same point in their lives when they were learning about math and English and sports and girl friends and sex and BBQ ribs and driving cars, and the rest of life's basics. For most people, the period of ACTIVELY searching for truth is somewhere in their past, and as religion - even in its most-benign and -ignored form - has been indoctrinated into most people from their very earliest memories, the door is closed to further discussion, unless that discussion reinforces the basic imagined truth of their religion (which is never really a discussion, is it?).

Indeed, the bloggers here at On Faith - bloggers on both sides of the religious argument - are the exceptions that prove the rule. As much as I disagree with the hardcore religionists on this blog, I do admire them for having an active interest in their religion and for their willingness to engage with we atheists, even if it means wading through a ton of fear, ignorance and guilt cloaked in the mantle of faith.

Thanks for the chat.

Hello Meg,

On behalf of one believer (moi) in this "brights vs morons" battle and "culture war", I am shocked and dismayed by your post addressed to Mr. Mark. We are believers! We believe in anything and everything! Therefore we are called believers. Simple logic.

We believers love myths and resist enlightenment as if our lives depend on it because reading the Bible is a lot more fun than reading Voltaire. Believers love to read Marvel comics, read and watch Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter series.

We believers, in seeking for the truth, found out that people lie on everything! Even under oath in court! So, it is matter not that some folks way back, with no cable, no Internet, no central heating, no knowledge and skills on how to build houses, would sit around a fire in a cave telling tales great and small to while away the time, and the stories gets better and better with each retelling.

Our ancestors, alas, apart from passing down through generations those great stories that are still with us, also pass on to us the gay gene, the God gene and the selfish gene among other genes.

We believers finds lies are more comforting than truths, including when one is on a diet, have a bad hair day and someday says, "Hey! You look great!"

We believer never knew one can see a big teddy bear in the sky. I just looked out of the window and up in the sky, but alas, it is not there. Was it named Muhammad?

We believers are not scared of pipe dreams. It is called faith.

We believers are only scared by silly questions posed by Mr. Christopher Hichens such as:

"Name one ethical statement or one ethical act that cannot be performed by a non-believer?"

Of course any believer or non-believer can make an ethical statement. That would depend on how good a writer they are or have good writers to do it for them. Whether they mean it or otherwise, is another matter.

Of course any believer or non-believer can perform an ethical action. It would depend on whether they want to do it or not. And for what reason.

As believers say they are free from superstitions, and do not perform rites associated with religion, including prayers anymore, surely they will have lots of time to think up on appropriate ethical statements to make and ethical acts to perform more than believers ever can.

But how unfortunate! We moralistic, judgmental, upright and prudish believers cannot take Mr Hitchens' question as seriously as he wanted. After all, he did not even have the personal discipline to reduce his smoking and drinking that is detrimental to his own health and he knows it.

Thanks and regards

"J"

BEHOLD!

Att: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA at WASHINGTON via THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT!

Hear Ye Hear Ye, The WASHINGTON MONUMENT will not be destroyed in 72 Hours, unless Paris Hilton Surrenders! No Compromise!

Surrender Paris Hilton Et al, Clothed or naked!!!!!!

We, not Americans, but ECLATi-ON(s) Will annihilate your CHIPPENDALES & your LAP DANCING CLUBS in WASHINGTON DC!

Please, you have 72 Hours from this post, or else!!!!

Strippers will be NO MORE! Good bye CHIPPENDALES! Good bye LAP DANCING CLUBS!

Remember, surrender Ms. Paris Hilton, et al, or else!

Ya Ya!

Mr Mark;
When I read your very sensible comments,and when you back them up with a most interesting link,
it actually surprises me that believers in the myth
resist enlightenment as if there very lives depend on believing nonsense,no matter what.

I mean any genuine searcher of truth would have to give up the ancient myths pretty quick,if its really TRUTH they want...but it isn't. It's comfort they want,not truth. They treasure the illusion of the big teddybear in the sky,and the 'truth' of life after death. Believers are too scared to give up the pipedream,like kids don't want to give up Santa Claus.

BEHOLD!

Att: SAUDi ARABIA at MECCA via KABBA!

Hear ye Hear Ye, The KABBA will be destroyed in 72 Hours, unless Al Quada Surrenders! no Compromise!

Surren Mre. Bin Laden Et al, Dead or alive!!!!!!

We, not American's , but ECLATi-ON(s) Will annhilliate your KABBA & your AL AQSA mosque in JERUSALEM !

Pleas, you have 72 Hours from this post , or else!!!!

Islam will be NO MORE! Good bye KABBA! Good bye AL AQSA!

Remember, surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden , et al, or else!

Ya Ya!

Oh, and kudos for Gustav Niebuhr's common sense.

Mr. Mark

Great posts!

I have yet to see a religionist address the fundamental basis of atheism - empiricism.

To those debating Mr. Mark I ask, "WHY do you believe as you do? HOW do you reconcile the fact that your rich supernatural tapestry has no objective manifestation in the natural world? What do you think of science and the fact that scientific methodological naturalism has been the only successful paradigm for gaining demonstrable knowledge of the natural world?"

P.S. I would have voted NO to the resolution and to any similar resolution referring to any religion. I'd sooner weigh in on Sponge Bob Square Pants' sexual orientation.

Dear RNH -

Hey, are you ever going to respond to my post that addressed your erroneously saying that King Herod the Great's 3 sons were "kings" as well? You know, over in the Rev. Salguero thread?

Didn't think so.

Well, Anonymous still hasn't answered my question.

I guess we won't be having the discussion on Mark and the Q document as sources for the other Gospels, let alone whether or not the Gospels - including Mark - were influenced by the writings of Paul, which most likely preceded their writing. It's fascinating to ponder whether or not Paul's take on taxation found in Romans 13 was the basis used to construct Jesus' statement on taxes found in Mark and the later Gospels.

BTW - one other correction - I wrote that the "render unto Caesar" quote appears in only one Gospel when it actually appears in 3 of them. I was confused with the story of the adulterous woman of which I had just posted (that story appears only in John). Senior moment, I'm afraid. And at the relatively young age of 53!

My thanks to those of you who caught the mistake but were kind enough to let it slide.

Later.

To quote Anonymous:

“Newsflash. Evidence can only be used when examining something exterior to yourself and inanimate to your probing, eg a cop looking at fingerprints, or a tracker looking at footprints. Evidence means nothing when the subject of your examination is INSIDE and AROUND you constantly and is reactive to your observation (maybe pretty ticked off at your "observing" Him like he was a dissected frog)
Just a philosophical point to make that it is logical that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting God exists and (b) there will be no evidence for Him.”

This seems to be an incredibly narrow definition of “evidence”. Court psychologists offer their highly paid opinions as evidence in many trials every day. This type of evidence is used to sway the opinions of juries when deciding the fate of another human being. By your limited definition, the only permissible evidence seems to be data taken outside a human’s body. Thankfully, the courts recognize the value of criminal psychology in establishing the truth behind a purported crime. Can you easily dismiss this line of reasoning to fit your argument? Yes, technically, a psychological exam is exterior to the person performing the examination. This point, however, does not invalidate my point that standard definitions of evidence are not restricted to only exterior points of data. In fact, to quote a dictionary, evidence is “All the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved”

I’m very interested in learning more about how something can exist and not leave any evidence of it’s existence. At this moment, I’ll admit that I’m not very informed on philosophical arguments, so I’m having some trouble with the paradox poised by Anonymous’s argument. Can someone point me in the direction of something I can read on this subject? I’d like to read a little more about this paradox before I determine if Anonymous is backing himself into a logical corner with an argument which can never be proven.

"Does anyone here believe that Anonymous has addressed my original question in any way, shape or form?"

Your question on whether it was chance that this subject is brought up is meaningless. He was asked a question and he answered. Your insuniation that this narrative in the Bible was a covert ploy by someone to make Roman taxation more palatable to the Hebrews was the subject of my answer.

Punctuation marks not withstanding...

"Anonymous or whoever, thinks the only difference between the gospels is that the apostles didn't travel together. wow. "

Wow. I never said that. The above point is a difference but not the sole difference. More wow.

"real biblical scholars know perfectly well, there really wasn't much of a bible at all for centuries after the death of Jesus,"

Yeah everyone knows that. The bible is a collections of gospels and epistles. Your point being...?? The only comment I made about real biblical scholars is that they agree that it is quite likely that Jesus existed.

"half of it was edited or just written by other people than the apostles to spice it up or meet current issues, again as you note."

I can stomach the edited part, but you must have on your hands a crystal ball to know the insidious motives of the conspirateurs there Dan Brown...

Brother....

Mr. Mark: I sympathize with your efforts to debate anything intelligently with people who simply assume they have the truth and feel they have been given a divine dispensation from logic or fact.

Anonymous or whoever, thinks the only difference between the gospels is that the apostles didn't travel together. wow. it's just hard to deal with someone whose biblical study stopped there. as you, countless others, and real biblical scholars know perfectly well, there really wasn't much of a bible at all for centuries after the death of Jesus, there was no agreement as to what to include when someone thought of collecting it in one place, and half of it was edited or just written by other people than the apostles to spice it up or meet current issues, again as you note.

Correction: in my last post, I said Anon supplied a period where none existed. I had changed that to "closed quote," but the change didn't get posted for some reason (I must have hit the Post button instead of Preview).

The corrected sentence should have appeared as:

"Anonymous elects to not address my question, but offers only the first part of my question, adding the punctuation point of a closed quote that makes it appear that my question stopped there, thus forming a new question that I never asked..."

I didn't mean to accuse Anon of thing he didn't do. Hope that sets things straight.

I wrote:

"Is it just chance that Jesus spoke the words "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" in only one Gospel, and that it appears that that Gospel was written at a time when Xians were being accused of not supporting the Roman state?"

Anonymous elects to not address my question, but offers only the first part of my question, adding the punctuation point of a period (where none existed) to form a new question that I never asked, thus:

"Is it just chance that Jesus spoke the words "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" "

Anonymous then proceeds to answer his own question, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the question I was asking, thus:

"Tsk tsk. Context, context. Pharisees were attempting to specifically trip Jesus up by asking his take on Roman colonialism and taxation. Jesus' reply was that it matters little to God how you perform menial tasks such as paying taxes on earth. Give to God what is to God (i.e. your very self)."

Does anyone here believe that Anonymous has addressed my original question in any way, shape or form?

I love how Anon takes me to task for ignoring "context."

Pathetic...and typical for what passes for "debating technique" as employed by the committed religionist.

"Call me crazy, but I find it more pleasing to realize that human beings are made up of elements produced by the stars themselves, rather than being formed by a clot of blood or a clump of mud."

Crazy. Us, Mud, blood and the makeup of stars are all essentially made up from the same material. So?

"Is it just chance that Jesus spoke the words "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" "

Tsk tsk. Context, context. Pharisees were attempting to specifically trip Jesus up by asking his take on Roman colonialism and taxation. Jesus' reply was that it matters little to God how you perform menial tasks such as paying taxes on earth. Give to God what is to God (i.e. your very self).

Ockam's Razor. Jesus was simply deftly answering a question. No grand scheme to sway the Hebrews into paying their taxes. (How would they get the hypnotic suggestive message anyways, there were no books, printing presses, Internet, phones, most of them couldnt read...was there a spike in Roman INS filings after Jesus' comment, give me a break)

"Do you believe that present-day Xianity bears any resemblance to second-century Xianity? It doesn't. T"

Of course not. Does our world bear any resemblance to the second century?? of course not. Big deal. Whenever something started with different Apostles traveling all over lands with super slow communication and travel time of course there would be variation. The miracle (so to speak) is that 90% of all Christians are unified in at least 90% of the faith. Its the small differences that get all the press. But to make you happy, Orthodox Christianity especially in the MIddle East, are closer to what it was like back then but still there are differences.

The problem is that you view Christianity as a fixed, written in stone set of rituals. Its OK, the Pharisees did the same as do many Christians sometimes. Jesus said that his words were written in the hearts of men and not in stone.

Furthermore, your view of God (that you reject His existence) is one of an exterior ATM machine whose ways should be comprehensible.

Not only that, you decry the lack of evidence of proving God exists,.
Newsflash. Evidence can only be used when examining something exterior to yourself and inanimate to your probing, eg a cop looking at fingerprints, or a tracker looking at footprints. Evidence means nothing when the subject of your examination is INSIDE and AROUND you constantly and is reactive to your observation (maybe pretty ticked off at your "observing" Him like he was a dissected frog)
Just a philosophical point to make that it is logical that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting God exists and (b) there will be no evidence for Him.

Thats why smart people without a chip on their shoulder like Stephen Jay Gould coined the term Non Overlapping Magisteria about science and religion, you cannot use one to disprove the existence of the other. (sure, you can disprove scientific theories suggested by a religion but thats not what we are talking about)

Of course militants like you and Dawkins brand Gould as a cop-out trying to appease the crazy religionists. Yeah, sure, you got him. The man was an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, where having any pro-theology beliefs would likely get you ousted or ostracized by the scientific community. Today Gould is known as one of the greatest authorities on evolution ( a million times more than DAwkins, because Gould's stellar publications were mostly peer reviewed in scholarly articles not the non-refereed, laymen, Ann-Coulteresque books found marked 20% off at Barnes and Noble).

See you o keeper of the Mithrasian Flame.

RNH writes:

"Quoting Dawkins? Is that the best you can do?"

Nice to have it confirmed in print (and from his own lips) that Reasonable doesn't bother looking before his mouth leaps.

I posted a link to a video from the CBC. That link connected one to Richard Dawkins' website. Once you got to the Dawkins website there are 5 links to the CBC video as posted on You Tube. I could have posted a direct link to You Tube, but then you have to scroll through the many related videos on the right and search for the 5 Pagan Christ posts. I felt the direct link to Dawkins' site was a better way to see the vids.

But Reasonable saw only the name "richarddawkins" in the link I supplied and ASSumed that I was "quoting Dawkins." As is his custom, Reasonable couldn't be bothered to click on the link to see where it led him, but that didn't stop him from forming an opinion and creating a bogeyman out of whole cloth.

Is anyone surprised?

Thus grows the knowledge set of the dedicated religionist.

BTW - one can do much, much worse than quoting Dawkins. Quoting RNH springs to mind... :)

dear Bla Bla:

you are correct, I doubt very much that oppressed people point to objectification as one of their top priorities in addressing their oppression. you misunderstood my point.

one group of people can not oppress another group of people as long as they still see them as people, equal in value and deserving dignity and respect. so the group in power objectifies the powerless, making them less-than-human, paving the way for acceptance of oppressive treatment.

Hitler began by claiming the Jews were, first, less than German, outsiders. he then made them less than human. he called them animals, he called them demons. he justified the ghettoing, imprisonment and mass killing of them (and several other groups of people) on the basis that they did not deserve to be treated as human, as equal.

objectification is merely the starting point. oppression is the sum total of oppressive treatment (including the erosion of personal and group rights, dignity, voice, and power to influence the decisions that impact quality of life). but oppression is not possible without objectification. never has been.

Dear Anonymous -

You miss the point of Christianity being some grand conspiracy. No one said it was. You're floating a straw man argument.

The point is that Xianity simply echoes themes and desires that were common in ancient religions. No one sat down in a room and said, "let's take the popular Mithras story, change a few names and locations, but keep the miracles and the redemption part and call it Christianity." Of course, the grand conspiracy you outlined is a grand caricature of the way religions evolved, which was by borrowing common elements from each other. You'll never find a point-by-point example of a religion copying another. That's not how it works.

Religions -at least the successful religions - adapt to their times and the people who are their followers. Do you believe that present-day Xianity bears any resemblance to second-century Xianity? It doesn't. The form of today's Xianity was decided in the 4th century by the council of Nicea which Constantine charged to come up with A version of Xianity that everyone could agree upon. That meant that parts of the baby were thrown out with the bath water.

Even the Gospels were adaptations of the basic Jesus/Saviour story, written for different audiences with different needs. Is it just chance that Jesus spoke the words "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" in only one Gospel, and that it appears that that Gospel was written at a time when Xians were being accused of not supporting the Roman state? Most scholars now admit that the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman was a late addition to the Bible, a fabrication of some unknown scribe. It's a story that even the most-passionate defender of the "Jesus was real" position concedes is a-historic.

Your caricature of Matthew et al sitting down in a room one night and deciding what Xianity is easy to reject, but you're the one offering that example, not me, and not Biblical scholars who look at these things seriously. Indeed, your caricature could only be written by someone who has no knowledge of the research done by even the most-ardent Biblical apologists.

I think that Windreader's post comes very close to the mark in voicing what religions are all about. The question for us as modern-day humans is whether we continue to believe that supernatural beings are behind the curtains of existence, or if there is a natural explanation for how things work.

I opt for the natural explanation while freely admitting that we still have much to learn. I don't hold the conceit that we know it all in this 21st century, but I do hold that we know enough to realize that the ancient tales of gods, saviors, blood sacrifice and heaven and hell were born of our misunderstanding and fear of the natural world, not from our deep understanding of the same.

I think that we can all agree that human nature may not have changed all that much over the past 2000 years, but let's be adult enough to admit that 2000 years is but a snapshot in the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have roamed this planet. What we call "human nature" wasn't shot into us as one big 200,000-year old inoculation, it developed as we evolved. As we continue to evolve, our "nature" will evolve as well, and more rapidly to boot. Let's give ourselves some credit as a thinking, rational species, rather than allowing religion to steal our evolved, innate better selves and call it "god's love."

Call me crazy, but I find it more pleasing to realize that human beings are made up of elements produced by the stars themselves, rather than being formed by a clot of blood or a clump of mud. I find greater satisfaction in the realization that human beings are just as connected to the blades of grass as we are to each other, rather than believing that a few of us are more connected than the rest of us to some creator god, and that we few stand apart from the rest of time and the universe as "god's elect."

Thanks for the chat.

Explore alternatives to the Christian version?

OF COURSE.... it can't be true , can it, Mr Mark.

Quoting Dawkins? Is that the best you can do?

You've concocted, as Anonymous says, something that fits your world view.

The one event that no one can deny is that Jesus' life (and death) had more impact on humanity than most, if not all of the world.

You are sounding like a elitist again, Mr. Mark. Humility is a virtue that you are also ignoring.

Christianity will live on, and be around, long after your earthly life( and mine for that matter)
is just dust in the ground.

yawn!

"objectification is the first step in any form of oppression."

Oppression is not that. Ask oppressed people in dictatorships whether being "objectified" is high on their list of complaints and they'll roll their eyes. Silly Developed World Hippie.

as a Pagan, I have no interest in proving that the Christ story is wrong, or borrowed, or stolen. I really do not care whether people who follow the teachings of Jesus believe the story as infallible truth or metaphor.

the truth is that this is one of the oldest stories ever told. I care not one lick whether the Dionysis version is more accurate than the Mithros version. the reason why this story has been told over and over across culture and time is because it resonates with us. it captures an essence of the human condition and our experience.

every person, at one point or another, experiences great loss and pain and the fear that they may lose something of themselves to that. when we believe that there is something better on the other side - regardless of whether that better thing is communion with the Divine or faith in the human capacity to learn, grow and connect with one another - we find the internal strength to work through the pain and grief.

one spring I was considering whether I would attend my (Unitarian Universalist) Church's Easter service. I decided to go. our Minister's sermon was about Kali, the Hindu Goddess of Destruction - and how her ultimate role as the Mother of Rebirth was inextricable from and dependant on her role as Destructrix. this is a truth that we all come to realize during the journey of our lives. or as a Pagan might cosider: Dung Happens, but Dung makes the best Compost.

so while I do not care which version of the story, if any, one gives credance to, I passionately care whether one tries to force me into believing their personal version of the story as my own. I care whether one judges my worth based on how I interpret the story, on what specific collection of metaphors I choose in my telling.

each of us has a personal relationship with life. when anyone, any government, tries to define that relationship for me they cease to treat me like a person. and objectification is the first step in any form of oppression.

Interesingly, the "christmas resolution" specificies December 25 as the date on which american christians observe the nativity. Does this mean that old-calendar (julian) orthodox, who observe it on the (Gregorian) january 7th, now do so in violation of US law?

Sure other religions have been around for as long as Christianity, but Christianity is not only the biggest it is also ethnically diverse compared to the others. Hinduism and Judaism are mainly ethnic religions,

BTW I saw the Pagan Christ video, it was drivel. If you look hard enough, you'll find coincidences everywhere. You can have shadows of the truth that look very similar to the truth but are not the truth. Then the truth comes along and because we reject its teachings we cry "foul!" and say its a stolen from something else because of some nonsense similarities.

Glad to see you ignored rebutting my sarcasm at the grand conspiracy theory. Your excuse that we believed ancient Egyptian myth too, is pretty pretty weak. First, those were limited national religions. People in Egypt believed in Osiris, those in Greece Zeus, etc. Second, people were not presecuted in their country for worshipping their respective gods. Third, those religions were promulgated by the leadership (pharoahs, emperors, etc). Christianity is due to a poor carpenter who was crucified (the most degrading form of punishment), and was and has spread to every continent regardless of national origin and more importantly survived severe persecution inflicted upon it from day one until present time. No Osiris worshiping could claim such survival or spread.

And while you laugh about my lack of academic knowledge, most respected historical scholars believe about the historicity of Jesus regardless of religion. But militant atheists like you must also reject that, because they cannot stand there is an iota of a probability that Jesus lived. Because if he did, what an amazing legacy he created. And if his legacy is so lasting maybe there's some truth to it....No, keep telling yourself that he was entirely a concoction.....you might just sleep better.

Dear Anonymous -

Funny how you try to dispel the myth of Jesus by recalling in every detail...the details of the myth of Jesus.

I could do the same thing utilizing the story line from the Star Wars saga.

What's your point?

Consider the pagan origins of the Jesus myth and ask yourself this: why don't you believe these things about pagan gods but you believe them about Jesus? To whit:

• When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a myth.

• When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.

• When ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.

• When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.

• When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.

• When the Pythia, the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, and the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.

• When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth.

• When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.

• When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.

• When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

• When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal, we understand that as a myth.

• When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

• When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

• So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God,

- born of a mortal woman,
- according to prophecy,
- turning water into wine,
- raising girls from the dead, and
- healing blind men with his spittle,
- and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hell—for the bad folks...

HOW COME THAT'S SUDDENLY NOT A MYTH??

And how come, in a culture with all those Sons of God, where miracles were science, where Heaven and Hell and God and eternal life and salvation were in the temples, in the philosophies, in the books, were dancing and howling in street festivals, how come we imagine Jesus and the stories about him developed all on their own, all by themselves, without picking up any of their stuff from the culture they sprang from, the culture full of the same sort of stuff?

Let me guess: YOUR miracuolous tales are true, and the same tales in every other religion are myths.

(more good stuff here: http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html )

BTW - do you really believe that the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples? Yikes! Have you read absolutely no books on Biblical scholarship? Even the apologists don't aver that the disciple Matthew wrote Matthew. Get a grip! Embrace the horror of the truth!

Further BTW - do you really believe that Xianity is the only religion that has been around for 2000 years?

How about Judaism? It's been around for at least 3400 years, and Jews don't believe the tenets of Xianity in any respect, least of all believing that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Hinduism has been around for at least 3600 years. Jainism and Buddhism both pre-date Xianity by at least 500 years and are still practiced.

Seems to me that if you're going to play the "we've been around for 2000 years" card as a measure of your religion's "truth," you lose out to Judaism and a few other religions that are even older and have survived even longer.

Funny how the two most-popular religions on the planet - Christianity and Islam - are the YOUNGEST of the major religions.

It is important to realize that our modern culture's ideas about Christian origins come from the Christian version of the story. Explore history beyond the Xian perspective and you'll gain a whole new appreciation for Christianity and how it fits into the history of pagan religions.

The Jesus story is a myth, and - as it turns out - not even an original myth. And, I guess it is your ass.

Final BTW - why not check out the link to the CBC profile on the book "The Pagan Christ" that I posted above? What are you afraid of?

How very well put. "Wars" on everything from Iraq to christianity are created by loud mouth talk show hosts and preachers.

But to quote Sister Mary Ellen SSJ, "the church is not a democracy!" So why do we keep letting it dirty our perfect union?

Throw the bums out of government. If that is persecution, praise the lord, now they have something to really whine about.

"No one posting here has ever denied the power of myth, have they? In fact, the Egyptians had a version of the Jesus myth 3,000 years before the Xians stole it and made it their own. See here:

"
Yes, yes they stole it.

A tax collector named Matthew, a healer named Luke, a youth named John and a fisherman named Peter got together over some wine and concocted the biggest hoax ever. They decided to survey all the local religions, mix it up with Hebrew lore and come up with their own unique mix. Then they invented this man "Jesus", spread stories about stuff he did and decided "hey we have had prophets, lets make this dude God himself, wer'e sure that will fly over well with the populace".

Then, these insidious schemers propelled his teachings to be encompassing love, forgiveness of sins and other very popular ideas. The conspiracy continued when it was decided that after they get this fictitious guy killed they would claim his resurrection because that would definitely fly well with the locals, the Sanhedrin and the Roman Empire. Those Romans will believe anything mind you...

Following that, they successfully managed to keep him alive for a further 50 days, claim that many saw his wonders and heard his words. Then, they spirited his body away claiming he ascended. Ha, those gullible people, they'll take our words as fact (granted the conspirators probably couldnt afford bread, and had barely an education but still..."the power of myth".)

Their magnanimous plan continued when they traveled all over the known world telling people to give up wordly desires and ask forgiveness (such a popular idea you know!). They didnt ask for power because they knew that with every baptism a dollar was deposited in their secret Swiss bank accounts. Of course, it helped their devious plan that every one who believed in Christ was persecuted. They of course knew that that would only attract more people because they had the power of knowing human psychology and futuresight. More Cha-Ching for the Egyptian religion thieves!

Finally, these guys who could have been living the easy life in Judea but instead left their homes and livelihoods for this borrowed Egyptian/pagan legend get themselves all tortured and executed for their lie. And yet they must have believed in the lie they concocted (they were probably sick in the head after all that cash and power they amassed) because their lives would have been spared had they simply admitted their religious plagiarism. And so their lie attracts millions to this very day. Those thieves are saying : GUESS WHAT WORLD: YOUV"E BEEN PUNKED!!!

Thank God Dawkins came along to do a couple of Internet searches and find simiiarities between Christianity and other religions to expose the great lie of Christianity. After all, egyptian legends and Christianity have a God begotting a child. Not only that, but in Egyptian legends they have a boat in some story (there's gotta be) and there's the whole Noah Ark folk tale. Aha! Its plagiarised!! And Osiris and Jesus wore sandals!! Aha!!! Another link!!!!

Thank God the 2000 yr old conspiracy has been exposed.

Yes, Thank God.

The power of myth my ass.

ANONYMOUS writes:
"One would have thought that Constantine's declaration of Christianity as THE state religion of the Roman Empire was all the government endorsement Christianity would ever require."

Haha! 2000 years and still going strong"

No one posting here has ever denied the power of myth, have they? In fact, the Egyptians had a version of the Jesus myth 3,000 years before the Xians stole it and made it their own. See here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2057,The-Pagan-Christ,CBC-TV

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights."

That to me is the more significant part of Washington's statement.

We hear (and read) from so many of the christians that they are the largest religion, that America is a christian country, that if we don't like the way 'they' run things we should not let the door hit us on the way out; that we non-christians, and non-believers, should feel lucky we are even tolerated in 'their' country; that we owe our citizenship in our own country to the beneficent indulgence rained down upon us from their great christian selves.

Well that is a lie, it's the Big Lie in fact. We do NOT owe our citizenship to your indulgence or your tolerance, we do not owe it to your religion, we do not owe it to your god. We owe it to nobody!
We are guaranteed it as a right by the Constitution, and the only thing we owe is an unpayable debt to the people who fought for and the people who died to protect that Constitution.

I hear many of the christians demanding of islam that the moderates must suppress the extremists, or they will all be treated as extremists. Well I make a similar demand of the christians. You must stop your extremists from their naked attempt to steal our country, or you will all be considered extremists.

And lastly, the reason these politicians are pandering to you christians is because you demand that they do so.

"One would have thought that Constantine's declaration of Christianity as THE state religion of the Roman Empire was all the government endorsement Christianity would ever require."

Haha! 2000 years and still going strong!

Gil: get a grip, the other resolutions were harmless, "yes we have noticed there are a few (fill in the blank with a minority religion we barely tolerate) around, and yes we want to look tolerant so let's say aren't they swell" type. the christian one was "now let's get serious and announce who the real americans are." quite a difference.

One would have thought that Constantine's declaration of Christianity as THE state religion of the Roman Empire was all the government endorsement Christianity would ever require.

Apparently, our Xian-pandering Congress-critters felt that Constantine's Edict needed a dust-off for 2007, even if our illustrious representatives skipped the trip to Milan and didn't bother with the the co-sponsorship of Licinius.

I'm thinking of launching a war on apple pie. Any guess what Congress' reaction will be when they find out?

This resolution is a violation of the express words of the U.S. Constitution's first amendment. Shame on our lawmakers who voted for this. This should be their last term in office.

Sidney,
amen.

Prof. Niebuhr's excellent points are furthered by many fine comments, but all stop short of properly condemning our Congress for dangerous historical revisionism eerily reminiscent of the infamous endorsement by Germany's government of their Christian Right's spurious claims of victimization and exclusive ordained status. Remember how their Christian Right blamed leftist minorities for losing WWI, degrading their society, and ensuring their economic decline, exactly as does our own Christian Right, mutandis mutatis? Remember how Conservative Christian self-pity caused WWII and the Holocaust? How our Christian Right blamed Gays for 9/11 then Iraqis? How they then invaded Iraq, the "loss" of which they want to blame on the Left? Must we always learn from history when its too late?

How pitiful that we insult Christianity when we imply that it needs the dubious protection or support of the US Congress! The best support of Christianity is found in the lives of its followers who seek to live according to the example of Jesus Christ in compassion toward those in need, personal integrity, and a sincere effort to "overcome evil with good."

The writers here who argue that no religion should receive special recognition by the Congress ignore the fact that Congress passed a similar resolution a month ago to recognize Islam. Those of us who are upset that many voted against the resolution regarding Christianity feel that way because most of those voting "No" to Christianity also voted "Yes" to Islam. Many of these writers who apparently feel concerned about a Christian theocracy need to read the newspapers a little to see which religion it is whose leaders advocate the establishment of religious law as the supreme law in the U.S. Hint: they aren't Christian.

You make an excellent point.

Why is Christianity so fragile that it needs special recognition?

It's also worth remembering that religion is an invention of man, not a creation of God.

Hence the multiplicity (with over 2,000 versions of Christianity registered with the IRS).

Hence the lack of agreement, even amongst those who profess to share the same God.

Washington's Address to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790

"Gentlemen.

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."

For further explanation of the historical context and significance of this exchange between Washington and the Newport congregation read link below:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bigotry.html

With Congress spending its time on this sort of idiocy -- and incredibly offensive idiocy, at that -- I am surprised to see its approval rating as high as 17%. I look for that number to drop substantially in the coming year.

For all those people who thought Bush's use of the term 'crusade' was an inadvertent mistake...welcome to the religious wars of our century.

I hope this is some sort of joke.

If its not, its truly frightening.

Are we turing into Afganistan or Saudi Arabia, but with Jesus rather than Allah?

This seems like something out of the 16th or 17th century, not the 21st.

We've got real problems to solve.

How can we have any confidence that our leaders can solve them when they spend time on things like this which are completely against the constitution?

from The Independent UK.

Dawkins to lecture in US Bible Belt
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 24 December 2007

Richard Dawkins, the scourge of pseudo-science, Christianity and homeopathy, is to step up his campaign for rational thinking with a series of high-profile lectures deep in the heart of the American Bible Belt.

The Oxford University professor travels to the US next year as part of his battle to promote evolutionary theory in the face of a backlash against the concept in the world's most-advanced industrial nation.

He is to address a series of 2,000-seater venues in the American heartlands. The tour will coincide with the publication of his best-seller The God Delusion in paperback in the US in January and act as a prelude to a series of global events to mark the bicentenary of Charles Darwin in 2009.

Professor Dawkins has charities in his own name on both sides of the Atlantic to promote reason and science. He has said that it is in the US, where 50 per cent of the population believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old, that the Enlightenment is most threatened.

However, he said he did not expect audiences to be too tough on his atheist beliefs and that many thanked him for speaking out. "The Bible Belt is a lot less monolithic than it portrays itself. I have a feeling that there is rather a large groundswell of people who agree with me," he said.

Government endorsement of religion poisons the pluralism that protects each of our right to freedom of conscience. If the organs of government feel compelled to endorse or recognize any one religion, adherents of other religions or of no religion are on notice that their claim of unqualified equal citizenship has been called into question. These actions are exclusive rather than inclusive, and exclusivity directly negates the premises of a pluralistic society. No good can come of this.

It's a crock of crap used mainly by Republicans for purely political purposes like 9/11. Republicans are heartless opportunists who use corrupt, politicized religion as a bludgeon to pound their perceived enemies to a bloody pulp.

Democrats who vote for it hope by doing so they can soften the perception spun by Limbaugh/Rove/O'Reilly that they are godless leebrals and yes, Satanists.

I left Christianity when they started politicizing it. I couldn't stand their stench.

Saying firmly, "No" is the proper response to this bill and to the type of thinking that lead to it.

Each citizen should be prepared to say this in response to anyone who says that we need a certain "belief" in order to qualify as "proper Americans."

I already have a belief and so do we all; it's called personal freedom balanced with civic responsibility.

It built this nation.

Reverend,

Excellent post. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a certain very vocal minority within the Christian population that is dead set on having this country legally declared a Christian nation. I think most Christians would actually oppose that as strenusously as we non-Christians do.
Non-binding resolutions such as this are simply one step toward that goal.
I see no reason for Congress to pass any sort of resolution, declaration, or other document recognizing the contributions of specific religions. Surely Congress can think of more productive ways to spend their time.

On your Washingon quote:
Now that is a policy I can get behind.

Very well said.

Washington also understood that any idea, no matter how good, would not work if pushed onto other people by force. Something those in office right now might learn from.

Here comes 2008. There's a light at the end of the tunnel. Here's hoping it's not an oncoming train.

Happy New Year!