Memories of a Skeptical Girlhood

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!

krycjw jtezrikbn iqkusoma npst phyw diuex bdinr

krycjw jtezrikbn iqkusoma npst phyw diuex bdinr

Victoria –

Right – I’ve seen no dispute that Muhammad is real -- he came 500 years later and there is, so I've heard, plenty of historical documentation of his life.

I question, however, how the Koran came to be (dictated from God) and Muhammad's ride on a winged horse, because of their supernatural nature.

Also, if you accept (as I do) that much of what is reported in the old and new testament is myth or legend, then the part of Islam that is related to the bible is in question too.

JR - Thanks

(atheist)

To E. Favorite,

I appreciate your posts, and your open-minded approach. Thanks. JR

just as an aside- there is no historical dispute about the existence of Muhammad(pbuh)

Demos, have you changed your name from "Believer?" If so, your tone seemed to have changed some too.

At any rate, I recall the sources you mention (except for the Talmud) - they are the ones often mentioned in other sources and I don't believe any of them are contemporaneous with Jesus, so they could have been reports on reports. Nor do they say much -- just a mention, in otherwise longer, very detailed texts. Considering that Jesus did wondrous things - loaves and fishes, etc., witnessed by many, it seems like he'd get more mention at the time.

And they are all writings - no tomb, no signs of a 1st century settlement Nazareth, no record of the census when Jesus was born (though there are records of other kinds of censuses) and no record of King Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents, though there are records of many of Herod’s other dastardly deeds. Van Voorst doesn’t mention any of those tings, and I imagine he would if there were any positive evidence.

I went into my search for the historical Jesus with an open mind, I had assumed that Jesus existed, but I had started wondering why the media and church community hadn’t provided more information – because it would certainly be a big news story! I was surprised to find how little there was – especially after such diligent searches. It did seem to me that if the search had been for anyone other than a superstar like Jesus, it would have been called off long ago.

I’m still open, but at this point very skeptical, because no further evidence has been forthcoming – just a continued assertion that “most scholars agree….” and because so much of the Jesus narrative (virgin birth, resurrection) is similar to stories of earlier ancient deities (Osiris, Mithras)

Since then, I’ve found a lot of evidence (referenced above in the NY Times article) that the old testament is accepted by scholars as folklore and legend, based on the clear lack of archeological evidence for the events in the old testament. Still, this information isn’t widely disseminated among the public, even though it’s widely known by clergy and published in the back of the latest edition of the Conservative Jewish Torah. This puts the new testament is on shaky ground, since the old testament is its foundation.

Demos (or Believer) – I’d be interested in your comments on the information I posted earlier about old testament. Have you checked that out? It’s shocking, isn’t it? When I first learned of this (through the book, The Bible Unearthed), I checked it out with a Hebrew Bible professor at a nearby divinity school and with a church pastor – they both confirmed it. I’ve asked some Jewish friends who hadn’t heard about it – though they plan to check the back of the Torah the nest time they go to Temple.

By the way, regarding your statement:

"The only way you could have "missed that part" was to read the introduction, skip to the conclusions at the end, then close the cover and declare victory."

I'm not looking for victory - I'm looking for information, and want to think that you are too.

Yes I still have the book. But I don't even have to go home and get it to give you three examples.

- Pliny the Younger

- Josephus (and don't freak on me here - he does a detailed textual analysis to distinguish what was original with Josephus and what is due to later scribal emendation) (After all, if I remember correctly, you love critical textual analysis, don't you?)

- The Bablylonian Talmud

The only way you could have "missed that part" was to read the introduction, skip to the conclusions at the end, then close the cover and declare victory.

It helps to actually slog through these things if you want to learn something.

Jesus was a pedophile and a racist.

Demos - you say

"This is a bit akin to saying "show me in the Chicago phone book where it actually says that lots of people live in Chicago"

Not really - the phone book is full of names and numbers that I can call and verify. A book saying "most scholars agree" but not mentioning the scholars' names or showing me the evidence that made them come to that conclusion, is not at all convincing. In fact, it makes me suspicious.

"the entire body of the book is devoted to the detailed discussion of non-Biblical references to Jesus."

really ? I missed that part. sounds like you still have the book -- give me 3 examples, with the references and evidence to back it up.

Believer - are you still out there?

"show me where in his book he gives the evidence that Jesus lived."

Read the stinking book! (Didn't you claim to have already done so?) This is a bit akin to saying "show me in the Chicago phone book where it actually says that lots of people live in Chicago" - the entire body of the book is devoted to the detailed discussion of non-Biblical references to Jesus.

“A more straightforward explanation is that, with an hour a week at best in most cases, they're very lucky if they can teach the basics.”

Agreed, but if they had all day, I still don’t think they’d want to get into the details.

“I think most churchgoers know there's little historical evidence, but would be surprised at the extent of serious speculation against there being an historical individual.”

Disagree – I suspect most churchgoers don’t think about it much and just assume that there must be evidence or the whole society wouldn’t be so supportive of it.

I think most churchgoers know there's little historical evidence, but would be surprised at the extent of serious speculation against there being an historical individual.

"I’m asking if the reason churches don’t teach their congregations about the limited results of various attempts to find evidence of Jesus’ existence is because they think parishioners will bolt when they find out how little is known."

A more straightforward explanation is that, with an hour a week at best in most cases, they're very lucky if they can teach the basics.

Hello, Believer – Thanks for getting back to me. Here are my comments:

“I think you're mischaracterizing him here - the body of the book is dedicated to surveying the extra-Biblical evidence. The chapter you mention is an overview, where he's giving his perspective on the current state of scholarship”

Exactly, he’s asserting what others have asserted. This is not evidence. For instance, the fact that ”9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest” doesn’t make Crest an effective oral dentifrice, just the most popular one.

“The discussion of the three "Quests" are part of his survey of the history of Jesus scholarship. There have been lots of conclusions - some of which were unfounded (like the idea that there's no extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed).

I understand that – I was familiar with the three quests before reading his book. As to conclusions being unfounded about the lack of extra biblical evidence for Jesus. My feeling is that if it were any good, it would be touted at the pulpit every Sunday, not hidden away in theological books and still being debated by scholars 3 centuries later.

“A fair reading of Van Voorst's book pretty clearly demonstrates that Jesus of Nazareth lived”

Another assertion – show me where in his book he gives the evidence that Jesus lived.

“But you're mistaken if you think conservative Christians somehow shy away from the question of the historicity of Jesus.”

I think you misunderstood me. I’m asking if the reason churches don’t teach their congregations about the limited results of various attempts to find evidence of Jesus’ existence is because they think parishioners will bolt when they find out how little is known. I know that in many seminaries (maybe not fundamentalists ones), students are taught textual analysis of the bible and the history of the various quests for the historical Jesus. However, this information is not commonly shared with parishioners.

" I do, of course, agree that the "[n]on-historicity hypothesis" still "remains unproven."

Me too – and I doubt that it can ever be proven. It’s hard to prove a negative, and unlike Moses (who lived in Pharaoh’s household, parted the Red sea and wandered forty years in the desert), Jesus didn’t do the types of things that would leave strong archeological records. However, the historicity hypotheses is also unproven – after centuries of searching by extremely dedicated scholars who wanted to prove it was true.

Here’s some information on historicity of the Old Testament and how Conservative Jews are including archeological findings in recent editions of the Torah:

New York Times, March 9, 2002 New Torah For Modern Minds, By MICHAEL MASSING

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now. [For full article, go to:]
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm (Free link, with NY Times link at the end)

Also, go to Amazon for a review of “The Bible Unearthed” by Jewish scholars, Finkelstein and Silberman

"In his first chapter, in Jesus outside the New Testament, Robert E. Van Voorst discredits scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus by saying, in effect, that no one really thinks that way anymore – without any references to back up his remarks, and as if the scholars’ opinions are tantamount to facts."

I think you're mischaracterizing him here - the body of the book is dedicated to surveying the extra-Biblical evidence. The chapter you mention is an overview, where he's giving his perspective on the current state of scholarship. Based on what I've read, he's correct. But this sort of prelude is typical of scholarly works.

The discussion of the three "Quests" are part of his survey of the history of Jesus scholarship. There have been lots of conclusions - some of which were unfounded (like the idea that there's no extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed).

A fair reading of Van Voorst's book pretty clearly demonstrates that Jesus of Nazareth lived - without relying on the New Testament documents. It's also pretty clear that there's a limit to what we can know about him without considering the evidence of the New Testament.

But that really isn't surprising. Palestine with a real backwater in the first century, and the typical Palestinian Jew would not be of interest to Rome.

"Non-historicity hypothesis - "They (Wells, O’Hair) have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity as we know it, but the theory remains unproven." p16. Is that a correct assumption? Is that why Christian clergy don’t teach this to their congregations?"

Theologically conservative Christians are convinced that Jesus of Nazareth did, in fact, live and die in first century Palestine. This is the very basis of Christianity. We do in fact teach this - I have taught this, publicly. More liberal Christians do not. But you're mistaken if you think conservative Christians somehow shy away from the question of the historicity of Jesus.

I do, of course, agree that the "[n]on-historicity hypothesis" still "remains unproven." I am convinced that it is incorrect.

Believer,

Sorry – left out a word above. My post 10:04 am should say, “Below are some notes I made to myself a few months ago after READING the book you mentioned.”

Hope you come back, because I'd like to hear your response to my thoughts in that post.

"It would be more interesting for you to define "bad. [etc.]

Will give it a try - look (if you want) for a comment sometime tonight.

"...why does God send all these rational, intelligent, humane atheists for me to deal with here in hell?"

Perhaps because they lied about being atheists?

"...why does God send all these rational, intelligent, humane atheists for me to deal with here in hell?"

Perhaps because they lied about being atheists?

Believer -

Thanks for the reference - I'm already familiar with it. In fact Van Voorst's book supports my reasoning. Below are some notes I made to myself a few months ago after the book you mentioned:

In his first chapter, in Jesus outside the New Testament, Robert E. Van Voorst discredits scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus by saying, in effect, that no one really thinks that way anymore – without any references to back up his remarks, and as if the scholars’ opinions are tantamount to facts.

Non-historicity hypothesis - "They (Wells, O’Hair) have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity as we know it, but the theory remains unproven." p16. Is that a correct assumption? Is that why Christian clergy don’t teach this to their congregations? Is not the theory that Christ exists also unproven, especially considering the centuries-old quest to find evidence of him? On what basis does the author go on to say “Biblical Scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted?” He has no footnote on this and does not mention the names of any scholars who refute it, or suggest upon what basis it is refuted.

He mentions three “Quests” – one in the 18th-19 century, one in the early 20th century and one now. After three quests by very determined scholars, I would think that there would be more evidence or some conclusions. Maybe this is a never-ending quest, similar to the quest for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: We thought Saddam had WMD. He said at one time that he did. We haven’t found any after a lot of looking, but they still might be there. Likewise, we thought there was a historical Jesus; the Bible and the Church said so. We haven’t found him after looking for several centuries, but he still might be there.

"My question is this... why does God send all these rational, intelligent, humane atheists for me to deal with here in hell? They make for great conversation. It breaks my black heart to have to throw them in that lake of fire... "

Hey, Mephi - what'cha trying to say here? That all atheists think the same way you do? Share the same world view, perhaps? I'm glad you guys find something to talk about; sounds like you have a lot of common interests.

What I'm really curious about is how you feel about their moral code. You never mentioned that. Is it compatible with yours?

;-)

(As an aside, if you like fictional correspondence from Hell, may I recommend "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis? Even if you don't agree with his theology, I think you'll appreciate the humor.)

"You were probably asking about *final causes*, about purposes, but that question doesn't *work* in this worldview (at least, no final cause for existence has been determined), because the fundamental assumptions are so different. We don't exist for a Purpose (in that sense), rather - we exist, so we have purpose."

A more interesting question is about first causes. Why is there a universe? Is it eternal? There appear to be very definite limits to how far scientific investigation of the physical universe can take us here. At one time, many believed matter to be eternal. The Big Bang makes that philosophical view much harder to maintain now. If nothing else, there appears to be a singularity behind which we can't follow it.

Is anything eternal - and I mean anything, matter, energy, spirit, time, space, natural laws, anything? If not, why is anything here now?

Cosmologists postulate some pretty interesting things: multiple universes, endless cycles of big bangs and big crashes, etc. But at the end of the day, those theories that try to get back behind the big bang are more akin to philosophy than experimental science.

I'm convinced that philosphy is a better tool to use in answering this question than science. Why? Because the question doesn't involved the nature, development and functioning of the physical universe, but goes beyond that to ask what, if anything, outside the universe could be responsible for its existance.

"'Why do we do bad things?' I'll try to answer this tomorrow, if anyone wants (for some strange reason)."

It would be more interesting for you to define "bad." How do you derive a moral standard from physical rules? Can your worldview generate a single moral standard that must be true for all people everywhere? Or can my society arbitrarily select a set of values different from those of your society - say, full development of those with the greatest potential, versus equal opportunity for all members of the society? Does your worldview have a basis for arguing that the moral code based on one of these sets of values is superior to that based on the other - besides an assertion that "I think this one will work, in practice, work out better in today's world?"

It is I, the Prince of Darkness.

I just have one question for the Christians here (By the way, I know I messed up in a bad way with the whole setting man on a path of damnation with the apple and Eve, I'd rather just forget that one, actually).

My question is this... why does God send all these rational, intelligent, humane atheists for me to deal with here in hell? They make for great conversation. It breaks my black heart to have to throw them in that lake of fire... Don't get me started on the good, caring Muslims and Buddhists... really gets my goat to have to roast them, too.

Basically, I was wondering if you could send a quick prayer up to the big cheese in the sky (he doesn't really listen to me anymore... goodness, talk about a grudge).

I've been following these threads, and the most self-important, arrogant, wicked, and frankly stupid people tend to be Christian believers. Now... believers are what believers are... but maybe the ol' JC could be convinced to send a couple of those airheads like this Canyon Shearer person down to my little realm of pain. I'd like to work him over a bit. And I'd like to send some of these atheists up to spend some time in the sky... strum a harp and float around on clouds a bit, you know? They really are great people... just couldn't accept the blatant hypocrisy and contradictions of Christianity. It's a pity to see them writhe in the fiery lake, really.

Anyway, gotta get back to my torture chambers. Just let the big guy know what I had to say. Maybe we can work something out.

Oh yeah... and tell him that I want that Pastor Ted Haggart. I know he's kind of tight with ol' JC... but damn if he's not one wicked SOB. I'll take a fiery pitchfork to him. God can have a few atheists in exchange. At least they make sense when they're arguing... even if it's over getting the branding-iron in the bum again.

Aight... that's the news from Hades.

Yours in Sin,

Mephistopholes

Straying off the topic (um . . .what was it again?), but Mark, let me try to answer your questions, to the best of my understanding - and thank you for the opportunity. This will be a little long; I hope you'll bear with me - the gap between our views, I think, is wide enough that language starts acting up and needing careful definition, and I ramble on and on as is.

Anyway:
"The reason I exist is" - like Pam said, because my mom and dad made love one day, and a specific sperm met a specific egg .
But we can follow that a little further, past an astonishing dance of development - from one cell to a newborn baby - that scientists are just starting to figure out (see for example _Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The new science of evo devo_ [short for evolutionary developmental biology], by Sean Carroll). Born completely helpless, human babies simply can't survive on their own - indeed, not for years to come (if *ever*, some might mutter ruefully : )), so another reason I exist is that I had a family to care for me, to raise me the best they could. And since we're social animals - unlike some creatures that come together only to mate, people *need* other people - all of this is wrapped up in a framework of community.

And knowing I (and you, and everyone) exist because two people came together, because we were cared for and nurtured, because we live within a community, we can look backwards, as well. From parents to grandparents to great-grandparents to - each step part of an unbroken chain of love and nurture and care linking generation to generation in a dance of another sort, even as memories and records and finally even myths begin to fade. And then we can peer into the vast dimness beyond that, painstakingly catching glimpses of ancestors at once both ever stranger and unquestionably familiar, waltzing from birth to birth, love to love, until the light of self-awareness unkindles itself. And further back, past furry creatures who mate and give birth and suckle their young and try to keep them safe, without understanding, but with care. And further still, until fur and milk disappears, and we find eggs instinctively nestled in careful nests, and then even further back into the ancient oceans, amid infant fish who wiggle out of eggs and never see a parent, but each having been sustained by precious yolk . . .

You were probably asking about *final causes*, about purposes, but that question doesn't *work* in this worldview (at least, no final cause for existence has been determined), because the fundamental assumptions are so different. We don't exist for a Purpose (in that sense), rather - we exist, so we have purpose. See, for example, above.

"Why do we die?
Ok, well -

(Please leave biology out)
Oh. Hmm. You see, that also doesn't work (translate?) here. I know you're trying to preclude smart-aleck answers, but for us it's like asking 'why do things fall when dropped? (please leave physics out).' - a very odd thing to say Things happen - wounds, sickness, hunger or thirst or cold, some vital organ fails, from some flaw or simple wearing-out after decades of life . . . Things happen.

But why can't we just drive safely and take antibiotics, why do we just wear out in the end? Why can't we just keep on going? Well we can go a little further here - if on some fairly shaky ground, - and it all comes back to what we were just talking about above. Many simple single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, through binary fission (basically 'splitting in two'). In a very strange sense, (and mutations aside), they're potentially the next thing to immortal. One cell splits into two identical daughter cells (although copying errors can creep in) which split into - well, as long as they're not *all* dead or mutated, in a *sense* the same organism is still around, never aging. Meet the new amoeba, exactly same as the old amoeba (repeat indefinitely).

When some organisms began reproducing sexually, though, everything changed. By combining genetic material, they give rise to a *new* organism, unlike either of the parents. In a very poetic and metaphorical sense, we exchanged immortality - of a sort - for children.

But among animals that went that route, there are major differences. We're not sure why, but there are some ideas. You have, for example, creatures like mice, who seem to take 'live fast, die young' as a motto: they grow up and hit sexual maturity quickly, reproduce in quantity, and - that's it. This *seems* to be the result of heavy predation pressure, etc. - a constantly high risk environment. On one hand, traits that help produce offspring as quick as possible before inevitable death comes on soundless owl wings or padding cat feet will be selected for. On the other, traits that help produce long-lived - let alone Methuselah-style - mice are will be neutral at best (because they'll be eaten first), or actively harmful and selected against (if it - quite likely - works against ASAP reproduction), so even in captivity, they only live a few years.

With _people_, however (and elephants, among others), it's a different story. We develop slowly, with a rather late onset of sexual maturity, have few (slowly developing) offspring, and have quite long lives for mammals (even compared to other primates, which tend towards longer life-spans). This sort of pattern seems related to more stable/predictable environments with populations that are close to carrying capacity (among other things) and generally involve high parental investment in a rather small number of offspring (a very bad strategy for a mouse!). Indeed, it has been suggested that natural selection has favored long (and post-reproductive) lifespans in various species, including us, so we generally get to *be* around to nurture our kids ( and even grandkids) . . . perhaps even be repositories of hard-won lessons (community again!)

In some other cases, it's very different once again - turtles, for instance. At least some species don't really seem to age - perhaps just verrrrrrrrry slowly? :) - they *do* just keep on going. They'll die from injuries or disease, sure, but not at any greater rate as the years go by, *and* they keep on reproducing at the same rate, or even higher. Little eastern box turtles have plodded into their 13th decade, and the Galapagos giants into their 17th. Turtles tend towards horribly high juvenile mortality, and they put off sexual maturity for a very long time while they grow their shell. However, they're fully developed, they have relatively little to fear from predators (cars, on the other hand :( - so it seems that evolution's selected for traits that keep the turtles plugging along, making up for lost time and high juvenile mortality.

If *we* did that, though . . . well, we have (relatively) low juvenile mortality, and tend to live in fairly crowded environments (in relation to how we utilize them. It would seem that we would end up extensively competing with our own offspring (and their offspring), so . . .

Of course, none of this is truth handed down from on high. It's people's attempts - using a very formal and specialized version of the kind of thinking we use to figure out everyday problems - to muddle out what's going on, and may well be incomplete or slightly-to-entirely mistaken. (Plus, this is a little-understood area that I have *no* expertise in (my background's in anth and education!) , and have left out tons and probably garbled the rest). I'd include a ton of links, but that seems to be getting my comments blocked?

"What happens after we die?"

Quick answer? (Because I have to go to bed!) We die. Life goes on. The world keeps on turning (although we ourselves are longer actively participating, or even existing in the sense one means), and whatever we did with our time, for good or bad - lives we've influenced, things we've made, children we've raised, *everything* - continues on and on beyond us. Toss a stone into a pond. Quickly the stone sinks out of sight, but the ripples remain. And in life, the ripples toss stones as well, making new ripples that . . .

"Who was the very first person?"

Like, what was their name, and such? I have no idea, nor will we ever, and it really depends on how you mean "first" and "person." However, through genetics, we've been able to take mitochondrial DNA (or mtDNA - mitochondria have their own DNA, which is a pretty wild story in itself, and are only (with maybe very rare exceptions?) inherited from one's mother, not one's father) from people around the world and construct a big family tree - mother-to-mother-to-mother-to . . . that finally joins up (very roughly, and give or take, estimating) about ?150,000 years ago in Africa). *Whoever* that was,that was the last common _matrilineal_ ancestor of everyone alive today. *But* - 1) there were other women around, it's just that they either didn't have descendants, or somewhere along the line that lineage had only boys that lived to reproduce, and 2) We also have all of *her matrilineal ancestors in common.

They've also done the same using the Y chromosome, to find the last common patrilineal ancestor, who lived between about 60,000 and 90,000 years ago.
(Again, human process of discovery, not received Truth - also *very* simplified, smoothed over, and garbled. Google 'Mitochondrial Eve' or Y-chromosomal Adam, or go to the library/bookstore science section for more.)

She's quite unlikely to be the same as the first person, however defined. And most likely it was less of a clear cutoff and more of a gradation.

"Why do we do bad things?"

I'll try to answer this tomorrow, if anyone wants (for some strange reason).

I think it's interesting to consider the difference in answers, how we reach them, and what they *do*.

So, how about you?

"This research, plus historical research of life in 1st century Palestine, tells me what Jesus’ life could have been like if there had been a Jesus, but goes nowhere to proving that there is an historical Jesus."

May I suggest "Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst? It's a pretty middle of the road survey of the non-Biblical documentary evidence. I think you'll find it interesting.

(ISBN 0-8028-4368-9)

"We ask again, What have you read? What books do you have in your library on the subject? What is on page 100 of Father Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament? Without answers you will again win today's "Blog Hog" i.e. a lot of snorting with no substance award."

Which edition, smart alec.

Concerned the Christian, NL: You say,

"Using these documents plus the conclusions of the major NT exegetes in the past two hundred years, [Crossan] compared Jesus' reported acts and sayings to when they were reported and how many reports were made."

Yes, but this doesn't tell me much, as all the sources are from the gospels - either the Bible or gospels not included, found later.

This research, plus historical research of life in 1st century Palestine, tells me what Jesus’ life could have been like if there had been a Jesus, but goes nowhere to proving that there is an historical Jesus.

Of course the more that's written about a subject, the more real it seems. I recently saw a very thick book titled "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls." I had to read closely to discern what I already knew in advance -- there's no mention of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Anonymous,

You have a point about "Blog Hogging" so we will award you with the "Snorting Without Substance" trophy.

Ah, and that's where you yourself are badly informed, Pam: The silly idea that people who profess a faith have anything rigidly laid out for them. And the silly idea that my little meditation was offered in anger. Amusement, hardly anger.

"Happy, productive little clams, producing for what they know not (and must not be permitted to ask)."

There's where you're wrong, Anony, non-believers are always permitted to ask, unlike those who have it rigidly set out for them by religion. And I think they know exactly what they're producing for.

Such anger must make you very unhappy. Relax and enjoy.

"All are non-believers as adults, and are happy, productive individuals."

Happy as clams spinning along in their pointless little universes.

Where they arbitrarily ascribe purpose and value to their own puny existences [because I just say so, %*)#&2@ it!] — while fanatically insisting that the sum of all these puny existences must not itself be admitted to have purpose or value of any kind.

Because I just say so, %*)#&2@ it! Indeed.

Happy, productive little clams, producing for what they know not (and must not be permitted to ask).

Telling themselves stories — no different than the old ones, really — fairy tales that help them cheat insatiable oblivion through one more course of the clock.

Happy as clams. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

Ok, Mark, I'll bite.

You wrote:
"Please answer the following question in your own words:

The reason I exist is:"

The reason I exist is because my mother and father decided to have sex on a particular day at a particular time. No more, no less.

The you wrote:
"We are created to please and honor God. No other reason. It is extremely simple. You have tried to make it difficult."

Nope, I made it even simpler. And if you wanted to answer the question yourself, why did you ask?
Your answer assumes the existence of something that I don't believe (on the strength of the evidence) exists. Here's a question for you: If no one had told you about God, or given you a Bible to read (let's say you were raised by wolves) would you know he existed? How?

You wrote: "Atheism does nothing to answer the tough questions about ourselves. All is does is attempt to shoot holes in the true answers. Children cannot comprehend atheism because it does not make sense to them. It takes too much of an intellectual leap to believe."

Atheism doesn't attempt to answer *any* questions about us. It's not a belief system, it's the *lack* of belief in a diety. Science, on the other hand, answers a great many questions about ourselves, and has no goals other than knowledge for its own sake. Children who aren't indoctrinated in a faith have no problem with atheism. My nieces and nephews were raised without religion, other than what they encountered in their interactions with other children. All are non-believers as adults, and are happy, productive individuals.

You wrote: "I have several more questions if you think that one is too easy.
Why do we die? (Please leave biology out)"

I can't leave biology out. We die because we accumulate flaws (both micro and macro) that make it impossible to reproduce, or at least lowers the quality of offspring. When we can no longer pass on our genes, there is no evolutionary imperative to continue. Our dying makes more resources available to the younger ones who are still able to make more genetic copies. Sorry, that may be cold, but it's the way nature works.

"What happens after we die?"

Left to nature, we provide sustenance for other lifeforms. Cremated, we provide heat and light energy. Embalmed, we're pretty much wasted.

"Who was the very first person?"

Depends on your criteria for deciding what a person is. It was kind of like a morphed picture - lots of intermediate stages. The first to have every single characteristic that we recognize as Homo Sapiens today was an unknown person born to Cro Magnon parents, who was just a little bit different from them, not much.

"Why do we do bad things?"

We might not define "bad" exactly the same way, but there probably are some criteria that we could agree on (not others - as in some of the sexual rules laid down in the Bible). Murder is probably bad to both of us. Why do people murder? I suppose because they think that their immediate benefit will be served, even though it is detrimental to social order and to their inclusion within that society if their deed is discovered. Most will probably live to regret it, even if they're not caught - they will fear every knock on the door forever. There are also people who are simply born without the biological controls that most of us inherit from our social ancestors. Psychology terms them "amoral."

That was a different Anonymous. I am the one you accuse of "hogging" (a weird complaint, I might add, in a situation where there's absolutely equal access for all).

Anonymous,

You noted: "Well, I've read it, and have been seriously underwhelmed. What's particularly sad is that it's been trumpeted as groundbreaking and daring - when in fact all of the textual issues discussed by the Jesus Seminar show up in any standard work on the text of the New Testament. Of course, the same inflamatory conclusions aren't drawn, and they don't have the same public relations guys . ."

We ask again, What have you read? What books do you have in your library on the subject? What is on page 100 of Father Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament? Without answers you will again win today's "Blog Hog" i.e. a lot of snorting with no substance award.

Other anonymous says, "They've [Jesus Seminar] just chose to 'deconstruct' it based on their own philosophical and religious presuppositions."

And much political ideology — the whole revolutionary/domination thing that gives them something to get the attention of secular liberal academics at cocktail parties.

"Those of us who have referenced the Jesus Seminars have provided quotes, book references and/or links to their work."

All you've done is provide links and citations to their works and say, "hey y'all, this stuff is the best!"

Well, I've read it, and have been seriously underwhelmed. What's particularly sad is that it's been trumpeted as groundbreaking and daring - when in fact all of the textual issues discussed by the Jesus Seminar show up in any standard work on the text of the New Testament. Of course, the same inflamatory conclusions aren't drawn, and they don't have the same public relations guys . . .

But at the end of the day, they aren't looking at anything that isn't already very familiar to any serious student of the New Testament text. They've just chosen to "deconstruct" it based on their own philosophical and religious presuppositions.

JR, obviously your points are well taken, from an earthbound, recorded history point of view. Beyond that is indeed speculation, but it is simply improbable to suppose that across the universe there is no more variety than has occurred on a single planet in a mere five thousand orbits of its star. And I fail to see how that is not something to bear in mind.

(atheist)

To anonymous:

I agree that the question is - "whether our present-day perspective on the place of intelligent self-reflective life in the universe" is different from ancient Israel's...

And I think the answer is yes, our worldviews would have to be very different. Here's a very incomplete list of some of the what is now common knowledge that has significantly changed humanity's view of the universe and our place within it, and which was unavailable to the tribes of Israel:
* Astronomy - the shape and size of the earth, the moon, the sun and planets, the galaxy, the makeup, size, shape and age of the universe, space travel, etc.
* Medicine - human anatomy and the functions of the organs, the structure of the brain, the functions of metabolism, disease and microorganisms, genetics, etc
* Physics - mechanics, gravity, electromagnetism, the structure of molecules and atoms, relativity, etc.
* Human History - the rise of...cities, nation states, technology, transportation systems, standards of living, life spans, universities, telecommunications, etc.

This could be a very long list, I'll stop here. Imagine someone from ancient Isarel suddenly transported to Manhattan or Tokyo of today. In my opinion it's just not possible that a person living 5,000 years ago could have the same "perspective on the place of intelligent self-reflective life" as someone living today.

As for space aliens, I didn't mean that in a derogatory way. I'm a life long fan of science fiction, if you were to push me I would bet that there are other intelligent life forms in the universe. But there's no evidence for that today, nor is there any way of knowing what they might be like, so any speculation on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is pure fantasy. jr

To all atheists:

Please answer the following question in your own words:

The reason I exist is:

We are created to please and honor God. No other reason. It is extremely simple. You have tried to make it difficult.

Atheism does nothing to answer the tough questions about ourselves. All is does is attempt to shoot holes in the true answers. Children cannot comprehend atheism because it does not make sense to them. It takes too much of an intellectual leap to believe.

I have several more questions if you think that one is too easy.

Why do we die? (Please leave biology out)
What happens after we die?
Who was the very first person?
Why do we do bad things?

JR,

Mr./Ms. Concerned will call us on this digression, I'm sure, but to reply and clarify: The question is this: whether our present-day perspective on the place of intelligent self-reflective life in the universe can be as different from ancient Israel's as atheists like to think.

If you consider all of the possibilities for such life and all of the possible perspectives, how different could we possibly be? The air we breathe, the sky at which we gaze, the longings of the human heart are all the same. Even if your scale is simply the time our species has walked the earth, the distance between us and the Israelites is trivial.

I must also ask that you refrain from derogatory terms like "space aliens". They may well be far more intelligent than we are. They may even have taken down God's dictation accurately (which would save all kinds of grief and, as mentioned above, avoid the atheist problem altogether).

Anonymous et al,

Along with the books of JD Crossan, I recommend reading Father Ray Brown's, An Introduction to the New Testament, an 878 page review of NT facts and tradition. It is approved by the Catholic Church. The book also has a section criticizing the Jesus Seminar et al.

Read also Luke Johnson's, The Real Jesus, which is another critique of the Historical Jesus movement that has taken place over the last 200 years. I have read both books for balance (as you say) and they are in my library. Conclusion: JD Crossan's scholarship and conclusions trump that of Brown and also Johnson. Let us know the conclusions of your balanced review after you have read the same books.

Father Schillebeeckx's books are difficult to read but would be good training for your desire to get an advanced degree.

A good review of the workings and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar can be found at http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

An excerpt:
"The first step in the work of the Jesus Seminar was to inventory and classify all the words attributed to Jesus in the first three centuries of the common era. The edict of toleration issued by the emperor Constantine in 313 C.E. was chosen as the cutoff point. With the Council of Nicea in 325, the orthodox party solidified its hold on the Christian tradition and other wings of the Christian movement were choked off. The Seminar collected more than fifteen hundred versions of approximately five hundred items (it is often difficult to know how to count clusters of sayings and words embedded in longer narratives). The items were sorted into four categories: parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories containing words attributed to Jesus. The inventory covers all the surviving gospels and reports from the period, not just the canonical gospels."

(atheist)

To Demos and anonymous:

If you guys are going to make strong claims that the Jesus Seminars is a "sideshow", or that the "hard work" of theological scholarship is being done elsewhere, or that these guys are crackpots, then you need to provide evidence. Who do you think IS doing the hard work? What has been published that disproves the work of Crossan et al? Those of us who have referenced the Jesus Seminars have provided quotes, book references and/or links to their work. All you've done is called them names. Granted, the Jesus Seminars are not the be-all or end-all of theological scholarship. But they are one of the few academic efforts that took an in-depth look at primary new testament era material, and that (although most of the participants are theists) approached the issues of Jesus' life and teachings with an open mind. Their findings did end up goring a lot of christian oxen, but that was not their goal (nor was publicity).

And anonymous, you have totally lost me on this whole "age of the universe" and "space aliens" line. I thought the question was how different modern man is from the tribes of Israel. If we create a timeline of written human history, and place the sumerians at the beginning (about 10,000 years ago) and modern man at the other end (about now) then the tribes of Israel were writing their old testament stories at about the halfway point. How is the age of the universe or the possibility of other intelligent self-aware beings in the universe at all relevant? jr

"(atheist as always)"

So we can see.

"The most I can take away from your recent posts criticizing Crossan is that you do not personally care for his work or that of the Jesus Seminars."

And for some reason you seem to think that they're the cat's pajamas. But be that as it may. They are an academic side show. The hard work of scholarship is not done in seminars designed to gain media attention.

P.S.

Your comments on the Catholic Church's International Theological Commission provide an interesting bit of ecclesiastical trivia, but I don't see how they're relevant to a discussion of responsible scholarship. Or are you willing to grant it standing as a scholarly body equivalent to the Jesus Seminar? I wouldn't object - after all, they've been studying the New Testament much longer than Crossan or Spong, and tend to take it much more seriously!

"So you consider it enlightened to stone children to death for disobedience to their elders? You think it's OK for women not to be allowed in the temple when they have their "sickness" - or to be allowed to speak there in any case? You think slavery is fine? Does what's right actually change? Does God change his mind about it? Isn't he supposed to be perfect? And Lot was commended by default - he was the one that God considered worth saving."

Pam, are you the one who's now arguing for an absolute standard for morality that never changes?

:-)

Seriously - God doesn't change. Christianity and Judaism are united in believing that certain moral truths are immutable - for instance, murder, adultery, and theft are always wrong.

The law given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was intended for a specific people, in a particular place and time, with a specific social and cultural background. If you look at the culture and society surrounding it, you'll see that it went a long way towards curbing the worst abuses of the time - and thus I think it's fair to describe it as "enlightened" when "[u]nderstood in the social and legal context when it was given." This is most clearly seen when you look at some of the rules of judicial procedure - such as the cities of refuge - which were clearly intended to reform a system in which blood vengeance by clan members was a deep seated way of life.

"You think it's OK for women not to be allowed in the temple when they have their "sickness" . . ."

The rules of ritual cleanliness can be a challenge for someone from our society to understand. Basically, they underscored the holiness of God. Nothing associated with mortality was to be brought into the temple precincts. Thus, if I had been an Israelite man in those days, I would be ritually unclean if I had a running sore, had recently had a nocturnal seminal emission (wet dream), had recently touched a dead body, etc. The rules are extensive, and cover pretty much anything that has to do with birth, death, disease or blood.

Note that I would be specifically required to properly bury a family member, such as a parent or wife - even though it would, for a time, make me ritually unclean. That would not imply any moral wrong - I would be following a mitzvot, a commandment - but I would not be allowed to come directly to the temple from handling a corpse. Similarly, nothing in the holiness code implies that menstruation is a disease or involves some sort of moral evil. But just like semen, it is connected with our mortality - and would make a person ritually unclean for a time.

I can't claim to understand everything about the holiness code - it's of no direct relevance to us today, so there's a limit to how much time I spend studying it. But it's very, very clear that it was a matter of ritual, not moral purity - and is understood that way by both Jews and Christians. Of course, the moral lesson is clear, and was consistently brought out by the Hebrew prophets and New Testament writers - God is holy, and we have to come before Him with clean hands and hearts.

Does God want us to enslave each other? No. Did the rules laid out in the Mosaic law moderate the worst abuses? Yes.

Does God change? No - but he deals with men and women who do, and with societies that do. Try to imagine a perfectly moral person. Do you really believe that they would live in exactly the same way in a late-bronze-age/early-iron-age society (that of the patriarchs and early Israelites) as they would in a modern, representative democracy? Would their core principles change? No. But those principles would be applied to very different circumstances. (Just as we ask "what does the right to privacy mean in a wired world?" Christians must also ask "what does marital fidelity mean in a world of cybersex and internet porn?")

This is a very real challenge for believers. My goal is to understand how God wants me to live - and how to apply that to the circumstances I face right now, today. This is one reason Christians can disagree about so many things - none of us really take naive cookbook approach to the Bible that we're sometimes accused of.

You've misunderstood the story if you think Lot was saved because he was somehow "good enough." And even those who are commended by God - such as David, the "man after God's own heart" - are shown warts and all, and sometimes fail catastrophically (remember Bathsheba? Scripture never describes that as anything except the adulterous, murderous affair that it was - and condemns it).

"I don't think you'll find much theological support for that these days (the eye-witness part)."

That's the problem with blogs - it's too easy to speak too quickly. Let me clarify.

It's pretty clear that the New Testament documents were written in the late first century to very early second century. Most represent internal correspondence among the first Christians. None of that is seriously disputed. The four gospels were, of course, written after the death of Jesus - they describe it, after all. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, as was Paul. Mark and Luke were from the first generation of converts, and companions of the apostles. I'm convinced that they give us a reliable picture of what the earliest Christians taught and believed.

"No, you're definitely not alone in it, but I can't agree with the last part."

Pam, you're also not alone in assuming that the universe consists purely of matter - that there is no such thing as spirit. That's a philosophical position, though - not a scientific one. We all recognize the existance of the material realm, its complexity, and the wonderful order by which it operates. The tools of the physical sciences have proven incredibly powerful in helping us understand the physical universe. They can't, though, answer the question "is there anything else?"

Some will take a positivist view and argue that the question is meaningless. I'm convinced that it is a meaningful question - and one that philosophy and religion can help us answer.

You may not agree. You don't have to. But it isn't willful ignorance to ask the question, or to think that the answer is important.

JR,

I wonder why you would suppose that being a credible academic is mutually exclusive with espousing crackpot or neo-crackpot viewpoints? Credible academics have a range of viewpoints, and I would think you (being an open-minded atheist and all) would endorse our advice to young Concerned that she/he broaden her/his range.

I'm afraid your argument about scale doesn't wash. We're not talking about human history — we're talking about the friggin' universe, baby!

(40 years an atheist...)

To Demos and anonymous:

The most I can take away from your recent posts criticizing Crossan is that you do not personally care for his work or that of the Jesus Seminars. Unless you provide evidence of why their work is not "responsible textual analysis", or offer us names of alternative "mainstream biblical scholars", then I'll have to assume that your opinions are just personal bias. You can save yourself valuable keystrokes when criticizing such folks by copying and pasting the following into your posts - "Crossan! Jesus Seminars! Bah humbug." Feel free to use, I have not copyrighted it (by the way, anonymous, you may want to go back and delete your earlier post in which you said Crossan and Borg were credible academics).

Pam explained much more succinctly than I could why cosmological time and the possibilities of space aliens are not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about the history of human written culture and accumulated knowledge, which began some 10-15,000 years ago.

pax vobiscum - jr

Pam, in reply to your question, see comment @ 23:15 on 8 Jan. — or append this to current URL: #comment-773614

Concerned, I think you prove my point — I suggested balance, and the list you cite is bunched up at the crackpot end of the spectrum. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but balanced it ain't.

"I love to see ancient Israel dissed as a "primitive tribe".

On a cosmological scale, how long ago and far away was this primitive tribe?"

I meant that in the sense that they had essentially no scientific knowledge with which to counter superstition.

What has cosmological scale got to do with it?

Believer writes:
"I think you're changing gears on us here. It sounds like your primary objection regarding the Old Testament is what you consider 'odious' rather than what you consider 'fantastical'."

No, actually I object about equally to both, but the odious examples seemed more pertinent - everyone knows what the fantastical parts are.

Believer: "Understood in the social and legal context when it was given, the Mosaic law was in our terms remarkably 'enlightened.' The warfare of the time was ugly, and scripture never sugarcoats that (though did you notice, for instance, that while on several occasions the women were killed alongside the men, the Mosaic law outlawed rape of captives?). (And as an aside - where is Lot ever commended for his actions? This illustrates how depraved the city was, and how caught up Lot had become in it.)"

So you consider it enlightened to stone children to death for disobedience to their elders? You think it's OK for women not to be allowed in the temple when they have their "sickness" - or to be allowed to speak there in any case? You think slavery is fine? Does what's right actually change? Does God change his mind about it? Isn't he supposed to be perfect? And Lot was commended by default - he was the one that God considered worth saving.

"I will suggest that the documentary trail for the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the beliefs and actions of His first followers is much stronger than that for the Torah - in large part because it is more more recent historically, and the New Testament texts were by and large written by eye-witnesses."

I don't think you'll find much theological support for that these days (the eye-witness part).

Believer: "This may be where we ultimately part company. I'm not a physical reductionist - I do believe that there is more than the physical universe. I don't believe I'm alone in this - or that it is equivalent to a naive belief in magic."

No, you're definitely not alone in it, but I can't agree with the last part.

Anonymous,

As I have noted previously, my recent religious experience has not only been reading and agreeing with Professor Crossan's conclusions but also reading some of the books of Armstrong and Schillebeeckx plus a few books by Funk, Borg, Spong, Pagels, Carroll, Brown, Johnson and Chilton. And what historical Jesus books have you read?

And as per James Somerville, there is no religion Heaven. Religion in any form or no form for a good person and atheist like yourself are only the keys to the Gate.

Concerned, Crossan may be good for sport, but if you honestly find reading him revelatory I'd advise a little more balance.

Demos,

You noted: " Academic questions are not settled by majority vote."

The Catholic Church's International Theological Commission votes on various scriptural matters. Current debate/discussions/votes are about limbo and also natural law. Our "infallible" Pope does act as the supreme court on their decision but rarely changes the majority vote. So what is wrong with the Jesus Seminar voting? The results of many of the Seminar's votes can be found at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html

I trust you are having a new religious enlightment with some of JD Crossan's books.

When you finish, there is a large list of other NT exegetes with historical Jesus expertise and their books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

If there is intelligent life out there, what is the probability they also have an atheist problem? Maybe they avoided it by taking better notes when God was dictating.

JR, you don't explain why you think human cultural history is the appropriate scale. The point is, if you consider all possible self-aware intelligent life in the universe that may contemplate its own existence, the difference between us and the Israelites is nil. I realize it's important for you anti-YHWH types to regard them as primitive, but explain why that isn't so.

I realize this site is a discussion of believes and nonbelievers based on the discussion of whether the bible is the word of God. My concern is that if the bible is the word of God, what about the billions of people on earth who follow some other teachings than the bible? Will they end up in the Cristian's heaven or their separate heaven? One hundred years from now no person - with a few exceptions - now living will be here. Billions of new people will be here arguing about religion.

Posted by Rich

"John Dominic Crossan was one of the most experienced theological scholars of the Jesus Seminars. The Jesus Seminars was/is a rigorous and objective exploration into the life and teachings of Jesus, using primary sources whenever possible (they chose to use primary sources since most biblical scholars recognize that the new testament we know today is a very selectively edited and diluted story of the life of Jesus)."

Sorry - I have to part company with you there. The Jesus Seminars were an academic stunt. Responsible textual analysis is one thing - voting on verses is quite another. Academic questions are not settled by majority vote.

I will grant you that it was a good stunt - it got all sorts of publicity, and created several remarkable writing careers (including Crossan's). But responsible scholarship it was not.

(atheist as always)

To Believer,

Contrary to popular belief, none of the authors of the new testament were eye witnesses to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Theologians estimate that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote their gospels somewhere between 50 and 80 years after Jesus died. It's thought that Mark's was probably written first sometime around 80 CE, followed by Matthew, Luke and John. Because of certain similarities, scholars think that Mark (and possibly others) drew on an earlier set of writings from ~50 CE called Q in his account of Jesus' teachings. In addition, scholars have found significant evidence of at least three other gospels which for various reasons were never included in the new testament, but like the others, these were not written until well after Jesus' death. In summary, none of the known gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus. jr

To reiterate, Professor Crossan more than any other NT exegete (See Google Historical Jesus books) and with great thoroughness examined all the existing scriptural writings from the first and second centuries AD/CE. If you do not have his 505 page book, The Historical Jesus, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf.

Using these documents plus the conclusions of the major NT exegetes in the past two hundred years, he compared Jesus' reported acts and sayings to when they were reported and how many reports were made. Those acts and sayings with single or later attestations along with the current biblical scholarship negativity, were judged not to be done or said by the historical Jesus. Approximately 67% of the NT was judged to be in that category, i.e. embellishments of the facts typically made to compete with the Roman, Greek, Persian, Babylonian, and Egyptian gods. See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

As a starting set of Crossan's books, I highly recommend Who is Jesus, The Historical Jesus, Excavating Jesus and In Search of Paul in that order.

(i'm an atheist)

To Demos:

You dismiss Crossan too hastily (note - one has not adequately addressed a serious post here by saying "riiiight", no matter how many "i"s one puts in the word "right"). John Dominic Crossan was one of the most experienced theological scholars of the Jesus Seminars. The Jesus Seminars was/is a rigorous and objective exploration into the life and teachings of Jesus, using primary sources whenever possible (they chose to use primary sources since most biblical scholars recognize that the new testament we know today is a very selectively edited and diluted story of the life of Jesus). I will grant you that Crossan is a dry writer who can be hard to take in large doses, but he is very well respected for his scholarship. The Jesus Seminars and its most noted authors, including Crossan and Borg and Armstrong, have done much to "demythisize Jesus", which for those of us who find the deification of Jesus hard to swallow, is a welcome addition to theological study.

To anonymous (which anonymous are you? why can't the various anonymouses here use more differentiating names?) - when considering the "distance" between modern man and the tribes of Israel (those who wrote the stories of the old testament), the cosmological scale is irrelevant. Who cares if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, when for 4,499,988,000 of those years there was no real human civilization? On the scale of human cultural history, the tribes of Israel lived a long, long time ago.

pax vobiscum - jr

I love to see ancient Israel dissed as a "primitive tribe".

On a cosmological scale, how long ago and far away was this primitive tribe?

Given that the distance in time and space between them and us is essentially zero, just how different from us could they possibly be?

"I find it troubling that Christians other than fundamentalists write off all the odious and fantastical parts of the Bible (chiefly, but not entirely OT) as "allegory", or "poetry", yet want us to believe literally in the physical resurrection of a 3-day dead body, and other miracles . . . My point, in the original post, was (to boil it down) if it contains supernatural stuff, it's myth. If not, it's probably history."

I think you're changing gears on us here. It sounds like your primary objection regarding the Old Testament is what you consider "odious" rather than what you consider "fantastical."

Understood in the social and legal context when it was given, the Mosaic law was in our terms remarkably "enlightened." The warfare of the time was ugly, and scripture never sugarcoats that (though did you notice, for instance, that while on several occasions the women were killed alongside the men, the Mosaic law outlawed rape of captives?). (And as an aside - where is Lot ever commended for his actions? This illustrates how depraved the city was, and how caught up Lot had become in it.)

I will suggest that the documentary trail for the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the beliefs and actions of His first followers is much stronger than that for the Torah - in large part because it is more more recent historically, and the New Testament texts were by and large written by eye-witnesses.

"I sometimes feel sorry for Christians having to negotiate this obstacle course - "this bit is literally true, but this bit doesn't mean what it says, quite" - to try to reconcile the myths of a primitive tribe to our post-modern sensibilities and our ideas of justice."

You have profoundly misunderstood me if you think I'm trying to reconcile the Christian faith "to our post-modern sensibilities and our ideas of justice." I am convinced that the New Testament is a reliable representation of what Jesus and his earliest followers said and did, and I've placed my trust in Jesus as the Christ. Because I'm convinced that God exists, I'm trying my best to understand what he wants me to do, and how he wants me to live.

I try to convey, to the extent I can, the core message of Christianity in a way that is understandable to my contemporaries. I may have misunderstood it, I may be completely mistaken - I'm willing to talk to about all of that. But since I am convinced that this message ultimately comes from God, I have no interest in changing it. If, on the other hand, it's not from God - then Christianity make no sense. I'll drop it rather than cling to Christianity as a "myth to live by."

"*Degree* of supernaturality is immaterial. Magic is magic."

This may be where we ultimately part company. I'm not a physical reductionist - I do believe that there is more than the physical universe. I don't believe I'm alone in this - or that it is equivalent to a naive belief in magic.

Believer wrote:
"As you know, I'm convinced that all too often people are put off by the misuse of scripture, or the way it's sometimes caricatured by opponents of Christianity, rather than a serious and thoughful attempt to understand it as intended."

I find it troubling that Christians other than fundamentalists write off all the odious and fantastical parts of the Bible (chiefly, but not entirely OT) as "allegory", or "poetry", yet want us to believe literally in the physical resurrection of a 3-day dead body, and other miracles. What kind of allegory or poetry is instruction from God to enter a city and kill everything that breathes - including women, children and animals - within it? What kind of allegory or poetry to have Moses tell his people that disobedient children are to be stoned to death? What kind of allegory or poetry to have Lot offer his virgin daughters to the men who wanted to "know" the angels who were visiting him?

I would have more respect for Christians if they would cut the OT loose, but I suppose that leaves one wondering "who is this God of whom Jesus speaks?"

I sometimes feel sorry for Christians having to negotiate this obstacle course - "this bit is literally true, but this bit doesn't mean what it says, quite" - to try to reconcile the myths of a primitive tribe to our post-modern sensibilities and our ideas of justice.

My point, in the original post, was (to boil it down) if it contains supernatural stuff, it's myth. If not, it's probably history. I don't see the difference between Christianity and the other myths that you apparently do. *Degree* of supernaturality is immaterial. Magic is magic.

"I began to wonder why I didn't believe and others who were highly educated and intelligent believed."

Interesting. My experience is that as we grow up there are generally two phases to belief.

As small children, we believe what we're told. At first, this is what we're told by our parents, school teachers, and the other adults who are around us. Most kids also go through a phase where they believe anything the read in a book or magazine - no matter how ridiculous (this drives parents up the wall).

Later, we question and, ultimately, decide for ourselves what we're going to believe. This happens at different times - generally during adolescence or early adulthood. Often, we end up with beliefs very similar to those of our parents. But if we don't go through a period of genuine questioning, the belief is never very strong. Many Christians describe this as "making your faith your own."

Reading your comment, I was struck by the way you phrased your question - you didn't say "why do I believe this?" What was your religious background like? Did your parents or teachers ever talk about the "why" behind their faith, or did they just tell you the "what" to believe?

I'm convinced that this is a mistake many parents (and churches) make - not spending more time on the foundations of their faith. To have any real power, faith has to have roots - and that means understanding why you believe what you believe, and being convinced that the foundations are intellectually credible.

I was raised as a catholic. When I was about 22 years old I went to a good Friday service commemorating the crucifixion. For some reason it hit me, I don't believe this and walked out of the church and haven't been back since. I began to wonder why I didn't believe and others who were highly educated and intelligent believed. I started researching and came to the conclusion that there is a prewired brain condition that exists in those who do believe (to a greater or lessor degree). It has nothing to do with a bible. People since the dawn of history have believed in supernatural beings. That is why there are so many religions with different beliefs.

"JD Crossan in his exhaustive review of the NT scripture accounts spelled out in his book and one of my formative religious experiences, The Historical Jesus, concludes Jesus was indeed crucified but his body ended up as all bodies of the crucified (mass grave, wild dogs etc). "

Uh, right - there are approximately 1.249 gazillion books studying this issue, from both sides, and we've picked out Crossan's as the one, definitive book that has all the right answers?

Riiiiiight

P.S.

Just a hint. If you really want to engage believers, you'd be well advised to broaden your range of sources. Crossan is considered by most to be, in religious terms, just about three steps to the left of most avowed atheists. People will listen to you much more readily if you rely on more mainstream scholars in making your arguments. Understand - the issue here isn't belief versus unbelief, but careful scholarship versus showboating.

"Believer, he said he was a skeptic, not a non-believer. There is a difference. A skeptic is questioning. Doubting, maybe, but not wholly and closed-mindedly convinced."

That's true. The context suggested to me (perhaps unfairly) that she had approached the Bible expecting it to be wrong. Looking back, that's coming primarily from the sentence just before she talks about her first encounter with the Bible, when she says she must have believed at some point, but only in the way a child believes in Santa. That gives me the impression that she may have approached the Bible in much the way a child approaches Dad, saying "Santa's really you, right?" It may not have been that way. But if it was, I do think it's unfortunate.

"It may be that reading the Bible was what pushed him over the edge - it certainly has the power to do that, and he wouldn't be the first, but that doesn't mean that he went in with foregone conclusions."

Again, we don't know. As you know, I'm convinced that all too often people are put off by the misuse of scripture, or the way it's sometimes caricatured by opponents of Christianity, rather than a serious and thoughful attempt to understand it as intended. Of course, that's why I'm a believer - not everyone is going to agree with me.

"I suspect that you might not fare well in an objective comparison of IQ and/or educational achievement."

I don't know who Anonymous was, so there's no way I can judge. This may well be true. But even so - that's not really the point, is it? Being smart and well educated doesn't always mean that we're right.

This seems to me to be a problem from both sides. Our society has become terribly fragmented and specialized. Science always fascinated me when I was in school - and still does. Religion - and especially Christianity - is very important to me.

I find that I wince just about any time I hear a preacher say anything about science - or a scientist say anything about religion. Most preachers know little or nothing about science, just as most scientists have only the most superficial understanding of religion. This makes any real conversation - much less understanding - virtually impossible.

E.Favorite,

Since your question about the resurrection of Jesus encompasses somewhat the topic of the week i.e. What was my most formative religious experience?

1. JD Crossan in his exhaustive review of the NT scripture accounts spelled out in his book and one of my formative religious experiences, The Historical Jesus, concludes Jesus was indeed crucified but his body ended up as all bodies of the crucified (mass grave, wild dogs etc).

2. Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas and Pope John Paul 22. i.e. no bodies possible.

3. Input from my good friend (PhD, Theology) who teaches theology at a major Catholic university.

" Yes, Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Yes, Christ 's and Mary's bodies are not in Heaven (based on #1). For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term. Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an
embodied person.

Yes, The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returningto life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place (based on #1). The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church. Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Busy, busy, but since I think this may have been my fault . . .

I brought up Dawkins only in passing, to note a similarity. I wasn't trying to defend or even really discuss his coverage of religion in TGD, which I haven't read, or whether he knows what he's talking about or whatever. I'm still focused - in a presumably mind-numbingly boring fashion - on Anonymous' charcterization of Jacoby's post as
"When I outgrew my childish notions, I did not bother to pursue an adult education because I prefer ignorance. My lack of an education does not prevent me from offering opinions based not on an adult understanding but on my uninformed childish imagination.",
the claim that it is a "dumb story" - also a classic atheist's tale,
and the general argument that one has no right, in a way, or justification to lack a belief in God (etc.) without a extensive and sophisticated religious education - despite no justification being needed for the lack of belief in thousands of other deities.

Of course, if folks *want* to argue about Dawkins . . .

Thanks, Concerned the Christian NL, for the long answer.

I wonder specifically about "Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead."

I've looked and looked in lots of Historical Jesus books and have never seen anything that could be called conclusive. Instead, I see scholars simply making assertions, such as: "most serious scholars today believe Jesus lived...." but never is there a footnote.

Scholars' assertions (including NT Wright on this forum) about what Scholars think don't help me much, especially when scholars who write about Jesus have a vested interest in there actually being a Jesus.

If you find anything really convincing, that is well referenced, I'd like to hear about it.

Believer wrote:
""...and I began reading the Bible because I was already a religious skeptic."

That's unfortunate. There's a difference between being gullible, and coming to something already convinced that it is wrong. This is, after all, what so many atheists accuse Christians of doing when they approach modern science."

Believer, he said he was a skeptic, not a non-believer. There is a difference. A skeptic is questioning. Doubting, maybe, but not wholly and closed-mindedly convinced.

It may be that reading the Bible was what pushed him over the edge - it certainly has the power to do that, and he wouldn't be the first, but that doesn't mean that he went in with foregone conclusions.

Pam, just so there's no misunderstanding, I have the utmost respect for Dr. Dawkins's brilliance and achievement. Even the most intelligent and accomplished person can venture beyond his competence, or say something that's just silly (e.g., God is a testable hypothesis).

Anonymous, in your last post you are trying to sound very high-minded, but above you wrote: "And let's stipulate that Grand Wizard Dawkins has every right to espouse any harebrained opinion he likes (i.e., he has the right to be wrong). I'm still baffled why I ought to accord respect to his wrong ideas when it is plain has no idea what he is talking about."

Which is not at all high-minded. It is not plain to me (for one) that Prof. Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about, nor that his opinions are "hare-brained". I suspect that you might not fare well in an objective comparison of IQ and/or educational achievement.

"Churches do need to provide continuing education."

And they do - at least the ones that take scripture seriously enough to believe that the content of their faith really matters.

Those that see religion as simply the choice of a "myth to live by" tend not to - because they don't place any real importance on what their members do or don't know, what they do or don't believe, and do or don't do with their lives.

"When terrible things happen, I see them either as acts of nature or as acts of human nature."

That's not all that different from what thoughtful Christians think. We understand that God established a natural order that operates according to certain laws. Theologians understand this to be necessary if free moral agents are to be allowed to make meaningful moral choices, and to learn and develop as intelligent creatures. In other words, you can't have a world where steel is rigid enough to build a function automobile, but turns to rubber when someone steers it into a tree, or an oncoming car. Or, where a knife will hold the edge necessary to carve wood, but be unable to cut flesh. There are at least two problems with this: without cause and effect relationships, intelligent being have no room to operate, and it would make "free will" meaningless.

Building on that, we understand that the bulk of the world's evil comes from the choices of people: whether it's to kill and steal, or simply to build in a flood plain.

The "problem of evil" is a challenge for us all - but the presence of evil is not a "gotcha" for the Christian. We know it exists - scripture is very clear and explicit about it. The Biblical view of the world is that it's a war zone between good and evil, in which moral actors freely choose - and their choices affect both themselves and others. That's what gives moral meaning to those choices. We also believe that God cares about the choices we make, that that those choices have eternal consequences.

"What human beings can do, human beings can undo"

And God expects us to. That's part of what the image of "spiritual warfare" used in the New Testament means.

"Our own natures."

If anything, the Christian view of human nature is even more clear-eyed when it comes to the capacity for evil than that of most unbelievers. One of the core messages of Christianity is that we are all deeply flawed, possess the capacity for profound evil - and, indeed, have all on occassion made evil choices. That's not the entire message, though - there's also a message of grace, love, forgiveness and reconciliation.

"...and I began reading the Bible because I was already a religious skeptic."

That's unfortunate. There's a difference between being gullible, and coming to something already convinced that it is wrong. This is, after all, what so many atheists accuse Christians of doing when they approach modern science.

JR,

1. Who decides? It depends on the context, and I concede could sometimes be subjective. Certainly there's a different standard for publication than for an online forum, and yet another for casual conversation. But let us be sensible. If "A" asserts as a factual statement that "The Empire State Building is made of green cheese," he doesn't know what he's talking about.

2. What's the value of books? If "A" says, "The Empire State Building is made of green cheese," and "B" replies, "That is not correct," "A" should be given no credit for a rejoinder along the lines, "I have read a thousand books on the subject of green cheese and two thousand about skyscrapers."

3. What age must one reach before forming credible conclusions about marriage and parenting?

4. Theology is an academic discipline taught in schools and universities, not churches. Churches do need to provide continuing education. As for your scenario, obviously that happens all the time; whether or not I respected that person's decision would depend on what he actually had learned, regardless of the venue.

5. To my knowledge Armstrong does not hold a PhD, but I'm no authority and would be happy to be corrected. The only reason I differentiated her is that her career has been primarily independent and as far as I know isn't comparable to the others academically (again I'm happy to be wrong about that). Yes, there are atheist theologians—and certainly more than enough heterodox ones. I in no way suggested that belief in God is a criterion. It is an academic discipline.

Thanks for the opportunity, and I hope this advances the conversation without agitating Mr. or Ms. Concerned.

(atheist)

To Concerned:

I am one of those guilty of a lengthy discussion on the issue that anonymous raised a while back - which is his contention that many atheists, including Susan Jacoby, were too young or unschooled in theology to have formative religious experiences. I apologize if my asking anonymous to be specific and objective about his claim has taken this off-topic. jr

(atheist as always)

To anonymous,

I understand what you are saying in your list, but it seems to me to be a subjective, not objective, set of criteria. If you would like others to use your list to evaluate theologians, then perhaps you can answer some questions:

1. Several times you say that a person's ideas can be dismissed "if they don't know what they're talking about". Who decides if a person does or doesn't know what he's talking about? Can I do so based on my own preferences and biases? Are there objective standards - examinations, publications, degrees, years of experience, etc?

2. Are you saying that it doesn't matter what one has read, when you say he "can't be creditd for the contents of his library"? If so, then what is the value of reading and of books?

3. What age must one reach before forming credible conclusions?

4. If you think that the way to receive a proper education in theology is through a church (is that what you are saying), do you think that churches are in the business of education? Do you think it is possible to attend a church, participate fully in their services until one has reached a the proper age, and then become an atheist?

5. I'm curious - since Borg, Crossan, Pagels and Armstrong all have PhDs in theology, why is it that you consider the first 3 to be "theologians" and Armstrong to only be "knowledgeable"? Is it possible for an atheist to be a theologian?

I suspect, although you haven't said it directly, that you think that the only theologians who "know what they are talking about" are those that believe in god. Is that what you think (I'm trying not to put words in your mouth)? If so, I'm sure that works well for you as a personal filter, but it doesn't provide an objective measure of theological credentials for the rest of us.

And I understand that Dawkins raises a lot of peoples' hackles. I'm not here to defend Dawkins. Frankly, I didn't read his book because of the reviews (you can argue whether or not that's a fair way to judge books, but there are far too few hours in a year and far too many books). From what I understand his book is more of a polemic than a scholarly treatise on theology. If your point about Dawkins is that he's written an opinion piece that does not contribute to the theological canon, I agree with you...jr

I acknowledge your repeatedly expressed concern about topic drift and about my own level of participation.

My comments and those to which I've responded are relevant to the original essay. This is the first I've heard of the much narrower topic you propose.

The only other thing I can say in my defense is that, for better or worse, much of the conversation would be very one-sided without me. So sue me — or, better yet, complain to the moderator.

Apparently all the knowledge of some commentators does not include how to understand the subject of this discussion, i.e. What was your own most formative religious experience, if you had one?

An exchange of e-mail addresses is in order for those that want to continue the discussion about atheism vs religion.

JR,

My analogies seem to fall flat, but...: If I sit down and read 50 books by leading authorities on the game of cricket, can I claim to have an understanding of sports? Of English culture? Of the history of the British empire? My understanding of all three areas would be larger than it was, and may be larger than most people's, but I would be wise to recognize my limitations.

Obviously Borg, Crossan and Pagels are theologians, and Armstrong is knowledgeable. They reflect a certain range of perspectives, and that's well and good as far as it goes.

Previously you falsely accused me of saying that a masters in theology should be required to post here. Now you accuse me of eschewing academic credentials altogether. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Here's all I'm trying to say — very simple and (I'm confident) uncontroversial:

[1] Anyone who kills trees to publish a book should expect to be challenged if he does not know what he's talking about.

[2] Anyone of Dawkins' stature should expect to be held to a very high standard.

[3] In a discussion among intelligent people, a participant who doesn't know what he's talking about should have no expectation that his viewpoint (as opposed to his personal dignity and right to express himself) will be accorded respect.

[4] Anyone who does not know what he's talking about should not expect to be credited for the contents of his library.

[5] Independent learning is not the same as academic training (else let's shut down all those expensive institutions). Theology is no more an exception than rocket science.

[6] Theology is not Sunday school. Anyone who claims to have reached some kind of profound conclusion at the tender age of nine or twelve should not expect to be taken seriously.

(atheist as always)

To anonymous, no offense taken. I'm not sure what you are asking about dismissing things we can't define. In following the theme of your posts about theology, are you saying that you think the only people who can claim credibility when making statements about god are those that have studied god, and that you do not consider studying theology at Harvard Divinity or other universities to qualify, that the only way you think god can be studied is in church?

If so, then I understand what you are saying, and why you might find fault with Dawkins (I do not know his biography, I have not read his book and I do not know what claims he can make as to having religious credentials. But do you also dismiss the Borgs and Crossans and Pagels and Armstrongs of the world (these are the authors I have read on religion)? Karen Armstrong in particular might challenge your requirements, she was a Catholic nun who left the church as an adult to study theology, becoming an atheist along the way. Does she qualify as a theologian? Can those of us who have read her books make some claim to having an understanding of god and religion? jr

JR,

I know I have given offense previously, and nothing could be further from my intentions. I think we should be forthright, and God (if He existed) knows others have been forthright with me. Please do not take personal offense from the following, but try to accept it in a spirit of dialog.

Now, does the fact that people feel absolutely free to dismiss things they can't even define lend any credence whatsoever to any of the ideas I've proposed?

the·ol·o·gy /θiˈɒlədʒi/

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

Origin: 1325–75; ME theologie < OF < LL theologia < Gk theología.

See theo-, -logy

theo - a combining form meaning “god,” used in the formation of compound words: theocrat.

-logy

1. a combining form used in the names of sciences or bodies of knowledge: paleontology; theology.

2. a termination of nouns referring to writing, discourses, collections, etc.: trilogy; martyrology.

(still an atheist)

First off, I want to thank posters like anonymous and canyon for presenting the thoughts and ideas of believers here. I know that you folks could "pack up and go home", which would make this a much less interesting place.

Then (of course) I want to take exception to a couple of things anonymous said. One is "Theology is not the study of itself. It is the study of God, the direct or indirect subject of this discussion." This didn't make sense to me, my understanding of theology is that it's the study of religion. So I went to the web site of the Harvard Divinity School, to see what they have to say. In a nutshell, they define the curriculum for a Masters in Theology as having areas of focus, such as (this is just an excerpt, there's is much more detailed):
***********************************************
The area of focus might be in traditional fields in religious and theological studies such as the following:

Buddhist Studies
Hebrew Studies/Old Testament
History of Christianity
Islamic Studies
New Testament, Early Christianity, and Religions in Antiquity
South Asian Religious Traditions
Theology
Religion, Gender, and Culture
Religion in Secondary Education
************************************************

By the way a ctrl-F search for "god" on their web page (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/afa/mts.html) returned no hits.

Second point I'd like to correct, is anonymous's claim that the bible is full of superstition so that modern readers won't mistake it for the racing form. The bible was written and edited between (approximately) 5000 BC and 1650 AD. No one involved in writing the bible was creating content with 21st century readers in mind. In particular they were not concerned about confusion with the Racing Form. I know this is nitpicking, but the larger question from which this is derived is worthwhile, which is how holy can a book be that contains so many contradictions, and which has been redacted several times by men (Irenaeus, Constantin and others) to serve specific political agendas?

Bible history is a fascinating subject. The National Geographic website has a very comprehensive section devoted to the recent find and analysis of the gospel of Judas, with insightful interviews of Elaine Pagels and other theologians (PhD types, I think, that would even pass anonymous's muster). Check it out (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/index.html)...jr

Set aside arguing from analogies.

And let's stipulate that Grand Wizard Dawkins has every right to espouse any harebrained opinion he likes (i.e., he has the right to be wrong). I'm still baffled why I ought to accord respect to his wrong ideas when it is plain has no idea what he is talking about.

There is no double standard and no exemption for those who profess belief. They have precisely the same right to be wrong. According respect to their freedom, and Dawkins's, to believe any fool thing they like, entails no obligation to accord respect to foolish ideas themselves — whether on the part of believers or anti-believers.

That last comment was mine - sorry.

Anonymous -

"Allow me to return to my previous brilliant analogy of the law."
: )

"Trained legal experts constitute a minority of the population. The average person's actual knowledge of the law is quite limited and often inaccurate."

Sure. And if the original comments had been talking about *people in general*, that might be one thing, perhaps - instead, it seems to be specifically singling out atheists, there's mention of a "classic atheist's tale," and etc. (although to be fair, after several comments you do admit that some theists are also not quite up to snuff).

"Any citizen can advocate for the enactment, repeal or revision of any particular law or policy, whether or not the citizen has any idea what she or he is talking about."

That's quite true. *However*, whether or not they have any idea what they're talking about rarely has more than the slightest connection to knowledge of our legal system (beyond the most basic), but to specific knowledge of whatever the law's about. With minimum wage stuff, it's economics and sociology, with environmental legislation it's various aspects of science - etc. (On top of knowledge, of course, there are values and ideologies, but you get the point.)

The law itself - legal systems - are a product of human society, and have effects to the extent that we say they do. To go back to the original analogy, if you're on trial for your life, you might brighten up when you hear that I got you a excellent criminal law guy - but start yelling at me once you find out that they're British or French (that is, trained in those systems). An expert in ancient Babylonian law would be entirely useless (though such knowledge is quite useful for other, academic purposes). On the other hand, if you need a heart doctor, whether they're British, French, American, or whatever doesn't matter, as long as they're good.

In that sense, legal knowledge is different from the knowledge that - for example - exposure to lead damages developing children's brains.

"P.S. Theology is not the study of itself. It is the study of God, the direct or indirect subject of this discussion"

Theology seems a lot more like study of the law - the study of human systems of thought and action - than for example chemistry or biology.

ok know your bible -ill rephrase

lets take that abstract artist- started doing it at 9- never learned representational art- grew up-
wrote book rejecting the value of representational art- goes on speaking engagements and rakes in the cash- is that more apt?

Dan,

Allow me to return to my previous brilliant analogy of the law.

We all live under the law and the legal system. Trained legal experts constitute a minority of the population. The average person's actual knowledge of the law is quite limited and often inaccurate.

Any citizen can advocate for the enactment, repeal or revision of any particular law or policy, whether or not the citizen has any idea what she or he is talking about.

I respect that citizen's rights, but is it reasonable to accord respect to her opinion simply because everybody else is as badly informed as she is? Yet that's what you propose.

P.S. Theology is not the study of itself. It is the study of God, the direct or indirect subject of this discussion.

"E. Favorite asks why atheists should bother to know what they're talking about."

No, Anonymous - E. Favorite is basically asking why atheists are being held to a double standard. I'd be interested to hear that, too.

As E.'s pointing out, even *if* most atheists were as simplistic, childlike and uninformed in their views as you suggest, they're (almost certainly) on a par with the vast majority of theists. And experience - if not clear data - does *seem to suggest* that the average atheist may be more informed about religion than the average theist (at least in terms of mainstream scholarship, knowledge of multiple religious traditions, etc.) (What will happen as the number of 2nd generation+ atheists grows, I dunno . . .)

An Anonymous -presumably you?- refers specifically to "people like Ms. Jacoby" and calls her a "prime example" of ignorant rejection, but just in her brief account she mentions that "Eventually, I looked into other religions. In all of them--including liberal forms of Protestantism that had dispensed with most of the supernatural stories I found so unconvincing--I found only more illogic."

One might quibble about her thoroughness, sophistication, or assessment, but this is more than the vast majority of people - present and past - have done (if often because it was for one reason or another effectively impossible or near enough so). One might complain that her religious education wasn't structured and professional enough, but

a) that ends up also sweeping into the daft ignoramus pile almost every theist who hasn't received an formal, extensive, comprehensive, and intellectually sophisticated religious education - in other words, almost everyone.

b) It is considered entirely reasonable to reject countless deities, religions, and religico-philosophical systems without anything like the the rigorous and mature education & contemplation insisted upon above - indeed, outside of the well known current ones and a few old pantheons - Greco-Roman, Norse, perhaps Egyptian - usually without *any* awareness whatsoever.

Seems a little inconsistant.

I have a great respect for knowledge, both for practical things and for its own sake, but it's not even clear here that knowledge of theology translates into knowledge of anything-in-the-world except, well, knowledge of the discipline of theology. *I* think that's interesting, but again, it's not actually clear if it really relates all that much to lack or presence of belief in God/s.

Whether this is missing the point of religion - oh, sure, quite possibly, but this is how the issue was originally framed.

And today's "Blog Hog" and Off-Topic award goes to _________________?

E. Favorite asks why atheists should bother to know what they're talking about.

Fav, it all depends on how persuasive (and intellectually honest) you want to be.

You're quite right that there's plenty of low-hanging fruit out there for you to pick off. Dawkins explicitly recommends targeting poorly-educated believers as easy marks.

But it's depressing to see such naked contempt for knowledge, and it surely doesn't speak well or bode well for you cause.

(If your post was tongue in cheek, please disregard.)

How many born-agains or even liberal Christians studied theology as a means of determining that Jesus Christ is Savior? From what I can tell, the Truth comes to them either through instruction (often as a child in Sunday school) or in a sudden flash – the Holy Ghost descends upon them.

So why should atheists have to make a study of theology before coming to their conclusions?

From what I’ve gathered on this forum, most of them come to their conclusions much the way as Christians have – through instruction (though it’s often self-instruction, as an adult), or in a flash – a sudden realization that this stuff doesn’t make any sense.

What’s good enough for Christians is good enough for Atheists!

Anonymous "Okay I will speculate: . . .[etc.]"

And if anyone here buys that, I've got an *excellent* deal for you regarding some fellow from Nigeria. Oh, and a bridge.

KnowYour,

Is this the question you want answered: why the Bible is chock full of superstition?

First of all, are you asking a question to which you know the answer, and if so, why?

Anyway, the Bible is chock full of superstition so modern readers will be aware they are reading ancient myths and not the Daily Racing Form.

Do I win anything?

Dan,

I'm back! (Not for long.)

I regret to say I do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding of ancient Greek belief systems to be able to offer any intelligent comment whatsoever concerning that system or Mr. Zeus, nor to speculate on any aspect of his purported existence or non-existence.

Okay I will speculate: I'd say Mr. Zeus probably does exist or did exist, inasmuch as the largest planet in our solar system was given his Roman name, and that's a pretty big honor when you think about it. It just doesn't go to a non-entity. So, yes, maybe he existed. (Or not.)

The better question is: What is it with you guys and these binary questions about whether an entity "exists"? It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

"... it's inevitable that one's path to knowledge will result in a huge library (which one's spouse and/or friends will lament, come moving day!)."

So true! The shelves groan!

Anonymous:
:: Rox, you've learned nothing since the age of nine? ::

On the contrary, I've learned FAR more (especially about the Bible, Christianity and various religions) in the past 35 years than I would have if my education had been constrained to that which would align with the belief system in which I was raised.

Anonymous:
:: If you "could no longer honestly claim a belief either in Roman Catholicism, God, Jesus or the Bible," you did not "win" anything by avoiding confirmation -- you were completely ineligible! ::

Believe it or not, we're in total agreement on this point! In my post I was unclear about what I was "winning" - which was the argument I had with my mother about making my confirmation. She said I should take the sacrament and then after that I could "be whatever religion" I so desired. I argued that the whole idea was to CONFIRM my belief in, and adherence to, the tenets of Catholicism, and to take the sacrament knowing full well that I was not a Catholic in the way that truly matters would be a foul lie. Of course as I grew up I came to understand that my mom's stance grew out of her wish to continue the tradition, rather than any sort of true belief in the religion itself or concern for my "soul."

As an aside, my mom's now a solitary Wiccan and has been for 20 years or so (although she mostly tells her friends - who're in their 70s like her - that she's a "lapsed Catholic" heh).

I own more bibles, religious texts and other books about myths and religions ancient and contemporary than any Christian I know who isn't professional clergy; and I find that the majority of atheists I know can claim the same. Living in a culture steeped in Christianity, it's difficult to get through one's early life without having been indoctrinated in those beliefs before having the ability to use critical thinking and logic; but once that ability sets in and leads one to seek evidence to support those beliefs, it's inevitable that one's path to knowledge will result in a huge library (which one's spouse and/or friends will lament, come moving day!).

(still azeusist and atheist, and likely aodinist as well)

Mr. anonymous (the non-fundamentalist believing one) has said several times that atheists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin, and that we atheists define our non-belief as being in opposition to fundamentalism.

I would like to correct anonymous's misperception. For me this is simply not true. I am quite familiar with moderate theistic interpretations of the bible and the torah. I find those equally implausible, although it is nice that moderate theists and I can at least agree that these religious texts are metaphorical and not literal.

I find fundamentalism to be particularly hard to accept, but fundamentalism is merely a special case of religious belief, and I find all religious beliefs to be implausible. Hopefully anonymous will stop trying to define atheists as being simply anti-fundamentalists...jr

Victoria: i have to agree there-
its like the abtract artist rejecting representational art having never mastered it

Then you need to apply this same logic consistently:

Meaning: You then cannot reject belief in Zeus or the Reverend Moon, having never mastered personally their theology. {this includes Krishna, Ba'al, the list goes on and on...)

Anonymous:
You hear this same dumb story over and over: People like Ms. Jacoby claim to be atheists even though they have little or no religious education beyond elementary school. Of course, they usually assure you they are self-taught (and they've surveyed the major religions). Yeah, and I'm a self-taught brain surgeon. How much theology training does Ms. Jacoby actually have?

False analogy, Here is why.

Arthur Clarke was self-taught in engineering, but he was the first to envision launching satellites into synchronous orbit.

Brain surgery needs labs to practice on people. Theology does not. It just needs good research skills -- and can also rely on the reaearch of others.

Nice "cop out" on answering why the Bible does such a poor job in explaining science; but instead looks IDENTICAL to the superstitutions of the ancient world when the Jews and early Christians wrote. (And there were individuals in ancient times --such as Hippocrates -- who suggested NATURAL causes for mental illness -- not demonic ones.)

Just because you are not a fundamentalist does not mean you can ignore why the Bible is chock full of superstition.

Often the people who brag the most -- have the LEAST to brag about....

Disagree? Answer the question, please.
I am tired of everyone's cheap excuses.

After reading this thread and trying to get some answers myself it is evident that "believers" are just that, they believe in a God. Now, when you believe in something strongly and others bring up small bits of evidence that pokes holes in the belief, the believer has three options:

1) Drop the belief entirely.
2) Modify the belief to fit the new reality.
3) Steadfastly hold to the belief and wave away the evidence.

I see all three happening here and elsewhere. I consider myself an example of #1 who, when faced not only with the discrepancies in the bible but more importantly the discrepancies in the maintainers of the religion, the pillars that once held the religion up for me were gone. Examples of #2 are everywhere. The Catholics have been some of the best christians at accomodating reality into their religion as science exposes new reality. The sun's real source of power (not God), the age of the earth (not 6000 years old), evolution being a force of God, etc... We also see #3 mainly in the appropriately name "fundamentalists" who will tell you black is white if it means supporting the religion.

I have asked earlier in this discussion for an answer as to why astrology, a method proven in that the Maji found the baby Jesus with it and the old testament says that God will show signs in the stars, has not been included in the christian religion and has actualy been associated with satanism. The only person to try to answer, Canyon, failed in my opinion to give a reasonable answer. Others in this blog have ignored the question. What I see is that ignoring these questions is easier than facing them, than analysing them, than giving any room for questioning. I think many believers consider questioning the belief to in fact be sinful.

So, I think that when christians get into a debate with athiests they need to be prepared to face the evidence showing the religion has had many pillars which held it up knocked down. To ignore this evidence is frustrating for athiests. I'd rather hear christians say that they believe and do not want to be confused by the facts rather than have them debate with evidence while ignoring other evidence presented against the religion.

(i'm an atheist, and also an azeusist)

There's a thread here that anonymous began, but which goes unanswered. Which is: for one to hold a respected opinion about god and religion, must one have reached a certain age and put in some number of hours in church and in religious study?

Which leads me to two questions:

1. How old, how many hours and how much knowledge is enough? How does one know that one has earned his/her theological stripes, so to speak?

2. Assuming one has earned said stripes, can one then reject god as an unsupportable thesis (the anti-theist thesis, for all you lispers)? Or would believers argue that if one rejects god, one must not have put in enough hours, and that one must go back to church and study more?

The azeusist analogy is quite apt, by the way, thanks Dan S for adding that to the discussion. JR

i have to agree there-
its like the abtract artist rejecting representational art having never mastered it

maybe they can talk talk talk someone into buying it
but it doesnt give it value

"Problem with analogy: I have not published a book called "The Zeus Delusion" that attacks ancient Greeks." [Is Dawkins attacking religious people or religious belief? Or both? Haven't read TGD yet, not sure there's a point].

That's true, you haven't. However,
1) If you did -
Nobody would care. Nobody (presumably) has belief in Zeus. Nobody needs to justify their *lack of belief in Zeus* by demonstrating extensive study of of ancient Greek religion (or any study, or *anything, * really). Nobody would bother to read such a book, or criticize it for not demonstrating sufficient familiarity with the subtleties of ancient Greek religion.

Poor Nobody.

(Now if it was a scholarly or popular work on the beliefs and practices of ancient Greek religion, that would be another matter, but it wouldn't be, would it?)

2) Susan Jacoby didn't write _The God Delusion_. Neither did JR, nor me, nor any other person - atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever - besides Richard Dawkins. Whatever one thinks of Dawkins' book (the general consensus, including Dawkins himself, seems to be that Dawkins demonstrates little knowledge of theology; the debate is whether that really matters) isn't actually relevant to the point you made some hours ago, about:

"this same dumb story over and over: People like Ms. Jacoby claim to be atheists even though they have little or no religious education beyond elementary school . . . Think about it: How daft is it for an intelligent person to claim to reject something about which she is completely ignorant, or at best her knowledge is at a kindergarten level? More important, how do they get away with it?"

So along the lines of what Dodger said - btw, Dodger, your 16:15 comment was wonderful, I kept meaning to say that, - and keeping in mind that "Zeus," etc. here refers to the existence of actual entities, not the existence of historical beliefs or literary figures, etc. (I didn't include this caveat earlier because I figured no one would be so silly!), would it be fair for me to exclaim the above quoted paragraph, replacing "Ms. Jacoby" with "Anonymous," and "atheists" with "azeusists"?

Or maybe we should first establish whether or not you are an azeusist? (Man, that's an ugly-lookin' word!) So, do you believe/do you have belief in Zeus? (see above caveat). And I'm really talking about *belief*, not any intellectualized ideas you may hold about gnoisis, about knowledge. I suppose it's possible that a strong component of your beliefs (in this sense) is the felt conviction that the existence of Zeus is uncertain and unknowable, but I do doubt it. (not saying that agnostics don't exist!)

So - should extensive religious knowledge (about ancient greek religion, or perhaps religion in general) be required to justify your azeusism as a reasonable position? To offer an intelligent comment on the existence of Zeus? To evaluate or even attack the religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks (at least in the sense of - are they currently credible)? If you do any of this without such knowledge, are you being daft?

" Yes, if you wish to be taken seriously when you expound on any given subject X, then you need a solid grounding in the systems and methods for studying X, you need to have current knowledge, and you need to have demonstrated some kind of mastery and proficiency. . . . There is no more complex subject than God, since no one has the slightest idea what it is."

If nobody has the *slightest* idea of what the subject of such studies *is,* perhaps all this talk about expertise and qualifications and systems and methods and mastery and proficiency is a bit misplaced?

Lots of double standards here, maybe.

anon,

since, as you point out in your last post, you aren't sure that you do, in fact, exist - i'll just come back when you are a bit more epistimologically 'grounded' so to speak.

i'm going to back away toward the door now, and would appreciate it if you didn't make an sudden moves. cheers.

Concerned, please remind us of the topic. Perhaps you could do a topic-drift post once an hour.

dodger,

No insult whatsoever was intended -- my earlier reply was hasty and very clumsily worded. To clarify and restate:

In order for me to be able to offer an intelligent comment on any given subject, I must have achieved a certain level of knowledge about that subject -- no?

And in particular, if I am going to evaluate or even attack another person's beliefs, I must truly understand that person's beliefs -- no?

As for your specific question, obviously all the ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods exist, else how would you know of and be concerned about them? As for how the ancients understood them, I am not qualified to tell you any more than what you learned in school or can read for yourself in the encyclopedia.

On the other hand, I have no idea whether or not I exist, and only the flimsiest evidence that you do (unless you're a Turing machine, in which case I believe in you). I have no idea about God or Jesus of Nazareth or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any more existence questions?

It appears Anonymous wins today's "Blog Hog" and "Off-Topic" awards.

Anon,

checked out your posts from 18:34 and fail to see any relevance to the question of the existence of osiris and aman-ra.

so what's the scoop? do they exist or not? enquiring minds want to know what you think?

p.s. since we're sharing, check out my post from 16:15. just a little 'homage' to doug adams

sorry, Anon

personal insult aside, i'll try again. but if you continue to just evade then all can draw their own conclusion.

if you don't want to answer fine, but the question is simple. do you beleive that the egyptian pantheon really existed, or, as you imply, since you aren't an expert on the subject are you agnostic as to their existence?

KnowYourBible,

I suspect the reason nobody replied is that it is not clear what you're getting at.

But I'll go out on a limb and guess that you're baiting an excessively literal-minded fundamentalist.

Sorry, I can't help — I'm not a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists and unbelievers actually are two sides of the same coin. The unbelievers are totally dependent on having a literal interpretation of scripture to disbelieve.

dodger,

Gee, you can't say anything intelligent about something unless you actually have something intelligent to say, can you?

You can't evaluate, much less attack, another person's beliefs unless you understand them, can you?

Scroll up to the comment *preceding* the timestamp at 18:34 on Jan. 6, or append this to your URL: #comment-772505

Anonymous,

"If I publish a non-fiction book on any subject, I expect my knowledge and expertise to be challenged."

Words are cheap. Let's see the beef. Canyan says he just doesn;t have to explain anything of substance. Are you just the same?

Here is your chance to prove yourself. (Note I give you the citations to make it easy.)

=======================================

* According to Genesis, the earth and heaven were created on Day 1, and the sun, moon, and other stars were created on Day 4. [Modern astronomy holds the earth is an ORDINARY planet that was created billions of years later, not earlier than the sun and the rest of the universe!]

* Is the earth flat instead of spherical? The prophet Daniel described a vision of a giant tree situated in the middle of the earth, whose "top reached heaven and [which] was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11). Daniel was clearly envisioning a flat earth, since a giant tree was needed from which to view the entire world. Likewise, Matthew implied the earth was flat when he stated that Jesus was able to see every empire on earth when looking down from a high mountaintop. (Matthew 4:8)

* Is the earth a STATIONARY body in the universe, as opposed to revolving around the sun, which in turn wheels around our galaxy? According to Chronicles 16:30," the world stands firm, never to be moved" (See also, Psalms 93:1,96:10, and 104:5).

* According to the Old Testament, Joshua ordered the sun to halt, implying the earth is fixed in space with the sun revolving around it-- in order to give the hebrew army more sunlight for taking "vengeance on their enemies" (Joshua 10:12-14). Modern astronomy teaches the earth and planets revolve around the sun which spins in a massive galaxy, one of billions.

*How Old is the Earth? Geology teaches that the earth is billions of years old - as opposed to being created in six days about six thousand years ago.

*In 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, the author describes how when Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, that a circular bowl was made that measured 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. As any mathematician can tell you, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is a mathematical constant known as pi--and whose PRECISE value is GREATER than 3 (ie 3.1415926...)

*The Old Testament states witches exist and should be executed. (These verses were thought to be responsible for the witch hysteria in Europe and New England.)

*The New Testament believes in “false Messiahs and prophets” who have real powers, equal to those of Jesus (but not from the true God, instead from the Devil). This was a common belief in the ancient world prior to employing the scientific method.

*The New Testament describes the cause of mental illness to be from demons and repeats the commonly held ancient view that cures can only come from casting out these demons.

--"They brought to [Jesus] all who were ill or possessed by devils...He healed many who suffered from various diseases, and drove out many devils." (Mark 1:32-4; Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40-1)

--"So all through Galilee he went...casting out the devils." (Mark 1:39, Matthew 4:23)
========================

PS. No Christian will respond to this. And this is my third time..

Anonymous,

so you aren't able to evaluate the existence/non-existence of a particular god unless you're an 'expert' in that god's theology?

is that as true of the ancient egyptian pantheon as it is of the god of abe and issack? is osiris as real to you as jesus? do you believe that amon-ra was real? are you agnostic about these gods due to lack of expertise? do tell

Dan questions the need for specialized education. Briefly: Yes, if you wish to be taken seriously when you expound on any given subject X, then you need a solid grounding in the systems and methods for studying X, you need to have current knowledge, and you need to have demonstrated some kind of mastery and proficiency. Otherwise, you're just talking. There is no more complex subject than God, since no one has the slightest idea what it is.

Am I saying that only professional theologians can engage in God-talk? Of course not. But I am saying that when someone with as deserved a reputation for brilliance as Dr. Dawkins opens his mouth, he better know what he's talking about.

Thank you -- I'm familiar. Their status as Catholics is a matter of opinion. (In all likelihood that includes your professor friend.)

Anonymous,

In keeping with the topic and off the "blog hog" list, I recommend reading Professor Crossan, Karen Armstrong and Father Schillebeeckx's books and James Somerville's papers for added details. Hopefully, these books and papers will be a religious experience for you. BTW, Professor Crossan, Father Schillebeeckx, James Somerville and my professor friend are Catholic.

http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/julyaugust2000/somerville/index.html and http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/mayjune2000/

JR,

Thank you for your reply. Briefly:

[a] I will try to exercise more care, but I honestly don't think your taking personal offense is entirely justified. Unless a post refers to an individual specifically, we should not assume it is talking about an individual. I would never presume to comment (and have not) on anyone's intellect or any other personal attribute, nor on anyone's education and knowledge in fields OTHER than the one under discussion.

[b] My tone does not differ dramatically from others (and certainly is no worse than Dawkins's and Harris's). Believers in general and I personally have been on the receiving end of very pointed and hateful barbs from all quarters in this discussion.

That said, the point of the discussion (which you value) is to challenge, and I make no apology for seeking evidence that people know what they're talking about.

-Continued from 7:13 comment above-

Certainly a limited education in some subject is rarely a good reason to reject it (although I strongly doubt that Jacoby's religious education is all that limited, nor are most atheists'). In many cases - for example, 'from my one week exposure in 9th grade science, some pop culture references, and some creationist websites, I decided that evolution is nonsense!' is a bad idea. But that's in large part because evolution has a large, complex, and ramifying body of knowledge and theory and etc. behind it that *has continuously proven useful in explaining and understanding the world around us, to a high degree of factual accuracy , etc. While theology was once the queen of the sciences, to be honest, today it's very hard to see how it has helped to understand and gain factual knowledge of the world around us (as opposed to socially and psychologically useful beliefs, which are generally nonverified or nonverifiable). It's not - and this is to some degree if not common at least spreading knowledge - at all clear that intensive investigation has much *point,* at least in the terms I'm talking about. (I *would* suggest to religiously-questioning people that they might want to examine various beliefs and varieties thereof, and critical thinking, and etc., but that's me, and a question of what might best help or suit them rather than what is necessarily - I think- true.)

And Anonymous - your analogy? Well, I might not want that person as a death row lawyer, but *why* on earth that level of necessity? (Again, we have bizarrely high and one-sided standards. Do I have to break out the hospital vs. church dilemma?). I think it would be fair to assume that the person is fairly knowledgeable about legal issues and practice - if not up to a high professional level. I would be interested in listening to what they had to say, especially in terms of feminist legal theory. And yes, if I had/feared a serious condition I would go to a highly-qualified MD rather than someone who watches House and ER, devours medical journals and books for fun, has worked for doctors, is surrounded by shop-talking doctors, and has medicine as their lifelong passion. But they might have some good advice, or interesting knowledge.

But in both these examples, professional qualifications and specialized knowledge relate to the world (and are an advantage) in clear and concrete ways. Slightly different ways, since the law is a human-created system, but within that system, it's close enough, for these purposes. In terms of religious study, however, this connection is not apparent. It will certainly make you more knowledgeable about theology . . a professional *within that system*, but unless one is trying to get a job requiring theological expertise, concerned about following religious laws, or etc., it's not clear how that helps otherwise. The law person you mentioned probably is as qualified as anyone to decide for themselves whether secular or religious law seems like a better idea, and you don't need a great deal of legal education to deal with the question of whether supernatural evidence and explanations should be used in court. (Not saying these are quite appropriate analogies - just trying to work with your law example.

Now to read any replies, new comments, etc. . . .

(yup, i'm an atheist)

Anonymous,

You seem to have a dim recollection of your own posts. You most recently said "I was making a very general statement and not talking about you or Jacoby specifically". Your previous posts seem to belie that claim, (and that's the rub). Quoting primary sources (from "anonymous", chapter 13, verse 7) "If a person's understanding of God remains that of a child while her intellectual development advances in other areas, it's no wonder cognitive dissonance happens. That's why stories like Jacoby's are so preposterously silly..." (and from anonymous, chapter 12 verse 3) "But to regard oneself as an authority on what Christians believe because he (the "he" you are referring to here is me, "jr") has read scripture and a few books belies heart-stopping ignorance." Those sure seemed like direct references to Jacoby and myself, but then again, as you've previously established, I'm kind of uneducated, so maybe I just didn't understand.

And then you say "don't get me started on self-taught programmers...". I wasn't getting you started, I was responding to a claim you made - which is that "no professional...would ever regard a self-educated person as their peer". Which begged my answer - that I am a professional and I have many times regarded self-educated co-workers (meaning those who have not received a formal college education in their field) as my peers.

I get tired of nitpicking, so I'll stop. Here's why I am very frustrated by your overall tone and the claims you make for me and other posters. First off, I think that this discussion is important. The role that religion has played in human history and culture needs to be examined and discussed, not just accepted. Religion has been afforded a protected place in public discourse. We treat the faithful with kid gloves, we let churches' teachings go undeservedly unchallenged. I think it's very refreshing and healthy that we are beginning to ask these questions about religion, and about atheism.

Although you know almost nothing about me or Susan Jacoby, you seem quite comfortable deciding that we have not put in the time or effort that you deem necessary to understand religion and have opinions on these issues. You can conjure up many reasons for our unworthiness - we left the church when we were relatively young, we have only read a "few" books, we are not college educated theologians. I am only trying to get you to understand that, although I do not know all that there is to know about religion, and I do not by any means consider my understanding of religion today to be complete, my knowledge of and opinions about religion are very rigorously formed. My opinions result from many, many years of experience and examination, and are as valid as yours or anyone else's.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but try to refrain from making assumptions about my intellect or education or depth of religious experience. You do not really know that I "have only read a few books..." or that "my opinions are preposterously silly because I spent fewer than 400 youthful hours in church...". I would not think to ask how many hours you spent in church, or how many books you have read. These discussions are not furthered by keeping those kinds of scores. It's not up to me to judge your religious credentials, I'm here to discuss your opinions and to present my own.

It's worth repeating that I think this is a very important dialogue. Trust me when I say that every opinion I write here is the result of an investment of a tremendous amount of time, intellect and energy. I accept that the same is true for you - jr

PS - The "pax vobiscum" was for the blog.

PPS - The "american taliban" reference was intended as a metaphor for the merging of politics and fundamentalist christian faith that some americans hope to see implemented here in the us. I trust that you did not think I was talking about you, you have not said anything that led me to think you shared those fundamentalist goals.

- Continued from 6:04 comment above -

Now, if you're not happy with the Zeus comparison, that's ok. Just head on over to (for example) http://godchecker.com/ and you can replace Zeus in the above argument with any one or more of the over 2,850 deities they currently list - and I'm sure it will remain the same for +2,850 deities . . . minus one. (for monotheists, of course . . ). Like Sam Harris says, we just skip the minus one part. (I don't think much of his work in general, but his (much better phrased) version of this argument is wonderfully snappy.

Now, one could argue that this is offensive (sorry, especially to those folks who were just minding their own business and not playing whack-an-atheist), and that this is silly, that God is extremely important and meaningful in your life - but *that's just what the believers in all those other deities would say*.

Anonymous: Now, I certainly believe that "a thoughtful adult engages in lifelong reading and self-learning," and I would never claim to be even a generalist kind of expert on what all kinds of Christians believe (or even one group), without quite a *lot* of focused study. I can't say there *aren't* (often young) atheists who at least act like they're stuck in 'all religious folks are fundies, and think God is a Old Man with a White Beard up in the Sky' mode, although sometimes this is more of a rhetorical/polemical stance - but there are *many, many* ones who don't. Again, it comes down to - slightly hijacking JR's fascinating distinction - less a matter of content of belief than context, or at least attitudes. Personally, I'm at least vaguely familiar - if *certainly* no authority - with some (liberal) takes on Judaism and Christianity that are far less 'childish' - to use your phrase. I find them to be often elegant, intellectually interesting, metaphorically rich, emotionally wise, humanistically oriented - but *I can find no reason to believe them,* in terms of factual claims about non-natural things.

Which isn't to say, of course that there might not be important pragmatic justifications for religious belief - emotional solace and growth, social supports and structure, etc. Certainly theists find great meaning and value in religious beliefs and practices (as atheists do - often very similar meanings and values, too! - in nonreligious beliefs and practices). One can even make the argument that many religious and ritual things have faiely rational effects re: dealing with social issues, environmental and economic needs, etc. (see for example, in anthropology, Roy Rappaport and Marvin Harris).

More to come.

Dan,

Problem with analogy: I have not published a book called "The Zeus Delusion" that attacks ancient Greeks.

If I publish a non-fiction book on any subject, I expect my knowledge and expertise to be challenged. (Come to think of it, that's a major reason we publish books.)

Why reach back to antiquity for an example? (Since this discussion is English and centers largely on Christianity, I assume most readers are Westerners, but just in case, let me clarify that the following is not intended to offend Shintoists.)

I know next to nothing about Shinto. I am not an adherent. I have no interest in converting, which I assume is impossible for gaijin anyway.

If I published a book attacking Shinto beliefs, I would expect to be challenged. And if I did not know what I was talking about, I would expect to be called on it.

Nevertheless, I have an obligation to respect another person's freedom to follow Shinto and to refrain from attacking his beliefs without a sound basis and thorough understanding.

Would that Dr. Dawkins were so conscientious.

Unfortunately, some of these comments convey an attitude of mockery and hatred toward atheists from supposed Christians. This is lamentable. As a Christian, Jesus has saved me from my wretched state as a sinner, and I am no better than anyone else.

The type of questions that have been called unanswerable in numerous posts are not too difficult to answer, however the answer goes to the heart of a person's pride. The existence of God is a logical conclusion. Something has always existed from eternity past, either dead matter or a living being. If you don't concede to this, then your assertion is subject to the question "Where did that come from?" over and over again, every answer you give begging the question even further. This very attribute that logically *must* be possessed by something is itself boggling to our minds. Of something in the universe we must conclude: "This had no beginning and therefore has no end as well. It is eternal." If the physical world is itself eternal, and there is no spiritual reality, then why is everything that is most important to every person in the world unseen? We want to be loved, and to love others, to be known, to enjoy intimacy, to be respected, to leave a legacy, to be feared, to have power over other human beings, and the list goes on of both good and bad desires. Why are we afraid of death? From a purely physical standpoint, it seems pretty peaceful and serene, with an absence of suffering. If you simply observe yourself and catalog your own thoughts, you'll realize when you get down to the heart of what you care about and think about and strive for, it is almost all immaterial. Even when you work hard for money to live the good life it's ultimately to have a feeling of security and experience pleasure inside that you hope will be induced by your physical possessions. Finally, most people, whether they believe in God or not, would say at the end of their lives that they gained the most satisfation from their relationships with family and friends and everything else matters little. This is no accident: it tells us in very simple terms both our purpose for existence and the nature of the One who created us.

God wants to be your father and mother, you sister and brother, your spouse, and your best friend. The reason he created human society with these relationships is so that we would understand the different facets of His own relationship to us! The natural and the supernatural are congruent, as Paul writes in Romans chapter one.

One of the major objections mentioned in multiple posts is the way God deals with human life and rights in the Bible. This is going to be tough for you to swallow, because it offends your pride, but here it is: something is right, because God says it is and something is wrong because God says it is, and for no other reason. Legitimate moral reasoning begins with that. Please bear with me, this is not illogical, although it is simple. Since God exists and is the Creator of everything, then He owns everything and is completely within His right to do whatever He wants with it. Since He Himself has authority of life and death, He can also can explicitly delegate that authority to human beings. Who can tell God that He's wrong? Seriously. How can the creature tell the creator what to do? That would be ridiculous. With a few notable exceptions, God has decided that everyone will physically die; we know this already. It's just a matter of when. Do I have a right to get mad at God when He gives someone only 25 years on earth instead of 80? It was all a gift from Him in the first place! As the Creator and Owner of everything, He has the right (and He is truly just) to do whatever He wants. This is not illogical in the slightest; it just offends our pride.

If you can humble yourself and admit that God is always just and right to do whatever He pleases, included taking anyone's life at any time, then you've started toward Him. If, however, you reject His very nature of omnipotence and righteousness, then you are choosing to remain separated from Him. I assure you that He wants you. This is where the sacrifice of Jesus comes in. People get offended when Christians say that God will punish all sin. How can God be so cruel? For your sake, he poured out His terrible wrath that each one of us deserved for our negligence to glorify Him properly and draw close to Him in relationship - He poured out this just wrath on His own Son, because His heart is so unimaginably filled with fiery, passionate desire to be reconciled to each one of us as a Husband. (As a side note, this identification of God as a husband to his people is first found in the Old Testament...see Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Psalms.)

There are so many people who call themselves Christians who really are not. They don't understand this framework of God's love and redemptive free grace to save us from His terrible yet just wrath, which is clearly revealed in the Bible. My heart breaks for people like Ms. Jacoby who were introduced as children to a loveless, intellectually flimsy, perversion of true faith in Christ that pushed them away from the man Jesus Christ. He is alive, and He's waiting for you to come to Him. Like the parable of the prodigal son, all you have to do is come to the end of yourself and ask for His help and His heart will leap for joy to see you coming, and He'll start running when He sees you in the distance and He'll embrace you and wrap His arms around you and kiss you, and then all the angels of heaven will rejoice with a party like you've never seen before, because the heart of God is overflowing with joy at your return. You may think this is flowery language and wishful thinking, but it's *literally true.* Not only have I reasoned through the logical challenges to faith in Jesus, but I've tasted His presence, and He changed my life. Repent of your sins and come to Jesus today.

Canyon, you're still confusing existence and correctness/ justified belief, so that because atheists cannot meet an extraordinarily (and impossibly) high standard, we must not exist as atheists. Meanwhile, Anonymous, you have this whole thing about ignorant atheists going on, one which ties into a certain criticism of Dawkins' _The God Delusion_ (and all such works) that's currently being discussed over at www.scienceblogs.com, etc. So let me try to meet both issues with a (quite possibly familiar) comparison.

I have no belief in (wait for it . . .) Zeus. Neither, I would bet, do either of you, or any of the folks here, or (almost?) anyone. By certain standards, this would seem fairly unjustified. After all, we don't know everything about everything (Indeed, very strictly speaking, I would have to admit that technically I could be wrong - also, that the entire world might be a delusion, etc.) Nor do most people know anything about Classical Greek religion beyond a literally elementary-school level - nothing of any sophisticated theology or well-shaped apologetics. We're even blindly rejecting any subtle and nuanced understandings of this religion, stripped of very human antics, obvious nature myths, reflections/explanations of society, and etc. of literally read Greek mythology.

Yet I doubt either of you would have a problem with this. You don't struggle with your lack of belief in Zeus, or feel a need for intense study, or proclaim the impossibility of a-zeus-ism. If someone told you they were an azeusist on the basis of gradeschool readings of mythology - or even less - you'd be fine with that. If you read accounts of an individual living in Classical times who didn't believe in Zeus, on the basis of arguments similar to those Jacoby or others give, I suspect you wouldn't blink an eye.

This just underscores the kind of point that Dawkins and others have been making recently, that a great deal of intellectual respect, deference, etc. is demanded for (current) religious beliefs, in the absence of any (or so it seems to us) evidence to justify it, (and while atheism is considered, well . . . if a bit better off today).

More to follow.

JR,

Thank you very much for taking time to consider my post and reply.

You say, "How many hours must one have logged to be awarded your Certificate of Approval for holding an opinion on religion?" First of all, it's clear I was making a very general statement, not talking about you and Jacoby specifically. Anyway, the point is not the number of hours — the point is that you were a child.

Don't get me started on self-taught programmers and systems engineers. First of all, in most organizations, what most programmers and systems engineers do on a daily basis ain't computer science. They are skilled practitioners, for whom experiential knowledge is vastly more important than theoretical. And the effective ones are not truly self-taught. Even if they lack academic training, they have had significant coaching and mentoring. (Otherwise, they're a mess.) We digress.

My observation about your projecting fundamentalism was not based on a single instance, but in fact on several exchanges in which you read my mind and told me what I thought (and were wrong). You've told me several times what I think about atheists, without a scintilla of evidence to support your statement (notwithstanding your supposed fondness for evidence). You say, "You may want to stop thinking for me, and making judgements about me, lest you make further mistakes." With respect, back at ya.

To my knowledge I have refrained from deliberately criticizing any specific individual in a personal way. If I criticize a thought or idea and the shoe fits, I don't see how that differs from anyone else's comments here. And, with respect, I have seen hateful terms including "American Taliban" in your posts.

Finally, you don't comment on the analogy so I assume it works and you accept it.

Again, thanks for your thoughts!

P.S. "Vobiscum" is plural. If you were addressing me individually, it would be "tecum".

(i remain a happy atheist)

To anonymous,

It seems that you are certain that the sum total of my and susan jacoby's religious education is something less than 400 hours (an interesting number, I probably spent half that many hours in church, RE classes and altar boy practice every year of my 10 or so years of catholic church experience) you claim we spent between the ages of 6 and 12? How many hours must one have logged to be awarded your Certificate of Approval for holding an opinion on religion?

And I see that you are equally certain that the only people who have the credentials to hold opinions on religion in this blog are those who hold a masters in theology. I did not realise that participating in this blog was the equivalent of defending oneself from a death sentence in a courtroom. From now on I'll make review everything I post with Antonin Scalia, for approval (by the way, Antonin expressed doubts about the legal precedents for this post...)

I worked for 25 years in high tech. A number of the most talented programmers and systems engineers I worked with were self-taught, with no degree or formal education in computer science. I had no qualms about working alongside them, even though I had a degree. In fact they were talented and productive co-workers. What is it about self-education that you find distasteful?

And you also seem to think, because I referenced an above post that did quote the age of the earth to be 6600 years, that my entire understanding of religious believers is limited to fundamentalists? I don't believe I ever made such a claim. In fact, in an earlier post in reply to a fellow atheist who was making broad generalizations about believers, I stated quite the opposite - that the world of religious believers is far from monolithic and that we atheists can't paint them all with the same brush. Now you are accusing me of thinking that all believers are fundamentalists because I made one reference to a fundamentalist's post? How ironic.

You may want to stop thinking for me, and making judgements about me, lest you make further mistakes. Your assumptions are both arrogant and misguided. It might be good if we had some rules of behavior for all posters here:

It would be nice, even welcome, if posters would preface their posts with "I think..." or "The way I understand it..." or "What I have observed is...". It would also be very welcome if posters would desist from saying "God said..." or "You possess heart stopping ignorance..." or "You have read too few books to express such an opinion...".

A wise person once said "judge not, lest ye be judged." To which I would add "nota bene..."

Pax vobiscum - jr

well i'm convinced. as an atheist, i've been all wet so i'm ready to adopt theism right here and right now.

and for those of you out there who, like me, are in the market for a shiny new deity, here's a little buyer's guide i threw togher:

there appear to be lots of gods to choose from. for those of us heathen who reside in north america, europe, or the mid-east, it looks like one of the 'Yaweh' model of deity is readily available and 'good to go' right out of the box.

there seem to be three main varieties:

1) New 'improved' YAWEH - providing first rate deism for going on two millenia (includes divine son and holy ghost at no extra charge)

2) Newer, even more 'improved' YAWEH/w really loud prophet - for those with a newer, hipper, 'in your face' attitude toward their deities (comes with an 'anti-globalization' package that plugs right into your radical politics outlet)

3) and finally, YAWEH Classic - a perennial that keeps on giving. perfect for those gated communities, yet 'retro' enough for those weekends out clubbing. and you won't be disappointed with the 'smite thine enemies' option . . .

i think we can all find something we like among this fine selection. and for those with an esoteric bent, i suggest the nordic package (thor, wotan, etc) while any with a tropical taste might opt for the Mezo-American selection (some nice blood cults for those who like a bit of spice).

hope this helps.

important addendum:

the new, improved YAWEH model has produced some confusion. the divine messiah and holy ghost components are not, repeat NOT, optional and must be plugged in for this deity to operate correctly.

on another, related note, believers in this deity must use the 'Monotheism' line at the airport as the messiah/holy ghost units do not count against the one-god carry on rule.

thank you, and there will be no more announcements until this cosmos arrives at enlightenment. passengers should be advised of a bit of a headwind and that the drink cart will be by shortly, so mind your feet.

Rox:

If you "could no longer honestly claim a belief either in Roman Catholicism, God, Jesus or the Bible," you did not "win" anything by avoiding confirmation -- you were completely ineligible!

Rox, you've learned nothing since the age of nine?

Susan writes: "The truth is that I cannot remember a time when I did believe wholeheartedly in anything I was told about religion. I must have believed at some point, but only as a child believes in Santa Claus. My first serious memories about religion date from the period when I began reading the Bible--and I began reading the Bible because I was already a religious skeptic."

That sort of sums up my experience as well. I must've only been 9 or so when I started to doubt Genesis and had my questions, for which I fervently wished honest answers replied to by my teacher-nun with, "It's a matter of faith." That is a NON-answer, and that failure on the part of my "spiritual educator" to even TRY to explain away my doubts only deepened them.

By the age of twelve, I argued against (and WON) receiving confirmation because I could no longer honestly claim a belief either in Roman Catholicism, God, Jesus or the Bible. To me the Bible was clearly just as true as the tales from Greek mythology I learned about in school... it's just that its adherents refused to admit it was.

30-odd years later, they still refuse, and more frightening still is that biblical fundamentalists have political power and never cease trying to force everyone to recognize their worldview as "truth" by revising history and claiming their holy writ is more important than, and deserves more respect than the US Constitution. It's appalling.

Brian63, Susan's book _Freethinkers: History of American Secularism_ might be just what you're looking for (although in the 2+ years since its publishing, there has indeed been some momentum gained in the current atheist movement, especially on the internet - perhaps it's time for a revised edition?).

You might also search Amazon.com for books on secularism, freethought and atheism. There are quite a few that look at the history of both freethought and the Age of Enlightenment.

Happy reading!

Thank you for your article Susan!

If you take suggestions for your next book, I would like to offer up the following---

There is a void of books on the subject of the emerging atheist movement. It would be a book about past atheist movements, their successes and failures, and our current one. How has the Internet and technology changed atheist culture, and formed us into a politically-oriented and activist-oriented movement? We now have NYT bestselling-books espousing atheism, a lobbyist in Washington D.C. advocating for atheist rights, the recent Blasphemy Challenge spreading across YouTube, the 2002 Godless Americans March on Washington, etc. What lies in store for the future of atheism?

If I was a better writer and researcher, I would have a go at it myself. You seem like a great one to take up the task though.

Even if not, thanks again for all your work!

Brian

JR,

I understand why you may have taken offense, but that was not my intention and I apologize.

I perhaps could better state my point as follows: I never cease to be amazed at professional or highly educated people who think they learned everything they will ever need to know about any subject (let alone the most important one) in a total of at best around 400 hours between the ages of six and twelve. If they supplement that with a little independent study later in life, more power to them — but, within their own fields, they never would regard a self-educated person as their peer.

If a person's understanding of God remains that of a child while her intellectual development advances in other areas, it's no wonder cognitive dissonance happens. That's why stories like Jacoby's are so preposterously silly. To the extent feasible, a person's mature knowledge of her faith has to be compatible with her overall level of education.

Let's try an analogy that may or may not work... Let's imagine you have been accused of a capital crime and are on trial for your life. Getting the right defense lawyer is a life or death matter, and you can afford anybody you want. You interview attorneys and ask each one to describe her or his qualifications. Here is one response:

"Well, as a child I ran errands in my father's law office and absorbed a great deal of knowledge just by photocopying legal documents. By the age of 13 I had memorized the Magna Carta and I had read, in their entirety, the constitutions of every U.S. state. The law continues to be my lifelong passion, especially its history and development, and in particular comparative law. I subscribe to numerous law reviews and follow as many others as I can. I devour books on the law, especially feminist legal theory. Recently I read some books on Sharia. I have read every U.S. Supreme Court decision. My spouse, my siblings, and my next-door neighbor all are lawyers, and they talk shop nonstop. I watch Court TV, and my DVD library includes the complete series of every TV courtroom drama ever made. Law school would have been a complete waste of time for me since, as you can tell, I'm plenty smart already. Did Abe Lincoln need a stinkin' law school?"

How long would you continue this interview?

I don't have any unobvious recommendations, JR, but with your professed level of interest, I would think you would have pursued a master's in theology.

(P.S. As for your definition of believer, you frequently make reference to things like a 6,000 year-old earth. If in fact your views aren't limited to fundamentalists, then I wouldn't put fundamentalist verbiage into the other party's mouth.)

(still an atheist)

I would like to clarify something for "anonmymous" (which "anonmymous" I am not sure, there appear to be many on this blog) and to ask his help in addressing my apparent ignorance.

First the clarification. My atheism does not rely on opposition to fundamentalists. It is based on skepticism of any proclamation of faith that cannot be tested and verified. For me a "believer" is not just a fundamentalist, but anyone who believes in things for which I can find no objective evidence, such as that god exists, or that there are angels, or that there is an afterlife.

And I appreciate anonymous's concern for my inadequate education - my "heart stopping ignorance" as he calls it. It is always enlightening when someone helps me understand the ways in which I am unworthy, especially when that someone can do this with so little knowledge of me. Please anonymous, help me to understand how to make up for the knowledge you know I lack. To help you, here's a brief description of my meager education to date in religious teachings and the practices of believers.

I was raised a catholic, in fact I was an altar boy. I can still recite significant portions of the mass in latin (dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritu tuo). Like any good catholic who attended mass every week for many years, I am reasonably familiar with the new testament. In addition, out of curiosity I read the bible that I was given for my confirmation from cover to cover when I was 13 (my growing doubt and exit a year or two later from the church was very similar to Susan Jacoby's, I won't bother to go into detail here).

I have had a life long interest in religion - in the history of religions, in the forces and attractions that makes religion so powerful for people, in the similarities and differences between different faiths, etc. I have read extensively, of the authors mentioned in my earlier post as well as others (I know that for anonymous I have only read a "few", and I humbly accept that my reading has probably been insufficient).

I do have some religious education outside of my own church attendance and my academic pursuits. I have a large family, they are almost all still practicing catholics. I know them well, and we discuss religion often. I live in a largely christian nation (the united states) and I am surrounded by christian references in media and books. Most of my co-workers are christian or jewish, and again, since I am not a closeted atheist and have a great curiosity about religion, I often find myself in discussions with them about their faiths. In addition, the world in which I live is experiencing rising conflicts between muslims and christians, so in recent years I have begun reading a bit of the koran as well as articles and books about islam (although I confess that my knowledge of islam is even weaker than my knowledge of christianity and judaism...)

That's the sum of my paltry education in, and exposure to religion, so far. Anonymous, I thank you in advance for any suggestions you can make for how I can begin to address the yawning chasm of my ignorance...jr

"Liberated,"

Becoming an acolyte of Crossan and Borg is an odd definition of liberation, but, hey — whatever floats your boat. Even an acolyte, however, would be well-advised to maintain a healthy skepticism.

A number of your criticisms are very specific to Roman Catholicism, and in fact several echo classic Protestant complaints. As for the remainder, the following would benefit from clarification:

a. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead. — Okay, but I'm unclear why anyone who is comfortable doing away with an historical Resurrection would then care much about an historical Jesus.

b. Christ’s teachings serve the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths. — Uh, okay. Meaning what?

f. Adam and Eve are myths making original sin mythological and Baptism symbolic. — Whatever their names, the first individuals of a self-aware species capable of sin, did not sin? Nobody ever committed the first sin (equivalent to saying no one has ever sinned)? And even if there is no original sin, there is no grace in baptism and therefore it is not a sacrament?

h. Happiness in Heaven is not a gradient but is dependent on the number of souls present. — Uh, sure. Huh?

q. Confirmation is only symbolic of our adult acceptance of the Christ’s rules for humanity and our belief in God. — As with baptism, what is the basis for your objection to its sacramentality?

r. Dividing God into three parts violates the first Commandment. — I gather this is intended as some kind of reference to the Trinity, but the words "divide" and "parts" betray a total non-understanding thereof.

s. Substituting God in place of any reference to the Holy Spirit works quite well. — See immediately above.

I'm one of the participants who has remarked on the importance of education, and the absurdity of stories like Ms. Jacoby's. I'd be the first to admit that plenty, perhaps most, of the so-called believers in this discussion likewise suffer from an ignorance that could benefit from sounder theology.

JR observes, "One of the reasons that these dialogues between atheists and 'true believers' are so difficult is that we end up discussing different things..." Surely JR is right. The conversations are circular because we talk past each other, and we do that because we don't agree on the questions, let alone any answers.

From his comments on "true believers", I gather JR means fundamentalists. JR's side tends to ignore the believers in this discussion who are not fundamentalists. Ironically, the "true believers" and unbelievers are two sides of the same coin. The unbelievers are totally dependent on a fundamentalist God for their unbelief. Loudly proclaiming their supposed commitment to reason, they eschew more reasonable understandings of God, fearfully and irrationally clinging to their self-identity.

I'm confident we all agree that a thoughtful adult engages in lifelong reading and self-learning. But to regard oneself as an authority on what Christians believe because he has read scripture and a few books belies heart-stopping ignorance. As with any other serious subject, education does matter.

E.Favorite,

I was liberated after reading many books about the historic Jesus. I added "Now Liberated" to emphasize this. This blog, however, with its many panelists helps to reinforce my liberation from the embellished orthodoxy of Christianity especially Catholicism.

To reiterate: (based on the conclusions of Crossan, Armstrong, Schillebeeckx, and those of good friend who teaches Theology at a large Catholic university)

--------- the Twelve Commandments Rule!!!! (Eight if you are an atheist)
plus
a. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead.
b. Christ’s teachings serve the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths.
c. Heaven is a Spirit State i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies allowed.
d. The Ascension and Assumption therefore did not take place.
e. Christ’s Spirit resides in Heaven with all the souls of deceased good people of any religion or of no religion therefore there will be no second coming.
f. Adam and Eve are myths making original sin mythological and Baptism symbolic.
g. There was therefore no Immaculate Conception.
h. Happiness in Heaven is not a gradient but is dependent on the number of souls present.
i. Purgatory is possible but has no Scriptural foundation.
j. Hell is possible but would God tolerate Satan spirits and contaminated souls?
k. God does not know the future.
l. Predestination should not be a word.
m. Canonization of the likes of Pio and Juan eliminates any consideration of papal infallibility.
n. Exodus should not be a word.
o. ditto for the Christmas manger.
p. The Eucharist is a fantastic spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. Continued crucifixion of Christ is ridiculous.
q. Confirmation is only symbolic of our adult acceptance of the Christ’s rules for humanity and our belief in God.
r. Dividing God into three parts violates the first Commandment.
s. Substituting God in place of any reference to the Holy Spirit works quite well.
t. Holy Orders is relevant but not complete without access by females and married members.
u. Religions are slowly converging. See James Somerville’s “take” (See Google).
v. As per Somerville, “Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door” i.e. there is no religion in Heaven.
w. Lourdes et al as per Crossan prove faith heals but Mary plays no part. Miracles are equally probable anywhere on earth but all miracles are limited in scope and limited to very few of any faith. http://www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/crossan3.txt

If we choose to believe there is no God as our assumption, we have no choice but to be our own savior - making ourselves better by our own efforts. I don't believe humans have the capacity to undo their sinful nature by themselves without God. Sin is one of many characteristics of humanity empirically validated by history.

Canyon wrote:
---Sully, nice verses you picked out. The first, concerning Genesis, has been observed and become a fruitful science. Therefore it is not astrology, but rather, astronomy.---

No, astronomy and astrology are completely different. Do you know anything about either? And I know of no christians who employ astromoners or astrologers to look for signs in the sky? Look Canyon, I thought you had some real answers but it seems you are better at waying your hands and making things up. "You'll know it when you see it" is not what it says in the bible.

---The second is one that hadn't instantly popped to mind when you mentioned signs in the stars. Indeed, there will be definite signs in the stars, they won't be strange clusters of stars that we have to apply our own definitions to, though. I have a strange feeling that when God wants us to receive new revelation, we'll know it.---

You have a strange feeling.... What does that mean? You claim answers are in the bible yet all I hear for answers to my questions is your strange feelings. According to the bible astrology works and can be used to see the signs in the stars God refered to in Genesis yet you just wave it off as something christians don't care about. Why?

---Take for example, Luke 24:4-5. No one has undertaken a study or superstition considering angels, despite their importance in the Bible. Should Christians go around asking people, "Are you an angel?" Angels do grand things, perhaps we should? No, as verse 5 shows, when you see an angel, you'll know it.---

Well many people claim to have been visited by angels. I think most people, even devote christians, are skeptical. Delusion is a proven disorder, one that even people who are not sick can have due to unusual circumstances and predefined belief. But miracles are claimed every day. Christians flock to statues with blood coming out of the eyes, pictures of Jesus made my algea growing on an interstate overpass wall, and others. I guess I'll have to ask why angels do not get the same respect as these phenomenon. Maybe its because we naturally distrust the claims of people who claim to be angels or say they have seen angels, but are more willing to see a natural phenomenon as a sign from God. Therefore I ask again, why isn't the church hiring astrologers to look into the sky for signs, natural phenomenon, as the bible says will exist as signs from God himself?

---The star was impressive enough that you wouldn't have to know anything about stars to know that it was special. Just as like if I am driving to Florida, I don't have to be a mapmaker, or even have a map, in order to follow the signs.---

But Canyon only three people from all over the middle east showed up at the side of the baby Jesus. If the signs were that obvious you'd have seen thousands of people. It could not have been obvious and we know it took trained astrologers to determine what the star in the sky meant, the birth of the king of Judea. So knowing these "facts", how can you say that we'd all know the signs when we see them. Were the Magi the only ones looking into the sky that December? Face it Canyon, the bible and what should be believed out of it has been cherry picked by your ancestors and what to believe in the bible and what to ignore has been established, some holy text even eliminated such as the gnostic texts. But seeing that "signs in the stars" is included, I cannot determine why its not part of the religion, part of the training in religion and is instead considered satanic or witchcraft. I'm truly looking for an answer. Can you tell me where in the Hebrew of Christian history the "signs in the stars" was dropped and the word of God that says we should look to the stars for signs is now considered satanic?

(i used to be "John" but there were a couple of "johns" so i switched to "jr". i am the same atheist I was yesterday and 40 years ago)

One of the reasons that these dialogues between atheists and "true believers" are so difficult is that we end up discussing different things - context versus content. Atheists are focused primarily on the context of religions - the patterns that religious texts take, the purposes of the metaphors within religious texts, the ways in which churches operate, and the process of intellect and discovery that led us to reject specific religious claims. "True believers" want to discuss the content of their religion, each and every chapter and verse that god or allah spoke, and why those verses are all true and consistent and perfect. Atheists talk about the meaning of the apple in the garden of eden creation myth, while believers explain how adam and eve ate that apple exactly 6600 years ago, as they lived among the dinosaurs and unicorns. Taking such different views of religion, we're not on the same page, we're not even on the same planet.

Some of the believers here have criticized Jacoby and other atheists on this blog for being uneducated. With remarkably few exceptions, the atheists on this board have read the bible, some also the koran and/or torah, and we've also read scholars of religion such as Borg, Crossan and Armstrong (her "History of God" is one of the best treatises on the evolution of religions that I have read). We know the bible very well. As the references in our posts demonstrate, we can cite Matthew and John and Abraham as well as any of the believers here (maybe better than some, there are a fair number of misplaced biblical references in the believers' posts). I'd love to see the "true believers" step back from endless repetitions of the content of their religion, and take an objective look at its context. That might result in a more workable dialogue. It would certainly be more interesting. JR

KnowYourBible posts have been good, many good points raised --- but might what to consider smaller, more focused posts on other issues of concern in Bible that are troubling.

I especially like the posts of Hewitt Rose --- very well written, focused, and clear. The post of Jan 5, 2007 at 11:28 AM that contains the following was very insightful:

"...To refuse to follow through with the implications of the story, i.e. leave it to the trained scholars, and just have faith in God's providence and mercy is the root of the problem non-believers have with believers."

As I see it too, the believers willingness to "just have faith in God's providence and mercy" is indeed the root of the problem, for me it comes just too close to the excuse of "just following orders."

The defense of "Christian Soldiers" (like one might say Abraham was) by saying they were "just following orders" from their higher up is not good enough. Soldiers have a duty to refuse unlawful, immoral orders. If a General orders the summary execution of a small child, should the soldiers being so ordered just blindly obey and later claim they "were just following orders"?

Believers who do not study and ".. refuse to follow through with the implications of the story" and "just have faith in God's providence and mercy" are promoting the idea that just following orders is acceptable. Many of us see this as wrong. I do not want this --- I oppose this. We want our childern to use reason and logic to analyze the situation and to think about the implications and consequences of actions; it is immoral to promote faith based blind obiendence.

To Concerned the Christian Now Liberated -

Wow - you sure have been doing the Jesus research - Thanks for sharing it here.

Are you the same guy who started out on this forum as just "Concerned the Christian?"

If so, and you've become liberated as a result of you participation here, please let us know how it happened.

Canyon,
Funny you latched onto my unicorn slight.

Funnier that you, nor the bible mentions,
the narwhale. Because it has a single, thin
spiral horn (actually tooth),
just as the mythical one does.

& it really exists... even NOW.

Many scientists pose that a narwhale horn
was the origin of the unicorn myth.

It's a much more elegant and insightful
answer than your dinosaur/rhino fluff
& its not in the bible.

Give science a chance.
It's the best thing we've got so far,
& its not so "all knowing" and oppressive.

k

Gee. If God would save us all, we atheists would finally have enough proof to believe you. Too bad, eh?

If God intervenes so often through prayer, etc. How come there are no miracles cited among any of the On Faith Panelists?

Without God, Even Atheists can witness miracles.

I saw what could be considered a sign of god, but I still don't believe in Christianity.

When my well-traveled gay grandfather died (I was about 14), I asked him a Q as he lay in his deathbed: "GrandPapa, what's your favorite place?"
He couldn't think too clearly at the time, but died before I could see him again the next day.

But that night... I dreamed he led me to the family farm, and with a shotgun in hand, he led me through the valley behind the old house there, we were hunting in this valley, it was beautiful, and it was where he grew up. We walked together through those woods.

When I woke up, I KNEW that was his favorite place. The next morning, about the time he died, a bolt of lightning missed two huge oak trees, and struck that old family house & cracked the concrete front porch, all the way to the foundation.

I know there are many things that science cannot explain, yet I am certain that YOUR god doesn't exist. May he strike me down. I go willingly.
k

....and atheists are a most sad, angry and frustrated lot. They need to qoute Jacoby, Dawkins etc and provide links to reaffirm their belief of non-believe.

They have become Jacoby and Dawkins quoting disciples. God save us all.

Anonymous, not only do I really like your ideas, but scripture backs it up!

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became an [adult], I put away childish things."
-1 Cor 13:11

Some people can never claim this...I certainly hope that someday I can! ;)

Wow, the non-thread "blog hogs" are out in force this evening!!

For those interested in reading books about the historic Jesus written by PhD's with degrees in Theology and Biblical History, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html i.e. passages such as Luke 24: 9-11
Item: 275
Stratum: III (60-80 CE)
Attestation: Single
Historicity- not historic but another embellishment to compete with the Roman and Greek gods
275-. The Empty Tomb: (1a) Mark 16:1-8 = Matt 28:1-10 = Luke 24:1-11, (1b) John 20:1,11-18, (1c) Gos. Pet. 11:44; 12:50-13:57

No, BG, it's a classic atheist tale, and Susan Jacoby's post is a prime example: "When I outgrew my childish notions, I did not bother to pursue an adult education because I prefer ignorance. My lack of an education does not prevent me from offering opinions based not on an adult understanding but on my uninformed childish imagination."

AA you're just guessing. Where's the evidence to support that? Atheists are saying present some evidence before telling the children what is most likely a lie. ATM machines are for real. Is God? I can prove there's ATM machines. Bet you can't prove there's a God

Maybe some children are emotionally disturbed with bloody events like curcifixions. Would you bring your child to witness one? Did you bring yours to see Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of Christ?" That may be child abuse. Does watching other people be bad make them be good or twist their little minds, confuse them until they don't know the difference between right and wrong?

Why are mind altering drugs so God awful popular right now? Rush Limbaugh type gotten from the doctor. Have anything to do with threats of hell while they were young, while they're still young even?

Small children often quite naturally assume that the ATM machines their parents use just print greenbacks on demand to address whatever the child's material need may be at a given moment.

As children grow older, they are disillusioned upon learning that the reality is more complicated and less magical, and that money must be earned through hard work. As adults they have quite a different understanding of ATMs, yet find them even more important than they could have guessed as children.

But if you were to apply the atheist's logic, childhood disillusionment would cause these individuals to reject and avoid ATMs at all costs, and even to deny they exist.

DZ,

Happy to amuse. But it's entirely fair to say that preferring ignorance over knowledge is an anti-intellectual attitude. And it's fair to say it is anti-intellectual to express opinions on matters about which one is ignorant.

An opinion without education is merely an uneducated opinion.

Anon

I was raised as an atheist, I have no religious education whatsoever, I have no theological training of any kind, I have not surveyed religion of any kind, and, yet, I am completely comfortable calling myself an atheist although asupernaturalist would probably be more accurate.

Based on the evidence available, I simply do NOT believe.

Also, in your second post, you did the thing that makes we evil atheists laugh the most. A believer called an atheist anti-intellectual. You obviously have no idea how funny this is to us.

Maybe she can't learn the 20-30,000 faiths so she ignernt.

Not me AA. I accept all things about which I am completely ignorant. I can't name a single one because of ignorance about them. When one is ignorant enough then one does not know what one believes, provided one believes things one's ignorant about. Does that include total ignorance or just a little ignorant. Didn't someone say, "a little ignorance is a dangerours thing so be as ignorant as one can be." I see the ignorant logic of that. I believe. Like I said. I believe but I don't know what I believe. I'm ignorant.

Beats learning lies and believing them. I'm smarter than that.

It's ironic the writer is working on a book about anti-intellectualism, given the anti-intellectualism of her own approach to God.

You hear this same dumb story over and over: People like Ms. Jacoby claim to be atheists even though they have little or no religious education beyond elementary school. Of course, they usually assure you they are self-taught (and they've surveyed the major religions). Yeah, and I'm a self-taught brain surgeon. How much theology training does Ms. Jacoby actually have?

Think about it: How daft is it for an intelligent person to claim to reject something about which she is completely ignorant, or at best her knowledge is at a kindergarten level? More important, how do they get away with it?

Knowyourbible, I struggled through your response to someone. I'm afraid to ask, what's the question?

You have done a good job demonstrating how the Bible can be all things to all people, just interpret it as you please, 20-30,000 different ones. And when all else fails just say, "there's some things we just don't know" or something similar.

I see you noticed that Lucifer attempted to take over the thrown of God. So that leads to a one word answerable question. Had Lucifer succeded would he declare Himself to be God? We can explain the God of the father of Moses, Abraham, Issac and Jacob by saying Lucifer won.

Of course that leads to the strangest question one might ever ask. What happened to God? Did God abandon us, go elsewhere and create another world, do the job right with a better class of people and no angels at all? That's known as going back to the old drawing board, create a "more intelligent design."

We need to look into that Lucifer, Michael shoot out in the sky. There could have been a "coalition of the willing" and heaven is now being run by Devil. Don't you think?

Oh! Almost forgot. You do know the Bible is a proved hoax? After reading your post I can't find a single reason to hope otherwise.

Survey says:
http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/pr.nsf/stable/20020423_barna

To whoever above wrote "To nonbelievers who might question why they should do the same, I’d simply respond “because you can”. We all have the choice as to how we live and I can see no downside to our being loving, kind, caring and compassionate human beings."

To which I respond that there is no evidence that individual Christians or other monotheists have any more of a claim to those qualities than individual agnostics or atheists. History moreover suggests that very large organized religious groups have a vested "coroporate" interest in persecuting non-believers.

Dear BGone, I don't want to get trapped once again in the mire that is conversing with you, but I want to point out:

You are EAGER to believe EVERYTHING you read, except the Bible.

Sully, nice verses you picked out. The first, concerning Genesis, has been observed and become a fruitful science. Therefore it is not astrology, but rather, astronomy.

The second is one that hadn't instantly popped to mind when you mentioned signs in the stars. Indeed, there will be definite signs in the stars, they won't be strange clusters of stars that we have to apply our own definitions to, though. I have a strange feeling that when God wants us to receive new revelation, we'll know it.

Take for example, Luke 24:4-5. No one has undertaken a study or superstition considering angels, despite their importance in the Bible. Should Christians go around asking people, "Are you an angel?" Angels do grand things, perhaps we should? No, as verse 5 shows, when you see an angel, you'll know it.

The star was impressive enough that you wouldn't have to know anything about stars to know that it was special. Just as like if I am driving to Florida, I don't have to be a mapmaker, or even have a map, in order to follow the signs.

Tom, thank you for your councel. I ought not to have lashed out at Dodger; but so you are contextually filled in, I have traded posts with Dodger in the past, and his tricks and ability to frustrate you are amongst the best on the board, not to mention his complete disinterest in learning anything or improving in any way. In the future I must learn to practice restraint in these matters.

Dan S. Thank you for catching that! I realized I'd posted it after it was written in stone, and I wondered if anyone would post on it.

I have thought on the idea, and I cannot figure out any way that an atheist could exist; so that is one thing that does not require all knowledge.

In order to know there is no God would need to know everything about everything. The only way to do that would to be a god. If you then proclaimed yourself to be an atheist, you would still be wrong. Deity Disbelieving Agnostics are as close as anyone or anything can get to being an atheist.

The post on the dinosaur(unicorn) that I posted was merely to test the ideas of our scientific knowledge. Someone can stand on a milk-crate all day screaming about truth saying, "The sky is blue, liquids are incompressable, unicorns don't exist, and 2+2=/5!"

I just wanted to show there is very little truth that is actually pure truth; rather we have to be subjective in searching out the hypothesis and later theory which best describes the world.

After all, the sky has no color, liquids are compressable, unicorns exist, and 4 rotations around a circle puts you in the same place as 5 rotations around a circle, so 2+2=5.

Of the 9 unicorns in the Bible, 4 are undeniably Rhinocerus's, 3 could possibly be describing elephants or tricerotops, and two are either rhinoceri or montanoceratops. The three concerning elephants(and some rhinoceri) need to be noted that the Hebrew for unicorn does not specify absolutely a single horn, but can also describe the horn itself, and is thrice used in plural.

But you were right, I am apt to use humor in attempting to dissuade the 'atheist', as 'atheism' makes me laugh so hard, I figure I'll share the wealth.

Karen: Now back to you, you did not answer my comments

[OK I am only reading a few posts -- but I will read yours now.]

We want free will for us to do whatever we want to do, but we want God to intervene in other people's free choice if it is going to hurt us. How logical is that?

[You are describing a religious’ person mindset, and not mine. Let me explain.

Atheists have to subscribe to a philosophy, as do religious folks. I subscribe to the philosophy of humanism. I will post something on this if you are interested…

If you are a humanist (religious or atheist) -- Free will does not give you any right to harm others to find pleasure for yourself. Which is why the principle of not harming others is found in virtually all societies and in all religions. It was a human intervention needed for social law and order. ]
=====================================================================

Then, at the end of the day, we turn around and blame God for everything, or we say "I can't believe in a God that allows this or that to happen".

#1 If you don’t believe in God, you think the causes of evil are natural (caused by natural phenomenon or by evil people.)
More relevant to me has been, how do you explain how some very religious people can do evil, but be deluded enough to think they are really doing good?
And why does God not zap them with lightening (or else make it srike) on these guys. There is always silence….

#2 Are you aware there is a powerful paradox known even before the Christian era that notes;
If God is all good, and God is all powerful, then why does Evil exist. (as presumably if God is all powerful he could stop Evil.

No theologian has ever been able to successfully reconcile this without compromise one of the three areas. Ie.

--either they have to hold God is not really all powerful

-- God is not all God (if you look in the Old Testament this was the view of the Jews, for God grieves of the evil he had contemplated in places.

-- (many variations here) there is not really evil, or this is the best of all possible worlds. (sort of hard with half of the world living in abject poverty; terrible pain, deformed births, and on and on.)

Usually when painted in a corner, apologists just give a cop out. “There are things we just don’t understand.”
===================================================================

Yet if God had made us his slaves, only able to behave as he tells us to ensure that all is well and nobody gets hurt, would we want to worship him then? Or would we hate him for directing us like pieces on a chess board?

[ On the contrary: Christians are taught their prayers will be answered.

Christians view themselves as getting an easy ticket to heaven and eternal life where they will be rich.

Let’s take an easy example I saw somewhere here:

If the Devil threw God off the throne and now only the Devil was all powerful and could promise eternal life, how many Christians do you think would rush over to serve the Devil now? Would they follow God for goodness, or the Devil for the rewards?

Christianity is one of the few religions not requiring good works – it’s sp easy just say you believe and God wants you to be wealthy and have eternal life. Sign up now - no work is required on your part.]
===============================================================

Here is an example. Let's say a young college student wants to date as many girls as possible and have a fantastic time with each. He certainly does not want God to stop him from having fun. But let's look at it from the perspective of the girls that may not know that he is dating other girls at the same time. They certainly would want God to stop this guy from hurting them.

[An all good and powerful God would at least TELL the girls so they could really invoke their free will, no?

Most of the fights and wars over religion has been over deciding WHAT EXACTLY God wants people to do. Don’t you think it amazing God can’t make this clear.

We have hundreds of thousands of religious sects. (Some 20-30,000 Christian sects alone.) Almost all saw only they have the true secrets of God’s will.

Slippery thing even trying to DEFINE what God really wants -- isn’t it. Just the thing you would expect if God was really invented by a lot of different men.

"If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?"
--Percy Bysshe Shelley

So...The consequence of free will is that we can use it for good or bad. I am not saying at all that only believers can make moral choices, absolutely not.And many believeres make terrible moral choices. I am just trying to illustrate the dilemma produced by having free will. God certainly does not need me to defend Him. But if we all took responsibility for our own actions, there would be no need to constantly blame God.

If you do not believe in God – there is no blame except bad luck (for natural catastrophes) and evil intentions (murder, rape, etc).

If you believe God is all good and all powerful, then logically we should not see the great evil we do in the world.

As a religious person, the onus of burden is on you to explain how it is religious people can do such evil "all in the name of God". Can anything be more blasphemous?

================================================================

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." – Calvin

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

"When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know." -- Mark Twain

Friend, you remember the "Siagon monkey roast" do you? There was a fellow in California, (a likely place) that set himself on fire Christmas. He was protesting the changing of the name from "Christmas holidays" to something else like "winter festival."

There was the mentally deficient one that stole a small airplane and flew it into a bank building in Tampa, just after 9-11. Monkey see monkey do.

Karen: You ask good questions and bring up some passages that are hard to understand. But again, if we approach them with humility, rather then with a right to know all things, as if God owes us explanations about all things, we may end up with different conclusions.

[I am not claiming you must know all things in nature and science.

I was referring to something completely different: I.e. if something looks like a superstition and smells like a superstition, one should be prepared to defend exactly WHY it is not REALLY a superstition.

Do you see the difference?]

========================================

You ask me to tackle the difficult bible passages, not the easy one... Isn't this a little disingenious?

[Think of I this way: If you asked a politician a difficult issue, and he or she responded with the answer to an easy question that is completely different– do you think this is really ok?

No, it would be a deflection. Anyone can answer easy questions.

Now – this applies both ways. You are allowed to ask me – a nonbeliever the toughest questions as well. Do I get credit for saying “ no I only want to answer the easy questions?”

If you allow me to “pick and choose” among whatever I want, – then one can really prove anything they want. That’s why science insists you look and explain ALL the issues – in evaluating a scientific theory.]

=========================================================

The Abraham/Isaac story is brought up time and time again on these blogs as a reason to reject God, yet when I try to explain it, you tell me to tackle the hard stuff.

[Then when you debate them – please feel free to restrict it to these issues. My post stated this is not as bad a passage as the Japthah story where God did not intervene to keep him from murdering his daughter.

Since I identified this as a more relevant passage, why would you not debate that with me?

Is the answer because it IS more difficult for you?

Probably yes, I would guess (envisioning myself in your shoes.) If this is wrong, please explain.]
========================================================================

…I will try to tackle a couple from your post:

"4) Was Jesus lying her or (as apologists say) just "coy"

in Mark 10:17-8, where a stranger approaches Jesus with the question,

"Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life". Jesus replies here, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone'"

In His reply, Jesus is basically telling the stranger that either He, Jesus, is not God or he is God because only God is good. NO, Jesus was not being coy or confused, but it is well known that He often anwered questions with questions or parables to get people to think about what they were really saying.

[If Jesus had stopped at “Why do you call me good?” I would completely agree with you. Jesus would be asking the man what he really meant by the word “good”.

The combination with the next sentence: “No one
is good except God alone” - - is the problem:

(i) By the way, look in the Old Testament-- the Jews have never had a tradition of God ever being part of a Trinity (this is a Greek idea, the concept is also found in other NON-Jewish religions.)

The idea of a Trinity means more than one God and is therefore blasphemous to Jews (and it was a Jew to whom Jesus was speaking – so he would have understood the God from the Old Testament being meant.)

(ii) Jesus is never referred to-- by himself-- as simply “God”. He is the “Son of God.” Only the Father member of the Trinity is referred to as simply God.

(iii) By the phrase “God alone” – this says it does “not” include the Son (or the spirit/mother)

(iv) If God is the only person who is good, Jesus is making a falsehood, because (as a divine member of the Trinity and Son of God) he would be divinely good too.]

I would recommend you read some books on the topic. It will show you the references to the Trinity in the gospels are rare, and appear to be later additions by Christian scribes. Afterall, how do you reconcile Son of Man and Son of God. David was referred to as a son of God – and this did not have divine interpretation .

There is much evidence, the early Christians saw Jesus much more in a Jewish model (zapped to be God’s spiritual prophet) and the Greeks added the divinity part.]

===============================================

(2) God never expresses displeasure at the following scene of incest anywhere in the Bible:
"And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19:33
6)

The Bible does not tell us at all that God approved of this behavior, it is just telling us what happened and the level of depravity that humans can reach when utilizing only their own wisdom.

[Exactly. Look carefully at what I said: I did not claim God approved it. My statement was there is no record ANYWHERE in the Bible that God – or any prophet for God – stating divine disapproval of this act.

=================================================
====================

With regard to the prophecy about the second coming, the beginning is about the upcoming destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and "generation" is believed to mean the generation that will see the final events, not the generation living at that time.

Again, I am not a scholar, just a christian who spends time studying God's Word to the best of my ability.

[Karen, remember my statement you could not pick and choose. Look at this part you want to ignore:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven ...

Are you saying the angels showed up in 70 AD? Since the pagan Roman empire defeated the religious Jews and early Christian church (run by Jesus brother James – Paul refers to this – know about it? – anyway) the angels helped pagan Rome. And – check your history – the Romans always thought they did this ALL by themselves (since they were the most powerful nation on earth, and they had now sent their most powerful armies on Israel/Judah)

--will continue next post.

Being persecuted and dieing for a cause is not just done by Christians, but by many different groups throughout history.

Consider some small examples of the Buddhists setting themselves on fire in Vietnam.

CONCERNED, Christians controlled the press, such as it was, from Constantine until July 4, 1776. Constantine began with over 850 "books" that were being used in "for it is written" schemes to fleece Roman citizens and slaves alike. He selected 72 of the 850+ and assembled them into what he hoped would be a coherent single book and became the chief fleecer. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods." Taxes weren't enough so he added tithes to his take.

Some easy to answer questions. What happened to the books not chosen? Was there any last minute editing of the ones selected? Is the pope a Catholic?

Lies require continuous maintenance while the truth stands as is indefinitely. That iron clad rule alone tells anyone with any brains at all the Bible is bogus. The truth is out and plenty enough copies are now in the hands of people all over the world. One last question. What happens next? Got faith?

Concerned the Christian ...
I was aware of all that you mention about Peter and that it was upon his request that he was crucified upside down, etc. You are actually giving even more weight to my point.
So why did Peter and the others do all this? For a lie that they knew to be a lie? Honestly, this would be harder to believe than the resurrection itself.

As with the OT and NT, the death of St. Peter has been significantly embellished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Death_of_Peter
"Later traditions, originating in or recorded in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, say that the Romans crucified Peter upside down at his request, due to his wishing not to be equated with Jesus. Acts of Peter is also thought to be the source for the tradition about the famous phrase "Quo Vadis" (Where are you going?), a question that, according to this tradition, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution, asked a vision of Jesus, and to which Jesus responded that he was "going to Rome, to be crucified again", causing Peter to decide to return to the city and accept martyrdom"

Bottom line, Peter was the leader of the Christians. Nero blamed them for the fire. The leader was put to death. From there, the details get very murky.

E. Favorite,
Your explanation would apply to people who were told about the resurrection but had not seen it. But it does not hold for the 11 apostles. People may be willing to die for a lie but only because they believe it to be the truth. I am hard pressed to understand what Peter's motivation was to go from scared but safe, to boldly proclaiming the resurrection and finding himself in jail, beaten, and finally crucified upside down in Rome. The only explanation that works for me is that he did all this because he saw the resurrected Christ.
If he was the only one, we could say he was deluded, but how about the rest of the 11? Only John lived to an old age, the rest were all martyred. All for a lie that they knew to be a lie?
And why would Paul be so interested in marketing a lie? He certainly did not profit from it. He was a roman citizen, in good standing in the jewish community of Jerusalem and suddenly he is being jailed, shipwreked, beaten etc. and ends up beheaded. And he did all this for something he knew to be a lie? And got what out of it in his earthly life?

Tom H, You ask:

"why would thousands get themselves martyred for a dead savior,"

Because in those days, before modern science, people were more willing to believe in bodily resurrection?

Because Paul marketed Jesus so well, and then Emperor Constantine made him the official God of the Roman Empire?

Because it gave purpose to an otherwise dreary life?

Who knows, but there are many possibilities - not just the one you mention.

Because they were just as gullible as people who martyre themselves for 72 virgins?

Canyon,

Here's some verses below I found refering to signs in the heavens. Add the Bethlehem star to this and it seems pretty clear to me that watching for signs in the stars is pretty well defined in the bible, yet christians do not do this and astrologers today are scorned by christians. So far no one seems to know...

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"
- Genesis 1:14 (KJV)

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
- Luke 21:25-27 (KJV)

Birth at Bethlehem, son of David, visits by angels/shepherds, a magic star/comet, three kings/magi, escapes to Egypt and killing of the innocent children, are just more embellishments of the life of Jesus made to fit the myths of the OT.

See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb007.html and then update your religious foundations to the real world.

not historic - Of David's Lineage: (1a) Rom 1:3; (1b) 2 Tim 2:8; (2) Matt 2:1-12; (3) Luke 2:1-20; (4) John 7:41-42; (5a) Ign. Smyrn. 1:1a; (5b) Ign. Eph. 18:2c; (5c) Ign. Trall. 9:1a

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

Canyon Shearer: "I'm pretty sure the Magi didn't one day look up and see a new star which looked like all the rest, I'm pretty sure there was something special about the one they saw. The next time anything big happens, you'll know it."

I'm sure there was something special in the sky, something the astrologers said meant that the king of the jews was born, so the wise men followed the star and lo and behold they found the baby Jesus. So please can you tell me why astrologers are not used by christians today or even in the earlier days when astrologers were the ones who used their skills to find Jesus? I just find it perplexing that a method used to find the son of God is not employed by those who worship the son of God. I'd really like an answer, not your assurances.

"To refute your claim, atheists still do not exist."

I dunno, Canyon . . . wouldn't you "require all knowledge of all things present and all things past" to be able to claim this? Slightly more seriously, you seem to be thinking that the existence of a (non)belief and its truth value are linked, which is odd. If atheism is wrong and silly, that doesn't mean we don't exist as atheists, just that we have wrong and silly ideas.
I believe that theists believe things that (to varying degrees) are literally false and sometimes nonlogical, but I don't imagine that they're not theists, just merely deluded atheists. Now *that's* silly!

(... I don't have belief in the existence of a working computer made entirely & solely of lime jello. Can't prove it, but I feel ok withh stating that I am an a-JelloPC-ic . Etc.)

" I believe absolutely in unicorns because we have fossil evidence of at least one. [link to dino pic]"

I'm new here - are you a parody theist, is this a joke, or are you serious? Debating young earth creationists who argue that dinosaurs are in the Bible and existed into historic times (dragons, Grendel, etc.) has dulled my senses in this regard.

Moving on, I was very impressed by Emm's 9:34 am comment. As mentioned in a recent thread here, theist/nontheist seems far from the most important division - like many other categories, the variation within the groups (and similarities across them) seem greater than the differences between 'em.

Re: the original post - It's interesting, natural-born (religious) skeptics Appears to be fairly rare (although what with self-reporting, various cognitive biases and the self-editing narrative nature of memory, who knows?) I wonder what factors are involved . .. .

Bgone, I found nothing on Amenophis' sacrifice in Wiki; don't know how to verify historicity of the event.
My decision to accept Jesus' resurrection as factual was based on the lack of coherent OTHER possibilities; why would thousands get themselves martyred for a dead savior, etc. I'd suggest everyone read a few books such as Evidence that Demands a Verdict or the Case for Christ, as well as agnostic treatises such as "Holey Bible" (note the spelling) and others before making their own decisions.
But I will say, for me and many many others I know, our faith has spurred us to send more time helping others and less time watching TV, etc, because I realized my purpose in life wasn't only to satisfy ME (not meaning to generalize all agnsotics / whatever live that way, but certainly I see that tendency in ME in my lesser moments!) but to serve.

EMM, thank you again for your response. I, like you, do not think that I need to be able to understand and explain every passage of the Bible in order to be a Christian. After all, we believe that the Bible is divinely inspired but written by men, not dictated by God as muslims bleive that the Koran was dictated by God to Mohammed) . That is why I place my hope, my faith and my trust in the person of Jesus because he is the Word made Flesh and He taught us what we need to know. It is always my hope that those of all who call ourselves Christians would honor Christ by our actions and our words. Unfortunately, by our nature, we often fail, but that does not mean that we should stop trying.
Scipture tells us that He wo has began the good work in us will continue you it until the day of Christ Jesus. amen to that and God bless you.

Tom, maybe this will help.

Sacrifices to gods is very old. There's the recorded event where an Inca chief sacrificed his young daughter to appease the volcano god that was about to destroy them. He fractured her little skull and the volcano stopped errupting, later no doubt. Bottom line, sacrifices to the gods work.

Let's look at the sacrifice, the greates ever recorder where Father God sacrificed His only begotten Son, Jesus. To which god did Father God sacrifice Jesus? But of course, Father God sacrificed His child to appease Himself. Why did He do that? So your violations of Father God's laws can be forgiven. You've bought that story claiming it's God's word. Where did it come from?

From the written historical record, recently read by insignificant person with low grade degree from unknown U. Father God, Amenophis III had his child, Amenophis IV executed. The charge was blasphemy. Did Father God, Amenophis III sacrifice His son, Amenophis IV to appease Himself? Of course He did. Did He do it so those who broke his laws could be forgiven? That's a possible interpretation of the writing. There was a dispute between the high priest and Amenophis IV. Amenophis IV "chased the money changers out of the temple of God" and that percipitated the event. The high priest had to violate God's law to charge God's child with blasphemy.

Is Amenophis IV the basis in fact for the figure Jesus in the Gospels? Correct are those that say the Bible is history. The Bible is history in more ways than one.

Dec 6, 1941 Americans had an attitude. Dec 8, 1941 Americans had an attitude. Need I say more? Don't let Americans find out they're being duped by people who speak to God, hallucinate, have religious experiences, see light where there are none, etc, etc, etc or they might change their minds. We are the Americans. We reserve the right to change our minds on a near instantenous basis and well before the fires of hell go out.

Hewitt Rose:

“When you start thinking about Bible stories, whether you take them literally or symbolically, they really don't make any sense at all.”

Perhaps the above quote would read more accurately if it were prefaced by “In my opinion” or “As far as I can see” or some other recognition that this is your opinion, not an established fact. You are, of course, entitled to you opinion, but no believing Jew or Christian could agree with your statement.

Personally I do not read the Bible as literally true and inerrant as some Christians do, but I do believe that Bible stories reveal many great truths. I feel no need to either hold any particular scripture as absolutely true or false, nor to defend the Bible against those who hold positions similar to yours. I read the Bible with an open mind and an open heart and find my soul nourished in the process. And this is sufficient me.

Dodger:

Your post about many people not having been exposed to 'atheist' thinking before was very perceptive. Atheists don't organize or deliberately associate only with atheists or generally express our views in a public forum - mostly because no one has really ever cared what we think. That does seem to be changing somewhat, but there will still be a clash when we presnt completely different ways of thinking about the world than many people have even heard except through negative anecdotes.

Wow.
Canyon, I find your accusations against Dodger (liar, etc) to be unfounded. Your points were more coherent without that.
Converted (1107 am), I find it amusing that you gave us the URL that describes exactly the opposite of what you claimed - basically, yes, some Rabbis no longer believe in the existence of Abraham, etc, but there is much evidence to show that they are wrong. Those who wish to claim they know "for sure" that that the Bible is a "proved Hoax" (Bgone); well, in your mind I suppose, but the jury is out for millions who who come out on both sides of the argument, and it's downright silly to postulate otherwise.
I cannot prove the Bible. I had a journey something like Susan's, but came to the opposite conclusion - that there is reasonable evidence for the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record (much better than any other book of antiquity), and the evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. I have a definite purpose in life. I accept that others completely disagree, and some even count me a fool. But I stand on my conviction, while being open to evidence I had not considered before, hoping that others are also. I consider myself the happiest man alive; not a bad deal for being considered a fool by some.

Frozen1

Please do not wish your religion on atheists. I will acknowledge that you almost certainly did not mean it to be offensive, but it was. Wishing your religion on us is the first step toward imposing it on us, and we are quite comfortable believing what we already believe.

Sully, I revert you back to John 19:30. I'm pretty sure the Magi didn't one day look up and see a new star which looked like all the rest, I'm pretty sure there was something special about the one they saw.

The next time anything big happens, you'll know it.

"The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
-2 Peter 3:9-11

Susan:

A good description of the path to doubt. You were exposed to religion as a child, found it flawed and now express your findings publicly.

You are an exception, though there has been a lot of great athiest literature lately.

I find it unfortunate that more people don't cast a vote and express these thoughts.

Pious christians travel empty roads to churches every Sunday morning to surround themselves with the like minded to reinforce their beliefs. Based on their informal survey what they believe is the truth. Unfortunately they have reached a flawed conclusion because those who disagree with them are doing something pleasant instead of propping up each others flawed beliefs in an orgy of misguided groupthink.

The good news is the US is pretty much the only civilized western nation that acts this way. The bad news is the US is pretty much the only civilized western nation that acts this way.

Speaking of shock. The common ground for faith is clearly hell, the "perpetual people roast."

All those Gods operate a place called hell. The insignificant person from unknown U has found the God that created hell. That makes him, like it or not, a David type at war with Goliaths. Goliaths are easy to identify. They condemn people to hell.

The down side is obvious. Not only is faith a farse but all those writings about the great Egyptian civilization are shown to be tainted as well. The Egyptians were just as civilized as the Aztecs who operated a place called hell too, the condition of the dead body. No heart means will never regain consciousness. That's really civilized comapred to people of great faith setting atheists on fire to burn forever. Don't you think?

Canyon Shearer:

This very type of discussion illustrates why I personally do not subscribe to the inerrancy of the Bible. Nothing will come of such exchanges but the entrenchment of the opposing sides. At the end of the day, I just can’t see how such a discussion helps any of us.

To Canyon Shearer:

So the answer to the bizarre story of sacrifising a lamb to take away human sin is "there were many options that could have been chosen, God chose the perfection of the lamb." That explains nothing. You further say that, yes, the sins of the world were laid upon the lamb. This is hand waving, not explanation.

Finally, when I ask why, if you don't find that story absurd, don't we sacrifice lambs today, you cite John 19:30. Here is what is says:

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

So why don't we sacrifice lambs today? Surely human sinning didn't stop after the death of Jesus. Are all the sins of the last 2000 years just building up, or do we need to terrify some lambs?

When you start thinking about Bible stories, whether you take them literally or symbolically, they really don't make any sense at all.

---The second meaning is that Christ is the Glory of God, and the heavens declared Him to the Magi. That star was Godgiven, not any sort of bright star that we usually see in the night sky. Last time I looked up, there are no crosses, lambs, or Stars of David readily visible.---

Well, ok, so if we see anything new in the sky that is Godgiven wouldn't that be something christians would want to know about? Don't you need astrologers to determine what anything new in the sky means? The Magi saw the star and determined it meant the birth of the king of Judea. They didn't get this from angels but instead used astrology to determine it. So, why don't we have astrologers today looking for more signs from God in the heavens?

Canyon, let me direct your attention to Revelation. I can supply chapter and verse if you like.

"The stars all fell from the sky to earth.."

"A star took a key and opened the door to a shaft that goes down to the abyss." Mean critters got loose from that bit of bad jusdment.

What's is mean? Stars are tiny things that are alive and smart, (dumb) enough to take keys and operate locks on places that should never be unlocked.
----
The Maji, (magciians) were guided by a star that shone "as bright as day" and shone "both night and day." Is the sun a star too? Did it also fall from the shy in Revelation? Why not? The sun is God, obviously and expressed as the father of "the Amen" in other passage(s) of Revelation.

A picture of the maji is at http://www.hoax-buster.org Don't you think it's odd how theologians argued about how many maji there actually was. They got the "oriental" part straight. It was not at the birth of Jesus as a person but the birth as God, Pharaoh. That's "the Amen" they came to entertain, pay homage to so they brought gifts, (tithes, taxes paid to God).

Face it. The Bible is a proved hoax. Not one significant thing it says can't be traced right to what is known as "The Amarna Era" of ancient Egypt.

The unreadable writing on the wall has been read and most of the panelists here are in a state of shock. They never expected it.

I left out a crucial verse in my last post; I meant to say that the Heavens declare how BIG God is and how smart He is by also posting this verse:

"He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names."
-Psalm 147:4

Sully, astrology is not a portion of Christianity, no one ever read anything out of the stars in the Bible.

Psalm 19:1 said, "The heavens declare the glory of God."

This verse has two meanings. One, it shows us how BIG and smart God is, because He created a universe that at current, astrologists estimate there to be 66,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. (6 Billion multiplied by 11 Billion, interestingly enough, if that is an accurate estimate of the number, matches the number 66 being books in the Bible(but that is a random thought, not my actual opinion!))

The second meaning is that Christ is the Glory of God, and the heavens declared Him to the Magi.

That star was Godgiven, not any sort of bright star that we usually see in the night sky. Last time I looked up, there are no crosses, lambs, or Stars of David readily visible.

Maybe we don't sacrafice lambs anymore because of John 19:30. But I'm wondering why astrology is not an accepted part of christianity. Wasn't it astrology that lead the Magi to the baby Jesus? That's pretty powerful stuff, yet today christians laugh at those who practice it. So why has astrology been dumped by christians?

I know my God is the one true God and you can't prove it's not. So there.

God said. I believe it. That's that.

Got faith?
1. The Bible is God's word.
2. The man with the Bible is God's authorized representative. A vicar.
3. Who needs faith in God with (1.) and (2.)?

It's Devil, not God http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Hurry! Hell's almost full. You do want to spend eternity with Man-on-Fire God? Are you sure God's on fire?

Canyon Shearer,

You noted "God's story of the Lamb". Actually it was embellishment of the historic crucifixion by Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul i.e. no involvement by God.

"Finally, titles of Jesus like Lamb of God, Word of God, and Son of God are relational metaphors. They are not literal but they are real because we humans can only see by seeing-as, that is, metaphorically. But metaphor is never simply Rorschach. It never means just whatever we need or want. It always requires some integrity of interpretation from the constraints of meaning born of time and place, society and culture."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/john_dominic_crossan/2006/12/metaphor_is_not_rorschach.html

Karen:

I too have read Camus and Sartre, along with Kierkegaard, Buber, Becker etc… And yes in the end there are as many questions as answers. I think that is where all our questioning leads, in a deepening circle. The good news, as I see it, is that if we’re reflective and think deeply, our questions get better. I’m convinced that wisdom lies not in the "certainty" of our answers, but in the quality of our questions.

As I said, for me as a Christian, I am called to be Christ-like in the here and now, with those who participate on this forum, with those in my family, my church, my community and the world --even to my perceived enemies. To nonbelievers who might question why they should do the same, I’d simply respond “because you can”. We all have the choice as to how we live and I can see no downside to our being loving, kind, caring and compassionate human beings.

Dearest Susan Jacoby, believe in Creation, for Creation created you...I know with all that is me, God exists, but you have to have faith. Sharpen your powers of perception and test God not. Foolish and blind that is. Alternatively, stare in wonder at the beauty of Creation and you will know in your heart of hearts just as inspired scientist do that there is purpose behind life. Blessed be.

I think Canyon Shearer's updates are inciteful and informative because it represents a segment of thought in our society.

If you read his other posts, Canyon Shearer is obviously mentally ill.

It's foolish to debate someone who is clearly delusional.

I would truly like to know if any one out there finds these Canyon Shearer posts inciteful or informative? Does the logic sway you in any way? Do you find it moves you to think deeper?

I ask because I thought about replying, then read other posts by the same person and concluded that it is not worth the time other than to get a reality check on my lack of perceived value of CS postings (like the January 5, 2007 10:21 AM posting).

Hewitt Rose,

You asked the question: "Also, aren't you bothered by the idea of sacrifising a lamb to take away the sins of this world? How does THAT work exactly? Do you have to stuff the lamb with sin first? If you don't find that absurd, then why do we not sacrifice lambs today?"

First of all, On-Faith is not the greatest place to come seeking information on various religions, for almost everyone here comes with the goal of converting those of other religions, even the 'atheists' have that view.

God's story(History) of the lamb is a beautiful symbolism, in that God is the Shepard, and that is how He chose to redeem all mankind. This is similar to if someone traveled from New York to Los Angeles. Upon their arrival, you ask, "How did you get here?" And they say, "We took the train." You ask, "Why didn't you fly, or drive, or walk, or hop a cruise liner?" The answer is there were many options that could have been chosen, God chose the perfection of the lamb.

As for the stuffing of the lamb with sin; you couldn't have gotten it more right. Read the book of Luke, chapter 23 and Matthew, chapter 27, especially verse 46. The sin of the world was laid upon the Lamb(John 1:29, 1 John 2:2), and His death was the retribution by blood, which the book of Leviticus(among others) required.

Finally, why don't we sacrifice lambs today? That question is not for Christians, but rather for Jews.

For in Christ the answer is found in John 19:30.

CCNL:

Your last post captures my thoughts on religious myths. I've never had much interest arguing over the meaning of biblical stories, because the bible is obviously fiction. Books that talk about magic and demons can be assumed to be fictional unless compelling evidence to the contrary exists. Since no such evidence exists, the bible, koran, and every other religious book I've encountered belongs in the same category as Harry Potter, except that Harry Potter is a much more interesting read.

That's not to say that the Christian bible isn't a reprehensible book which glorifies war, murder, rape, and despotism. Is there a category in libraries for "Books that Celebrate Genocide"?

Canyon, what foul treachery be this?

there i was, COMPLIMENTING you on your insight and perceptiveness and you have to go and start insulting me. my feelings are REALLY hurt and i can hardly believe you said the following:

"I also know that you are a liar, because you consistently claim to be an atheist when you are really a deity disbelieving agnostic."

dude, like don't have a cow man. i can live with "deity disbelieving agnostic" if that's what it takes for us to be pals.

kisses

I read that the original Anglican Book of Common Prayer had a service to cure scrofula (the King's Evil):

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/occasion/scrofula.html

The last monarch to perform this service was Charles X of France:

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

Dodger, in all fairness; usually the slow and sickly are the first to be devoured. It is not my goal to prey on those in order to lead to their destruction, but rather to lift them up and immerse them in Christ and in Truth.

I have always been in awe of your opinion that I think you don't exist. I have ample written proof that you exist; I also know that you are a liar, because you consistently claim to be an atheist when you are really a deity disbelieving agnostic.

You don't like that title because it makes you sound weak. ATHEIST is a big powerful title, but I am sorry to break the news to you, you are far too meak to wield it.

to Karen:

Abraham understandly was confused by a God saying that Isaac would lead a great nation and that Abraham should kill Isaac. But you suggest that Abramham played along with sacrifice command knowing it could not be true. If that is true, then Abraham knew that God was lying. If that is not true, then we are back to the original poster who claimed such a God is too mean to deserve worship.

To refuse to follow through with the implications of the story, i.e. leave it to the trained scholars, and just have faith in God's providence and mercy is the root of the problem non-believers have with believers.

To EMM: thank you for your thoughtful response. You say: Where I, as a Christian, find hope is in our capacity as humans to be loving, kind and compassionate. It is how we choose to live that matters most. And I am convinced that this is the real power of Jesus’ message .

I agree with you. And yes, the questions of free will, the meaning of our existence, etc. are all existential questions that lead us to make different choices about how to cope with them. When I was younger, I read Sartre, Camus and many others. The existential literature was very interesting but to some extent, it leaves you with more questions then answers. In my skeptical and looking for answers years I read extensively philosophy, literature, religion etc. But in the end, only Jesus made sense.

I am reminded of Peter'a answer to Jesus when asked if he and the 12 would also leave because they could not abide Jesus' teachings and Peter said: where else would we go Lord, who else has the words of life?

To Hewitt Rose: I do not agree with your interpretation re: Abraham. I do not believe that he thought that God was lying. I believe that though he did not understand God's command, he obeyed, trusting in God's providence and mercy as it has been demonstrated to him before. having said that, I agree with EMM that we should try not to belabor the point. Better trained scholars than us are probably still working on this.

Another experience that formed my religion:

From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

"New Torah For Modern Minds

ABRAHAM, the Jewish patriarch, PROBABLY NEVER EXISTED. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "

i.e. I no longer worry about the Abraham/Isaac "god-imposed" sacrifice.

Canyon, old bean, thanks for coming out to the show. if you didn't exist, i swear we would have to invent you.

there were those who saw no promise in you, but from the get-go i knew you were a fast learner. your last post only confirms my faith in you.

you said: "To refute your claim, atheists still do not exist."

well, i think that's only reasonable of you. since we don't believe in your god, then , by golly, i don't see any reason why you should believe in us. fair is fair, after all.

and i agree with you totally when you say: ". . . you have failed completely to defend your faith, instead flying to ridicule, to humor, and to disbelief."

couldn't have said it better myself, except that i started out in disbelief and wound up in ridicule, not the other way around. but that's just pickin' nits.

always good to hear from you and i especially like the thoughtful ending: "I hope and pray so"

feel free to 'pray' for whomever you choose, but Canyon, hear me good: be most careful of those you try to 'prey' upon.

I was being pretentious, I'm sorry.

I was just trying to say that there are reasons that cultures developed sacrifice of animals and people.

Dodger, you defeating unlearned Christians is not something to get excited about. How much would King George V have appreciated General Cornwallis writing home to say, "We are smashing through the rebel army, the Colonies will bow to you before Christmas." Only for George V to learn that that 'army' was a poorly constructed, barely armed, and weakly led militia?

To refute your claim, atheists still do not exist. No one in the world can prove that anything does not exist. You would require all knowledge of all things present and all things past. Here is the atheist test, "What was Socrate's grandmother's cat's name and what color was it?" If you can't answer that question, then you are an agnostic, if you choose to call yourself an 'atheist' then you are a delusional agnostic.

'Atheists' will always fail, for theirs is the side of deception, of lies, and of blind faith. While Christians stand on the rock, agnostics sink in the sand.

I will never concede anything of major importance to your faith, as your faith has no basis, no merits, and no idea.

In previous conversations with you, you have failed completely to defend your faith, instead flying to ridicule, to humor, and to disbelief.

Will this thread be the thread where you come to the understanding that your faith is baseless?

I hope and pray so.

Regarding the story of Abraham and Isaac, I'd like suggest that it is safe to say that we on this forum are not going to settle the meaning(s) of this Bible story. There are hundreds of books that have delved into the true meaning of this text, and while I’ve read a few, I would not pretend to any expertise on the matter. I would, however, caution anyone who believes they have it nailed down to do additional research. The conversation on this scriptural passage has been going on for centuries, and will almost certainly continue on for centuries to come.

Well, I'm back; I've got some excess time at work.

K, Yes, the answer, bluntly is, "Every man deserves death, deserves suffering, deserves pain, deserves torture."

The concept of long-suffering is God's incomprehensible patience at work. If you poke a tiger in the eye, there is no telling when that tiger will finally snap and kill you. The truth is, the tiger has every right to kill you the moment you poked it in the eye the first time. You will find no extremist group that says, "Kill the tiger! He has killed without provocation." Everyone is going to say, "That idiot deserved it."

Every time you sin, you poke God in the eye. God has no reason to give blessing to the World, yet we see blessings to the nations composed of God every day. God is love, He is patient, He is long-suffering; all without cause, because He is getting poked in the eye.

As for burning in Hell for not believing in God. You did not read my first post, please go back and read it. God will not send you to Hell for disbelief, your Hell will be sealed for lies, thiefery, lust, hatred, coveting, and knowingly doing wrong or failing to act when you could have done right.

Your hell will be more painful than that of someone who has never heard the name Jesus Christ, because you have rejected the love offered from God.

More importantly? You don't believe in unicorns? I believe absolutely in unicorns because we have fossil evidence of at least one. How are you going to believe in God, if you won't believe in something we have undeniable tangible evidence for?
http://lesdinos.free.fr/montanoceratops.jpg

Hewitt Rose:

I humbly recommend Joseph Campbell books (The Power of Myth) for a discussion on sacrifice and it's origins in religion. I think that you must try to visualize an ancient culture’s worldview to understand its significance.

To Karen:

In your interpretation of the story of Abraham, Abraham could play along with God's command to sacrifise Isaac, only because Abraham knew that God was not serious, having said that Isaac would lead a new nation. It follows that Abraham knew that God was lying to him; either Isaac was not to lead a new nation or God did not really want Abraham to go through with the sacrifice of Isaac. From THIS we learn the lesson that we can trust God?

Also, aren't you bothered by the idea of sacrifising a lamb to take away the sins of this world? How does THAT work exactly? Do you have to stuff the lamb with sin first? If you don't find that absurd, then why do we not sacrifice lambs today?

Karen,

First let me say that I enjoyed your long post, no apologies necessary.

I would like to address your points on suffering and free will. You said:

“The vast majority of suffering and unfairness in the world is due to what we humans choose to do to each other, sometimes in the name of religion (but not because Jesus tells us to hurt others!) but mostly because we want what we want no matter who gets hurt in the process.”

**Certainly a great deal of human suffering is caused by what we as humans do to one another. But the roots of human suffering would still be present even if all human beings acted in perfect Christian charity. Human suffering is first an existential problem. Physical suffering and eventual death cannot be avoided, these are universal human experiences. Secondly, the human natures we all inherit come with our eventual realization that we are alone, even among those we trust and love. We all, at the age of reason, come to see that however much we are a part of our family or community, we are also individuals living in a mysterious and confusing world. I point his out because so much of what humans do to one another is rooted in the fears and anxieties that spring from the inability of people to grapple with our universally shared existential suffering.

You said; “We want free will for us to do whatever we want to do, but we want God to intervene in other people's free choice if it is going to hurt us. How logical is that? Then, at the end of the day, we turn around and blame God for everything”
**Of course volumes have been written about free will and I won’t pretend to offer any fresh insight into its nature. But I would suggest that the issue of free will is also an existential one. Free will is not something we volunteer for. It is something we all grapple with, like it or not. What believers and nonbelievers all have in common is that they find our human predicament an injustice. Why am I here? Why must I suffer? And why must I die? Our respective solutions to our predicament are what define us, and our responses vary widely.

Personally I do not find the issues of suffering or free will to be compelling reasons to either believe or not believe. They are like gravity, they are not optional. They come with life. Making God either responsible or not does not, it seems to me, offer much comfort one way or the other. The mysteries of human pain, suffering, death and free will, will be unresolved when we ourselves die. Where I, as a Christian, find hope is in our capacity as humans to be loving, kind and compassionate. It is how we choose to live that matters most. And I am convinced that this is the real power of Jesus’ message.

Dodger –

Great insight on the stages of loss (or perhaps enlightenment) – thanks. If I knew your real name, I’d be sure to credit you every time I used it – which I suspect will be often.

As it is, I’ll credit this forum, which, despite some shortcomings, is overall a great thing.

Leaves of Grass
Whitman

Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?

Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems,
You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,)
You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead,
nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either,
nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.

3

I have heard what the talkers were talking, the talk of the beginning and the end,
But I do not talk of the beginning or the end.

There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now.

Susan, my experience is similar to your. I can't remember exactly when I started to be skeptical of religion, but the nail in the coffin came in middle school when I watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos”. I had started to read the bible and listen to the sermons at Catholic Church. When I began to ask questions about it to my family and teachers, I realized that they weren't listening to the sermons or reading the Bible. Those experiences lead me to a life long pursuit of my own and the universe’s origins.

my new year's resolution is to be nicer to religious people, children, and small animals.

to be fair, this forum may be the first time that many have been exposed to, er, 'freethinkers' so to speak. and it's almost CERTAINLY the first time that their basic assumptions and ideas have been questioned. religious folk rarely delve too deeply into each other's theology, and wisely so: people who live in rock caves can't afford to throw intelligently designed glasses.

but we've seen progress right here on this very forum. many of the righteous have progressed through some of the famous Stages of Loss.

they begin with Denial and Anger (You aren't really atheists, your ideas are just as faith based as ours!!)

soon, the perceptive theist moves on to Bargaining (Okay, we'll accept that we can't prove there's a god as long as YOU lot admit that you can't prove there ISN'T One!!!)

and finally, there appears to be now some level of Acceptance, or at least Exhaustion (All right, you heathens just go the hell away and leave us all alone!)

as i've said before, the sheltered bubble of the Sacred rarely survives the irreverant pinprick of the Profane. this 'open and honest' debate thing does not really work to the benefit of the religious endeavor. there's good reason that most of the 'mystery' of religion is often hidden behind a lot of your mumbo and a good deal of your jumbo, not to mention a dash of hocus and/or pocus.

Canyon,
I want to see you vomit out that response to evil in the world to a good christian father who has lost his children and wife to a tragic car crash.

Will you tell him, he is paying the price for his sinful ways?

That god is just testing him?
That his innocent baby died in that car
so that he might be a better disciple?

That his faithful wife died on purpose?

I don't want to live in a world controlled by a god like that.

If god gave us free will, why would be demand we
believe in him or burn in Hell?

For me, I'd prefer to believe in unicorns.

k

My most formative religious experience was reading the books of JD Crossan (Who is Jesus?, The Historical Jesus, Excavating Jesus, and In Search of Paul), Karen Armstrong's The History of God, and Edward Schillebeeckx's Church, The Human Story of God. This along with verification of the conclusions of these NT exegetes by a good friend who teaches Theology at a large Catholic university put my "Catholicism/Christianity" in the proper context as follows:

--------- the Twelve Commandments Rule!!!! (Eight if you are an atheist)
plus
a. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead.
b. Christ’s teachings serve the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths.
c. Heaven is a Spirit State i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies allowed.
d. The Ascension and Assumption therefore did not take place.
e. Christ’s Spirit resides in Heaven with all the souls of deceased good people of any religion or of no religion therefore there will be no second coming.
f. Adam and Eve are myths making original sin mythological and Baptism symbolic.
g. There was therefore no Immaculate Conception.
h. Happiness in Heaven is not a gradient but is dependent on the number of souls present.
i. Purgatory is possible but has no Scriptural foundation.
j. Hell is possible but would God tolerate Satan spirits and contaminated souls?
k. God does not know the future.
l. Predestination should not be a word.
m. Canonization of the likes of Pio and Juan eliminates any consideration of papal infallibility.
n. Exodus should not be a word.
o. ditto for the Christmas manger.
p. The Eucharist is a fantastic spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. Continued crucifixion of Christ is ridiculous.
q. Confirmation is only symbolic of our adult acceptance of the Christ’s rules for humanity and our belief in God.
r. Dividing God into three parts violates the first Commandment.
s. Substituting God in place of any reference to the Holy Spirit works quite well.
t. Holy Orders is relevant but not complete without access by females and married members.
u. Religions are slowly converging. See James Somerville’s “take” (See Google).
v. As per Somerville, “Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door” i.e. there is no religion in Heaven.
w. Lourdes et al as per Crossan prove faith heals but Mary plays no part. Miracles are equally probable anywhere on earth but all miracles are limited in scope and limited to very few of any faith. http://www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/crossan3.txt

I was never raised in a religious tradition and never had to overcome any brainwashing.

I have the greatest possible respect for people like Ms. Jacoby who were indoctrinated and yet still managed to emerge with the critical reasoning faculties intact.

Obviously, not everyone is able to do that.

Canyon

You do go on and on.

My dear Susan,

This excerpt was the most beautiful thing I have read from you. It started out showing a softening of your heart and a desire to understand. I was at first encouraged, but I would surmise this essay was written in at least two parts, as the second half is back out our old confused Ms. Jacoby.

I am going to take a break off from pleading and arguing with the agnostics on this board for a little while in order to pursue evangelism in the flesh, but I would like to leave you with the thing that someday I hope you grasp:

You said, "They have to ponder the unanswerable question of why their God allows terrible things to happen to His creatures."

This question is easily answered, but it is interesting to ponder. God allows tribulation, sorrow, and snares for the betterment of mankind.

While the universe was created to declare the Glory of God, the Earth is tailor made for human beings, in order to show the Love of God. In 'most' schools throughout the world, coursework is difficult and requires hard work and discipline, and is measured by tests. The tests are not for the punishment of the student, but rather for a measure of accomplishment.

Such is the will of God; That which does not kill us only makes us stronger.

The way that God created this system of hurdles and accomplishments was to create man in His own image, and grant to man the gift of free will.

From this, man quickly transgressed God, doubted God, and sought to become God, and sin entered into the earth. This creation in which we live, even in its fallen state, declares the Glory of God.

God demands from human beings a righteous existence, He will not allow for the tiniest of imperfections, no deceitful heart, no lying lips, no thieving fingers, no lustful eyes, no hateful countenance, no covetous person will enter into the unfallen creation of Heaven.

Based on this, God should leave men to their fates, abandon them as they lie, give to man what man deserves, which is death and Hell.

But God is love, and in great love, rectified sinners to His Holiness by coming to this fallen creation, lived a perfect life devoid of all unholiness, suffered and died a criminals death, not because He was a criminal, but because we are criminals and He hung upon that Cross in our stead.

In order to receive your ticket to Heaven, repent of your sins, confess them to God, fall on your knees in humbleness, and trust that Jesus Christ paid your penalty so that you may enter Heaven, not based on your own merits, but based on His. This ticket was so preciously bought with the life of God, who defeated death and rose from the grave to dwell both in Heaven and in the Hearts of those that have been rectified to Him, please do not reject this ticket.

Once you understand your sinful nature and your failure to live up to God's standards, it isn't difficult to understand why God allows terrible things to happen to His creatures, but rather, it is impossible to understand why God does not wipe us from the face of creation for our wickedness.

Remember the adage,
"There are no sissies in Heaven!"

We still have not collectively understood these simple words in our ignorance and hatred:

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

But on an emotional level:

My entire family cried the day we saw the bombs go off in Bagdad. My mother screamed "Why!?! Why are we doing this!?!" And I could not have said it any better in my silence.

The same was true in my heart and my gut the day I read that we had executed Saddam. That it was on the Sabbath - as well as a Muslim holiday is an abomination of all of mankind.

WarpTen:

Because you have asked me and held judgment, instead of "testing" me - I will tell you.

God did not even kill Cain for taking the life of his own brother.

He instead waited/waits for judgment.

Vengance is his.

---

But this presents an interesting conflict, if someone is responsible for such actions and each life taken is a step in the wrong way, will more life be lost to upset that balance by ending it once and adding to it later - or adding to it by doing nothing.

It's why the pattern can not be broken, once it has been introduced.

It's why salvation was required.

to Susan Jacoby

Thanks for a human, frank, lucid post.

When I read your column, and contrast it to the columns of Mr Ladd who unquestioningly trusts his 7-year old epiphany that Jesus was his savior (what a brilliant 7 year old)
i am astounded that the world has survived these millenia if folks like Rev Ladd, rather than the inquisitive and rational Ms. Jacoby, have been in the majority.

Warpten,
I was completely opposed to the invasion of Iraq, I feel terrible about all the suffering and misery that our "liberation" has lead to because it was so poorly planned and carried out. And there are many many christians that think like me but we are not famous, we don't write editorials and we don't have lobbyists. But please note that there are quite a few church leaders and well known christians that have spoken against the invasions. I am afraid though that they get drowned out by buffoons like Pat Robertson.

Knowyourbible, I believe that you were talking to me, not Susan.

You ask good questions and bring up some passages that are hard to understand. But again, if we approach them with humility, rather then with a right to know all things, as if God owes us explanations about all things, we may end up with different conclusions.

You ask me to tackle the difficult bible passages, not the easy one... Isn't this a little disingenious? The Abraham/Isaac story is brought up time and time again on these blogs as a reason to reject God, yet when I try to explain it, you tell me to tackle the hard stuff.

I do not presume to fully understand the mind of the Creator, but only those aspects that He has revealed to us.

I am not a biblical scholar and do not presume to be able to explain and fully understand every passage in the Bible, and also it is getting late. But I will try to tackle a couple from your post:

"4) Was Jesus lying her or (as apologists say) just "coy"

in Mark 10:17-8, where a stranger approaches Jesus with the question,

"Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life". Jesus replies here, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone'"

In His reply, Jesus is basically telling the stranger that either He, Jesus, is not God or he is God because only God is good. NO, Jesus was not being coy or confused, but it is well known that He often anwered questions with questions or parables to get people to think about what they were really saying.

2) God never expresses displeasure at the following scene of incest anywhere in the Bible:

"And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19:33-6)

The Bible does not tell us at all that God approved of this behavior, it is just telling us what happened and the level of depravity that humans can reach when utilizing only their own wisdom.

With regard to the prophecy about the second coming, the beginning is about the upcoming destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and "generation" is believed to mean the generation that will see the final events, not the generation living at that time.

Again, I am not a scholar, just a christian who spends time studying God's Word to the best of my ability.

Now back to you, you did not answer my comments about free will and what is at the root of pain and suffering in the world. This is what I said: We want free will for us to do whatever we want to do, but we want God to intervene in other people's free choice if it is going to hurt us. How logical is that? Then, at the end of the day, we turn around and blame God for everything, or we say "I can't believe in a God that allows this or that to happen". Yet if God had made us his slaves, only able to behave as he tells us to ensure that all is well and nobody gets hurt, would we want to worship him then? Or would we hate him for directing us like pieces on a chess board?
Here is an example. Let's say a young college student wants to date as many girls as possible and have a fantastic time with each. He certainly does not want God to stop him from having fun. But let's look at it from the perspective of the girls that may not know that he is dating other girls at the same time. They certainly would want God to stop this guy from hurting them. So...The consequence of free will is that we can use it for good or bad. I am not saying at all that only believers can make moral choices, absolutely not.And many believeres make terrible moral choices. I am just trying to illustrate the dilemma produced by having free will. God certainly does not need me to defend Him. But if we all took responsibility for our own actions, there would be no need to constantly blame God.

To Karen:

You say, “…we say "I can't believe in a God that allows this or that to happen". Yet if God had made us his slaves, only able to behave as he tells us to ensure that all is well and nobody gets hurt, would we want to worship him then?”

What’s the point of worshiping anything or anyone? I would hope we’re beyond that, just as we’re beyond slavery and subjugating women – practices that are accepted in the Bible, which of course was written when slavery, subjugation and royalty worship were all quite common.

I hope you don’t think this is an ad hominem attack.

John,

Since we are on the topic of Truth. I became an atheist because I could not believe in nonTruth.

And I know a great deal about love, beauty, and spirituality (same as I did when I was a child and religious.)

Let's test your love of truth.

Tell me. Why is it American Christians don't seem to care we destroyed Iraq when it was never a threat to the US? Are you aware Iraq's Christian community begged George Bush not to invade their country. It sickens to me what we have done to the innocent Christians AND Muslims there. Our presence has actually been crueler and harsher than Saddam's tyranny.

The WP has articles on this, but I don't see statements from the Christian community expressing concern. Do you?

You say you believe in truth. Let's apply it to the real world -- and not empty words.

(Note, I do await your opportunity to respond, before issuing any judgment.)

Susan says: "Again and again, humans miss the point. And because humans then and to this day presume to understand the mind of the Creator, if they don't understand everything, well there is no God."

Susan, exceuse me. Are you not presuming to understand the mind of the Creator?

why not answer the tough issues from the previous post by me for us.

Meaning: you should tackle the tough issues -- not just list EASY issues (and "pretend" the tough issues don't exist.

We await your responses, Susan.

Anon,

You don't know your Bible. (Meaning it's WORSE than you think.)

1) Why didn’t God stay the hand of Japthah for obediently in sacrificing (murdering) his daughter in the Lord's name?

Judges 11:30-35 tells how a Israelite judge named Jephthah, vowed to God -- in exchange for victory in battle-- he would offer as a burnt offering "whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me". He wins the battle, but upon returning home, his daughter and only child comes out to greet him.

Horrified at his promise, Jephthah proceeded to tell his daughter of his pact with God. They both agree that a promise to the Lord must be fulfilled.

Unlike with Abraham and Isaac, NO angel of the Lord arrives to stay Jephthah's hand--and his daughter is faithfully and obediently burnt as a
sacrifice to God!

2) God never expresses displeasure at the following scene of incest anywhere in the Bible:

"And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." (Genesis 19:33-6)

3) Rape can be ok.

A man who rapes a betrothed (married or engaged) woman, is to be put to death (Deut 22:25). However if the woman is a virgin and NOT betrothed to any man, then the rapist shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver, and he shall marry the woman.

4) Was Jesus lying her or (as apologists say) just "coy"

in Mark 10:17-8, where a stranger approaches Jesus with the question,

"Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life". Jesus replies here, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone'.

5) In Matthew/Mark, Jesus is openly performing miracles, but not in his home town because there was not enough belief -- especially by his family, relatives, and neighbors:

"A prophet will always be held in honour except in his home town, and among his kinsmen and family." He could work no miracle there, except that he put his hands on a few sick people and
healed them, and he was taken aback by their want of faith."(Mark 6:4-6)

"He did not work many miracles there: such was their want of faith."
(Matthew 13:58)

6) All Jesus' cures of Mental Illnesses were described as freeing the victim from demonic possession -- never of natural causes. Historians can show that the general beliefs in faith healings and demonic possession of the early Christians are identical to those in the ancient world Mark describes one scene, where demons from a possessed man are transferred by Jesus into a herd of pigs, which then plunge off a cliff.

"And when he [Jesus] was come to the other side into the country of the Gerasenes, there met him two possessed with devils..., And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding."

"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and
perished in the waters." (Luke 8:26-33,Mark 5:1-13)

--According to Mark 9:17-27 the disciples failed to exorcise a demon from a possessed young man and it was necessary for Jesus himself to step in to cure him.)

-- More in Mark 5:1-13,Matthew 7:28-31 Luke 8:26-32); the epileptic and possible
deaf-mute (Mark 9:15-27, Matthew 17:14-8, Luke 9:38-42), the man exorcised in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 1:23-6; Luke 4:33-5), and a Tyrian woman who lay peacefully on her bed after being free from the torment of her demon.(Mark 7:24-30; Matthew 15:21-8). John 10:20 refers to a man who "has a demon and he is mad".

7) Failed predictions of the Second Coming

"Take heed, behold I have told you all things. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven ...

Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

(Mark 13:23-30. See also Matthew 24:34, and Luke 21:32)

[Much more… just a sample]

============================================
Mark Twain wrote on his reading of the Bible,

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

Since we're on the topic of truth. I pray you will take a moment to find it. There are 5 leaves of truth.

1) Truth can only be spoken where truth is alreaady found to exist.

Ex. If I said, "Today is a marvelous day!"
The person who is having a marvelous day would agree. The person who is having a wretched day would disagree.

2) Everything works towards the truth.
The person who is having a marvelous day - found the truth that the day is marvelous. The person who is having a wretched day - that he is having a wretched day.

3) Truth is eternal.
It's not based on nor circumstance to temporary truths or human wisdom. It's not something that can be disproven like scientific theory.

4) Where truth exists, truth grows.
In recognition of the marvelous day, it will be found to be marvelous because of other things. The wretched day - likewise.

5) And the truth is, it grows in you.
People accept or reject the "truth" from others because of human characteristics like "facts" or "honesty." Where people accept truth, because it is something they know, they learn more about that truth. Where people reject truth, because it is something they don't, the accept truth in the opposite direction (doubt).

---
We all so eagerly move to accept or resentfully reject truth - without full comprehension of what we are doing.
---

For scientists, who understand any nature of sciences and math such as chaos patterns, self-sustaining systems, etc...

...what is the effect of a single change to the harmony over time? What is the impact of a single apple eaten thousands of years ago?

On the nature of scientific faith based on evidence, do you have "faith" that the "pattern" will self-adjust -or- will it eventually come undone?

And more importantly to what ends? How will it readjust?

Do you have "faith" that God's single command in Eden wasn't to save man from the fate of the Great Flood?

Do you have "faith" that the 10 Commandments and Hebraic laws that followed didn't work to maintain that ecological harmonic pattern?

---

For Christians, who understand the nature of grace, love, salvation...and sin.

What is the moral impact of a single sin in man over ages?

Was it not the wrath of God who brought on the Great Flood because of the decay of morals in man?

Did the original sin give birth to consciousness? If you have a "bi-cameral" heart (and mind), a circumcision out of love - through grace - how easily addressed is the matter of moral sin - when you are ignorant to it in *that* heart and mindset?

---
For historians, who understand cause and effect by events, did the Great Flood not happen?

Regardless of the origin of the Word (or words/stories) - does it falsify the truth of those words? Would you pick one over the other because it has been found to be more "originating" - even when it is the same set of words?

---
For literal translationists of the Word/Tanach/Old Testament, regarding matters of creation: are you using your definition of "day" - or the one that was given by God (and named as "day") as a precidence before making use of it? Are you reading it "literally" by a "pre-existing" set of definitions in your language or His?

If light was literally created by a Word, then might His "day" be more parallel with WHAT was created on that day - and no so focused on time?

Like a man in control over both calendar and task-list? A man whose calendar does not dictate the tasks to be completed, but rather the task to be completed dictated the calendar.

If so, then why sacrifice that first "day?"
And why bring it back 3 days later in a physical creation?

---
For spiritual translationists, if you understood the above and understand the meaning - then you know who was the intended savior. Only one was the yeast of fullfillment to the message. And he was the living testimony of God.
---

Sin opened the eyes of man, and bore consciousness - salvation was necessary.

You can't stop the pattern. But the pattern will most definitely stop you. When it happens, man will return back to a subconscious, given a necessity of focus on survival instead of knowledge. By the very properties of survival of the fitest, those that make it out will be those who follow God without making decisions for themselves because of their apparent societal mental short-comings.

This is not a revelation, it's already happened and has simply yet to be played out. And for those scientists, historians, and religious persons who know their own truths - this should be plain as "day."

That it hasn't fully happened yet has only given you false faith against the very truths you already accept in your own practice.

This is not intended to be an apoctalyptic message to send fear. Who knows when it will happen? No one. But it is intended to give you something to consider in all manners of your actions and decisions. And to help you place value in what is really important to you. If you're conscious - then you have the conscious decision to love each other. If you're bi-cameral, then you either have no choice or know the decisions you should make and the life you should live.

To reiterate what Susan said, I do hope that someday God might reveal Himself to her. There are several things I want to point out about this "On Faith" article.
Luke 8: 5-13. Susan suffered from the seed that fell on the thorns. God knew that His people would become discouraged by the evils of the world, so that is why he wrote so many encouraging words. That is why he asks us to fill our hearts with his word, because only if we stay filled with Christ will we be able to become more like him. We cannot expect our hearts to trust in something that sounds too good to be true if we are filled with all that is not.
Evil has found so many ways to twist the truth around! She mentioned Santa Claus, and I have found that to be a pretty good example. How crushing must it be for a child to find out that everything he/she has believed in was a lie. Don't you see that this has planted a seed for the idea that faith cannot have truth?
Another thing: If someone claims to believe in God, it is a totally different thing than trusting him. Even Satan believes in God. Something else, however, is to trust in him. Once we do that, the question of why God allows suffering is very simple. First, we have "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." If God's character is goodness, we do not have it if we have sinned. Second, once we do believe and have been justified through Christ's death, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance." JAmes 1:2,3.
I could also sit here and prove that the Bible is the truth through the fact that many prophecies have been fulfilled. Or through testimonies of so many who have been changed through grace. But it has been done before. Susan even said it; she read the Bible. She browsed through it. Her confortable economic class gave her no desperate need for immediate answers. She could turn off the wars and epidemics through the remote control. "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mathew 19:24)
I'm not going to attempt to convince anyone of God's existence. Many won't believe, many won't follow. Only when we see our complete need for the perfection of God, will we start the journey of giving up ourselves in order to serve Him, and that is hard enough!
I guess I just haven't seen anything worthwhile in the rest of the world, but I have seen it in the Bible. Sorry for my imperfect and hurried writing...I'd be happy to discuss things further... giovanna9876@hotmail.com

Anon,
and others who keep bringing up the Abraham/Isaac story, one element that you all miss is this: God had promised to Abraham that he would become the father of a great nation. When God first told Abraham that his wife Sarah would bear him a child, Abraham did not believe that this was possible so he went on with Sarah's scheme of having a child with Hagar, and all suffered for it. But when Sarah did indeed become pregnant with Isaac at a very old age, Abraham finally understood that he could trust God's promises. And when Abraham was told to bring Isaac for sacrifice, he also knew that God had promised him that he would be the father of a great nation through Isaac, so obviously, Isaac was going to survive. The lamb that is provided by God as a substitute sacrifice foretells the sacrifice of Jesus, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The main thrust of this biblical event is to teach us to trust in God despite any impression that He can't be trusted.

There are many other episodes in the Bible that illustrate this point. Again and again, humans miss the point. And because humans then and to this day presume to understand the mind of the Creator, if they don't understand everything, well there is no God. It is as if I throw away a math book because I cannot comprehend all the theorems in it.

Paul in his epistles tells us " now we are known, then (ie when we meet with God), we will know". Maybe we should all have enough humility to recognize that just because we cannot comprehend something, in its context, it does not mean that it is wrong, a fairy tale etc.

The vast majority of suffering and unfairness in the world is due to what we humans choose to do to each other, sometimes in the name of religion (but not because Jesus tells us to hurt others!) but mostly because we want what we want no matter who gets hurt in the process. We want free will for us to do whatever we want to do, but we want God to intervene in other people's free choice if it is going to hurt us. How logical is that? Then, at the end of the day, we turn around and blame God for everything, or we say "I can't believe in a God that allows this or that to happen". Yet if God had made us his slaves, only able to behave as he tells us to ensure that all is well and nobody gets hurt, would we want to worship him then? Or would we hate him for directing us like pieces on a chess board?

I am neither a theologian, nor an apologist, I just struggle like everybody else to make sense of life. But I approach it from the perspective that I will not understand all things from this side of heaven.

For those of you who would be interested in responding to me, I would appreciate thoughtful answers and not being told that I am a delusional uneducated person or the like. I am really interested in other people's opinion but can do without the ad hominem attacks.
Thanks and sorry for the long post.

Frozen1,

Did you know that people who call complete strangers "child" sound like smug posers?

This argument is weak at best. At a basic level, many cultures for centuries have believed that there was some sort of being above them and as a result they would worship it. If you read the Bible it says that our hearts are made to worship something, and in my travels I have seen evidence of this. The last paragraph talks about human nature. I understand where the author is coming from, but the Bible says humans are given free will. If we didn't have free will we would be living in sort of a Matrix. Would we can that? Life is hard, and it is hard to ignore the terrible things that happen in our lives. However, it makes me laugh to read an article by an author who lives in one of the most weathly countries in the world to talk about human dispair. Perhaps she should leave the comforts of the US and see what Christians are doing around the world to help others that are in need? Oh wait, what am I thinking? This article was just written so the author could plug her books.

Frozen1. What can I say? It's comments like yours that make my blood boil. You have no idea what "the truth" really is. Nor do I or anyone else for that matter. Keep your delusions to yourself and come at us with facts next time.

My earliest relationship with religion was one mostly of indifference rather than skepticism. I can't remember any point in my life where the concept of gods were important to me. Going to mass every Sunday was just another chore, tedious and uninteresting. I can remember loitering as much as possible between mass and sunday school so I could read whatever book I had hidden in my jacket that week.

Like Susan, I don't remember the specific time that I completely stopped believing, but a couple of waypoints stand out.

When I was maybe 8 or 9, I picked up the bible and started reading it for some reason. I must have been desperate for literature, because I have always found the bible incredibly boring. Somehow I stumbled across Mark 3:29, about blaspheming the big HS. The idea that I could be eternally butchered for simply thinking "The holy spirit sucks!" or some equivalent terrified me. I was truly in mortal fear for my soul for a couple of weeks.

And then the fear faded away, like all childish fears of boogymen and monsters lurking in the closet. That was the important lesson I learned; that fears induced by the bible aren't real, even if old guys in funny robes insist they are, Sunday after Sunday.

The last gasp for religion in my life came when I was a freshman in college. I was a complete nonbeliever by then, but still more out of disinterest than skeptical examination. I decided to challenge my own assumptions by reading some Christian apologetics. I chose C.S. Lewis, since I had heard he was top of the line in that field. One read through Mere Christianity ended any interest I had in spirituality forever. His arguments were witless and dull.

Since then, I've seen amazing advances in medicine, astronomy, physics, engineering, and computing. But the Christians are still trotting out the same old tired BS I laughed at almost twenty years ago.

My dear sweet skeptical child of God. The Bible is divinely inspired. Like DNA, some of it has been badly reproduced and mistakes have been incorporated in the best of the current versions. Man is not perfect, and neither is his better half, however the 10 or 2 Commandments remain intact and can easily be used as an error checking reference in an effort to debug Scripture. Have Faith child. Just because we mess it up as we enter the age of adults and assume the awesome, trying responsibility of procreation/raising of the next generation. That does not invalidate the truth. That which you knew in your young heart to be true is still true. From the mouths of babes often comes the Word of God. God Bless you and Keep you always.

when you write:

I am always astonished when well-meaning people tell me they are sorry for me because I do not believe in God.

Its almost as if they make the mistake of thinking that you don't feel complete, when it's they who would not feel complete without God.

The way people transfer emotions is a strange business.

We are each complete as our own person. However, our culture encourages people to be incomplete and find themselves outside of themselves. Wow! Now that can lead to a hard and twisted path to self discovery!

I suppose in this sense much of the fighting over God really isn't about God at all, it's about power, political power to control others through insecurity (for instance your statement that the Nuns didn't encourage you to read the bible... Wow what a control statement that is!). But many won't see it this way, instead they feel the difference in how you find completeness and so fight that which is different than themselves.

we are all the same :) in that is love. Why don't we focus in on that aspect of commonality over our differences... probably because of power and politics and control I suppose.

Thanks you gave me something to ponder.

Peace and acceptance in your travels
http://www.personaltao.com/

A better question concerning animal sacrifice might be staged:

If there was no divine law to sacrifice; would the Hebrews have survived given the nature of wildlife to reproduce as animals do?

Would that have been a morally more correct allowance?

Pigs eat waste. Don't eat pigs, lest you come to the waste they cease to collect. Let lions and beasts eat pigs. Don't let lions and beasts eat you.

Is it not plausible that in terms of a "perfect" God, all matters of nature and ethics are self contained?

---

1000 years ago, a 14 year old woman was fit for marriage and birthing. She was downtrodden and destined to be alone by her 20's. What was the line of moral practice that changed?

Should we hold the men and women of that age to our standards of morals? That would be literally, "self-defeating" would it not?

Would you presume to hold God more critically than man?

---

Then when nations and people grew and advanced - the need for sacrifice was no longer needed or required to sustain.

Unfortunately, we started eating waste-eaters as well. Look around you - the lions aren't exactly the problem.

Jason,

I have heard the many of the infinite ways that believers use to explain why an all-powerfull, all-knowing god 'allows' terrible things to happen and none of them explain it to me. It has nothing to do with liking the answer or not. It really is not explainable as it leads to logical dead ends.

A terrible event is when suffering is involved. Do not try to imply any moral relativism is at hand here and thus also imply that the Bible is the best source for making 'moral' decisions if that is what you are trying to do by your post.

Lee Strobel, in The Case for Faith, eventually (after reading all the bible-babble) concludes that "suffering brings us closer to God". If suffering is what it takes to be closer to God or if getting closer to God is the purpose of suffering, then please do suffer all you want.

Personally, I'd rather live a good life, treat people well, and work to make a better world because it is the only world and life that I have. If my kids get hit by a drunk driver or if I get cancer, then I won't blame some omnipotent being and I won't try to use that suffering to be 'closer to God' because God is a myth and you know it.

Like you, I can't remember a time when I wasn't skeptical. I was raised as an Episcopalian, but I developed a love of science early on, and by the time I was a teenager, I was thoroughly atheist.

That was many years ago, and my convictions have only become stronger with the passing years. This forum prompted me to pull out the Bible once more, and I can't begin to tell you how repellant I find it. I can appreciate a pretty turn of phrase, but the message trumps that. I had particularly forgotten how misogynistic it is.

In my opinion, the sooner all religions are consigned to the dustbin of history - or at least to the mythology shelves at the library, where they may be considered a curiosity - the better.

"What's wrong with this picture of a all knowing, all powerful, all loving God?"

The Jewish god isn't particularly loving. He/she/it/whatever is described as wrathful, vengeful, jealous, etc., but not loving and peaceful. That is the Christian construct.

Like the author, even though I was raised in a very devoutly religious house, my earliest memories involved scepticism of my family's religion. I couldn't understand why god would would act the way he did in the Torah, and I was not at all satisfied with the idea that I should pray to something that was outside of human understanding. It just never "gelled" for me, right from the very beginning.

I think I was 10 when I realized that the Bible stories I was taught in sunday school were no more believable than the mythological stories that were made into movies and shown on TV when I was young("Jason and the Argonauts" being a particular favorite).

"They have to ponder the unanswerable question of why their God allows terrible things to happen to His creatures"

Unanswerable? No, it's answered...you just don't like the answer.

Furthermore, what is "terrible"? What makes any event "terrible"? Just because you think it is?

hmmm....

A big atheist AMEN SISTER!

My upbringing was Anabaptist (Mennonite), but my story is much like yours. I was probably a little slower on the uptake than you were, but I think I have reached the same place. Letting go of faith was like dropping a heavy burden.

Thanks again for taking part in this forum Ms Jacoby.

Regards

A Hermit

An OK post, but the atheist and free thinkers on the panel here seem to be pulling their punches. One need only consider the story of Abraham common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to see something is wrong, terribly wrong. Here is a link to the story of Abraham:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022;&version=9;

What's wrong with this picture of a all knowing, all powerful, all loving God?

* Believers like Abraham have to accept that this God could and would ask for human sacrifice,

* This test was not one of belief vs non-belief it was realy one of belief from a position of fear ("12 ...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."),

* And in the end, at a minimum this God accepts animal sacrifice --- is this not cruel, barbaric, deranged, and immoral in and of itself?

Why is a response from Abraham of "No God, this is just wrong." the better, more moral response --- one that would be more respected?

One could go on with the parts of the Bible that condone slavery, punishments placed on those whose previous generations where the ones that sinned (according to God's view --- e.g. one could look at the story of Noah and what happened to those that respectfully covered up the naked drunk Noah --- I've yet to figure that one out!), etc...

Forgetting socience and historical correctness, just the cruel, barbaric, deranged nature of God as depicted in the Bible is enough to "Just say No."