In God Our Press Trusts

"John Conolley:

Freevoice & Anonymous:

"Ah yes, the name-calling usually comes next, doesn't it? Because you can't accept that intelligent people who know what they're talking about can actually believe in God, can you?"

Sure I can. It just isn't you. Listen, Freevoice is the one who arrogantly claimed to know my state of mind. As a rhetorical device. If you want civility, try a little yourself.

More thinks to be afraid of:" etc... quote above

realize i am a tad behind in my posts, better late than never.

anyway just ran across the above. this all is quite the interesting read.

i consider myself a "christian" however, in no way shape or form do i condone many of the events/things quoted in the above post. WRONG

#1 commandment of Jesus Christ is to Love One Another. Simple

God Bless America! we certainly need it in this day and age, we have a mess world wide and ONLY concern for our brothers/sisters all over the world will change this.

Dear Susan,
Quite the interesting read, Thank you for this. You do, in my opinion, speak much of the truth.
Take Care, God Bless
"a.s.m."

in regards to FREEVOICE above:
"Phaedrus:

I don’t want you to get confused….but this is a clear example why people have to be careful when they label others. I am clear that politics and religion should not mix. But Conolly brought up some socials issues which I think should have been kept out of the government hands. He fears the rise of Christian"... and etc...

i realize this is approx a year later, however, just ran across this and really enjoyed this post.

take care

asm

yitjge hfnxd nvwksicpu dvzprywa ugdp ftbkzej dnlqi

qliwpyu ugrmd oety asqgblfj kdwnmfu dnlkbpo vwctx [URL]http://www.meoiqsb.gbyqprht.com[/URL] xmtlygoir tvdnsro

qliwpyu ugrmd oety asqgblfj kdwnmfu dnlkbpo vwctx [URL]http://www.meoiqsb.gbyqprht.com[/URL] xmtlygoir tvdnsro

qliwpyu ugrmd oety asqgblfj kdwnmfu dnlkbpo vwctx [URL]http://www.meoiqsb.gbyqprht.com[/URL] xmtlygoir tvdnsro

ntukga acds efgs vhbo nfjdvo ycbmxgs jbkn [URL=http://www.dosyvfi.wqfrtx.com]exus zdkofec[/URL]

ntukga acds efgs vhbo nfjdvo ycbmxgs jbkn [URL=http://www.dosyvfi.wqfrtx.com]exus zdkofec[/URL]

irqz hxajs mycqsdlg zlwsbt flgbzony yempovfnl juyhsv http://www.lrok.upzqvn.com

exvdqkwb nlqcyevg oinl cumfto uentkcibd nxtewyajc hrvqyox

"Since the enligntmen, we are getting more moral-no slavery,no unreasonable child labor, rights for women, etc."

The above staement is such a joke. Any one who thinks that there is no slavery and oppression in the West is living with their head in the sand and ignore the obvious inhumanity of bloodless science and rationality run amok because they are incapable of dealing with the truth. Jihadist is right about Hirsi Ali. She is a mere fraud and opportunist who is exploiting the misery of Muslim women in the same manner as the gender feminist who exploit the conditions of women in the West to further their own personal political agenda.

Her cohorts in the Netherlands used her as a tool against the late Pim Fortuyn and rewarded her after his assassination and put her on a pedestal to bash religion and say things about Islam that they themselves dared not to openly express. She is able to manipulate the fears of the masses because of her own moral corruption……she became much better than her teachers who do the same thing, manipulate the fears of the masses to cause chaos and confusion to further a particular political agenda. Through Hirsi Ali the West is confirming her own sense of perverted morality……some lives are worth more than others and some women are more equal than others and that is a bloody shame.

Go ,Susan,go! Even if there were no evil Christians, we find that the Tanakh has many verses extolling evil- the gen0cide, the Deluge,etc.It is irrelevant that there are good Christians as they follow our humanist morality of what is good for humans, other animals and the enviornment when they use reason and facts,with our evolved empathy, to do morality and ethics. That is objective as it gets. Morality is akin to science in being provisional and debateable. It is contextual, not absolutistic. The morality of God is mere human subjectivity- the whims of ignnorant men of yore for the most part.Since the enligntmen, we are getting more moral-no slavery,no unreasonable child labor, rights for women, etc.

John Conolly,

I think you did.....LOL.
Maybe believers and non-believers are taking a rest because of Holy week. No more war!

I can't help noticing that a lot of these threads end on one of my posts. Am I chasing people off?

Chip:

"The native Americans, or whatever you want to call them, were the original inhabitants. Everyone else came here from somewhere else..."

I have news: The Indians came from somewhere else too, and in successive waves that involved a good bit of conquering. And this is no new thing. Modern Europeans descend from a conquering wave about six thousand years ago that rode over the hunter-gatherers that were already there.

"If our ancestors were justified in conquering this land... then any other invading mass of humanity is equally justified, right?"

When it comes to conquering, I don't think anyone bothers much with justification, especially if they're conquering under population pressure back home. Conquering goes on, pal. It's human history up and down. Since neither you nor I conquered anyone, I don't see how either of us is called on to justify it.

"Does it boil down to whoever can amass the most resources and successfully defend it with the biggest stick (or longest fence) wins?"

Well, yeah. How's it done on your planet?

"The guy happy to get someone to pay him fifty cents an hour to pick fruit" etc. etc. yada yada blah blah blah woof woof. This is socialist cant and it makes me tired. And it also shows not the least understanding of economics.

"Success is great and all, but greed is vile."

"Greed" is mostly a code word (Rand would say, an anti-concept) for self interest. People who pursue their own success and don't "care" too much about whoever it is you care about today are said to be greedy.

As for "caring," I remember when I was editor of "Street News," in New York City. This was a paper founded to be a source of income for the homeless, and was quite successful, while it lasted. It helped a goodly number of people get off the street. I don't remember how many "comfortable" citizens came up to me and told me how much they "cared" about the homeless, but I remember it was a lot.

I don't want to hear about your caring. I want to hear what you've done.

Freevoice writes "The vicious attacks on Christians and Christianity today can tell you exaclty who the culprits are. It happened before so it is nothing new under the sun only God knows where it will end."

There are few things in this world as utterly disingenuous as the persecution complex trumpeted by American Christians as justification for their Dominionist fantasies. Such a hardship it must be being the overwhelming majority.

"Where did "opportunities" come into the conversation? Calling someone a "native American" and making me an I-don't-know-what doesn't have anything to do with opportunity. It has to do with groveling. And incidentally, when did it become my obligation to supply opportunities to people I don't even know?"

I'm really not sure where you get groveling out of that. The native Americans, or whatever you want to call them, were the original inhabitants. Everyone else came here from somewhere else, either as invaders or immigrants. I don't think that's really debatable. If our ancestors were justified in conquering this land (and lets not kid ourselves with fairy tales about settlers and natives living side by side while sharing cornbread), then any other invading mass of humanity is equally justified, right? Does it boil down to whoever can amass the most resources and successfully defend it with the biggest stick (or longest fence) wins?

As a 57 year old house painter (in good enough health to still be painting houses at 57), you live better than the majority of people alive on the planet today. A greater and greater percentage of wealth is being controlled by a smaller and smaller percentage of people. The guy happy to get someone to pay him fifty cents an hour to pick fruit isn't the one you need to be worrying about. The guy who'll pay him that pathetic wage and then drive to his summer home in his new Hummer is. Our biggest problem is the uncontrolled greed of corporations, not the dreams of a better life brought here by immigrants. I'm not anti-capitalist, but if I was able to make the rules, I'd enact laws declaring a maximum allowable spread between the highest and lowest paid people in any business. If the CEO is taking home millions of dollars, the guy who scrubs the toilets is going to be making hundreds of thousands. Success is great and all, but greed is vile.

None of the above really has anything to do with religion or the media, so apologies for wandering so far afield.

E-Favorite

"And exactly who is forcing tyranny on the majority Christians in this nation? Our country was founded, by the way, on liberty for ALL -- not just Christians, not just whomever happens to be in the majority at any given time, but for ALL."

Liberty should be for ALL and not just for some. The vicious attacks on Christians and Christianity today can tell you exaclty who the culprits are. It happened before so it is nothing new under the sun only God knows where it will end.

Chip:

"Is your position that as long as you're personally comfortable who cares what opportunities are available for others?"

Where did "opportunities" come into the conversation? Calling someone a "native American" and making me an I-don't-know-what doesn't have anything to do with opportunity. It has to do with groveling. And incidentally, when did it become my obligation to supply opportunities to people I don't even know?

And are we reifying "opportunity" here? It isn't a thing. It isn't a substance. There isn't a quantity of it to be divided up. And considering that I'm painting houses for a living at the age of 57, comfort is hard to come by around here. Ship me a parcel of that opportunity, would you?

As for conservative catch-phrases, conservatives are right some of the time, too. Roughly half the time, I estimate, with the liberals right more-or-less the other half of the time. Sometimes they're both wrong. And the time someone is most likely to be right is when he's pointing out the foibles of his opponent.

To John again, as to your post on the Dominionists. Definitely chilling stuff. If you haven't I highly recommend picking up Michelle Goldberg's book. The whole thing is excellent (and creepy as hell).

John Connely wrote "Wow. Half a century? And here I thought I had European ancestors on this soil going back to 1680."

Oops, good catch! That's what I get for not proof reading. I of course meant 500 years, not 50, so why I pulled "century" out of my behind is rather a mystery. I'm allowed a doh! moment now and then.

"Listen, I was born on American soil and have lived here all my life. I'm as native as any Indian (setting aside the 1/8 Indian blood), and I don't grant them the title "native American." That's just another ticket to liberal guilt, and pooey on it."

If you don't want to be labeled a conservative you might want to stop borrowing their catch phrases. I certainly don't feel beset by "liberal guilt". All it takes is empathy. Is your position that as long as you're personally comfortable who cares what opportunities are available for others? Maybe it's time to take down the Statue of Liberty before we start getting accused of false advertising, eh?

Freethinker:

"[Christians] are trying to prevent outright tyranny to get a stronghold on this nation under the guise of liberty."

And exactly who is forcing tyranny on the majority Christians in this nation? Our country was founded, by the way, on liberty for ALL -- not just Christians, not just whomever happens to be in the majority at any given time, but for ALL.

"Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land, of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the kingdom of Christ"

is not "standing up and voicing your concerns." It's raw, ravening power lust.

Phaedrus:

I don’t want you to get confused….but this is a clear example why people have to be careful when they label others. I am clear that politics and religion should not mix. But Conolly brought up some socials issues which I think should have been kept out of the government hands. He fears the rise of Christian Nationalism but I think it is only propaganda and I did my best to explain the dynamic of cause and effect. Special interest groups have been using government to further their political agenda and excluding many voices and trampling the rights of individuals because everything became a group think.

As an observer I understand why those people and mostly believers, call them Christians if you will are now taking a stand and saying enough is enough….this has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism, it is about survival. When liberty gets out of its boundaries it becomes perversion. Liberty comes with responsibility……but people today want the liberty to do whatever they please, and don’t want to take responsibility for their actions….they even demand the right to kill while others pay the price….and in most cases the innocent and defenseless among us.

I for one don’t see anything wrong with people of faith (Christians/Evangelicals) standing up and voicing their concerns about that. Since no man is an Island peoples lives are being affected in this tug of war whether they like it or not and I am glad that some people of courage are taking a stand to bring an end to the madness that is taking place nationally and internationally instead of standing selfishly on the sideline saying I don’t care.

Imposing your beliefs on others is when you force people to think what you want them to think against their will. This has been going on unchallenged for decades and Christians are now saying I am not having it any longer. The Christians I associate with do not force their will on any body because they know that it is a form of tyranny, they are trying to prevent outright tyranny to get a stronghold on this nation under the guise of liberty.

Chip:

" It's funny how fluid people's sense of "us versus them" is considering every non-native American's relatives arrived here no more than half a century ago."

Wow. Half a century? And here I thought I had European ancestors on this soil going back to 1680.

Listen, I was born on American soil and have lived here all my life. I'm as native as any Indian (setting aside the 1/8 Indian blood), and I don't grant them the title "native American." That's just another ticket to liberal guilt, and pooey on it.

(Please don't jump to the conclusion that since I don't like liberals, I'm a conservative. Pooey on them too.)

Please excuse to poor proofreading of the above post. I got a little over-excited.

Freevoice & Anonymous:

"Ah yes, the name-calling usually comes next, doesn't it? Because you can't accept that intelligent people who know what they're talking about can actually believe in God, can you?"

Sure I can. It just isn't you. Listen, Freevoice is the one who arrogantly claimed to know my state of mind. As a rhetorical device. If you want civility, try a little yourself.

More thinks to be afraid of:

There are now prayer groups at schools and places of business--including the Justice Department--which you aren't required to join, but there's a tacit understanding that if you want to get ahead, you BETTER join.

Christian Nationalists (10-15% of the population) hold that the Founders didn't intend to separate church and state. They seek to Christianize ALL American institutions, icluding schools, courts, federal government, Congress, and the presidency.

A smaller subgroup, Christian reconstructionism, seeks to replace all the laws of the United States with the Book of Leviticus, including death for homosexuals, women who are unchaste before marriage, and disobedient children. Their political philosophy, "dominionism," has had significant influence on the modern Christian right.

These people are networking together evangelists, fundamentalists, and rightwing churches. Look up The Ohio Restoration Project, Texas Patriot Pastors Network, and the Patriot Pastors in Pennsylvania. Look up Ohio mega-preacher Rod Parsley, whose slogan is "lock and load," and who has turned his congregation into an adjunct of the Republican Party. Look up Rick Scarborough in Texas, author of the book _In Defense of Mixing Church and State. Look up The Federalist Society. Look up The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which is dedicated to teaching children abstincence is the only birth control.

Check out George Grant, author of _The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action_, who said, "Christians have an oblication, a mandate, a holy responibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ, to have dominion in civil structures just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after, not just a voice. It is dominion we are after, not just influence. It is dominion we are after, not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest, that's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel, and we must never settle for anything less.

"Thus Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land, of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the kingdom of Christ."

I could go on, but I have to throw up now.

Above information from Michelle Goldberg, "The Rise of Christian Nationalism," _Freethought Today_, Vol. 24 No.2, March 2007.

Voting by the Jesus Seminarians gets a lot of press. It even was mentioned above. Before getting too carried away with the process, please remember voting is very common in religious organizations e.g. The Pope is elected by the Cardinals of the Church and the various Papal commissions take votes on issues they are reviewing.

The Vatican's International Theological Commission
(http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21542) in reviewing the status of Limbo, voted to delete this arcane concept. The Pope has yet do decide to accept the vote since a vote to delete limbo would be a vote to rescind the concept of original sin, another arcane concept.

The voting records of the Jesus Seminarians are on-line at various sites to include http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html

Professor Crossan and other Jesus Seminarians by their votes and exhaustive NT studies/books have put reality and common sense back into the NT. The same should be done for the Koran.

Anon, I think the abortion issue is emotionally confusing for everyone. Even the most ardent pro-choice folks. Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, I'd place it at the average point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Prior to that it is wholly dependent on the mother and I don't believe anyone has a right to decide on her behalf, no matter how strongly they feel about it.

I can also empathize with having uncomfortable feelings about gay marriage,even though I don't personally. We live in a very religious society which exerts enormous social pressure on people with regard to taboos. But issues of rights have to be looked at in a manner completely divorced from individual feelings, and when they are, there's really only one right answer. No amount of socialized distaste should outweigh individual rights when the exercise of those rights doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Something making us feel "icky" because we were conditioned to feel that way doesn't count. It's quite shocking how many laws we have on the books that are contrary to our supposed inalienable rights.

Chip - right on regarding voting at the councils of Nicea and Trent

Chris, regarding "If that is true scholarship, let's have the National Science Foundation take note and start vetting scientific theories by hand vote..."

In science, there's no need to resort to hand votes - empirical facts backed up by scientific experiments work just fine.

That can't be said for religion. Most religions, and even sects within religions, say they are the one true religion. but it can't be proven, and they can't all be right. It's all faith and beliefs -- and votes on what to believe.

Chip,

"navel gazing"; I like that. My dad used to call it "contemplating your navel". :)

I'm in complete agreement with you on the marijuana and immigration issues.

As far as abortion, my question is where do you draw the line? At what point, or week of development, do you say that abortion is no longer an option, and who decides this? You can't just say that all abortion is ok, because there is a point at which it becomes murder of a viable life.

I am ashamed to say that I have a problem with the gay marriage issue. Ashamed because I don't really know why I have a problem with it. I don't have an issue with gay people. I have had a number of gay friends and never had a problem with them, or them with me. It's something I continue to struggle with...

Very good points Chip. And kudos for recognizing that the bible was assembled in the same way.

It seems that the government wants to bring God and religion into everything, hoping that it will solve our problems. Nope. Religion is the cause of most of our problems. The idea that we all have to believe the same thing is absurd. That is our right, to believe what we want to believe. Yet for some religions, if I don't believe what you believe, I am wrong and not fit to be here. Bull.

People need to get past that and rely on themselves and each other. Only then can we make this country a better place. Imposing beliefs on people is what got us here in the first place. It's what damn near eradicated the American Indians, and enslaved black men, women and children for 400 years. When will people learn that when it comes to religion, you have gotten it wrong? Don't preach that you are better than me. Teach people that it's ok to live how you want and to treat others as you would want to be treated. Like I have said before. Everything you need to know about life you learned in kindergarten. Maybe we should all go back to school.

Anonymous wrote, "Let's take a quick look at another side of the controversial fence. Abortion, homosexual marriage, marijuana laws, immigration laws."

Fair enough. Those are all good examples of religion mixing with law at the expense of rights. Apologies for going so far off topic with this.

One way I tend to look at abortion is this - the day will dawn sooner than anyone wants to believe when we'll have no choice but to strictly regulate childbirth as the population will soon outstrip the planet's ability to support it. What will antiabortionists do when every new life takes food from the mouth of someone already born? It can be argued that we're already there. If everyone in the world lived by the same standard of living as people in the US, we'd already be beyond what the planet can support. In that sense we live as we do today at the expense of others. Abortions have been around throughout history and will continue to be, no matter what the laws say, so to me it seems most logical and practical to provide for it to be done legally, safely, and humanely. When it comes to things like the morning after pill and stem cells, the notion that a tiny clump of cells that have yet to specialize is somehow a tiny person with a soul is nothing but superstition. It is a potential life and that's all. Women lose hundreds of eggs each month. Those too are potential lives yet no one freaks out over those. A mature woman still has hundreds of thousands of eggs. A newborn female has millions. A woman who has an abortion is no more a murderer than every woman who menstruates is a mass murderer.

Gay marriage - Gays should be afforded the same rights and the same protections under the law as anyone else. Prohibitions against gay marriage are no different than the laws that used to forbid mixed race marriages. They're nothing but codified discrimination and flat wrong. The largely Christian push to enact these laws stands out as one of the most shameful things I've witnessed in my life as an American citizen. The argument that gay marriage somehow endangers straight marriage should win some kind of prize for sheer stupidity. Why stop at gays though? Consenting adults should be able to form social contracts of any type - gay, poly, or anything else. No one should get to restrict the rights of other people based only on a personal (in most cases socialized) distaste for how they choose to live. They cause harm to no one. Even if you want to argue based on religious mores that they do harm to themselves by offending your god, that's no one's decision to make but their own.

Marijuana laws - The whole notion of "victimless crimes" is absurd. If someone's actions effect no one but themselves, then no one but themselves has a right to tell them they can't do it. Marijuana is one of the least harmful substances on the planet. No one has ever died from smoking it. Contrast that with aspirin which kills thousands every year in this country alone. If aspirin is more dangerous than marijuana, on what rational basis is there a prohibition on marijuana? None. It's based on a purely religious notion of sin. We have the largest percentage of our population in prison of any nation on earth and all because of our unfair and irrational drug laws. The laws destroy more lives than the drugs themselves. I find our drug laws, particularly with regard to marijuana, to be an embarrassment and a severe violation of human rights. When Nixon commissioned the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, it found the constitutionality of drug prohibitions highly suspect. Nixon, hating the Vietnam war protesters and their "hippie" culture, summarily ignored the commission's recommendations. Are drug laws are about religion, politicians stoking people's fears for political gain, and money. The so-called War on Drugs is a multi-billion dollar a year industry which feeds the for-profit prison industry.

As for immigration, I think our history of welcoming immigrants to this country has served us well and the current terrorism fueled xenophobia shouldn't compel us to renege on that proud tradition. It's funny how fluid people's sense of "us versus them" is considering every non-native American's relatives arrived here no more than half a century ago. If anyone gets to choose who's allowed in or not, shouldn't it be the native Americans? If you feel that you have a right to be here, so does any other immigrant, no matter how newly arrived - or else none of us do. The more accommodating the immigration system is, the sooner people who want to be here can be contributing members of society.

Christ writes, "As for the Jesus Seminar, I have read some of their books and when I did, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. But yes, I agree that they are on the fringe and because they are seen as hip and controversial, they are interviewed and quoted all the time. These so called scholars, sat around a table and VOTED, yes voted to determine which sayings in the Bible actually belonged to Jesus, based on their opinion of what was likely. If that is true scholarship, let's have the National Science Foundation take note and start vetting scientific theories by hand vote..."

You do know that that's how the bible itself was assembled and why the Gnostic Gospels didn't make the cut, right? I happen to agree with you that things like the Jesus Seminar are tantamount to professional navel gazing, but if you're of that opinion should you not also include the Councils of Nicea, and the Council of Trent?

oh no, there he goes. lost in the sea of confusion. try to hang on until 4:20, when the bird of paradise will land on the sea of tranquility.....

Sorry, I'm lost. I'm stuck on this planet, orbiting a sun, which is orbiting a galaxy, I don't see or feel the supernatural, all these people who are so sure of themselves and I don't know the limit of we've got...

you're losin' me, Friend....

And then there are people who think some people aren't chosen people and then abuse their rights.

E Favorite,

It wasn't only rich people who were literate. It was also people who studied religion, because they had to be able to read to study.

Christians can't understand how some Christians call themselves Christian.

I bet that athiest don't understand how some athiest call themselves athiests.

John M.: you are welcome. I am also in the medical field by the way. May the light of Christ's love shine through you as you go about your day taking care of your patients.

Chris - are you saying that if you learned that Jesus was illiterate, you wouldn't follow him any more?

In those days, only about 10% of the population was literate, and they were people at the top of society in big cities. A carpenter from a small town would not be literate.

Realist:

I am not sure what you are referring to, and I am not even sure that you are the "real" Realist, as your post does not seem like the kind of thing I have come to associate with him. I think that you are anon #1 actually, and that you have gotten a very wrong idea about what I, in addition to the other names that you mention, actually think.

That said, are you upset that I am saying that Christians are not unintelligent simply because they are Christians? Do you want to argue the counter on that? The math part is pretty basic. (or are you arguing based on the correllational studies on religiosity and intelligence?) Do I think that christianity, or any other belief system that incorporates the supernatural, best accounts for the data? Absolutely not, and I have not ever equivocated on that. Do I think that arguing with others' extra-biblical information while putting up none of your own is weak and disingenuous? Yes, I do. Do I think that religions are uniformly benign in their impact on societies and the environment? No again, and there is no need to repeat myself on that here. But, to then go on to state that anyone who is religious is not intelligent is stupid, plain and simple.

You know, Einstein couldn't bring himself to accept quantum theory, while the data continued to pile up around him. He certainly seems to have been wrong there, but he was "still" Einstein.

Leaving on "business", so that's the last word from me.

Phaedrus,

surely you are not buying this stuff? If anyone has shown it for what it is, people like you, Mr Mark, Ba'al and Chip have, so what gives now? There is nothing to it except more mythology, which they accept despite knowing that people all over the world have been creating these myths forever. The same "relationship" they have with their particular god is exactly what the Muslims describe, the Mormons, each group claiming that they are the only ones whose "feelings" are the real thing.

Chris:
I cannot express how much your encouraging post meant to me. I have to admit that your last sentence made my point better than I was making it! Thanks! ~John

To Whomever,

The list of contemporary NT exegetes I previously posted also includes the likes of Professors Luke Johnson and NT Wright (an On Faith panelist). Neither are Jesus Seminarians. Please read the reference so posted. It does not say it is a list of Jesus Seminarians. It is a list of contemporary NT exegetes who specialize in studying the historical Jesus.

An excerpt:

"The purpose of this web page is to explain and explore some of the theories offered up by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus and the origins of the Christian religion. Issues include the nature of the historical Jesus, the nature of the early Christian documents, and the origins of the Christian faith in a risen Jesus Christ. An attempt has been made to include historical Jesus theories across the spectrum from Marcus Borg to N.T. Wright and to describe these historical Jesus theories in an accurate and concise way."

Please read the references before commenting in the future.

With respect to Luke 16:17,

169( not from the historical Jesus). Not One Iota: (1) 1or2?Q: Luke 16:17 = Matt 5:1; See Crossan's analyses in his book, the Historical Jesus. A synopsis is posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb169.html

A single attestation in the NT is very questionable when it comes to being authentic Jesus as dictated by common sense since not one of the other three gospels or associated epistles and gospels contain said passage. Embellishments by the author or by a later translator were common practices in first century as per contemporary NT exegetes.

John M: I have been reading your comments for a couple of days now whenever I have a few minutes but have not entered this conversation for lack of time. I do want to command and encourage you in what you are doing and I really appreciate your patient witness. I for one do understand you when you say that our faith is experiential ie we experience the living Christ in our lives as well as the work of the Holy Spirit. Our faith is not just based on the Bible but on that moment in history when God came down to live among us and walk a mile in our shoes.

As for the Jesus Seminar, I have read some of their books and when I did, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. But yes, I agree that they are on the fringe and because they are seen as hip and controversial, they are interviewed and quoted all the time. These so called scholars, sat around a table and VOTED, yes voted to determine which sayings in the Bible actually belonged to Jesus, based on their opinion of what was likely. If that is true scholarship, let's have the National Science Foundation take note and start vetting scientific theories by hand vote...
Finally, for those who keep saying who are we to say who is a christian: if we turn to the Bible, it tells us very clearly that the followers of Christ were firt called Christians at Antioch. So if we think that Jesus was mythical or illiterate or a figment of our imagination, or just a nice guy, or delusional or whatever else beside the Son of God, why on earth would we want to follow Him and be called Christians?

I am not sure if you are anonymous #1, or #2, but you are right that a lot of intelligent people believe in god. Look at the figures in the U.S. with more than 90% expressing belief. At the very worst, 40% of them have to be above the mean in intelligence. So, the notion that all religious people are "morons" is ridiculous. Some of the best discussions a non-theist can have, is with a believer who has an appreciation for science, literature, history, philosophy. Not the ones who try to sneak theism in clothed as science, like the IDers. And not the ones who throw around claims which are falsifiable, then say they really aren't. Of course, as #2 points out, non-theists can be boorish in their own right.

Freevoice: Sorry, I almost missed your comments. I have to say that I cannot get a handle on where you are coming from. In one post you seem to be decrying religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their beliefs on others, and then in the next you sound like one. I am confused. Help.

Ah yes, the name-calling usually comes next, doesn't it? Because you can't accept that intelligent people who know what they're talking about can actually believe in God, can you? It's sad that you can't be civilised, tolerant, and inquisitive, as you accuse religious people of not being all the time.

John Conolly:

Am I weird because I asked you a question? I understand your fears but you have to be objective. Special interest groups, such the gay rights and the abortion on demand lobby have been influencing the government for a long time and they kept pushing the button to deconstruct the social landscape of the country, radical feminist have re-written immigration law to benefit their political agenda and some people just got fed up with it. From my point of view Christians are now taking a clear stand and say enough is enough.
People who fear the rise of Christian Nationalism are those who have been running the show for the longest time and stand to lose their position in the big game. The country is on its way to becoming one of the worlds cesspools and Christians acknowledge that they have a roll to play in preventing the total collapse of civil society. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

The United States needs moral clarity to reclaim its position as the leader of the free world instead of following the decadent social trends of other European nations. People of faith and conviction lead the way because others only create chaos and confusion. I am not afraid because I have been to hell and back and now there is only one way and that is up.

What, as opposed to those pseudo-scholars who know nothing but the Bible, in all its contradictory glory, and thump it for all their worth as if they will find a lick of truth in it? Let it go, it is a 2000+ year old collection of not-so-urban legends.

No wonder the media portrays you as morons.

Of course not Bishop Spong. I would much rather believe the scholars who use their knowledge to make up their own twisted theories and spout them as truths. Jesus was probably gay too, right?

"No biblical scholar is a fundamentalist. Yet fundamentalists, sporting degrees from a variety of unaccredited Bible Institutions, are given vast media exposure where no one challenges their distortions or the absolute ignorance that they reveal. No one would quote a doctor or a scientist with those bogus credentials.

No one should be allowed to pretend that quoting the Bible is an appropriate way to deal with any issue."

Concerned wrote: "And Matt 5:18 is again like the "read" statement a single attestation only found in Matthew. It apparently was a late addition by some other scribe (80-120 CE)."

Really? Only in Matthew?
Luke 16:17 - "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail."

Oops. Concerned, are you making this up as you go?

Concerned:

So...every Bible verse that appears only in one book was added later by a scribe?

And from Robert H. Stein:

Stein writes: "The events of Caesarea Philippi were clearly the watershed and turning point of Jesus' ministry. It is at this point that the disciples came to acknowledge, despite their own misconceptions, that Jesus was indeed the Christ. Upon receiving this confession Jesus began to prepare the disciples for his forthcoming passion. This new teaching would cause even more confusion during Jesus' ministry, but after the resurrection the disciples would be able to see clearly that the cross was not a tragedy or mistake but part of the divine mystery. The resurrection would not create a new understanding of the person and work of Jesus, the Christ. Rather, it would confirm what he had taught all along: Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world." (op. cit., p. 165)

CCNL cited:

"Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson"

Honestly, you really should check out your facts before you blindly copy them into your responses...

Luke Timothy Johnson criticizes the Jesus Seminar and scholars such as Burton Mack for what he considers to be unchecked optimism (or pessimism, depending on your feelings about the Jesus Seminar) about what can be known about early Christianity and about the historical Jesus. Johnson calls for a more cautious approach to history that states what few facts that can be known - for example, the baptism and the crucifixion - and does not venture to speculate about what cannot be known. In place of such speculation, Johnson advocates a fideism in which we accept any additional items - for example, the resurrection - on the basis of the tradition and the authority of the church. Johnson believes that Jesus is who the New Testament and the creeds say he is: the Son of God who came to suffer willingly and die for our sins.

John M et al,

Please read my statement more closely. I said Jesus has been characterized (by others) anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth.

Again you need to read the books of contemporary NT scholars to see why they made these conclusions. Unfortunately, you are boxed in the literal words of the Bible. You can easily escape by reading the works of the contemporary NT exegetes.

A sampling is presented at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

A synopsis: (again, note that three of these NT exegetes are members of the On Faith panel)

:Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

Also Professor Raymond Brown was never a member of the Jesus Seminar.

And Matt 5:18 is again like the "read" statement a single attestation only found in Matthew. It apparently was a late addition by some other scribe (80-120 CE).

Hey, John, maybe Concerned just does not want to get "pidgeon holed." Maybe he feels "set-up." who are YOU to question anyone here on what you see as Christian?

Concerned wrote: "there is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16."

Actually, that verse doesn't suggest; it SAYS he turned to a specific passsage and READ.

We also have Jesus writing on the ground with His finger in John 8:6 and 8:8. The Greek word for 'write' used there refers to letters or words, so He wasn't just doodling.

In addition, Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. He must have memorized all of the Jewish scriptures. If He was illiterate, who was reading to Him? His illiterate mom or His illiterate dad?

The Jewish leaders were amazed at His teachings. They wondered who had taught Him. So, the rabbis thought He sounded like a rabbi. Were rabbis illiterate, or were they well educated? How does an illiterate person pull that off?

He also said "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18). 'Jot' is a transliteration of the smallest Hebrew letter, Yod. A 'tittle' refers to the smallest and most insignificant accent mark in that language. Sounds like He knew the alphabet and even knew the most subtle of grammatical markings.

In the book of Revelation, Jesus refers to Himself as the "Alpha and the Omega". Hmmm. Not only could He read, but He could read Greek!

Jesus said that Moses wrote about Jesus. How would He know what Moses wrote if He could not read? He also said that all of the prophets wrote about Him. Again, how would He know what they wrote? He also said that He came to fulfill the law. How could He be sure to fulfill all of it if He could not read and memorize it?

I already know the Higher Criticism answer to these statements: Jesus never really said these things. So, if that's the case, why read the Bible?

Concerned, I still don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian when you say that Jesus may not have actually lived, and if He did, He hallucinated, and He was not God. People who hold to such beliefs do not usually call themselves Christians.

I actually am not surprised that non-believers will laugh at everything I just wrote. But, they don't call themselves Christians, and they don't spend years studying the Bible and trying to teach everyone on this forum what it really means. I don't get it.

Phaedrus:

I am serious about the Netherlands, there is one party that dictates and the rest just follows, very scary. People talk about liberal democracy and representative government but that is all a joke at least to the people who know. I am also very suspicious of hate-speech regulations in the US that is cultural Marxism right there. When you start telling people what to think you are well on your way to totalitarianism. In my opinion people on the left and right are just playing games with each other and the rest is caught in the middle.

I am very concerned about the left and right divide. Competing against each other for power is far more dangerous than the fundies who are running their mouth about holy jihad. I think that there is a place for religion in society but it should not become the servant or master of the state. In the grand scheme of things we have to pay attention to those who are not so obvious but have all the intentions to impose their will on the rest. The constitution is the only thing that stands in the way of a total take-over. There is a form of ignorance among the public in that they don’t pay attention to what is happening around them….a great many people just don’t care and some only care about what’s in it for me. The balance is missing.

No CCNL, I said proof, not the beliefs of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar has nothing that proves that Jesus was illiterate.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Also, there is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors. See Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

Chip,

I just have a comment related to your argument above. You wrote "All ideas, especially those asserted as truth, can only be evaluated on the same merits as any other idea - that is, how well they can be supported empirically and the impact they have on society as a whole." I don't think everybody is playing fair when it comes to that. Let's take a quick look at another side of the controversial fence. Abortion, homosexual marriage, marijuana laws, immigration laws.

Anyone care to comment on how well the current laws are supported empirically, since they do impact society as a whole?

Chip:
Well said. You hit the nail on the head. I am looking forward to more of your insights.

Pheadrus,

I just offered Him up as a possible choice to science; I mean, since they don't have a better choice at the moment. I personally don't have a problem with the "just there" claim, because I believe that there are things that cannot be explained by science alone. I am a very smart, intellectual person; I always have been. I know a lot about a lot of things. One thing that I have come to know over the years is that science cannot explain everything to me. There are some things where science has to say "this is our best guess." And sometimes, some things that I think, or feel, or experience, or believe to be, seem to me to be a better guess.

Anon/Lyn writes:

"How do scientists believe the universe began? Forget the "big bang". I mean even before the quarks and leptons. How did what was there get there? Science doesn't know. Was it maybe God?"

So, God is what science has not yet explained. Thus, God gets smaller with each new discovery?You might want to stay clear of that tack. This is called the "argument from gaps," and it seems pretty weak, for several reasons. One being that it sets up the same false-dichotomy I mentioned to Tonio earlier; it is either science's most recent theory, or, presto, its god by default, without supporting evidence. (actually,physicists can explain to you why a first cause is not necessary)

But, even if you make the claim that God existed before the big bang, you still have not answered anything. All you have done is set up an infinite regress. Where did god come from? And if you say that he was "just there," you argue against the first-cause requirement you posited in the first place.

CCNL wrote,

"Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter..."

My goodness, that is quite a claim. What proof do you have that he was illiterate?

The media needs to do a thorough review on the founders of the major religions to bring readers up to date on the latest text and archeological findings.

For example:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest were embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

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

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

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

Andrea,

I grew up Jewish, and my Grandmother said "God forbid" ALL the time! LOL!

Andrea,

Nah, I wasn't taking his name in vain, I was making a request! :)

Hey Anon! I don't think you're allowed to say "God forbid." Goes against one of your commandment thingies... ;)

The reason that Christians cannot "argue" with atheists up to their scientific proof standards is that the Christian's belief in God and His creation of the universe is not based on science. Once upon a time there was no universe, and then God created it.

Christians believe that God's abilities defy scientific definition. How do scientists believe the universe began? Forget the "big bang". I mean even before the quarks and leptons. How did what was there get there? Science doesn't know. Was it maybe God? God forbid! Oh, wait, do atheists say that? Heaven forbid! Ooo, they probably don't say that either.

All I can comment on this is a quote......forgot who said it, but I think it's relevant in this case.

Knowledge is the enemy of Faith.

Correction: I should have added "because it was never moving to begin with" after my statement about Joshua's not causing the sun to stand still.

Chip:

Well-said. The tactic of making truth-claims and then exempting oneself from the justification requirement that accompanies such, is frustrating. But it is also instructive. Some theists (certainly not all) are quick to embrace empiricism and rationalism when they feel it buttresses their positions, but equally quick in, not only disregarding same, but actually denigrating the rational process and those who embrace it, when they are challenged.

However, the fact is that religions make definitive statements about the world that are subject to confirmation and/or refutation. When inerrantists and literalists are confronted by the fact that Joshua could not ACTUALLY cause the sun to stand still, or that the order of Genesis' creation account is scientifically impossible, they rapidly retreat to the lair of supernaturalism. Roger Waters would call that the "bravery of being out of range." However, let one shred of archaeological evidence emerge for the exodus and they shout from the rooftops. Later, if that same evidence is debunked, then it is "all about faith anyway, and isn't it a shame that you scientists cannot have the truth we feel in our hearts."

As David Hume put it: Man is quick to turn on reason when he fears reason has turned on him"

Well said Chip. Very good point. I couldn't have said it any better myself, so I am not gonna try.

John M writes "I am afraid you are on the wrong track with me. It seems, especially from your most recent posts, that you feel like people have to defend their faith. I really don't have to. I prefer to SHARE my faith. If you reject it, you reject it."

You're playing a semantic game here, John. All ideas, especially those asserted as truth, can only be evaluated on the same merits as any other idea - that is, how well they can be supported empirically and the impact they have on society as a whole. If we lived in a world where your beliefs didn't impact the freedoms of everyone else then I could respect your position (even though I'd still find it disingenuous), but that's not the world we live in.

Our laws are rife with religious influence, impacting everything from our freedom of speech to our drug laws to the civil rights afforded various members of our society. Your right to make up your own truth outside the bounds of reason extend only as far as the intersection with other people's rights. You may be very liberal in regard to the rights of others, and if so that's commendable, but none of the Abrahamic religions are. They continue to force restrictions on freedoms and influence on the public square with a fervor we haven't seen in this country since the 1950's. As long as that remains the case, you can expect atheists to fight for their rights to self-determination, and to see all Christians (in a broad sense) as an impediment in that regard.

"But, what you don't realize is that we Christians actually have a RELATIONSHIP with the God you deny exists. So, all of your clever statements do nothing at all to take that away from us."

If you're honest with yourself and with those with whom you debate you have to acknowledge how hollow such claims sound. By stating you have a "relationship" with something that cannot in any way be proven to exist, or be supported at all empirically, such claims are reduced to just that... claims. You're basically saying that your claim is true simply on the basis of the fact that you've made the claim. Religionists defend their beliefs by demanding their claims be held to a different standard of evidence than any other human idea, and that's simply not supportable by any standard except one that has no interest in objective truth. You can call it "faith" or "a relationship" or invent a whole new word to describe it, but that's simply semantics and changes nothing.

"You seem to think that by reason you may be able to 'talk some sense' into us. But, I would never give up what I have in Christ. I can't prove it, I can't 'argue you into heaven', and I cannot make you feel the peace that now defines my very existence. All I can do is tell you about it."

I don't say this to pick on you personally, but you've just perfectly expressed a point of view that I find very hard to treat with tolerance. In essence, what you're saying here, in no uncertain terms, is that you will voluntarily cling to your belief despite any evidence or information that may come along to contradict it - that no one could ever say anything to you, no matter how well reasoned, and no matter how backed up by empirical, measurable, or verifiable fact, that could make you reevaluate your position or what you view as truth. That's the embodiment of unreasonableness and as such gives you little right to demand that others be reasonable in return. Would you still say "I would never give up what I have in Christ" if I appended it with "no matter how negatively it impacts those people I share the planet with" or "no matter what the truth actually is"? I'm guessing you would, but does it still seem as palatable in that light? Does it give you a right to demand that others be sensitive to such a position?

Should unreason be considered something else simply on the basis that you choose to call it "faith" instead? Imagine if that argument were applied to any non-religious unverifiable claim. Say, for instance, I state unequivocally that I can transmute lead into gold and refuse to demonstrate it, but defend my claim by saying it's faith and therefor not bound by any normal standard of evidence. No one, including yourself, would see it as anything other than what it was - simply an unverifiable claim unreasonably asserted as truth on the basis that I would like it to be true, regardless of what the objective truth might actually be. I can only speak for myself, but that's why I have so little patience for religion. That's not to say I have no patience for religious people, but we're not talking about your fitness as a tennis partner or next door neighbor. I'm talking about truth claims, and those can only be evaluated through reason, logic, empiricism, and objective fact.

I will never accept that anyone gets to assert something as fact and then demand it be held to a lesser standard than any other kind of claim, or use it as a justification to define the freedoms allowed to other people. What you choose to call "faith" I call a refusal to be bound by truth, whatever that truth may ultimately be. In that sense you're quite right. You can't be reasoned with. I'll never understand how that became something people celebrate as some kind of commendable position. No one gets to opt out of objective empirical truth, no matter their protestations to the contrary. My rights are defined in large measure by cultists with no interest in objective truth. I find that situation to be quite intolerable, and worth fighting against.

Tonio writes:

"That's what I find ironic - I've read that most Christians and most Christian denominations see no conflict between their faith and evolution. Many opponents of evolution argue or imply that a literal reading of Genesis is the only other position"

Tonio:

I agree that there are many christians who accept evolution, with god as the kick-starter and regulator. I can live with that, although the Dover PA schoolboard got it right on ID's merely posing as science. Those are the efforts to be on-guard for, the flank attack from religion in science's uniform. If you have not read Behe's material, I recommend it.

Your observation about the false dilemma creationists set up is also cogent. "Its either evolution as it is understood in any given moment....or its creationism." And further, if there is any element of evolutionary understanding that, admittedly, requires further study, then creationism wins by default without ever putting up supporting evidence of its own.

On this thread you can see what happens when "literalist/inerrantists" make all sorts of truth claims, in very confrontational terms as they tell others they are in error on any number of things. Some of these claims are actually subject to logical refutation, but when someone calls them on it, or even signals that they are about to ask them to defend some of the claims to objective truth they have made, they retreat into the "just here to talk about my faith" zone. Then they have nothing to offer.

I do, however, recognize that not all believers engage in this fashion, and I appreciate people such as yourself, CCNL, Jihadist etc.

Freevoice:

"Why do you fear Christians? Do they make you feel un-comfortable because you have skeletons in your closet that you would rather keep a secret?"

Oh, please. Don't project your weirdness on me.

I fear Christians because they're turning this country into a Christian nation under a Christian government. (Note: It is now legal to discriminate in public hiring on the basis of religion. The only thing that was preventing it was an executive order, which Bush has set aside.)

They're trying to pass a Constitutional amendment to permanently abrogate the rights of homosexuals.

They (some of them) have the stated goal of taking over the world, and they have a good start. (Can't happen? Check your medieval history. Inquisition? Persecution of the Jews?)

They preach "total abstinence" to high school kids, and if you tell them that doesn't work, they say, "I don't care what works! I only care about the truth!"

They're packing the Supreme Court with Catholics.

They...

But I'm tired. Watch for Michelle Goldberg's book (it may already be out), _Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism_, W.W. Norton & Co. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, it can only be because you're a fundamentalist Christian.

As for Muslim "fundies," I used to live a half-mile from the World Trade Center.(Please, as a favor to me, stop calling it "The Twin Towers." That was never its name. Above ground, it was actually seven buildings, and they all fell.) When it fell, I wept for months. Does anything more need to be said about Muslim fundamentalists? Except "lock and load?"

Excellent piece, Susan! I completey concur.

And thank you so very much for the very important mention of our late American "Great Agnostic", Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. It's such a tragedy that Americans of today are completely unaware of him and his brilliant works. He remains the greatest orator of freethought in our nation's history. He attracted the largest gatherings, in terms of percentage of American citizens, to attend his lectures at locations all over the country.

When I first began reading his essays and lectures of the late 19th century, which was many years ago, the raw truthfulness and honesty in his most eloquent words brought tears down this man's cheeks many times. I cannot urge people strongly enough to seek his works for a reading experience they'll never regret, nor ever forget.

One of the comments above makes a reference to the "religion of naturalism." I do hope all of you theists realize how stupid this comment is. "Religion of naturalism?" Could somebody please explain what the hell this means?

"I disagree with you, but I don't imagine that you are going to come to my house to take my books, or try to make me teach creationism in biology lectures."

That's what I find ironic - I've read that most Christians and most Christian denominations see no conflict between their faith and evolution. Many opponents of evolution argue or imply that a literal reading of Genesis is the only other position. But almost all religions have creation stories - why should anyone give preference to Genesis, and why would it be necessary to read that book literally?

"Atheist seem to have very strong opinions about Christians and Christianity , but I detect a cowardice when it comes to the Muslim fundis, they rather bow down, sit down and have a dialogue and reason"

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are certainly no cowards when it comes to criticizing Islam. "The End of Faith" and "The God Delusion" in some ways are more critical of Islam than of Christianity.

FV; my last was in response to yours.

I think that your observation regarding the Netherlands restricting expression based on conformity to multi-culti and PC demands, is a provocative one. It strikes me that there is a self-refutation in the whole relativistic post-modern ethos. The statement "there is no truth that is not relative, is itself a non-relative truth." I find that rather humorous at times, enraging at others.

As for America's embracing competing ideas, I am not certain that there is as much embracing as there is an inevitable unavoidance. There are a lot of people, including myself, that measure overall social freedoms by the extent to which outrageous speech and behaviors are permitted, provided they do not harm anyone else. The boundaries of anything are defined by those on the boundaries. Thus, I am immediately suspicious of hate-speech regulations, for instance.

But, there are a lot of people out there, on both left and right, that I do think would like to impose their will on the rest. And they are not all as obvious as the Ann Coulters on the right, and Ward Churchills on the left.

John Conolley:

“Atheist are fighting tooth and nail to keep themselves out from under the thumbs of Christians”

Why do you fear Christians? Do they make you feel un-comfortable because you have skeletons in your closet that you would rather keep a secret? There is a reason for everything so you need to stop fearing because there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Atheist seem to have very strong opinions about Christians and Christianity , but I detect a cowardice when it comes to the Muslim fundis, they rather bow down, sit down and have a dialogue and reason….or call in the help of Hirsi Ali to help them express their opinions about that menace…….why is that?

Has anyone listened to the bibical scholar Bart Ehrman author of Misquoting Jesus?

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/11/is_the_bible_in.html

Phaedrus:

I was indeed talking with the voice of Robert de Niro my favorite actor....:-))

I agree to disagree with you. I respect your position but I am holding on to my faith and will not force it anybody. I happen to come from the ultra liberal Netherlands where freedom of speech and freedom of thought is only for a selected so-called educated elite, that is if you stay in the straightjacket of political correctness and multicultural dogma (the religion without God)....but, America has believed that in differentiation, not in uniformity, lays the path to progress. It acted on this belief; it has advanced human happiness and it has prospered. Everybody has the freedom to speak their mind and I would like to see that liberty maintained for believers and non-believers.

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” Benjamin Franklin.

Phaedrus:
I am sorry that I have nothing more to offer you.

John: You previously wrote:

"Please don't bother telling me that the Bible is full of contradictions and confusing teachings."

Your assertion here is that that the Bible is largely free of contradictions and confusing teachings. My counter-claim is that your statement regarding Biblical contradiction is false. (I will leave the "confusing" aspect out, as it is subjective in nature) One can cite any number of examples of such, which would refute your absolutist argument; but I suspect that you know this and do not want to pursue the subject any further.

As to your schooling and profession, that is one of the great things about threads such as this. I could be the village alcoholic degenerate and my claims would be considered on their merits alone, stripped of their appeals to authority. Same with everyone else.

if you do not think that you should back up your rather assertive claims to truth with supporting evidence of such, fair enough. I , and I imagine others, will keep this in mind when you attack the claims of others, like CCNL and E Favorite in the future.

Phaedrus:
I am afraid you are on the wrong track with me. It seems, especially from your most recent posts, that you feel like people have to defend their faith. I really don't have to. I prefer to SHARE my faith. If you reject it, you reject it.

Since this forum began at the end of last year, I have watched you debate Christians with this mindset that they cannot prove their faith and they cannot answer your probing inquiries. But, what you don't realize is that we Christians actually have a RELATIONSHIP with the God you deny exists. So, all of your clever statements do nothing at all to take that away from us. You seem to think that by reason you may be able to 'talk some sense' into us. But, I would never give up what I have in Christ. I can't prove it, I can't 'argue you into heaven', and I cannot make you feel the peace that now defines my very existence. All I can do is tell you about it.

You can't stick God under a microscope. You can't run a DNA sample on Him. You can't see, hear or touch Him. It's a faith thing, and it defies some of your logic.

Just so you know, I am a doctor with an undergraduate degree in Biology, and I am a professor at a large university. God is the God of us all, even those of us who are well educated :)

I am sorry that I have nothing more to offer you.

Freevoice:

"Atheists have the right not to believe in God but they do not have the right to impose their will on others who happen to just believe in the God of Christianity and Jesus Christ."

Athiests are fighting tooth and nail to keep themselves out from under the thumbs of christians (Want a cold chill? Google on Christian Dominionism.), and this bird calls that "imposing their will." This cheap trick can only possibly work on naive christians. Young Christians, look around you. Be careful what you're co-opted into.

FV:

Actually that was to John, but I hope you do not mind that I get a hoot out of imaging you saying "Are you talking to me?" with the voice of Robert Deniro!

I respect your view, I really do. I disagree with you, but I don't imagine that you are going to come to my house to take my books, or try to make me teach creationism in biology lectures. Right?

Phaedrus:

I did not say that he did. That would be inconsistent, as I say there is no reason to believe that such a being exists. You, however, appear to claim that the Bible does not contain any contradictory assertions. Is that correct?

---------

Are you talking to me?

I want to answer the question...at some point in my life I had great issues with the bible to me it was just a book written by people. My journey through the secular world brought me to the understanding that it was about the message behind the word...once you have the wisdom and understanding the Holy bible become clear and simply...no contradiction but divine revelation.

I enjoy this exchange...I really do....:-)

Freevoice:

Read your history. For most of the middle ages the Arab world was far more open than the west. Most of the philosophical and scientific gains during this period were seen in the Arab world. The greatest library in antiquity was established in Alexandria. Were it not for the Arabs, we would know very little of what Aristotle, for one, actually wrote.

You are referring to conditions in the modern Islamic world. More's the pity, such a proud heritage has been almost completely eclipsed.

John, the previous post was to you. And, let me say up front that you seem to be making an absolutist argument. All that is required to refute an absolutist argument is a single example that runs contrary to that argument. Just to be clear.

Phaedrus:

The openness of the Islam world influenced the enlightenment thinkers and the Arab world performed an enormous service for the Western mind but today we see the Western mind and the modern enlightenment thinkers heralding Hirsi Ali who does nothing more than bashing Islam and religion as a whole and perpetuating the stereotype of feminist in the West that Muslim (non-white) women are brainless human degenerates who are victims of male oppression through religion. Don’t you see what is wrong with this picture?

I did not say that he did. That would be inconsistent, as I say there is no reason to believe that such a being exists. You, however, appear to claim that the Bible does not contain any contradictory assertions. Is that correct?

Freevoice:

It seems that you have not understood any of my key points. I say this because almost every paragrah from your most recent post contain little but straw-man argumentation.

I believe that people should have the right to think as they wish, but not to impose their view on others through government or any other form of compulsion. However, religious ideas are only ideas, and are subject to the same kinds of scrutiny that all the others are. I happpen to find that they are without logical merit, but there are many intelligent and otherwise logical people who happen to believe in them nonetheless. Fair enough, I accept that, and happily exchange views with them, provided that they follow the rules of logical discourse. You can review this thread and find believers of more than one religion who do so.

But, then there are others who make claims wildly, and then fail to back them up according to the rules. Some non-believers do this too, I do not wish to be unfair.

Were I King of America, I would no more think to abolish religion than I would post-modern philosophy or public displays of affection. (Actually, I would resign immediately!) Freethought is exactly what it says it is. However, no assertion that one makes in public should be placed on a pedestal, free of aggressive requirement to defend itself according to its merits, or cease to be taken seriously.

Sounds like you understnd me well. So, when did God lie?

John, you are the one who has made claims suggestive of inerrantism and a belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. You are the one who made the claim that your personal understanding of scripture transcended that of others who find discrepancies and factual errors. You are the person making the claims John. My questions are simply designed to make certain that you are saying what I think you might be saying. Someone who seems as confident in their view as you do, should have no difficulty in answering these questions.

Any follow up that I, or others on this thread, might have, should be based upon a clear understanding of what you are actually claiming.

Phaedrus:

I did not go into detail about the Greeks because I am not talking politics and don’t have a lot of details about their history. I can tell you this much; if the Greeks or Romans were doing the right thing under the heavens we would still have those empires thriving today.

To me it’s not about knowing all that is new, it is more about knowing less that is false, that is wisdom. I am not being presumptuous, so forgive me if I offended you. For all the religions and their practices there is but one God and all peoples come from the same source. Strive comes in because human beings are always right in their own eyes. They most certainly hate or oppose things (people) who confront them with their own inferiority.

Your last post makes it clear that you mix religion with politics, which is exactly my point people can’t seem to have enough. Religion becomes a tool to further a political agenda. It is either my way or no way. You also take an arrogant and condescending position to assume that people who believe in God are just a bunch of ignorant uneducated fools.

You also seem to have a problem with the supposed religious tyranny insinuating it self into government at the present but you don’t seem to have a problem with the non-religious tyranny and brainwashing that has controlled government for decades which comes from academia and the so-called enlightened intelligentsia isn’t it.

Atheists have the right not to believe in God but they do not have the right to impose their will on others who happen to just believe in the God of Christianity and Jesus Christ.

Sam Harris is doing the same thing calling for an end to faith…..who crowned him to become the King of the supposed fools?

This sounds like a set-up. Please say what you want to say. Tell me when God lied and stop playing games with me.

And, for the sake of complete thoroughness, would god ever lie?

Then, let me ask the question a different way:

Do you believe that every word of the Bible is the true word of god, without exception?

Phaedrus: I really don't like any label, aside from "Christian". As I wrote earlier, I read the Bible to mean what it most obviously says. I call that "taking the Bible at face value".

So, since the Bible says it was written by God, I believe that. If it was not, then it was written by liars who claimed they were speaking for God. Since the Bible claims to quote Jesus, I believe He actually said those things. If He did not say those things, again we have liars writing the Bible. Those are just two examples.

I am afraid you might be trying to set me up by pidgeon-holing me into a label. I hope I am wrong.

John M:

I asked you, yesterday, a question that you did not answer.

Do you consider yourself to be an inerrantist, and a literalist?

FREEVOICE,

HERE ARE YOUR THREE QUESTIONS:

1. How can you hate something that you don’t know and have no experience with?

2. Why did the early settlers left [sic] Europe for America seeking religious freedom?

3.Why is it that 90% of Americans believe in God?

HERE ARE MY THREE ANSWERS:

1. I know and have had experience of Christianity. In public school I was forced to recite The Lord's Prayer every morning, though I didn't want to.

I don't hate Christianity as a doctrine, though I think it's foolish. I hate Christianity's attempts to enforce its beliefs in our civil and criminal laws, and in people's bedrooms.

2. To get away from Christianity.

3. They say they believe in God because they're afraid of the social consequences of saying otherwise. Question: Why do they act as if they didn't?

Gary D is right. As I said earlier, every time a television show is aired on Jesus, Christianity or the Bible, these Jesus Seminarians are front and center, speaking with authority. Very frustrating.

GARYD,

You see a lawyer or doctor based on their creditials. If you want an expert on religion you check their creditials. Please note the creditials of the On-Faith panelists. Yes indeed, all are worthy experts.

And please cite references to back up your statistical claims.

Being a member of the On Faith panel should in no wise be seen as any kind of guarantor of the scholarship or lack there of of anyone here.

Sorry but the Crossan and the Jesus seminarians represent about 1% of current Christian theological scholarship The other 99% disagree with his findings completely. You see this is one of the things that irritate me so much with the modern media, to wit, their willingness to take what is a small fringe group at best and act as if it was the majority or worse the only voice among hundreds worth listening to.

Freevoice:

In the absence of an actual response from you to the real content of my last post, I will go ahead and respond to the content of your last post.

I do not hate christianity, and despite your presumptuousness I am quite familiar with not only christianity, but also other religious systems; eastern and western, monotheistic and non-theistic. Your very question, and the fact that you asked it of me twice (I thought you were being rhetorical the first time), suggests that you really believe that if someone criticizes christian beliefs, they must not know anything about them. This may be true for some, but most credible people do not critique a thing of which they are ignorant.

I wrote what I did because it is accurate, and was written in response to an assertion you made that was inaccurate; namely, that the west owes its intellectual and governmental foundations to christianity.

As for why so many people believe in any supernatural system, I could respond with the scientific data on why such beliefs may have provided evolutionary advantages, or I could get into cognitive dissonance effects, or attributional biases, or defense mechanisms, or any number of sociological phenomena, or some such. Or, I could take the tack that Americans really do not know what they actually believe to any significant extent, as suggested in the Prothero book. I could mention the incredible extent of ignorance regarding science in this country, and history as well. (I wonder how many people, if asked if time were absolute would respond in the affirmative?)

But, since I see that your question really is rhetorical this time, and that the real statement you are making is; "If this many people believe in something, then it has to exist." I can simply say "No, it does not." In fact this is merely an example of the "ad populum fallacy."

As for the early Americans who left England to come here, they were fleeing religious tyranny when they did so. The fact that so many of their ancestors seem to have little discomfort at the thought of religion insinuating itself into government now, is a rather delicious irony.

Bismillah

THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S LAST SERMON
(This Sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H in the Uranah Valley of mount Arafat ) Note: Found on the Net, but without source or copyright information. Please contact halsall@muray.fordham.edu if you have information

"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I don't know whether, after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you carefully and TAKE THIS WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (Interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for your safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have right over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to commit adultery.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadhan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION.

Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR'AN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. BE MY WITNESS O ALLAH THAT I HAVE CONVEYED YOUR MESSAGE TO YOUR PEOPLE."

Phaedrus:

There is something in the nature of things which the mind of man, which reason, which human power cannot effect, and certainly that which produces this must be better than man. What can this be but God?

It is obvious that you have issues with Christianity and most of the time it is personal as most atheist want to disprove the existence of God. I would like you to answer the following questions.

How can you hate something that you don’t know and have no experience with?
Why did the early settlers left Europe for America seeking religious freedom?
Why is it that 90% of Americans believe in God?

All of this blogging (on any sites, really) is more than enough empirical evidence to confirm Reinhold Niebuhr's observation that original sin and total depravity is the most tangible symptom of the sorrowful and wretched human condition.

But as for Jacoby, at least she is weary, as most sensible people in this country have become (not including most of the bloggers in this place, obviously), of the consumerist, conformist "fixes" proposed by conventional Christianity for gullible absoption Sunday after Sunday by egotistic, bigoted, fearful Americans.

Soren Kierkegaard once said that he preferred honest atheists to cultural Christians, and I concur with that in my appreciation for Jacoby's effort to expose this cant--despite the fact that I hold views that regard consistent atheism as a burden that ultimately crushes humanity's weak shoulders. But, then again, so does religion as a cultural phenomenon divorced from the hope obtained in waiting upon God that I consider true Christianity.

E Fav - I have taken many college theology courses and that is just a joke.

You think that's an intelligent post?

Phaedrus: "...the anti-intellectual thread that runs through much of christian dogma, and which is seen on many of these threads, dates back to the very beginnings of Paul's mission."

Scary, isn't it?

John M -- Ok, forget the priest,, ask a minister - but not a fundamentalism minister - it's my understanding that they are asked to sign a statement when they enter seminary that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, thus stifling any consideration of biblical scholarship.

It would be as if student rocket scientists were compelled to sign a statement that they would not consider any advances since Sputnik.

Freethought:

You seem to think that the foundations of western culture stem from Christianity. I disagree completely, and posit that the values most dear to Americans are those of the enlightenment, which were themselves a revival of classical modes of thought.

Specifically, we owe most of our gratitude to the ancient Greeks, who gave birth to the "reason" on which our intellectual heritage and governmental system rest.

When Constantine embraced Christianity and laid the foundation for the alliance of government with religion, the Greek intellectual tradition was one of the casualties. Were it not for the relative openness of the Islamic world at the time, we would not have many of the Greek literary masterpieces and philosophical works that so influenced the enlightenment thinkers coming later. By preserving these writings, the Arab world performed an enormous service for the western mind, as well as their own.

In the effort to establish rigid orthodoxy and stifle diverging points of view, early Christian leaders (4th-5th centuries) retarded the progress of human understanding of the natural world, as well as reason itself. The Greek thnkers' appeal to the natural world as providing a basis for the discovery of "truth, was intolerable to the church, who viewed the mundane as profane. Paul had begun this process in his attacks on intellectual understanding, e.g. "...the empty logic of the philosophers," and the late Roman Empire placed the might of the state behind such sentiment. The Platonic tradition survived in modified form however, because of its focus on the transcendant (the forms) as opposed to naturalistic observation and inductive logic. Scientific understanding was stopped in its tracks. Thus, an oppressive political system supported a religious heirarchy that asphyxiated the Greek intellectual tradition.

Although it is true that byzantine monks did a service by copying some of the Greek texts, the intellectual process that gave rise to the writings themselves was lost. It was not until Copernicus risked his life in the 16th century by taking ancient Ptolemaic observations and reinterpreting them in a heliocentric model that science began to reassert itself in the West. This scientific reawakening was loosely paralleled by social changes that ultimately led to the separating of church from state that we enjoy today. (I will not try to trace the course of the Rennaisance and Enlightnment periods, for reasons of length)

My position remains that what intellectual and societal freedoms the west enjoys today are not due to the Christian tradition, but that of the Greeks. And, further, that the anti-intellectual thread that runs through much of christian dogma, and which is seen on many of these threads, dates back to the very beginnings of Paul's mission.

John Conolley:

But what if you claimed you were 6'4"?

I am saying that Concerned and his professors are not stating what you are stating...that they do not believe.

Sorry if I offended you.

John M.:

"At least Atheists and Agnostics ADMIT that they are Atheists and Agnostics."

You make it sound like a crime.

I state that I'm an atheist in much the same manner I would state I have brown hair or I'm 5'10". It's a datum. The word "ADMIT" doesn't apply.

Concerned:
Sorry, but I never asked for any help. I am not searching. Was. Found Him. Now, I'm happy and truly liberated.

John,

There is no more I can do for you. You have the references to the books written by a large number of NT scholars, not all are Jesus Seminarians. Get back to me when you have absorbed some these books and we will again discuss true Christianity.

Phaedrus:

Fundies come in all colors, shapes, sizes and can be found in any religion. In that I consider all fundies a menace. The minute you single out Christianity for attack you become one-sided which leads to another form of fundamentalism. Case in point Hirsi Ali is heralded for bashing Islam, while other people such Pim Fortuyn are being killed for doing the same thing. Why? Liberal extremism and cultural Marxism both are religions without. It is also ok for Hirsi Ali to trash Christianity while she is an atheist Muslim who does not believe in God. As a feminist that is all ok because she supposedly wants to liberate Muslim women from religious oppression…the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

People in the West are so bend on destroying Western civilization that has Christianity at its foundation and see it fit to herald everybody who takes part in denouncing religion and God while God has nothing to do with the oppression of people or other social ills for that matter. As a believer woman and mother I will not sit idle and have people trash God and Christianity because they consider themselves to be all knowing on earth. How can you hate something that you don’t know and have no experience with?

John M:

Thee is more irony in your last post than anything Swift ever wrote ( I guess it was the island scenario you use that makes me think of old JS).

But rather than point these out, let me just ask if you consider yourself to be a literalist and an inerrantist?

Concerned:
I don't like the tone of your question.

I don't have to prove to you that I have researched their teachings enough to make a judgment.

I have seen them all over the television. They are the primary sources and guests on every cable and network show on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible. I have attended a very liberal Bible Study for five years taught by people who have been trained (brainwashed?) by these Jesus Seminar people. I have read numerous articles and websites. I am informed enough to know that they do not read the Bible as I do.

The funny thing is that the only real history we have on Jesus is in the Bible. It is also the best source of information on the early Church. And, there are many sources in the first hundred years of the Church showing that they believed what the Bible said then and still says now. But, these people cast that aside and make up theories that are not provable. They are laughed at by serious theologians who take the Bible to be what it says it is.

Now, I'll ask you a question: Have you ever read anything outside the circle of Catholicism? Have you ever tried to listen to or speak to an Evangelical Christian pastor? Have you read any of their books? I wonder if you believe what Crossan writes because you don't want to know God or live for Him. I'm not judging you; I lived there for 38 years myself before I sought God with all my heart.

Thanks for trying to inform me; I am not buying any of it. The amazing things God had done in my life since that conversion and the deep truths He has taught me in His Word are enough proof for me.

John M,

Please list the references you used to research the works of the Jesus Seminarians. And please list the Jesus Seminarian books you have read.

To E Fav, Concerned-the-Non-Christian, and Phaedrus:

It is a little presumptive to recommend I speak to a priest. I am NOT Catholic :)

I would not trust what priests were taught about the Bible. At the risk of upsetting Catholics, the Catholic Church needs to undermine the Bible in order to support many of the non-biblical teachings it espouses. That, I suspect, is why Crossan and Catholic professors are not disciplined by the Vatican.

You also seem to think I have been TAUGHT what I believe. The reality is that I have learned what I have learned from the Bible alone, as believers have done for two thousand years.

Here is a scenario I use to describe how I read the Bible. Imagine you are the only survivor of a shipwreck. You have never heard anything at all about Jesus, the Bible or Christianity. Along with you, a Bible washes up on shore. It has no notes or commentaries in it. Just the text of the Bible. So, you read it, cover to cover, over and over, until you come to believe it. When you get rescued, what would your belief system be like? I would like to suggest that it would be very, very close to what Christians who take the Bible at face value believe.

I challenge myself to read the Bible this way every time I open it. I don't listen to any human teacher whose teachings do not line up with what I know the Bible says. The remarkable thing is that the millions of us who read it this way all seem to agree on what it so clearly says.

Please don't bother telling me that the Bible is full of contradictions and confusing teachings. If you really read it, really looking for the Truth and not trying to trash it, you would see that. If you read it like you were stranded on an island (which is not far from the truth, spiritually), you might come to read it as I do.

I have researched what these Jesus Seminar people teach, and there is no evidence whatsoever in anything they teach. In the end, they have created a scenario where you can't ever know God, commune with Him, or even be sure He exists. At least Atheists and Agnostics ADMIT that they are Atheists and Agnostics.

John M – I strongly suggest you personally talk to a couple of Catholic professors of biblical studies to hear for yourself what is being taught. I also suggest you speak to a couple of parish priests and ask them what they learned in seminary about how the NT was written (by whom, over what period of time, etc.) and what they learned about the resurrection. Specifically ask them if a metaphorical resurrection was ever discussed. Then when they answer, listen not only to their words, but also carefully observe their demeanor. Do they seem nervous? Uncomfortable? Eager to move on? Do they address your questions directly, or give a vague, somewhat unrelated answer. Do they use phrases like “according to our beliefs” or “in our tradition?” If so, remind them that you want to know what they learned in class about Christian history, not about what the church teaches.

I’d be interested in hearing the results of these conversations.

Thanks

Freevoice:

Thanks for the response.

Although I see points of agreement between our respective positions, there is one key element I should try to clarify. There is a fundamental difference between espousing and defending one's views, and "imposing" them. Ms. jacoby, and other freethinkers do not seek to "impose" anything on anyone. Yes, SJ makes her points forcefully, but there is no element of compulsion therein. To do so would be to undermine the very foundation of "freethinking," in that it strips out the "free" aspect.

Of course, not all theists are able to make the same claim. But some can, and do, and I do not consider them to be a threat to our liberties. I enjoy exchanging thoughts with them. Fundies, however, well, I consider them a menace.

The above post to Phaedrus is from Freevoice

Phaedrus:

The minute you start blaming elements out-side of yourself such as the media, God, religion and Christianity in particular you are no longer a free-thinker but a prisoner of your own thoughts which you desperately want to impose on others to validate your point. The statement “In God Our Press Trusts” says it all. It’s blaming the media for mentioning God which is connected to Christianity.

Because I look in the mirror everyday I came to the conclusion that the misery of people comes from people. Man’s inhumanity to man. You came come down own Christianity all you want but it sure has the ingredients to tame the beast in us. You take a look around, the entire modern intellectual (so-called enlightenment) movement of the past, they had the same need: replace the religion with God with the religion(s) without God. Take an honest look and see what good they have brought humanity.

John M writes:

" we humans are so intelligent and scientific nowadays that we can pick apart the Bible and rob ourselves of the faith that has given Christians life and hope for two thousand years. That's tragic."

"Life" and "hope" do not require belief in the supernatural. I take note that you leave out the question as to whether the truth-claims of inerrantist aplologetics measure up to those born of the scientific method. They do not.

There are many people out there who prefer the search for reliable "knowledge" of the world morseo than good feelings. Attaching emotional "comfort" to the criteria for determining the reliabilty and validity of any claim is simply spitting in the soup of any truth-search.

Freevoice writes:

"God is not responsible for the misery in the world people are."

Givent that gods are concepts created by human beings, then this is at least partially corrrect. Of course, only a foolish person would claim that any one "thing" is solely responsible for any condition.

As for the rest of your post, if you were to actually read Ms. Jacoby's book, I doubt you would find evidence for ay multi-culti or feminist agenda. Freethinkers are no more monolithic than religious people are, which is something of which the theists on these threads tirelessly remind all of us. And rightly so in my view. This insight is to be gained from reading Jihadist's posts regarding Islam, or John D's on Mormonism, and even CCNL's when he sticks to modern Jesus' scholarship.

As for the media; it is a business. Businesses create product to satisfy demand. Americans have tremendous demand for entertainment, of which voyeuristic titillation is one form. Watching talking heads yell polemics at one another, or focusing attention on the lives of celebrities whose very fame is the source of its future self, in some curious fashion, is a great way to detatch from ones own life. Much of the modern media offering may have replaced Marx's concept of religion as a mass opiate.

So, if you want to blame someone for the condition of society, look around, providing that the "around" includes a mirror, and think about Pogo's most memorable line.

This is typical feminist girl-power taking on male masculinity…or dare I say God and Christianity in particular that has sustained many for centuries. If Susan Jacoby is really a free-thinker she needs to come of that high horse and stop blaming God and religion but take a look a the people including herself and those other women who use religion as a scapegoat to further their personal political agenda. The media is bombarding people with the suffering of Muslim women, while secularism, multiculturalism, radical feminism is enslaving and destroying the lives of women and wrecking havoc on society at large right under their noses but their silence about that is deafening. God is not responsible for the misery in the world people are. I blame the media for perpetuating that ignorance!

If anyone's a Christian, it's Concerned The Christian Now Liberated. It obvious that this person did not take a passing glance at the question, but has devoted much of thier life to it.

Who died and made JOHN M responsible for the Christian litmus test?

We define who we are because we have free will.

John M - in my opinion the tragic part is that ordinary Christians (pew peasants as Concerned would call them)are deprived of the knowledge of the scriptures and early church history that their clergy learn in seminary.

The priests have a big responsibility in this and I hope their day of reckoning is soon.

To Concerned the Non-Christian:

What exactly about that last post is Christian? Why not be intellectually honest and stop calling yourself a Christian?

Alas, that is the result of this Jesus Seminar nonsense. It allows you to create your own god, your own rules, and live your own life, separate from Him. As a result, you end up without hope, believing that God is beyong knowing, that He cannot help you, and that there may not even be a heaven.

So, we humans are so intelligent and scientific nowadays that we can pick apart the Bible and rob ourselves of the faith that has given Christians life and hope for two thousand years. That's tragic.

IMHO, the words "God" and "not able to" don't belong in the same sentence. My prayers are answered all the time, so I will keep praying for you.

John,

Ahh, prayer another subject for the media.

Some thoughts about prayer and God:

IMHO, God started the Big Bang. This Singularity also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, God is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered.

Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the varability/randomness of Nature.

So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

John M - I doubt that any "they" has misled Concerned. I think he's reached his own conclusions.

You might consider that you've been misled - if you simply believe what you've been taught.

If you do some independent study, you might not come to the same conclusions as Concerned, but I think you'll have a much deeper understanding than you currently do.

Concerned - thanks for responding directly to John's questions.

Concerned-

WOW.

They really have you misled. I am so sorry. I guess all I can do is pray for you.

John M,

Who really knows the answers to your inquisition? You take the literal word of four ancient books and a number of ancient epistles none of which agree on the basics. Because of these disagreements, NT scholars for the past two hundred years have sorted through all the available texts written in the first to fourth centuries. Professor Crossan's references are listed at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

An excerpt:

FIRST STRATUM [30-60 CE]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians [I Thess]. Written from Corinth in late 50 CE (Koester, 1982:2.112).
2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians [Gal]. Written from Ephesus possibly in the winter of 52-53 CE (Koester, 1982:2.116).
3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians [1 Cor]. Written from Ephesus in the winter of 53-54 CE (Koester, 1982:2.121).
4. Letter of Paul to the Romans [Rom]. Written from Corinth in the winter of 55-56 CE (Koester, 1982:2.138).
5. Gospel of Thomas I [Gos. Thom. I]. A serial collection of Jesus' sayings with limited individual linkage by means of theme, word, or expression..
6. Egerton Gospel [Eger. Gos.].
7. Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325 [P. Vienna G. 2325]. )
8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 [P. Oxy. 1224].
9. Gospel of the Hebrews [Gos. Heb].
10. Sayings Gospel Q now imbedded within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
11. Miracles Collection now imbedded within the Gospels of Mark and John.
12. Apocalyptic Scenario now imbedded in Didache 16 and Matthew 24.
13. Cross Gospel now imbedded in the Gospel of Peter [Gos. Pet.].

Most of these texts along with all of Professor Crossan's references are presented/discussed in great detail at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

My answers to your inquisition are a work in progress but typically follow the conclusions of Professor Crossan, those of my good theology and Catholic professor friend who has validated most of Crossan's/Jesus Seminarians conclusions and the offerings of Father Edward Schillebeeckx the famous Catholic theologian.

1. "You say you are a Christian who attends church. How do you know you will be taken to be with Jesus when you die if you deny the Resurrection and the Ascension?"

Jesus surely was crucified and his soul is in Heaven as are all the souls/spirits of good persons. His body is not. I am a good person, i.e. follow the Twelve commandments, so thereby my spirit should go to Heaven at my passing.

There will be no second coming if that is what you are alluding to. It is obvious, Paul blew the prophecy but it did open a lot of Gentile purse strings while it lasted.

2. "How can you have a personal relationship with Jesus (as does MTMAV) if you do not recognoize Him to be who Christians have always believed He is? In other words, WHAT god are you worshipping?"

Do you mean do I believe Jesus is God? No, and neither did the original followers. All the NT references were embellishments to give Jesus the aura of a Caesar and other emporers who the Romans made into gods by giving them heavenly fathers and earthly mothers or vice-versa. See also the previous On Faith discussion about the deity of Jesus plus Hanson and Oakman's book, Palestine in the Time of Jesus.

And as Karen Armstrong (another On Faith panelist) noted, "Are we not all sons and daughters of God". Of course we are.

"3. If Jesus is not who he revealed Himself to be (since you believe the authors of the Bible just made up everything), on what are you basing your image or reality of God?"

More scribal embellishments of the NT made to compete with the gods of Rome and Greece and to complete some old OT "prophecies" i.e. ("prophecy turned into history rather than history remembered" . No one can make an image or have a real sense of God. God is unknowable. The NT by the way is, as per Professor Crossan, on solid ground for ~30% for the sayings and ways of Jesus. We definitely need a rewrite!!!!

"4. If you deny Jesus' atonement for your sins, on what basis will you be able to enter into God's presence and stand before Him at the end of your life?"

I will have no problem standing before God. Those that take the word of ancient scribes without proper review of scriptural content via God's gifts of common sense and reason might have some problems.

Killing your son for the sins of others is a form of filicide. Not something I want to accuse God of. And you really believe God requires a descendent and the assistance of another spirit or "pretty wingy things", God being God and all??? But again God is unknowable!!!

John Conolley:

No. It's actually the Jesus Seminar people who make things up and then claim authority and popularity. That's part of their technique. They are the ones with no evidence.

Anonymous:

"There are many, MANY religious scholars who disagree with the Jesus Seminar's findings and methods. Very few of who they proclaim to be scholars can actually even be considered to be leading figures in NT studies."

Interesting technique. Make the insanest possible assertion in the most offhand manner, with no shred of evidence, and maybe someone will believe you.

For "Concerned" and all:

In your 9:12am post above, you stated:

"Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist."

Sorry, but you and your friend(s) are wrong.

Your reference: "The Catechism of the Catholic church" revised and updated during 1997/98 at the behest of JPII.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI

para. 1257: "The LORD HIMSELF affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation." John 3:5

para. 1263: "By baptism, all sins are forgiven, all personal sins, *ORIGINAL SIN* as well as all punishment for sin.

para. 1277: " ..... it (baptism) is necessary for salvation....."

On the existence of Original sin .........

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

"*ORIGINAL SIN* may be taken to mean (1) the sin that Adam committed or (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

For all: This is exactly why the Catholic church has a Catechism and other official, doctrinal documents. If disagreement occurs, we can fall back on these doctrinal documents vice the opinion of someone you meet on the internet.

Have a good weekend.

For All: I read "Concern's" 09:12 AM post above. As always, it is littered with inaccuracies and errors this time regarding the Catholic position on Original sin and the need for baptism. "Cardinal" Concerned references some anonymous theology Professor at some unnamed Catholic school yet NEVER references easy to access Catholic Doctrinal documents. I will. In my next Post, I will pick apart just one of his errors with AUTHORITATIVE, current Catholic references predicated on Biblical scripture.

My point: Please do NOT predicate your understanding, opinion, like or dislike of Catholicism based on what "Cardinal Concerned" posts. He is quite frequently wrong.

John M. wrote:

"I am not sure I would even call them Catholic..."

I know; it was a feeble attempt at sarcasm, like my sarcastic Friend is so good at. :)

E. Fav:
Thanks for encouraging Concerned to answer.

Concerned:
I do hope you respond personally, since the questions I asked are all PERSONAL. (How do YOU know you are going heaven? How do YOU feel you will be able to stand in the presence of Almighty God? How do YOU know God personally? How do YOU know these Jesus Seminar people are right?)

Anonymous:
I agree that these 'Jesus Seminar' people do not believe the essential Christian doctrines, but I am not sure I would even call them Catholic, since basic Catholic doctrines include Jesus' divinity, resurrection, ascension, and sacrificial death for our sins (and I am not Catholic).

All hail Anonymous, absolute knowledge of our Lord.

Concerned wrote:

"Professor Crossan by the way is still a Catholic in good standing with the Church..."

Catholic maybe, but not Christian. Crossan and the rest of his Jesus Seminar cronies don't believe that Jesus was the Christ; and gee, that's where the word Christian comes from. They can call themselves Christians all they want; it doesn't make it so.

There are many, MANY religious scholars who disagree with the Jesus Seminar's findings and methods. Very few of who they proclaim to be scholars can actually even be considered to be leading figures in NT studies.

Concerned – I was looking forward to your response and am disappointed that you essentially told John M to “go read a book.” Assuming you have answers (and I think you do),I think John deserves a personal reply.

Regarding your professor friend, as I said earlier, I can understand that he would not want to identify himself publicly (after all, the posters here not identified publicly), but I would just like to hear (from you) what his concerns are – what repercussions might result, etc.

(By the way, I have heard the same kind of things – from former Catholic seminarians).

John M,

The answers to your questions are in the books (media to stay on topic) listed in the previously referenced internet site.

Professor Crossan by the way is still a Catholic in good standing with the Church, i.e. no Vatican censure, so his books should be on the top of your "To Read" list.

My theology professor friend is also a Catholic and a member of a large Catholic religious order.

Some added teachings by the professor:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic(also taught in Catholic highschools). This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have risen. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for
some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])."

Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin. Original Sin is symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.

Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home. Since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the
members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of Catholicism.)"

Concerned:

I did identify myself by name. I accidentally posted anonymously, and then I immediately posted and identified myself.

I am not at all unfamiliar with these "Jesus Seminar" folks, as well as the "Higher Criticism" movement that began about two hundred years ago. Instead of arguing against those theories (which we could do later, if you choose), I would like to focus on more pressing questions...

1. You say you are a Christian who attends church. How do you know you will be taken to be with Jesus when you die if you deny the Resurrection and the Ascension?

2. How can you have a personal relationship with Jesus (as does MTMAV) if you do not recognoize Him to be who Christians have always believed He is? In other words, WHAT god are you worshipping?

3. If Jesus is not who he revealed Himself to be (since you believe the authors of the Bible just made up everything), on what are you basing your image or reality of God?

4. If you deny Jesus' atonement for your sins, on what basis will you be able to enter into God's presence and stand before Him at the end of your life?

I really would like to hear your answers, because these are the practical aspects of our faith.

Thanks!

John C.,

Thanks for the historical language note. It's not the only thing that I wish would go away: "laying down" when you mean "lying down"; the use of "less" instead of "fewer" to modify plural nouns - "less dollars" instead of "fewer dollars".

It's hard to know whether these usages are simply the inevitable evolution of the English language. If you grew up with one usage, the new one really grates on the ear!

Regards.

Jihadist,

We hope that Indonesia/Malaysia does not go Islamic before your return. Islamic states do not allow internet freedom and therefore block sites like On Faith.

Anonymous,

(You could at least give yourself a name.)

Professor Crossan's conclusions are a summation of the work done by hundreds of NT scholars over the past 200 plus years. Please read some of Professor Crossan's books or the books of some of the other contemporary NT scholars. This will allow you to escape the box of orthodoxy you appear to be trapped in.

There is a great list of books on the historical Jesus posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Some of the descriptions/book authors of the historical Jesus are posted at the same site:

Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

(Please note that four of the NT scholars on this list are members of the On Faith panel.)

MTMAT - I'm not so interested in the answer as I am in how you think about the question.

So, tell me, would it be safe to say the ascension is something you hadn't thought of very much? Something that doesn't interest you very much? Something that you accept at face value and would prefer to to delve into?

Regarding the 2 rings of heaven that you mention -- this isn't catholic, I'm sure -- what do you suppose the Church would think about you holding these views?

Thanks

Norrie Hoyt,

I quite agree with the "could care less" thing, but it sorta made sense when it was created. It came from a time (late '50s or early 60s) when it was stylish to be sarcastic by making statements exactly contrary to what you meant in a loud, offensive voice. It was an obnoxious thing to do, and I'm glad it's gone, but we still have "could care less" hanging around. It could have been worse.

Why would any one say 'Jesus saves' when at best Jesus is a mediator between man and God as explained by Saul. Also, some one has to conclude a prayer with 'in the name Jesus' for a prayer to God to be accepted otherwise the father will not accept it. It seems to me that the father is the one who answers the prayers and the one who saves and forgives sin not Jesus. From this we can conclude that Jesus is a mere secretary and a chief of staff, that's all.

MTMAV

So are you saying then that Lazarus is divine because he was dead for four days, at least one day in the grave longer than Jesus, and came to life again. Is he as divine as Jesus then, fifty percent divine perhaps.
Could you also please then explain why did Jesus need to eat mortal food, broiled fish and honey comb, after his 'resurection' as decribed in Luke 24:42. I would think he did not need to eat and drink to stay alive after the resurection otherwise he was alive with flesh and bones and did not die.

Sorry. The last post is mine.

Concerned:

Your quotes from Crossan show how far the "Jesus Seminar" people have drifted from Christianity, and the Bible. For two thousand years, Christians have believed what Crossan so casually shrugs off. Who is he to say that Jesus never resurrected anyone? Who is he to redefine the word 'prophesy' and accuse the New Testament authors of inventing stories and publishing them as truth?

His comments about the offensiveness of blood atonement show that he has rejected the God of the Bible in favor of his own version of God. If you want to reject the Bible and invent your own god, that is your prerogative, but to claim that as the truth is silly.

Let's see...I can believe the Bible, or I can believe this guy who claims to know everything, with absolutely no logical reasons for saying what he says. Not exactly a tough decision.

The idea that he would write a book called "Who is Jesus?" and fill it with statements that are contrary to what the earliest Christians believed is laughable.

For Russell D. : You wrote: "I've (you) said it before and I'll say it now to you. It is better to have faith in yourself. Not an entity that doesn't exist. It only stammers your own personal growth."

Ah, but I do have strong faith both in HIM first; myself second. I must emphasis ...... HIM (JESUS) first; me second!

We can disagree twice over:

1. "An entity that doesn't exist." HE does exist!
2. My personal relationship with Jesus only enhances my personal growth and increases the faith I have in myself.

All the best.

Good lord Concerned

Back to the same old same old constant post about logic by you when it is really getting interesting in the discussion between you and MTMAV?

I always thought of you as a Neo-Catholic or a Post-Modern Catholic. So now I know you are a "Catholic of the New Reality". Very telling self-description.

Actually I never got the logic you present in that last post as before. This makes more sense to me:

a = b = c, therefore a = c

To put in words -

I like chicken, chicken like chicken feed, therefore I like chicken feed.

Oh darn, that was logical but not sound. What do I know about logic and reason.

See you in two weeks' time. Just to let you get off MTMAV for a while to spleen back on Islam and Muslims:)

MTMAV: I have said this before and I'll say it now to you. It is better to have faith in yourself. Not an entity that doesn't exist. It only stammers your own personal growth.

MTMAV,

Your four years of high school "theology" unfortunately will prevent you from being on the next Jesus Seminar review board. LOL

With respect to accepting the literal word of the Bible:

Think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is nspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

Some of my favorite comments from Professor Crossan for added contemplation:

From his book, "Who is Jesus??" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

MTMAV:
Your apologies are accepted. Baptists do NOT teach "levels" in heaven. That would be Mormonism.

For Hannabel: your final sentence states: "I (you) don't understand how people build a cornerstone of their belief on implicit statements and disregard the explicit ones." Faith, my friend. Jesus was both Human and Divine, the death and resurrection, transubstantiation, Virgin birth, concept of the Trinity, other topics all take FAITH. Please don't rely on your 5 senses or intellect. Faith, my friend. Thankfully, my faith is quite strong. All the best.

MTMAV,

Thanks for your civil and temperate reply to my language pickiness. I always expect people to fly into a rage if I comment on their use of words.

I don't blame them if they do. It's really no business of mine how they express themselves. I know I'm being an officious intermeddler and a common scold. It comes from my mother's being an English teacher and my father's being a publisher. They hounded me to death over usage.

I'm like someone brought up in a strict religious household. Grown up, I can't keep from telling others how they should behave.

Glad to make your acquaintance. I'm sure we'll be arguing with each other if we keep on these threads. I argue with everyone but that doesn't mean I don't like them.

Best wishes.

MTMV

You wrote: "1. JESUS was both Divine and human."
So if I met Jesus in the street and God forbid I stabbed him would he live or would he die?
If you say he lives then I conclude he is not a man but divine and if you say he dies then he is man and not divine. That's one thing that is beyond reason to say Jesus is 100 percent man and 100 percent god. It's irrational in mathematical and human terms. Being God is not a job or a coat you put over; it is who you are. The phrase God became man is so illogical in every way you look at it. Besides, the dogma has no basis in the bible. Jesus is expressly and explicity stated is a man many times in the bible; The verses that peolpe use to claim he is divine are implicit which means they can be read and understood in many different ways and all can be valid. I don't understand how people build a cornerstone of their belief on implicit statements and disregard the explicit ones.

Sorry Concerned, I've never heard of a "Catholic of the new realty." Just what is that??? LOL. Nice try! Call me a staunch, Irish Catholic of the old school. Four years of High School theology. Just as valid today as then.

For N. Hoyt: Noted. Thanks for the English lesson.

For E Favorite: I really have no idea about the physical aspects of JESUS's ascension into heaven.
Nor will I shoot from the hip and offer a subjective opinion. It is best to ask a bonafide theologian (which I'm certainly not). I have no idea of his "orbit," the milky way or any other physical aspect of HIS ascension. Go to www.newadvent.org and look under "A" and then ascension. Or, do a google search. Frankly, I find the topic rather goofy. Next, we'll be talking about having pancakes with Elvis or Marvin Applewhite (of Heaven's Gate notariety).

Seriously, I believe (??? my apologies if I'm wrong ... I'm uncertain) in the Baptist tradition(or another Protestant Denomination), they have a concept of three rings of heaven. I once heard Rev. David Jeremiah speak on it. Ask there.

MTMAV,

I am a Catholic of the new Reality. Catholic educated K-12. B.S., MS and PhD in the Sciences.
And yes indeed, I attend Mass every Sunday.

And where exactly did you get your four years of theology??

MTMAV,

"I could care less" is not correct English. It's also a totally illogical phrase: If you "could care less," then why don't you?

The correct English is: "I couldn't care less."

Regards.

Concerned - too bad you can't give the name - maybe you could contact the prof and see how he/she feels about going public.

MTMAV - I wasn't trying to trap you into a conversation, but I was anxious to see how you'd react. I don't know, but I suspect you had never thought about that before -- I hadn't until recently. I realized that people were expected to blindly accept a bodily ascension, but not to think about what happened once he got there. Why not? The catholic church goes into all kinds of detail about other things, but has little to say about heaven - no word on how Jesus (and Mary, too) function as a human body in a spiritual realm and no word on what we do - for eternity - once we get there. We see our family and are "happy with God in heaven." Is there anything else in the Bible about it?

Back to the ascension - given what we know now about outer space, what do you suppose happened to Jesus when he ascended? For instance, did he go into orbit? Where might heaven be - beyond the milky way? that is - someplace in outer space we haven't got to yet? Do you think it's possible that as technology grows, we might develop a spaceship that can go to the heaven where Jesus lives?

I hope you address these questions, as they have nothing to do with Jesus' personal habits.

MTMAV:

How can you listen to a man that condemns Harry Potter? That's just not right. There is more value in those books than in the Bible.

Concerned:

The reference to my # 5 above:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21460090-2,00.html

And yes, I do defer to Benedict vice yourself (or your heretical friend). Happy reading

Hey Liberated:

Looks like you made a new friend in MTMAV.

For Andrea:

1. JESUS was both Divine and human. I could care less about HIS bathroom habits and haircut prior to, during or after HIS ascension. I suspect "E Favorite" was trying to trap me in discussion but I wasn't taking his bait.

Andrea, I don't *believe* Christ is my savior. HE *is* my savior.

All the best.

For concerned:

1. No, I don't take your word for it. Why should I? You're an internet stranger who shoots from the hip. Again, if your friend is teaching Christ did not rise bodily, he is a heretic. I provided you an easily accessable, authoritative reference.

2. I could care less his students haven't complained.

3. In this day and age, there is enough definitive, AUTHORITATIVE Catholic doctrine and dogma on the internet. I'm not going to drop what I'm doing to go attend N.D. Junior, *YOU* should attend N.D. I've had 4 years of formal theology and 8 of Catechism. Yourself?

4. I am not a pew peasant or illiterate. I accept Catholic doctrine as is vice your's or any other dumbed down version. Truth remains the same be it the 1700's, 1913 or whenever. Yes, I do accept rote truth.

5. Why do you admonish me to "use common sense about heaven????" I never broached the topic.
Heaven is the eternal presence of GOD! Hell is the eternal absence of God. And, as Benedict just reiterated yesterday, both are REAL places.

6. You shoot from the hip without ever giving references I can easily access. Please do.

7. Are you Catholic? Were you ever Catholic? What is or was your denomination? Again, I ask that you stop opining on Catholicism unless you know what you're writing about.

I look good....

I mean really good......

Hey everyone, come see how good I look!

MTMAV,

You will just have to take my word for it about what is being taught in theology classes in major Catholic universities. The professor whose notes I quoted has been teaching theology for the last ten years. None of the professor's students have complained. Taking such a course at Notre Dame or Catholic U would greatly enhance your knowledge about Catholicism and will give you an opportunity to complain to your bishop about what you hear.

With respect to the Magesterium of the Catholic Church: Dogma and Catholic teachings have been dictated for the last 1700 years by "celibate", male Europeans. They still spout the same Dark Age, "pew peasant" Catholicism found in the 1913 edition of he Catholic Encyclopedia. Today, the average Catholic "pew peasant" is as educated or more educated than their parish priests and many have more education than the directors of the various Vatican/Papal commissions. These "peasants" will no longer accept "rote" Catholicism.

And use some common sense about Heaven!! It is a spirit state as per Aquinas. No bodies, no "pretty wingy things" are possible. Therefore, no bodies of Jesus and Mary are there. Also as per James Somerville, retired philosophy professor from Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio, there is no religion in Heaven. Religion is simply one of the paths to get there.

MTMAV,

I can see how you find a question like that offensive if you believe Jesus was a divine being only, and not a human. It's hard to attribute humanly and bodily acts like going to the bathroom or having sex to someone you believe is your savior.

For E Favorite: You made my point for me. You wrote " ..... but what I'm (you) am saying is that many individual Catholic clergy, scholars etc., do not follow or espouse all the rules and STILL REMAIN IN THE CHURCH ......." Bingo! "Concerned Christian Now Liberated's" (fictious) scholar friend/teacher at a prominent Catholic U. teaching heresy needs to be corrected or removed from his position. Period! He can find a denomination which teaches that JESUS did not rise from the dead bodily. Remember, like the Marine Corps, the Catholic Church is not trying to join you; you're trying to join it.

Per your last, silly, tacky question regarding Jesus's bathroom habits or need for a haircut, I won't dignify the question with a response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

Hannabal, et. al.

Certainly, Dawkins' latest book is quite a sensation. As was his television documentary, The Root of All Evil.
But the innuendo and assumptions from both do not provide a proof of no God or how Christianity has played such a horrible role. Consider- both world wars last century were not really religious at all, let alone caused by religion. Twisted ethics, perhaps...but not religion. Another thing to note is that any instance of narrowly-avoided nuclear war during the cold war could have equally, if not more, commenced by and through a militant atheistic country, namely the USSR.

Sir Winston Churchill said it eloquently: 'He must be a blind soul that cannot see that a great purpose is being worked out here below' Societies and civilizations have thrived when God was involved in our lives, albeit imperfectly on our part. When the opposite of this has been true..well, history tells.

MTMAV - I know what the rules are (I think) but what I'm saying is that many individual Catholic clergy, scholars, etc. do not follow or espouse all the rules and still stay in the church, For instance, I bet there are parish priests who don't insist that their married parishioners avoid birth control (other that the rhythm method, of course), so I wouldn't be surprised if some scholars are actually teaching the truth (as accepted by serious academic scholars), over church doctrine, regarding the resurrection.

Meanwhile, regarding the ascension - what you do think about Jesus needing haircuts, going to the bathroom, or other issues relating to having a physical body?

For E Favorite: Sorry, I can't agree with you. You wrote: "The position the Catholic Church takes may not be what individual Catholic scholars are teaching." If so, the responsible Bishop needs to correct or remove that "individual (errant) scholar" from his/her teaching position. That is a function of the Magisterium otherwise you have CHAOS! I don't mean to be offensive but look at the American Protestant faiths ....... they are all over the map doctrinally. (Geez, I didn't like the interpretation of that Biblical scripture .... I think I'll rent out a 7/11 store front and start my own church). To answer your question ..... Yes, I do believe in Christ's bodily ascension into heaven as does any faithful Christian. All the best.

"actually I didn't notice that the media portrayed the DaVinci Code as being true...I didn't 'believe' the DaVinci Code, but it did get me curious about religion, from an historical point of view."

That reflect my own experience as well. I suspect the vast majority of Brown's readers know that his stories are combinations of fact, supposition, and conspiracy theory. The controversy generated by the novel was certainly newsworthy, the fact that a bestselling author was willing to risk his career by questioning Christian doctrine. Even 50 years ago, it would probably been impossible for Brown to find a publisher for the novel.

I read the books that Brown's characters cited, and came to these conclusions...first, Baigent and Starbird are probably wrong about Jesus' early history, but that doesn't automatically mean the Gospels are right. Second, Western religious thought could benefit from a discussion of the sacred feminine. Third, any novel that exposes Pagels to a wider audience can't be all bad.

Then on Thursday on the same website:

Francis Collins on 'The Language of God'
Geneticist Francis Collins is director of the National Human Genome Research Project. He is also an evangelical Christian, and author of the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
In his most recent book, British scientist Richard Dawkins writes about the irrationality of a belief in God, examines God in all his forms and sets down his arguments for atheism. The book is The God Delusion.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=28-Mar-07

MTMAV - the position that the Catholic church takes may not be what individual catholic scholars are teaching. I agree it would be better if "Concerned" names the person and the university or not mention it at all.

Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if what "Concerned" says IS being taught. Nor would I be surprised if the professors don't want to be named in a public forum. Too bad. Hopefully this foolishness will end soon and people won't have to pretend something happened when they know perfectly well it could not have. I assume you believe in the bodily ascension too?

If so, does Jesus need haircuts? What about going to the bathroom?

GaryD - actually I didn't notice that the media portrayed the DaVinci Code as being true. I did notice that a lot of regular folks thought it was true. More than anything, I think it made people realize how little they knew about their religion. A lot of people (including me) really never thought about any Christian history existing outside of what they had learned in Sunday School - which really isn't teaching - it's indoctrination. That's OK in Sunday School, but unfortunately, people think that's all there is to know.

I didn't "believe" the DaVinci Code, but it did get me curious about religion, from an historical point of view.

For "Concerned Christian now liberated." Junior, I've done your homework for you and your (fictious) friend. Go to the below web page. It will give the DEFINITIVE, AUTHORATATIVE Roman Catholic position on the *PHYSICAL,* bodily resurrection of JESUS. Send it to your (fictious .... LOL) teacher friend at a (unspecified) Catholic University. Kindly refrain from commenting on Catholicism unless you can accurately do so. All the best.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

Well, crazy writer from my mother's hometown, it stands for god, instead of God.

Or at least GUT...

Maybe like George Burns in the movie when he played god, "So help me me".

"Is that also the reason the 'So help me God' was inserted at the end of the Presidential Oath?"

I don't know. I'm looking forward to the day when America has its first non-Abrahamic-religion President. What would a Confucian or Wiccan or atheist President say at the end of the oath?

Jacob,

"When saying the plege in Public School my son pluggs-In "ECLATi!" This is prophetic Justice for him."

Good for your son! I haven't said the Pledge since high school, so I don't know what I'd insert. Maybe "one nation, in the Northern Hemisphere..."

Tonio,

Is that also the reason the "So help me God" was inserted at the end of the Presidential Oath?

Friend,

I like your take as well. A little g allows for interpretation. I'm all about that!

(Continuation of my post)...having said that, how can parents encourage their own children to make up their own minds about religion?

Andrea, the "fill in the blank" approach might work. The wording that Congress instituted in 1954 doesn't allow that option. As I understand it, the only reason "under God" was put in was because some in Congress wanted to score a propaganda point against the "godless commies." In my view, having an state deity is just as bad as having state atheism.

"they kept saying things to her like 'you can believe in whatever you want, just stay away from my kids.'"

Well, it shouldn't occur to anyone to push their religious beliefs on other people's kids, regardless of what those beliefs are. Having said that,

For "Concerned Christian now liberated": Sorry, your "good friend who teaches theology at a major Catholic University" (rather vague; specifically, which University? Friend's name? I think you're shooting from the hip) is plain wrong. And, if your (fictious?) friend is teaching that Jesus did not *PHYSICALLY* rise from the dead, he is guilty of heresy and should be removed from his teaching position. Please give a R. Catholic dogmatic or doctrinal written AUTHORTATIVE reference supporting your premise that Christ did NOT physically rise from the dead/grave. Again, you won't because you can't. Oh BTW, I did take four years of Catholic theology in school (and eight years of Catechism). All the best.

Andrea, I tell them what a teacher told me in High School, it's a little g.

"one nation, doodley doo, indivisable..."

If you or your kids don't want to include a god in the pledge, let them make up something. Granted, it could be something meaningful to them, instead of doodley doo, but if they can customize it to fit their beliefs, they can still recite it, not be ostracized, and have a deep connection to their country.

Did anyone see the show where the athiest went to live with a fundamentalist Christian family for a month? I forget what the show was called, and I don't know if it's on anymore. But they took her to their Super WalMart Church, had her sit in Bible Study, etc...it was really interesting. When they had a dinner w/their fundy friends, they kept saying things to her like "you can believe in whatever you want, just stay away from my kids." Ha!

ANDREA,

Yes indeed, scrub "pretty wingy thingies" from the OT and NT. Again they are myths borrowed from extinct ancient religions.

With respect to Professor Crossan's conclusions and those of the Jesus Seminarians about Mary being visited by an angel, see

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb026.html i.e. the visit did not happen.

As per Bruce Chilton, another contemporary NT scholar:

"In Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (2000), Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circumstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural paternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous conception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-identity, his concept of God and his spiritual quest."

Some added comments:

Fairies are apparently fallen angels (check Google for the latest theories). Hmmm, so Tinkerbell is Satan incarnate!!! Darn!!

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "
http://www.heart7.net/spirit/at.html

Tonio, I hate the deity in the pledge also. I do feel bad for the parents and children who try to fight this and are ostracized. I could never stand up to that for the sake of my children's socialization in America.

When it comes to God, the fewer the better. The undeniable truth is this, If any one God is wrong, then all Gods are wrong in the eyes of the Government. Failure to procure one particular God out of the thousands as being the right one should be default make the case that in the public course, "no God is god."

Would that stop fighting and wars and so on?

Not a chance, you would still have stupid people that cannot help but to get mad about things other people do. But at least it would be a start.

E.favorite

That sir or madam as the case may be was precisely my point. It is a work of fiction and half the supposedly religion friendly media bought into the basis of it like it was established fact like a novel set in WWII.

MTMAV,

From a good friend who teaches theology at a major Catholic university. You might want to take a theology class at Notre Dame or Catholic U. :

"The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

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 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."

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions." i.e. no bodies allowed to include "glory" bodies or "pretty wingy thingies".

"a Christian woman and a Jewish woman who both agreed that atheists should 'shut up'."

Here is the transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/31/pzn.01.html

I find this stuff to be incredibly sad and scary. The people quoted really seem to believe that all atheists seek to wipe out religion.

Here's a choice quote: "Don't impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the pledge of allegiance, to want to honor my God. Don't infringe upon that right."

Ms. Hunter, you have the right to teach your own children to pray to themselves in school But you do NOT have the right to have teachers force MY children to pray. You do NOT have the right to make others honor YOUR god in the Pledge. No one's deity should be mentioned in Congress' official statement of patriotism, not yours and not mine.

I love:

"Most of us are complex mixes of religious and secular, an ongoing balancing effort that is unavoidable in modern life and requires great wisdom."

Onward complex mixes of religious of secular soldiers...

Here's some religious reporting you will have to try hard to hunt down:

From India eNews

A Saudi court sentenced a 20-year-old Saudi woman to 6 months in prison at a foster house for girls for running away from her family.

The woman will also receive 60 lashes as punishment for the same offence.

In Saudi Arabia, a responsible male guardian - either a close relative or her husband, must accompany every woman.

Ms. Jacoby,

I agreed with much of what you wrote, but this I cannot agree with:

"given the failure of so many schools to inculcate the most elementary facts about American history, it is hard to imagine that most teachers would be up to the task of explaining, say, the subtleties of biblical arguments for and against slavery. Furthermore, a curriculum that would meet with the approval of Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant and nonreligious parents would probably be a worthless set of platitudes."

1) That a subject might be taught badly does not mean that it should not be taught at all. If you were truly consistent with this line of argument, you would insist on the removal of the subject of history from schools.

2) In the UK we don't seem to be having any trouble providing religious education which is not unduly biased towards a singular religious. There is even the option of a humanist curriculum now.

"More commonly, any secular perspective is invisible. In television panels on religion and politics, participants run the gamut from A to B--A being right-wing fundamentalists and B being liberal Protestants, Catholics or Jews who want more religion in public life as long as it is liberal or "moderate" and not conservative religion. Those who stand up for secularism are almost never represented."

Indeed, this was particularly noticeable in the relatively recent CNN report on the view that atheists in the US are discriminated. Ironically the panel discussing the issue did not feature any atheists, and consisted of a Christian woman and a Jewish woman who both agreed that atheists should 'shut up' and a Christian man. I don't know whether perhaps being a black man had made this third member of the panel more sensitive to the issue of being in a minority group, but he was the only one standing up for the right to be an atheist without discrimination. Nevertheless he still felt it important to make clear that he himself did not agree with atheism at all.

CNN had a fair number of complaints from atheists about this, and made up for it the next week by further discussing the topic with atheists being allowed to defend themselves this time. Also Richard Dawkins was given a video interview on the topic.

"But too many political reporters, who also cover religious issues in public life, are as ignorant about religion as the rest of the public."

Indeed. Ruth Gledhill, who writes in The (London) Times, is a clear example of a religion correspondent who is underinformed concerning religion.

Anyway, thanks for the article! :)

"as if all Christianity were a matter of mindless people ruled by authoritarian bullies. Her treatments of beloved leaders in American history were twisted to make the complex responses of ordinary Americans look like a conspiracy of Christians against the victim *secularists*."

JG, it sounds like Jacoby doesn't make a distinction between Christians and Christian doctrine. That does a disservice to all people regardless of their beliefs. In both the Israel threads and the Catholicism threads, I made the point that one can despise part of all of a particular religion's doctrines, but still respect the followers of that religion. I have my disagreements with Christian doctrine, but I would never intentionally suggest that Christians or any other believers were mindless people.

JG,

"What I don't like is the co-opting of the term *secularist* by her movement. It belongs to all Americans--religious or not--as part of our values, civil beliefs, and history. The misconception is that if you are religious that is ALL you are. Most of us are complex mixes of religious and secular, an ongoing balancing effort that is unavoidable in modern life and requires great wisdom."

Right on.

There is much to improve about coverage of religion in the press and the inclusion in American history of religion--avoiding it creates Orwellian-level distortion--but I would not trust Jacobi to lead in such an effort. I have read her book Freethinkers and found it to be filled with distortion upon distortion--a willingness to give up careful scholarship for the sake of her ideology, generalizations driven by her own biases, and a total lack of knowledge of the Protestant movement--as if all Christianity were a matter of mindless people ruled by authoritarian bullies. Her treatments of beloved leaders in American history were twisted to make the complex responses of ordinary Americans look like a conspiracy of Christians against the victim *secularists*. For example, I read everything I could about Thomas Paine --who I love and admire, though not uncritically-- reaching totally different conclusions from Jacobi's. She really does have an agenda and ideology. What I don't like is the co-opting of the term *secularist* by her movement. It belongs to all Americans--religious or not--as part of our values, civil beliefs, and history. The misconception is that if you are religious that is ALL you are. Most of us are complex mixes of religious and secular, an ongoing balancing effort that is unavoidable in modern life and requires great wisdom. They seem to believe that you are only rightly secular if you fundamentally reject religion, a way of thinking that I would rather call secular fundamentalism since it seems to reflect an animus exactly opposite to their enemies in the cultural wars. The term *freethinkers* in contrast has a more defined historical usage, but please do not accept Jacobi's rendering of this history. I found when I went directly to undistorted readings of the freethinkers I could embrace them as part of my own tradition--without having to twist them to a present-day use. When Jacobi introduced me to them I was disgusted. Ironically I appreciate Jacobi for challenging me enough that I will not accept her clouded vision of the truth. Nevertheless I do want to include all viewpoints in the dialog, including secular fundamentalist, just with the same skepticism and criticism they want to apply to other religions or ideologies.

John wrote:
"Atheism merely is an excuse for every sort of anti-social behavior under the Sun."

And religion is merely the irrational, superstitious and primitive adherence to a set of immoral and bizarre conventions and laws in honour of a cruel, hypocritical, and tyrannical deity.

See, I can over-generalise too.

Athiest, don't forget the god in your head, I just saw a post from it. QED.

We are so lucky/unlucky to live in this time of intelligence/ignorance.

You can/can't save the world, only ourselves/everyone.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal today about Malaysia, Jihadist can sleep well.

"A nation of 25 million people with one of Asia's most dynamic economies, Muslim-majority Malaysia is an important U.S. ally in the war against Islamic redicalism. It is often cited as an example of moderate, open-minded Islam." Pg. A13.

Of course, the article was about a woman who was murdered, but I thought that little snipit was interesting.

There is no doubt that the press is biased towards religion. How many programs have you seen which objectively explore athiesm and its varied people? They are the people next door you know. How many programs have you seen on how organized religion has already wormed its way into the supposedly unbiased legal system/government programs. For example:

Why must one provide religious references for adoption? Why must one swear on a bible in court?
(If you refuse, you are considered a crackpot and any testimony you give is considered invalid)
There are two examples I've personally run in to which have incorporated religion into government.

Why cannot one think that there is no god? There is no proof of one-- despite thousands of years of trying. In fact, it may be easier to demonstrate that god is creation of man's psyche in the same period of time and amount of effort. You don't see many research dollars spent on this.

Why isn't it clear that all religions claim to be the true religion and they can't all be right? They can all be wrong.

Here in the south, just mention that you are an athiest and you're inviting a cross burning.

So much for religions preaching tolerance and respect. This hypocracy is what turns me off to religion in general.

Why can't we just look for the good in people and just forget about the religious nonesense?

Concerned,

Do you also consider the Angels in Christianity myths? Did an angel indeed tell Mary she was pregnant with Jesus, or was she pulling a fast one on Joseph?

GaryD

The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction. It says so in the front of the book. It's a novel - like Gone with the Wind and like the Left Behind series.

For concerned Christian now liberated ... In your above post, posted at 12:01, 29 March, you state: "This same conclusion (that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead) is also being taught as truth in many theology classes at major Catholic Universities." Oh? Really? Please provide hard proof of a major Catholic University teaching in a theology class that JESUS did not *PHYSICALLY* rise from the dead. You won't because you can't. You're playing loose and fast with facts. Don't!

Hello ANONTMOUS, Et al.

Good Morning from Brooklyn, N.Y. and from some MAAYSIAN neighborhood & Community here.

I Remember back in the mid 70's to mid 80's, During my International Smuggling days [Of Which I'm retired] how free, open, not religious, and materialistic Indonesia, Malaysia including Singapore was.

I remember sleeping, with these three beautiful Polynesian like babes. And one of them invited me to a wedding. I got to see how they wed. It was as if a King & Prince party.

And you are correct: The small villages, where there is NO Electricity or roads, was tyhe places where "ISLAM infiltrated and converted the people voluntarily.

It did spread quick. Please keep in mind that these people are Jungle folk. And Islam was the new faith for them instead of SHAMINISM like worship.

Saudi Arabia is a major promoter of ISLAM, same as "Poison" not just on or at DARWINIAN prehistoric locations, but on most remote islands.

Mel Gibsons APOCALYPTO is a great, and most recent application or scenario of that movie that pertains to the jungle peoples of those Island ( Eltons John "Island Girl" always reminds me of those beautiful, Humble & delicate jungle folk). And the PIGGMEE PEOPLE, are the most resent converts.

remember religion is competition & Market share as usual.

And YES, Saudi Arabia encourages "Corporal Punishment" in the name of ALLAH (a/k/a/ ISLOMOPHOBIA). Ya Ya. :-)'. Best Sex Ever, Ya Ya!

Indonesia? Not actually ruled by Islam though is it.
BUT...As we have seen (as it is doing everywhere) Islam is making aggressive moves to take over the rule of the country. And when it does 'Jihadist' will see her rights vanish instantly!!!

As it is in the more remote parts of Indonesia Islamic Police' patrol the streets and beat women who are not covered up. It's been documented and photographed.

When it spreads you had better cover up good 'Jihadist'!

A few years ago Louis Palau came to the Twin Cities; The Mpls Star Trib ran a front page story on the event - where it reported that attendees were invited to drink the blood of Christ and eat his body - I'm not kidding. When I called the newspaper to complain the Ombudsman - not kidding again - told me the paper was a Christian paper.

Ms Jacoby I don't know what planet your living on but it isn't any where in the general vacinity of the USA planet Earth.

Hollywood when they play Christians at all generally portray them as either ignorant bumpkins or psychotics, or guilt ridden neurotics one small step from a violent explosion.

The Mainstream Media jumps on every story however ill-founded that even appears to challenge mainstream Christian beliefs be it the Davinci Code, a work of fantasy which based upon the media coverage one would have thought was based upon established fact when the reality is that there is absolutely no historic support for anything in the book or the socalled tomb of Jesus which once one digs past the headlines one quickly finds is two parts wishful thinking and three parts bunkum out of a total of 5 parts.

John Connely,

See Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus, for an in depth review about the existence of Jesus. Professor Crossan is a Jesus Seminarian.

Susan,

You've written another great post.

-A

Curious that the Jesus Seminar didn't permit this question: Did Jesus even exist?

TV and newspapers have done an adequate job in covering the issue of the historic Jesus especially regarding the findings of the Jesus Seminarians, a group of some of the best contemporary NT scholars in the USA to include at least two members of the On Faith panel. Their conclusions that the historic Jesus only said/did about 30% of what is in the NT continues to upset the orthodox Christians and this is always news. After reading many of the books written by the Seminarians, I personnally am impressed with the reviews they have done and the scripture references used for these reviews. IMHO, they are correct in their conclusions.

Their most controversial conclusion that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead is continually noted every Easter by many news organizations. This same conclusion is also being taught as truth in many theology classes at major Catholic universities. It is interesting that the Vatican has remained silent about this conclusion.

What the media should do is run similar stories about the founder of Islam.

What do we know about him?

1. He was illiterate and therefore did not know what was in the Koran for certian.

2. His book the Koran was supposedly revealed/noted to him by the angel Gabriel.

3. Angels ("pretty wingy thingies) however being another carry over from ancient religions are myths so we know ole Mohammed and his scribes were pulling a fast one on the local tribes. Islamic clerics and mullahs do the same today especially in "teaching" poor and uneducated Moslems around the world

4. The Islamic scribes could have actually been disgruntled Jewish scribes (the Abraham and prophet touches) with an axe to grind vs. non-nomads in general or maybe it was simply about looting.

Bottom line: It is time for the media to address the historic Mohammed and the myths surrounding him.

A 12 year old boy puts on his explosive vest and walks towards his moment with 72 virgins. He is a Weapon of Hamas Destruction. Then he detonates the debris of his desires:
INTIFADA
INFANTADA
INTIFADISM
INTISADISM
INTIFASCISM
INTO SADISM
INTO FASCISM
INTO FASCGASM

I
SLAM
A
PHOBIA

ALLAHU AHKBAR BARIAN

Excelent column. Thank you for writing it.

And right on cue, Victoria and Jihadist continue to avoid the very serious issues of the Koran and its teachings which could precipitate a nuclear war.

JIHADIST et al.

You are my CYBERSPACE AVITOR: SHOLOM!

“G-d Bless UNITED States of America & FRIENDS!

(((( DOWN WITH IRAN's Rule By THEOCRACY ))))

(((((((((((( DOWN W/ SAUDI Style MONARCHY ))))))))))

((( Reward for MAHMOUD Ahmadinejad's TONGUE )))

(( DOWN WITH PERSIA's GOV. by THEOCRACY ))

USE YOUR ((( H.U.E.R.I.S.T.I.C.S ))) NOT RELIGION

(-: (((((( VOTE FOR SECULAR THINKING MINDS )))))) :-)

God is a great exclamation point after the word, YES!

Victoria, my first friend in these On Faith threads:)

How are you doing? I saw what Concerned said to you in Pamela Taylor's thread re the end of the world.

Do ignore Concerned as you would someone in a cocktail reception. No one has to talk to anyone s/he don't want to - especially Capt Ahab (Concerned) obsessively hunting down Moby Dick (you).

I must apologize to my fellow Muslims and other sober On Faith readers with regard to the silly exchanges I sometimes indulge in with Concerned.

Concerned was a former theological student. I was a former Shariah law student. The monkey in me plays it out with him like Elizabeth and Darcy in Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice". With dollops of pride and prejudice thrown in for fun and frisson in these On Faith threads.

Frankly, more useful and educational for me to read posts by people like Ba'al, Tonio, Norrie, Ann O, Phaedrus, Wiccan etc to know of and understand what others think, feel and see their beliefs. Regardless of whether they believe in God or not, or whether they personally adhere to any religion.

What the On Faith posters and On Faith panelists say is beyond the headlines and soundbites - more nuanced and complex is it should be, and which in reality are. Really helps me to identify issues, commonalities and differences for the myriad interfaith seminars, forums, workshops that this and that organization in the region and beyond want sponsorships of.

By the way, I am Indonesian as you rightly pointed out. But married to a Malaysian, and now living and working in Kuala Lumpur. Which reminds me, I should get to work and prepare for another two weeks of being "on the road". So many Islamic finance conferences and forums in the Gulf states and Southeast Asia now. This sukuk thing and coming up with more Shariah compliant options and halal financial instruments.

So, Victoria, don't sweat on the small stuff, don't indulge the gods of small things, including CTCNL:)

Salam and warmest regards

and here comes concerned righton cue proving the point of the mindlessly indoctrinated fox watchers-
good job concerned!

LYN wrote, "Well, duh! What did you think it was going to be? Oh, and boohoo, they didn't specifically mention your specific objection. Do any of your rants against religion have fair and equal text given to the other side? Absolutely not."

A story in a news magazine should be expected to report all sides of an issue in an objective manner, because it's news. A blog post, wherein an individual is asked to answer a question, should be expected to represent a singular opinion, because that's what it is.

well the looney patrol failed to get this one. she should be from san francisco. the press beats up on christians and jews like daddy beats a red head step child. only islam is left alone. has she been living in a closet?

Victoria and Jihadist and all the other "liberal" Muslims out there,

Liberate your religion from its militaristic passages and anti-female messages and get back to us. Your Islamic "wishy-wash" about treatment in the press, end of the world scenarios, education etc. continues unabated without addressing these two very troubling issues, issues which one day may embroil us in a nuclear war.

The front page of every newspaper every day should read, "Islam Continues Its Mandate for Control of the World As Their Mullahs and Clerics Require Strict Adherance to the Koran".

And please, no more history lessons. The civilized nations learn from their mistakes and correct them. Islamic nations do not.

Hello my sarcastic Friend! :)

I simply couldn't help myself!

I must sit quietly and get back to my happy place.......

Andrea, Lyn, have you seen the "On Secularism" blog sponsored by "News Week" and "Washington Post?" Why don't you go there and straighten those seculars out.

How dare Ms Jacoby say secularism isn't represented by the media. All major publications and audible/visual media have secular editors. Don't they?

MOST of the PSYCHOLOGISTS & PSYCHOTRISTS & Freudian & Jung fiens are PRO-RELIGIOUS or PRE-Apocalyptic "CooCoo" or "Copa Cabanna" So to speak. Yes, That is way they will label you "PSYCHOTIC" and or "Disfunctional" or even "Dangerous" if you give them a out of this [Truth] World philosophy or vision. If you hear voices in your head then it is best to "Check-In" and yes, get examined. But:

DIANETICS: Like "NOVELIST" MOSSES, JESUS, MOHAMAD et, novelist Lafayette, RONNY, HUBBARD et al, preach a "Psychiatric" type of brain washing that includes, guess what, you guessed it, MORALITY.

And upon close examination and by using the ECLATi-On technique of INSIGHT & PATTERN RECOGNITION and the INSIGHT & PATTERN RECOGNITION of the FREUDIAN SLIPS OF GENUINE PROPHECYs running in Hubburds "Dianetics"" Does show how stupid and mixed up in the mind and GOING CLEAR" it all realy is.

Ronny Hubbs "TIME-TRACK" or "PRE-NATAL" reversing or remembering oneself form UTERO is a nut cases attempt to make you see yourself as if out side of your body seeing yourself.

This is a Mental "Manipulation of the Psych: and NOT (NDE) or Near Death Experience. i think a NDE is the ultimate human experience. especially when I had TWO (2) of them both in my pre-teens. Ya Ta.

So better give me your money Mr. Tom Cruise et at.. Modonna too (Lover of Secret Mysicism). Believe & trust in your vibrations & Heuristics AND YOU WILL SURELY FIND the ECLATi in You & things too. Ya Ya.

So, Ronny Hubbard and his SCIENTOLOGY is another classic case of "Market Share" grabbing or in search of that "SUCKER" that is sais is born every minute of the day.

Even Albert Einstein knew Hubbard et al were "MISHIGINNA" crazy like. Ya Ya. :-)

What a sarcastic post, Lyn! He He. I love it. Turn the other cheek, at least that what Athiest/Bhuddist/Catholics do...

Andrea,

Yes, it's me!

I agree with you. For me, she has a habit of tipping the scales ALL the time. Drives me batty! And I know it's going to be maddening for me every time she has a new post, but I go ahead and read it anyway. It wouldn't bother me so much if she could just do without the constant attacks and nastiness. She incites arguments rather than encouraging discussion.

Is this Lyn AKA Anon?

Maybe Ms. Jacoby is trying to make up for the lack of secular representation in the media a little too much. I think she raises great points, but instead of evening the scales, she tries to tip them.

Here's my big problem with Jacoby's piece above. First she says:

"The Time article, which presents an overwhelmingly (about 95 per cent) favorable picture of teaching about the Bible in public schools, does not pay the slightest attention to the educational objection I raised. It does quote two secularists who raise constitutional objections to such teaching, and what they have to say makes up about 2 per cent of the total text. Fair? Hardly."

Then, she says:

""The Case for Teaching the Bible," is, as its title clearly states, an argument--with a few straw secularists included as a gesture to "objectivity"--for teaching the Bible in public school."

Well, duh! What did you think it was going to be? Oh, and boohoo, they didn't specifically mention your specific objection. Do any of your rants against religion have fair and equal text given to the other side? Absolutely not.

Jacoby said:

"People opposed to all religion are generally treated as extremists and crackpots."

This is exactly how she treats Christians in her posts, which are usually filled with terms such as lunatics, idiots, delusional, etc.

Who in the world is Ms. Jacoby to speak on fairness or equality in the media? I hardly think she knows the definition.

Tonio,

The problem, then, is how do we educate our children be wary of their mother or father (aunt, grandfather, preacher, soccer coach, Billy's dad, Susie's brother, etc etc)? It's so much easier to tell them to stay away from strangers than it is to try to explain to them that someone they know and trust might try to hurt them. Then who can they trust? I don't have children, I have three very young siblings whom I am very protective of (because of the age difference, I have more of a motherly role with them). I take it upon myself to teach them things I don't think my parents will, since they did not teach me.

actually for a free-thinker ms jacoby seems to obsess on the funnel of christian thinking alot-

i watched Ayan Hirsi Ali on both the bill maher show and stephen colbert -

first of all- her only negative experience was her family trying to force her to marry someone she didnt want to- not exactly a muslim phenomenon

thats it- thats the full range of her personal complaints- and it is certainly a valid complaint which she has exploited to her own benefit- so we cant exactly be crying over it- id say shes recovered

now on bill maher she was treated with real deferential respect- the overwhelming majority of the talk time was allotted to her- even though she interrupted the other speakers several times (to the squirming embarrassment of the host)

when she presumed to lecture a congressman on the workings of the us government (completely wrong in her assertion) the audience and guests just were just flabbergasted- she was gently informed of the actual process-

there was an actor who was silent mostly- but when she stated that al muslims everyhwere believed in violence and forced coercion he politely commented that his muslim friends denounced such a bleief and was sharply retorted to as to his ignorance of the subject.

in no way was she censored or held back-
rahter she kind of bullied her way through the 'panel discussion' and you could see she discredited herself in the tepid applause of the audience, and the way the moderator distance himself at the end with his afterword-

on stephen colbert she was the only guest- her book of course prominently in view again-
she was again treated with respect and gentility-

however mr colbert really is quite knowledgeable about islam, and a couple of times when she made some absolutist statements, he countered with a more moderate and reasonable view and she was forced to modify her statements-

but she hammered the final nail in her credibilty coffin when she stated that the difference between islam and christianity is that american christians dont believe in hell- and over the past several hundred years have removed the concept of hell from their belief system

he responded and i quote (i often watch tv with a notepad and i watched this twice)
"I dont know what churches youve been to in america, but in most amercian churches hell is still a central theme"

at that point you could see that his respect flew out the window as he started on some fluffy endorsement of her book-

as for ms jacobys statement about moderate muslims-

i challenge anyone to cite an instance in the media where they have seen or heard a moderate muslim speak on mainstream media-

DAVEY- where exactly do you imagine jihadist lives? she lives in the largest muslim country in the world- not america- and is uniquley qualified to speak for muslim women as she LIVES IN A MUSLIM SOCIETY!

as for ms ali- she left somalia at age 16- that is where her experience in a muslim society ended- and by her own admission was never much of a scholar on islam before that-

but shes selling her books, so i think we can all easily identify her priorities-

i bet were not talking about her next year-

hey, IM AN AMERICAN WOMAN and I want better access to education and health care and a better standard of living for me and my family!!!

but unfortunately (as i watch congressional proceddings) america chooses to go kill a bunch of brown muslims instead of helping the darker americans recover from katrina- or worry about health care-
even borrowing money internationally to do it- and they need the media to keep people afraid of muslims in general to continue doing so-

perhaps ms jacoby could actually cite even one instance where ayaan ali has been censored-

shes the darling of islamophobic american media-
i think this is more a case of the imagination of ms jacoby at work, trying to slip muslims in to her essay so that shell be considered a free thinker instead of curiously fixated on christianity

"Furthermore, we are led to believe that the biggest threat our children face (sex crimes, abduction etc) comes from strangers. That isn't true either. Most children who are victims are harmed by people they know (family members, neighbors, coaches, clergy)."

Very true, Andrea. I remember when the milk cartons started carrying photos of missing children. As it turned out, most of the children had been abducted by non-custodial parents.

Tonio,

The media often misrepresents the true nature of crimes such as what happened with the Catholic church. Mostly, it is because they are misinformed as to what the actual name of a crime is. So often, child molesters are labeled "pedophiles" when they aren't. Furthermore, we are led to believe that the biggest threat our children face (sex crimes, abduction etc) comes from strangers. That isn't true either. Most children who are victims are harmed by people they know (family members, neighbors, coaches, clergy). The media certainly has a tendancy to only show us the sensational acts of violence, leaving us in the dark and at risk.

The issue I have with Hirsan Ali is that she lied about her past -- in fact falsified information on her immigration document is what resulted in the revocation of her refugee status and residency in the Netherlands. That certainly weakens her credibility as an honest broker for change.

If the horrors that supposedly were visited upon her didn't actually occur, that also calls into question her integrity. That she used her lies to manipulate public sympathy in her favor smacks of personal ambition rather than true dedication to the cause.

And God knows, the cause is very dire. The legal and social status of women in many Muslim countries is horrific. It must be raised, and I applaud Ali for raising it and doing so boldly. Unfortunately, her departure from Islam (which is her right) makes her largely irrelevant to those who are perpetuating these evils. And her own deceits shred whatever credibility she might have had on personal level as a survivor.

I believe that reform cannot come from without, it must come from within. While ex-Muslims serve an important role as whistleblowers, they cannot offer the community of believers role models for progress. Rather those role models are going to come from women whose stuggle for human rights stems from their deep conviction -- women like Shirin Ebadi, Masooda Jalal, Muhktar Mai, Fatima Mernissi, Amina Wadud, Ghazala Anwar, to name a few.

I am far from enlightened, but I like to think that I have some knowledge of what I talk about. I learn more as I get older and the best way to learn anything is by doing. I have had good experiences and bad, and I use that to make me a better person when it comes to relating to other people. I also like to watch people, and see how they act. It fascinates me.

What I have seen from the media is just what the media does. It tells you what you want to hear, or rather, what they think you want to hear. I have problems with it, and I don't, it just depends on what is said and reported. And I still can't figure out why they always interview the same type of people. Maybe its the way they are told to do it. You know the people. Either they are just way out there or they are praising God for sparing them. What about the guy next to you dude? Guess it's just part of the crapshoot that is life.

Jacoby mentioned the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church. I had a strong issue with how the media handled the issue, but for different reasons.

I'm a father of very young children, and when I hear "pedophile" I assume that the person is targeting young children of both genders. But then I read that most of the victims of the priests were teenage boys, and I felt very deceived by the media. To me, that crime is not pedophilia, that is statutory rape. No question that both are heinous crimes, and that both crimes deserve lifetime imprisonment.

So why did I feel deceived? Because the monsters who target young children and the monsters who target teenagers below the age of consent are different people psychologically, as I understand. The sickos that Chris Hansen interrogates on "Dateline NBC" are not looking to violate 5- or 6-year-olds. I went through a brief period where I was afraid to bring my daughters anywhere near a Catholic church. Imagine if I was the father of teenage boys when the scandal broke - I might have been oblivious to the danger they might have faced in the church walls.

ANDREA et al:

MOSES wrote and road the coat tails (Beard so to speak) of ZEUZ myths et al.

Then, JESUS et al borrowed sewn or Incorporated MOSES's filk Lores in the "New" Teatamount,,Plus "OLD" Storys. Ya Ya.

THEN: "MOHAMMAD" atta et al, jealously Copy Catted, sewn & Incorporated Jesus and Moses.

Interesting how the GILGIMESH (:Flood Storys) Poors into scripture or Suras and out of them man made novelized and PLAGERIZED Tautologies. not to mention the ZOROASTRIANs of Babolonia Era storys.

The GITA from Hindi was also Copy catted and added too, like mentioned above, by other SPLINTER "Groups" of Organized Religion flavors. Ya Ya..

Chip-

Talk about demonizing/simplifying those you desagree with as you slip this little tid-bit into your lecture:

"unthinking devotion that characterizes organized religion"

HA.

Andrea: we'll see but somebody has to play the "devil's advocate" around here!

Everyone: the media is very humanist, very pro-consumption/corporate - so please give me a break about them giving religion a free pass.

---Ali is annoying because she should refocus her efforts into something she knows more about.---

What's that then?
Being a Muslim woman who was openly brutalised by Islam and who now fears for her life because she dared to speak up about it and the abuse other Muslim women (who are not safe and sound in The West like apologist 'Jihadist') routinely go through?

I think she DOES know about such things.

----communism and atheism go hand in hand.-----

No. Communism and ISLAM go hand in hand, as we can see in the Uk where Communbist scum like the mayor of London Ken Livingstone and traitorous dirt like George Galloway kiss Islamic arse all the time and do anything to help their Jihadist cause (the writton down in the Qu'ran cause) of spreading Islam to ALL lands and people.

Chip,

You wrote:
"Political ideologies can become religions unto themselves, marked by the same unthinking devotion that characterizes organized religion. The results are always the same. Stalin, Pol Pot, and their ilk, have more in common with the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world than with any sort of skepticism."

I actually had to delete what I was writing because you said it so much better.

Speed123,

We certainly do! Keep making comments such as your last and maybe they can become more than just "moments"?

Speed123 wrote "The point is simply that communism and atheism go hand in hand"

Only in 1950's era cold war propaganda, which obviously worked wonders on you. But then, this isn't exactly surprising from someone who opposes "free thinking." It's much easier to let demagogues and ideologues do it for you. Political ideologies can become religions unto themselves, marked by the same unthinking devotion that characterizes organized religion. The results are always the same. Stalin, Pol Pot, and their ilk, have more in common with the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world than with any sort of skepticism. But, that sort of nuanced view doesn't make for the same kind of catchy soundbite sloganeering for demonizing those with whom you disagree.

Apparently American multiculturalist commentators think they know more about muslim women.
Yes,if they live in islamic countries three or four years,they shall see "real" islam.

Some muslim women travel to much.This is absolutely against Real Islam.
And stay(women) in your house.33.33.

The pain fact is,muslim women want access to better health,better education,better standard of living.
Yes,you shall see in your dream.

Hey Andrea,

I guess we all have our moments :)

Speed,

That might be the smartest thing I've read from you. Gasp! I agree! Maybe I need to reread?

Humanism, I mean.

Ms. Jacoby wrote:

"...routinely give preferential treatment to religion, exempting it from the critical scrutiny that all other institutions receive."

Not only have I seen quite a bit of scrutiny, but I also see the media concentrating more on the radicals of religion when they report, which is not a fair representation of mainstream religion and leads to all the stereotyping.

Hey - I dont like to argue, it is simply the idea that you secularists are providing some sort of enlightened, nuetral (non-ideological) view-point that is infuriating.

Extreme secluarism is just as dangerous/biased as any other ideology.

HAHAHAHAHA....just like Christianity and bigotry? Cambodians, for the most part, are not atheists. They are Buddist or Hindi or...ta da...Christian.

Speed123:

I'd like to think I don't have a crutch. People would probably disagree, but that's ok. I prefer to believe that no matter the obstacle, I can find the strength within myself, and not go running to someone else for help. If I succeed at something, I'll know it was because I practiced at it and was rewarded. If I fail, then it is also my own fault. I am not gonna thank anyone other than myself and if others help, them also.
Hopefully this will shed some light on my inner workings when some of the tirades on here insult me or people who think like me.
I'd like to also think of myself like Norrie Hoyt: an atheist with Buddhist tendancies. Cause and effect rule my life, and Karma can be a b****. So think about that before you rain down whatever spitfire you think you have. I don't like comments from the peanut gallery.

The point is simply that communism and atheism go hand in hand.

Theists were not the main target of the Khmer Rouge. I don't know how this relates? Anyone with education or who had contact with the western world were slaughtered under Pol Pot.

You are not alone Russell D. Speed's main objective is to jump in with some lame negative comment about Susan Jacoby then run away. He did it on the last topic as well.

I do like your take on skepticism.

And I've seen this before on other threads. Please don't generalize and call all nonreligious folk on here athiests. Some of us aren't. Thanks.

Russell - nice comment. Are pharmaceuticals your crutch?

Do you revolutionaries study history (aside from the crusades?) Ever hear of Pol Pot and his Killing Fields 1.5 million? Or perhaps the 60 million in Russia under Stalin or 30 million in China for Mao.

I am a skeptic John, and I don't want to eradicate all Christian belief. In fact, I don't mind religion, it gives people hope and allows them to stand on there own two feet(albeit as a crutch). The problem I have is in the messengers and the way they bring that message to people. They have gotten the message wrong over the last 2,000 years, and it needs to be looked at differently. The general message of religon and Christianity in particular needs to be heard. The other stuff can take a back seat.

Oh, and am I the only one that thinks Mr. Speed123 over there needs a zanex?

John,

What Killing Fields are you speaking of?

The trouble with so-called "skeptics" is they are intent upon eradicating all Christian belief. Atheistic philosophers have concocted everything from no-fault divorce, a rationale for adultery, promotion of promiscuity, euthanasia, etc.

There is good reason to be skeptic about the bigotry that hides behind the face of "skepticism." Atheism merely is an excuse for every sort of anti-social behavior under the Sun.
When will anti-theists reflect upon the massacres of theists during the French Revolution in the name of freedom, the Soviet gulags, the murders of Catholic priests and nuns prior to the Spanish Civil War, the Killing Fields, etc.

If ecclesiastical instituions own most of the land so what. Eliminating theism won't bring peace on earth because people will simply find new excuses for killing each other, say in the name of "tolerance."

Ms. Jacoby's "skepticism" is nothing but hate-filled drivel.

SPEED123, did you say something?

RALPH:

You're probably right. W hasn't got anything straight yet. He should attack Canada instead of Iraq and Iran. Canada has 11 times more oil than OPEC. W probably owns stock in a tanker company. It can be piped in from Canada. Does Haliburton build and operate pipelines?

Davey,

I believe Jihadist was giving her opinions as a Muslim woman. Unless you, yourself, are a Muslim woman, how can you tell her she's wrong? Ali is annoying because she should refocus her efforts into something she knows more about. Since she's adapted to the West, she can't hope to effectively have an impact on women still living in Islamic areas.

See, now I am in the mud!

Yes, BGONE!

Lets round up all of the clerics and exterminate the problem right at it's root - just like the french revolution!

Regin of Terror here we come! I propose that BGONE and Jacoby by our leaders of this revolution of reason!!!

NEAL JETTPACE:

"complete neutrality of the state towards religion" is violated by any law that mentions religion, religious practice or the operation of religious businesses, (calling them charities). The law that uses the word "religion" must either tend to "establish" religion or "prohibit" it and therefore cannot be neutral. The tax laws all violate the first amendment. So do marriage, minister recognition, or recognition of any religious group by law.

Pat Robertson, who has his own "tax free" television network argues, "that's what the founders indended" that religion is an integral part of the government, there should be an American pope, him. Billy Graham (BGone) is the defacto pope, "America's pastor."

Religions stand alone as owners of real estate. The rest of us only RENT from the government. RE taxes is rent implying that the state owns our homes and businesses. Not so for religions. If that doesn't establish religion it can't be established.

The French revolution, (revolution must include land reform) siezed church real property that was rapidly becoming the entire country of France. The American revolution is incomplete withour land reform, not yet implemented with respect to religion. Unchecked, religion will eventually own all the real property in the US, a mathematical certainty. That's what Napoleon said about religion in France, the entire world.

As the old saying goes, no use wrestling a pig; you both get stuck down in the mud and that is where the pig loves to be.

Jacoby provides the same old propaganda/polemics here - nothing new. She must be the atheist O'Reilly.

Jihadist (such a suitable handle).

The only power and freedom you have is because you don't live under Islamic rule.

Ali annoys you because she embraced the West? Well you see in The West, not under Islam, none of the Islamic based filth that happened to her would have happened. It's called late in the day common sense on her part.

And actually you peaceful Islamists butchered her movie Director in the streets and put her under a death threat (and we see everyday in Somlai, Darfur and Iraq who much Islamist LOVE to rape and butcher women and girls who annoy Allah)...so perhaps she feels safer in America!!
Afterall, even Holland has become so awash with you Islamic freaks that it's no longer safe even in that once liberal, tolerent country.

Apologist? Delusional? Liar? Which are YOU 'Jihadist'? Or is it a mixture?

Chip,

Nail on the head. Media Whoring...I'll have to watch that video when I get home from work.

Speed123, did you have something to contribute to the topic or are you just here to bash atheists? That's a rather large log you have in your eye there.

Jacoby is no free-thinker!

This section is simply used to get people riled up and cause the media's favorite thing in the world: controversy.

She is a bigoted and prone to polemics as anyone she criticizes.

But this is what she wants/promotes, division and hate as opposed to understanding and love.

----Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, northern Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and the rest of the Middle East.---

OOPS! Spot a strong common thread there??
They all involve the following;
Islam in power.
Islam is dominant.
Islam is on the rise.

If not...explain why (Western Islamic ghettos aside of course) such practices don't happen in Western/Secular/Christian countries, or have open cultural backing for doing so??
Hmm???

---Surely I can think for myself----

Quite obviously NOT.

Here's a stellar example of exactly the kind of media bias Susan is talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU

I'm not sure that bias is really the right word, though, when it comes to television news "journalism." Pandering is closer to the mark. "Whoring" is closer still. News divisions used to be loss leaders and weren't expected to be profitable. It was a public service. Those days are gone and now news is strictly for profit so we get news that's slanted to cater to the tastes of the majority view instead of to objective facts. Fairness simply isn't a part of the equation at all.

There most certainly is a bias for religion in the media (by religion I mean Christianity). Could this be because the Christians in America are far more vocal than the Non?

Well said, Ms. Jacoby. Your commentary was dead-on.

I don't agree Ms. Jacoby's assertion that the press treats religion with deference, but I do agree that it treats religious institutions with deference. Many reporters and editors who soft-pedal or avoid stories about priest-pedophiles or about churches that misuse funds don't believe in God. And yet, so many non-religious reporters and editors show knee-jerk deference to rabbis, priests, bishops, ministers, churches, dioceses, synods and conventions. The real issue here is ignorance. Most reporters and editors - like most Americans - receive appallingly inadequate educations in world religion. Better educated members of the press will be more comfortable with religious subject matter - and more comfortable with the notion that (for example) criticizing a immoral priest or an enabling bishop isn't the same thing as condemning an entire system of belief. Journalists who don't know what they're covering often work their beats gingerly. That's bad for the press and bad for religion.

Actually, I find some reassurance in the negative portrayal of fundamentalism in mainstream American media. Oddly enough, the best way to do this is simply to let the adherents speak for themselves in their own language.

Fundamentalism is the greatest evil the world faces today. The idea the one particular religion (actually denomination - the fundamentalists always claim that others of the faith are unauthentic) holds all the absolute truth is arrogant beyond words. And this same arrogance breeds an ends-justify-the-means approach to morality.

Islam didn't fly airliners into the towers; fundamentalism did. Christianity does not fire-bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors; fundamentalism does. Hindi does not tear down centuries old mosques and slaughter muslims by the dozens; fundamentalism does.

Years ago a journalist asked novelist Kurt Vonnegut why he was an atheist. He responded that when someone thinks they have all the absolute truth, they can (and always do) justify whatever action they choose. Eventually, he went on, one of these people (or groups) will get a neuclear device. And when they do they will use it in the name of whatever god they worship.

Let's hope he's wrong.

Canyon -

Many fundamentalist Christians argue that the phrase "separation of chruch and state" does not appear as literal text in the 1st Amendment. They go on to claim that it only guarantees "freedom of", not "freedom from" religion.

Fortunately, the founding fathers used much more exacting language with regards to this:

"Congress shall make no law either respecting (freedom from) or prohibiting (freedom of) an (the?) establishment of religion."

The term "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps he could have better stated it as "complete neutrality of the state towards religion." Actually though, I prefer the stronger language of the original.

BTW, I am not an atheist.

Maybe the media has sold it's soul, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul The big bucks go to those who lead the multitudes to hell. It's the size of the congregation that determines the quality of the stain on the window.

Miss Susan, this is the best essay I have read on the net or elsewhere for that matter. I can only agree. The media is so biased and appears to be terrified of mentioning secularism or any contractidicting facts about sacred scriptures or people. Academia is equally well harnessed, enslaved by faith.

Is there a institute for secular studies? Is there an institute for studying anything religious? Why are Hebrews being studied, is that a profession? What would happen to an "institute" that overtly supported the find that the Bible and in turn ALL sacred scriptures are hoaxes? Would we read about that in the press or see it on television? There's no room in the papers or air time for crackpots? How cracked is that pot?

The Internet is changing the rules, http://www.hoax-buster.org

Susan Jacoby and the atheists are pissed because of the ‘preferential treatment’ that the media gives religion. Pat Robertson and the fundamentalists are pissed because of the role of the media ‘in promoting a godless society’.

If all the extremists are pissed, isn’t that a strong argument that the media may not be screwing up as badly as either extreme would like to think?

Alright, I'll bite Canyon......prove it to me. this might make for a good discussion, don't you think?

Russell...

The most important part of freethinking is thinking. Susan is an athinkist. She's not a thinker, I can prove that if you just want to take a brief scan over her article here.

She thinks that the 1st Ammendment prohibits preaching. What a wild and stupid interpretation of a plainly written statement! She probably thinks it says that the church and state should be seperated. [giggling] Maybe she's not so dumb as she makes herself out to be in her articles...after all, her peddling to the agnostic masses has seemed to have made her some pretty decent cash.

But remember Susan, you can't take it with you.

There you go again Canyon, preaching again. Since when have you been a free thinker? All you ever tell people is how wrong they are and that they need to find Christ. Doesn't sound very open minded at all. Free thinking is just that-free thinking. It's not only thinking in your general circle.

As for the Media and news, and the like, they do have a kind of wall, but they put it on themselves. Why should they be afraid? So the Church doesn't condemn them? Or will they piss off the majority of America? So what, piss em off and report the news man, its a right we were given by the founding fathers. If there is something wrong with religon, say it. Don't gloss it over and pretend its all just gonna be ok.
Some of the people I have the most respect for are the people that aren't afraid to piss others off in order to make their point. It means that they have something to say, and the others just don't want to listen. Why be shy and callow when it comes to reporting religion. As far as religion goes, and I mean ANY religion, step on some toes, point out the holes and see what you get.

Dear Susan,

I wonder if it hurts to be so blinded and faithfilled? I wish I had 1/10th the faith in my religion as you do in yours. I'm so happy to actually be openminded and a thinker, because it hurts my soul to think how it must be so hard for you to maintain your faith in such ridiculousness. It must be terrible to think that little-ole you is so horribly persecuted and oppressed and no one understands you.

I'll tell you the truth, I have a great job wher I'm able to reply to your posts, as well as listen to multiple sermons a day, read lots of books, and many, many news articles. The news is leaned toward the religion of fast cash, not towards my religion, not towards yours. They are just as likely to support your side-religion of evolution or that a jelly donut looks like the Virgin Mary; if anything they are biased to the religion of naturalism, but only because at current that is what generates interest in their articles.

I'd like to remind you it's not too late for you to start paying attention, and it's definitely not too late for you to repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ to save you.

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

At least she should admit that in countries at war or where countries are preparing for large-scale military invasion, religion helps prepare the people for massive casualties and bloodshed. We're on our way to Tehran and cheap gasoline.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

I see that you are busy spewing, venting and obsessing in Pamela Taylor's thread.

Come on here and give your usual thoughts on Muslim women, Islam and Muslims.

But no offence if I don't respond. I'm busy at the Global Islamic Finance Forum in Kuala Lumpur today and on 28 March 2007 and will be be "on road again" after that.

Norrie,

Thanks for telling me about this topic in another thread. Can't resist the fun, in spite of having no time, of adding to the impending cauldron on this topic as a beige Muslim woman living in a developing country.

And Norrie, there is nothing PC or RC (religiously correct) in the reports, say, by Fox on Muslims and Islam. What retribution and from which source?. They got good ratings too. Only retributions from the majorities in any socieities works against the media in the marketplace of ideas. They are, after all, significant consumers. Who wants and can afford to see advertisers and consumers boycotting their products or networks?

People do form percepetions, values and opinions by what they see, read, hear and personally experience as Ms. Susan Jacoby said in another article of hers in On Faith. Not to mention where we come from, and our own personal and national history and culture.

Regards my friend and I really truly should get back to what I have to do here half the world and more. Lunchtime over. Have already chewed on and spat out on Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an example of how perceptions are tried to be formed on her by the media, for or against, and how media "spins" do or do not work re anything.

Ms Susan Jacoby,

Surely you are not defending Ayaan Hirsi Ali on mere principles as a fellow atheist or freethinker:)

This should be fun.

Ummmmm.... interesting assumptions and generalizations. I had thought your piece could have been written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Wish it was by Irshad Manji. She has more wit than Hirsi Ali.

Ahhh.. let me see, I do not treat all people opposed to all religion as extremists and crackpots. I do treat those who easily call me delusional, illogical, irrational, moronic or psychologically ill and such for believing in God and being an adherent of a religion to be a rather expansive and sometimes quite certain in their views, tolerated their excitable remarks, and do not stop myself from reading what they wrote.

And of course, labeling Muslims as liberals, progressives, fanatics, extremists, fundamentalists, conservatives is a favourite sport by the media for catchy headlines and soundbites to encapsulate this and that. I love indulging in niching, categorizing, seperating etc too. But, Muslims have no imagination. We just call ourselves Muslims and among ourselves, as devout Muslims or otherwise in practicing the tenets of the faith.

Atheists raised as Muslims and those living in the west are not really an issue for Muslims until they make an issue of themselves. Of course in wanting a public reaction they would get a public reaction and excessive ones too.

Unfortunately for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she was and is not only perceived by the Muslim world to be lauded by the western media, but her views and stance is dismissed as mounthpieces for the, er, so-called western establishment in the clash of civilization and such other characterizations of the west, and mirrored by the Islamic world in reaction. Did not help when she now works for the American Enterprise Institute. Political and ideological alignments do tend to shape people's perceptions of where one stands. More so than religion.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as the author of the self-labeled "Infidel", is not that known by Muslim feminists from Morocco to Indonesia. I read her book because a British friend gave it to me. She is a generalist recapping/summarizing what is already known on women within Islam. She does not seem to have quite the understanding nor a grasp of the real situatuion on the ground and the particularities of societies on practices of arranged marraiges to female circumcisions/genitilia mutilation that are assumed to be Islamic based.

Apparently, Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks, and is believed in the west by her constant and earnest appearances on TV and in interviews, to know more about Muslim women from Morocco to Indonesia, who are actually promoting and advancing the rights of women in their respective societies, than these women themselves.

Oh yes, that obsession with the hijab, niqab and such as symbols of non-liberation and modernization for Muslim women. To assume Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be more acceptable (to whom?) if she covered her head and professed respect for the "real" Islam is a bit of a stretch. This is not about "respecting" Islam surely. This is also about respecting a Muslim woman's rights to put on the scarf or otherwise. It is about respecting the person's personal beliefs and rights. And, by the way, Muslim women from Morocco ot Indonesia do not wear a scarf, niqab or hijab by choice too.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's atheism was not suspect because it is based on her negative personal experiences with Islamists. You do flatter her choice too much. It is "cultural war" by her own statements -our culture, our heritage, our civilization, our values (meaning western). She do come across as a Oreo and regretably became, for European Muslims, a "tool", a "mouthpiece" for Islamophobes in Europe. It was that kind of atmosphere in Europe of "us vs them". And Muslims in the wider Muslim world would surely not be expected to take "advise" from a western woman, which she is in fact, on their values and religion.

And nahh.... Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not that brave. The brave Muslim women are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia facing down the fundamentalists everyday to assert, protect and advance the rights of Muslim women 24/7 and not known by the west. They are not cooped up in some think tank.
What they have to say has more relevence and practicality for advancing Muslim women.

Let me tell you a small story. A few years back, a friend, acknowledged and respected in the Muslim world to be an expert on Islam as well as scholar and advocate of women's rights, attended a conference in London on women in Islam. There were scholars and thinkers and NGO reps too from the west (Europe and North America) apart from Muslim women from Morocco to Indonesia. The Muslim women made substantive presentations based on the ground research, but come lunches and dinners and tea breaks, the male western scholars and "experts" of women in Islam and Islam seek each other out.

Now, fact is, over 1 billion Muslims, and thus, at least about 500 million Muslim women are outside North America and Europe in over 50 Muslim majority countries in Asia and Africa. So, now, do you really think a western scholar on Islam or a Somalian woman who migrated to Europe and now in the US is in postion to credibly speak about women in Islam and find an audience in the Islamic world?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was hard pressed to name any women's Muslim organizations in the Netherlands, much less the wider Muslim world. Nor was she ever involved in them.

My suggestion is for Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali to focus her minds and energies in helping migrant Muslim women adjust to their new environments in North America and Europe. Unlike in the US, the Muslim migrants to Europe are from the lower income groups with less than desired level of education.

There is nothing she can do to change us in the wider Muslim world. We have more power to do so. After all, she is an opportunistic poseur and not a genuine feminist. Tell me something I don't already know about Muslim women, Islamic history and current state of Islam and Muslims.

This is not about being an atheist or being a Muslim woman.

This is not about vilifying a former Muslim for being an atheist.

This is not about freedom of thought or freedom of expression.

This is about what one can and should do at the practical level about what troubles one the most -be it environmental degradation, exremism of views and actions, sexism and racism among others. Granted, Ayaan Hirsi Ali highlighted a small slice of the "plight" of Muslim women to the wide eyed westerners. The pain fact is, Muslim women want access to better health, better education, better standards of living for their families and them. And these are the real challenges and priorities in Muslim countries. Figures shows that with such, the rights of Muslim women are better protected and advanced.

So, excuse me while I ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali again. It does get tedious to be told that she is the greatest thing since sliced bread for Muslim women. Surely I can think for myself and am free to do so to have another view, another perpective of Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I have a higher regard and respect for you than her as a writer/thinker.

And Give me Gloria Steinem anyday as an inspiration on women's rights - outrageous acts and everyday rebellions indeed, against the west and the Muslim inerrantists as and when necessary :)

Have a nice weekend.

Susan Jacoby,

As usual, you have stated the truth and written wonderfully in your presentation of it.

The other side of the reporting on religion question, which you didn't mention, is that reporters and commentators are terrified of retribution from a multitude of sources if their reporting does anything other than paint a glowingly favorable picture of whatever aspect of religion they are reporting on.

[See my comments on the Cal Thomas thread.]

Ms Jacoby you write:"Apparently American multiculturalist commentators think they know more about the plight of Muslim women than a woman who has actually endured female circumcision." Do I read in your commnent a hint of implicit statement that Islam sanctions female cicumcision too? Islam does not sanction female circumcision. It is a tradition found in the horn of Africa and it has nothing to do with Islam. It is not done in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, northern Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and the rest of the Middle East. It is evil act that robs the woman of her sexuality and should be stopped and countries that practice this haynous tradition should be sanctioned and punished.

Also you write: "Hirsi Ali would be more acceptable if she covered her head and professed respect for the "real" Islam--as opposed to the "unreal" Islam that sanctions honor killings and holds women responsible for being raped.

Ali is a self hating 'Muslim.' Besides, I don't think she is helping any one by her frivolous attack on Islam and Muslims. There are many ways to go about fixing a problem other than insulting whom you are trying to help. I doubt her sincerity and motives in all this.
A woman in Islam is not held responsible of being raped. Where do you get such a genral blatant statemnet like that. All I know is in the Quran it is required to have four witnesses when you accuse some one of a lewd act. I agree these things might happen in some muslim countries; but that is not because of the Quran and the teaching of Islam. Here in the United States most people would blame the woman for being raped. It is the burden of the woman to prove in a court of law that she was raped and most would rather not do that because of all the scrutiny and denegration she has to go through in front of every one and accused of leading the man to rape her. That does not make it right but it is an issue women face here too. Granted women in muslim countries have long ways to go to achieve their freedom from men but that has nothing to do with Islam and its teachings. I think the issue is more of economical than any thing else. If woman achieves economical freedom that would open a lot of doors for her and lead her to have more freedom and rights. Most muslim countries have low literacy rate and that can only produce more ignorant and opressive behavior on the part of the man against the woman. I think the only way to combat that is to grant women the tools to break away from those shackles. Education is a good start; but that's not good enough when you have a bunch of eduacted men and women and no jobs to find. We owe it to the women in the third world countries to help them achieve their goals through many channels. Family planning is a good example of that but alas the U.S. cut funding for that plan when the republican got the majority in congress. Women in the west achieved their level of freedom because of their economical status. Granted women in the U.S. are not paid the same dollar for dollar as their male couterparts and still have an invisible glass ceiling when it comes to advancement but that will go away soon too.

What choice do we have then? I think we should teach about all the religions in school to eradicate ignorance about them then.