Yes, There Are Atheists (And Religious Minorities) In Foxholes

Mr Mark/CCNL: My mistake in confusing Robert M. Price and R.G. Price. Robert Price, who does have credentials as a biblical scholar, also embraces the Jesus-as-myth theory. And he was a former Baptist minister. His books are harder to read but very well researched.

CCNL: Yes, many scholars want to reconstruct the Testimonium along the following lines:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Of course, there's absolutely no evidence this entry is authentic. The fact that no church fathers, including Origen, who cited Josephus on other matters, noticed this entry for more than 200 years. This would have provided just the punch Origen needed in his rebuttal to the pagan Celsus.

Also, while it's true Josephus refers to John the Baptist, he doesn't connect the two. And, the entry on the Baptist comes after that for Jesus, raising further suspicion that the Testimonium is a later insertion in its entirety.

(For about 15 centuries, apparently no Christians questioned the extant Testimonium, where the Jew Josephus refers to Jesus as the Messiah.)

Dear CCNL -

Rather than name call ("not mature" etc) and rather than engage in your attempts at creative innuendo, why not address my arguments against Josephus and Tacitus? Have you no counter argument? Perhaps one of your 1000-word cut-n-paste jobs will be making (another!) unwelcomed appearance?

(This is a repost from yesterday. As CCNL hasn't bothered responding, I thought I'd try again).

Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark,

"Grace upon thee at meal times and beyound!!!"

No confusing Maier and Meier here. Just noting that Paul Maier's reference was given many times in the past in the 35 references recommended for reading as a starting point to a degree in religious history.

And still no background information about your R.G. Price?? There must be some somewhere.

And when you get time, you might want to read the works of Josephus as they are on-line at no cost.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

As recommended before for your Christmas wish list: Professors Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul. Read it and you just might find the "prudish" wonder as he traveled about the first century Roman Empire.

News Flash: The Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist was caught reading Hirsi Ali's "Infidel" and also Sir Salman Rushdie's, "Satanic Verses" and is now in a Malaysian correction facility undergoing Islamic brainwashing. Just kidding!!!!

A personal note: Both books are a must read for those who live in a free country. Excerpts to follow at a later date.

Don't be throw off by references to Jihadist.

Pseudo, Anonymous, Farnaz and many others are the same person. Jihadist has nothing to do with it.

"ANONYMOUS:

Pseudo you have the unique writing style of Jihadist."

Pseudo is not the Jihadist
That would be just so immodest
To mimic an On Faith blog Goddess

There once was a blogger fastidious
Intending to be so splendiferous
Then he’d call people pigs,
And so act like a prig,
Then pretend that he wasn’t invidious

Although Mohammad received his first revelation in 610 AD, the Muslim era starts in 622 AD, the year Mohammad fled from Mecca to Medina and established political rule. Thus it can be concluded Islam is a political religion.

It was easy enough for Mohammad to get acquainted with Jewish Scripture from the Jewish tribes who lived in Mecca in his time. He travelled with them on business to Syria regularly. He first wife had a Coptic Christian as a slave. He also met Christians on trips to Syria, then a country with many Christians.

Pseudo is not Jihadist - I am convinced she would never say:

"BTW, you sound less mechanical lately. Were you ported from BASIC to PROLOG?"

As an old programmer, I laughed a lot at this. Lost on CCNL though.

I do wonder what happened to Jihadist, though.

Mohammad was an Arab pagan who reformed Arab paganism. Allah is the name of an Arab pagan God who was worshipped at the Kabbaah in Mecca many centuries before the birth of Islam. Mohammad got rid of Allah's three daughters and endowed Allah with the attributes of JHWH borrowed from Jewish Scripture, and added Jesus to the list of prophets. Thus a new religion was created.

Pseudo you have the unique writing style of Jihadist.

Shell Script, Shell Script, Shell Script:

"Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark"

"Oops, the last comments were mine."

How would we know? How would we know? How would we know?

May I suggest a more compact notation like:

(Mr. Mark)^3 ? Saves typing.

BTW, you sound less mechanical lately. Were you ported from BASIC to PROLOG?

CCNL:

Another thing. If I'm not mistaken, even Prof. Crossan, who relies so heavily on Josephus admits, the meeting of the Sanhedrin could not have taken place, not possible, not in this world. This is a widely held view among Christian scholars, as well as Jewish, and I refer you to one of your favorite sources, Wikepedia for verification.

So. Paul was always Paul, and, you, yourself, have been dismissive of him or, prior to his "conversion," he was a religion unto himself. Gospel writers are inconsistent with one another and can't tell Sadducees from Pharisees. (In all likelihood, their motive was political; at least one hopes they had a motive and weren't merely clueless.) Josephus tossed as I've been telling you. Tacitus, possibly, cribbing from Josephus, not unusual among ancient historians, no mention in the Talmud, etc., etc., etc.

IMO, best to let people believe or disbelieve as they wish, my friend, not to mess with other people's scriptures, including the Tanakh, live and let live. Only when people begin efforts to legislate in accordance with their religious views, convert others, corrupt the curriculum, perpetrate bigotry, violence, double standards (e.g., my book contains facts while yours doesn't) etc., do they become a problem.

Mr. Mark, CCNL:

I don't want to intrude into what, I think, has become a conversation between the two of you. I will say that I know of no reference in the Talmud to Jesus pace MetricSU, as I mentioned to Mr. Mark a couple of days ago.

For months, CCNL, I've told you what everyone else is now telling you, that Josephus is in great doubt, is not being taken seriously by many.
As for Tacitus, as I also mentioned, and as I don't think has been raised on this thread, there is also the argument that he cribbed from Josephus.

So you have the inconsistent Gospels, with writers who confuse Sadduccees with Pharisees, a Paul, whom Hyam Macoby among many others has justly asserted could not have been Jewish, no textual, archaeological or other evidence that categorically attests to the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

I'm wondering why it is so easy for you to dispense with Moses, relegate the "OT," another people's sacred text, expropriated (and misinterpreted) by the Christians, to the myth pile, while debate remains, but insist on the historical existence of Jesus.

Double standard? We should all be your kind of "realist," which leaves only your favorite prophet standing?

Is this reasonable?

Dear Arminius,

No, shame on ME!

Mr Mark,

As you well know, I am a believer (without proof, of course - yet) in the historical existence of Jesus. But I confess to having immense enjoyment in your cheerful dissection of CCNL. Shame on me.....

Arminius

OK, CCNL. I'll play along.

Apparently, you're conceding that JP Meier is a Catholic Biblical scholar. We already knew that. He believes in Jesus. Knew that too.

What he does NOT believe is that the passage in question from Tacitus qualifies as a non-Xian confirmation of Jesus existence.

Then, you offer a list of credentials for JP Meier. Fair enough.

Next, you quote extensively from an article on Josephus written by one Paul MAIER. Notice, this is NOT the same person as JP MEIER. If I didn't know you were an honest person, I'd think you were trying to pull a fast one here, ie: hoping readers would conflate JP Meier and Paul Maier into a singular, authoritative voice on the subject.

You then close with a Crossan-like re-write of the Testimonium Flavianum by JP Meier that eliminates the "later Xian scribe" forgery aspect of the TF and replaces it with something that - while purporting to be neutral - still rejects the idea of the entire thing being a forgery and STILL gets around to making Josephus look like he is a non-Xian source for Jesus' existence. And, this rewrite is offered without a clue as to how JP Meier came to the conclusions that led him to write his rewrite. Faith? Guesswork? Publish or perish?

What was your point?

"not everything that is real either exists in time and space"

Oops, the last comments were mine.

Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark,

"Blessed art thou and these thy gifts for which we are about to receive from thy bounty through the "simple preacher man", a good person. Amen

And R.G. Price's educational background other than knowing how to copy and paste is what?

And Professor John P. Meier is not a believer in the "simple preacher man's existence" even though he questioned Tactitus' passage??

from a 1997 interview:

"Q: Can historians address the Resurrection, then?

A: We can verify as historians that Jesus existed and that certain events reported in the Gospels happened in history, yet historians can never prove the Resurrection in the same way. Why not?

Perhaps some fundamentalists would claim you can. Apart from fundamentalists, perhaps even some more conservative Catholic theologians would claim you could. I myself along with most questers for the historical Jesus—and I think a fair number of Catholic theologians as well—would say the Resurrection stands outside of the sort of questing by way of historical, critical research that is done for the life of the historical Jesus, because of the nature of the Resurrection.

The resurrection of Jesus is certainly supremely real. However, not everything that is real either exists in time and space or is empirically verifiable by historical means."

"John Paul Meier is a Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. He attended St. Joseph's Seminary and College (B.A., 1964), Gregorian University [Rome] (S.T.L, 1968), and the Biblical Institute [Rome] (S.S.D., 1976).

Meier is the author of nine books and more than 60 scholarly articles. He was editor of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly and president of the Catholic Biblical Association.

Meier is Professor of New Testament in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to Notre Dame, he was Professor at The Catholic University of America."

And what else did Professor Meier say in his books, Jesus, the Marginal Jew????

And some previous references to Josephus' histories some noted many times on these page for Mr. Mark et al's perusal:

1. From: Josephus - The Essential Works
by Paul Maier,

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

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

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

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

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

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

5. "In 1991, John Meier has suggested that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus, but that the text was glossed by a Christian author. His reconstruction of the text is as follows:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Parker - "The choice to believe or not to believe in the existence of Jesus is IMO a personal decision, deliberately so such that no one is forced into believing. We who have made the decision to believe have personal experience that corroborates our decision, nor is that decision weakened by those who have chosen otherwise. Hopefully, we can respect each other's decision and the right to make it without ridicule."

Unfortunately not. Belief is not a decision, it is the outcome of the process of rationization. The quality of that process is evidenced by the kinds of beliefs produced. Beliefs that are unsupported by compelling evidence indicate a defective process. Religious belief, which is recognizable as absolute faith despite a total lack of evidence, indicates a defect of a most extreme nature.

MetricSU writes:

"CCNL:

It's easy to find Robert Price's web site. You will learn he has two Ph.D.s from Drew University: one in Systematic Theology and the other in New Testament."

That's RM Price.

The person CCNL mentions is RG Price who has published a book called "Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth," in which he often cites the work of RM Price (and Eric Doherty) to bolster his hypothesis.

CCNL has a problem with RG's lack of credentials as a Biblical scholar.

CCNL writes:

"And you rolled out JP Meier? Not very often and I do believe via his books and in many of Professor Crossan's books/reviews as being a believer in the existence of Jesus. So what is your point???"

Well, the above is a great example of mangled syntax, but I'll try to respond. First, I'll decipher:

I believe you're saying that JP Meier is a believer. You then ask what my point is for citing his words earlier. Did I get that right?

OK.

The answer: JP Meier (believer or not) avers that Tacitus' mention of Jesus is NOT a non-Xian confirmation of Jesus' existence, but rather, it is an example of Tacitus simply repeating what was common belief at the time, a belief he probably heard from Xians.

Too bad more believers don't have the guts of a JP Meier who can admit the truth about such "evidence."

Did that help?

CCNL:

I assume you know how to do a Google search, right? It's easy to find Robert Price's web site. You will learn he has two Ph.D.s from Drew University: one in Systematic Theology and the other in New Testament.

He is the founding editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism, and a fellow of the Jesus Seminar. He's a professor of biblical studies, too.

But the main point is this: if his arguments, like Earl Doherty's, are rational, and have not been successfully countered, then why should degrees necessarily matter? I'd wager that virtually all of the "experts" you have cited have degrees from departments of theology that have concluded that of course Jesus was historical, trotting out the usual suspect evidence.

Arminius -

Thanks again for the kind words.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned my reference to George Kaplan...

Hi, Mr Mark,

I'd say we should brace ourselves for another round of long-winded spam from CCNL.

By the way, you are one hell of a good debater.

Arminius

Dear CCNL -

Rather than name call ("not mature" etc) and rather than engage in your attempts at creative innuendo, why not address my arguments against Josephus and Tacitus? Have you no counter argument? Perhaps one of your 1000-word cut-n-paste jobs will be making (another!) unwelcomed appearance?

CCNL wrote:

"Mr. Mark roles out the tired "flat earth" beliefs and the war in Iraq as somehow being related to the historic Jesus."

And I'll continue to roll out such counters to arguments made from your perspective that majority opinion somehow equates to fact. As is often said, you're welcome to your opinion, but not your own set of facts.

Your premise received the reply it deserved and certainly nothing more. Ge used to it.

Dear MetricSU:

Thanks for the kind words.

I totally agree with you about the Jesus mythology fitting in nicely with the mystery religions and with Paul speaking of Jesus in spiritual, not corporeal terms. This is part and parcel to Paul's self-aggrandizement as a disciple. Paul saw Jesus as a vision, and that's how EVERYONE sees Jesus according to Paul. Paul goes on to state that this is where knowledge of god comes from. Notice that Paul doesn't quote a single word that Jesus supposedly said? Any Xian ever wonder why?

Paging George Kaplan.

Xians are really missing the boat on this.

Hmmm, Mr. Mark hauls out his R.G. Price as the ultimate historic Jesus expert but then stops discussing said expert when asked for particulars. Not very mature!!

And I stand by my previous lists of evidence and experts. Mr. Mark roles out the tired "flat earth" beliefs and the war in Iraq as somehow being related to the historic Jesus.

So believe what you want Mr. Mark, evidence, experts, tradition, history and numbers rule the day!!!

And you rolled out JP Meier? Not very often and I do believe via his books and in many of Professor Crossan's books/reviews as being a believer in the existence of Jesus. So what is your point???

Mr Mark: Nice work on this blog. Anyone who dares can look up all of your references, and can study extant texts, to determine how strong is the evidence in favor of an historical Jesus. As you know, and as any honest person will conclude, there is no convincing reference to Jesus in the entire first century. Contrary to what apologists try to claim -- usually by throwing out a long list of bogus "references" to Jesus -- Josephus is the only non-Christian reference that's even in the running. Tacitus, if it is authentic, comes later and provides no direct evidence of an historical Jesus, anyway.

I recommend Frank Zindler's "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew." He completing destroys the claims that the Talmud, even dozens of decades after the fact, refers to Jesus. This is a big problem for apologists. Jesus is not mentioned in the Talmud. Because this situation seems almost impossible if such a figure existed, Christians had to claim that other figures being mentioned were "code" for Jesus. Of course, this raises its own problems: one must then embrace all kinds of conflicting descriptions of Jesus, including even when he lived.

Let me just emphasize another important facet to the mythicists' case: the silence about any human figure in the NT epistles. Paul and others describe Jesus in very mystical terms, never placing any events in an historical setting. This includes the "Lord's Supper" and the crucifixion/resurrection. That these happened, from Paul's perspective, in a mythical realm is convincingly argued by Earl Doherty. And, there was precedent in the so-called mystery religions of the time. There are a few references in the epistles that may seem like they are to a human, but some are very late (such as in 1 Timothy, written in the 2nd century), obvious interpolations, or explained by the thinking of the time.

CCNL seems to think that producing long lists of scholars is somehow impressive. I'm reminded of Bertrand Russell here: "If 40 million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."

Dear Parker -

Thanks for the kind words.

The problem that I have with the whole "Jesus existence" topic is that it is presented by received opinion as if there is no doubt whatsoever that he existed. I was a Xian well into my mid-30s, and I can't recall ever hearing any doubt whatsoever presented that Jesus wasn't real and might have been a mythical person. I think that after 30 years of indoctrination and "growth" in one's faith, that the majority of people are going to reject any question of Jesus' existence as being a) silly and b) anti-Christian.

My sister and I were chatting about this once, and her position was "oh, that stuff has all been debunked centuries ago," to which I could only reply, "really?" She's convinced that the "Jesus didn't exist" stuff was settled before the Council of Nicea. She's convinced that all of the pagan religions imitated Xianity, not the other way around. For a woman with a graduate degree, there are some things she's not open to hearing about. Could the years of religious indoctrination play a part in that?

Yes, the "truth claims" of Xian are based on fantasy and faux history, and in that order. Yet people used to go to their deaths for their belief in Jesus (doesn't happen so much these days). Today's population should know better, or should at least be given the routine chance to see the evidence against whether Jesus existed.

I can only assume that the believers are loath to do so because they know that such knowledge would eventually undermine their faith and the faith of others.

Religion is not a "truth" that can well withstand the light of knowledge.

Dear CCNL -

Now you're just being silly.

Since when does a volume of belief add up to truth? Most of humankind believed that the Earth was flat for centuries. Most of humankind believed the Earth revolved around the sun. Most Americans believed bush's lies that took us into Iraq. So what if most people believe Jesus existed? It doesn't make it true.

Citing van Voorst's books that discuss religious "traditions" as some kind of historic authority? A tradition is not a fact.

And why are you obsessing about my NOT citing R.G. Price? What's the matter? Did my citing a published Biblical scholar (JP Meier) preempt your hauling out your usual comebacks? Aww. Poor baby!

And what in god's green Earth is up with you listing only two examples of books by non-believers and setting that against a longer list of books by believers? Do I REALLY need to go through the exercise of posting a list of books by Biblical scholars and historians that question Jesus' existence? How long should it be? 10 books? 100? Should I keep it to the last 25 years or go back to the guys from the 1800s?

Here's a fact for you CCNL: no matter what your selected authors say, they are offering opinions, not facts. There is no evidence for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible. The strongest case WAS the text in Josephus, but that passage has been seriously undermined as being authentic through the work of Biblical scholars. Now, if you and Crossan wish to consider an obvious forgery that was inserted in Josephus' text 300 years after Josephus died as "authentic Josephus," have at it.

If you wish to cite authors who consider Tacitus confirming Jesus existence, have at it. But a question: why does Tacitus refer to him as "Christus" and not Jesus? Christus isn't a name. It's a title that means "annointed one." Had Jesus' name been listed in some tally of Roman executions, his name would have appeared as Yeshua or Iēsous. This would be akin to the court in the Hague naming bush as "president" in their (hopefully on the way) indictments for war crimes. This is important because some pro-Jesus scholars assert that Tacitus must have seen jesus' name in some official document.

More likely, Tacitus was simply repeating what he heard from Xians. As they were called Xians, he assumed they took their sect's name from the name of their god, ie; Christus.

And let's be clear about exactly WHAT Tacitus is writing about and WHEN he wrote it: he is writing about Nero and the fires that destroyed much of Rome in 64CE. He mentions the Xians only as a small sidebar in a large text concerning Nero. And, he was writing in 109CE, ie: 45 years AFTER the event happened. By 109CE, the Jesus story was common knowledge. The Gospel of Mark could have been in circulation for 40 years when Tacitus wrote his little bit about Christus.

And THAT'S what you, Crossan and others want to hang your hats on as non-Xian proof that Jesus existed? BWAA!

At the end of the day, the EVIDENCE for Jesus' existence is non-existent. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it so, whether it comes from Crossan or the Pope or any other "concerned" individual.

The United States has morphed into an empire, more powerful and influential in the world today, than Rome was in its time. We fight our wars in far-away lands, for reasons that are complicated, that do not translate, or relate easily to the classic American values of Freedom and Liberty, and are surely not related to defense of the homeland.

I realize that the soilder-warriers who fight these wars are human beings, and may become afraid at the prospect of death in battle, and maybe the government might need to buck up their courage with religions. In order to fulfull its goals, you would expect this of the military.

Yet, that leaves a philosophical disconnect between Christianity and Crhistian values on the one hand, and the imperial war machine, on the other.

Isn't this the elephant in the room? After all, this is called "On Faith" not "On War."

People are arguing here as though there is no disconnect, that it is merely a given that God and Jesus Christ would always be on our side in everything, that by right and definition, we are on God's side as much as he is on ours.

I am just throwing this out as something to think about.

Arminius and Mr. Mark,
I had appreciated and enjoyed your recent even-toned discussion about the existence of Jesus. Thanks for your perspectives.

Every time I read such a discussion I think about having done genealogical research and how hard it is to sift through source data to find the connections. My family has been able to push backward eight to ten generations on a few lines, into the 1600's, but not beyond.

If one experiences doing such research, they can comprehend that just because evidence can't be found for the specific names and existence of all of their ancestors, doesn't mean they didn't exist (obviously).

The choice to believe or not to believe in the existence of Jesus is IMO a personal decision, deliberately so such that no one is forced into believing. We who have made the decision to believe have personal experience that corroborates our decision, nor is that decision weakened by those who have chosen otherwise, Hopefully, we can respect each other's decision and the right to make it without ridicule. Good day, all.

CCNL:

You write, "Because said very embellished life, summarized some great rules for living," presumably to explain why the historical existence of Jesus is so important to you.

Let us say for the sake of argument that the "Q" Gospel is authentic. There is that in the NT which contains some "good things" for living, although not all of it does, as history demonstrates. The same is true of the Tanakh, the Q'ran, etc.

Not everything in the three is true. Myth abounds in the three "Abrahamics." We cannot, sorry, say for a certainty that JC existed any more than we can say Moses existed. Errors, inconsistencies, the politics of the early Christian period all play roles in the Christian Testament. It may be that some day we will be able to excavate sites hitherto closed off to us and be more confident in our knowledge of Moses, Joshua, etc., particularly Joshua. It may be that one day, we will know, definitively, whether Christ existed or not.

We do not know this at this point. Of the three religions relying on prophets, only Mohammad's existence certain. You can and I would hope do follow those CT teachings you value, but you are a Christian atheist. Why not at least allow doubt about the existence of Christ? It's simply not a sure thing.

Because said very embellished life, summarized some great rules for living a good life as does Hinduism minus the caste system and cow reverence as does Buddhism minus all the tall tales as does Judaism minus all the mythical characters and fortune tellers as does Islam minus all the warmongering, koranic anti-female passages, hallucinations and its womanizing founder.

On the other hand, simply noting and following the Commandments (minus the godly first three) and the Beatitudes would save a lot of time!!!!!

Whether or not an itinerant, illiterate preacher names Jesus ever lived seems beside the point.

Back in the day, such crazed desert wanderers must have been as common as Baptist preachers are today (e.g. John the Baptizer himself). Why hang your hat on a semi-imaginery guy that has been more the creation of countless folklorists and mythmakers over the centuries than anything based on factual evidence - which by any standard is very skimpy indeed.

What's the big deal? The guy had no extraordinary powers, was not God incarnate, and was otherwise quite ordinary in every way......

Following the Crossan accounting of the Jesus history, he did not arise from the dead, performed no miracles, was not the product of a virgin birth, and just disappeared into the sunset like all such desert wanderers are wont to do......

If you're persuaded by that accounting, you would think that would be sufficient reason to let go of an ongoing obsession with the absolute archetype of a forgettable man, and get on with your own daily existence for as long as it lasts.

Religion based on mythical and quasi-mythical figures is actually the ongoing re-creation and reiteration by countless believers over many centuries that keep the myth alive - if viewed realistically, one individual is absolutely of no consequence in the historical scheme of things, other than as a mythical figurehead of something much larger.

Other than the sociological fact that countless millions base their lives on a religious myth, what is so fascinating about the very obscure life of one very ordinary person?

Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark,

Again nothing about your major source of historic Jesus information: i.e. R.G. Price , his educational background and yours too????

Nothing about Professor Robert Van Voorst's comments about the Tacitus' passage being authentic??

"Dr. Robert Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, has written frequently on theology and ministry in various noted journals. In addition, he has authored numerous books, including four with Wadsworth: READINGS IN CHRISTIANITY, Second Edition; ANTHOLOGY OF WORLD SCRIPTURES, Fifth Edition; ANTHOLOGY OF ASIAN SCRIPTURES; and his newest title, READING THE NEW TESTAMENT TODAY. Other books by Robert Van Voorst are BUILDING YOUR NEW TESTAMENT GREEK VOCABULARY, Second Edition; THE ASCENTS OF JAMES, a recovery and commentary on a second-century Jewish-Christian text; and JESUS OUTSIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT, an examination of traditions about Jesus from pagan, Jewish, and Christian documents before and after the New Testament. Dr. Van Voorst has been named in WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA and WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD for his contribution to religious studies."

And your "their jobs depend on it" reasoning? Professor Crossan et al could have sold a lot more books and made a lot more appearances/money if indeed their exhaustive studies showed that the simple preacher man never existed.

Hmmm, and lets compare those exegete believers and non-believers (leaving out the billions of Christians and Muslims today and those initial believers)

Non-Believers- besides R.G. Price and Mr. Mark

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

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Elleg�rd
G. A. Wells

The Believers-

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan- On Faith Panelist
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg - On Faith Panelist
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

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

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen- On Faith Panelist
Gerd L�demann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright - On Faith Panelist

Other believers
Elaine Pagels- On Faith Panelist
Karen Armstrong - On Faith Panelist

And the documents cited included the Gospel of Peter that predates (~70 CE) the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John is not part of the bible. Some exegetes have a problem with the Gospel of Peter, but it is one of the older documents and does deal with the crucifixion.

And again, you have read Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus and Professor Crossan and Reed's book, Excavating Jesus???????

test

Patrick Sarfield

I was also attempting to correct your error conflating science and atheism, when they actually are completely unrelated.

Science is a a fairly complex methodological system for figuring how the world works.

And atheism, in its very broadest sense, is the absense of a belief in God.

The way you talk, you sound like science is the enemy and that you are against science. However, I have a hard time believing that is what you really mean.

Is it?

A belief system that leads a person against science is not credible, and is not believable, and is not deserving of respect.

Science is merely a reflection of how things are. If this reflection conflicts with theology and with political agendas, and with cultural senstivities, then you cannot expect the very nature of existence to give way and change itself to suit the caprice of man's sensibilites.

I mean, even if someone were so foolish as to expect such a thing, the world simply does not work that way.

Dear CCNL -

I hate to break it to you, but citing the Bible as an "authoritative" text to bolster the claims the Jesus existed and was crucified is quite worthless. Throwing in references found in a few apocryphal books (like Clement I) that were written long after Jesus supposedly lived and that were REJECTED for inclusion in the canon also means nothing.

The discussion we are having centers around proof for Jesus' existence that is offered in NON-CHRISTIAN sources. Of COURSE any Xian source is going to blather on about how he lived, how he was god and how wonderful he was. I can find the same level of authority and "truth" reading a Batman comic.

So that brings us back to Tacitus and Josephus.

You provide some text from Wikipedia (yes, using Wikipedia as your source is always reliable, much more so than my occasionally citing one Biblical scholar/researcher or another) that serves to prove that there IS NO AGREEMENT among Biblical scholars as to the authenticity of the passages in Tacitus and Josephus that mention Jesus.

And that's my whole point. That Crossan and his Jesus Seminar pals latch onto such debatable information and aver that “the Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea" is absolutely shameful. It's akin to asserting that "everybody agrees that Saddam had stockpiles of WsMD when bush invaded Iraq."

A more honest approach would be to write, "while it would appear that both Tacitus and Josephus agree that Jesus was executed by the Roman governor of Judea, the passages in their works that so aver are considered by many to be forgeries or simple repetitions of the beliefs of Xians who lived around 100 AD. As such, they cannot be considered definitive non-Xian proof of Jesus' existence, as much as one would like to believe it was so."

As others have noted on this blog, there is a point in disproving evidence for Jesus that Crossan and his pals will not cross for the simple reason that totally disproving his existence would have the effect of putting Crossan and others out of a job.

Patrick Sarfield said:

"BTW, your claim that the Catholic Church is lost in the Medieval Ages ..."

I did not not say that. I said that the "Catholic paradigm has Medeival European features..."

If you would like to trash that statement, then at least you would be more accurate.

Christian Clergy of the many divisions of Christianity may have an effect on how you accept God, in the religion your were born into, or accepted when older. How your Lifestyle develops, will strengthen your Faith, or change it, or lose it.

I had two pastors, in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Religion. One from Birth until I was 32, when I moved to to suburbs. I had another pastor until I was 50, when I gave up Church for this new understanding, of GOD, God, and Human Life. I did not give up GOD, God or Jesus.

Eternal Physical Life After Birth, is a High Tech Science Lifestyle of the Gods of religion and myth. GOD is the Maker, of the Temple of All Visible and Invisible, Physical and Element Life, as we Know it today.

I accept that Human Pure-bred Asexual Bodies, made in a High Tech Womb, can have Eternal Physical Life After Birth, like the Gods of Religion and myth. I do not accept Religious 'Life' After Death anymore.

The Invisible Elements of our Physical Bodies, made in the female womb, do Return/Decay to the Invisible Elements, in our Solar System and in our Universe. High Tech Science Eternal Physical Life, is possible After Birth, for Humans Born, or 'regenerated' like Jesus with High Tech Science.

Jesus and the 'Father' of Life on Earth, are Physical Higher Human 'Beings', called Religious Spirit 'Being' Gods. Original Humans on Earth, with Eternal Physical High Tech Pure-bred Human Life, lost this Knowledge, when they started Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth, and lost their High Tech 'regeneration' Science.

What is Life After Death, but the return of our Living Elements, to GODs Invisible Elements Storehouse, that are Eternal, but change into Life Forms. Without GODs Invisible Elements, to Transmigrate, there is No Life as we Know it, After Birth.

EDTC writes:
"Mr Mark,

The Talmud also references Jesus. Is this a Christian forgery too?"

OK, I'll explain it once, so follow closely:

There are no rabbinical texts that are contemporaneous to when Jesus lived that mention him. According to the Biblical scholar JP Meier:

"Despite various claims, no early rabbinic text (the earliest being the Mishna, composed ca. A.D. 200) contains information about Jesus, and later rabbinic texts simply reflect knowledge of, and mocking midrash on, Christian texts and preaching."

The point is that any reference to Jesus in the Talmud was written AFTER 200 AD. Big deal. Writers of the Talmud were simply repeating what others said about Jesus. His name appearing in the Talmud adds nothing to the equation of whether or not he existed, just as the Cargo Cults awaiting the return of John Frum doesn't make him a real person.

Mr Mark,

The Talmud also references Jesus. Is this a Christian forgery too?

DILD,

You wrote:
"I wrote a big long thing, but it got lost. How frustrating! So, I will summarize, which is probalby better, anyway.

Patrick Sarfield is confusing atheism with science. They actually are not related in any way.

He is relating them only in a personal way, that they both threaten his Catholic paradigm, which has Medeival European features, and is therefore difficult to maintain, without some modification in this new and modern world called the twenty first century."

The fact that your attempt at substance got lost is hardly an excuse for another of your conclusory, ad hominem attacks. If you write something substantive and it rises above the level of this, I may respond.

BTW, your claim that the Catholic Church is lost in the Medieval Ages was old when the philosophes made it almost 300 years ago. Since then, the Catholic Church has grown by almost 1 Billion people and survived repeated attacks on it like the Penal Laws in England, Ireland, Scotland and the American Colonies, the official atheism of the Communist lands and the Masonic Laws in PRI Mexico, Portugal, Third Republic France and Spain. What's more, for all the purported medievality of the Catholic Church, the "oh-so-modern" British Empire and the other enlightened Protestant countries of Europe, which had held onto the outdated Julian Calendar for 170 years after the Papacy caught the World up with the Seasons by promulgating the Modern Gregorian Calendar, finally gave up the ghost and admitted the better Science of the Medieval Catholic Church.

"ANONYMOUS:

Pseudo is Jihadist come to the rescue of Farnaz?"

Pseudo's writer of satire.
Not stuck in the muck of Jihad mire.

Relax and be not so paranoid
Such fantasies should you just avoid

For what would a Pseudo Jihad be?
War, peace, or just frolicking sanity?

Yes, anon. Farnaz is many people, but I would hope not Y2C &Co. What Farnaz really likes is online muggings and for that she morphs into multiple personae. She had a good run of them, I was one of the initial victims, but she moved onto others before she was stopped, mostly by you, I think.

OTOH the Starbucks folk—and somehow I never saw them as having coffee there, with their exquisite taste they were far more likely to patronize coffee shops in the French mode, similar to those of 19th c. Vienna, after all they did know Sigmund—had a gentleness and sense of the craziness of existence. They must have studied in the school of the great Marx—Groucho.

Must admit I *loved* the idea of the trio stopping into, well, for my purposes a Dublin tea shop. I wrote a little piece about it. (Not here.) What I would feed them—soda bread, home made raspberry conserve, butter from a nearby creamery—and how diligently I would prepare my silver service for I would not serve the Lord with tarnished silver! (I’ve always been more Martha than Mary in spite of the name, it is a failing, I know). I hope they return.

(As an added bonus they drove Spidey/HolyCow/Anon--the nasty one quite mad.)

In the US, 76.5% are Christians, 1.7% are Jews and only 0.6% are Muslims. Yet Farnaz is extremely concerned with a handful of Muslims who might have to read the New Testament as part of their curriculum. Would she that the whole curriculum of the nation be tailored only to Muslim students instead?

Farnaz maybe talks to herself with different names.

Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark, Mr. Mark,

(I said Grace before writing this.)

Some obvious exclusions in your response i.e. all the following references to the crucifixion, i.e.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus

Nothing about the Jesus Seminarians conclusions.

Nothing about your favorite "source" of historical Jesus information i.e. R.G. Price.

No indication you have read Professor Crossan's book, "The Historical Jesus" and/or also Professor Crossan and Reed's book, "Excavating Jesus".

With repect to Tacitus:

from wikipedia-

"Some people have suggested that this passage could be a later addition by Christian scribes,[4] No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution, although this is an argument from silence. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero, however the Tacitus text itself demonstrates that it may not be such a good resource for Christians to refer to since the text derides Christians and Christianity.[5]

Sulpicius Severus repeats the passage nearly verbatim without crediting Tacitus in Chronica, but it is unknown whether Severus borrowed from Tacitus, whether a Christian scribe inserted Severus into Tacitus or whether a third source was involved. It also should be noted that there is no direct evidence to support these assertions.

The passage also apparently mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect, an apparent mistake also made in a passage by Josephus.[6] This apparent mistake, while possibly showing a common editor of Tacitus and Josephus could also be Tacitus using Josephus as a source or both of them using a common source. However, it should be noted that after Herod Agrippa's death in 44 AD, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, the governors of Judea were given the title of procurator, which became the standard title to refer to those governors. Therefore, the more likely reason as to why we see Tacitus regarding Pilate as a Procurator instead of a Prefect is because in circa AD 110 when Tacitus wrote his Annals, the Roman title for a governor of Judea was in fact "Procurator."

On the other hand, others argue that the passage is far too critical of Christians to be added by Christian scribes. The passage even implies that the Christians may have been guilty of setting fire to Rome. Further, there may be evidence of persecution against Christians in Rome during Nero's reign. The historian Suetonius also mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire. [7] Robert Van Voorst writes that "the vast majority of scholars" conclude that the passage is authentic.[8]"

Farnaz:

Hi Arminius,

I can't find your post. Here is my earlier post, way down. Are we on the same page? Same book?

Mr. Waters:

You write: "Is the New Testament more privileged than the Old Testament?"

In this way, you answer your own question. What is the "Old Testament"? Would it, perchance, have any connection to the Tanakh?

Colleges and universities across the US offer courses in the Bible as Literature and on the literature of other sacred texts. I have no problem with this. They are particularly useful for students who are pursuing degrees in English/American literature, comp. lit., etc.

Then, too, there are the various Religious Studies programs.

Although for obvious reasons, Bible as Lit. courses concentrate on what you would call the "OT," typology must be addressed (Christian typology, that is), once when gets to the "NT," and one must. It is then that problems do arise, not infrequently, among Muslim students.

A far better idea for high school education has been suggested by Daniel Dennett, and that is to offer courses in religion, in which all religions are represented, and, I would add, in which atheism and agnosticism are discussed, as well. This would go to civics, multiculturalism, and an enligtened pluralism.

Personally, I would think courses on the Bible and other sacred texts can wait until the students enter college.

July 27, 2008 2:07 PM

July 28, 2008 9:19 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note Farnaz's concern for Muslim students with the NT.

When Farnaz is called on her Islamic leanings in Pakistan she goes ballistic.

Watch out for Amro and Starbucks trio next.

Count on Farnaz, Pseudo and Anonymous to find each other, all in the same head.

Ah, Pseudo,

Yours is a great talent. You must not leave us for such lengthy periods to wander aimlessly in piles of prose.

Pseudo is Jihadist come to the rescue of Farnaz?

FARNAZ:

'Tis Freestinker’s grace
As he sits with his bunch
With the courage to face
And chew on his hunch
That along with his cod
He just might lunch with God

Pseudo poetic, eh?

Online King James Version Bible

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html

Account of Prophet Elijah begins in 1 Kings chapter 17 and ends in 2 Kings chapter 2.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1392613

There is no mention of a wife. The Jews compared John the Baptist in NT, a prophet who was very ascetic and celibate, with Elijah.

Maybe the Quran has an account of Elijah's wives? for the Bible has none; Christian OT and Jewish Scripture is the same.

Pseudo,

You have returned!! What do you think of Freestinker's mealtime prayer, pasted from the main thread?

Freestinker's Grace:

God's a hunch, let's munch!

Mr. Mark,

Thanks again for your reply. Are you saying that Meier doesn't give specifics? BTW, I have no agenda here.

Farnaz

Dear Farnaz -

We are both at a disadvantage in this as we are forced to interpret what JP Meier meant when he wrote, "later rabbinic texts simply reflect knowledge of, and mocking midrash on, Christian texts and preaching."

I cite Maimonides as I believe he called Jesus a heretic in his Epistle to Yemen (I could be wrong here). I think that qualifies the "later" and "mocking...Christian preaching" aspects of Meier's statement.

Mr. Mark:

Actually, it probably would have been Orthodox Christianity, I'd imagine, but again, it seems unlikely that this particular Epistle would contain references to Christianity. What is the topical connection?

Arminius:

"Make a Jeffersonian version of the Gospels, just the teachings."

See:

"The Thomas Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"

By Thos. Jefferson

Mr. Mark:

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll have to look at it again, but to the best of my recollection, which is good, the Epistle to Yemen was a response to the most respected rabbi in Yemen at the time. Jews were being persecuted there, and a new religion, of sorts, was being advocated by a Jew, a compromise, or syncretic religion, combining elements of Shia Islam with Judaism. Unsurprisingly, Maimonides' letter put an end to it. We are, of course, dealing with the pre-Protestant era, (12th century, if I recall correctly), so he would have had to be referring to Catholicism, if he were to have referred to Christianity at all, but what would Catholicism have to do with the travail in Yemen, which concerned Shia Muslims persecuting Jews?

Dear Farnaz -

Check out Maimonides' "Epistle to Yemen."

Getting back to mealtime prayer for the moment, on another thread, a blogger wrote to the effect that if mealtime prayer were eliminated, she was sure that those who wished to pray could find a way to sit together at meals and do so.

Sounds good to me.

Dear Nitpicker and Arminius,

Re: Tautology

I reread my post, and you guys are right. I did not give an instance of tautology.

How's this: "It's in the Bible, and, therefore, it must be true."

Mr. Mark:

"later rabbinic texts simply reflect knowledge of, and mocking midrash on, Christian texts and preaching"

Which ones?

Dear CCNL -

You write (ad infinitum) citing Crossan:
“The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea."

????

Care to cite the places where Josephus and Tacitus aver such a thing? Last I looked, they repeat Xian beliefs that this happened, not that it actually happened. If you cite them I will.

New Testament scholar John P. Meier acknowledges that Tacitus is only passing on information gleaned from Christians, he isn't making an independent attestation to the existence of Jesus.

"Tacitus and Pliny the Younger reflect instead what they have heard Christians of their own day say. Despite various claims, no early rabbinic text (the earliest being the Mishna, composed ca. A.D. 200) contains information about Jesus, and later rabbinic texts simply reflect knowledge of, and mocking midrash on, Christian texts and preaching."
- The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain; J.P. Meier, 1999

As far as Josephus' mention of Jesus and Pilate - that appears in the Testimonium Flavianum which many scholars have labeled a 4th-century forgery (to varying degrees), inserted into Josephus' work. Further proof - Josephus provides a copious directory of the personalities that appear in the Contents Table of his Antiquity of the Jews, but Jesus name is strangely absent. Why? Obviously, the well-intentioned 4th-century forgers didn't think to insert Jesus' name into all the relevant places that would make their forgery look authentic.

Despite what Crossan avers, neither Josephus nor Tacitus "agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea." That Crossan would make such a statement is both wishful thinking in the case of Tacitus (ie: putting the best-possible pro-Jesus existence spin on a third-hand report), and downright deceptive in the case of Josephus (ie: assigned a mantle of undeserved authenticity to passages that have long been and continue to be the subject of heated argument among Biblical scholars).

Historic note: up until about 100 years ago, Protestant sects held that the TF was a complete hoax. It has only been recently - since the "Jesus as myth" belief got off the ground - that Protestants have sided with the RCC in offering the TF as non-Biblical "proof" of Jesus existence, most notably as does Crossan in asserting that Josephus' mentioning Pilate as condemning Jesus to death was an actual historic event.

Back at ya.

Freestinker,

LOL! You don't have to pray, you just have to sit there and drool until you are allowed to eat. While I was not in any academy, I was in the army, and, when in training, meals are formal and they intentionally keep you hungry. Sharpens the wits - it really does.

Arminius,

You "suspect" as do I but I'm hoping someone can tell us for sure. It doesn't make much difference but I am curious because that's what I do when others try to coerce me into praying rather than eating, especially when I'm really hungry.

Freestinker,

Well, that got a laugh! I would suspect that any midshipman that started eating before the unconstitutional prayer was finished would suffer a demerit and some very unpleasant duty thereafter.

Arminius and Mr Mark,

Sorry to butt in on your sizzling debate about the validity of the historical Jesus, but ...

Does anybody know if a Naval Academy Midshipman can just sit down and start eating before the mealtime prayer is said or finished?

Mr Mark,

Agreed, friend, let's give it a rest.

I have just backed you up on the Bible Class blog. May be something brewing there.

Arminius -

I'm not trying to convert you. To what?

I am simply attempting to answer your questions and to provide a bit of depth/insight into WHY I disbelieve as I do. As I said, I have no "wish" to think a certain way, I simply do so based on what I've learned in my life.

As far as, "you have presented no arguments that I can agree with," I don't expect you to agree. We obviously disagree on these things. I am only offering information to support my beliefs or lack thereof. I am not "still wrapped up in a refusal to believe that a historical Jesus existed, because it is a religious matter." I don't believe he was a historical person because there's no compelling historic evidence for me to believe he lived. The word "refusal" implies there is something factual to be refused. That's not true in the case of Jesus.

There's something about my position on Jesus' a-historical nature that cuts too close for comfort for you. I can sense your dander rising with every new post I submit. If I'm beating a dead horse, it's only because you asked. I don't mind dropping this line of conversation either.

Respectfully,

Mr Mark

Mr Mark,

May I submit that we have, for the time being, beat this poor dead horse to a bloody stump? Let us forgo this debate, for a while, and move on to other subjects, before it becomes too bitter. I value your company here.

With respect,

Arminius

Mr Mark,

Interesting. Of course I am cherry-picking, I freely admit it. That is where I am coming from. So what real significance is that? I am a seeker. You have presented no arguments that I can agree with.

What is disturbing is that you are gently trying to convert me, while I have outrightly stated that my intent is NOT to convert you.

Shame on you.

One more time for Mr. Mark et al's benefit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From answers.com,

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

See also: (NT exegetes use the following attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

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

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha"

Notes on Mr. Mark's favorite historical Jesus "source":

R.G. Price:

Educational background is hidden/not divulged.

Price "pushes" his book, "Jesus, a Very Jewish Myth" on his personal website, rationalrevolution.net.

The book was published by an on-line book publisher, "lulu.com". Hmmmm?????

Conclusion: The NT should actually be called The Optimized/Embellished Life of a Simple Preacher Man by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. It is unfortunate these optimizers made him into a god.

Being Jewish, it is assumed this simple preacher man said Grace before each meal.

Dear Arminius -

You wrote:

"Make a Jeffersonian version of the Gospels, just the teachings. Start from there."

And...I have major disagreements with the teachings of Jesus. Things like loving your enemies while hating your immediate family. Things like averring that the savage law of the OT is operational "until heaven and Earth pass away." Things like faith being more important than facts. I have problems with the eternal flames of hell for non-believers, a concept that comes right out of Jesus' mouth and nowhere else. Yeah, I have problems there as well. Has nothing to do with whether or not the guy existed.

As far as the Golden Rule and variations thereof? Well, some old Chinese guy was saying that long before Jesus showed up. Show me one of the "good sayings" of Jesus and I can show you someone else who said it first. Aver that Christianity is a wonderful codification of "good" beliefs and practices and I'll show you religions that are even better. Aver that the Bible is the basis of our morals and I'll prove to you unequivocally that mankind has moved on from the Bible's barbarous fictions and has developed morals - ie: anti-slavery, anti-misogyny - that show the Bible and its characters - including Jesus - to be the antithesis or morality.

Let's be honest, Arminius: you yourself have made your own Jeffersonian version of the Xian faith. You are cherry picking that which you agree with and discarding that which offends you. I am doing the same thing, only I take it a few steps further than do you and discard 99% of it, keeping only those parts that show the best of human enterprise...the parts that we see common to many of mankind's greatest efforts.

Gotta go.

Mr Mark,

I perceive that you are still wrapped up in your refusal to believe that a historical Jesus existed, because it is a religious matter. All you have presented is still a bunch of negative proofs.

Strip from the Gospels the miracles, etc. Make a Jeffersonian version of the Gospels, just the teachings. Start from there.

Sure, there were an overabundance of 'Messiahs' in that era. Hell, there still are. So what else is new? Where are the stories of those other Messiahs? Sure, there are conflicts and interpretations of names. That just exemplifies the difficulties of exact history. And you yourself have detailed that difficulty well with your words on the JFK assassination.

I'm talking probabilities here. Historical. You accept the Battle of Marathon, despite a single, unsubstantiated source, because it is non-religious. You do not accept the possibility of a historical Jesus because it is religious. Despite four sources, perhaps removed from the events by the same time span that Herodotus was removed from the Persian Wars.

Examine where you are coming from. As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

I'm NOT trying to convert you! I search for the truth.

Arminius

Dear Arminius -

One final point: I have no "wish" that Jesus didn't exist. Were I to stipulate that he did exist, that would not be proof or belief that he was god incarnate. Neither would it be proof or acceptance that all of those words in the Bible were actually spoken by him (CCNL should be happy with that statement!).

To me, there's no wishing involved: there is NO historic proof that I've seen that compels me to believe the guy existed. For me to believe he existed is a pure leap of faith, and I see no reason to take that leap for Jesus, anymore than I need to take it for anyone else - including Homer and Socrates.

My reading of the Jesus tale is that it is a story based on arche-typical pagan gods with a smattering of historic personages thrown in to add artistic verisimilitude. In fact, it is my belief that people who feel the need to treat Jesus as a real, corporeal being are missing out on the beauty and majesty of the mythical Jesus, ie: a figure who fits well into the inspiring mythos that man created for himself centuries before Jesus "arrived" and that continues to inform our very humanity.

Indeed, to my way of thinking, taking Jesus out of the realm of the mythic gods (where one finds his TRUE literary lineage) and placing him on Earth as a real person DIMINISHES him as an archetype, rather than enhancing his appeal as a fellow being.

I don't believe that was the intention of Paul or even St Mark, but by the time Matthew and Luke got around to copying and expanding on Mark's allegorical fiction, the "Jesus was real" idea had become integral to SELLING the concept to a pagan populace. The whole idea of gods living among men goes way back to the Egyptians, and the Jesus story is simply another ancient version of an already ancient tale.

So, no "wish." Just cold, hard assessment of the available evidence...and lack thereof.

Dear Arminius -

Oh, I have no doubt that there were plenty of Jesus' walking around back then. Josephus mentions 19 different Jesuses.

In fact, there was a SECOND Jesus present at the trial of Jesus!

According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.

But in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!

Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!

Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.

Perhaps the Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.

As far as the story of THE Jesus being true, and your scenario that: "Maybe 20 years later, they related their experiences to others. These others, some 20 or more years later, tried to write it down. Is that so far-fetched?"

No, but that's not the question. The question is, is it accurate? My understanding is that Jesus pretty much disappeared from the talking circuit after his death. For such an important guy/god, there doesn't seem to be much discussion of him anywhere until Paul took up his pen 20-30 years after the fact. In fact, as there's no historical discussion of Jesus from writers contemporaneous to him, it's more accurate to say that there isn't a mention of Jesus ANYWHERE UNTIL Paul.

Apply this scenario to the JFK assassination. What would one believe if the killing happened, then, not a peep about it until 1983, then, not another peep until 2003?

Those reporting in 1983 would have fresh "evidence" from the House Committee that there was a conspiracy involved, and a fourth shot as well. Those reporting in 2003 might think much the same thing.

But in 2007, Vincent Bugliosi released his “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy” in which he presents a clear and copiously documented account that shows conclusively that Oswald acted alone and that the Warren Commission actually got it right.

Now, Bugliosi has the benefit of 40 years of research on this subject. The Gospel writers and Paul had nothing to work from but old pagan archetypes, their own imaginations and the words of possible witnesses. Imagine Bugliosi attempting to write authoritatively about the JFK assassination if that was all he had to work with!

So, is your scenario possible? Sure. But reliable? No.

Nitpicker,

Good point, the 'logic' about the bible being true is circular.

The epitome of tautology is perhaps Yogi Berra's famous statement, "It ain't over 'til it's over".

Perhaps what was considered is a misuse of logic that, I suppose, is not properly a tautology:
That's a horse.
The horse is black.
Therefore, all horses are black.

Farnaz: "To say the Bible is true because it is the Bible is tautological."

Not tautological, circular. A tautology is a valid logical statement that is necessarily true, i.e. true under all circumstances. Circular logic is fallacious and relies on the conclusion to support the premises.

Mr Mark,

Not sure how to approach this, but I suspect your bias against any form of belief is coloring your view of history.

OK, discount mention of God having a hand. Perhaps there was a strange dude that wandered Judea preaching a strange message. The assorted authorities deemed him a threat, and did him in. But some were with him, and remembered. Maybe 20 years later, they related their experiences to others. These others, some 20 or more years later, tried to write it down. Is that so far-fetched? Is there any evidence to believe this weird dude did not exist beyond negative proofs? Cannot the same logic be applied to the battle of Marathon? Or countless other events?

I am NOT saying I have proof that Jesus existed. I just suspect that your wish that he did not exist affects your otherwise exemplary logic.

Arminius writes:

"There exists a huge amount of history, undisputed, that was dependent on either eye-witnesses or people who spoke to eye-witnesses. Take, for a trivial example, the Battle of Leuctra, 371 BC(BCE?), where the Thebans beat the crap out of the Spartans. No accounts by people who were there exist. Should we expel that battle from our history books? Even Thucydides' Peloponnesian War was largely derived from other people. Not to mention Heroditus' account of the Persian Wars. What shall we do?"

Well, I would think that the first thing we do is to discount any parts of these undisputed histories that aver that THE GODS were involved in the battles and that they somehow influenced their outcomes.

The second thing to do would be to recognize that "history" is a more accurate discipline these days than it was in the past, and that past writers of history added their own bias and non-historical embellishments of such histories. Ex: read about the Battle of Little Big Horn in histories written close to the event and compare those to the tale the latest scientific and forensic evidence tells you. There was no "Last Stand" by the brave, white people. The battle was a total rout with the 7th Cavalry devolving into an every-man-for-himself retreat in very short order.

I would say that with any ancient history, we can be fairly sure of the general outlines but not, necessarily, the details. That's a shame, because the life lessons are almost always contained in the details, and said details add up to the collective mythos we have developed about human behavior and intentions.

The Bible - that's another case altogether. It's a history the way the Indiana Jones movies are history.

Gotta go.

All this debating about Christianity, Jesus, Moses, etc. goes to straight to the point of why mandatory prayers in the military should be strictly prohibited. Nobody can ever seem to agree on these matters of religious opinion, so the government (which includes the military) should always remain silent and thus neutral. This way everyone's religious liberty is protected and no one's religious liberty is ever compromised. This concept is so damn simple that, for the life of me, I just can't understand why some (religious) people can't grasp it?

One more time-

References to the historical Jesus with dates: (Father Raymond Brown's, An Introduction to the New Testament- ref #34 has a great review of the NT authors, Traditional and as detectable by the contents.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, Mr Mark,

Thanks for the post.

First, yes, witnesses are always suspect. A good lawyer is in heaven (excuse the word!) when the opposition has two or more eyewitnesses, because he knows he can excoriate them in cross-examination. Many lawyers love circumstantial evidence, because it can't really be cross-examined. And, yes, the forensic evidence is very good. (I am NOT a lawyer, by the way!) A pity it was screwed up in the Simpson trial.

Second, and a big, big 'however'. There exists a huge amount of history, undisputed, that was dependent on either eye-witnesses or people who spoke to eye-witnesses. Take, for a trivial example, the Battle of Leuctra, 371 BC(BCE?), where the Thebans beat the crap out of the Spartans. No accounts by people who were there exist. Should we expel that battle from our history books? Even Thucydides' Peloponnesian War was largely derived from other people. Not to mention Heroditus' account of the Persian Wars. What shall we do?

As far as the Gospels, you know I accept them - in general. I retain some skepticism, of course. I see, amid the conflict, the ring of truth there. Remember that it took four skeptical readings, coming from the outside, to get there. And I think that if somebody invented it, they would have done a more cohesive job!

Arminius

PaulC:

Here's the thing. Once you get into assertions of fact, you get into the need for independent evidence.

To say the Bible is true because it is the Bible
is tautological. Both material in the Tanakh ("OT") and the Christian Testament are controversial in biblical scholarship.

That matters not a whit to some. As I mentioned to you in an earlier post, last week, I discussed the historicity of Moses with an Orthodox Jew. "What if he didn't exist?" I asked. "Who cares?" he answered. He also let me know that he wasn't unfamiliar with current Tanakh debates.

There are other Jews, who could never accept the notion that a flesh and blood Moses didn't exist.

Now, among Christians who post here, we have the strange, but true, case of CCNL, who wishes to have it any number of ways.

IMHO, for the believer, so long as he respects the beliefs of others, doesn't try to convert them, doesn't attempt to legislate in accordance with his religion, I'm fine.

However, to say it is true because it is true, well....

Paul:

"I don't know how we got into this side conversation, but do you really stake your argument against Christianity on the point that St. Paul couldn't have been Jewish AND celibate?"

No, that's not what I wrote. What he was, he was. It's his thinking on marriage that is at issue and all that is related to that thought.

That and related points are what I addressed myself to. Also, I discussed the significance of the Pharisee/Sadducee distinction, etc., and its importance to historicity.

Farnaz:
I don't know how we got into this side conversation, but do you really stake your argument against Christianity on the point that St. Paul couldn't have been Jewish AND celibate? Its hard to argue such a flimsy point, because you and I know there are always exceptions to the norm in any society..

Dear Arminius -

The reliability of eyewitnesses is no reliability at all. I don't really think Luke talking to "witnesses" adds a shred of truth to his writings.

These witnesses would have spoken with Luke at least 40 years after Jesus was crucified. That's akin to an eyewitness at to the JFK assassination speaking to someone today about their experience. Some eyewitnesses would swear there was a second or third gunman. Some would swear they heard 4 shots, rather than 3. NONE would have seen Oswald on the day in question, even though he did the shooting and was within 1/4 mile of anybody standing in Dealey Plaza at the time.

What's even more amazing is if one considers that the JFK assassination has been covered, recovered, rehashed, re-investigated etc etc for almost 50 years since it happened, and people STILL have different stories and opinions about who did what to who. Compare the doubts that still surround this event for which contemporary news accounts, doctors reports and even film footage exist to the oral communication of Jesus' day. Just how reliable would such witnesses be? Hell, I could name myriad quotes from famous people, quotes that are enshrined in textbooks and encycolpediae (and have been for decades) that the average person can't quote correctly to save their lives (Ex: music soothing the savage "beast" - the actual word is "breast.").

Now, sure, the Bible says that for something to be considered "evidence," all one needs is for two witnesses to agree on it. But all that does is insure that if you can get two people to tell the same lie, then things will go a certain way (made no more clear than in the Passion story when false witness was brought against Jesus). That's why forensic evidence tops eyewitnesses every time.

And that's why any "witnesses" to the life of Jesus are no more credible than were the 70,000 witnesses who saw the sun fall from the sky at Fatima in 1917.

Okay. I was aware of the dating of the Gospels but I will defer to others on Gospel authorship, although all should acknowledge that there is no way for us to know for sure. In the end though, its not that relevant. What is relevant is the genesis of the Gospels not who put pen to paper. Here's the official position of the Catholic church on the subject as taken directly from the Catechism:

The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior"
We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."

2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."

3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."

PaulC:

Again, and most emphatically, removal of the self from the world to obtain spiritual erudition, in Judaic thought, for "learning," has always been seen as a grave error, a contradiction in terms, to be avoided at all costs.

And it was a serious temptation since Judaism involved study, and study could be enthralling. However, study was never to be seen as valuable in and of itself, but only as it went to Tikkun Olam. To remove oneself from the world, was to insult the deity.

These teachings are ancient, were and are foundational.

PaulC:

"Farnaz:
I confess to knowing far less about the history of Judaism than you do. However, regardless of the norm of the day, you can not categorically state that St. Paul had to be married. I am sure that there at least some Jews that for whatever reason, did not get married, even if all were expected to. There are always outliers in every situation.

Farnaz: The more important point is his thinking on marriage. Of course, we have no Sadduccee writing. Our knowledge of the Sadduccees comes from the Pharisees. From them, we conclude that they held same views regarding the blessed obligation to marry.

PaulC: And you got caught up in the distinction between Pharisees and Sadduccees

AS for your unrelated point about the Gospel writers, I don't see any particular problem with the fact that they were written 40-50 years after the resurrection.

Farnaz: The distinction between the Pharisees and Sadducees is of the utmost importance to NT exegetes, Judaism scholars, clergy, etc. It goes, in part, to the historicity of the NT, in part to its politics. For Jews the distinction has a much greater meaning.

By the time of the NT, the Sadducees were on the verge of dying out. After 70CE, they were of no significance in Jewish thought. In the meantime, Jewish Christians were in the process of converting others. The Judeans were Pharisees. The confusion of the Sadducees with the Pharisees may be seen as an innocent error or as politically motivated. Forgive me, but the latter view currently holds sway. IMHO the best source this, especially for Catholics, is Rosemary Reuther, "Faith and Fratricide."

Farnaz,

I don't know if the authors of the Gospels spoke to witnesses. Luke does say that he did. I meant that it was likely. Of course we don't know who they were. Anyway, since the bulk of the Old Testament was (correct me if I am wrong) written during the Babylonian Exile, who talked to Moses? Or people who had known him? Much greater time span here.

paul c:

From my copy of the Catholic and imprimatured "New American Bible", c. 1987.

Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew:

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this) and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories." (Page 1061)

Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John from the same source:

"Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it stands was written by one person. [...] Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (Page 1188)

Dear Paul C -

Arminius is correct in stating that none of the Gospel writers were contemporaries of Jesus. Neither were any of them the original 12 apostles.

Your "understanding" is no understanding at all. You really need to avail yourself of the Biblical scholarship that has been done over the past 200 years. Knowledge of the same won't necessarily change your faith, but it will give you pause before you offer opinions that have been discredited for at least the past 10 generations.

Arminius writes to PaulC:

"But all surely talked to witnesses."

How do you know? Who were the witnesses?

Paul C,

Regarding the dates and authors of the Gospels - something of a can of worms. A lot of disagreement here.

The most widely accepted dates are:
Mark 68-70
Matthew 80-90
Luke 80-90
John 90-100

The author of Luke is generally accepted, since he identified himself. The other authors are conjecture. It is statistically likely that none of the authors were witnesses; of course Luke says he was not. But all surely talked to witnesses.

Paul C:

I would like to elaborate on something I wrote in my last post to you:

"Stories, parables, ancient and more recent abound with those who erred in the direction of celibacy in order to devote themselves to God."

These are called "midrash," a special kind of interpretation. The focus on these stories is on the undesirability of withdrawing from the world in order to devoted oneself to God. Herein lay a great temptation for Jews, the people of the book, scroll, etc. Celibacy, of course, would be a byproduct of spiritual withdrawl.

The world was and is seen as a gift of God. Those tempted by learning to forget this were seen as being in spiritual danger. (They still are.)

Further, given the blessed obligation to procreate, the inability to bear children has been seen as a tragedy in Judaism from time immemorial. The case of Channah in the Bible, Channah, who gave us silent prayer, is a case in point.

Paul C,

Hmmm, the Song of Bernadette? Saw the film many times and read the book. In reflection, much embellishment and fraud. Believing the visions/ hallucinations of a 14 year old peasant girl? Give us a break!!! And the vision said she was the Immaculate Conception (17th vision). No Adam and Eve, no original sin, i.e. no Immaculate Conception but lots of money for Lourdes' church authorities and locals. And it is still a "cash cow". The pope should shut it down.

And then there is Bishop Sheen. Watched many of his TV shows. In reflection, the man like most Catholics in those days to include myself suffered from a severe case of the Three B Syndrome.

Farnaz:
I confess to knowing far less about the history of Judaism than you do. However, regardless of the norm of the day, you can not categorically state that St. Paul had to be married. I am sure that there at least some Jews that for whatever reason, did not get married, even if all were expected to. There are always outliers in every situation. And you got caught up in the distinction between Pharisees and Sadduccees, when the real point was that it was certainly conceivable that after his conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul modified his behavior and could have decided that although the Jewish norm was to be married, that he would remain celibate.

AS for your unrelated point about the Gospel writers, I don't see any particular problem with the fact that they were written 40-50 years after the resurrection. The authors, to the best of my understanding were as follows:

John: One of the three closest apostles to Jesus

Matthew: Another of the twelve Apostles

Mark: A companion to Peter and possibly the young man that ran away naked from the Garden of Gethsemane

Luke: a Physician and a companion of St. Paul

To say that they weren't contemporaries of Jesus is I think overstating the case.

I wrote a big long thing, but it got lost.

How frustrating!

So, I will summarize, which is probalby better, anyway.

Patrick Sarfield is confusing atheism with science. They actually are not related in any way.

He is relating them only in a personal way, that they both threaten his Catholic paradigm, which has Medeival European features, and is therefore difficult to maintain, without some modification in this new and modern world called the twenty first century.

Paul C:

Thanks for your reply.

Farnaz:
I beleive that the Virgin Mary was from the line of priests,and therefore, not from the house of David. The Davidic line is through Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father. Jesus explains this by quoting the psalm to the scribes where David refers to the Messiah as his lord, asking them how this could be if he really was his son..

Paul C: In the gospel accounts, the general presumption among the Jews of the time, including the apostles, is that the Messiah would be a political leader not a spiritual leader. Jesus had to very patiently explain to them that God doesn't care about politics, (give to Caesar what is Caesar, give to God what is God's) but only in the spirit. He taught them that the Messiah had to suffer (quoting Isaiah and the psalms)and would ultimately bring them to peace in the heavenly, not earthly kingdom.

Farnaz:The ancient Judaens didn't divide politics and religion in the manner you describe. However, the Greeks of the period had begun to. Judaens saw religion in terms of the history of a people. The Messianic age signals the end of time, the end of history for all humankind, the fulfillment of Tikkun Olam.

Even in the first and second great revolts, even when some of note envisioned Simon Bar Kochba as the "Messiah," they were not thinking in ancient Greek or European Enlightenment terms.

Paul C: What is it specifically about St. Paul that you find impossible in a Jew. In the NT accounts he starts out being a very strict Pharisee, but ultimately comes to understand that the old order has changed with the coming of Christ. What is so unbelievable about that.

Farnaz: I don't know what you mean by a strict Pharisee. The Pharisees were interpreters, as I mentioned. They wrote the Talmud.

Ancient history has it that the Sadduccees, not the Pharisees were given to legalism. This is very well known, Paul, has been very, very widely discussed by historians, biblical exegetes, etc.

Judaism has always seen life as a blessing. Stories, parables, ancient and more recent abound with those who erred in the direction of celibacy in order to devote themselves to God. There is one that is particularly famous. I'll try and dig it up for you, and post it later.

The authors of the Gospels were not contemporaries of Christ. This creates no small number of problems, does it not?

Farnaz

Lep,

Thank you, dear friend!

Farnaz, who are the wives of Moses, Elijah, Elisha etc? There are celibate Jewish prophets

My Dear Illiterate, Lunatic Anon,

The wife of Moses is, shall we say, well-known?

I understand that it has been demonstrated on another thread that you are not Catholic. To say that Moses had no wife amounts to saying you are not Christian. Not Muslim, obviously, since Musah had the same wife as Moses.

I'm guessing Hindu, or possibly, something else.
Hence, your ignorance. If you wish to post on whatever your religion is, post away. As for me, there is no point in posting to you on anything having to do with either the Hebrew Bible or the NT.

From the very beginnings, Jews were obligated to marry. No Jew could have said what Paul did. I'm not alone in this thinking.

Btw., if a friend should happen to have a copy of the Tanakh or "OT," do check out Moses wife. She is of no small importance.

LAST POST TO YOUR CRAZED SELF.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

patricksarsfield:

That was a question...note the question mark at the end of the sentence.

I don't know if the universe as always existed or not, but you seem to think that it hasn't. When was that proven?

Anon:

I would hardly call Arminius' posts here "flying off the handle."
His faith is precious to him, and he takes it seriously; he also shows respect for the faiths of others, and for the fact that we take our faith as seriously as he takes his. It is one of the reasons that I consider him a friend, both on this forum and off.
On the rare occasions when his temper flares, it is generally in response to nasty behavior on another's part.

Neal:
Talk about unsupported beliefs:
"When was it proven that the universe hasn't always existed?"

patricksarsfield:

When was it proven that the universe hasn't always existed?

I am somewhat bewildered to find that I am a minor object of discussion between two posters with an anonymous handle.

To the anonymous who says I fly off the handle frequently: yes, I 'fly off the handle', but not that frequently. If I feel I have stepped over the line, I will apologize. If I find a poster who goes beyond the bounds of all decency, I will blast them as hard as I can without getting thrown off the blog, and no apologies will ever be forthcoming. IIRC, I have done this blasting twice.

To the anonymous who defended me: first, thank you. Next, should I fly off the handle more? Maybe... I certainly read things here that I strongly disagree with. But I am beginning to realize the total futility of replying to most of these, because these people cannot be reached for dialog, they simply repeat what they have always posted.

anonymous:

"Arminius is the last person to fly off the handle. If anything he lacks the capacity to fly off the handle as he sometimes should."

You only have to go back and read his posts. It is all there in writing for anyone to see. Perhaps you are too new to On Faith to have seen this unfortunate and recurring behavior?

Spiderman2,
Thanks for the list. Now I understand you better. Keeping in mind that the English language Bibles are translations, one can take a word like "fear" and ask oneself, "are there other synonyms for this word that might clarify the meaning in English?" When a person does that, they could come up with words such as "reverence" or "awe and veneration" with an underlying sense that we are imperfect and He is perfect, therefore worthy of revering. You'll remember the passage, "perfect love casteth out all fear."

As to the use of the term I can't stand, I don't get why you ignore Matthew 5:22--unless you're being deliberately ironic and self-incriminating. Think about it, and have a nice day.

CCNL:
Lets keep the discussion focused and avoid all the ancillary items you have brought it to diffuse the main point.

You have been looking for any reason Not to believe yet despite your continual blasphemies against Christ and the Eucharist, you somehow need to keep coming to the altar. There is a reason for that.

Try reading some alternative views of Christ and the Saints. I highly recommend two things for you.
One: "The Song of Bernadette", the story of Lourdes written by a Jew escaping the HHolocost in 1943.

Two : The life of Christ by Fulton Sheen.

These will give you a different sense from what you have been reading. Everything you have on your list seems to be a variant on the theme that Jesus couldn't have done the things the Gospels said because that wasn't the experience of the average person in Judea 2000 years ago.

Efavorite,
You respond to my point that to come up with an alternative explanation than God for the causation of the Big Bang's orderly design, Efavorite and the Atheist-nauts will need to get in a Time Machine, by writing:

"There are a lot of things we don't know YET -- cures for many kinds of cancer, Alzheimer's, the common cold. Is "god" the answer to those unknowns? Seems to me medical science is working on those problems and we're looking for an answer from science, not from god.

There were lots of things we once thought god was responsible for - thunder, lightning, all sorts of bad and good weather, diseases and cures. Now science explains all these things. No need to commission a Time machine."

You missed the point: thunder and lightning/ cancers are measurable phenomena that can be observed/experimented on in the here and now. The state of things before the Big Bang is not such a phenomenon, and never will be. If you don't have an alternative explanation "yet," the only way it's going to happen (through use of the Scientific Method) is if you can make observations from beyond the Beginning of the Universe. Absent a Time Machine, that ain't going to happen. SO: what's the alternative explanation, or are you as unable to explain this as the rest of your atheistical friends??

Holy Cow/Spiderman2 is always about self-righteously judging and cursing other people. How good is Holy Cow/Spiderman2? What good works do you do Spiderman2? What do your family and friends say about you? Are you kind and helpful to them? Do you help strangers and the needy? Pray do tell us how righteous you are in your life.

Holy Cow/Spiderman2 is consistent in quoting from the Old Testament or the highly symbolic Revelations. How often does Spiderman2 quote from the Sermon on the Mount, other Gospel passages, letters of John, James and Peter the most important disciples of Jesus, or from Paul's famous Corinthians verses on love?

Read about Rev Jerry Falwell's teachings to know where Holy Cow/Spiderman2 comes from.

Hatred, hellfire and damnation is all Spiderman2 understands. Jesus Christ, the Son of God who was love in person, he does not know.

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest." (Revelation 15:4)

"The fear of the LORD is clean (pure), enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." (Psalm 19:9)

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools (idiots) despise wisdom and instruction."(Proverbs 1:7)

"The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility. "(Proverbs 15:33)

"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: "(Proverbs 24:21)

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

Paul C,

Yes, I did say Grace before receiving my low calorie wafer today.

Now:

All those orthodox Catholic priests with Master degrees in Theology (so you say but debatable) and not one ever comes to your defense. Strange!!!!

And what about all those one billion Muslims who believe you are an infidel?

And again nothing about the reasons there are so many orthodox Catholics (at least in name)?

And you read the lives of the saints? Be careful, we change the list every ten years or so. How is old "St." Christopher these days?

And actually I do agree with at least one part of the current Apostles Creed:

To wit: (as per last week)

Apostle's Creed: from answers.com

"The name of the Creed comes from the probably fifth-century legend that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost, each of the Twelve Apostles dictated part of it.[1] It is still traditionally divided into twelve articles."

Hmmm, holy spirit, another paranormal thingie seen in dreams and hallucinations as a white dove/pigeon.

The Creed and its problems:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth."

Problem: Breaking down God into three parts violates the First Commandment.

A recycling Big Bang i.e the Gib Gnab is a more plausible explanation for the creation and destruction and recreation of stars, planets and moons.

Heaven is a dubious place. Located in a black hole in the realm of a Singlarity??

"I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. "

Very debatable!!! Many contemporary NT and historical Jesus exegetes have concluded that said NT references are simply embellishments added to gain influence, converts and money.

"He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary."

Even some contemporary Catholic theologians have questioned the Virgin aspect. Professor Bruce Chilton, a historic Jesus exegete, has even concluded that Jesus was probably a mamzer.

"He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried. "

Agree with and verified by most contemporary NT and historical Jesus exegetes.

"He descended into hell. "

Give us a break? What hell/spirit state, where another black hole?? Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian, even questions the existence of hell. The souls of very bad people according to him simply are destroyed.

"On the third day he rose again."

See the previous discussion.

"He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father."

Again, heaven is a spirit state. There are no chairs.

"He will come again to judge the living and the dead."

Come again?? Sorry, St. Paul blew this prophecy in his claiming a second coming in his life time. (By the way, he was also a prude which explains his dislike for women and why he never married or did he?)

"I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. "

Holy catholic church??? Not with all the pedophile priests and those protecting them from prosecution to include Cardinal Law and B16 prior to being B16.

See the notations from above with the exception of live everlasting. Earth goes up in smoke in five billion years either from the Sun expansion i.e. becoming a red giant and/or a collision with another galaxy. So much for life everlasting if you consider human life.

"Amen"

And now for:

The New Apostles' Creed After Proper Historical and Archeological Analyses:

I believe in a Singularity, Creator of the Big Bang and Gib Gnab,

And in Jesus born to Mary and Joseph.

He lived and preached a fulfillment of the good ways and sayings of the ancients (with additions/embellishments by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John with Pilate and Constantine being "necessary accessories".)

By so doing, he offended the religious and political elite and therefore was tortured, crucified, died and was buried.

His Soul resides in the spirit world (Heaven?) along with the souls/spirits of all good persons so departed.

Alleluia!!!!!!

anonymous and farnaz, together again.

Arminius,
I appreciated your comment to me. I suppose that Spidey projects a fear-based theology because that is what he has learned and that is the foundation on which he seems to base his life. A covenant and faith-based theology projects contentedness and an assurance of the promises that are yet to be fulfilled and are being fulfilled. Covenant theology leads to treating strangers with respect, love and kindness, not trampling them under foot (figuratively) or attempting to bind them with fear. Covenant theology has a foundation of peace, both individually and collectively as a group of people make similar covenants and keep them.

Arminius was an atheist for over three decades. He is still new to Christianity and is trying to find his way. In his eagerness to please all, he is usually found siding with anti-theists, pagans and Muslims. He does that even if he has to take sides against Christians even in a religious sense. It is a mystery but that is Arminius.

Arminius is the last person to fly off the handle. If anything he lacks the capacity to fly off the handle as he sometimes should.

To imply only someone who is married could be a Jew is a wild stretch of the imagination. It is to be noted that Farnaz belongs to a camp which tries to "prove" Jesus did not exist and even if He did, He could not have been a Jew. In one of her posts she mentioned that Judaism and Islam are Abrahamic faiths while Christianity is not.

"PATRICKSARSFIELD:

Arminius,

You write:

"As I said, you don't know the difference. Everything you say is twisted by your 'belief'. You never discuss, you pontificate and cast blame.""

Patrick,

Arminius has a long history flying off the handle that way.

It really has nothing to do with you. So take his judgmental and self righteous tirades with a grain of salt.

He often apologizes later, as he should.

John the Baptist was celibate. The Jewish society of his day did not consider it unusual and condemn it. Jesus was celibate. The Jewish society of His day did not consider it unusual and condemn it.

In Christianity there is no obligation to be celibate. All the disciples Jesus Himself chose were married men.

Farnaz, who are the wives of Moses, Elijah, Elisha etc? There are celibate Jewish prophets.

My guess is that you tend to mix up Islamic teachings for Jewish.

patricksarsfield says, "Your "yet" was quite disingenuous. As though some atheist is commissioning a Time Machine to go back beyond the Big Bang to discover what happened?"

- There are a lot of things we don't know YET -- cures for many kinds of cancer, Alzheimer's, the common cold. Is "god" the answer to those unknowns? Seems to me medical science is working on those problems and we're looking for an answer from science, not from god.

There were lots of things we once thought god was responsible for - thunder, lightning, all sorts of bad and good weather, diseases and cures. Now science explains all these things. No need to commission a Time machine.

Farnaz,
Although the New Testament clearly states that Saul/Paul was born and raised a jew, you claim he could not have been a jew because:

"From the beginning, Jews were obligated to marry and have children. The word "obligation" is not quite right, but there is no precise English translation for either the Hebrew or Aramaic. With "obligation" comes the sense of blessing. They were blessed with this obligation.....
Indeed, and I mean no offense, it would have been considered evil two thousand years ago to suggest otherwise, and would be today if introduced as a prospect to Jews....No theologian I know of has written otherwise of ancient Judaism."

What you are missing is that Paul stopped following the obligations of the Law to the extent they were meaningless and counter-productive. That is what the whole thing about no need for Gentiles to be circumcised was all about.

While Paul was willing to see some christians marry if that was something necessary for them to do, he saw celibacy as a more valuable approach to life and so recommended it. (1 Cor. 7:7-10). Now if someone had pointed out that that was inconsistent with the Jewish Law, Paul's answer no doubt would be: this I understand but we are moving beyond that, just as we did on the Gentile Circumcision thing.

Farnaz:
I beleive that the Virgin Mary was from the line of priests,and therefore, not from the house of David. The Davidic line is through Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father. Jesus explains this by quoting the psalm to the scribes where David refers to the Messiah as his lord, asking them how this could be if he really was his son..

In the gospel accounts, the general presumption among the Jews of the time, including the apostles, is that the Messiah would be a political leader not a spiritual leader. Jesus had to very patiently explain to them that God doesn't care about politics, (give to Caesar what is Caesar, give to God what is God's) but only in the spirit. He taught them that the Messiah had to suffer (quoting Isaiah and the psalms)and would ultimately bring them to peace in the heavenly, not earthly kingdom.

What is it specifically about St. Paul that you find impossible in a Jew. In the NT accounts he starts out being a very strict Pharisee, but ultimately comes to understand that the old order has changed with the coming of Christ. What is so unbelievable about that.

The Bible said that IF one cannot contain it, IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN. For this reason, many priests will BURN simply because they don't know that their master is the DEVIL. They are not allowed to marry despite the obvious fact that they cannot contain.

Paul C, I hope the priests you know will allow you to peek on their their lives similar to BIG BROTHER tv program . I knew a friend who didn't become a priest because he saw the hypocricy. All of the priests in his locality have a lover. What he did was marry a girl he loved and served the church as a layperson.

He is a good person but catholicism is leading him slowly to damnation. Why do I know? He too has a "secret life". Hidden from the people he serves but not to me. Im not amazed because he is serving the devil's church. Im not surprised also when he told me of the priests' trysts.

Stories of these abound and yet people choose to close their eyes.

PaulC:
"But if they can't control themselves, it is not a sin to marry."

It was an obligation to marry, a non-negotiable obligation.

PaulC:

Just a quick point on Paul. From the beginning, Jews were obligated to marry and have children. The word "obligation" is not quite right, but there is no precise English translation for either the Hebrew or Aramaic. With "obligation" comes the sense of blessing. They were blessed with this obligation. They did not wish to hasten the end of time by not having children. They did not wish to hasten the end of time at all, in fact. They wished to fulfill Tikkun Olam.

Indeed, and I mean no offense, it would have been considered evil two thousand years ago to suggest otherwise, and would be today if introduced as a prospect to Jews.

Among contemporary Ethiopian Jews, whose Judaism has been transmitted orally through the millennia,the blessed obligation to marry and procreate is among the sine quibus non of Judaism.

No theologian I know of has written otherwise of ancient Judaism.

Paul C,

That was quite a good reply to CCNL. As an Episcopalian, I particularly enjoyed your paragraph relating the ideas of C S Lewis.

Unfortunately, you will never reach CCNL. Many of us have tried, and we all have failed. That benighted person is totally locked into his bizarre 'theology', and will only spew long lists of stuff at you.

Spiderman:
You are very selective in your use of the Bible. In the passage you quote from St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he is explaining that it is his preference that people stay unmarried because they can devote themselves better to God. But if they can't control themselves, it is not a sin to marry. This is how it is for men deciding to be Catholic priests. Some can remain celebate and become priests. Others find that they can't and drop out of the seminary. It is still as St. Paul wrote, though. Those that are unmarried can devote themselves solely to God. Those that are married, must keep their wives happy.

Look at what you have become. You spew venom in every post you make and you twist the bible to do it. Would Satan do anything differently? Please, look in the mirror before you find yourself facing the same eternal damnation you are sure is facing the rest of us.

CCNL:
I don't have a problem with ALL people who have PHDs in religion or theology, but then again, I am not impressed by titles either. In the end, the argument must make sense, no matter what a person's credentials are. Do you disagree with that? You do understand that EVERY Catholic priest has at least a masters in Theology. Yet, you are content to disagree with them. As I explained in the post to Farnaz a few hours ago, you can not project the average experience of a person 2000 years ago on jesus or anyone else with accuracy. Every person on this planet has a unique life experience. To say that someone (St. Paul or Jesus as examples) didn't have the experience they had because it wasn't the norm, is to completely ignor the fact that no one actually experiences exactly the normal life in every way. No such thing exists. To say that it does is a lousy historical method, PhD's not withstanding.

As for the numbers we were discussing, stay focussed. I was pointing out that with a billion members, the catholic church was not disappearing any time soon. I was not making the point that the 1B people had to be right.

And I'm sorry that you can't tell that I am fairly well read. Although I do indeed read the bible every day, I also read a wide variety of historical and spiritual books. I am interested in the lives and writings of the Saints and the history of the church. I prefer the Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen to the one written by JD Crossan.

And I must say that you remind me very much of a character in "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis. In this story, heaven is open to all the souls in hell, for the cost of a bus ride. Most of the souls in Hell, of course don't believe in Heaven so most don't take the bus, prefering to stay in their dreary hell, doing all the same things they did in life. A few did, however, one of them being an Anglican Bishop. Upon arriving in Heaven, he is met by one of his former acquaintences, who tries to convince him to stay in Heaven. The bishop, who is stunned to realize that he is in hell because he gave lectures that there was no resurrection, ultimately declines the offer and stays in Hell because he enjoys the arguments and the notoriety that his contrary opinions brought him more than he desired the happiness that comes from being with God and knowing the truth.

Finally, You and JD Crossan are not Catholics. Catholics believe in the dogma laid out in the apostle's Creed. You went through that earlier in the week and demonstrated that you believe none of it.

Paul C. wrote "Peter came into contact with others preaching the Gospel and told them to stop but Jesus told him that whoever was not against him was for him. Why can you not see it that way? This is the basis of the ecumenical movement."

Actually, all religions that is part of the ecumenical movement are false religions. My focus is on catholicism because it is the biggest snake among the group. When Christ said to beware of the LEAVENED BREAD, he was talking about FALSE religions.

Satan is a wise creature and much wiser than humans. Therefore it is not a surprise when many will gravitate to a false religion. Catholcism conceal its evil deeds very wisely. Preaching loudly against contraception (which is not a sin), but NOT FORNICATION. The Bible said that if one cannot contain it, IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN. For this reason, many priests will BURN simply because they don't know that their master is the DEVIL. They are not allowed to marry despite the obvious fact that they cannot contain.

For centuries, they tried to keep the Bible AWAY from their flock. Read Jose Rizal's letter to see what this religion has been doing thru-out the centuries. This religion is SO GREEDY WITH POWER just like the owner of it which is the DEVIL.

http://emanila.com/philippines/2008/04/18/to-the-young-women-of-malolos/

Patricksarsfield:

Farnaz,
In your lecture to Paul on the Messiah, you write:

"Let me remind you, as well, of another simple fact. The Messiah was to have been a descendant of the Davidic king, not the product of a virgin birth. For those contemporary branches of Judaism that hold to a literal Messiah, he will be a human being. As one orthodox rabbi put it to me awhile ago, though the world will have been healed, the Messiah may not be a good math student, may stutter, etc. He will be human."

Let me remind you of another simple fact. In the eyes of the Christian World (which is 150 times the size of the Jewish World), those Jews who expect or expected a particular type of Messiah different from Jesus--and that is not all Jews--have thought differently from God.

God sent His only begotten son, who was a descendant of the Davidic King through His Ever Virgin Mother, to be not just Messiah, but the Savior of the World. The Jews who got it when Jesus proclaimed his Messiahship--like Peter, Paul, Andrew, and the other apostles--became the first Christians and we haven't stopped since. In fulfillment of the Great Commission, we have gone out to all Nations (the "gentes" whom Jews call Gentiles) to proclaim the good News of Salvation for all, Jew and Gentile alike. Paul got that even though he started out much where you are, ready to attack Christ and the Christians based on his then imperfect understanding of Scripture.
--------------

First, I didn't lecture to Paul. Paul and I are, IMHO, having a civil, intelligent chat, which I find interesting and enlightening. The tone of your post makes that impossible for now.

Second, you mention the difference in size between the Christian and Jewish worlds. You may not know this, but Jews are proscribed from converting. Anyone who wishes to convert is welcome to do so, and will be given all the help and support he or she needs, but we do not go out and seek converts.
YET.

As antisemitism gives no signs of abating, the conversion discussion is opening in some quarters.
Good reasons are being put forward for sending "missionaries" to impoverished countries rather than donating money, helping to fund NGOs, etc.

Don't mean to scare you, Pat.

Patrick: those Jews who expect or expected a particular type of Messiah different from Jesus--and that is not all Jews--have thought differently from God.

Farnaz: God must be very happy that he has you to speak for him.

Patrick: God sent His only begotten son, who was a descendant of the Davidic King through His Ever Virgin Mother, to be not just Messiah, but the Savior of the World.

Farnaz: I didn't know this. Can you supply me with Mary's genealogy, please?

Patrick: Paul got that even though he started out much where you are, ready to attack Christ and the Christians based on his then imperfect understanding of Scripture.

Farnaz: Do you read over what you write before you post it? At any rate, Paul could not have been Jewish. Jews have obligations that were not and are not negotiable. The key obligations were in place at that time.

The Messianic Age was understood to be for all, not just for Jews. It signals the end of time. HaShem provided humanity with what it needed to save itself. Once it has done so the Messiah will come. The Jews of Jesus time had known this for ages.

Your problem, Patrick, and that of many Christians, is that you have built your house on top of that of another religion, and so you will always be in doubt. You subscribe to replacement or supercessionist ideology, and you are not alone. Just as Christians believe the "OT" predicted the NT, so the Q'ran sees signs in both of its sacred text. Then we have Joe Smith.

I kinda like the idea of us going out and converting folks. We Jews are a quick study. I'm sure if we put our minds to it, we could catch up in no time.

Nice chatting with you, Pat.

Paul C,

There are over one billion Muslims in the world who think they have the only way to heaven. And of course there are those like yourself who think orthodox Catholicism is the only way to heaven. Must be a real traffic jam at the gates!!! So much for your large number argument. Of course, the Muslim population is large due to apostate coersion, polygamy and an "iffy" position on birth control. Wow, just think how many Catholics there would be if polygamy and apostate coersion were allowed!!!

And you sure have a problem with people who have PhD's in theology, history and religion. And what degree in religious studies do you have? Books written, classes taught, journal articles? No wonder the Jesus Seminarians and other NT and historical Jesus exegetes bothter you i.e. they have the backgrounds to review the scriptures and related documents and make conclusions using sound historic methods. You simply rely on a book with so many flaws, it would be considered
fiction if written today.

Patrickarsfeld,

Please be accurate, my problems are with orthodox Catholicism not with first century CE Catholicism i.e. "Crossanized"/"Jesus Seminarian" type Catholicism/Christianity.

Farnaz,

Professors Crossan and Reed's book, Excavating Jesus" hopefully is on your Christmas wish list.

And again your favorite list of scriptural readings:

Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/

-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

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

And back to the topic: from Wikipedia-

"The saying of grace as a meme and religious practice may have entered into the English language Judeo-Christian cultures with the Jewish mealtime prayer Birkat Hamazon, though any number of cultures may have informed the practice or it may have arisen spontaneously by individuals and then perpetuated in family traditions and social institutions."

Hmmm, I wonder if Grace will be said during the "Gib Gnab"?????

Is there a pagan or atheist formal grace???

Arminius,

You write:

"As I said, you don't know the difference. Everything you say is twisted by your 'belief'. You never discuss, you pontificate and cast blame."

Why am I not surprised you write me off? You don't argue substantively; you certainly don't mass support for cogently stated positions. Instead, you offer one to four line ipse dixits in support of atheist and pagan positions, while claiming to be a believer. BTW, can you explain what happened before the Big Bang?

Farnaz,
In your lecture to Paul on the Messiah, you write:

"Let me remind you, as well, of another simple fact. The Messiah was to have been a descendant of the Davidic king, not the product of a virgin birth. For those contemporary branches of Judaism that hold to a literal Messiah, he will be a human being. As one orthodox rabbi put it to me awhile ago, though the world will have been healed, the Messiah may not be a good math student, may stutter, etc. He will be human."

Let me remind you of another simple fact. In the eyes of the Christian World (which is 150 times the size of the Jewish World), those Jews who expect or expected a particular type of Messiah different from Jesus--and that is not all Jews--have thought differently from God.

God sent His only begotten son, who was a descendant of the Davidic King through His Ever Virgin Mother, to be not just Messiah, but the Savior of the World. The Jews who got it when Jesus proclaimed his Messiahship--like Peter, Paul, Andrew, and the other apostles--became the first Christians and we haven't stopped since. In fulfillment of the Great Commission, we have gone out to all Nations (the "gentes" whom Jews call Gentiles) to proclaim the good News of Salvation for all, Jew and Gentile alike. Paul got that even though he started out much where you are, ready to attack Christ and the Christians based on his then imperfect understanding of Scripture.

patricksarsfield:

As I said, you don't know the difference. Everything you say is twisted by your 'belief'. You never discuss, you pontificate and cast blame.

I write you off. You have no more sense than Spidey.

Arminius,
In response to me, you argue:

"E Favorite's reply about the Big Bang was not lame, it was honest. A pity you can't tell the difference."

As I stated already, E-favorite's claim was "disingenuous," which is just the opposite of honest. To keep alive the fond hope that maybe somehow in some future era, some atheist will be able to come up with some convenient lie to get around the Order of the Universe that came out of the Big Bang, E-favorite had posited: "That's because no one knows yet." The "yet" deceptively suggests that somehow the "scientific" atheists will find a way to get back beyond the Big Bang to "discover" what pre-existed (as I joked: in a time machine perhaps?). That hardly is going to happen...EVER.

I notice, Arminius, that even though my last post had laid out why I believed E-favorite disingenuous, you made no attempt to challenge my substantive point. Apparently, you feel free to utter unsupported ipse dixits, just like the atheists you rush to defend, even though you claim and your name suggests that you are somewhat of a believer.

Paul:

Re: Your last post

Yes, I, too enjoy discussions free of rancor!

Passover is sacred in time, just as the Sabbath is. Judaism was then, is now, a religion of time, more than of place. Any Jewish theologian will tell you this. There few things a Jew could have done that would have been worse than not honoring Passover, unless to do so would have been necessary to save a human life. The same was and is true of the Sabbath. Although I gave you an example from today, I'm not basing this on today's religion, but on documents extant from the period.

The obligation to observe Passover and the Sabbath does, of course, remain. This, for adherents was not and is not to be messed with under any circumstances. Only the saving of a human life takes priority, as it does in all circumstances.

If Paul was a Jew, then his Judaism was a religion of of one. His views were not merely inconsistent with the fundamental constructs and obligations of Judaism but ran counter to them. The key word here is obligations.

Let me remind you, as well, of another simple fact. The Messiah was to have been a descendant of the Davidic king, not the product of a virgin birth. For those contemporary branches of Judaism that hold to a literal Messiah, he will be a human being. As one orthodox rabbi put it to me awhile ago, though the world will have been healed, the Messiah may not be a good math student, may stutter, etc. He will be human.

patricksarsfield:

E Favorite's reply about the Big Bang was not lame, it was honest. A pity you can't tell the difference.

E Favorite:
Talk about wild goose chases! In response to my point that atheists never give a cogent explanation for causation of the Big Bang, you offer this lame excuse:

"That's because no one knows yet. Some Christians have an answer - God did it - but it's not a cogent explanation, it's an assertion."

Your "yet" was quite disingenuous. As though some atheist is commissioning a Time Machine to go back beyond the Big Bang to discover what happened?

The silly thing about the atheists is that they posit a belief in blind chance when the Universe has developed in a way that shows such evidence of Design. Most explosions blow things to smithereens, but the Big Bang created Galaxies and worlds fit for humankind. There is only one cogent explanation and Blessed is His Name!

Parker,

Pay no attention to Spidey. He is a Jerry Falwell right wing bigot, and will neither discuss nor listen. He only strikes out again, spewing his poison like a spitting cobra.

But, as Mr Mark observes, he can be highly entertaining. Goad him to set forth more of his absurd prophesies, or, better, his 'scientific' explanation of Noah's flood. Or, worse, if you want to be physically sick, get him to tell you what he really thinks of the Roman Catholic Holy Eucharist. If he won't, I have saved his hideous post on that.

Farnaz:
I appreciate the intellectual discussion, free of the rancor that often is seen on these pages.

The problem I have with historical recreations is that two people living in the same era in the same area can have radically different experiences so trying to recreate what happened to individuals 2000 years ago from the "norms" of that time is a fools errand. By way of a simple example: in the 1920's there was a great depression in the US. Many people lost their jobs and for many, simple necessities were hard to come by. However, it was not so for everyone. Some actually exploited the situation and got rich. So to extrapolate the average situation and say that "person X" could not have become rich during the depression would be inaccurate. In the same way, to say that Paul could not have been what the bibles say he was because that was not the norm, is to ignor the variability of individual situations. The same thing with the discussion we had earlier about the High priest's council meeting during passover as described in the Gospels. While it clearly was not the norm, who can definitely deny that in that one particular year, circumstances could have been different and they actually did meet and condemn Jesus.

Paul C.:

Thanks for your reply. All I've got time for right now is your last paragraph. I'll try to get back to you later on the rest.

Paul: "I don't know how you can conclude that the time of Jesus was not the Messianiac age and at the same time note that there were all kinds of people around claiming to be the Messiah.

Farnaz: By Jesus' time Tikkun Olam was firmly established. Later in the first century it would be further refined, and again, in the Rabbinic era, much later by Maimonides and by Luria. Tikkun Olam may be translated as "healing," "repairing," "perfecting" the world. This was the mission of the children of Israel and remains foundational in Judaism. Once this mission is accomplished for all mankind, that is, once poverty is eliminated, once crime is eliminated, once greed, murder, caste, idoloatry, etc., are eliminated, the Messiah's herald will arrive. This is Judaism 101. The Messiah will come, and the world will be revealed in all its loveliness.

If any age could be further away than the pre-Messianic, that of Jesus (assuming he existed) was.

During periods of occupation, rapid industrial or technological progress, what some would call reactionary behaviors set in. Messianism, cults, "enthusiasms" of various sorts. Before Jesus' time the number of prophets had already grown to outrageous proportions, their claiming either to be the Messiah, his herald, one of your average everyday "OT" types. The whole matter was getting cumbersome, beggared belief, and although they had not yet finalized the Tanakh, they (the intellectuals, the interpreters, the Pharisees) knew that the end of authentic prophecy had passed.

Given Tikkun Olam, what was to be expected of the pre-Messianic Age, they could not and did not take any self-proclaimed Messiah seriously.

Here in Brooklyn, we have any number of Messiahs.
There's one who has stationed himself outside the small supermarket we usually go to. There is another at a fruit store a couple of blocks away. On the upper west side, a Messiah who frequents the IRT subway makes his home. Of course, you will agree that this is not the Messianic age. Or, perhaps, you wouldn't. I don't know enough about Catholicism to say what signs Catholics would expect to appear.

Paul C: And just because the Good news about Jesus sounds to you like a fairy tail or myth, does not mean that it is.

Farnaz: Of course not. Unlike some of the zealots one meets, I try to have an open mind. I can say that the story shares a great deal with myth by which I mean mythic structure.

I've also posted on the lack of archaeological evidence (don't bother with lists, CCNL). Others, aside from CCNL have posted on the inconsistencies in the Gospels, I and others on the impossibility of Paul ever having been anything else but, etc., given what we know about contemporaneous Judaism.
Then there is Merry Anonymous's famous "Q" Gospel in the sky.

What I find curious is the willingness of some, including CCNL, great debunker that he is, to relegate to the myth pile, the "OT," the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, another people's sacred text expropriated by the Catholics, while trying desperately to preserve something of the NT.

I'm not putting you in that category, Paul. Also, I would like to tell you what an Orthodox Jew said to me last week regarding the historicity of Moses. "Who cares?" Historicity isn't everything.

What do you think of this?

To tell you the truth, I'm not on any conversion mission. I see us having a chat. That's all.

What either of us says doesn't make it true. Clearly your religion is important to you, and I respect that. Quite frankly, I believe that if one's religion, regardless of what it is, helps one to be a good and moral person, does not require that others adhere to it, that it be imposed on the secular world, I am glad for him or her. Truly, I am.

Farnaz

Farnaz,
You know far more about the politics of the Sadducces and Pharisees than I do. However, the explanation to your question is quite clear in the gospels. The reason that the Jewish officials were so concerned about Jesus and not the other "Messiahs" is because within the week before passover, Jesus had:
> Raised Lazarus from the dead
> Triumphantly entered Jerusalem with the crowds proclaiming his entry as Messiah
> Entered the Temple distict, chasing the merchants and money changers from the temple.

Furthermore, they had been given an opportunity to capture him in a secluded place by Judas Iscariot. While the Gospel accounts are clear that the Jewish official's original plan was to wait until after the passover festival, this offer by Judas was probably too convenient to pass by. If God wanted Jesus to die as the ultimate passover sacrifice, I'm sure that he could have orchestrated it as described.

I don't know how you can conclude that the time of Jesus was not the Messianiac age and at the same time note that there were all kinds of people around claiming to be the Messiah. And just because the Good news about Jesus sounds to you like a fairy tail or myth, does not mean that it is.

FOlks,
In addition to Spiderman (who is entirely bigoted when it comes to the Catholic Church), CCNL is again up to his old hateful nonsense against Catholicism:

"And the Catholics that still believe, believe only because of their significant Three B Syndrome i.e. they were Bred, Born and the Brainwashed in Catholicism by a bunch of old, "celibate, NT thumping, mostly European white guys called the popes."

Since CCNL and Spiderman are going to be so blunt about others' beliefs, I will be as well.

As far as CCNL goes, his Jesus Seminar people are just an irrelevancy. They don't offer a belief system; they offer a non-belief system. So I don't take them seriously in the least. So we are are down to choices among the various segments of Christianity so far as I am concerned.

Catholicism is, of course, different from the other two segments. Clearly, both the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants spend so much time attacking the Catholic Church while basically giving one another a pass. Why is that, since the Protestants are so much less ritualistic than the Catholic Church, while the EOs are far more ritualistic?

What it may well come down to is that they both feel compelled to pronounce the Catholic Church to be "sour grapes" to justify their splits from it. Catholicism doesn't waste a lot of time complaining about them. That is why I respect the Catholic Church in comparison with them: it demonstrates that both the Prots and the EOs broke away from the Catholic Church, and not vice-versa.

Let's look at another big charge CCNL made: the Catholic priests atre celibate! Okay: "celibate.... mostly European white guys" (etc.) have led the Church of Jesus Christ for 2000 years now. That is a good thing. I have a lot more respect for those celibates and their world-wide Billion Plus Church of Christ than I do either for CCNL the Crossanite and his little group of Jesus Seminarians or for Spiderman and his seething mass of counterfeit churches that were founded by mere men in the 16th Century or later. So, I'll go to Mass next Sunday too in my Catholic parish.

The attack on celibacy just leaves me cold. One of the things I particularly respect about Catholicism is that we have had the good sense to impose the celibacy requirement on all priests. Think about it: the two other portions of Christianity that do not require celibacy of their secular clerisy--the protestants and Eastern Orthodox--have both departed from Christ's clear requirement of no Divorce/Remarriage (Mark 10:2-14). Is there a causal nexus there? Could it be the protestant ministers and the EO married priests have departed from Christ's rule so they can preserve an escape valve from their own marriages? I can't prove for certain that that is the reason, but it is one thing to consider about Celibacy.

Another thing about Celibacy is that I know that the priest is sacrificing something to take up his cross and follow Christ. I just wouldn't trust a married minister who probably is more out for himself and his family than he is for the Kingdom of God.

It's like the baloney protestants have been handing out for 492 years now about "idol worship." Supposedly, the Catholic Church put all those statues and gold lamps and chalices, etc. in their churches because it wanted people to worship the things as idols. So the Reformers got rid of that stuff. But I am not so easily deceived. The real question Protestants don't like even to face: is what happened to the gold when it was removed from the churches? Whose pockets were lined? Whose pockets were lined when the monasteries were dissolved?

Let's move things up to the modern day: do protestants or Cathlics give more to support their churches? If Catholics did, then maybe somebody could credibly make the argument we so often hear that the Catholic Church is just looking to amass wealth in the form of chalices, etc. But the truth is that Protestants in this country give an average of 2 1/2% of their income to their chrches while Catholics give an average of just 1 and 1/2% of their income.

So: how is it that the Catholics give less and yet decorate their churches more? Suggestion: could it be because of Celibacy? Every extra buck that comes into the hands of the minister once his basic needs are met the balance can either go to his church or his rectory where his wife and kids can be found. Is that the real reason, protestants don't decorate their churches?

Spiderman2 said:

"Catholicism proclaims that they are the continuation of the apostles and that they are the true Christian church. IT'S A LIE."

That is something to think about, isn't it? Many Christian sects, and even many other relgions, of many kinds, claim to be the only true relgion. And they claim all the others to be false. But all these conflicting claims cannot all be true at once, can they?

Merely to restate that yours is the only true religion does not settle the confusion of the many conflicing beliefs; it merely adds to the confusion, and makes it even worse. Keep that in mind, before you reply.

It is really something to think about, isn't, Mr. Spiderman.

Paul C:

Thanks for your reply.

You write:

"The Biblical account of why the Jews feared Jesus was not that they feared him directly, but that they feared that the Roman response to Jesus would be to level Jerusalem. Hence, the high priest prophesied: Better that one man might die than the whole nation. However, he was thinking in political terms, not about salvation. To avoid that, the Jewish leaders aligned themselves with the Romans against Jesus, saying that "anyone who calls himself a king, is an enemy of Caesar." They viewed this as a stroke of genius because it allowed them to show that they were loyal to Rome while ridding themselves of someone that was challenging their leadership. Unfortunately for them, Jesus was the son of God, was resurrected and ultimately, by fighting against him, they lost everything."

I know. However, let us be reasonable. This sort of literal/figurative wordplay ending in disaster is the stuff of myth and fairy tales. (I mean no offense.) Any "messiah" and messiahs were, at the time, coming out of the woodwork, would, by definition, be "king of the Jews," a descendant of the Davidic king. However, neither the Sadducees, who supported a priestly caste, nor the Pharisees, who did not, were illiterate morons. They were Jews. They read the Hebrew Bible, understood the conditions under which the Messianic age would be heralded. They knew that theirs was emphatically not that age, certainly not Messianic.

Given how spread out the Jews were, how many messiahs (kings of the Jews) were floating around, why would this particular Jew with his followers be any more a problem than all the others?

What any Jew anywhere would and did take seriously, was Passover, with which no one had screwed around for a long time before Jesus. That a Sadducee high priest and a couple of cronies, would violate Passover for any reason other than IMMEDIATE threat to human life if inconceivable.

Let me explain what I mean by immediate, in present day terms. A guest in your house passes out and needs immediate help, since you cannot revive him. In your view, he will die if you don't get him to a hospital at that moment. This can't wait a few days.

But, of course, the Sadducee high priest could have waited, would have waited, although, again, why he would have been concerned at all is difficult to grasp.

Finally, with respect to their having "lost everything," for Judaism, the Sadducees with their priestly caste could not continue. They were the aristocracy, within a group of highly literate people, who were moving further and further into the interpretive realm, which, of course, was in the hands of the Pharisees, some of whom were actually poor. The Sadducees were not what you would call well-liked among the Judeans for any number of reasons and were, theologically, behind the times.

My aim here is not to wage a defense on the part of two or three Sadducees, who died two thousand years ago, but reason is reason, or as CCNL would put it, "myth" is myth.

Spiderman:
Good. Lets talk about doctrine. I ( and others not doubt), would be happy to discuss doctrine. When you say the Catholic water is the devils water, you are not discussing doctrine, you are just being hateful. What exactly is it in Catholic doctrine that makes you so angry. you know at one point in the gospel, Peter came into contact with others preaching the Gospel and told them to stop but Jesus told him that whoever was not against him was for him. Why can you not see it that way? This is the basis of the ecumenical movement. Do you really think our differences as Christians are that great?

CCNL: When did I ever claim to be an expert on religion? But you are being presumptuous to think that I have only one book in my library and you are being equally presumptuous to think that just because you can't find faith through reason that no one else can. There are literally millions of converts to Catholicism every year. Not everyone is born into it. Right now you are busy trying to find reasons not to believe, more so than any one else on this board. You read (or at least list) dozens of books to that end. Yet you are still not satisfied. I pray that you'll get past that and come back into the light.

Paul C,

And your library still contains just one book, the bible, consisting of the mythical OT and the highly embellished NT. And how is it you are such an expert in religion????

And you make no mention about the Catholic "no-contraception" rules being the major reason for the large population of brainwashed believers and "in-name" only Catholics? Why is that??

And the Catholics that still believe, believe only because of their significant Three B Syndrome i.e. they were Bred, Born and the Brainwashed in Catholicism by a bunch of old, "celibate, NT thumping, mostly European white guys called the popes.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

Paul C. wrote "Stop Judging lest you be judged"

It's a muddy water you're drinking. How do I know? The Bible is the standard. It's the clear water. It's called advice and not judging. I try not to a judge a person. It's the doctrine that I say is muddy.

Catholicsim is the devil's water. Many will go to hell because of this religion. Those who would listen and be saved from the fire will say, "thanks for the care".

Spidey,
You're one of a kind. Do you also read Matthew 25 in your studies? If so, have you ever thought about who the strangers are in your life--the ones you are supposed to treat nicely, as if they were the "King"? I don't care how you treat me, or what you call me--doesn't bother me in the least, but I do care how you treat these strangers in your midst.

The gospel is supposed to be about having a change of heart, a change in how you treat people, a change in attitude with a heart full of love, forgiveness, and gratitude (not superiority). If you're an avid Bible reader, how come you don't get it?

I don't recall encountering anyone quite like you in real life or on the internet. I guess you're "heaven" will be a lonely place--with only you there wondering where everyone else is. This is silliness. You have made yourself into the judge of everyone. Is that really what you learned from the Bible?

Ghostbuster,
Where are you? Can you get through to this guy? Can anyone get through to him?

Farnaz,
The Biblical account of why the Jews feared Jesus was not that they feared him directly, but that they feared that the Roman response to Jesus would be to level Jerusalem. Hence, the high priest prophesied: Better that one man might die than the whole nation. However, he was thinking in political terms, not about salvation. To avoid that, the Jewish leaders aligned themselves with the Romans against Jesus, saying that "anyone who calls himself a king, is an enemy of Caesar." They viewed this as a stroke of genius because it allowed them to show that they were loyal to Rome while ridding themselves of someone that was challenging their leadership. Unfortunately for them, Jesus was the son of God, was resurrected and ultimately, by fighting against him, they lost everything.

CCNL: You are blinded to the strength of the church and the reality of God's plan. And I know that the onFaith panel is highly secular. Even their Catholic writer is highly secular. That does not make them right. And I know that even you , apostate that you are, might be counted as a Catholic in the 1B. Even though, as you pointed out that there are plenty of Catholics in name only, there are also hundreds of millions of very devout ones, some of who post regularly on these pages. They will survive the secular world.

Spiderman: I agree with you that only the true children of God hear his voice. It is clear that many on these pages do not hear his voice. That I believe is their choice. I believe God calls them all. Some just choose to ignore it. I would recommend that you reconsider your approach to others with dissenting opinions, however. It's fine to attack the opinions and show why yours are superior (if you have the data). However, it is not helpful to directly attack those that have those opinions. You have personally been vigorously attacked in these blogs and I know that that can't feel good. Well, its the same for those you attack. I know you read the bible. Think about a few passages:
"Love your neighbor as yourself".
"Not everyone who calls me Lord will be saved, but only those that do my father's will"
"Stop Judging lest you be judged"

"The atheists never can give a cogent explanation for causation of the Big Bang."

That's because no one knows yet.

Some Christians have an answer - God did it - but it's not a cogent explanation, it's an assertion.

The OTHER god of Catholicism.

Catholicism proclaims that they are the continuation of the apostles and that they are the true Christian church. IT'S A LIE.

For true Christians, the name Jesus and Savior are HOLY. They treat it with utmost reverence. And yet Catholics ordinarily name their children with names like Jesus and Salvador. True Christians reserve these name to call on God and yet these devil religion is NOT BOTHERED when they call their children Jesus or Salvador (savior).

I can't imagine how they are able to shout the name Jesus when they are angry with their child. "Jesus, come here, QUICK !!"

WHAT A BLASPHEMOUS SATANIC CHURCH.

CCNL is right in most of his tirades against this satanic church. But he is being a fool if he says that the Bible is not the Word of God. Only the true children of God know His voice and it's only them who can understand the Bible.

Paul C,

Professor Crossan is only one many NT and historical Jesus exegetes who are leading the way to the real history of the simple preacher man. Six of these exegetes are members of the On Faith panel. See a list of many more of said exegetes plus the names of their over one hundred books at earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

A billion Catholics you say!! Since only one third or less of these go to the required Sunday Mass these days, most don't practice the "man--datory" no-contraception rules (with said rules years ago leading to the current overpopulation) and less than half not believing in the "bloody wafers"/original sin/one and only church/"pretty thingies" mumbo jumbo, I'd say there are some real problems in the pews as the march to the new Catholicism continues to the ten year new Catholicism target.

Also look at the number of Romans, Communists and Nazis there once were i.e. for many reasons, adherents to causes sometimes take a rapid decline.

To reiterate for the dwindling numbers of "redneck" Catholics out there:

Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!! And
what "voodooer of the hoodoo" blessed you all with such stupidity in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

The reality of it all is that the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are coming to grips with the flaws in their religions and in ten years the religions of today will be unrecognizable or extinct as the "pretty and ugly, wingie, flying, thingies" are finally buried in the piles of utter stupidity.

Parker wrote "The voice you think you hear would seem to be just as incriminating as that you accuse of others."

Somebody told a boy that his father wants him to do a certain thing. The boy didn't listen to the stranger coz he knows it didn't came from his father. Just as the dog knows the voice of his master, so are the true children of God. WW3 is coming and those who don't know God doesn't know it and will burn alive. No warnings will be given them.

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matthew 24:22)

A very simple message from God and yet these self-proclaimed "Christians" can't seem to digest it. They can only hear the voice of THE OTHER one. They can only listen to their true father which is the devil.

Paul C:

Thanks for your reply.

You write:
"Wha tis described is a group of the counselors who got together with the high priest in an absolutely non-standard way (in the middle of the night) to rid themself of Jesus of Nazareth, who was treatening their power and way of life."

Decisions were made by the Sanhedrin, not informally by a "subcommittee" meeting with the high priest, and these folks took Passover very seriously. Further, how would Jesus have been threatening their power? They were Sadducees, under the control of Rome. The only conceivable threat he might have represented would have been to Rome, but that, too, is doubtful. He didn't wish to lead a revolution, and the Judeans were spread out, with relatively few living in Jerusalem. How to organize it even if he had desired it? The revolt would have to wait.

As well, during those desperate times, there were prophets everywhere, some declaring themselves to be the messiah. In and of itself, this was not blasphemy. Sacrificing birds in front of the temple, well, that would have been and came to be another matter.

CCNL:
the Catholic church has been alive and well for 2000 years. There are over 1B Catholics in the world. What makes you think religion will be dead in 10 years. Because JD Crossan wrote a few books that turned you away from the faith? Please. I know you have turned your back on him, but frankly, you are way underestimating the power of God.

And by the way, what gives you the right to attack Spiderman? Do you see yourself as more reasonable than he is? Trust me, you have different points of view, but very much the same tactics in the way you treat those that don't agree with you.

CSM March 28, 2007:
One Muslim's decision to join the US Army

'NEW YORK - As soon as Abdel Salam Abdel Salam heard about the attack on the World Trade Center, he went to the supermarket in his Brooklyn neighborhood and bought enough cases of water to fill up his van. He then headed to ground zero and gave it out to anyone who needed it.

This week, the Egyptian-born Muslim-American is embarking on another venture motivated by his desire to help: He's joining the US Army as a translator.'

"I want to help the Iraqi people understand what the [American] soldiers are there for," says Mr. Abdel Salam. "To show them there's someone from their culture, who's also from the US, who understands them and wants to help."

'With the United States engaged in an unpopular war in a primarily Arabic-speaking country, the US military has significantly stepped up its efforts to recruit Muslim-Americans who are native speakers of Arabic, Pashto, or Farsi.'

http://www.printthis.clickability.com:80/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=One+Muslim%27s+decision+to+join+the+US+Army+%7C+csmonitor.com&expire=&urlID=29101542&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2F2007%2F0328%2Fp01s02-usmi.html&partnerID=309791

Spiderman2 aka Canyon Shearer, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!!
What "voodooer of the hoodoo" blessed you with such stupidity in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

The reality of it all is that the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are coming to grips with the flaws in their religions and in ten years the religions of today will be unrecognizable or extinct as the "pretty and ugly, wingie, flying, thingies" are finally buried in the piles of utter stupidity.

Folk,
Again, no explanation from the atheists onwhat caused teh Big bang:
"Patricksarsfield AKA Anon, regarding the effect this dialogue is having on his faith:

“Relatively little. My faith is certainly not undermined in any respect.” [etc. re the big bang]

I won’t comment on the issue of the big bang that you raised. Others have engaged you on that theme. It was not part of the conversation up to the point I asked my question, having been mentioned only once, by CCNL in the first comment here. "

The atheists never can give a cogent explanation for causation of the Big Bang.

FARNAZ:
I am sure you are right that the Jewish High Council would not have a standng counicl meeting during the high holy days. But that's not what is described in the Gospels. Wha tis described is a group of the counselors who got together with the high priest in an absolutely non-standard way (in the middle of the night) to rid themself of Jesus of Nazareth, who was treatening their power and way of life. We know that Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus, members of the council, were not involved in this irregular council meeting, for instance.

CCNL: I am still waiting for a cogent explanation of just how JD Crossan knows what Jesus said and what he didn't, having not been there. What makes him more reliable than the Gospels and Christian tradition? You know, now a days, almost any one can write a book.

Re: Spidey

Hasn't everyone figured out that Spidey's posts are parodies of a RW religious nut? Take my advice and read his posts as satire. They're actually very entertaining, if a bit repetitious.

Spidey is the Stephen Colbert of On Faith. He assumes a RW Xian nut position in his posts as a joke, just as Colbert provides a parody of Bill O'Really on his Comedy Central Show.

I get the feeling Spidey sits home shaking his head that most people haven't caught on at this point. Well, this is your wake-up call!

Enjoy Spidey's comedy for what it is.

Spidey,
The voice you think you hear would seem to be just as incriminating as that you accuse of others. You might want to re-think the premises you base your beliefs and accusations on. They are not the Savior's teachings. Far from them.

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matthew 24:22)

This verse is literal. It is not a fairy tale.

God's creation is like a big "computer program". It is programmed that the idiots will self destruct.

Susan,
I watched the conversation you asked us to watch, and while not surprised since evangelicals often misunderstand the Bible they say they love, I agree that such a belief system ought to put such a person in a desk job if they're going to be in the military. I think the Savior was alluding to a passage in Joel when he talked about swords, and perhaps the translators left out some of what he said. In any case, the Joel passage says in essence that the Gentile nations will be wanting to have swords because of their belief systems contrary to the gospel--and thus it is today.

Spidey,
The burning you so often discuss was meant as a matter of memory and heart, not a physical thing. Also, please re-read the scriptures that say "every knee shall bow"--not by force, but willingly after they understand. You sound like you want to force everyone by fear. Please, re-consider. Also, we already have wars all over the world. You ought to quit thinking World War III is coming (not Biblically sound). Why not encourage everyone to seek peace and understanding?

I wish that Sally had asked a follow-up question of the general: "then why did he teach, love your enemies? Bless them that curse you. Do good to them..." How can he reconcile the two (i.e. taking up the sword except for in defense vs. "love your enemies") in his mind?

Spiderman2 aka CanyonShearer aka "rednecked" Christian,

John 10 : 27 is another embellishment of the simple preacher man. The passage by the way is only found in John's gospel, the least reliable of the four gospels.

See- http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb358.html

Spiderman2 aka CanyonShearer aka "rednecked" Christian,

John 10:27- More embellishment, this time by John , the "Great Literary Decorator" of the simple preacher man". Tis a single attestation i.e. it only appears in John's gospel.

As per:http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/358_Feast_of_Dedication

" As in previous sections, there is no echo here of the authentic voice of Jesus."

CCNL wrote ' "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" are not from the mouth of the historic Jesus '

Those who have tasted the "cake" know more about the "cake" than those who have not.

"My sheep know my voice" (John 10:27)

As per the exhausitive study of many contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes (six on the On Faith Panel), many of the NT passages to include "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" are not from the mouth of the historic Jesus but were embellishments(in this case, only by Matthew)in the NT to make Jesus, a simple preacher man, something more than he was.

e.g.

"Lüdemann [Jesus, 174f] notes the parallels in the wisdom writings (including Prov 8:1-21) and dismisses the saying as inauthentic since he judges the identification of Jesus with Sophia to be a post-Easter development."

"John P. Meier [Marginal Jew II,387 n. 174] indicates a preference to regard this saying as coming from the special Matthean source, rather than as being derived from Q or created by Matthew. He clearly does not consider the saying authentic. "

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/052_Yoke_and_Burden

Patricksarsfield AKA Anon, regarding the effect this dialogue is having on his faith:

“Relatively little. My faith is certainly not undermined in any respect.” [etc. re the big bang]

Thanks for you response, Patrick. It’s different from what I usually hear. I’ve found that people who have their faith challenged often report (even without being asked) that it makes their faith stronger. If you had answered that way, I would have asked you how the dialogue had strengthened your faith. But apparently that’s not the case with you; instead, your faith is “not undermined.”

I won’t comment on the issue of the big bang that you raised. Others have engaged you on that theme. It was not part of the conversation up to the point I asked my question, having been mentioned only once, by CCNL in the first comment here.

Holy Cow/Spiderman 2 is a member of the Rev Jerry Falwell Church. Read up on RJF and you know exactly where Spiderman2 is coming from.

B-man, consider what one of the wisest man on earth, King Solomon, had said :

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Live it and you will have a different perspective of God.

"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Matthew 11:30)

Any person who can't stand prayer before meals is INSANE. It better that they leave the navy rather than endangering the lives of others.

In Hell, there will be a lot of prayers but no meal would be served. They become the meal of the WORMS while they burn.

Folks!

Jesus doesn't seem to be doing Patrick Sarfield any good.

The mental conformity to unbending dogma always lurches, in emotionally spasmodic and repetitive cycles of sinful back-sliding and tearful repentance, down a road that leads straigt and true, to the scapegoating of the world, and the casting of all blame, regret, and recrimination upon some unlucky person or group, such as the Jews, the gays, the atheists, no minority in particular, just anyone, in general.

So what if I don't know nothing about the Big Bang? So what?

Spidey,

Your God is the most sadistically sick and twisted psychopath I could possibly imagine. If he were a human, all humanity would agree that he should fry in the electric chair.

Your made up God is not worthy of all creation. He's not even worthy of man.

Patrick Sarfield

I am not an atheist or an agnostic. And the Big Bang is not my interest.

I just do not subscribe to your "be a bully for Christ" hypocrisy.

So, you hold your mouth open to be spoon fed the theology of others, with not a clue about what it is to have a true and free thought, uncontrolled by exterior and false theolgies.

Gee, what a superior relgious person.

Patricksarsfield:

"WRONG: as I pointed out a couple of days back, America, per the latest Pew Survey on Religious Adherence, is statistically very much a Christian Nation. 76.1% of Americans are Christian (78.5% if Mormons and JWs are considered Christian). More than half the remainder (12.9%) are "don't knows" and "nothing in particulars." That leaves just 8.6% that belong to a particular different group, ranging from Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to agnostics and atheists. So, Christians outnumber the particular non-Christian belief or non-belief groups by a factor of 9 to 1."

The majority of Americans are white. Is America, therefore, a white nation?

What part of separation of church and state don't you understand?

Paul C:

I hate to tell you this, but problems with the "Jewish High Council's" recommendation go well beyond "New Age Christianity" and have for a long time. Passover had long been sacralized by Jesus's time. It never, repeat, never, met on Passover. This is not in dispute.

Then, too, we have the mysterious Saul/Paul, whose Judaism was nothing like any Judaism extent at the time, not in Palestine, not in Greece. It is highly unlikely that he was ever anything other than Paul from Tarsus, that is, if he existed.

Then, you have the problem of the "Pharisees." The Pharisees opposed a priestly caste and temple culture, as we know, while the Sadducees supported it. This is one among several significant differences between the two.

I'll leave aside the inconsistencies within the NT, the debate as to whether Jesus actually existed, why anyone would be concerned about yet another prophet when they were appearing all over the place in besieged Palestine.

The words of God does not break. It will happen as sure as the sun rises from the east. All the atheists here will be wiped out by the end of WW3.

Their trouble does not end there. Eternal frying will follow suit.

"but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24)

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God".

Folks,
Proving once again that atheists and agnostics cannot explain the causation of the Big Bang, DILD writes in response to my observation:

"Patricksarsfield: "...atheists cannot explain the causation of the Big Bang..."

So, what else is obvious? You are brilliant at stating what is irrlevantly obvious.

You argue awful casually about theolgoical things; aren't you fearful that you might mis-step, and be cast, irretrievably, into the lake of fire?

(I am not trying to be mean, I am just trying to pry that mind of yours open just a tiny bit, to let a little light in, and to drag you ahead, a few centures; if that is a sin, then I guess I am guilty)."

Hmmm...so DILD cannot explain the causation of the Big Bang either and so goes on an insult rant. I am not surprised.

UNBIASED OBSERVER: wrote " America is NOT a Christian nation. It's that simple. "

That's where the weeding out will happen. America will not have the same protection it have during the two previous world wars.

"And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed." (Isaiah 1:28)

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matthew 24:22)

Folks,
A purportedly "unbiased observer" issues this ipse dixit:

"America is NOT a Christian nation. It's that simple. Religion has no place in the public square."

WRONG: as I pointed out a couple of days back, America, per the latest Pew Survey on Religious Adherence, is statistically very much a Christian Nation. 76.1% of Americans are Christian (78.5% if Mormons and JWs are considered Christian). More than half the remainder (12.9%) are "don't knows" and "nothing in particulars." That leaves just 8.6% that belong to a particular different group, ranging from Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to agnostics and atheists. So, Christians outnumber the particular non-Christian belief or non-belief groups by a factor of 9 to 1.

Paul C,

Au Contraire!!! The NT and historic Jesus exegetes review all available documents from the first to third century CE. They look for attestations from all sources. Few of these sources are strictly secular.

One more time a "flavor" of the documents reviewed by said exegetes to include the books and journal articles written by their fellow exegetes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf

18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CCNL:
I've been giving some thought to the works of your new age theologians. You know, they discount anything about Jesus that isn't from a secular source. The problem with that is obvious. Lets say for a second that the New Testament is correct and that Jesus Christ was condemned on the recomendation of the Jewish High council and crucified under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried and on the third day rose again, according to the scriptures. Now lets put ourselves in the position of witnesses. If you witnessed this and wrote it down, you would be considered a Christian writer and your work would be discarded by the new age theologians as not secular. If you were a government official like the members of the council or Pontius Pilate, would you be in a hurry to record that you had killed the Son of God. Probably not. However, one of his antagonists, Saul of Taursus, did write several letters that described his witnessing. Of course, you dismiss that as well. As for those that weren't priviledged to witness the resurrection themselves, well they wouldn't have anything to write about the subject would they.

You've allowed yourself to be deceived by these new age theologians. They know nothing of Jesus' life, because they discard everything written about him and make up their own "docudramas" with no basis whatever, exept what they view as the life of ordinary people of the time. Well someone who is the source of a religion that has lasted 2000 years and has over 2 Billion adherants worldwide can not be considered ordinary in any sense of the word.

Worse yet, you propagate their made up stories in these blogs in a mocking way to those that see them for what they really are. And although you call yourself a Catholic, you believe none of the doctrines and in fact, blaspheme continuously. You really need to think where Crossan and company have led you. Is that really where you want to be..

America is NOT a Christian nation. It's that simple. Religion has no place in the public square.

Spiderman, your childishness makes me think that you may be a boy. Are you? Whenever I asked earlier, you never answered.

Are you familiar with Tim and Beverly LaHaye? You sound like your parents may be home schooling you according to some of their teachings.

If you are not a child, do you live at home with your parents? Or are you in some kind of group home? By your comments, you seem pretty dysfunctional; I am just trying to figure you out.

I almost feel as though in your frustration to say something meaningful, you just default to calling people idiots and stupid, because you're having a little neuron trouble, getting things out. Am I right?

What's the deal? Am I being too personal? Well you can't keep acting like this, and not expect some kind of personal curiosity about what makes you tick.

Spiderman2: You need to personally test your weeding theory at 1am in central Sadr City. You could try it on your knees for an extra measure of Christian protection. If America's God is as superior as you claim, you'll be back with all four appendages and perhaps one iota of credibility. Until then, go to a ball game. There you can honor the inspiring words of a late 18th century plantation lawyer who never wore a uniform, but watched war from a distance and bloviated, much like you.

Jacoby wrote "Gen. Boykin, who believes that his Christian God is bigger than any other God--"
Jacoby does not understand why the U.S is the sole superpower and it will continue to be so in the next 1000 years. What makes America great is primarily because of that fact - The Christian God (not false Christianity) is bigger than any other God.

A lot of people don't believe that and it would culminate to WW3. The weeding out will then commence.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
PRAISE THE POWER that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'IN GOD IS OUR TRUST.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

***

The motto of the United States is very clear. I wonder what these atheists are doing in the military? THEY DON'T BELONG THERE !

Anybody who can't sing the American Anthem WHOLEHEARTEDLY is not a true American. America does not need them and America would be a much better place and at peace if these people don't call themselves Americans. Which means they can't hold any sensitive positions like that in the military or any branch of government.

But God's plan is tougher. He would weed out the earth of these stupid people.

To me, this is a pretty straight forward and easy matter. This is about Freedom, on which all our national heritage rests. What's to be against Freedom?

Conservative Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, are coming out of the closet, and saying here in pretty plain language, that they do not beleive in Freedom. And what is more, they have a sort of sour grapes attitude towards life and towards everthing.

I am tired of Conservative Christians, griping and complaining; nothing is ever good enough; nothing is ever right; they love America, except all the immoral people who live in it, and the precious Freedom that we excercise.

Susan-

At the end of Gen. Boykin's interview, I thanked all good ententies that he had retired. The problem is that there are many more like him at the Air Force and Naval academies, trying to turn them into campuses of Liberty University.

How can anyone not understand that if prayer is mandatory, it is inherently coercive? How can they think that such prayers would please any deity? How could any commander take this oath:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

and then profane that oath by completely disregarding Article Six and the First Amendment?

Lion's Den wrote:
"Having a Christian military force is not really anyone's purpose or goal."

To the contrary, it is clearly the goal. A back door movement such as this is not serendipitous. It is deliberate. I do not dispute any other part of your statement.

There is always a motivation for deliberate action. As precedent, was not the Justice Department knee deep in Christianizing the Asst. Attorney General ranks?

So let us speculate, what is the motivation? Why do we need only Christian soldiers? No, it isn't pretty.

Patrickarsfeld,

Apparently you have entered into the realm of being a "rednecked" Catholic i.e. a white, bigoted, NT "thumper". A good dose of "Crossanization" is highly recommended.

Concerned, the "Crossinized" Catholic.

I may be odd, but as someone who believes in a higher power, I want to note that even we/I who don't worship as other believers think we should, also feel harassed or even demeaned by religious people who think their way is the ONLY way.

Patricksarsfield:

"...atheists cannot explain the causation of the Big Bang..."

So, what else is obvious?

You are brilliant at stating what is irrlevantly obvious.

You argue awful casually about theolgoical things; aren't you fearful that you might mis-step, and be cast, irretrievably, into the lake of fire?

(I am not trying to be mean, I am just trying to pry that mind of yours open just a tiny bit, to let a little light in, and to drag you ahead, a few centures; if that is a sin, then I guess I am guilty).

I suggest that all of you read Sally Quinn's interview with William Boykin, the Army's "Christian soldier," if you want a portrait of an officer whose views should have no place in the American military command. Gen. Boykin, who believes that his Christian God is bigger than any other God--and treats religion as a proper battle cry--is a disgrace to his uniform and to the ideals of the Constitution he took an oath to uphold. George Washington would be horrified.

MikeK,
You once again confirm my observation that atheists cannot explain the causation of the Big Bang when you quote me and respond as follows:

"[patricksarsfield] wrote "Specifically, no atheist to whom I have ever spoken can explain what happened before the Big Bang so that the process unfolded in such an ordered--dare I say "designed"--way."

And what was your god doing prior to the big bang and why the wait? Unanswerable questions cut both ways."

Answer: If God caused the Big Bang--and I believe that is probably the way it happened, given the testimony of people like Arno Penzias on the likelihood of a Big Bang together with the order manifest in the Universe--God only knows what He was doing beforehand, but it included designing the Universe and causing it to come into being.

As to why the wait: why not? God only knows why He did what He did when He did it, but I will trust that He did it at what He thought an appropriate time. Given the short length of my life, it really doesn't matter to me.

The difference in the question posed to the atheist is that the atheist can explain neither how the Big Bang was caused nor how something came out of nothing because by the Time of the Big Bang, there was something.

LiveGrenade said:

"So I ask, what is the military's ultimate goal in having a "Christian" force?"

Having a Christian military force is not really anyone's purpose or goal. The problem is that some very primitive and backward thinking people have attained positions of great power and are seeking to corrupt the military, with their relgious conservative brand of Christianity, which the majority of Americans do not believe in, follow, subscribe to, nor understand.

These people are a problem anywhere you might encounter them, not just in the military. All over the South, where I was born and raised, these people who seek to control and coerce everyone and everything, are widely known to be difficult, and even obnoxious people.

They are limited, sheltered, and cloistered in their thinking. They have an inner confusion over "belief," knowledge and speculation. They are confused over basic issues of freedom and coercion. They are pre-occupied with human sexuality, and how to repress it.

Most of all, they are harsh and judgemental of others, with a cold, hard, and unsympathetic heart. They have a sense of entitlement, and demand respect, but they arrogantly would not extend this same respect to others.

They are bullys on the one hand, and cry-babies, on the other.

It it not a pretty picture.

So I ask, what is the military's ultimate goal in having a "Christian" force? What advantage does religious group think provide? Has not the military enough control through command structure, training, pay, living quarters and other such mechanisms?

The obvious answer to me insidious. How better to keep the mind focussed on target if you think you are saved, or forgiven... or 17 virgins await your martyrdom. We have met the enemy and he is ...?

Gee, Spidey, I don't remember the words of the National Anthem appearing in the Constitution or any of the nation's legal documents.

Following your "logic," I guess atheists aren't allowed to use US currency as the words "In God We Trust" appear on our money.

BTW - I've finally realized that your posts are rather deft parodies of RW/religious idiocy. They are actually quite entertaining IF one knows how to read them

Truly, you are the Stephen Colbert of On Faith!

Keep the laughs coming!

A little over 40 years ago, as an Air Force enlisted man, I heard a Staff Sergeant say "You have religious freedom, so that means you have to have a religion". To this day, I do not know if he was just an idiot or deliberately trying to annoy me. What is merely annoying when said by a low level noncom can be downright terrifying when said by a general. The military has the 24/7 power to make life miserable or even impossible for anyone who gets on the bad side of the brass. That is why it is imperative to keep outside control of unwanted evangelizing, which is a form of abuse.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'IN GOD IS OUR TRUST.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

***

The motto of the United States is very clear. I wonder what these atheists are doing in the military? THEY DON'T BELONG THERE !

Patrick Sarfield

I assume that "anonymous" was you.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. A person who does not share the Medeivel European Catholic paradigm of existence is not an atheist. That is merely your assumption that all such people are atheists.

You have drawn us all off the question at hand, which is, Conservative Christian bullying of people in the military, who are not Conservative Christians.

Anonymous wrote "Specifically, no atheist to whom I have ever spoken can explain what happened before the Big Bang so that the process unfolded in such an ordered--dare I say "designed"--way."

And what was your god doing prior to the big bang and why the wait? Unanswerable questions cut both ways.

Indeed...the christian right has been playing victims while esoterically promoting within it's church walls and government walls the idea of theocratization. Don't let them fool ya..there's lots of money to be made by the churches here. They will do whatever it takes.

EFavorite:
You ask:

"Could you tell me -- what effect is this dialogue having on your faith?"

Relatively little. My faith is certainly not undermined in any respect. I find the atheist pov bizarre. Specifically, no atheist to whom I have ever spoken can explain what happened before the Big Bang so that the process unfolded in such an ordered--dare I say "designed"--way. I just don't believe that there have been an infinite number of big bangs going off, one of which--ours--worked out.

To the extent, though, I get a chance to talk about my faith, no matter how hostile the environment, it is a positive experience since it gives me a chance to share the reason for the hope that lies within me.

SPIDERMAN2 wrote (JULY 24, 2008 7:08 PM):In world war 3, all idiots will be wiped out including non-military people and if Jacoby stays to be stupid, she would be wiped out also.

Alrighty, then... let's see if I've got this right...

... you believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh (in the form of a cracker) and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was tricked by a malevolent entity (disguised a talking snake... with legs) into eating a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that people who ARE NOT so stupid and gullible that they can be coerced, misled, cajoled, deceived, frightened, brainwashed or bamboozled to the point of actually BELIEVING such outrageously ridiculous codswallop are stupid idiots, who should all be wiped out.

Does that about sum it up?

Patricksarsfield

Could you tell me -- what effect is this dialogue having on your faith?

CCNL,
Once again, you are reduced to mere snottiness:

" No problem in believing in such flaws, so continue on in the brainwash of orthodox Catholicism/Christianity. No one is being hurt by believing in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies, mythical resurrections/ assumptions/ ascensions/ miracles, atonement theology and daily blood sacrifices. And such beliefs do have some economic benefits as they provide for a lot of jobs and charitable donations but on the other hand so does Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. "

What should I say in response to this? Only that anti-Catholics such as yourself are a lot more worried about the feelings of the handful of atheists in the foxholes that Ms. Jacoby posits than they are about those of the much larger numbers of Catholics. That is kinda what I thought was going on, but it is nice to get your prejudices on the table.

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick,

No one is trying to impose any new theology upon you and your fellow orthodox Christians. It is only being pointed out that many contemporary NT and historic Jesus scholars have reviewed the evidence of the foundation of Christianity and found many flaws. That is what you have to deal with.

(As noted to Paul C) No problem in believing in such flaws, so continue on in the brainwash of orthodox Catholicism/Christianity. No one is being hurt by believing in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies, mythical resurrections/ assumptions/ ascensions/ miracles, atonement theology and daily blood sacrifices. And such beliefs do have some economic benefits as they provide for a lot of jobs and charitable donations but on the other hand so does Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

DILD,
You ask:

"What has marriage got to do with this question? What has marriage got to do with Christianity? It is a peripheral issue. "

How many times do we need to start from the beginning? I am not going to go through the thread to show how this question came to take center stage. You can do that yourself, DILD!!

As to your second question: what does marriage have to do with Christianity? A lot.

Jesus generally did not stress the jot and tittle of The Law as the Pharisees did, as He showed repeatedly (e.g., the whole "Lord of the Sabbath" thing), but one place where he tightened down on the Mosaic Law was in the area of Divorce/Remarriage. As Brother Mark notes (Mark 10:2-12): "Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her." But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." "

DILD,
You ask:

"What has marriage got to do with this question? What has marriage got to do with Christianity? It is a peripheral issue. "

How many times do we need to start from the beginning? I am not going to go through the thread to show how this question came to take center stage. You can do that yourself, DILD!!

As to your second question: what does marriage have to do with Christianity? A lot.

Jesus generally did not stress the jot and tittle of The Law as the Pharisees did, as He showed repeatedly (e.g., the whole "Lord of the Sabbath" thing), but one place where he tightened down on the Mosaic Law was in the area of Divorce/Remarriage. As Brother Mark notes (Mark 10:2-12): "Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her." But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." "

Apocalyptic belief is a function of faith - that luminous inner conviction that needs no recourse to evidence. It is customary to pose against immovable faith the engines of reason, but in this instance I would prefer that delightful human impulse - curiosity, the hallmark of mental freedom. Organized religion has always had - and I put this mildly - a troubled relationship with curiosity. Islam's distrust, at least in the past two hundred years, is best expressed by it's attitude to those whose faith falls away, to apostates who are drawn to other religions or to none at all.
In recent times, in 1975, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Bin Baz, in a fatwa, quoted by Shmuel Bar, ruled as followed "Those who claim that the earth is round and moving around the sun are apostates and their blood can be shed and their property can be taken in the name of God." Bin Baz rescinded this judgment ten years later. Mainstream Islam routinely prescribes punishment for apostates that ranges from ostracism to beatings to death. To enter one of the many websites where Muslim apostates anonymously exchange views is to encounter a world of brave and terrified men and women who have succumbed to their disaffection and intellectual curiosity.
And Christians should not feel smug. The first commandment - on pain of death if we were to take the matter literally - is Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. In the fourth century, St. Augustine put the matter well for Christianity, and his view prevailed for a long time: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn."

And yet it is curiosity, scientific curiosity, that has delivered us genuine, testable knowledge of the world and contributed to our understanding of our place within it and of our nature and condition. This knowledge has a beauty of its own, and it can be terrifying. We are barely beginning to grasp the implications of what we have recently learned.
And what exactly have we learned?

I draw here from a Stephen Pinker essay on his ideal of a university: Among other things we have learned that our planet is a minute speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that
our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the history of the earth; that
humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods of ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified, that we cannot create energy or use it without loss.

Ian McEwan. "End of The World Blues.

Patrick Sarfield

What has marriage got to do with this question? What has marriage got to do with Christianity? It is a peripheral issue.

I guess I must try and look into your brain and try and figure out what is really behind your remarks. Pardon my adhominum-ism, if I am violating one of your own little rules.

Marriage is only an issue today, when it is "same sex marriage" and I am imgagining that you are getting some sort of weird confusion over Freedom in general being associated with "same sex marriage" which you are compelled, according to your religion of mental conformity, to oppose, even when no one else is even talking about it.

Is that what is behind your, otherwise, pretty unintelligble remarks?

Patricksarsfield:

You write erroneously:
"Farnaz,
You respond to my point that Monogamy is an example of the Christian influence on the nation as follows:

'Not exclusively Christian, as you point out, but based more in religion than individual liberty nonetheless. The larger point is that state-sanctioned marriage is becoming more and more recognized for the anachronism that it is. The state should get of marriage altogether.'"

----------------------
This was NOT my response to you, but Anon's to me, made at 3:04 today. Scroll down.
----------------------

HERe, pasted below, is my reply to you, made at 2:44 today. (You can, of course, scroll down for greater readability.)

Farnaz:

Patricksarsfield,

"Farnaz,
You ask me:

"You say that America is a Christian nation. Can you explain what the concrete manifestations of this status are. That is, where do we see, in evidence, the status of America as a Christian nation? "

The laws on marriage for one, as in monogamy.
------------------
Is that it? Israel prohibits all forms of polygamy. Is it, therefore, a Christian nation?

July 24, 2008 2:44 PM

Atheists are all IDIOTS and If I'll be in the military, it's a dangerous thing to be grouped with idiots.

Every soldier should have a right to oppose being grouped to a band of atheists. Atheists should have their own platoon.

It's NOT about religious freedom, it's all about IDIOCY and STUPIDITY.

In the Bible, in times of war, the idiots always are the cause of any loss of war.

The reason why the U.S won every major war is because of its FAITH IN GOD.

In world war 3, all idiots will be wiped out including non-military people and if Jacoby stays to be stupid, she would be wiped out also.

DILD,
You write:

"I think that when I make a slight rip on the Catholic Church, it seems to hurt you a little....I won't mess with you anymore."

To the extent your "rips" are based on the kinds of prejudice you have repeatedly shown toward the Catholic Church, this is probably a good development. If you got away from "rips" and "messing" in favor of substance-based discussions, you would find me more receptive to discourse.

CCNL,
You write to me in response to something I had written:

"Again the problem is in the history. Did this simple preacher man, an illiterate rabbi at best, establish a church? No, based on the lack of historical proof e.g. "Thou art Peter" (Matt 16: 18-19) passage only appears in one gospel.""

So, as you have previously explained in a different thread, you don't believe the New Testament. Among other things, as noted above, you would try to impose on any believer a multiple source requirement. Yet,as you have shown before, even where there are multiple sources for particular assertions, you still feel free to disbelieve them. From all prior indications, that is not going to change, so I really ought just to state that I disagree with your conclusions.

If you are not going to change your opinion, my choice is between believing CCNL or the New Testament and the Church Jesus founded. Let's see: CCNL or the New Testament and the Church Christ founded? Sorry, the evidence I have seen supports my belief that I ought to be following the New Testament and that Church rather than CCNL.

Mr. Mark,
I do not know what your point is supposed to be in the 5:27 PM post beginning:

"Boy, you just don't get it, do you? Church marriages are NOT legally binding if the people being wed have not obtained a marriage license from the state in which they are being wed."

I don't disagree with that characterization of the state of the law. If there was something I had written that you think inconsistent with that statement, please address it specifically.

DILD:

"He is glib and bitter, with just touch of paranoia."

Sounds like the pot called the kettle black to me.

Look in the mirror, pal.

Soory. In my lasy post, the phrase:

"I wonder just how many of them ..."

should have read:

"I wonder just how many of Xians planning marriage"

Haste makes waste in a cut-n-paste.

Dear patricksarsfield -

Boy, you just don't get it, do you?

Church marriages are NOT legally binding if the people being wed have not obtained a marriage license from the state in which they are being wed. The state doesn't recognize such a marriage as legal. That enters into all kind of things, like trying to buy or sell a house, dividing property after a divorce, filing taxes, etc. Believe it or not, some towns in the USA do not allow unmarried couples to purchase homes.

While the laws vary from state to state, there are commonalities as well. Most states make you prove that you are legally free to marry, ie: not currently married. You must produce court papers from past marriages, etc.

Don't believe me? Try to see if a church-annulled marriage is considered legal by the state without also obtaining a civil annulment. I wonder just how many of them are willing to enter into a marriage not recognized by the state as the state runs the courts where divorce proceedings will take place if needs must, especially as Christians - especially fundamentalists - divorce at rates higher than any other religious group in the country (and at much higher levels than do atheists).

So, enjoy your church-only marriage, Patrick. Let me know how that works out for you the minute some legal issue related to your marriage arises.

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick,

Again the problem is in the history. Did this simple preacher man, an illiterate rabbi at best, establish a church? No, based on the lack of historical proof e.g. "Thou art Peter" (Matt 16: 18-19) passage only appears in one gospel." Matthew, whomever he was, was therefore a part founder/"necessary accessory" of the Catholic Church, as was Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James his brother, Mary Magdelene, Mary, Joseph and another father if you believe the mamzer stories, the Apostles and Pilate. It was a team effort with Pilate being the strangest "necessary accessory".

Were economics an important influence? Yes indeed, and even more so nowl

Delete the paranormal, myths, miracles and hallucinations, and Christianity still has some great rules of life but so would Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism.

Folks,
"Anonymous" asks:

"DITLD says, "You have a religious belief which is based on mental conformity to a prefigured doctrine, set up and designed by someone else, which you compell yourself to belief."

patricksarsfield says , "I am a believer in Jesus Christ. The New Testament reveals that He established a Church in the First Century AD and commissioned it to teach all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). He told people to listen to that Church. (Matt. 18:17). Once I believe in Jesus, I need to take what He said seriously."

What's the difference?!"

The difference is that I explained why I choose to believe what the Catholic Church teaches based on what Christ (in Whom I believe) had to say, while DILD contends that any belief in what "someone else" said is wrong. Apparently, "Anonymous" also objects to belief if the believer believes the person in whom he believes. Such an approach, though, guts the term "belief" of any meaning.

The preying mantis assumes the prayer position just before it kills.

I guess the military uses the same approach.

DILD,
You write:

"Poor ole Patrick Sarfield; you are not able to see past your own mental conformity to religious dogma, the bad faith of your argument, which in fact, is not worthy of argument.

The point is, you don't use your brain. This question is a no-brainer; and you do not even have "no brain," apparently.

The question is Freedom. How many ways can you split a hair to justify your opposition to Freedom?"

One of the basic rules of civil discourse is that one should address the other person's arguments and not their personalities. You are not observing that rule. Instead, you are engaging in ad hominem attacks. I am not going to descend to your level, though. Please address arguments from now on.

DITLD says, "You have a religious belief which is based on mental conformity to a prefigured doctrine, set up and designed by someone else, which you compell yourself to belief."

patricksarsfield says , "I am a believer in Jesus Christ. The New Testament reveals that He established a Church in the First Century AD and commissioned it to teach all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). He told people to listen to that Church. (Matt. 18:17). Once I believe in Jesus, I need to take what He said seriously."

What's the difference?!

Patrick Sarsfield

You have stated why you are a Catholic. But that is merely your own personal belief. Other people have different personal beliefs.

I am glad, finally, that you stated your personal beliefs so plainly. Now you are easier to understand.

I think that when I make a slight rip on the Catholic Church, it seems to hurt you a little. Yet, you are incapabale of putting yourself in someone else's shoes and feeling it from their point of view. If that is the kind of Christian that you are, then fine. But it is not much of an example for others to follow.

I won't mess with you anymore.

"Patric's Far Afield":

Real childish the way you rearrange my name and make it yours, btw. You then ask:

"Do you have any testual support from the founding fathers themselves for your seemingly gratuitous interpretation of their intent? A quick review of Thomas Jefferson's words on the topic yields the information below. Similar information obtains for John Adams and James Madison."

My textual support is the language of the First Amendment: "CONGRESS shall make no law...." Congress referred to the Federal government. What Congress couldn't do though, the states were doing: maintaining establishments of religion. the Constitution essentially reserved to the states the issue of establishments of religion.

As to your supposed textual support, none of it constitutes legislative history for the First Amendment. The four statements by Jefferson were all made years after adoption of the First Amendment and Jefferson never even participated in the deliberations on the First Amendment anyway. He was off in Paris when that amendment was under consideration.

In later posts, you cite to two statements by Madison but again neither was addressed to the language of the First Amendment. Rather, one was written some 34 years after the First Amendment was adopted and the other came from a 1785 document dealing with a Virginia state bill. It is entitled: "To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia A Memorial and Remonstrance...."

Dear Susan

I have been a sick person in the hospital many times in my life, sometimes, very bad off. So, I know a little about hospital chaplains.

Apparently, being a chaplain is a "specialty" of religious pastoral care. People trained in this are taught about many different kinds of belief, and being senstive to this is part of their training. They also have resources, usually within the community to call upon, if a patient has a special need or problem. That is, a Protestant chaplain on duty in a hosptial would have a quick way to summon a Catholic priest, if necessary.

And aside, from chaplains as paid hosptital employees, there are also many pastoral positions that various religious communities provide to hospitals as donated servuce, which are not part of the hospital cost of business.

As a hospital paitent, I have had the experience, in which a brief "good night" prayer is recited over the PA system before going to sleep. I did not mind.

Mostly, in a hospital, chaplains are there to help people, and if you don't want them around, they leave and don't bother you. A hospital chaplain would be fired for seeking to exploit a person's suffering to get a "convert." Professional hospital chaplains are way beyond such a primitive attitude towards relgion.

This is all my second-hand anecdotal experience; if it is good enough for civilian life, then why can't the military do the same?

DILD,
In the long series of very biased questions contained in your 1:18PM post to me, you included this one which I will address:

"You have a religious belief which is based on mental conformity to a prefigured doctrine, set up and designed by someone else, which you compell yourself to belief. That is not Freedom. If you do not care about Freedom for yourself, and if you think it is a bad thing, then that is fine for you."

Wrong. I am a believer in Jesus Christ. The New Testament reveals that He established a Church in the First Century AD and commissioned it to teach all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). He told people to listen to that Church. (Matt. 18:17). Once I believe in Jesus, I need to take what He said seriously. If He commissioned His Church to teach all nations, He commissioned it to teach me.

I need to find out what Church He commissioned. That is a relatively simple historical inquiry: which Church was founded in the First Century AD? Not any protestant church, they were all breakaways from the Catholic Church (or from a breakaway from the Catholic Church) and founded in the Sixteenth Century or later.

The Catholic Church, by contrast, has been around since the First Century. Its existence is attested by the New Testament and such other earlier writings as those of Clement and Ignatius of Antioch (who actually used the term "Catholic Church" in 107 AD). See also Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3:3:2.

Farnaz,
You respond to my point that Monogamy is an example of the Christian influence on the nation as follows:

"Not exclusively Christian, as you point out, but based more in religion than individual liberty nonetheless. The larger point is that state-sanctioned marriage is becoming more and more recognized for the anachronism that it is. The state should get of marriage altogether."

Something like that should not be considered even in the unlikely event that Saudi Arabia and the other Islamic countries allow the open proselytization of Muslims by Christians. All countries should have freedom of religion, but countries still need to have rules about marriage for a lot of practical reasons. Women are equals to men in the West and the idea of a man being able to marry four women at one time would have profound impacts on American Jurisprudence. Not just on women but on men as well.

The awful example of what appears to be happening to disfavored males in polygamous sects is a perfect example of the pernicious effects of polygamy on men. In the recent TX case, the evidence has been that many of the boys produced by the sect get exiled from the community shortly after puberty because the arithmetic just doesn't support every male having multiple wives. The generation process produces roughly equal numbers of male and female babies. That means only 1/3 of men can participate in polygamy if the average number of wives is three.

Poor ole Patrick Sarfield; you are not able to see past your own mental conformity to religious dogma, the bad faith of your argument, which in fact, is not worthy of argument.

The point is, you don't use your brain. This question is a no-brainer; and you do not even have "no brain," apparently.

The question is Freedom. How many ways can you split a hair to justify your opposition to Freedom?

I should say that while I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with the position of those who object to the government paying for chaplains, as long as the military does support chaplains, it should be an "equal opportunity" provider of religious services. If there aren't as many Pagans or Jews or Muslims as there are Protestants or Catholics on most military bases, too bad. What the military wastes every day on the salaries of officers who violate the Constitution with despicable statments about the superiority of their religion to other religions could easily be used for any chaplain's salary.

As an atheist and a freethinker, I think I must recognize that to deprive believers of the services of chaplains on the battlefield would, in fact, be a denial of their human rights. If we're going to send young men and women off to die for their country (and that is another debate for another blog), it would be cruel to deny them the potential comfort of a spiritual adviser in life-threatening circumstances.

But proselytizing by right-wing Christians must be absolutely eliminated and, as I said originally, the next president should remind military commanders of their obligation to the Constitution in no uncertain terms. The extraordinarily obtuse letter from a cadet at the Air Force Academy underlines this point: he doesn't see the problem with right-wing Christian organizations and chaplains who denigrate the views of others. It is certainly depressing to think that this is the quality of thought being produced by the training at a service academy paid for by my tax dollars. Talk about government waste!

Mr. Mark:
You ask:
"Here in the good ol' US of A, a state-sanctioned marriage is legally binding, with or without a church service marriage, while a church marriage minus the state-issued certificate of marriage is not a legally binding or recognized marriage. So, which one is the anachronism."

This is a real issue only in your mind. While it is true that the state has the power of compulsion and can force people to be married in ways recognized by the state, all that means is that it can force people to be married in a ceremony recognized by the state. Yet, there is no real competition between the state and the churches since an anti-church state of the sort you might prefer would find itself quickly tossed out of office if it tried to deny to the churches the power to officiate at legally binding marriages. So, church service marriages are hardly going out of use any time soon.

"The larger point is that state-sanctioned marriage is becoming more and more recognized for the anachronism that it is."

Here in the good ol' US of A, a state-sanctioned marriage is legally binding, with or without a church service marriage, while a church marriage minus the state-issued certificate of marriage is not a legally binding or recognized marriage.

So, which one is the anachronism.

BTW - what do non-believers do if the state doesn't offer to perform and legalize marriages? That's over 20% of Americans. Should they be forced to get a church wedding?

Farnaz:

patrick reponds, "The laws on marriage for one, as in monogamy."

Not exclusively Christian, as you point out, but based more in religion than individual liberty nonetheless. The larger point is that state-sanctioned marriage is becoming more and more recognized for the anachronism that it is. The state should get of marriage altogether.

Dear Freestinker -

I agree with you on military chaplains. If a religious sect wants to provide a chaplain, let them pay for it. Religions not only receive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks, but they receive the majority of philanthropic giving in this country. They have the means, so let them provide the funding for chaplains.

The only case I could see to be made for the government paying for chaplains with tax revenues would be if the case could be made that religions without a healthy bank roll would be somehow disadvantaged in paying for chaplains. But that's not much of an argument at present because the military already discriminates against certain religions by not providing chaplains that represent certain faiths. The major religions and sects are already the benefactors of unfair and inequitable practices in this respect.

If there's government money to be spent, perhaps it would be best spent giving our soldiers the scientific education that most of them are missing. That could be coupled with courses in American history. Instead of a Bible in every footlocker, our soldiers could be the proud owners of Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Rights of Man and The Age of Reason.

Government support of scientific realities coupled with a thorough grounding in the principles upon which this country were founded might be a welcome replacement for the religious fantasies that are now being offered as cheap solace to men and women who are facing their own possible demise in service to our country.

Patricksarsfield,

"Farnaz,
You ask me:

"You say that America is a Christian nation. Can you explain what the concrete manifestations of this status are. That is, where do we see, in evidence, the status of America as a Christian nation? "

The laws on marriage for one, as in monogamy.
------------------
Is that it? Israel prohibits all forms of polygamy. Is it, therefore, a Christian nation?

Concerned Cadet said:
"We're not allowed cars until we're 2nd class cadets (Juniors), and even with cars we're not always allowed to leave the Cadet area on the weekends. Simply put, The chapel and their chaplains are necessary. The chapel and their chaplains are necessary."

1) I didn't have a car until after I graduated! Bikes are fun and easy to ride. Walking is healthy. Cabs and public transportation are available too.
2) Civilian Chaplains can visit the Cadet area.
3) Services can be held in almost any campus building.
4) Learn the restrictions before you voluntarily sign up for them.

So tell me again, why should I subsidize your religion?

RE: Military Chaplains.

This kind of entanglement practically begs for misuse so we really shouldn't be surprised that it is misused all the time. Rather, we should be surpised that it is not misused more often.

Why do we need official government chaplains anyway?

Newspapers, magazines and TV stations all send their own representitives to war zones, primarily on their own dime. The Red Cross also manages to get by fairly well in war zones without government sponsorship.

Why can't religious organizations (churches) and their members pay for their own chaplains? Why do I have to subsidize someone else's religious opinions? Why does the government need to get involved with religion at all? Is religion so weak that it cannot survive without direct government support?

First off, let me say I attend the "religiously bigoted" Air Force Academy. I've been here two years, which makes me a 2nd class cadet.

This article gives the public the impression there somehow exists a systematic approach to evangelizing cadets. I've read similar articles by others, and all fail to see that most cadets arrive at the Academy as Christians. That being said, of course there will be voluntary Christian clubs and organizations on campus.

Mrs. Jacoby also is misleading in regards to the speech by the former terrorists she referrs to. They may well have converted to Christianity, but their faith was never brought up during the talks (Believe me, I was there). And please, what gives Mrs. Jacoby the right to doubt their testimonies?

Finally, I'd like to address the issue of military chaplains at the Academy. Some argue Cadets should simply attend outside churches if they feel the urge. Frankly, I'd love to be able to leave campus more, but because of Academy rules such a proposal is easier said than done. We're not allowed cars until we're 2nd class cadets (Juniors), and even with cars we're not always allowed to leave the Cadet area on the weekends. Simply put, The chapel and their chaplains are necessary.

Particksarfield, aren't you being a little silly?

How is allowing good old common sense freedom of thought and freedom of religion a threat, and how is there anything radical or unAmerican about Freedom?

If the army can afford to toss people out because the nuance of their religious belief is not good enough, then I would say that, indeed, the threats that we face could not be very great. For if there were any true threat, I would think all able-bodied and willing people would be welcome to assist in our defense

Patricksarfield

If you do not like for people to pick on your belief, then why do you pick on others?

You are an extremely hypocritical person.

When I said that you do not have a concept of "true belief," I suppose what I actually meant was "free belief," that is, a true inner belief, that is not coerced or enforced. After all, if a Cathlic expresses a free believe that deviates from enforced belief, are they not called "Cafeteria Catholics?" Isn't that your own Catholic term? It would not be my term, since I cannot see anything wrong with a cafeteria, in which people choose what they want.

Being a Catholic, you must believe according to enforced doctrine. That is the definiton of what it is to be Catholic. How am I wrong?

You have a religious belief which is based on mental conformity to a prefigured doctrine, set up and designed by someone else, which you compell yourself to belief. That is not Freedom. If you do not care about Freedom for yourself, and if you think it is a bad thing, then that is fine for you.

But everyone does not feel that way about it.

As far as my grammar and spellilng are concerned, I would rather be wrong in those things, than to be wrong on the basics of belief and knowledge of right and wrong.

The study of theology ,as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing.
Thomas Paine 1737-1809 "The Age of Reason".

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without legal incorporation of
religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."

-James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 3, 1821

Here's a taset of James Madison's opinion on church and state. James Madison is regarded as the "father" of the Constitution:

"We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

"This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

"We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority."

The profusion of religion (of the Christian variety) throughout the world of sports and the military is something of an ominous sign and a result of the mistaken notion that those who
'pray together stay together' - in terms of outstanding performance, that is.

It's a covert means of enhancing a common bond among group members, through a particular kind of conforming behavior - praying.

And it has about as much benefit as wearing the same good luck charm, as well as being a clear violation of the individual's autonomy as regards all matters religious.

This represents a particularly obnoxious and misplaced mix of the 'sacred and the profane' that capitalizes on an all-to-common tendency to engage in religious superstition.

As for the Founders, it's been alot of years since they had the wisdom and foresight to recognize the need for the clear separation of church and state - we see significant backsliding toward the churchy end of things these days, and really need a powerful secular re-balancing in all areas of government, including the military.

We should all keep that in mind the next time we vote.

patricksarsfield:

Do you have any testual support from the founding fathers themselves for your seemingly gratuitous interpretation of their intent? A quick review of Thomas Jefferson's words on the topic yields the information below. Similar information obtains for John Adams and James Madison.

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Shawn,
You write:

"The founding document of the United States government, the Constitution, is an expressly secular document. The fact that the English colonies had established churches prior to independence is irrelevant to the argument, as is the fact that a swiftly declining number of states did after the adoption of the Constitution. (Madison and Jefferson, two enthusiastic secularists) both died in 1826, which is the early 19th Century, by the way."

I disagree that the existence of state-established churches after passage of the First Amendment is "irrelevant" to the question of whether the Constitution was meant to establish a secular nation. As I said before, the Constitution's First Amendment Anti-Establishment Clause is not proof that the US was designed to be a secular state because the Framers were not seeking to dis-establish the existent state-established churches when they barred the Federal Congress from also establishing a church. Only one entity could establish a church--the state(s) or the federal government--and since the states had already done so, Congress needed to be restricted from doing anything in derogation of the states' prior establishemnets. Thus, all the Framers were doing was reserving to the states the issue of whether there should be an established church.

Monogamous like say:
Muslim Bosnia, Jewish Israel, or Communist China?

Not much of an argument...

The founding document of the United States government, the Constitution, is an expressly secular document. The fact that the English colonies had established churches prior to independence is irrelevant to the argument, as is the fact that a swiftly declining number of states did after the adoption of the Constitution. (Madison and Jefferson, two enthusiastic secularists) both died in 1826, which is the early 19th Century, by the way. Susan’s book: Freekthinkers has an excellent discussion of this issue. All the wishful thinking of a certain segment of the population aside, the U.S. LEGALLY is NOT a Christian nation, even though Christian ideas are part of its heritage along with the Enlightenment and Classical Greece and Rome.

Farnaz,
You ask me:

"You say that America is a Christian nation. Can you explain what the concrete manifestations of this status are. That is, where do we see, in evidence, the status of America as a Christian nation? "

The laws on marriage for one, as in monogamy.

Duckphup,
You write:
"Patrick... try to digest this fact... the USA was established as a SECULAR nation."

Actually, there were established churches in most of the states/former colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

Now, it is certainly true that the Bill of Rights contained a clause prohibiting Congress from establishing a church ("Congress shall make no law...."). Yet that had no impact on the states continuing ability to establish a church, at least not until the 20th Century jurisprudence on the effect of the 14th Amendment on the First Amendment's applicability to states. It was the New England states that were the slowest to eliminate their state-established churches, some of which lasted until after both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were dead.

"By the way, I used to make fun of Pagans because I knew nothing about the depth of their beliefs. I've been educated by Pagans who've posted on this blog. I don't agree with Pagan beliefs any more than I accept other, more conventional religious beliefs, bu they are surely no less deserving of the respect for liberty of conscience guaranteed by our Constitution. It's the Constitution, stupid."

You certainly don't have to agree with someone's beliefs to be willing to allow them to exercise their rights to believe as they want to- and to be allowed to live that way without fear.

That's all we ask for.. and most Pagans I know would stand up for somebody of a different faith or no faith and demand their right to live as they see fit. As long as nobody gets hurt.

That's the America I want.

Patrick... try to digest this fact... the USA was established as a SECULAR nation. It was set up that way to sever its underpinnings from the entanglement of religion and government that had prevailed for preceding millennia. The philosophical inspiration for the government came from the secular humanist ideals that arose from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason... you know... heretical, non-canonical, Satanic ideas such as 'human rights'.

The power and authority of the US government is NOT bestowed by the good graces of an imaginary invisible, magical, all-powerful supernatural sky-fairy... rather, it depends from the "... consent of the governed." Look it up.

The USA is NOT a 'christian nation'... it is a secular nation with lots of christians in it.

There... that wasn't so hard, now... was it?

I agree wholeheartedly with Susan. And one thing I cannot understand is why the United States Air Force Academy would hire these people to speak? Pray tell, what kind of training are they receiving there? Teaching morality is one thing, but teaching religion is quite another.

Patricksarsfield:

You say that America is a Christian nation. Can you explain what the concrete manifestations of this status are. That is, where do we see, in evidence, the status of America as a Christian nation?

Farnaz

Mr. Mark:
You ask:
"74% of Americans are caucasian. Would you call us a white nation?"

Actually, the accuracy of your figure depends on whether one splits out Hispanics as a separate group or not. If you limit whites to non-Hispanic whites, the right figure is that non-Hispanic whites account for only about 66% of the nation. I think it fair to say that if one includes Hispanics as whites, as I do, then we can still be called a white nation, although, as with the Christian designation, there is also some truth in saying that we are not a white nation. Whites, as I and many others choose to define them, certainly still constitute the bulk of Americans.

You then ask: "Females outnumber males in this country. Are we a female nation?"

I don't even understand that question. The "nation" term comes from the Latin for "born" so to me a nation is a group of people descended from earlier forbears (as expanded in some cases by immigration, certainly in the case of the USA). Those forbears were both males and females and the descendants likewise are both male and female, so the nation would be neither male nor female. Rather, it has always been comprised of roughly equal numbers of both, ceteris paribus.

Finally, you ask:
"The largest Xian denomination in the country is Roman Catholic. Are we a Roman Catholic nation?"

That would really be a stretch. Although Catholicism undoubtedly is the largest Christian denomination in the US by far (it is as large as the next ten Christian sects put together), only @25% of Americans are Catholic. I therefore think it would be far more accurate to say that America is a non-Catholic nation.

DILD,
Your prejudices don't lie far from the surface. Thus you write this (rather ungrammatical abomination):

"As I said before, being a Catholic and immeresed in a relgion of enforeced belief, I do not even think that you can have a real concept of "true belief" nor of human will, nor of freedom, such as many of us in America would like to experience."

Although the subject of your "being" clause is actually yourself ("I"), I think what you were trying to write was that patricksarsfield supposedly is "a Catholic and immersed in a religion of enforced belief." Actually, though, I have thoroughly studied the Catholic Religion, believe in it as the result of that search and recommend it as the sensible choice for anyone who believes in Jesus Christ.

As to your suppositions about my alleged inability to "have a real concept of true belief," I find that so preposterous (not to mention obnoxious) as to merit no further remark.

Dear Patrick -

74% of Americans are caucasian.

Would you call us a white nation?

Females outnumber males in this country.

Are we a female nation?

The largest Xian denomination in the country is Roman Catholic.

Are we a Roman Catholic nation?

Patrick Sarfield

I did not admit that America is a Christian nation. I said that it is obvious that most Americans identify themselves as Christians. But many of them REFUSE to acknowledge the Christianity of others whom they think are unacceptably different.

Even you, yourself, counted Mormons as non-Christians, when they are obviously ARE Christians, at least to me.

Millions of Protestants think that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that Catholics are Godless agents of Satan.

As I said before, being a Catholic and immeresed in a relgion of enforeced belief, I do not even think that you can have a real concept of "true belief" nor of human will, nor of freedom, such as many of us in America would like to experience.

Patrick Sarfield

I did not admit that America is a Christian nation. I said that it is obvious that most Americans identify themselves as Christians. But many of them REFUSE to acknowledge the Christianity of others whom they think are unacceptably different.

Even you, yourself, counted Mormons as non-Christians, when they are obviously ARE Christians, at least to me.

Millions of Protestants think that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that Catholics are Godless agents of Satan.

As I said before, being a Catholic and immeresed in a relgion of enforeced belief, I do not even think that you can have a real concept of "true belief" nor of human will, nor of freedom, such as many of us in America would like to experience.

DILD,
You write:

"So what is your point? So, most Americans identify themselvs as Christians? So what else is obvious?"

If you are agreeing with me that most Americans are christian, then we have made some progress. Given the half-truth of the oft-repeated claim in this thread that "America is NOT a Christian nation," I think it important to note that per a couple of Supreme Court opinions and even the most recent surveys on religious identity, America can equally well be said to be a Christian Nation.

As to the questions you pose in later paragraphs, those are more of the strawmen that you have posed to me in the past. I won't rise to the bait of strawmen.

I will say that I disagree with the paranoia that some people on this thread have shown about standing apart from group prayer sessions. I have no problem staying apart from recitation of any prayer in which I don't believe. For example, I have found myself in Protestant services and been offered their communion. No way I would ever participate in that.

I would agree that it would be wrong and a violation of the First Amendment for any action to be taken against a student for refusing to participate in a group religious service.

For the origins, etcl of "grace before and after meals" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_(prayer)

PaganPlace:
You write:

"And, yes, I do feel like captain Kirk in the worst-written Star Trek episode ever.... "You recite the words, but you've forgotten the meaning... We. The people... " "

Ah, is Pagan a Trekkie? If so, one more evidentiary support for the accuracy of G.K Chesterton's famous saying: “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”

Patrick Sarsfield

So what is your point? So, most Americans identify themselvs as Christians? So what else is obvious?

Can't people pray for themselves, or not? to force people to comply with prescribed prayer is really a show of force and power, isn't it? So, if that is a rule of the military then fine, but why pretend that it has anything to do with religion? It doesn't.

In almost all hospitals, the services of chaplains are available to paitents and their families. But no one forces the patients to pray before they get any food to eat. Such a suggestion would get the hospital administrator run out of town. You can bet on that.

While you may be comfortable with a relgion of forced and coerced belief, face it, everyone is not like that.

PaganPlace,
There you go again! Faced with a balanced and factually accuratge set of statements by me (first paragraph quoted), you respond with an inaccurate recharacterization of what I said:

"patricksarsfield: Some balance here. The claim being made that "America is not a Christian nation" has some validity in that a relatively small part of the American population is not Christian."

PaganPlace: This is not 'Balance.' You're asking for a balance between 'Christian Theocracy' and 'Maybe Christian Theocracy can admit there are non-Christians around.'"

WRONG. To admit the simple truth that the overwhelming percentage of Americans are christian and that non-christians of all kinds-- whether theistic or not--represent a much smaller percentage of the people is not to create a "Christian Theocracy." Rather, it is to state a fact of life. A fact you may not like but one that the overwhelming percentage of Americans realize is what is.

And, yes, I do feel like captain Kirk in the worst-written Star Trek episode ever.... "You recite the words, but you've forgotten the meaning... We. The people... "

(It's called 'The Omega Glory' Worth a look. Bad Trek, good point) :)

And I guess it needs some clarifying in this day and age that that 'ours' includes *you.* Each of us. As individuals. Not mobs. E pluribus unum. Our real motto.

"Some balance here. The claim being made that "America is not a Christian nation" has some validity in that a relatively small part of the American population is not Christian."

This is not 'Balance.' You're asking for a balance between 'Christian Theocracy' and 'Maybe Christian Theocracy can admit there are non-Christians around.'

The United States Of America are "In no sense founded upon the Christian Religion."

It's for all of us. Not 'A hristian Nation,' but one where all faiths are treated with liberty and justice for all by we the people. No prevarication or 'balance' about it. Ours. Not yours. Ours.

"In 2006, two widows of Wiccan soldiers filed a suit against the Pentagon, which prohibited display of the pentagram on graves of Wiccan soldiers. One of these widows appeared in a movie, "First Freedom First,"

On this, Pagans have been fighting for over a decade at least (in a concerted fashion) to enable war dead going back to the Second World War to be buried with equal dignity.

(Oh, and the Pentagon is pentagonal cause it was originally supposed to be a records building put on that shape a piece of land. And as a historical footnote, one reason it held up so relatively-well on 9/11 is cause it was originally meant to hold books. All the concrete was double-thick cause books and papers are heavy, ...this plan was before the War Department moved in. :) )

Folks,

Some balance here. The claim being made that "America is not a Christian nation" has some validity in that a relatively small part of the American population is not Christian.

Yet, the claim that America is a Christian Nation has at least as much validity as that contrary proposition. Putting aside the fact that a couple of Supreme Court cases (in dictum admittedly) have so characterized this nation as a Christian Nation, there is the simple fact of how the people of this nation identify themselves.

In truth, the overwhelming percentage of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Per the most recent Pew Survey on the religious composition of Americans, the Christian figure is 76.1% with another 2.4% either Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses which some characterize as christian. Of the remaining 21.5% of the population, a majority (12.9%) are either "nothing in particular" or "don't know." That leaves non-Christians of specific persuasions--from Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. through atheist and agnostic--comprising just 8.6% (i.e., just one-ninth the number of christians).

Arminius,
You attempt to paraphrase something I wrote as follows:

"From what I can get out of your posts, you think that because the USSR, China, and other countries shot dissidents, that makes it ok for us to harass, beat up, and throw out of the armed forces those who differ with the majority. And that viewpoint is madness."

WRONG. I never wrote such a notion. You may like to knock down strawmen but it is really an inauthentic debating trick.

Mr Mark,

Thanks, but I'll gladly buy one. For those annoying door-bangers, quote the Tripoli Treaty, which John Adams signed after being passed unanimously by the Senate.

Arminius -

I'd lend you my copies, but I like to keep them handy for when the proselytizing Xian sects show up at my door and start in on their "America is a Xian nation" spiel.

Mr Mark,

I have wanted that book for some time, and will soon get it.

Dear Arminius -

If you are impressed with Susan's writing, then you really should check out her books, particularly "Freethinkers" and her latest, "The Age of American Unreason."

Prepare to be even more impressed.

Dear Arminius, Susan and fellow travelers -

I urge you to visit Deepak Chopra's column on this topic and add your comments. It was just posted and opens with this unbelievable statement:

"Speaking realistically, patriotism can't be divorced from religion. Every war is fought with God on our side -- on both sides. And the prevailing notion is always that the enemy is godless."

Realistically, the man just called every non-religious person in the world unpatriotic.

Susan,

You, an atheist, continue to impress this believer. I too made fun of Pagans until I got on these blogs and learned better. The ones I have met here are wonderful people. Hell, I wish they were my neighbors. Can't say that about many of the fundies I've dueled with here.

Thanks for your comments - it means a lot to us.

Arminius

One blogger asks, "Is it me, or is there something funny about Pagans suing the Pentagon?"

I don't see anything funny about a soldier who gave his life for his country being denied the right to have the symbol of his faith inscribed on his gravestone.

By the way, I used to make fun of Pagans because I knew nothing about the depth of their beliefs. I've been educated by Pagans who've posted on this blog. I don't agree with Pagan beliefs any more than I accept other, more conventional religious beliefs, bu they are surely no less deserving of the respect for liberty of conscience guaranteed by our Constitution. It's the Constitution, stupid.

A pentagon is not really a pentacle, which is the Pagan symbol, and is a five pointed star in a circle. But the closeness of the words does lend a bit of irony to it.

Anonymous writes:

"Is is me, or is there something funny about Pagans suing the Pentagon?"

Is it me, or is there something funny about a "Christian nation" designing the building that represents its military power in the shape of a Pagan symbol? ;)

Anonymous:
Is is me, or is there something funny about Pagans suing the Pentagon?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
must be you - I see nothing amusing about it.

Is is me, or is there something funny about Pagans suing the Pentagon?

Dear DTLD -

That's for the back grounder on Patrick.

Susan - thanks for contributing an added comment to your column.

Question: what are the rules for prayers before meals for our soldiers stationed in Czechoslovakia? How about the rules for those stationed along the Iraq/Pakistan border? Maybe we should ask that foreign policy expert, John McCain!

Mr Mark:

I have seen this guy PatrickSarsfield's posts before. He posted alot during the controversy about Sally Quinn taking communion at Tim Russert's funeral.

If I recall correctly, he is Catholic, so that rules out Spiderman, who hates Catholics.

(Gee, I can't believe I am involved in such a bizarre conversation).

Mr. PatrickSarsfield usually begins his comment with "Folks."

He is glib and bitter, with just touch of paranoia.

There has indeed been discrimination against Pagans in the military. In 2006, two widows of Wiccan soldiers filed a suit against the Pentagon, which prohibited display of the pentagram on graves of Wiccan soldiers. One of these widows appeared in a movie, "First Freedom First," made last year and sponsored by the Interfaith Alliance and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. This video can be viewed on both organizations' Web sites.

It is a clear violation of the First Amendment for the military to make decisions about which religious symbols are, and are not, appropriate for display on military graves. This has nothing at all to do with believers vs. nonbelievers, and everything to do with the arrogant proselytizing and disregard for the Constitution exhibted by the extreme Christian right.

Is it just me, or does PatrickSarsfield's posting style smack a bit of the language of Spidey and our other multi-moniker posters? The use of the word "silly" seems strangely familiar. Will the near future see Patrick terming "idiots" those who disagree with him? Hmmm?

And, I hadn't noticed Patrick posting here prior to today. A new poster, or simply another alias from the peanut gallery?

patricksarsfield:

I agree (again) with Mr Mark - you are not very coherent.

From what I can get out of your posts, you think that because the USSR, China, and other countries shot dissidents, that makes it ok for us to harass, beat up, and throw out of the armed forces those who differ with the majority. And that viewpoint is madness.

Mr. Mark:
You write:
"Dear Patrick -

Your last post has the effect of rendering incoherent all of your previous posts. WERE you trying to make a point, or do you use this forum to practice your typing?

Earlier, I wished you better luck in your future posts. Maybe I should have admonished you to quit while you were ahead..."

What can I say? More silliness from Mr. Mark.

Dear Patrick -

Your last post has the effect of rendering incoherent all of your previous posts. WERE you trying to make a point, or do you use this forum to practice your typing?

Earlier, I wished you better luck in your future posts. Maybe I should have admonished you to quit while you were ahead...

Mr. Mark,
You write:
"Yes, it takes guts to speak out against the PREVAILING or MAJORITY sentiment in ANY situation. Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it. It takes NO guts to echo the prevailing sentiment of received opinion. It takes guts to swim against the tide."

No, it doesn't necessarily take guts to speak out against a majority position. That is a silly position to be taking. For example, my position on this blog is a minority one; yet I don't think it takes guts for me to take my position.

THERE ARE LLAMAS IN THE WATER!!!

Dear Patrick -

The problem with your post is that, 1) Susan is an atheist, and, 2) Susan was not speaking out against atheism, either here or in China or the old USSR.

As an atheist, why would she speak out against atheism in China or the old USSR? She might speak out against the political system, but not against non-belief.

You wrote:

"It took courage to talk out against Stalin and the other commissars who ran the USSR. It took guts and still takes guts to talk out against the Chinese atheistical mandarins."

Yes, it takes guts to speak out against the PREVAILING or MAJORITY sentiment in ANY situation. Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it. It takes NO guts to echo the prevailing sentiment of received opinion. It takes guts to swim against the tide.

Susan is speaking out against the religious tide that is infecting the USA. That she has greater freedom to do so here than in a non-democratic society is a matter of degree, not device.

It's not my fault that you can't express your thoughts without stating the opposite of that which you meant to express (I'm guessing here, for while I think I know what you intended, I can't be sure).

Better luck next time.

PartickSarsfield wrote:

"No, there is no "corollary" because the US does not suppress dissent the way China suppresses and the Soviet Union suppressed dissent. It took courage to talk out against Stalin and the other commissars who ran the USSR. It took guts and still takes guts to talk out against the Chinese atheistical mandarins. Tianmen Square is not located in a christian country. And Dzerzhinsky Square was the place the Russians kept their dissenters (as in Lubyanka Prison)."

Dramatic though this all may be, it is still irrelevant to the question at hand.

When a liberal or free thinking person in the military is being harrassed for his religious beliefs, what has Tianmeen Square got to do with it?

Because it's worse there, we shouldn't mind?

mmmmmmmm

very strange, indeed

Patricksarsfield

You certainly are a bad-humored fellow.

What did "they" do to you?

Mr. Mark:
You respond:
"Just notice this from Patrick's earlier post:

"It takes guts to speak out against the prevailing atheism in atheistic countries like China and the old Soviet Union where they have commissars instead of chaplains."

Er, wouldn't the corollary to that sentiment be this:

"It takes guts to speak out against the prevailing religion in religious countries like the United States where they have chaplains instead of non-sectarian counselors.""

No, there is no "corollary" because the US does not suppress dissent the way China suppresses and the Soviet Union suppressed dissent. It took courage to talk out against Stalin and the other commissars who ran the USSR. It took guts and still takes guts to talk out against the Chinese atheistical mandarins. Tianmen Square is not located in a christian country. And Dzerzhinsky Square was the place the Russians kept their dissenters (as in Lubyanka Prison).

This was a really great essay, Susan.

There's been some discussion of these issues in the Pagan community as well, reports of Pagan/Wiccan soldiers not being allowed to meet or if they are, subject to derision, protest and evangelizing. If not outright abuse, that can get overlooked by higher ups.

There are some really brave chaplains out there who are willing to extend the same resources to those whose religions may differ from the norm, and do so at great peril. For that they should be commended.

There are no Pagan chaplains in the military. The last study I read estimated that there were at least more Pagan soldiers than were Muslims, and there are at least 11 Muslim army chaplains.

There was even one chaplain I'd read about not too long ago who discovered Wicca who was tossed out of the service, just for not being Christian any longer.

I've heard of atheist and Jewish cadets at West Point and other places being harassed and beaten for not wishing to participate in a Christian prayer.

No matter what religion someone is- or is not- evangelizing in our Armed forces has to stop.

Someone mentioned the don't ask, don't tell policy. All I can say is there certainly a great irony in the fact that our armed forces that are extremely overtaxed,lowering their standards, and looking for new members all the time who toss highly skilled, knowledgeable people out just for being different.

DILD,
You ask:

"So Patricksarsfield? What are you saying? Enforeced Evangelical Christianity in the military is the way to go?"

No, Daniel, I "said" what I wrote. You are now looking to set up a strawperson that you would rather discuss. If you would like to discuss what I wrote, please address what I wrote.

Just notice this from Patrick's earlier post:

"It takes guts to speak out against the prevailing atheism in atheistic countries like China and the old Soviet Union where they have commissars instead of chaplains."

Er, wouldn't the corollary to that sentiment be this:

"It takes guts to speak out against the prevailing religion in religious countries like the United States where they have chaplains instead of non-sectarian counselors."

Dear Patrick -

My comment on the best and brightest being discouraged from military service is based on fact, such as the military dismissing translators, doctors and others because they are gay. Certainly, any gay person would think twice before opting for the military under these conditions.

As the military's anti-/don't ask-gay position is religiously based and nothing else, this is a clear example of religious beliefs crippling the military. The entire "gays in the military hurts cohesiveness" canard is just that, a canard. Hell, many historians have remarked on the blatant homosexuality within the ranks of the armies of ancient Greece. Such relationships formed bonds that improved morale and bravery (after all, you fight harder if you're fighting next to - and for the life of - someone you love).

Susan's article also mentions Xians in the military who disagree with the fundamentalist approach being intimidated by their superiors. One would hope that a military made up entirely of American Xians would - at the least - allow their fellow Xians to practice the dictates of their particular sect without being assaulted by their fellow "brothers in Christ."

Hard to believe that you actually wrote, "speaking out against Christians in America is done all the time without fatwas being issued," when the American military equivalent of a fatwa is being issued even against Xians who don't toe the fundie line.

As far as my "bias coming through" - I would certainly hope so! I am incredibly biased against the current administration. I am incredibly biased against RW positions on life in general. What, you're surprised? You believe that your noticing the obvious has the effect of discounting my opinions? Ha! I fart in your general direction!

Why am I hopeful about Senator Obama (notice, not Mr Obama. It's a sign of respect and courtesy to refer to people by their titled positions)? First reason: he's intelligent. Second: he's articulate. Third: his life experience has produced in him the broad-based vision we need in these times. Fourth: I wasn't a fan when the campaign started, but he has won me over through his performance under fire. He can handle himself, no questions asked. Fifth: the job of cleaning up Republican disasters is best left to Democrats, and bush is the biggest disaster, ever! Sixth: unlike all of his opponents, he has kept his campaign on a high ground, which makes McCain's cheap shots seem even cheaper. Seventh: because it's time for this country to realize that intelligence in a president is a virtue, not a negative.

I could go on, but you get the point.

So the posting of this hymn, by, oh, I don't know, could it be, Spiderman? This proves what? ...that it is proper, right, and good, to shove religious belief down the throats of military people against their will, if they do not believe?

This is just childish, foolish nonsense.

And, yes, I most certainly do believe that Obama will put an end to this if he is ever President.

Anon,

And your point is what? Who would Jesus bomb?

Further, patricksarsfield, yes, Susan is an athiest. So what? She said this in her essay, which you apparently missed:

"Because soldiers risk their lives in combat--and many derive spiritual comfort from the availability of the clergy--I have no quarrel with the presence of chaplains in the armed services."

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.

At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
(Refrain)

Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
(Refrain)

Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail.
(Refrain)

Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King,
this through countless ages men and angels sing.
(Refrain)

patricksarsfield:

Mr Mark did indeed say,
"I applaud you for having the guts to speak out against the military and individuals within the armed forces who are blatantly trampling on the Constitutional rights of others."

And I, a Christian and a veteran, applaud him.

Here is the first part of the oath I took as a soldier in 1968:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

I still hold to that. If anyone tries to impose any form of religion on a soldier, or anyone else, then it is a violation of this oath. Therefore, anyone who does is a domestic enemy, and therefore my enemy. I will still defend this right with my life.

So Patricksarsfield? What are you saying? Enforeced Evangelical Christianity in the military is the way to go?

PP:
Hey, you should see how much money there is in being an 'Ex-Wiccan Occult Expert.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember when one of those guys came to speak to a church youth group when I was in high school. He claimed to have been a member of a "world famous heavy metal band" (that no one present had ever heard of) before he "got saved." He also claimed that every time the band recorded a new album, they would hold a "black mass" complete with animal sacrifices, gang rape of a virgin, and drinking of human blood to dedicate it to Satan. Satan would personally appear and "bless" the record, inserting into it a demonic message that could be quite clearly heard when the record was played backwards.
Everyone present was "invited" to come back the next night and bring all their rock and roll records for a big bonfire.

I got into trouble. I looked at the wide-eyed Baptist kids around me and asked two no-no questions: Why on earth would anyone want to play their records BACKWARDS? And since when did turntable motors spin in reverse? My questions were met with derision, but no answers.

I even went so far as to check out his claim of having been in a "world famous heavy meatal band" with a visit to my local record store. I looked through the entire heavy metal and rock sections - no records by this "world famous" band. I looked in the oldies section, since he said it was years ago. Nothing. The record store had a catalog from which you could order records that they didn't have in stock, even records that were out of print or shipped from overseas. This "world famous" band was not in the catalog.

After confirming my suspicions that the guy was lying about having been in a world famous band, I concluded that he had probably lied about everything else as well.

Folks,
Mr. Mark is even sillier than Ms. Jacoby. He writes two utterly silly things. First:

"I applaud you for having the guts to speak out against the military and individuals within the armed forces who are blatantly trampling on the Constitutional rights of others."

Guts? Maybe in a Muslim or Atheist country but not here. Ms. Jacoby is an atheist. It takes guts to speak out against the prevailing atheism in atheistic countries like China and the old Soviet Union where they have commissars instead of chaplains. Speaking out against Christians in America is done all the time without fatwas being issued.

Second, his bias comes through with this:

"[B]ush has been...discouraging the best and brightest from joining the military through his unseemly support of turning what's left of the military into an exclusive Xian club.

Let's hope that Obama's presidency brings with it a top-to-bottom reform of the military ...."

As though christians were not as good and bright as non-christians? Let's be honest: if Barak Obama tried to put together an army in which there were no christians or even where the christians were in the minority, we would no longer have a Volunteer Army. Instead, we would be drafting a whole lot of non-christians to fill in the ranks.

BTW, how can Mr. Mark be so hopeful about Mr. Obama? After all, isn't Obama supposed to be a christian (or as Mr. Mark prefers: a "xian")?

Especially after aggressive conversion attempts, (like those 'exorcisms' a lot of Fundies do to anyone who played D&D as a kid or listened to a band with funny hairdos or picked up a book on 'Fame And Fortune Through The Right Color candle!!!' ) ...the modern 'witch-hunt' narratives tend to be induced under conditions of extreme stress, especially for the mentally-ill, under conditions that would rightly be considered 'torture' under the Geneva convention, ...will tend to induce that narrative on the tortured subject: then various Fundie communities and organizations will reward the broken individual handsomely for repeating that narrative, however ridiculous, and going to 'educate' troops and law enforcement officers about the 'baby-killing Satanic conspiracy' behind your local tree-huggers.

Cause it's what they want to hear.

(This, by the way, is why torture mostly produces garbage intel in the first place: it's not some noble battle of wills, it's about messing with heads and bodies and people needing the pain to stop. If you successfully traumatize someone in that manner, they can't tell fact from what the torturer said, anyway. You *might* get a fact out of someone you beat up or scare, but by the time you 'break' someone in the torturer's sense, *they* might not even *know* what you hoped to get out of them anymore, if they knew it in the first place.)

There's a reason torture is despised by civilized nations. Maybe you can get someone to repeat your propaganda, but any notion it's about the truth is clearly BS.

When it's about 'religion' and the torturers are n't interested in reality, only 'convincing others of the 'Truth,' you'll get a number of people who will gladly become convinced they sacrificed more babies than have ever gone missing in American history, and go right ahead and take the big money to 'witness' the 'truth' about this or that.

Torture's no joke. But Texas just passed a law where if some storefront church suffocates your autistic kid, you can't sue.

Certain churches and organizations with way too much money have *always* paid people to go to places like military units and police departments to 'witness' their story.

This situation is much the same. Ain't just about saying Grace.

Susan,

An excellent essay. Some time ago, a blogger recommended With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military
by Michael L. Weinstein and Davin Seay, which I have yet to read but have done some preliminary research on. Here is a pasted bio on Weinstein and a link to the Military Religious Freedon Foundation he founded.

http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/

Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein, is the Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy, as are his brother-in-law, two sons, and daughter-in-law. His father graduated from the United States Naval Academy. He served for 10 years on active duty in the U.S. Air Force as a Judge Advocate. Weinstein has been a federal prosecutor and a defense attorney, and spent more than three years with the Reagan Administration, in both the Office of Management and Budget and as Assistant General Counsel in the Executive Office of the President. After leaving government service, Weinstein practiced law and later became the first General Counsel of Perot Systems Corp., owned by two-time Presidential candidate Ross Perot. He Is the author of With God on Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military. In 2004, Weinstein founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He recently filed suit against the Department of Defense for failing to protect the religious freedoms of our sailors, soldiers, marines, cadets and midshipmen.

Is there really any argument here?

I would be very suprised for anyone to show up here, who supports forced religion among our fighting men and women.

What a can of worms!

I would like to see how that argument would work.

"Earlier this year, the Air Force Academy invited three evangelical Christian converts, who claim to have once been Islamic terrorists, to lecture for a total fee of $13,000. Mainstream Muslim organizations objected, saying that the three so-called "experts" habitually depicted all Muslims as violent. Moreover, the three men's stories border on sheer fantasy, according to real experts on the Middle East (Muslim and non-Muslim). One of the proposed speakers, Kamal Saleem, talks about how as a child, he crossed the Israeli border to plant bombs in tunnels under the Golan Heights. (Israel reports no such incidents.) Imagine spending taxpayer dollars to propagandize future Air Force officers with this trash. You might as well hire someone dressed as the Easter Bunny to give a lecture on the importance of faith in the Middle East."

Hey, you should see how much money there is in being an 'Ex-Wiccan Occult Expert.' Who knew bipolar mania could *pay so well?*

Susan,

WOW! What an essay! Required reading for all Americans to end this attack on our military by religious bigots.

I am a believer, and a veteran, 1968-1970. No, I did not go to 'Nam, but West Berlin, where I learned to hate any repressive government - I visited East Berlin. While I was in basic training, we had a few services, just to acquaint us to the fact that chaplains were always available. The services were Christian, but otherwise generic and criticized no one. After basic, no pressure, ever.

This invasion of fanatics in our armed forces is absolutely unconstitutional, and in violation of the oath taken by every soldier. And the oath taken by the president.

Thanks, Susan.

Arminius

When I served (in the Air Force in the early 70's) during basic training we were required to go to chapel on Sunday. When they were getting the info for our dog tags we were asked "Catholic, Protestant or Other?"

Once we were out of basic, the chapel and chaplains were there, but there was no pressure to attend (or not attend).

A majority of Americans are religious, so I have no problem with chaplains being available to military members serving overseas. At home, there are plenty of places for religious expression without requiring the military to provide it.

I'd prefer these chaplains were paid for and provided by the religions themselves, rather than at government expense, but I can live with government paid chaplains just as we support commissaries and PXes for our military members.

Anything more than that, is establishment.

Excellent column, Susan.

I applaud you for having the guts to speak out against the military and individuals within the armed forces who are blatantly trampling on the Constitutional rights of others.

Since Reagan, our country has been on a "war is good" footing. Republican administrations have successfully hijacked the military to the point of the armed forces appearing as lockstep supporters of Republicans. Any criticism of the military has been stigmatized as being anti-American and unpatriotic. Couple that with the evangelical Christian support enjoyed by the Rs and you have the necessary conditions for religious intolerance to flourish within our armed forces.

Under such conditions, it has been easy for Rs and Xians in the military to advance pro-Christian practices in the military while insulating themselves from scrutiny and criticism. THIS MUST END!

The American public needs to wake up to the fact that the bush has been busy destroying our military through his pointless and endless wars while simultaneously discouraging the best and brightest from joining the military through his unseemly support of turning what's left of the military into an exclusive Xian club.

Let's hope that Obama's presidency brings with it a top-to-bottom reform of the military and a rejection of and stamping out of these un-Constitutional practices, as well as demotions and dismissals for those in the officer corps who have engaged in practices that so overtly display a disdain for the oath they swore to that Constitution and to their country.

Who started meal prayers anyway? Very odd practice to say the least. Based on the chaotic nature of raising crops, farmers should be thanked and not god/natural law who/that introduced/evolved said chaos via the Big Bang and the innate "gifts" of free will and future.

The chaplians are there to serve the needs of their religious members of the academies. When the meal crowd is mixed, meal prayers if desired should be said silently.