Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason. She began her writing career as a reporter for The Washington Post, and has been a contributor to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers for more than 25 years on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union and Russian literature. Jacoby has been the recipient of grants from the Guggenheim, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 2001-2002, she was named a fellow at the Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. Jacoby’s other books include Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004); Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1984, and Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past. She is working on a book about the relationship between American anti-intellectualism and political polarization, to be published by Pantheon in 2008. Her photo is by Chris Ramir.
Close.
Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter
Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason."more »
Pardon me for being so late in posting this, but what Susan Jacoby has noted was first noted about 2500 years ago by some gentleman named Xenophanes:
Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all things which are disreputable and worthy of blame when done by men; and they told of them many lawless deeds, stealing, adultery, and deception of each other.
But mortals suppose that the gods are born (as they themselves are), and that they wear man's clothing and have human voice and body.
But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle.
Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed, Thracians red-haired and with blue eyes.
Luke -- You responded "I am just as sure that your God doesn't exist as you are that it does, Anonymous. That's what makes us the same."
I did not ask you what you believe, but how do you know God does not exist. Have you looked everywhere?
You say that you know the same way that I know, but that can not be, for I believe in SOMEONE who has revealed himself.
If I believe there is a rabbit inside a box in front of your house, there either is or there isn't. Right? If there is, then your belief that there isn't, is a fantasy.
The only way to know is to go see for yourself, which is what I suggested in my first post. Communicate with Jesus in the Eucharist, for He is there. Just sit inside or outside a church and talk to him. Indeed, he is everywhere, but for some reason, he chose to make himself specially present in the Eucharist.
Communicate with his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, just talk to her.
If you don't go see if there is actually a rabbit, how will you ever really know? That would be a terrible mistake to make with nothing less than your eternal existence.
You still cannot bring yourself to condemn the the militaristic and anti-female passages of the Koran. Come to the USA where you can write in freedom and do not have to worry about the Islamic/Indonesia secret police.
And to think all these problems with Islam and Christianity can be traced back to mythical "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".
And the next topic should be on the effectiveness of "prayers/beads/rosaries" to bring us to Truth and the Right Path.
Getting a rise out of you for a clearer explanation of course. And thanks for it.
Your posts on miracles and showmen here got me thinking. I have never thought of Jesus as a "showman" with the skill in attracting public attention. I prefer the word charismatic.
And yes, causes and conditions of during time of Jesus and in our own time. And cause and effect too of the said miracles as an important part of Christian belief. People need to believe miracles can and do happen in their daily lives. Even Prez Bush on Iraq. Believing in the miracles of Jesus is symtomatic of that and our all too human capacity to hope against all odds without doing anything that need to be done.
And, yes, I was actually also indulging in a wee bit of baiting Concerned to see his usual reaction:)
What's gotten into you? The comment you addressed to me would seem to have nothing to do with what I wrote.
Have you mixed me up with Concerned?
All I wrote was a reply to Voice of Truth, who asked me, "In what way do you consider Jesus to be a 'showman'"?
The incidents I listed from Jesus's life were some that seemed to me to have a quality of showmanship about them. That's all.
The fact that so many believe in the Christian religion has nothing to do with what I wrote or what Voice of Truth asked me.
I think the fact that so many have faith in Jesus is not a "miracle", but rather, like everything else in the universe, "a product of causes and conditions". One of the causes may have been that Jesus was a good showman.
[A good Buddhist explanation, eh? - i.e., the causes and conditions bit.]
Meant to say: "Since, unlike Jesus, [Paul] is NOT credited with being a doer of wondrous deeds, it's more understandable that there would be little surviving info about him."
A list of miracles by Jesus. Is that all? You missed out the greatest miracle - that hundreds of millions found strenght and believe in Jesus over the centuries.
So many over the centuries said God is dead, and they are all dead and gone, but not God in the minds of men.
Any bets that proving Jesus may not "exist" will make any difference on believers?
Concerned
You noted : "Especially in regards to the Shiites and Sunnis!!! Same operating manual of death and cruelity, same god, same founder and they still butcher each other 24/7."
Obviously any reader of news on Iraq knows that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are in the throes of their own liberation theology/ideology (the meshing of political rights and religious/historical baggage). Fighting to the deaths against oppression, past (Shiites) and future (Sunnis).
Is it worth fighting and dying for one's rights and against oppression? Apparently yes for some as per independence movements from American Revolution to Vietnam. Add religion to the mix and it drags longer. Norhtern Ireland took some 500 years to resolve.
One can never reason with anyone whose rights is taken away or will be taken away - be it women, gays or religious and ethnic minorities.
And do pay attention to the phenomena of liberation theology in Latin America. A phenomena particular to only developing or third world countries. In activism for the community of believers, the Muslim cousins of the Liberation Theologist are, in many ways, the Muslim Brotherhood. I should add Hamas and Hezbollah as the most extreme examples of liberation theologists/ideologists. The Muslim Brotherhood and Liberation Tehologists are seen to have co-opted Marxist or socialist elements, but social justice is not the monopoly of Marxists.
It is in the teachings of and by the example of Jesus as well as being one of the tenets of Islam. Going back to the original teachings? Updating of teachings? Manipulation of teachings?
The Holy Texts, the origins and existence or otherwise, the historical accuracies on the founders of beliefs and religions has less and less to do with the state of men, but what the states has or not done for men for social justice, justice and pursuit of peace.
And some wonder why people turn to religion for hope, faith and as alternate system of governance. And to use religion to fight against those they deem are oppressive, unjust, as well as morally, ethically and intellectual bankrupt.
No question about it, we are going in different paths.
Just to irritate you here, let me remind that in that most common, pervasive and used of Muslim prayers, the Sura Al Fatiha, Muslims prayed to God to guide them to the Right Path, the Straight Path. Nothing said about the True Path. What is true may not be right.
Thanks, Concerned -- I did a little more looking too (googling "historical paul") and came up with basicially the same thing - via Bart Ehrmann's Book, "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene."
I'm officially done with my search for the historical Paul. Since, unlike Jesus, he is credited with being a doer of wondrous deeds, it's more understandable that there would be little surviving info about him.
Professors Crossan/Reed and also Chilton present the best Paul bio information available. There does not appear to be a lot other than what is in the epistles and Acts of the Apostles.
Thanks for the addtional references, Concerned, but I'm asking YOU -- in all your reading, have you come across historical/biographical info on Paul and if so, what it is -- and I don't mean stuff like "According to tradition, he was a tent maker from Tarsus." I mean some investigation and verification of claims about the man Paul.
Perhaps there aren't any -- this is what I'm trying to find out.
Obviously something "Paul-like" was happening -- we have letters, we have the spread of Christianity to places the letters were written to. But what about Paul -- has anyone really looked for him and what did they find?
I'm starting to wonder if very much looking for the historical Paul has been done. Maybe it's not a very interesting subject for scholars.
Especially in regards to the Shiites and Sunnis!!!
Same operating manual of death and cruelity, same god, same founder and they still butcher each other 24/7.
Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul, is another good book. See Amazon's description of the book and click on Search Inside This Book to see the Table of Contents, Index and an excerpt. Do this also for Professor Crossan's book. This will give you an idea as to references and family history.
Yes I understood. I just wanted to add what others especially contemporary NT scholars have concluded about the "historic" Jesus and his ways and sayings.
I agree with what you say about the items I listed.
You do understand that I was replying to Voice of Truth, who asked me "In what way do you understand Jesus to be a 'showman'?"
The listed items are incidents from the stories of Jesus's life that I consider to be examples of "showmanship". I wasn't suggesting that these stories are true or actually happened.
Hi, Concerned - thanks for the reference - assuming you've read the book, what particular references can you recall about the historical Paul, e.g. family info, mentions in other books/records, etc.
Your list of operatic events with added commentary as per many contemporary reviews of the NT.
-Miracles- embellishments all
-Raising the dead- illogical and a non-event (where did these bodies go as Heaven is a Spirit s
-Overturning the moneychangers' tables in the
temple- maybe but no eye witnesses, no CNN.
Turning water into wine- only mentioned once in the NT (John's Gospel) i.e. single attestation therefore not reliable.
Walking on water- more embellishements
Loaves & Fishes - more embellishments and if Jesus had this kind of power why limit it to a single event??
-Riding a donkey into Jerusalem over palm fronds
- not reliable information
Proclaiming a new cosmic system - What might that be?
The Last Supper- not reliable information
Dying a horrible operatic death - Why hast Thou forsaken me? - It is finished- The crucifixion definitely occurred but there were no recordings or reliable witnesses.
From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus.
“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. I 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."
Vox Veritas (a.k.a. Voice of Truth) (Isn't Latin classier than English? Pope Benny thinks so.),
Miracles
Raising the dead
Overturning the moneychangers' tables in the temple
Turning water into wine
Walking on water
Loaves & Fishes
Riding a donkey into Jerusalem over palm fronds
Proclaiming a new cosmic system
The Last Supper
Dying a horrible operatic death - Why hast Thou forsaken me? - It is finished.
Professors Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul, is excellent. It deals with all the aspects of Paul's life to include his epistles, the epistles written in his name (e.g. Timothy, Titus)and the associated archeology.
www.amazon.com
In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed (Paperback - Nov 1, 2005).
The first source does link sources, but he's not consistent throughout his various webpages. He seems to put all of his sources on the top of the first page of a subject with fewer or no sources on the subsequent pages that expand upon the subject.
The second source I cited is better in placing his sources withjin the articles.
While neither source is the be-all and end-all of disucssion, I find both sources invaluable for the simple fact that the hyperlinks within them are incredibly vast and take one to authoritative and well-distributed mainstream sources.
Mr Mark - Interesting about Paul -- I gave up looking for the "historical" Paul on the internet, after my initial attempts failed. I thought the fact that there was little out there (compared to the historical Jesus)was pretty interesting itself.
Can you tell me how/where you found your information?
"Notice the phrasing: "accompished among us" "eyewitnesses" "the exact truth"
Here's an interesting video - sort of a test of the reliability of eyewitnesses and our perceptions of things. Nothing religious or anti-religious here. See if you can spot the trick:
tinyurl.com/yoy7yq
"Certainly you don't attribute the authorship of Paul's epistles to unknown authors. They were written during the same time period as the Gospels and they corrobarate and bolster the Gospel accounts."
It may surprise you to learn this, but the EARLIEST copies we have of Paul's writings date from the third century. There are NO extant versions that predate that. Ergo, the third-century copies are 1) not originals, and 2) not exactly contemporaneous to the time when Jesus lived.
Furthermore, in Acts, Paul states that he studied under the Pharisaic grandee, Gamaliel, in Jerusalem, yet there is no mention of Paul the renegade student in any first or second-century rabbinical writings.
The fact is that we take it on faith that Paul's writings pre-dated the writing of the gospels
I think the point of the atheist is clear. You can talk of the foolishness of idol worship, the lies of mythology, etc., but what you believe is the same EXACT thing, just slightly younger than most.
Actually, Paul was the supreme salesman, along with his many later minions and followers.
None of those stories ever existed before all of those johnny-come-latelys started telling them, and they did so only to create a political movement. And very successfully, as you say.
Imagine, if I came along today and started to tell grand fables of magnificent feats allegedly performed by someone who allegedly lived 100 years ago, or - c'mon, let's own up to it - 1,500 years ago, but for which I had no documentary evidence whatsoever, not even contemporary writings, that could be validated by any true criteria of historical confirmation?
You would call me a fool and a charlatan.
And that's what I call the jesus people.
They have no contemporary written history, not even myths.
E Favorite, isn't it strange that I have to read several long textbooks to get my B.S. in Computer Science, but I only need one for a PhD? PhD in nonsense.
If I ever want to visit the facade of a woman who lied about being raped by a roman soldier - I'll be sure to visit a Catholic church. If I ever want to torture, maim, or kill people, I'll be sure to consult a Catholic first. How can I SINCERELY attempt to communicate with something I know does not exist? Why don't you SINCERELY call out to God, get a complete picture of the origins of the universe (and don't say The Bible, because that is a cop-out), and write it all down and hand it to me. No magic, just pure science. I want to know how he created elecromagnetic waves. How did Christianity bring about personal freedom? That is just re-writing history. Your faith persecuted, murdered, and destroyed entire civilizations for monetary gain, not personal freedom. It's because of your faith that personal freedom took so long to develop.
Believer - I challenge you to provide references from PhDs in Biblical studies or Theology from non-fundamentalist colleges or universities who do not support the fact that the writers of the gospels are not the Apostles Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, i.e., that the Gospel writers are unknown.
I've come late to this discussion, and Observer might not read this until the end of the vacation.
Concerning the nature of truth, there is an argument whether truth is subjective or whether there is an objective measure of a truth claim. As Tonio rightly pointed out, scientifically, a truth claim must be falsifiable. “True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.”
Observer then states that supernatural claims can not be evaluated within a scientific context, much as Stephen J. Gould might have argued in “Non-overlapping Magisteria”. However, is that claim an assumption or is it really true? Some, like Richard Dawkins, have argued that the existence of god, or lack thereof, can be addressed like any other scientific question. Science is built on the idea of evidence and uncertainty and perhaps such a question can be addressed.
From a philosophical point of view, there are some things we can never know (e.g. Is the red you see the same as the red I see? We may both agree it is the same wavelength, but we cannot know how different people perceive color). Then there are things we may never know (e.g. how life began, the existence of other universes). The existence of god may be in this group of phenomena. However, we can look for evidence for a yeah or nay. Dawkins argues that even with all the uncertainty, the preponderance of evidence points to no god. Will this end the debate? Of course not. Nor should it.
Observer - But, my question remains unanswered: WHY is this a common thread among so many cultures? You state, "There exists no universally-held moral position," however you offer no valid reasons as to why I should accept that claim besides your own subjective opinions.
Tonio - rudimentary moral behavior has been seen in some animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that humans and chimps acquired a inherent moral sense through natural selection, since a sense would aid the survival of the family or the tribe. Perhaps definitions of morality differ in the details because people have different definitions of the "tribe." We can refer to that sense as our conscience if we wish, but the existence of that conscience would have nothing to do with whether God exists.
Many people have pointed out, there seems to be a universal moral grammar in much the same way Chomsky showed there is a universal grammar for language encoded in our brain (de Waal 2000, Flack and de Waal 2000, Preston and de Waal 2002, Ridley 2003, de Waal 2006, Hauser 2006). This does not mean that everyone speaks the same language, nor does it mean that every culture shares the same moral values. There is a great deal of variation due to cultural influences. However, underneath that variation there appears to be a basic moral foundation of right and wrong based on fair play. This is not surprising in social animals such as ourselves, where the social environment imposes strong selection. An underlying moral sense aids in the function and stability of any social group.
If anyone is actually interested in the biological basis of morality, I suggest reading a book by Marc Hauser called "Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong." It's too bad the author used "design" in the title, because nature is not an entity and can't design anything. The premise of the book is that we and our ancestors evolved an innate sense of right and wrong that is subsequently influenced and adjusted by experience. You heard right; amoral evolution by natural selection favored a moral sense. It is not only present in humans, but, as Tonio has pointed out, it has been demonstrated in other animals as well (especially primates).
Ariel - Speed--Can you ask all your Jewish media/Hollywood friends to send me some money?
I also seem to have been left out of all the wealth. I think it was because I never had a Bar Mitzvah. If I tried to do it now, everyone would know it was just for the money.
Let's definitely start a secret Cabal. I think we should even invite speed123 to join as our token anti-Semite, primarily for social camouflage.
Susan Jacoby claims you can make Jesus anything you want him to be. Said claim only evidences that she does not yet know Jesus, that she does not yet experience the revelation of faith.
Jesus is not known exclusively through the New Testament, or through theological works. To true Catholics he is also known sacramentally, through the Holy Eucharist. To all true Christians, he is known wherever 2 or more gathered in his name.
I invite any pagan or atheist or who does not believe, to consider taking 1 or both of these 2 initiatives:
1. Visiting a Catholic church when it is empty and sitting near the Eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ, and SINCERELY attempt to communicate with Him.
2. SINCERELY attempt to comunicate to the Blessed Virgin Mary your desire to know Jesus.
I too have done my research and I can assure you that there is centuries of scholarship available that points to the apostles (Matthew and John) and their close associates (Luke and Mark) as being the direct authors of the gospels. Just read the first four verses in the book of Luke:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
Luke 1:1-4
Notice the phrasing: "accompished among us" "eyewitnesses" "the exact truth"
Certainly you don't attribute the authorship of Paul's epistles to unknown authors. They were written during the same time period as the Gospels and they corrobarate and bolster the Gospel accounts.
To your first point. If there had been a real person named Harry Potter who did amazing deeds which were foretold by prophets, and then that Harry Potter was crucified, buried and rose again, and then those that lived with him and knew him best wrote books about him and those books were widely circulated and became the basis for a portion of world civilization that resulted in democracy and individual freedom, then yes, I would tend to look at those books as factual.
The point is this: You're willing to accept the truth of ancient books with much less historical credibility than the Bible. The fact that there are many manuscripts lets us know not only that it was important, but that the words that were handed down are the same as originally written.
It's too bad you've let poor scholarship steer you from the truth. You should know this: no books in the history of mankind have been subjected to more scrutiny over the centuries than the books of the New Testament. Despite the latest skeptics, the old, old story stands the test of time and stays as relevant, compelling and life-changing today as it did in the first century A.D.
"But yet, when it comes to the supernatural, you are not willing to trust testimony?"
Let me clarify - I will not trust testimony if the claim about the supernatural involves me, especially a claim of authority or control over me. If believers claimed that their gods had authority only over themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I said earlier that I believe supernatural life is possible, but that the burden of proof is on people who claim that it exists. I consider myself an agnostic pantheist, meaning that I have reverence for the universe but do not regard it as a conscious entity.
Regarding claims about the supernatural, I see a three-level system of skepticism. The lowest level is for a claim that supernatural life exists. The middle level is for a claim that a supernatural being caused a natural event to happen. The highest level is for a claim that the being wants something from me or has authority over me.
I do not understand why anyone's concept of spirituality has to involve other people in the first place. One has responsibility for one's own actions and beliefs a no one else's. If you believe that you yourself are accountable to a supernatural being, then there's no reason to believe that the accountability extends to others.
Thanks for the conversations; I've enjoyed them. I'm getting ready to head out on vacation, and will be away from the computer for a week or so. So, my best to you all!
Thank you for the comments. Unfortunately, since you are not open to allowing the testimony of others to enter into the conversation, I'm afraid that we can go no further on the conversation of the supernatural. Like Hume, it appears that you are ruling out even the possibility of supernatural events. I will just say that I don't see how such a stance cannot lead to anything but a radical skepticism. How can you trust anything? How do you know that George Washington was the first President of the United States? How do you know that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492? You can't, unless you are willing to trust the testimony of others who have told you so. But yet, when it comes to the supernatural, you are not willing to trust testimony? All because of your pre-existing assumption that the universe is a closed system. But, I ask, what if your assumption that the universe is a closed system is wrong?
"Since they can't be tested scientifically as you rightly observe (since by definition they are not oft-repeated events), we must rely on the testimony of others. Do you agree that is a fair and accurate assessment?"
At the risk of sounding snotty, the testimony of others is not sufficient evidence. Some of them may have honestly mistaken natural events for a supernatural one, and others may have self-serving agendas. My understanding of scientific experiments is that others need to be able to repeat the phenomenon under identical conditions.
This wouldn't be so divisive if believers didn't claim that their god wants obedience from all humans. Anyone can make any sort of demand on people and claim that it's the will of deity. And this includes the authors of the Bible and the Qu'ran and all other scripture. Whatever my concept of the divine, I refuse to have any kind of belief about what the divine wants from anyone but myself, because I oppose making that kind of demand on people.
Maybe I have a different perspective. I'd like to share it.
Religion is fickle, as are humans. Beleif in a God or Gods is a matter of what that individual believes. The trick is not to convince people whether God exists or not. the trick is to allow the person to figure it out for themselves. This is where most of the religious people get it wrong. They think it's their duty to convert as many as they can, and claim they are doing nothing more than spreading the word of our Lord. The best way to get anyone to follow is not to try. If a Christian finds truth in becoming an atheist, Wiccan, or another religion altogether, let them. If an Atheist finds truth in faith and decides to believe in a God or Gods, then let them. Allow people the right to search for themselves. People don't do that anymore.
Observer, I don't want to convince you that there is no God. That would be futile, because I can't prove it, just as you can't prove there is a God. So on that point, we have come to an empass. all we can do is allow each person to live and believe as he or she wants, and not impose said beliefs. There is a difference between preach and breach. Sadly, this line has been crossed on numerous occasions, by most religions.
My goal is never to convince anyone, but just as you said, to give them my point of view so they can better understand where I am coming from. And I thank you for not throwing in scripture to prove your point. Seems many posters here could stand to learn from you. I have garnered a respect for you Observer, and hopefully the feeling is reciprocated. If I don't catch you guys again today, I will try to be back over the weekend. I ain't making any promises, but i would like to see how this little conversation goes. It has truly given me a reason to write and talk and experience. By for now.
Thanks for the comments. You make some very valid points.
"while it's possible that supernatural life exists, the burden of proof is on those who claim that such life exists, not on those who claim it doesn't." I totally agree. The issue is not, can supernatural events/miracles happen? The issue is have they happened? Since they can't be tested scientifically as you rightly observe (since by definition they are not oft-repeated events), we must rely on the testimony of others. Do you agree that is a fair and accurate assessment?
Thanks for the distinction about the topic of irrelevancy, it appears that we were talking about separate aspects.
Regarding your objection to religious doctrine, you state, "it sounds wrong to me for anyone to want other people to acknowlege his or her god." Duly noted, but my point is that the God of the Bible claims that He is the Creator of the universe and thus the God of all human beings, regardless of whether you regard him as such. Therefore, if such a God does exist, it is in everyone's best interest to acknowledge and focus your life towards Him. I anticipate that you'll respond that the Bible is not to be trusted. However, I direct you back to my question at the end of the second paragraph. If you agree that this is a fair assessment, we can move forward with the discussion of testimony.
"I still do not see any arguments that are all that convincing as to why I should believe that God does not exist."
Observer, while it's possible that supernatural life exists, the burden of proof is on those who claim that such life exists, not on those who claim it doesn't. Science cannot deal with supernatural causes for natural events since claims for those causes can't be tested scientifically.
"However, that in no way makes it irrelevant..."
I see a distinction between completely irrelevant and irrelevant to daily life. I was suggested the latter, not the former. My point was that the details of most peolpe's daily lives would not change if we discovered the origin of the universe, except that it would make for fascinating coversations.
"...especially if there is a Creator God and he expects us to acknowledge Him and focus our lives toward him."
That is my chief objection to religious doctrine. You say that you should not believe that God does not exist. But if I read your sentence correctly, we should believe that God exist. Is that accurate? I have no problem if you believe that your god wants you yourself to acknowledge him and focus your life toward him. But it sounds wrong to me for anyone to want other people to acknowlege his or her god.
My motives are simple. I just want to make sure that those on this thread seriously think through their reasons for believing what they believe. If, after critically thinking about the issues, you conclude that there is no God, I cannot argue with that. But, I don't want anybody to reach that conclusion without seriously thinking long and hard about it. (And if you've noticed, I haven't once cited a Bible verse because so many people dismiss it as irrelevant...not that I believe it is irrelevant, but that's another topic for another day.) But, if we look at these arguments philosophically, that's another matter entirely.
I enjoy these discussions because it also helps me to understand what other people believe and why they believe what they do.
So, thanks for the discussions, and I wish you the best of luck as you continue on your spiritual quest.
I have tried to learn if there is a God, but to no avail. Maybe it's just not in the cards for me. I try to learn about religions. Not just Christianity. I'd like to learn about hinduism, muslim, mormonism,taoism, wiccan, and buddhism. Not really buddhism, cause I have been around Buddhists my whole life except for about 6 or 7 years. I was raised in a Buddhist home. I went out, and I explored other options. I explored Christianity, and whether or not there was a God. The more I wondered, the more it became clear. Belief in a God or Gods is a matter of the mind. God didn't create man. Man created God.
We owe God nothing. He owes us, for without us, He wouldn't exist. See what I am getting at?
Hopefully you do.
My standards for morals and ethics come from my upbringing, and from my surroundings initially. As I grew, I learned even more. I think everyone has an innate ability to determine what is right or wrong. Whether they choose to do right, or wrong is totally up to the person.
As for the immortality, I like Tonio's response. Works for me. True, I may be forgotten in 4 generations, but if I make a tremendous impact, I will never be forgotten. Just as many men and women throughout the centuries have done. Van Gogh is dead, yet we still hear of him. DaVinci is dead,Jesus is dead, Socrates is dead, Confuscious, etc..
I cannot offer a more logical alternative than "God did it". That in itself isn't logic. It is faith. The universe will be a mystery long after you and I are gone. But it doesn't mean I can't try to find out.
May I make an observation? Seems that you are genuinely interested in what I have to say. I appreciate that. But I can't help but wondering if you are countering my points with an alterior motive. Maybe you intend to use it in a sermon, or maybe I am just totally off my rocker. Maybe you teach a class, maybe you just really are eager to converse with others. Either way, I don't mind. Pardon the wierd thought, but I just have that nagging voice in my head that says "be careful"(Jimminy Cricket). Although ,I'd rather my conscience look like Carmen Electra.(Damn she's hot!)
My life is nowhere near over, and in fact, my spiritual quest has only just begun. I still have lots to learn, and miles to travel. I enjoy conversations such as these, because they get my mind working, and the mind must be stimulated in order for it to do anything. If you have any other questions or thoughts, please feel free to ask. I am here till 4. :D
Thanks to both of you for your comments. I'll try to address some of each of your main points here. First, I'll start with Mike.
Mike, you state, "There *are* some positions that are generally held but I'd argue that is because many societies have similarities that promote such. That's why murder, rape, etc., is so commonly held. They are disfunctional for most every society." That's a valid observation. But, my question remains unanswered: WHY is this a common thread among so many cultures? You state, "There exists no universally-held moral position," however you offer no valid reasons as to why I should accept that claim besides your own subjective opinions. In response to this claim, I have yet to find anyone in any cultural context who thinks it is a morally good thing to kidnap, rape, and torture a child. So, my question remains: WHY?
You also made a typical objection to my argument when you said "To argue such is to defeat your original position that everything needs a creator. If your god didn't need to be created, then neither does the universe." First, let me clarify that I did not state that everything needs a creator. If you look back at my post, I state that the earth and every human being had a creator. I did not say that God had a creator. But, let's flesh this point out a little further anyway. Try for a second and imagine the greatest conceivable being that you can think of. I stress that you don't have to believe in this being, but just think of the greatest being that you can conceive in your mind. Now, it follows that that being must exist or otherwise that it wouldn't be the GREATEST conceivable being. That's how it is with the Creator God of the Bible. There is no greater conceivable being. He is the end of the line, the beginning of all things.
This leads me to some of Tonio's comments. You said, "what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin. While the topic fascinating from a scientific point of view, I see it as irrelevant to most people's daily lives." There is some truth to this statement. It probably isn't at the top of the priority list of most people to sit and think about these things. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about them. Many people dismiss God for this very reason that they don't think about the origin of the universe. They don't think about the origin of life. However, that in no way makes it irrelevant, especially if there is a Creator God and he expects us to acknowledge Him and focus our lives toward him.
Thanks again to both of you for your comments, however, I still do not see any arguments that are all that convincing as to why I should believe that God does not exist. To review, here are the answers that have been offered on this thread today:
Russell D.: "I think that God as the answer is a cop out. We can't explain it, so it must be something or someone more powerful than us. Too easy."
Mike K: "life on this planet simply is"
Tonio: "what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin."
Again, these arguments aren't really that convincing.
Believer – I made some of the same assumptions you did about the Bible, before I started researching it myself. The only source you use as evidence for Jesus is the New Testament, while scholars would also use other historical documents of the time and archeological evidence. A high number of copies of any book only indicates that it is popular, not that it is factual. Imagine historians 2,000 years from determining that Harry Potter must have been a real person because they found millions of copies of Harry Potter books.
You mention the apostles as writers of the Gospels, but biblical scholars do not know who wrote them. The writers are anonymous. The names of the Apostles were added later. It is accepted among scholars that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written around 70CE – 40 years after Jesus died – so whoever wrote them were not eyewitnesses.
"Again, the most logical answer is that it came from a higher being that created the earth, gave life to every human being, and placed moral standards in each of our consciences which reflect his own moral character. As of yet, no one has offered a more logical alternative."
Observer, rudimentary moral behavior has been seen in some animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that humans and chimps acquired a inherent moral sense through natural selection, since a sense would aid the survival of the family or the tribe. Perhaps definitions of morality differ in the details because people have different definitions of the "tribe." We can refer to that sense as our conscience if we wish, but the existence of that conscience would have nothing to do with whether God exists.
"Your logic in essence states that 'I don't know the source of this life, but I know it's not God.' However, you have not yet offered a more logical alternative."
For the same of argument, what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin. While the topic fascinating from a scientific point of view, I see it as irrelevant to most people's daily lives.
"Eventually, everyone whom you have ever encountered on this earth will die and along with it any contributions you made to their life. I'm not trying to sound cynical or pessimistic, but I am just asking, is that really what life is all about? You'll be completely forgotten within 3 or 4 generations. Surely, that's not immortality is it?"
I see the challenge of life as making contributions that will NOT be forgotten. Not everyone can be a Galileo or a Shakespeare or a Salk, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
The moral standard for those of us who lack a belief in gods or goddesses is what is a combination of what is functional or disfunctional for a society along with logic, reason and empathy. There *are* some positions that are generally held but I'd argue that is because many societies have similarities that promote such. That's why murder, rape, etc., is so commonly held. They are disfunctional for most every society.
There exists no universally-held moral position, so I think it's difficult to argue that humans are "created" with such.
As for a logical alternative to a creator, life on this planet simply is. It's difficult to argue that everything needs to be created and suggest a solution that didn't have a creator (your god). To argue such is to defeat your original position that everything needs a creator. If your god didn't need to be created, then neither does the universe.
Lastly, you mentioned meaning of life a few posts back. I don't think everything needs a purpose or meaning. Not an inherent one, anyway. I think we assign meaning to our individual lives. Again, some things just are.
Thanks again for the kind comments. I echo those sentiments. Most people that I talk with who do not believe in God will not even entertain the views of "fundamentalist, evangelical Christians." You are the exception to the rule in my experience, and for that I thank you.
Anyway, back to the discussion. You stated, "As an outsider, I think that God as the answer is a cop out. We can't explain it, so it must be something or someone more powerful than us. Too easy. God is a means to help people feel better about life and themselves." You seem like a logical person who is open to weighing all sides of the argument. Therefore, I urge you to not so quickly dismiss the possibility of a Creator God. Your logic in essence states that "I don't know the source of this life, but I know it's not God." However, you have not yet offered a more logical alternative. From my point of view, that's a bit of a cop-out.
You state that you "have a strong moral fiber and I know right from wrong." For that, I commend you. However, where did that moral standard come from? Generally, all cultures agree that child molestation, rape, and school shootings are universal evils. But why? There must be a standard. But, where did that standard come from? Again, the most logical answer is that it came from a higher being that created the earth, gave life to every human being, and placed moral standards in each of our consciences which reflect his own moral character. As of yet, no one has offered a more logical alternative.
One other point: you suggest that immortality can be achieved because "We are immortalized in the people we touch, the people we inspire." Again, I commend you for having such a positive outlook on life and the desire to encourage and build up other people. I wish many professing Christians had that outlook as well. However, what happens when all of those people die? Eventually, everyone whom you have ever encountered on this earth will die and along with it any contributions you made to their life. I'm not trying to sound cynical or pessimistic, but I am just asking, is that really what life is all about? You'll be completely forgotten within 3 or 4 generations. Surely, that's not immortality is it?
Thanks again for the discussions, and if I don't get a chance to chat with you anymore today, have a great weekend!
All Comments (157)
Pardon me for being so late in posting this, but what Susan Jacoby has noted was first noted about 2500 years ago by some gentleman named Xenophanes:
Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all things which are disreputable and worthy of blame when done by men; and they told of them many lawless deeds, stealing, adultery, and deception of each other.
But mortals suppose that the gods are born (as they themselves are), and that they wear man's clothing and have human voice and body.
But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle.
Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed, Thracians red-haired and with blue eyes.
(Black people, northern Europeans)
September 27, 2007 10:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 22:13
Luke -- You responded "I am just as sure that your God doesn't exist as you are that it does, Anonymous. That's what makes us the same."
I did not ask you what you believe, but how do you know God does not exist. Have you looked everywhere?
You say that you know the same way that I know, but that can not be, for I believe in SOMEONE who has revealed himself.
If I believe there is a rabbit inside a box in front of your house, there either is or there isn't. Right? If there is, then your belief that there isn't, is a fantasy.
The only way to know is to go see for yourself, which is what I suggested in my first post. Communicate with Jesus in the Eucharist, for He is there. Just sit inside or outside a church and talk to him. Indeed, he is everywhere, but for some reason, he chose to make himself specially present in the Eucharist.
Communicate with his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, just talk to her.
If you don't go see if there is actually a rabbit, how will you ever really know? That would be a terrible mistake to make with nothing less than your eternal existence.
May 19, 2007 11:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 19, 2007 23:10
Jihadist,
I'll just repeat what I wrote on this thread 155 posts ago:
"All prominent religious figures are showmen, and there's a thin line (if any) between them and conmen."
Whatever time it may be on your far side of the globe, here it's five minutes to midnight, so I'm off to bed.
Good Night!
May 14, 2007 11:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 23:55
Jihadist,
You still cannot bring yourself to condemn the the militaristic and anti-female passages of the Koran. Come to the USA where you can write in freedom and do not have to worry about the Islamic/Indonesia secret police.
And to think all these problems with Islam and Christianity can be traced back to mythical "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".
And the next topic should be on the effectiveness of "prayers/beads/rosaries" to bring us to Truth and the Right Path.
May 14, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 23:48
Norrie Hoyt,
Getting a rise out of you for a clearer explanation of course. And thanks for it.
Your posts on miracles and showmen here got me thinking. I have never thought of Jesus as a "showman" with the skill in attracting public attention. I prefer the word charismatic.
And yes, causes and conditions of during time of Jesus and in our own time. And cause and effect too of the said miracles as an important part of Christian belief. People need to believe miracles can and do happen in their daily lives. Even Prez Bush on Iraq. Believing in the miracles of Jesus is symtomatic of that and our all too human capacity to hope against all odds without doing anything that need to be done.
And, yes, I was actually also indulging in a wee bit of baiting Concerned to see his usual reaction:)
May 14, 2007 11:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 23:43
Jihadist,
What's gotten into you? The comment you addressed to me would seem to have nothing to do with what I wrote.
Have you mixed me up with Concerned?
All I wrote was a reply to Voice of Truth, who asked me, "In what way do you consider Jesus to be a 'showman'"?
The incidents I listed from Jesus's life were some that seemed to me to have a quality of showmanship about them. That's all.
The fact that so many believe in the Christian religion has nothing to do with what I wrote or what Voice of Truth asked me.
I think the fact that so many have faith in Jesus is not a "miracle", but rather, like everything else in the universe, "a product of causes and conditions". One of the causes may have been that Jesus was a good showman.
[A good Buddhist explanation, eh? - i.e., the causes and conditions bit.]
Cheers and best wishes.
May 14, 2007 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 22:39
Meant to say: "Since, unlike Jesus, [Paul] is NOT credited with being a doer of wondrous deeds, it's more understandable that there would be little surviving info about him."
May 14, 2007 9:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 21:42
Norrie Hoyt
A list of miracles by Jesus. Is that all? You missed out the greatest miracle - that hundreds of millions found strenght and believe in Jesus over the centuries.
So many over the centuries said God is dead, and they are all dead and gone, but not God in the minds of men.
Any bets that proving Jesus may not "exist" will make any difference on believers?
Concerned
You noted : "Especially in regards to the Shiites and Sunnis!!! Same operating manual of death and cruelity, same god, same founder and they still butcher each other 24/7."
Obviously any reader of news on Iraq knows that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are in the throes of their own liberation theology/ideology (the meshing of political rights and religious/historical baggage). Fighting to the deaths against oppression, past (Shiites) and future (Sunnis).
Is it worth fighting and dying for one's rights and against oppression? Apparently yes for some as per independence movements from American Revolution to Vietnam. Add religion to the mix and it drags longer. Norhtern Ireland took some 500 years to resolve.
One can never reason with anyone whose rights is taken away or will be taken away - be it women, gays or religious and ethnic minorities.
And do pay attention to the phenomena of liberation theology in Latin America. A phenomena particular to only developing or third world countries. In activism for the community of believers, the Muslim cousins of the Liberation Theologist are, in many ways, the Muslim Brotherhood. I should add Hamas and Hezbollah as the most extreme examples of liberation theologists/ideologists. The Muslim Brotherhood and Liberation Tehologists are seen to have co-opted Marxist or socialist elements, but social justice is not the monopoly of Marxists.
It is in the teachings of and by the example of Jesus as well as being one of the tenets of Islam. Going back to the original teachings? Updating of teachings? Manipulation of teachings?
The Holy Texts, the origins and existence or otherwise, the historical accuracies on the founders of beliefs and religions has less and less to do with the state of men, but what the states has or not done for men for social justice, justice and pursuit of peace.
And some wonder why people turn to religion for hope, faith and as alternate system of governance. And to use religion to fight against those they deem are oppressive, unjust, as well as morally, ethically and intellectual bankrupt.
No question about it, we are going in different paths.
Just to irritate you here, let me remind that in that most common, pervasive and used of Muslim prayers, the Sura Al Fatiha, Muslims prayed to God to guide them to the Right Path, the Straight Path. Nothing said about the True Path. What is true may not be right.
Don't be dogmatic.
May 14, 2007 7:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 19:19
Thanks, Concerned -- I did a little more looking too (googling "historical paul") and came up with basicially the same thing - via Bart Ehrmann's Book, "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene."
I'm officially done with my search for the historical Paul. Since, unlike Jesus, he is credited with being a doer of wondrous deeds, it's more understandable that there would be little surviving info about him.
May 14, 2007 12:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 12:32
E Favorite,
Professors Crossan/Reed and also Chilton present the best Paul bio information available. There does not appear to be a lot other than what is in the epistles and Acts of the Apostles.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
May 14, 2007 11:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 11:57
Thanks for the addtional references, Concerned, but I'm asking YOU -- in all your reading, have you come across historical/biographical info on Paul and if so, what it is -- and I don't mean stuff like "According to tradition, he was a tent maker from Tarsus." I mean some investigation and verification of claims about the man Paul.
Perhaps there aren't any -- this is what I'm trying to find out.
Obviously something "Paul-like" was happening -- we have letters, we have the spread of Christianity to places the letters were written to. But what about Paul -- has anyone really looked for him and what did they find?
I'm starting to wonder if very much looking for the historical Paul has been done. Maybe it's not a very interesting subject for scholars.
May 14, 2007 9:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 09:30
I am just as sure that your God doesn't exist as you are that it does, Anonymous. That's what makes us the same.
May 14, 2007 8:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 08:01
Especially in regards to the Shiites and Sunnis!!!
Same operating manual of death and cruelity, same god, same founder and they still butcher each other 24/7.
May 14, 2007 4:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 04:52
And Jesus replies, "I am a bit tired. As one of the great prophets of Israel says, `Come, let us reason together.'"
Not going quite well is it? To reason together.
May 14, 2007 1:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 01:22
E Favorite,
Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul, is another good book. See Amazon's description of the book and click on Search Inside This Book to see the Table of Contents, Index and an excerpt. Do this also for Professor Crossan's book. This will give you an idea as to references and family history.
See also
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
Try also Early Christian Writings at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ (Their servor was apparently down for the weekend.)
May 14, 2007 12:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2007 00:37
Norrie,
Yes I understood. I just wanted to add what others especially contemporary NT scholars have concluded about the "historic" Jesus and his ways and sayings.
May 13, 2007 9:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 21:25
Concerned,
I agree with what you say about the items I listed.
You do understand that I was replying to Voice of Truth, who asked me "In what way do you understand Jesus to be a 'showman'?"
The listed items are incidents from the stories of Jesus's life that I consider to be examples of "showmanship". I wasn't suggesting that these stories are true or actually happened.
May 13, 2007 6:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 18:00
Hi, Concerned - thanks for the reference - assuming you've read the book, what particular references can you recall about the historical Paul, e.g. family info, mentions in other books/records, etc.
May 13, 2007 3:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 15:24
Norrie,
Your list of operatic events with added commentary as per many contemporary reviews of the NT.
-Miracles- embellishments all
-Raising the dead- illogical and a non-event (where did these bodies go as Heaven is a Spirit s
-Overturning the moneychangers' tables in the
temple- maybe but no eye witnesses, no CNN.
Turning water into wine- only mentioned once in the NT (John's Gospel) i.e. single attestation therefore not reliable.
Walking on water- more embellishements
Loaves & Fishes - more embellishments and if Jesus had this kind of power why limit it to a single event??
-Riding a donkey into Jerusalem over palm fronds
- not reliable information
Proclaiming a new cosmic system - What might that be?
The Last Supper- not reliable information
Dying a horrible operatic death - Why hast Thou forsaken me? - It is finished- The crucifixion definitely occurred but there were no recordings or reliable witnesses.
From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus.
“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. I doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."
See also http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
May 13, 2007 2:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 14:47
Vox Veritas (a.k.a. Voice of Truth) (Isn't Latin classier than English? Pope Benny thinks so.),
Miracles
Raising the dead
Overturning the moneychangers' tables in the temple
Turning water into wine
Walking on water
Loaves & Fishes
Riding a donkey into Jerusalem over palm fronds
Proclaiming a new cosmic system
The Last Supper
Dying a horrible operatic death - Why hast Thou forsaken me? - It is finished.
May 13, 2007 11:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 11:43
E Favorite,
Professors Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul, is excellent. It deals with all the aspects of Paul's life to include his epistles, the epistles written in his name (e.g. Timothy, Titus)and the associated archeology.
www.amazon.com
In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed (Paperback - Nov 1, 2005).
May 13, 2007 11:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2007 11:36
E Fav -
The first source does link sources, but he's not consistent throughout his various webpages. He seems to put all of his sources on the top of the first page of a subject with fewer or no sources on the subsequent pages that expand upon the subject.
The second source I cited is better in placing his sources withjin the articles.
While neither source is the be-all and end-all of disucssion, I find both sources invaluable for the simple fact that the hyperlinks within them are incredibly vast and take one to authoritative and well-distributed mainstream sources.
May 12, 2007 6:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 18:03
Thanks, Mr Mark - I think I've seen the first source - it might be based on fact, but it's slanted and non-academic and doesn't reference its sources.
Obviously, "Paul's" letters got written and obviously Christianity spread, so you'd think there'd be more out there.
The second source seemed credible -- but unless I missed something, it was about Paul's letters and not about Paul.
May 12, 2007 5:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 17:52
Norrie,
In what way do understand Jesus to be a "showman?"
May 12, 2007 5:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 17:37
Luke,
You write: "How can I SINCERELY attempt to communicate with something I know does not exist?"
How do you know that?
May 12, 2007 5:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 17:28
Dear E Fav -
Sources for info on Paul:
http://tinyurl.com/33l86j
Also, here:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#6
May 12, 2007 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 14:29
Mr Mark - Interesting about Paul -- I gave up looking for the "historical" Paul on the internet, after my initial attempts failed. I thought the fact that there was little out there (compared to the historical Jesus)was pretty interesting itself.
Can you tell me how/where you found your information?
(Liked the card trick too)
May 12, 2007 1:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 13:30
Believer writes:
"Notice the phrasing: "accompished among us" "eyewitnesses" "the exact truth"
Here's an interesting video - sort of a test of the reliability of eyewitnesses and our perceptions of things. Nothing religious or anti-religious here. See if you can spot the trick:
tinyurl.com/yoy7yq
"Certainly you don't attribute the authorship of Paul's epistles to unknown authors. They were written during the same time period as the Gospels and they corrobarate and bolster the Gospel accounts."
It may surprise you to learn this, but the EARLIEST copies we have of Paul's writings date from the third century. There are NO extant versions that predate that. Ergo, the third-century copies are 1) not originals, and 2) not exactly contemporaneous to the time when Jesus lived.
Furthermore, in Acts, Paul states that he studied under the Pharisaic grandee, Gamaliel, in Jerusalem, yet there is no mention of Paul the renegade student in any first or second-century rabbinical writings.
The fact is that we take it on faith that Paul's writings pre-dated the writing of the gospels
May 12, 2007 12:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 12:51
I think the point of the atheist is clear. You can talk of the foolishness of idol worship, the lies of mythology, etc., but what you believe is the same EXACT thing, just slightly younger than most.
May 12, 2007 9:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 09:53
The new testament is less believable than the tales of the Trojan horse.
In both cases, they may be instructive - about how to act, or not to act - but that doesn't make them true occurrences.
May 12, 2007 8:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 08:57
Actually, Paul was the supreme salesman, along with his many later minions and followers.
None of those stories ever existed before all of those johnny-come-latelys started telling them, and they did so only to create a political movement. And very successfully, as you say.
Imagine, if I came along today and started to tell grand fables of magnificent feats allegedly performed by someone who allegedly lived 100 years ago, or - c'mon, let's own up to it - 1,500 years ago, but for which I had no documentary evidence whatsoever, not even contemporary writings, that could be validated by any true criteria of historical confirmation?
You would call me a fool and a charlatan.
And that's what I call the jesus people.
They have no contemporary written history, not even myths.
All of that came along later, from salesmen.
May 12, 2007 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 08:42
E Favorite, isn't it strange that I have to read several long textbooks to get my B.S. in Computer Science, but I only need one for a PhD? PhD in nonsense.
May 12, 2007 8:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 08:35
If I ever want to visit the facade of a woman who lied about being raped by a roman soldier - I'll be sure to visit a Catholic church. If I ever want to torture, maim, or kill people, I'll be sure to consult a Catholic first. How can I SINCERELY attempt to communicate with something I know does not exist? Why don't you SINCERELY call out to God, get a complete picture of the origins of the universe (and don't say The Bible, because that is a cop-out), and write it all down and hand it to me. No magic, just pure science. I want to know how he created elecromagnetic waves. How did Christianity bring about personal freedom? That is just re-writing history. Your faith persecuted, murdered, and destroyed entire civilizations for monetary gain, not personal freedom. It's because of your faith that personal freedom took so long to develop.
May 12, 2007 8:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2007 08:32
Believer - I challenge you to provide references from PhDs in Biblical studies or Theology from non-fundamentalist colleges or universities who do not support the fact that the writers of the gospels are not the Apostles Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, i.e., that the Gospel writers are unknown.
May 11, 2007 8:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 20:56
Dear Observer, Russell D, and Tonio,
I've come late to this discussion, and Observer might not read this until the end of the vacation.
Concerning the nature of truth, there is an argument whether truth is subjective or whether there is an objective measure of a truth claim. As Tonio rightly pointed out, scientifically, a truth claim must be falsifiable. “True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.”
Observer then states that supernatural claims can not be evaluated within a scientific context, much as Stephen J. Gould might have argued in “Non-overlapping Magisteria”. However, is that claim an assumption or is it really true? Some, like Richard Dawkins, have argued that the existence of god, or lack thereof, can be addressed like any other scientific question. Science is built on the idea of evidence and uncertainty and perhaps such a question can be addressed.
From a philosophical point of view, there are some things we can never know (e.g. Is the red you see the same as the red I see? We may both agree it is the same wavelength, but we cannot know how different people perceive color). Then there are things we may never know (e.g. how life began, the existence of other universes). The existence of god may be in this group of phenomena. However, we can look for evidence for a yeah or nay. Dawkins argues that even with all the uncertainty, the preponderance of evidence points to no god. Will this end the debate? Of course not. Nor should it.
Observer - But, my question remains unanswered: WHY is this a common thread among so many cultures? You state, "There exists no universally-held moral position," however you offer no valid reasons as to why I should accept that claim besides your own subjective opinions.
Tonio - rudimentary moral behavior has been seen in some animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that humans and chimps acquired a inherent moral sense through natural selection, since a sense would aid the survival of the family or the tribe. Perhaps definitions of morality differ in the details because people have different definitions of the "tribe." We can refer to that sense as our conscience if we wish, but the existence of that conscience would have nothing to do with whether God exists.
Many people have pointed out, there seems to be a universal moral grammar in much the same way Chomsky showed there is a universal grammar for language encoded in our brain (de Waal 2000, Flack and de Waal 2000, Preston and de Waal 2002, Ridley 2003, de Waal 2006, Hauser 2006). This does not mean that everyone speaks the same language, nor does it mean that every culture shares the same moral values. There is a great deal of variation due to cultural influences. However, underneath that variation there appears to be a basic moral foundation of right and wrong based on fair play. This is not surprising in social animals such as ourselves, where the social environment imposes strong selection. An underlying moral sense aids in the function and stability of any social group.
If anyone is actually interested in the biological basis of morality, I suggest reading a book by Marc Hauser called "Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong." It's too bad the author used "design" in the title, because nature is not an entity and can't design anything. The premise of the book is that we and our ancestors evolved an innate sense of right and wrong that is subsequently influenced and adjusted by experience. You heard right; amoral evolution by natural selection favored a moral sense. It is not only present in humans, but, as Tonio has pointed out, it has been demonstrated in other animals as well (especially primates).
May 11, 2007 8:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 20:48
Ariel - Speed--Can you ask all your Jewish media/Hollywood friends to send me some money?
I also seem to have been left out of all the wealth. I think it was because I never had a Bar Mitzvah. If I tried to do it now, everyone would know it was just for the money.
Let's definitely start a secret Cabal. I think we should even invite speed123 to join as our token anti-Semite, primarily for social camouflage.
May 11, 2007 5:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 17:15
One more point on these 2 initiatives:
SINCERITY implies a truly repentant heart for any offenses you know you have committed.
May 11, 2007 4:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:59
Susan Jacoby claims you can make Jesus anything you want him to be. Said claim only evidences that she does not yet know Jesus, that she does not yet experience the revelation of faith.
Jesus is not known exclusively through the New Testament, or through theological works. To true Catholics he is also known sacramentally, through the Holy Eucharist. To all true Christians, he is known wherever 2 or more gathered in his name.
I invite any pagan or atheist or who does not believe, to consider taking 1 or both of these 2 initiatives:
1. Visiting a Catholic church when it is empty and sitting near the Eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ, and SINCERELY attempt to communicate with Him.
2. SINCERELY attempt to comunicate to the Blessed Virgin Mary your desire to know Jesus.
May 11, 2007 4:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:57
E Favorite:
I too have done my research and I can assure you that there is centuries of scholarship available that points to the apostles (Matthew and John) and their close associates (Luke and Mark) as being the direct authors of the gospels. Just read the first four verses in the book of Luke:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."
Luke 1:1-4
Notice the phrasing: "accompished among us" "eyewitnesses" "the exact truth"
Certainly you don't attribute the authorship of Paul's epistles to unknown authors. They were written during the same time period as the Gospels and they corrobarate and bolster the Gospel accounts.
To your first point. If there had been a real person named Harry Potter who did amazing deeds which were foretold by prophets, and then that Harry Potter was crucified, buried and rose again, and then those that lived with him and knew him best wrote books about him and those books were widely circulated and became the basis for a portion of world civilization that resulted in democracy and individual freedom, then yes, I would tend to look at those books as factual.
The point is this: You're willing to accept the truth of ancient books with much less historical credibility than the Bible. The fact that there are many manuscripts lets us know not only that it was important, but that the words that were handed down are the same as originally written.
It's too bad you've let poor scholarship steer you from the truth. You should know this: no books in the history of mankind have been subjected to more scrutiny over the centuries than the books of the New Testament. Despite the latest skeptics, the old, old story stands the test of time and stays as relevant, compelling and life-changing today as it did in the first century A.D.
Have a good weekend.
May 11, 2007 4:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:20
"But yet, when it comes to the supernatural, you are not willing to trust testimony?"
Let me clarify - I will not trust testimony if the claim about the supernatural involves me, especially a claim of authority or control over me. If believers claimed that their gods had authority only over themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I said earlier that I believe supernatural life is possible, but that the burden of proof is on people who claim that it exists. I consider myself an agnostic pantheist, meaning that I have reverence for the universe but do not regard it as a conscious entity.
Regarding claims about the supernatural, I see a three-level system of skepticism. The lowest level is for a claim that supernatural life exists. The middle level is for a claim that a supernatural being caused a natural event to happen. The highest level is for a claim that the being wants something from me or has authority over me.
I do not understand why anyone's concept of spirituality has to involve other people in the first place. One has responsibility for one's own actions and beliefs a no one else's. If you believe that you yourself are accountable to a supernatural being, then there's no reason to believe that the accountability extends to others.
May 11, 2007 4:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 16:02
Tonio and Russell D.,
Thanks for the conversations; I've enjoyed them. I'm getting ready to head out on vacation, and will be away from the computer for a week or so. So, my best to you all!
May 11, 2007 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 15:43
Tonio,
Thank you for the comments. Unfortunately, since you are not open to allowing the testimony of others to enter into the conversation, I'm afraid that we can go no further on the conversation of the supernatural. Like Hume, it appears that you are ruling out even the possibility of supernatural events. I will just say that I don't see how such a stance cannot lead to anything but a radical skepticism. How can you trust anything? How do you know that George Washington was the first President of the United States? How do you know that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492? You can't, unless you are willing to trust the testimony of others who have told you so. But yet, when it comes to the supernatural, you are not willing to trust testimony? All because of your pre-existing assumption that the universe is a closed system. But, I ask, what if your assumption that the universe is a closed system is wrong?
May 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 15:32
"Since they can't be tested scientifically as you rightly observe (since by definition they are not oft-repeated events), we must rely on the testimony of others. Do you agree that is a fair and accurate assessment?"
At the risk of sounding snotty, the testimony of others is not sufficient evidence. Some of them may have honestly mistaken natural events for a supernatural one, and others may have self-serving agendas. My understanding of scientific experiments is that others need to be able to repeat the phenomenon under identical conditions.
This wouldn't be so divisive if believers didn't claim that their god wants obedience from all humans. Anyone can make any sort of demand on people and claim that it's the will of deity. And this includes the authors of the Bible and the Qu'ran and all other scripture. Whatever my concept of the divine, I refuse to have any kind of belief about what the divine wants from anyone but myself, because I oppose making that kind of demand on people.
May 11, 2007 3:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 15:15
Maybe I have a different perspective. I'd like to share it.
Religion is fickle, as are humans. Beleif in a God or Gods is a matter of what that individual believes. The trick is not to convince people whether God exists or not. the trick is to allow the person to figure it out for themselves. This is where most of the religious people get it wrong. They think it's their duty to convert as many as they can, and claim they are doing nothing more than spreading the word of our Lord. The best way to get anyone to follow is not to try. If a Christian finds truth in becoming an atheist, Wiccan, or another religion altogether, let them. If an Atheist finds truth in faith and decides to believe in a God or Gods, then let them. Allow people the right to search for themselves. People don't do that anymore.
Observer, I don't want to convince you that there is no God. That would be futile, because I can't prove it, just as you can't prove there is a God. So on that point, we have come to an empass. all we can do is allow each person to live and believe as he or she wants, and not impose said beliefs. There is a difference between preach and breach. Sadly, this line has been crossed on numerous occasions, by most religions.
My goal is never to convince anyone, but just as you said, to give them my point of view so they can better understand where I am coming from. And I thank you for not throwing in scripture to prove your point. Seems many posters here could stand to learn from you. I have garnered a respect for you Observer, and hopefully the feeling is reciprocated. If I don't catch you guys again today, I will try to be back over the weekend. I ain't making any promises, but i would like to see how this little conversation goes. It has truly given me a reason to write and talk and experience. By for now.
May 11, 2007 3:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 15:09
Tonio,
Thanks for the comments. You make some very valid points.
"while it's possible that supernatural life exists, the burden of proof is on those who claim that such life exists, not on those who claim it doesn't." I totally agree. The issue is not, can supernatural events/miracles happen? The issue is have they happened? Since they can't be tested scientifically as you rightly observe (since by definition they are not oft-repeated events), we must rely on the testimony of others. Do you agree that is a fair and accurate assessment?
Thanks for the distinction about the topic of irrelevancy, it appears that we were talking about separate aspects.
Regarding your objection to religious doctrine, you state, "it sounds wrong to me for anyone to want other people to acknowlege his or her god." Duly noted, but my point is that the God of the Bible claims that He is the Creator of the universe and thus the God of all human beings, regardless of whether you regard him as such. Therefore, if such a God does exist, it is in everyone's best interest to acknowledge and focus your life towards Him. I anticipate that you'll respond that the Bible is not to be trusted. However, I direct you back to my question at the end of the second paragraph. If you agree that this is a fair assessment, we can move forward with the discussion of testimony.
Thanks!
May 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 14:50
"I still do not see any arguments that are all that convincing as to why I should believe that God does not exist."
Observer, while it's possible that supernatural life exists, the burden of proof is on those who claim that such life exists, not on those who claim it doesn't. Science cannot deal with supernatural causes for natural events since claims for those causes can't be tested scientifically.
"However, that in no way makes it irrelevant..."
I see a distinction between completely irrelevant and irrelevant to daily life. I was suggested the latter, not the former. My point was that the details of most peolpe's daily lives would not change if we discovered the origin of the universe, except that it would make for fascinating coversations.
"...especially if there is a Creator God and he expects us to acknowledge Him and focus our lives toward him."
That is my chief objection to religious doctrine. You say that you should not believe that God does not exist. But if I read your sentence correctly, we should believe that God exist. Is that accurate? I have no problem if you believe that your god wants you yourself to acknowledge him and focus your life toward him. But it sounds wrong to me for anyone to want other people to acknowlege his or her god.
May 11, 2007 2:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 14:35
Russell D.,
My motives are simple. I just want to make sure that those on this thread seriously think through their reasons for believing what they believe. If, after critically thinking about the issues, you conclude that there is no God, I cannot argue with that. But, I don't want anybody to reach that conclusion without seriously thinking long and hard about it. (And if you've noticed, I haven't once cited a Bible verse because so many people dismiss it as irrelevant...not that I believe it is irrelevant, but that's another topic for another day.) But, if we look at these arguments philosophically, that's another matter entirely.
I enjoy these discussions because it also helps me to understand what other people believe and why they believe what they do.
So, thanks for the discussions, and I wish you the best of luck as you continue on your spiritual quest.
Have a great day, and have a slurpee for me!
May 11, 2007 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 14:10
Observer:
That was fun. I enjoyed reading it.
I have tried to learn if there is a God, but to no avail. Maybe it's just not in the cards for me. I try to learn about religions. Not just Christianity. I'd like to learn about hinduism, muslim, mormonism,taoism, wiccan, and buddhism. Not really buddhism, cause I have been around Buddhists my whole life except for about 6 or 7 years. I was raised in a Buddhist home. I went out, and I explored other options. I explored Christianity, and whether or not there was a God. The more I wondered, the more it became clear. Belief in a God or Gods is a matter of the mind. God didn't create man. Man created God.
We owe God nothing. He owes us, for without us, He wouldn't exist. See what I am getting at?
Hopefully you do.
My standards for morals and ethics come from my upbringing, and from my surroundings initially. As I grew, I learned even more. I think everyone has an innate ability to determine what is right or wrong. Whether they choose to do right, or wrong is totally up to the person.
As for the immortality, I like Tonio's response. Works for me. True, I may be forgotten in 4 generations, but if I make a tremendous impact, I will never be forgotten. Just as many men and women throughout the centuries have done. Van Gogh is dead, yet we still hear of him. DaVinci is dead,Jesus is dead, Socrates is dead, Confuscious, etc..
I cannot offer a more logical alternative than "God did it". That in itself isn't logic. It is faith. The universe will be a mystery long after you and I are gone. But it doesn't mean I can't try to find out.
May I make an observation? Seems that you are genuinely interested in what I have to say. I appreciate that. But I can't help but wondering if you are countering my points with an alterior motive. Maybe you intend to use it in a sermon, or maybe I am just totally off my rocker. Maybe you teach a class, maybe you just really are eager to converse with others. Either way, I don't mind. Pardon the wierd thought, but I just have that nagging voice in my head that says "be careful"(Jimminy Cricket). Although ,I'd rather my conscience look like Carmen Electra.(Damn she's hot!)
My life is nowhere near over, and in fact, my spiritual quest has only just begun. I still have lots to learn, and miles to travel. I enjoy conversations such as these, because they get my mind working, and the mind must be stimulated in order for it to do anything. If you have any other questions or thoughts, please feel free to ask. I am here till 4. :D
May 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:50
Mike K and Tonio,
Thanks to both of you for your comments. I'll try to address some of each of your main points here. First, I'll start with Mike.
Mike, you state, "There *are* some positions that are generally held but I'd argue that is because many societies have similarities that promote such. That's why murder, rape, etc., is so commonly held. They are disfunctional for most every society." That's a valid observation. But, my question remains unanswered: WHY is this a common thread among so many cultures? You state, "There exists no universally-held moral position," however you offer no valid reasons as to why I should accept that claim besides your own subjective opinions. In response to this claim, I have yet to find anyone in any cultural context who thinks it is a morally good thing to kidnap, rape, and torture a child. So, my question remains: WHY?
You also made a typical objection to my argument when you said "To argue such is to defeat your original position that everything needs a creator. If your god didn't need to be created, then neither does the universe." First, let me clarify that I did not state that everything needs a creator. If you look back at my post, I state that the earth and every human being had a creator. I did not say that God had a creator. But, let's flesh this point out a little further anyway. Try for a second and imagine the greatest conceivable being that you can think of. I stress that you don't have to believe in this being, but just think of the greatest being that you can conceive in your mind. Now, it follows that that being must exist or otherwise that it wouldn't be the GREATEST conceivable being. That's how it is with the Creator God of the Bible. There is no greater conceivable being. He is the end of the line, the beginning of all things.
This leads me to some of Tonio's comments. You said, "what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin. While the topic fascinating from a scientific point of view, I see it as irrelevant to most people's daily lives." There is some truth to this statement. It probably isn't at the top of the priority list of most people to sit and think about these things. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about them. Many people dismiss God for this very reason that they don't think about the origin of the universe. They don't think about the origin of life. However, that in no way makes it irrelevant, especially if there is a Creator God and he expects us to acknowledge Him and focus our lives toward him.
Thanks again to both of you for your comments, however, I still do not see any arguments that are all that convincing as to why I should believe that God does not exist. To review, here are the answers that have been offered on this thread today:
Russell D.: "I think that God as the answer is a cop out. We can't explain it, so it must be something or someone more powerful than us. Too easy."
Mike K: "life on this planet simply is"
Tonio: "what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin."
Again, these arguments aren't really that convincing.
Thanks again, and have a great weekend everyone!
May 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:50
Believer – I made some of the same assumptions you did about the Bible, before I started researching it myself. The only source you use as evidence for Jesus is the New Testament, while scholars would also use other historical documents of the time and archeological evidence. A high number of copies of any book only indicates that it is popular, not that it is factual. Imagine historians 2,000 years from determining that Harry Potter must have been a real person because they found millions of copies of Harry Potter books.
You mention the apostles as writers of the Gospels, but biblical scholars do not know who wrote them. The writers are anonymous. The names of the Apostles were added later. It is accepted among scholars that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written around 70CE – 40 years after Jesus died – so whoever wrote them were not eyewitnesses.
May 11, 2007 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 13:29
"Again, the most logical answer is that it came from a higher being that created the earth, gave life to every human being, and placed moral standards in each of our consciences which reflect his own moral character. As of yet, no one has offered a more logical alternative."
Observer, rudimentary moral behavior has been seen in some animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that humans and chimps acquired a inherent moral sense through natural selection, since a sense would aid the survival of the family or the tribe. Perhaps definitions of morality differ in the details because people have different definitions of the "tribe." We can refer to that sense as our conscience if we wish, but the existence of that conscience would have nothing to do with whether God exists.
"Your logic in essence states that 'I don't know the source of this life, but I know it's not God.' However, you have not yet offered a more logical alternative."
For the same of argument, what's wrong with leaving the origin of the universe as a mystery? We may never learn the origin. While the topic fascinating from a scientific point of view, I see it as irrelevant to most people's daily lives.
"Eventually, everyone whom you have ever encountered on this earth will die and along with it any contributions you made to their life. I'm not trying to sound cynical or pessimistic, but I am just asking, is that really what life is all about? You'll be completely forgotten within 3 or 4 generations. Surely, that's not immortality is it?"
I see the challenge of life as making contributions that will NOT be forgotten. Not everyone can be a Galileo or a Shakespeare or a Salk, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
May 11, 2007 12:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:54
Observer,
The moral standard for those of us who lack a belief in gods or goddesses is what is a combination of what is functional or disfunctional for a society along with logic, reason and empathy. There *are* some positions that are generally held but I'd argue that is because many societies have similarities that promote such. That's why murder, rape, etc., is so commonly held. They are disfunctional for most every society.
There exists no universally-held moral position, so I think it's difficult to argue that humans are "created" with such.
As for a logical alternative to a creator, life on this planet simply is. It's difficult to argue that everything needs to be created and suggest a solution that didn't have a creator (your god). To argue such is to defeat your original position that everything needs a creator. If your god didn't need to be created, then neither does the universe.
Lastly, you mentioned meaning of life a few posts back. I don't think everything needs a purpose or meaning. Not an inherent one, anyway. I think we assign meaning to our individual lives. Again, some things just are.
May 11, 2007 12:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:47
Russell D.,
Thanks again for the kind comments. I echo those sentiments. Most people that I talk with who do not believe in God will not even entertain the views of "fundamentalist, evangelical Christians." You are the exception to the rule in my experience, and for that I thank you.
Anyway, back to the discussion. You stated, "As an outsider, I think that God as the answer is a cop out. We can't explain it, so it must be something or someone more powerful than us. Too easy. God is a means to help people feel better about life and themselves." You seem like a logical person who is open to weighing all sides of the argument. Therefore, I urge you to not so quickly dismiss the possibility of a Creator God. Your logic in essence states that "I don't know the source of this life, but I know it's not God." However, you have not yet offered a more logical alternative. From my point of view, that's a bit of a cop-out.
You state that you "have a strong moral fiber and I know right from wrong." For that, I commend you. However, where did that moral standard come from? Generally, all cultures agree that child molestation, rape, and school shootings are universal evils. But why? There must be a standard. But, where did that standard come from? Again, the most logical answer is that it came from a higher being that created the earth, gave life to every human being, and placed moral standards in each of our consciences which reflect his own moral character. As of yet, no one has offered a more logical alternative.
One other point: you suggest that immortality can be achieved because "We are immortalized in the people we touch, the people we inspire." Again, I commend you for having such a positive outlook on life and the desire to encourage and build up other people. I wish many professing Christians had that outlook as well. However, what happens when all of those people die? Eventually, everyone whom you have ever encountered on this earth will die and along with it any contributions you made to their life. I'm not trying to sound cynical or pessimistic, but I am just asking, is that really what life is all about? You'll be completely forgotten within 3 or 4 generations. Surely, that's not immortality is it?
Thanks again for the discussions, and if I don't get a chance to chat with you anymore today, have a great weekend!
May 11, 2007 12:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 12:00