All Comments (134)

I'm curious to know how separation of church and state is defined by Ms. Jacoby. What exactly does she believe it to mean?

Thanks

Daniel - he seemed like you until he got belligerent. “He” was arguing with some people on another thread in the same way. I enjoy a spirited discussion, but of course don’t like being called dishonest or otherwise being insulted. I’m relieved to find it’s not you. “You” do seem to have calmed down since that time. I suggest "Daniel the 1st" as your new moniker

In terms of how I found the thread, I often compose in “word” because I’m a poor speller. I also copy the link into the word file, to make it easier to find. Thus I have a record of most of what I’ve written.

Dear E Favorite

That was not me in the thread that you linked to. I read the exchange between you and "Daniel" and it has made me feel kind of bad, that all this time you may have thought that he was me. I read it over a few times, and thought that surely anyone could tell it was not me.

But wait a minute, in his style of writing, he seemed to mimic me a little. Can that be possible? I guess, I am hoping more that it was just a coincidence, another commenter named "Daniel." I will see about getting a more unique name.

I have been posting for a few months. I have only seen a post or two in that time by another "Daniel" which seemed innocuous enough not to worry me. I post with varying frequency, sometimes alot, usually about philosophical things, that don't seem to impress much of anybody. Occaisionally I get snippy with someone, and post a short retort.

I think the longest most complex posts were on the question of torture. I, personally, don't know much about the Catholic Church, and I don't believe I would have a whole lot to say of substance on it.

When I started posting here and writing down my thoughts, it turns out that I believe a whole bunch of things which I did not realize until I wrote them down. I often suprise myself with what I write. I often wish I could go back and recapture much of what I had written, and collect it all in one place, and perhaps make up a larger more unified essay. But how can I do that? How did you know how to reference the exact thread, and link us to it?

mmmmmmmmm. I am so perplexed and distressed, and sorry about this. I think that on many matters, you and I are not so far apart.

E fav
Uh-oh. Im afraid to look; what if it was me? But, I can't imagine that it was. So, here goes

Hi, Daniel --

Are you the Daniel on this thread?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/07/latin_mass_and_worship/comments.html#comments

If not, then I'm mistaken -- and I think it would be a good idea to distinguish yourself somehow from other Daniels.

To: Susan, or to whomever else it may concern?

What's the deal with the WaPo religious forum, software-wise?

It seems to be all screwed up, at least on my end.

Dear Efav again

I am sure someone else posted that a an atheist cannot be good without God. Because I don't believe that. I know from my own experience that belief in God does not have much to do with a person's goodness or lack of goodness.

I often wonder what is it that makes a good person good, but I know that it is not being a Christian, because I know alot of Christians who are not good, and I know that being an atheist does not make a person bad.

Dear E Fav

I do not think I ever said you were dishonest. I cannot recall that at all. I always read your posts with interest.

Maybe you got me mixed up with somebody else. Or, maybe it was someone else who posted as Daniel. That is the problem with using "just a first name." Maybe I should add something to it, so people will know that it is really me, and not some other, radnom, Daniel.

If I ever said you were dishonest, I think I mispoke, and said something in way that did not convey my meaning correctly. If so, I'm sorry about that.

Hmmm, strange that Romney is not castigated for the Mormon attitude towards women.

A summary:

from www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm ,(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Mormonism for a more balanced view)

"The Mormon position on women has changed little since the early 1800's, when the official view was that "woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband" (McConkie 844). This attitude, coupled with the doctrine of polygamy and the absolute power claimed by the men of the church, created a legacy of profound sexism which modern Mormonism has been unable to escape."

OK, good Mormons what sayest thou????

And please, please don't conjure up Paul's views about women. Professor Bruce Chilton put Paul's views in proper context in his book, Rabbi Paul as noted below:

Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity/Mormonism.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mohammed's scribes simply enhanced Paul's thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!!

Why, thank you, Daniel: "So, I will give E-favorite credit for discovering this about Jesus. I think his persistence may be annoying to alot of people, even to Ms. Jacoby, but I will admit that he has a good point."

Does this also mean you don't think I'm dishonest anymore because I think atheists can be good without God? (No, I don't want to get in that conversation again, just wondering if you've softened on this point.)

Hello Daniel,

Thanks for your post.

Mitt Romney could really use the paragraph you came up with. Or the Malaysian prime minister in fact. Messier here than in the US on race and religion. No governments in the world has not tried to interpret, reinterpret and manipulate their countries' Constitutions to their advantage. Or politicians and political parties vying for power and/or to maintain power.

I read the other threads of other panelists on this quickly and noted that some maintain Buddhists are atheists. The "atheist" Chinese government, which regard Tibetan Buddhism as a religion, did try to regulate the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama - to be restricted to Tibet-born and not foreign born/reincarnated Dalai Lama. Asian Buddhists don't call themselves atheists yet. The Buddhism spoken of by some posters which seem based solely on their reading of the Dhammapada, are not the Buddhism I know of and understand as held and practiced in Asia by its adherents. It is more rich, varied and complex.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Dear Concerned Christian Now Liberated:

"And this from a "die-hard" member of warmongering, "death to infidels" Islam who wants to put everyone under the "boots" of Islamic theocracies??????

Sometimes you have to wonder about people like The Jihadist who speak from both sides of their koranic mouths!!!!"

The great information theorist, Claude Shannon, well and truly said that the more a communication channel says the same thing, the less it means. Try something different sometime. :^))

Dear Gerry,

"I observe with some positive surprise that you actually have moderated your point to a considerable extent, acknowledging human nature, for better or worse, independently of religion or non-religion, and without reference or comparison between the different atrocities this human nature is able to bring about."

You may be even more surprised that was always been my position. I have reacted strongly to the professional provocateurs like Hitchins who say "Religion Poisons Everything" with the implication that if we could just get rid of those nasty religionists all the world's problems would go away. My point, which got many really angry, is that no human civilization, either religiously based or not has a perfect record. Hitchins knows this as well as anyone else who can read, but he sure sells a lot of books that way.

I think this blog experience follows the rules of small groups, that some sociologist called "Forming, Storming, and Norming" We sure have had our storms at the outset. Maybe that was just part of "the human condition".

"I also have learned some things through these conversations. I call myself a "spiritual atheist", a person full of awe and wonder towards the universe and towards my existence, without trying to put a historically developed proxy in all the places that so far are unexplored - and even may be unexplorable."

Lots on the philosophy of science in that one. Perhaps we can discuss that at some length. I find it fascinating (and for me personally, very theological).

I am glad we are learning in these conversations, as I think I am too. Particularly, I am learning a lot from conversations with Pagan Place and Terra Gazelle. Their Free Exercise rights are routinely violated by aggression of various kinds, from what Terra says. I don't doubt a word of it. As a society, we need to do a LOT better on that.

Peace, friend.

For Jihadist, and others, who do not understand our strange American ways, Mit Romney's speech was really a departure from American custom and precedent. In fact, the entire Republican party seems to be deviating from what has always been the norm, the separation of church and state.

Mit should have said something like this:

"I do not believe that religion should be brought into politics or the operation of the government. Many Americans believe many different things, but they are all Americans, and they all deserve to be regarded and treated the same, without regard to their personal and private religious beliefs."

But Mit is a pretty slick operator; he did not choose to uphold American tradition; he choose to work every angle to his advantage, no matter who else may get knifed in the back.

For E-favorite and Henry James, I have some philosophical thoughts, which I know, probably don't relate well to anyone's reality. But, here goes, anyway.

I have said here many times that I do not believe that we choose much in the way of beliefs, in our ways of thinking, and even in our individual thoughts; we experience all of these aspects of ourselves, much as we experience the landscape in which we find ourselves; these experiences of belief wash over us, and impress themselves upon us, much as the vision of the sunset, or the sound of a symphony.

It is the same with our concepts of history. All of us think of history as visualisations of what we already know in our own lives. Nowadays, alot of us probably even get our images of history from movies, and we think that Cleopatra was married to Richard Burton.

History is not really a science like chemistry or physics. History is really more about documenting or validating a pedigree of events, to certifiy, with some degree of confidence, that things really happened according to a certain narrative or another. Yet, I think just about no one thinks of history this way; they give the commonly assumed stories of history a rock-solid certainty, without ever bothering to wonder how we know the events of history are true.

I will agree, that the pedigree that certifies the existence, life, and experiences of Jesus is pretty shakey, and precariously thin. All religions are like that. And I know and acknowledge all of the frailties and weaknesses on which my religion is founded.

I am aware of the origins of the Apostle's creed, which is a summary of orthodox Christian belief, that it was originally a political document arrived at by consensus and compromiee among the parties in dispute who were the power elite, and those who did not sign on to it were persecuted into oblivion. (That is what makes "orthodoxy" orthox).

I am aware of the subsequent rise of the Catholic Church as the primary conduit of Christianity from antiquity to the modern times, as a wealthy political power, that ruled Europe for centuries, which ran pretty far afield from the original simple teachings of Jesus.

I am aware of my own Protestant heritage, founded upon the decapitated head of Ann Bolyn, as Henry VIII sought to create a new church, not based on any new or subtle theological insights, but as an expression of English nationalism, and as manifestation of his own personal greed and lust power.

All along the way, people aborb and inherit the cultures into which they were born, and "roll with the punches," and pass on what they have been taught, know, and believe, to the next generation.

Everyone has their own subjective experience of the world around them, and can really, ultimately know very little about it. What we know with certainty is really and truely very limited. When you regard the narratives of history, how much more, then, is our experience limited; I often refer to history as the "fog of antiquity;" I believe I read that somewhere; I can't remember where.

Alot of what we think we know with rock-solid certainty turns out to be assumption. The model of the world, which we think we know so well turns out to be assumption, built on top of assumption. So, I will give E-favorite credit for discovering this about Jesus. I think his persistence may be annoying to alot of people, even to Ms. Jacoby, but I will admit that he has a good point.

Arminius, are you referring to this comment of mine: "does Christianity’s origin have to be based on the existence of a particular human being in order to be authentic?"

Note I didn't say "one" person. Granted, I see how you could have taken it that way - so let me clarify - I meant a certain person - in this case, Jesus, a 1st century Jewish carpenter. Could we have teachings, the spread of a religion, communities, dogma, etc, without a certain human personality and biography who was supposedly originally responsible for it?

Concerned - Merry Christmas to you too.

E-Fav,

Thanks for the correction; you did not say multiple people origin, but an origin not depending on one person. My immediate answer is still no, but it is, of course, something to be investigated. I will of course look at paths that I do not immediately agree with.

Arminius

Arminius: "As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study."

Please note, I did not say "multi-person origin of Christianity" - I said “…other fast-growing movements in history.” And that’s what I meant.

In any event, as a thorough researcher, I urge that you not to avoid a line of inquiry simply because it “does not ring true” to you. That’s when you should consider your biases.

Hmmm, The Jihadist notes:

"I'm with the Moderate in supporting the rights of all to believe what they want and chose, and freedom to practice their faith, or not to believe. Seperation of church and state is the best umbrella for all to practice their faith, or no faith at all. I am more concerned about state interference in matters of personal faith, governments promoting specific faith, and people in governments making their particular faith as primary in decisions on public policies."

And this from a "die-hard" member of warmongering, "death to infidels" Islam who wants to put everyone under the "boots" of Islamic theocracies??????

Sometimes you have to wonder about people like The Jihadist who speak from both sides of their koranic mouths!!!!

test

test

Hey everyone it has been awhile since I last posted but I have read through the comments (found a job and they let us use the web) I enjoy all the diffrent and diverse personalites on here it is a releif to see that so many can and do use rational thinking! However some of us on here are rather rude and attack rather than voice an opionion for reveiw by our peers...

Concerned, what the heck has jihadist done to you, and why are you soooo adament in making yourself have no credibility with anyone on here by blantantly assaulting everyone who doesn't scream for the destruction of Islam. NO ONE CARES about your 'crack-pot' theories and conspiracies dealing with Islam...sorry but I could see you being the type to say "OBAMA-OSAMA"...you are an intelligent person, and you have in the past displayed great rationality when approaching subjects, but you also have no control over other's beleifs...so give it a rest!

I just wanted to say it is getting cold now and it is also becoming a world that is moving backwards instead of forwards, so get ready for the holidays and enjoy the time with family and friends and show the Love that all of you have. Remember that while politics and religion and all these debates are important FAMILY always trumps arguments on the web. Hope you all have a blessed and safe Holiday season, hope you all are filled with good food and great presents, and remember that those of us without family are the ones that need Love the most during these Great Times.

Peace be unto You All

-MONK-

PS if this posts twice sorry recived an error message and tried again...

Hey everyone it has been awhile since I last posted but I have read through the comments (found a job and they let us use the web) I enjoy all the diffrent and diverse personalites on here it is a releif to see that so many can and do use rational thinking! However some of us on here are rather rude and attack rather than voice an opionion for reveiw by our peers...

Concerned, what the heck has jihadist done to you, and why are you soooo adament in making yourself have no credibility with anyone on here by blantantly assaulting everyone who doesn't scream for the destruction of Islam. NO ONE CARES about your 'crack-pot' theories and conspiracies dealing with Islam...sorry but I could see you being the type to say "OBAMA-OSAMA"...you are an intelligent person, and you have in the past displayed great rationality when approaching subjects, but you also have no control over other's beleifs...so give it a rest!

I just wanted to say it is getting cold now and it is also becoming a world that is moving backwards instead of forwards, so get ready for the holidays and enjoy the time with family and friends and show the Love that all of you have. Remember that while politics and religion and all these debates are important FAMILY always trumps arguments on the web. Hope you all have a blessed and safe Holiday season, hope you all are filled with good food and great presents, and remember that those of us without family are the ones that need Love the most during these Great Times.

Peace be unto You All

-MONK-

PS if this posts twice sorry recived an error message and tried again...

Hey everyone it has been awhile since I last posted but I have read through the comments (found a job and they let us use the web) I enjoy all the diffrent and diverse personalites on here it is a releif to see that so many can and do use rational thinking! However some of us on here are rather rude and attack rather than voice an opionion for reveiw by our peers...

Concerned, what the heck has jihadist done to you, and why are you soooo adament in making yourself have no credibility with anyone on here by blantantly assaulting everyone who doesn't scream for the destruction of Islam. NO ONE CARES about your 'crack-pot' theories and conspiracies dealing with Islam...sorry but I could see you being the type to say "OBAMA-OSAMA"...you are an intelligent person, and you have in the past displayed great rationality when approaching subjects, but you also have no control over other's beleifs...so give it a rest!

I just wanted to say it is getting cold now and it is also becoming a world that is moving backwards instead of forwards, so get ready for the holidays and enjoy the time with family and friends and show the Love that all of you have. Remember that while politics and religion and all these debates are important FAMILY always trumps arguments on the web. Hope you all have a blessed and safe Holiday season, hope you all are filled with good food and great presents, and remember that those of us without family are the ones that need Love the most during these Great Times.

Peace be unto You All

-MONK-

test

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hi, E-Fav,

Regarding forms of government: I like Churchill's observation the best: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Thanks for the pointers. We do have our differences(!), but they are fun and educational.

As far as a multi-person origin of Christianity: no. That does not ring true. Think of Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Latter Day Saints.... what am I forgetting? Of course Hinduism, Shinto, etc. had no (human) founders. Judaism is a separate study.

Oh, yeah, still looks like Concerned has the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius

Hello Gerry,

I find it understandable for The Moderate to be sometimes irked when atheists generalised on all believers with the same single note in their posts. Believers do differentiate personal faith from the some of the mess of organised religion.

I'm with the Moderate in supporting the rights of all to believe what they want and chose, and freedom to practice their faith, or not to believe. Seperation of church and state is the best umbrella for all to practice their faith, or no faith at all. I am more concerned about state interference in matters of personal faith, governments promoting specific faith, and people in governments making their particular faith as primary in decisions on public policies.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello E Favorite,

That's what had I thought - governments to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Your President is both head of state and head of government. I believe your friend meant a system of governance where the role of the head of state and the head of government is cleary demarcated, with or without a monarchy - the President is head of state, and the prime minister is head of government. France has such system, but it is most prevalent in former British colonies (and members of the Commonwealth) that adopted the Parliamentary system.

The English are already thinking ahead on when Prince Charles takes over as King of England, the United Kingdom, Head of the Commonwealth. He does not have the same cachet as his mother, Betty Windsor (a.k.a. Queen Elizabeth II) formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Lots of British jokes about what happens when cousins marry and scrapping the bottom of the barrel of the gene pool among their royalty, and that an earl (the original or first one) is the result of a union between a King and a flower girl.

Malaysia is weird - a Parliementary system with a constitutional Paramount ruler/King/Head of State rotated among the Sultans of nine states (others don't have Sultans/royal houses) for a five year term. The rulers/Sultans decide among themselves. Yes, quite benign actually - for the government with a two third majority that can easily pass laws in Parliament, and the Paramount ruler, whether he sign it into law or not, after 30 days would become law. Not quite a check and balance (after a very controversial Constitutional amendment) but the Paramount ruler still has a lot of public respect and do act on petitions submitted by the public to the embarassment of the government.

Back to Mitt Romney, what he stated in his speech is to be expected, yes? He is a Republican candidate and has to reach out to the religious right, one of the support base of the Republicans. He put in a reminder on "war on terror". From now to election day late next year is a long time. Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda may, yet again, "enhance" the chances of the Republicans. The joke going around in the Muslim world is that, Osama Bin Laden is a Republican planted provocateur. Everytime President Bush looks wobbly at the polls, Osama step right in to "assist". War is very profitable for some, ideologically and as suppliers of everything from weapons to security guards from Fiji.

The Presidential candidates are not talking too much about the US economy, or it is not getting much attention from the media/public. I have to follow economies, markets and move around this and that, and am urging you to be financially prudent and economically balanced and covered. That old cliche, not putting all of one's eggs in one baskets is true. Follow the money, follow the arms sale (legal and otherwise) and you'll see where the possible future economic and conflict hot spots will be.

If you have significant investments, hold some of your portfolios in Euros too. Some simple and obvious rules - Don't put investments in one country and in one currency. Be the first in and the first out and you'll be covered. Got to go. ..

Thanks and regards
"J"

test

E. Favorite,

OK.

And a very Merry Christmas or Merry Holiday to you and yours!!!!

E. Favorite,

OK.

And a very Merry Christmas or Merry Holiday to you and yours!!!!

Concerned - I'm not looking into additional textual references to the historical Jesus. I also don't consider biblical references as providing evidence of Jesus’ historicity, anymore than I consider biblical references to angels to be historical.

Jihadist - I should have said the US Gov PROTECTS minorities. Respect can't be demanded or legislated - that's why we need protection.

A friend of mine often says the best form of government is a benign monarchy. Unfortunately, he says,when the ruler dies, with no system of fairness in place, there's no guarantee that the next ruler will be so benign.

Right - It could be a half-wit son or conniving cousin. Hell, something like that could happen even with a good system in place!

Arminius - I know you've got a full plate right now, but if you have time and interest, you might want to check on John Frum - the Messiah, since the 1940's, of the cargo cult of the island of Vanuatu.

I don't know much about it and am NOT comparing Frum to Jesus, but I think learning more about it will give insight into how new religions are formed. Since this is a recent religion there should be more reliable documentation.

Dear Moderate,

I observe with some positive surprise that you actually have moderated your point to a considerable extent, acknowledging human nature, for better or worse, independently of religion or non-religion, and without reference or comparison between the different atrocities this human nature is able to bring about. I also have learned some things through these conversations. I call myself a "spiritual atheist", a person full of awe and wonder towards the universe and towards my existence, without trying to put a historically developed proxy in all the places that so far are unexplored - and even may be unexplorable.

Hmmm, The Jihadist forgot a few phrases like "Its the all about the koran, stupid" also "The koran is bad both on paper and in practice" and also the most famous one,

"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe!!!!

And to show our concern for The Jihadist, once again the Five Step Program for Deflawing her warmongering religion and its book of hallucinations and "plagiarizations":

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your misguided Islamic ways!!!!

Arminius and The Moderate,

Of course some atheists and believers are strident, but neither one of you have told anyone they will go to hell for not sharing the same belief as you both.

Perhaps we should use words such as "assertive" and "forceful" instead of "strident" and that dirty, filthy word, "militant".

------------------------------------------------

Hello E Favorite,

Thanks for your response. I hope so too. I wish I could remember who said - "Common sense isn't".

As the Moderate said, nothing is perfect. Everything, including Constitutions, Bill of Rights, Universal Declaratiaon on Human Rights, look good on paper.

A Republican President, say Mitt Romney, to check and balance the Democratic Congress? Or towards stalemates and checkmates?

On issues, one recall Clinton's campaign reminder during his first bid for Presidency - "It's the economy, stupid!"

Thanks and best regards

"J"

In reference to the never ending argument about "separation of church and state", I just don't understand. I don't get it. There is the old fall back of reminding all the people in the argument that the "separation" phrase does not exist. Yes, I fully understand the need to avoid state sponsored religion (that being a key tenet of the first amendment). I find it odd that so many who do not espouse any religion fight so hard to remove any sign of religion from the public domain. Religion is the very reason the Constitution and Bill of Rights came to be. The need to protect the right to worship is the very reason the right to not worship exists. Are there not more important things to concern ourselves with?

Oops, make that "the great Utopia of religious CoNvergence."

Ahh, The Jihadist returns to make commentary about Mitt Romney, a misguided "religist" with respect to the founder and foundations of his religion just like The Jihadist's misguided koranic life.

Hmmm, if the flaws of Mormonism were removed i.e. all references to Moroni and his revelations and if the flaws of Islam were removed i.e. all references to Gabriel and his revelations, there would hardly be anything left in either religion other then some version of the Commandments. Finally the start of the Utopia of Religious Covergence!!!!

Hmmm, what shall we call this potential joining? Musmors? Morms? Musmos? M&Ms? Ismors? Moisls? or Islamorms?

Arminius, you say: "I have trouble accepting that the origin of Christianity was a fraud.”
So do I – and I really think “fraud” is not a good word. Think about this – does Christianity’s origin have to be based on the existence of a particular human being in order to be authentic?

By the way, I DO think there was a lot of “fraud” later on, when Christianity was institutionalized. And I think there’s fraud now, when people are misled about things they must believe to be a Christian (e.g., the miracles, biblical inerrancy, etc.)

You also say: “I think - believe - that Jesus started something that exploded so fast that we got this terrific explosion of different documents."

Consider -- Does it take a person to start a fast-growing trend? Could it be an event? A series of events? A group of people?

In your research, it would be interesting to track the origins other fast-growing movements in history.

Jihadist - any group with too much power and not enough common sense can wreak havoc.

That's why we have laws and why in the US we have a Constitution with a system of Government that respects minority groups and makes it difficult for any branch of the government to have too much power.

Dear Jihadist,

"How can anyone say that only believers are into vilifiations and Inquisition and not atheists?"

Well said, and to the point. The historical record is on your side. We of religious faith have to own up to our errors, which have been many. But the Atheist crowd has some doozies to own up to as well. When we can all do that, we might get a more constructive dialog going.

By the way, I support the Free Exercise rights of, Christians, Moslems, Jews, Wiccans and other Pagans, and Atheists. We all have our positions on the question of (the) God(s) and are entitled to them.

Arminius,

"Religion is not the source of all evils in the world.

Yes. That is true. Folks forget, for example, that Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Hospitals are among the best and formed the backbone of medical care in much of the country for a long time. There are many Moslem charities too. They are a force for good, in general, except when we make human mistakes.

"Neither is atheism."

I never said it was. That is interpolated by my debate partners, but is not part of *my* argument. Western Europe is pretty non religious these days, and has not developed into a blood bath. All the previous experiments were actively anti religious, and went horribly wrong because the were willing to kill to bring about the workers paradise or whatever. Western Europe today seems to be just non religious in a benign way and has better human rights record in the last decade that our beloved USA.

My real point is that, contrary to Chris Hitchins, Atheism is no cure all for the ills of the world. And the religions are not the cause of all the ills of the world.

"It is humans doing bad things, either from bigotry or tribalism or power lust or simple greed ... (obvious simplification here)."

Agreed. Perhaps a simplification but a powerful one. It accounts for a lot.

Arminius,

I will try and work on the stridency.

But Arminius, think about it. I have not been active here for a while and I log on to find "Henry James", Susan Jacoby, and Gerry all either talking about my arguments, or in Gerry's case venting personal insults for no particular reason. So I set them straight, all according to Hoyle. These folks are pretty much a bare knuckle bunch so bluntness is the order of the day.

If any of them wanted to have an enlightened talk and didn't start by spitting, that could work.

Moderate,

OK, I accept and agree with your position. It was not clear to me previously.

Religion is not the source of all evils in the world. Neither is atheism. It is humans doing bad things, either from bigotry or tribalism or power lust or simple greed ... (obvious simplification here).

But you do come across rather strident sometimes. Perhaps I do too.

Arminius

Dear Arminus,

Think about this. Why is my moderate position that:

"My point is not that religions are perfect, but that the alternatives yet devised by man are far from perfect too."

such a lightning rod?

Why do people call me names over that? Perhaps it violates the sensibilities of anti religious fundamentalism?

Hi Arminius,

Pol Pot was in the list. I checked. I have him as an also ran because he "only" killed two million.

The point here is that the supposition, widely held by folks like Hitchins, Harris, Dawkins, and widely supported here is that religion is the source of all the problems in the world.

It is not.

If that makes people mad it is not my problem. I get a lot of name calling, over it, as in:

"Moderate intelligence, reading only the literature that bolsters the moderateness of his thinking: The sky is blue, my socks are blue, therefore my socks are the sky. Thinking along these lines."

As to the crusades, they were a mess, but why dredge stuff up from a thousand years ago. My point is not that religions are perfect, but that the alternatives yet devised by man are far from perfect too.

"Get a grip, dude. What the hell are you trying to prove, anyway?"

I reserve the right to defend myself in these debates. If you have a problem with that that is not my problem either. Being moderate does not mean being a door mat, my friend.

Peace.

Jihadist,

WOW! That was one hell of a post. Your words on the possibility of atheist bigotry should be read carefully by those of that standing.

As you said, and truly, it is about human nature.

Incidentally, I have been voting here in America since 1972. I usually vote against, not for.

Arminius

Moderate -

'Moderate'? I have some doubts....

OK, the Inquisition maybe killed 2000. Since these were executions done by trial, it is not suprising that the toll was low. But you forgot the Albigensian Crusade, which did in about 200,000, and was the source of the unforgettable quote, "Kill them all, and let God sort it out." In the 13th century, this was a sizable percentage of the population of France. Perhaps comparable to what Stalin did. And it is interesting that you left out the Grand Champion of all time, as far as percent of population exterminated: Pol Pot.

Get a grip, dude. What the hell are you trying to prove, anyway?

E. Favorite and Arminius,

Let me know if you find any other references to the existence of the historical Jesus other than the ones I previously noted i.e. Josephus, Tacitus and the scriptural references, Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

Professor Crossan after much research concluded that the twelve scriptural references were actually five indepentent attestations so there are seven first-second century textural accounts of the crucifixion. Again that is excellent verification considering where the crucifixion occurred and that Jesus was considered a minor Jewish upstart by the Romans.

Previously I noted that there were eleven attestations but I failed to note Professor Crossan's combinations.

E Favorite
Mr. Mark

Jesus PBUH is not standing for US Presidential elections. Mitt Romney is.

Do you really think that having alienated some estimated 30 million atheists in the United States by his politics of exclusion in his speech, Mitt Romney would stand a real chance in his candidacy?

One would think many "mainstream" Christians in the US would not want him as President, specifically those groups which are competing with the LDS for adherents in the US and, especially, overseas. The Mormons are active proselytisers globally.

Mitt Romney, in his speech, spoke as someone would from a faith that expects all it adherents to undertake missionary work at one point in their lives. The LDS has the same interests and objectives with other religious entities into missionary work.

Never discount the obvious - that there may those who dislike Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama more and would support Mitt Romney thus. Elections are won and lost sometimes not because voters like a candidate, but because the other is more anathema to them.

While seperation of church and state is what we all want, I would be as wary of a candidate who is hostile of beliefs as those who politicised their beliefs in the public square.

Going by what atheists think of believers (from their posts I read in On Faith threads) what are the possibilities that in the future, an atheist candidate bidding for a political post would say of his opponent who is an adherent of a belief this:

"He is unfit to hold office. He is deluded, irrational, illogical and moronic."

Any more terms and labelings I missed out hurled by atheists against believers? That is simplyfying it, but you get my drift. Politically, he would probably say something like this:

"He will not uphold seperation of church and state. He will provide more funds for faith-based initiatives. He will support school prayers. He will replace the study of evolution with intelligent design in school curriculums."

If that is not clear enough at what I'm alluding at:

- How can one be sure that atheists would not be as insistent on their non-beliefs when they are in the majority, control Congress and hold the Presidency as believers are said to be by atheists in history and now?

- How can one be certain that atheists, who are capable of bigotry as well, would not be excessive in denigrating believers just for their beliefs, and take away the rights of believers as they said believers doing to them?

- How can one be sure that believers will