Expecting Flames but 'Christianity' is a myth

If you disbelieve any of this I recommend reading Tom Harpur's "the Pagan Christ" as a starting point. A few points -

1) There is no archeological or written evidence to suggest that there is any truth to most biblical accounts (old or new testament).

2) Starting in the 4-5th centuries, the early teachings of Christianity underwent a radical transformation. Early, prominent scholars were labeled heritics and their writings along with early christian gospels were destroyed.

3) The Church leaders of this era openly talked about revising and editing the Bible to make it more condusive to cenralizing Church power.

4) The Roman Emporers who moved the church to Rome and made it the official religion of the Empire seemed more concerned with preserving the power of a crumbling empire than with spiritualy

So, those who seek power for "christians" and "christianity" are, because all of their churches are offshoots of the Catholic church, unknowingly still battling for the power of the roman empire. Any true Christianity, it's early teachings, meanings and many of its texts are lost forever due to editing by those interested in manipulating it for power.

;)


Anyone that takes a critical look at the Bible and applies Jewish traditions, language, and politics to the events in the Bible, including the New Testament, sees right through the symbolism and fantasy and sees what really happened:

Jesus was just a man. He was born of the Davidic line but he was a bit of a radical. He wanted to tear down the wall separating the average person with the practices of the Jewish faith. This threatened the power and influence wielded by the priests and they took him out (although, there is evidence that suggests Jesus survived the crucifixion which is what led to the tales of a "resurrection")

More likely.

Have you ever read Laurence Gardner's Bloodline of the Holy Grail?

Couple that with Friedman's Who Wrote The Bible? which goes into analysis of how the Torah were compiled.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml

Or Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html

And "Book of Wisdom"? He's apparently based here where I live and I've never heard that name.

There are plenty of archaeological findings and other works which support events in the Bible.

Yes, the Bible is filled with gloriously exaggerated tales of fantasy but the people and many of the events occurred.

:eyes:

Name enough to back up your use of the word "many".

Literal creation? Nope.
Global flood? Nope.
Exodus? Nope.
Walls came a-tumblin' down? Nope.
Sun stood still? Nope.
Three guys survived a blast furnace? Nope.
Dude born of a virgin? Nope.
Same dude died and was resurrected? Nope.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But it does not mean that a global flood happened as told in the story of Noah.

And can you be specific about what conjecture you're talking about?

Jesus just got there first.

as far as anyone knows for sure, didn't exist.

We're not allowed to say that.

Is that both sides feel persecuted. A pleasent symmetry.

than the other.

Those atheists have it really easy on Democratic Underground, in reality.

In truth both sides get their fair share of persecution.

I'm talking about on this website. When we discuss this issue here, both Christians who post on this website and Atheists who post on this website feel persecuted on this website. Within our community, not in America as a whole.

Nor do I think any atheists have claimed persecution. Just trying to make sure the rules are applied fairly and for good reason. Even the post that started this thread has begun attracting posts claiming it "bashes" religion. By simply pointing out some historical observations and using a word that fits the facts.

It's true that I can't get elected outside of a few liberal communities if I don't want to hide my atheism. But I don't want to run for any office outside of my community (or at all).

I just don't think feeling persecuted for beliefs in the US is all that productive for anybody. But it's REALLY annoying when Christians claim to be persecuted in the US.

My late mother-in-law used to talk about living in the South during World War 2. An Irish Catholic from NYC, she found stores that would not serve her because she was Catholic.

nt

:evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

They noticed she wasn't attending the local Baptist church.

I'd hate to see what they would have done if they thought she was an atheist.

Hell, I don't even want my neighbors to find out about me now.

and what about Josephus's accounts of Christ ? Better yet, Saul of Tarsus saw something on the road to Damascus and it ended up changing himself and many others.

God's grace is a gift you don't work for, freely given. Starts with Gen 15:6, and moves on thru Micah 6 and the Romans...but I won't bore you. Needless to say it changed Luther too when he realized, in reading scripture--that few could do back then, btw--that this gift was not anything earned lest any man should boast.

But if we are honest, that's not what this discussion is about. Nobody is really going after Muslims (or Jews) all that much with these kinds of threads.

The current 'evidence' is in the lasting effect of a prophesied Messiah, whether believed in or not--there were others--who changed things.

It's all up to the individual.

Moreover, in this country at least, Muslims and Jews aren't seeking to use the courts and legislature to impose their religion on us.

Nice for a change. So charactizing this as DU Atheists vs. DU Christians is fair.

Characterizing this as DU Atheists vs. Xianity is fair. Attempting to personalize it to DU Xians is spin.

Who are you talking to when you post here?

Are you really talking to a larger community beyond this website, and those who post here?

No one on DU attacks DU Xians directly. But free discussion of Xianity, including criticism, is often mischaracterized and spun as an attack on DU Xians themselves. I'm not sure why that is.

A long post with the point "Atheists lack moral fiber" would you take that personally? And would you defend your point of view? (for the record I do not think that, and would find posting that opinion offensive).

...the posts that people say have a point of attacking Xians are usually nothing more than mild criticism of Xianity itself.

I have noticed how many of these posts discussion Christianity do choose provacitve language, particularly in the intial post - that would, at the least, indict Christians of moral and intellectual laziness.

In fact, I think most posts that are skeptical of Xianity are actually using very gentle language. I think perhaps that some folks are much more sensitive than they would perhaps like to admit.

A situation where both sides get to feel persecuted.

It's clear there are two things going on simultaneously.

From my perspective - A poster posts a deliberately provocative post that attacks Christianity and then acts surprise when some are provoked.

From your perspective (I assume, but I've been consistantly wrong reading you, so I'm not placing any bets) - a poster posts mild criticisms of Xianity and Xtians immediately overreact and slam into him or her.

I'm not surprised. It's a subject that I think needs to be talked about openly, and I'd no doubt that it would raise some hairs but I think avoiding a subject because some people might not like it is ridiculous and counterproductive. Obviously the moderators disagree but they're entitled to be wrong I suppose, it's their show.

Again, what is your hope? This isn't really like talking about the London Bombing or any other sort of simple factual information; there is an obvious course of action for Christains if we accept your statements as fact.

I'm not starting my own church, or lack of church, merely presenting some information that may be relevant to people in a world dominated by religious zealots.

Oooopie. Now you've got the Muslims riled since Mohammed wouldn't lie to his followers, now, would he ?

Sorry.

Saul of Tarsus may or may not have seen something real (could have been a hallucination).

Have you considered that many of us have indeed read "scripture," and have rejected it as false? Have we just not read it "correctly"?

Josephus is a fake? His writings are forgeries? Sorry, but that seems absurd on the face of it. What's your source?

And conjecture about what Saul actually saw misses the original point here. History can't speak to that, but it can and does speak to his existence, which is what the OP refers to.

There's all sorts of links on it. Here's a good one:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

"It interrupts the narrative.

"The language is quite Christian.

"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.

"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) especially states that the historian , being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.

"But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ" (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: "This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist" (Lardner's Works, vol. I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine" (Christian Records, p. 30).

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i)."

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says: "The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance" (Kneeland's Review, p. 169).

Referring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his Gibbon's Rome (Vol. II, p. 285, note) says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses."

Cannon Farrar, who has written in ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: "The single passage in which he alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious" (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe."

"There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious -- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain" (ibid).

Theodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus says: "The passage cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given cause for it" (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).

Concerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it "must have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour."

The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: "Flavius Josephus, the well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A.D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his 'Jewish Antiquities' that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America's ablest Christian apologists, says: "Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.

"Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious" (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

Assuming that those citations are genuine (and I have no reason to believe they aren't), that seems pretty darn conclusive. I had last studied the subject some thirty years ago, but I'm still more than a little surprised that I hadn't ever caught even a whiff of this until now. Thanks for the info.

Really ?

Question : When did they change the rules to pacify atheists ?

Answer : Never.

Because we never asked them to.

We defend ourselves by using logic and reason.

We don't cry to the mods every time somebody offends us and we don't expect everyone to be forced to respect us or our lack of belief.

And if you want to talk about real persecution, check your history.

Atheists have been tortured, burned, hanged, jailed and put in institutions by christians.

And christians have been. . . hmmmm, let me think... oh yeah; mocked by atheists.

oh the horror

A "plesent(sic) symmetry" my ass.

I apologize for making a typo.

I simply quoted you and noted that it was your spelling.

I see you read my post as thoroughly as you did the op's.

You don't really understand what I am saying; and since I've said it enough times, I kind of concluded you didn't want to understand it.

" The great thing about the Atheist / Christian Debate

Is that both sides feel persecuted. A pleasent symmetry. "

I had to use a thesaurus. :eyes:

The gerat thing about the Atheist Christian debate on Democratic Underground is that both sides, Atheists on Democratic Underground and Chrstians on Democratic Underground, feel persecuted.

That is probably clearer.

So was my response.

Atheists don't feel persecuted on DU.

We feel stifled, and we are.

The rules were changed to accommodate christians feelings because THEY felt persecuted.

Big difference.

I don't care if you criticize me or my lack of belief, go ahead, I can take it.

Your more or less asking for it - daring me to be the intolerent Christian I must be. But I got no interest in slamming into Atheists in general.

Your response referenced all the crimes that have been committed against atheists not on Democratic Underground so you can understand why I thought you hadn't caught my meaning.

Quit pretending I have an ulterior motive, it's lazy and insulting.

"daring me to be the intolerent Christian I must be"

Nice straw man but you really should try reading people's posts first.

I'll say it again since I obviously wasn't clear:

Atheists DO NOT feel persecuted on DU.

And only the second part of my response referenced the history of persecution by christians.

You really should take a break from building those strawmen so that you can read what others are posting.

I'm guess I misread that phrase. I apologize for misreading it as a dare to slam into you.

But i'm curious, if DU Atheists don't feel at least a little persecuted, why do so many of their posts start with "I know i'm going to get flamed for this but . . ."

flaming is the same as being persecuted, or is it ?

I don't know how many atheists start their threads with that phrase but I always thought it meant the op wanted people to read the entire post before telling them to shut the hell up.

I think atheists are just tired of having to treat religion like a sacred cow.

Insulting believers isn't very productive nor should it be allowed, but because of the personal nature of faith, many christians do seem to think that criticism of religion is the same as criticizing them.

No need to apologize for misreading, you've always been respectful in your replies to me, my snarking back wasn't very nice.

:popcorn:

Let me pull up a seat and join you.

:popcorn:

by people with agendas.. and even then the original source is questionable at best.

Christianity today, is the echo of a Roman emperors lost cause. The remnant of his last throes.

Why there are all sorts of Christian members of Democratic Underground, including myself, who believe in Christianity and the Bible. What deluded fools we must all be. Thank you for pointing us to the light.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

in the world is being done by religious fanatics of one strip or another, and the post is based on history rather than theology or belief, I think it's fair game.

Well I would guess you would have thought it was fair game anyway. I mean how often does anybody post a post and think "boy that's a crap post?"

Do you indict DU Christians for the evil being done?

Just asking for clarification - he's posting it here, directed at Democratic Christians (and lurkers, maybe). And he justifies it by saying that Religion is responsible for the evil in the world - so it's a logical question.

any time their supposed 'faith' is questioned

seems like if their faith was real, it wouldn't need soooo much defending

Interesting comment - kind of a Damned if you do damned if you don't phenomenen it seems to me.

Just out of curiousity.

it's an indictment of myth turned to propaganda and then treated as truth.

So what do you advice DU christians (and other members of religion) should do? Or in other words, what's the point to this message?

What is done with those facts is up to the individual. If I post information about the bombings in London it doesn't necessarily mean that I want you to DO anything other than know.

as you earlier said; i'm not sure this explanation works.

but presenting facts, isn't always a call to action. People act, think, believe etc., based on the facts as they know them. I'm not telling people what to do with the information, merely laying it out; adding it to the mix.

It is being done in the NAME if religion but those guilty of these crimes are anything but religious. They just understand the power of religion and manipulate it for their person agenda.

Because, what you are saying is not that the religion is a lie.

You are saying that Christianity as it is practiced currently is a myth, distorted and bastardized from the original intent and molded to fit the needs of the powerful.

Good luck getting that message communicated, though. You will have to battle the persecution complex.



BTW, I completely agree.

people can believe whatever they like, but to in any way base government policy or the rules of society on the propoganda of long dead dictators is absurd.

Having come to that conclusion I figure that anything someone believes is at least as valid as any other belief. As long as your cosmic construct doesn't hurt anyone it's fine with me.

Now if, in your universe, it is okay to hate others or lob missiles into your neighbor's homes maybe we should talk . . .

Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

... Baby, Bathwater, and Drain.

--p!

Well you're sure gonna get them...for all eternity in Hell!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Jokes aside, I agree with your post. My faith crumbled after reading books similar to the one you mentioned and I can't understand how anyone who has looked at the evidence could still believe in Christ/God or any other religion for that matter. I now view religion as something that our species desperately needs to rid itself of. You should read Sam Harris new book "The End of Faith" to fully understand why I feel this way. You'll never look at religion the same way.

but what you believe, in my opinion anyway, should be a deeply personal thing. Insisting that others believe the same thing, or live by the rules of your faith is a sure sign of a lack of faith, that you need to force others to agree with you to feel justified.

...that it loses credibility thanks to itself!

Nevermind how people who CLAIM to say "believe it word for word" only believe in some of the words and willfully ignore the others; phony vermin that they are. To clarify, the words they adhere to are the ones LEAST ATTRIBUTED TO CHRIST! Christ being the pinnacle of Christianity, mind you...

Because all any religion really is is just a myth.

probably an amazing, kind, beautiful person who was extremely liberal.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html

The story of Christ is nothing new. Zoroastrianism, Mirthra, Horus, Krishna, Buddha and many other Pagan Religions had very similar story's.

But there is nothing in the Jewish or Roman records (both loved to keep records) to indicate that there was a religious leader of that name who caused any kind of stir.

;)

I just wish more people would realize that it is BS.

So much suffering has been caused by religion

Item 1, however, is a gross overstatement. There is actually a very large body of both archaeological and literary evidence supporting biblical narratives. There's no proof of any miracles, of course, or anything inexplicable, but I would say that most of the places and people in the Bible turn up independently somewhere else in the historical record.

What that means is that we are looking at real people and events through several millennia worth of filters. And yes, that is sometimes how myths originate. One of my classmates in high school nailed it pretty good when she described mythology as "other people's religions."

There is no evidence of there having been a Jesus of Nazareth, a Kingdom of Solomon (or at least if it did exist it was at most a poor barony) , a Kingdom of David, an Exodus, or an Abraham.

because what you're saying now is flat out wrong. There is evidence in varying degrees for all of these people and places. There's a magazine called Biblical Archaeology that you should check out. They've been around for years, and they are strictly fact (rather than faith) based. They have some amazing arguments, but the science is always clearly laid out.

that cause Christians on your side to turn away from you and as a result you lose support. I really don’t care about your beliefs about religion. Trash the Religious Right and Hypocrites all you want, I am on your side and I am Christian but if you want to stand up here and declare Christianity one big lie you are missing the point. It is a FAITH and I have studied the creation of the universe at a scientific standpoint. I happen to agree with it but it does not diminish my belief in God and religion, it only strengthens it.

That turns people against you

Criticize people who do not believe in God. I never will because it is wrong to disrespect someone else’s ideology. You have the right to believe God does not exists as I do to believe he does.

Some Christians bash atheist and some atheist bash Christians. Ignorance takes all shapes and forms across all ideologies but I will not subscribe to this ignorance. Obviously you do.

Your obvious disrespect of someone elses ideology ranks up there in freeperville.

it is only the fundies that preach inerrancy and divine authorship. Christianity is a philosophy to some who follow but do not adhere to it as a religion per se.

1) There is no archeological or written evidence to suggest that there is any truth to most biblical accounts (old or new testament).
--- I guess the operative word here is "most", since there are many independent historical corroborations of genealogies and oral history of events passed down. For example, there WAS a babylonian king of the same name who had the Jews as slaves...etc.
I guess you're trying to say there is no evidence to the truth of the spiritual or paranormal events in the bible. You need to be more clear, because as it is, you're being extremely absolutist on vague assertions.

2) Starting in the 4-5th centuries, the early teachings of Christianity underwent a radical transformation. Early, prominent scholars were labeled heritics and their writings along with early christian gospels were destroyed.
Not really sure how this demonstrates Christianity as a myth...more like it demonstrates how powerful people attempt to take control of things. Maybe you could elaborate how this proves christianity to be a myth. For example, is Democracy a myth, if a country has sham elections?

3) The Church leaders of this era openly talked about revising and editing the Bible to make it more condusive to cenralizing Church power.
see my response to #2 above

4) The Roman Emporers who moved the church to Rome and made it the official religion of the Empire seemed more concerned with preserving the power of a crumbling empire than with spiritualy see my response to #2 above. Essentially, you're attempting to take historical events that influence a religion as proof of the invalidity of a religion, I think. You're only proving how culture reacts to relgion, rather than proving religion invalid or a "myth". Actually, I'd have had a better time with your post if you had actually tried to examine christianity under "mythical" comparisons...say to Hellenic deities or Norse Gods, for example. That would have been a much more interesting discussion. Instead, you're making a claim and doing little to support it.

So, those who seek power for "christians" and "christianity" are, because all of their churches are offshoots of the Catholic church, unknowingly still battling for the power of the roman empire. Any true Christianity, it's early teachings, meanings and many of its texts are lost forever due to editing by those interested in manipulating it for power.

again, see my answers above. I would ask you this question, though: why is it important to you to characterize religion as mythical? why do you feel that satisfies you?

If you want to talk about Christianity and its relation to progressive ideals, go for it. To just wholesale slam it here is idiotic. You should have this discussion in one of the religion groups or the atheism group.

Slam religion and then say people are flaming for responding to it.

Can you explain specifically?

For those of us who believe, it offends just as calling people names offends them. We are like everyone on this board, we believe in freedom and justice and equal rights for all, even the Christians. I don't wear my religion on my sleeve, I have a belief inside of me, this belief helps me daily, but it does not direct me to hate or to use my religion to achieve an agenda.

I understand that members have had problems and differences with other people who claim they are religious, I'd have my doubts about a religion that would hurt and smear. My religion is about good feelings, not bad, this is what I choose to believe.

Everyone wants to literally take parts of the Bible and throw them at me, the wrath of God, the Revelations, etc. I choose to take the good out of this book and live by it.


What is so bad about that?

It noted that what you think of as the bible has actually undergone massive changes, editing, and censoring by the people in power throughout history. Basically saying that true Christianity might just be impossible to figure out.

Doesn't mean it can't exist, just shows a perspective that you can't rely on the veracity of the bible.

I expected flames, but since fundamentalist christianity, not to mention fundamentalist Islam and Judaism are the players in the world's current dilema, I felt that these things were worth pointing out.

Instead you made it a blanket criticism of the "myths" of Christianity. I don't disagree with you on it... but I don't see the purpose of posting it, in the manner in which you did, in GD, when it is wholly unrelated to anything political... in itself. To me, that seems like you WANT the flames... ergo "flamebait"... are you going to pretend that that was not your intention? You even wrote that you expected it.

so yes I expected flames, but to avoid it altogether absurd and to say it has nothing to do with anything political is wrong. Pick up a newspaper and tell me that the validity of the bible has nothing to do with politics.

political. If you had... it would have been appropriate to be here in GD. Pick up a clue.

Tell the fundies this:

That would have changed everything? I don't think so, and I really hope that I wouldn't have to explain the relevance to people at DU.

and I don't really have patience for that... :hi:

that I took any time to reply to you. You obviously had nothing to contribute. :hi:

Atheism is the abscence of faith in a diety. It is the one who proposes the existance of a diety who must provide proof. After all, if I told you I had an anti-gravity ray, it wouldn't be incumbant on you to prove it, now would it?

But we need to ask ourselves what myths are -- they are STORIES. Stories have been a constant throughout the history of mankind since we learned to use language. The first stories were presented orally, passed down from generation to generation. Then, when we learned to write, we began to pass our stories along through written form.

Christianity is based upon a story. At its heart, it is a story about a man -- Jesus -- who saw the world around him as one in which evil and wickedness permeated men's hearts -- and he tried to show that there was a better way for people to live in brotherhood with one another, to share the earth's bounty with one another, and to stop hurting, exploiting and killing one another.

I follow this story because it is one that really speaks to my heart. I don't do it because I think that all of life's answers lay within a single book written over thousands of years -- they don't. I don't do it because it provides me some kind of tribal identity to separate me from others. I follow this story because I also believe in its message of love and understanding and cooperation and forgiveness, and if I try to follow the example Jesus set, that I can help contribute to making this world a slightly better place while I'm here.

After all, if we don't have our stories, then what do we have? Personally, I would absolutely HATE to live in a world that was consumed completely with empiricism to the exclusion of all else, because it is the stories that speak to our hearts and souls.

...leave much to be desired.

But often those who interpret it in the ways that "leave much to be desired" look at it as an ultimate truth or an identity, and in doing so skip over some of its most intrinsic passages.

No less than Thomas Jefferson, when creating his Jeffersonian Bible, said that the Gospel of Jesus was some of the most beautiful, most important moral guidance that he had ever found -- so he decided to strip it of all excess baggage by just focusing on what Jesus said to the exclusion of all else.

The fault for the bastardization of the basic message of Christianity -- love, forgiveness, compassion, cooperation, brotherhood -- lies not with Christianity, but with man.

...as well.

the philosophy is wonderful not divisive at all.

much like you and Thomas Jefferson. The story that has been passed down about the man named Jesus is one that speaks to the heart. It provides the message and guidance for a moral life. I support that story, but can not logically accept 'god' or Jesus as the son of god.

there are a lot more "brand names" competing to be the "top brand" of Christianity...

...and the key is they all want to corner the "market" to boost their collection plates....

I'm not sure why they take it so personally in the case of religion, though.

that they really have no faith, if you did you won't be afraid of challenges to it.

those people I know that are very unsure of their own feelings about their faith are typically the ones that want to convert others...because..."if joe gets on board with this idea..then I might not be wrong"...it is like a "strength in numbers" game. There are of course those that join any group, social as well as religious, for the sense of "community", to make friends, or to meet potential clients...

The more people that sign on to a team the more stable it seems....but then again look at the Catholic church (in which I was raised)....if you removed the team members that don't agree with the church...the team would reduce dramatically in size.

I have my beliefs, I rarely tell anyone exactly what I believe (and won't here), I have no need to have others agree with me, and when I have talked about it I haven't run into a successful argument against it from Theists (unless they were quoting their own beliefs to prove me wrong) or scientists.

it provides concrete answers about life and death...Death, and the hereafter, is one topic that a lot of people fear in life...they want to know that they are on the right path...they want "eternal life"...but really no one knows what happens.

Hell the ancient Egyptian culture with their many gods and goddesses was still focused on providing a concrete "answer".

When you mess with someone's "blankey"...their comfort...it is disturbing...

It talks about how the Christ mythos borrows directly from the story of the Egyptian Sun God - the parallels are too striking to be coincidence.

it's fine as long as they don't mess with other people. None of us know what true reality is, if there is such a thing.

From "The Free Dictionary":

myth--A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

religion--Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

even if it fits the description...:eyes:

I let people believe what they want. Not all Christians are war mongering fools and not all Atheists are self-centered morons.

:thumbsup:

From now on I won't bring up anything that people might not like. We should certainly stay within certain peramiters so as to avoid any unpleasantries. Repubicans bad, democrats good shoud be the general point of all discussion.

There are places for everything.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if all of us agree. If only half of us agree, then we will begin to discuss it rationally, but then some other assholes will go ballistic and start nuking each other with ad hominems until the thread gets locked.

I'd start a poll to determine where people stand on your assholiness (which I prefer to "assholishmess" in this context), but that would be defamatory of a fellow DUer, so probably only you could start such a poll. In fact, I think I see these from time to time in the Lounge.

In any event, let me beat everyone else to it and make clear once and for all that yes, I too am an asshole.
:toast:

i found this site surfing one day, lots of good info on the history of christianity and such.


http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/jesus_myth.htm

I agree that it was hi-jacked to an extent by the Romans to use as a state religion and thereby increase their own power. Originally, Christianity was closer to the Gnostic approach, a religion of self-knowledge. As Christ said, "The kingdom of God is within you."

Christ and the early Christians avoided the rulers and the kings. Render to Caesar the things that are his but render to God the things that are his. In other words, these are two different worlds. Don't confuse the two. All the "evils" always mentioned as caused by Christianity are in reality a result of the mis-interpretation of Christianity.

It's true there are certain universal principles that are true both for the inner man and the outer man, "Whatever measures you mete will be measured to you again," for example. Or Love your neighbor as yourself as being what leads to just and happy lives (personally as well as socially). Just those two principles if actually applied in the outer world by so-called leaders would revolutionize the world and bring peace and harmony.

One more point. I was myself a "doubter" in college and inwardly scoffed at religion. What changed me, and I believe the only thing that can ever really change somebody, is personal, inner experience. Problem is you can't tell somebody else what his personal experiences will be. You just have to live your own understanding. That's why you can't really "convert" somebody at the point of a sword. That's laughable really. To add one more thing, I believe one of the best ways to open yourself to the personal experiences necessary to clarify what any religion is is to read books about reincarnation (a lot of solid proof here, check out Stevenson's science-based books on the subject) or about ESP or paranormal phenomena. There's a heckuva lot of material on this stuff. Or if you don't want to credit your own personal experience yet, ask a friend if he's ever had a precognitive dream or had his mind read, etc. Now you're getting closer to what Christianity is or was intended to be.

to my post.

Actually, I'm a 69 yr old person who is already "in touch" with my "inner person". The only general differences I can see between your theological position and mine could be found in the definitions of the terms we use.

Best wishes,

ladjf

Tom Harper is somehow more credible than Tom Aquinas. How nice.

While I understand that the ascendancy of the Christian Right and the latest Great Awakening in US politics is cause for much concern, I fail to understand the need for the many reminders about how religion, and particularly Christianity, is bullshit.

Curiously, I see atheists and agnostics, many of whom cannot properly articulate what it is they believe or don't believe, talk about how religion is the cause of the world's ills, but almost never see the religious mention Stalin, Mao, Cousescu, Amin, or others as examples of how atheism is the source of all evil. Could it be that evil is simply evil, and the religion, or lack of it, of the evildoer is irrelevant?

Even more rarely do I see the Presbyterians, Jews, Wiccans, Buddhists or Muslims on this board call each other or atheists "idiots," as at least one person started a thread. Nor do they characterize the nonreligious as being morally or otherwise flawed.

All religions, at their essence, are personal. There are almost no people, even among aboriginals, that don't have a spiritual component somehow integrated into their society. It has something to do with our abilities for free will and to understand abstractions-- we long to understand that which is not immediately obvious, and that we are a social species which insists on sharing. But, it is ultimately the individual who seeks for more than pure rationality.

Religion is an outlet for our emotional, non-rational side. It fills in the gaps that mathematics and logic cannot.

Religion can be, and has all too often been, perverted for the gain of persons and groups. It has been used for the rallying cry to war and to defend slavery and empire. We know that, but we have used hammers both to build our homes and to bludgeon enemies. Does the misuse of the hammer make it evil in itself?

The fact that, as you say, "all religions, at their essence, are personal" should not and does not excuse religion from examination, particularly at a time in history when so many folks are seeking to impose their religious views on everyone.

Curiously, I see atheists and agnostics, many of whom cannot properly articulate what it is they believe or don't believe, talk about how religion is the cause of the world's ills, but almost never see the religious mention Stalin, Mao, Cousescu, Amin, or others as examples of how atheism is the source of all evil. Could it be that evil is simply evil, and the religion, or lack of it, of the evildoer is irrelevant?

Or it could be that much of the harm caused in the world has been done in the name of religions, while the harm done by Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Amin and others was not done in the name of atheism.

And since when does an individual get to define when another person can properly articulate what it is they believe or don't believe? That seems rather high-handed.

Religion is an outlet for our emotional, non-rational side. It fills in the gaps that mathematics and logic cannot.

Unfortunately, religion is more than that, at least today and at least in this country. It has become a substitute for education. it has become a substitute for thought. It has become a substitute for free-speech and a hammer against dissent and diversity. It has become a tool to deprive people of their right to privacy and other personal freedoms.

Does the misuse of the hammer make it evil in itself?

Reminds me of another saying: When your only tool is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail.

"Humanity without religion is like a serial killer without a chainsaw."

he'll use something else.

nt

... any more than we examine anything else. What he IS trying to set straight is that painting religion with a broad-brush -- as is the habit of many atheists and agnostics -- is not the same thing as "examination". When you examine what groups of people have done in the name of religion, what you are really examining is group dynamics, or sociology. In fact, it's not that much different really than when you have a bunch of atheists on lined up on one side of these threads, and a bunch of liberal Christians of various forms on another, shouting at each other.

Or it could be that much of the harm caused in the world has been done in the name of religions, while the harm done by Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Amin and others was not done in the name of atheism.

Harm in the world has been done in the name of IDEOLOGIES wielded by various individuals who were primarily interested in consolidating personal power. All that religion ever provided was a cohesive force that these various individuals throughout history used for their own ends -- whether or not those ends remained true to the tenets of that religion does not matter.

Similar crimes have not been committed in the name of atheism because atheism is an absence of belief in religion. By what you are saying vis a vis religion, and what I am saying in that it is simply a galvanizing ideology, the only true answer would be a disavowal of belief in anything -- and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

And since when does an individual get to define when another person can properly articulate what it is they believe or don't believe? That seems rather high-handed.

Does it? I've had numerous atheists in these forums (I'm not saying you, specifically) dictate to me what it is that I believe, as a Christian. And pretty much every time, their definition could not be further from what I actually believe if they tried. Yet, that didn't stop them from being high-handed enough to persist in this misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, religion is more than that, at least today and at least in this country. It has become a substitute for education. it has become a substitute for thought. It has become a substitute for free-speech and a hammer against dissent and diversity. It has become a tool to deprive people of their right to privacy and other personal freedoms.

Once again, religion is simply being used as a tool by the wicked who desire power. As I recall, neither Stalin nor Mao used religion at all -- yet they accomplished all of what you mention in the name of another ideology, communism. As a thinking person, my conclusion from such evidence would be that those who desire power above all else will simply use whatever ideology is best available to accomplish their ends -- in many instances that may be religion, but in others it may be something very different. However, that does not mean that the tools they use are intrinsically evil in themselves.

Reminds me of another saying: When your only tool is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail.

But what you are defining here is narrowmindedness. For pretty much all of the self-identifying religious/spiritual people on these boards, we are aware that our various "faiths" do not hold all of the answers to life -- that they merely provide us with a collection of stories that can provide a moral guidance in our lives -- but ultimately the choices we make are guided by our own experience in the world around us. It is the narrowminded who shut out the world and look for every answer in a religion that is so conflicting and contradictory that it can be used to justify just about anything you can think of.

Furthermore, your turn of this phrase in response to the point that TB was making regarding the misuse of a hammer not making the hammer evil is just a bit disingenuous. If he had said a saw instead of a hammer, would you have replied that when your only tool is a saw, every problem looks like a board?

When you examine what groups of people have done in the name of religion, what you are really examining is group dynamics, or sociology.

Well, yeah. At it's heart, that's all religion, or any other belief system, really is. A group dynamic.

Harm in the world has been done in the name of IDEOLOGIES wielded by various individuals who were primarily interested in consolidating personal power.

This ignores the great amount of harm that has been done in the interest of advancing a religion, punishing or eliminating opposition to that religion, or pleasing a tenant of that religion (i.e., converting the hotentots).

Similar crimes have not been committed in the name of atheism because atheism is an absence of belief in religion.

This feeds into the first point, that religion is a group dynamic. Atheism is simply the abscence of that group dynamic.

Yet, that didn't stop them from being high-handed enough to persist in this misrepresentation.

Is this a justification?

However, that does not mean that the tools they use are intrinsically evil in themselves.

Nor does it mean that religion should exist in a criticism-free bubble either.

Furthermore, your turn of this phrase in response to the point that TB was making regarding the misuse of a hammer not making the hammer evil is just a bit disingenuous. If he had said a saw instead of a hammer, would you have replied that when your only tool is a saw, every problem looks like a board?

No. I would reply that his point of view is unfortunately not the majority one among US hammer-holders.

You excerpted the following from my previous post:
Furthermore, your turn of this phrase in response to the point that TB was making regarding the misuse of a hammer not making the hammer evil is just a bit disingenuous. If he had said a saw instead of a hammer, would you have replied that when your only tool is a saw, every problem looks like a board?

But, in the interest of intellectual honesty, let's look at the more substantive part of my statement that you conveniently left out:
But what you are defining here is narrowmindedness. For pretty much all of the self-identifying religious/spiritual people on these boards, we are aware that our various "faiths" do not hold all of the answers to life -- that they merely provide us with a collection of stories that can provide a moral guidance in our lives -- but ultimately the choices we make are guided by our own experience in the world around us. It is the narrowminded who shut out the world and look for every answer in a religion that is so conflicting and contradictory that it can be used to justify just about anything you can think of.

Furthermore, your turn of this phrase in response to the point that TB was making regarding the misuse of a hammer not making the hammer evil is just a bit disingenuous. If he had said a saw instead of a hammer, would you have replied that when your only tool is a saw, every problem looks like a board?

Of course his view is in the minority, because he dares to actually THINK. Thinking is a rare thing in America anymore -- the vast majority of people in this country don't like to think, because thinking is hard, and religion has nothing to do with it. They only use their particular misrepresentation of religion to justify their lack of critical thought. However, if you took away religion, they still would resist thinking.

Emmanuel Kant described this phenomenon quite well, that the majority of people just want others to do everything for them -- including thinking. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno expanded on it considerably in their scathing analysis of American "culture" in the 1950's and 60's. The conclusion they reach is that American popular culture is actually a phenomenon that encourages people NOT to think, leading to a dumbing-down or debasement of what good things still remain in greater American culture. Morris Berman's The Twilight of American Culture explores this phenomenon as well.

The OP's point was that we wouldn't ban hammers because some have been misused, so we shouldn't dispense with religion. My point was that there are a great deal of folks who see the world only through the prism of their religion.

I didn't think the rest of your post needed comment, and to be quite frank, I didn't think my thoughts on the matter would be welcome. But since you insist, I'll share. I think the idea that people of religious faith can be divided up into groups such as "narrow-minded" and "not narrow-minded" is an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too. It allows the accuser to raise him or herself above the group in question while denigrating them, defending him or herself from a perceived attack and disguising his or her own attack on that group. It is also ironically close to what Xians often accuse atheists of, namely, claiming that people who don't share their POV are somehow less than them (less smart, less open-minded, less educated, etc.).

There are plenty of non-religious people who are also narrowminded -- although I will certainly concede that much of organized religion attracts the narrowminded because it professes to give them easy answers to the difficult problems of life.

But I can't let this part go by without comment...
It is also ironically close to what Xians often accuse atheists of, namely, claiming that people who don't share their POV are somehow less than them (less smart, less open-minded, less educated, etc.).

Funny, I actually see the exact OPPOSITE dynamic taking place on these boards. That doesn't invalidate your statement as it applies to everyday life -- but it certainly demonstrates that atheists are not immune to becoming what they profess to hate as well.

It's been real, but I've got a weekend to start pretty soon.

Funny, I actually see the exact OPPOSITE dynamic taking place on these boards. That doesn't invalidate your statement as it applies to everyday life -- but it certainly demonstrates that atheists are not immune to becoming what they profess to hate as well.

:)

That wasn't in my manual.

Can I borrow your copy ?

Examination is one thing, but to simply trash the concept is another. I have no problem with insisting that everyone keep their religions to themselves, but I do have a problem with replying to the abusers of religion by abusing religion in general.

As far as my comment about properly articulating atheism and agnosticism goes-- in discussions I have found very few of the nonreligious able to come up with a freestanding cosmology and ethic or explain why they are opposed to the concept of a deity. I will admit that many of the religious are also unable to think for themselves and simply parrot what they are taught, and I have the same opinion of them. In this case, however, I am talking about militant atheists, not militant religionists.

As for Mao, et al and their agendas, very few wars or other social upheavals were specifically religious or nonreligious, Philip II notwithstanding. In most cases, religion was simply one of the excuses for a power grab. Atheism is close to central in Marxism, and probably about as important to Communist revolution as religion was in the War of the Roses.

In some sectors, it is true that religion has taken over rationality and stuck its nose into what should be purely secular areas, and this could possibly be our downfall as much as it destroyed the great Arab civilization when the Four Doctors declared all questions answered.

However, the argument is not with religion in general, or with the two hundred million or so Americans who have some religious belief, but it is specifically with those relative few who insist on bringing their beliefs where they do not belong.

It would be far more effective if, rather than telling over a billion Christians around the world that they are idiots, one would ask those billion Christians to stand up and denounce the few who are undermining their own faith.

Examination is one thing, but to simply trash the concept is another.

With all due respect, some concepts warrant trashing. The Bush doctrine, for instance, or the idea that we can never truly erase the gender gap in the American economic system, for example. Many folks would put religion in this category, many other folks wouldn't. But every concept has its defendes and its critics. Why should religion be exempt?

NOTE: THIS IS NOT TO EQUATE RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS WITH THOSE WHO ADVOCATE THE BUSH DOCTRINE OR THE GENDER GAP IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

I have no problem with insisting that everyone keep their religions to themselves,

Really? Gosh, I sure do. I think the idea that people shouldn't talk about or openly practice their religion goes against the concept of free speech. But then, I also think criticism of religion is also part of freedom of speech.

in discussions I have found very few of the nonreligious able to come up with a freestanding cosmology and ethic or explain why they are opposed to the concept of a deity.

That could be because very few of the nonreligious are opposed to the concept of a deity. Just because you don't believe in Santa Claus doesn't mean you're opposed to him. And as for a freestandig cosmology, what's wrong with the one already provided to us by science? Why should a free-thinker have to re-invent the wheel regarding the origins, structure and function of the universe when the one already in use by science isn't dependant on the existance of deities.

In most cases, religion was simply one of the excuses for a power grab.

Well, that's a convenient revision of history, but then you have the chicken and the egg argument. If someone says, "It's God's will I kick the shit out of you," which came first, a vengeful God or the urge to kick the shit out of someone? And if you're one who believes in the existance of deities that communicate with their followers, who are you to tell another that he's wrong about his religious experiences?

However, the argument is not with religion in general, or with the two hundred million or so Americans who have some religious belief, but it is specifically with those relative few who insist on bringing their beliefs where they do not belong.

On that, I vehemently disagree. Free thought and atheism have been around as long as superstition, myth and religion. The struggle towards enlightenment has new urgency during the current religious jihad on our rights, but free thinkers will be here after that battle is won.

trashing a religion.

It all has to do with prime underlying concepts, and those in the political sphere are known and pretty much agreed to by all. Or, they can at least be fully argued by all.

A religion, otoh, has fundamental premises that only have meaning to the individual believer. Quite frankly, you can't possibly trash my Quaker faith because you would first have to figure out what I understand "The Light" to be. Or what I personally mean by "there is that of God in each of us." I guarantee you that what I believe about it is little like what you may have heard anywhere else. But, while I find discussion of these points interesting under some circumstances, it would be meaningless to explain them to anyone just for the sake of argument. They are my beliefs, and I see no reason to advertise them unduly or defend them.

I still don't have any problem with everyone keeping their religions to themselves. All of our beliefs are personal, and while I eagerly share with others of differeing belief, and don't want anyone to shut up or hide them, you are forgetting that we agree that religion, or the lack of it, should never be shoved down anyone's throat.

Only the dimmer bulbs of fundamentalism in any religion believe in the "official" cosmology. I doubt you'll find many modern Hindus who believe the unverse rests on a turtle. I'm not sure many of the ancient ones believed it either, any more than most Greeks didn't take Mt. Olympus very seriously.

Science is very good at some things, but it is dismal when it gets too far away from measuring things. That's when philosophy comes in. Check out the Templeton Prize http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html and who's been wining. We're not talking abut Southern Baptists here, but Nobel laureates, biologists, cosmologists...

I was recently listening to one of them-- George Ellis, a Quaker and one of the world's leading cosmologists, explaining how he believes the universe to contain an ethic in itself, and how his Christian beliefs fit in with a seeming infinite cosmos. To me, a far richer understanding of the "why" of the universe than Sagan, or the other rationalists had come up with.

It is not a revision of history to say that in most cases religion was an excuse for, not a cause of, war and conquest. The great conquerors-- Alexander, Caesar, the Khans, the Ottomans, Napolean, the European empires... Where is the "religious" reason for them? The smaller wars were similar-- money and power and if there was a conveniently different religion on the other side, more's the opportunity to rouse the people.

I don't understand this:

(I said)
However, the argument is not with religion in general, or with the two hundred million or so Americans who have some religious belief, but it is specifically with those relative few who insist on bringing their beliefs where they do not belong.

(then you said)
On that, I vehemently disagree. Free thought and atheism have been around as long as superstition, myth and religion. The struggle towards enlightenment has new urgency during the current religious jihad on our rights, but free thinkers will be here after that battle is won.

So, are you saying that even though the vast majority of religious people cause no problem at all, there should still be movement against them?

A religion, otoh, has fundamental premises that only have meaning to the individual believer.

This seems to run counter to the entire concept of religion as an organized system of belief. Certainly this may be your individual feeling, but I daresay that if most religious folks shared this feeling, there would be few houses of worship and fewer clergy.

Only the dimmer bulbs of fundamentalism in any religion believe in the "official" cosmology.

Is there really a need to be so condescending toward others who don't share your religious views?

Science is very good at some things, but it is dismal when it gets too far away from measuring things. That's when philosophy comes in.

With all due respect, what does this even mean?

To me, a far richer understanding of the "why" of the universe than Sagan, or the other rationalists had come up with.

Well that's great, but entirely subjective. You may find Sagan dry while I find Ellis rather silly.

It is not a revision of history to say that in most cases religion was an excuse for, not a cause of, war and conquest.

To offer a 21st Century re-interpretation of events hundreds of years in the past while completely ignoring what the participants themselves said they were fighting about is the very definition of revisionist history.

Of course, the fact remains that, one sense I agree with you: as an atheist, I do agree that religion is an excuse for war and conflict!

So, are you saying that even though the vast majority of religious people cause no problem at all, there should still be movement against them?

There is no movement against religious people, except the movements against religious people perpetrated by other religious people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

religion being fundamentally personal runs counter to the idea of organized religion, but this is not true at all.

Actually, that's not what I said. For the record, I was responding to your comment about fundamental premises of religion. Here's what you originally said:

A religion, otoh, has fundamental premises that only have meaning to the individual believer.

The idea that a religion's fundamental premises only have individual meaning is counter to the idea of organized religion.

Now, just how am I being more condescending toward the dimmer bulbs of fundamentalism than when you called all religious believers idiots?

For the record, I never called all religious believers idiots. My point on that deleted thread was quite different. Of course, since those comments have been deleted, and since I received a warning about them, I am not at liberty to discuss them further, while you are free to say whatever you wish about them without fear of correction. Quite the low blow really, and quite disappointing. Shame on you.

Secondly, the idea that someone else's alleged misdeed justifies your own should have gone out of practice in elementary school.

Atheism does not inspire that kind of "martyrdom" on any scale. Nothing inspires martyrdom quite like that ol' time religion.

:evilgrin:

That's a great - and hiLARious - point!

than religion was to...well, religious atrocities. :eyes:

Was Hitler's Catholicism central to his atrocities? Wasn't it central to his anti-Semitism? But do we say Catholicism is at the heart of Nazi atrocities?

I always say that religion's part in, say, the Crusades is not so much that they were really fought for the faith as faith was used by those pursuing other ends to rally believers to the cause under guise of "fighting evil" - and since believers have the ability to accept as fact things than cannot or have not been proven true, they were easier to deceive.

And BTW, this atheist DOES read BAM (Biblical Archeology Magazine), though I haven't picked one up in a while. IMO, their findings debunk the Buy-bull myths more often than they corroborate them.

Their "LETTERS" page is always a hoot. Usually a bunch of demented Fundies demanding archeological proof, RIGHT NOW, of stuff like The Garden Of Eden...preferably complete with two fig leaves, an apple core and a snake-skin.

The BAM articles about the battle of Masada a few years ago were highly embarassing to the Israeli government. And what is the ONLY source of information about Masada? Why, every Xian's favorite historian, Flavius Josephus....who took a few liberties with the story, apparently. (People who've read Josephus will know the context of that, and his role as a Benedict Arnold in the 66 CE uprising.)

I'd really like to see some proof about the Exodus myth, since I'm traveling to Egypt a lot for work right now.

In the Cairo Museum I saw the ONLY reference to Israel which exists in the 5,000 or so years of recorded Egyptian history.

It mentions a military expedition by Pharoah Meneptah (son of Ramses II). In modern language, it basically says the Pharoah went over to Palestine and kicked the butts of the Israelites.

Nope, no army of Jewish slaves building the Pyramids, no parting of the Red Sea, no wandering in a fairly small desert for 40 years, no pillars of fire...none of that.

Now I eagerly await the Bronze Age Conspiracy Theories, which will tell me that the "archeologist" Ron Wyatt discovered chariot parts on the bottom of the Red Sea...:eyes:

I can't remember exactly how it played out, but I believe it could be attributed to a bad translation of the Greek that led to the Sea of Reeds being redefined as the Red Sea. Apparently, that particular part of Exodus might have actually taken place in a marshy flat, as opposed to the Red Sea.

The bad translation only exacerbated the myth.

But let's get back to the New Testament, shall we? There is a good deal of historical evidence that places a figure resembling Jesus traveling throughout South Asia at the same time as the missing years of his life in the Bible. Considering that the Gospels in the Bible bear much in common as far as religious philosophy with Buddhism and Hinduism, could it not have been plausible that Jesus was an actual historical figure? Furthermore, there is historical evidence of followers of Jesus living in Israel within communitarian groups in the century following his death. This would also tend to point toward the possibility that there was an actual Jesus.

Now, I'm not going to say that any of the stuff regarding the "son of God" is true, because I honestly don't believe it to be. However, there is a good bit of evidence pointing to the idea that there was a real man named Jesus who lived in the area during that time period, and apparently his philosophies attracted a pretty sizable following that led lives radically different from others of that time.

But let's get back to the New Testament, shall we? There is a good deal of historical evidence that places a figure resembling Jesus traveling throughout South Asia at the same time as the missing years of his life in the Bible.

Strictly IMO, there is a good deal of wishful thinking by the mystically inclined to combine Middle Eastern hokum with Far Eastern hokum. But I eagerly await these true historical accounts of ol' Jesus hitch-hiking around Asia, which I've heard of but never seen.

Of course, he probably wouldn't need to do that (if he existed), since he lived smack in the middle of the major trade routes between East and West.

Considering that the Gospels in the Bible bear much in common as far as religious philosophy with Buddhism and Hinduism, could it not have been plausible that Jesus was an actual historical figure?

What do these two things have to do with each other? Anyway, I don't think those religious philosophies are all that similar. Xianity says "Thou Shalt Not," Buddhism is more like..."Try Not To."

Hinduism, despite its attraction to blissed-out Westerners, was a purely racist religion imposed by the Aryan conquerors of India. It gave the common folk something to strive for in the next life...damn, now that sounds familiar. Anyway, the whole point of Hinduism was to keep coming back until you were an Aryan, too.

and he's supposed to be buried in Rome somewhere too along with that other guy who didn't exist, Peter, who somehow ended up with a basilica on top of him LOL !

...where he will rise from the dead when Britain is in mortal danger. Somehow he stayed dead thru World Wars I and II, both of which seemed fairly dangerous.

And the corpse of Frederick Barbarossa lies somewhere under the Kyffhauser mountains, where he's waiting for Germany to be in mortal danger. Apparently the Hitler years didn't qualify.

Either one of those stories is just as plausible as the yarns about Jesus rising from the dead.

try. BTW, no one can find those meteors but you can see their effects. Same thing with religions, not just Jesus. Their effects on people is what really counts.

Who knows, maybe you too will have an experience like Saul of Tarsus.

And I believe the effect religion has on people is the problem.

there is no archaological evidence for it. So, just as with meteor craters, the effects are obvious but you can't find the meteor which was pretty much destroyed by creating the crater. Maybe that wasn't a great example but I thought it up on the spot.

I'm pretty pleased with the effect Christianity had on Saul of Tarsus myself. He went from participating in the murder of Stephen to something better. My dad was a Freemason, who are the heirs to the Knights Templar that Pope Clement V and King Philip IV tried to murder off in 1307. The popes from then on wanted masons excommunicated.

The Freemasons went on to create a "deist" kind of organization. George Washington was a fine example of this kind of thinking. So, I agree with you -- and especially with the effects of the London bombings. Fanatics of the religious variety are what the Freemasons were against. They'd seen the effects of St Bartholomew's Day massacre in France and earlier with the Cathar Crusade etc etc. They'd 'had it' with that kind of religious intolerance.

I Corinthians 13 isn't something that most people would argue with, but I won't stop anyone who wants to. It's a free country and I like it that way !

nor that of anyone else.

But then, atheists don't usually try to control others because our non-existent religion tells us to.

I only take issue with someone trying to provide proof of something when there is none.

You say that like a meteor crater, sometimes the actual evidence (meteor, biblical event) may not be there, but the effects (crater, existence of Xianity) are.

That is no different than me claiming that a giant invisible pink unicorn placed all the mountains in their current locations 50,000 years ago. I mean, I don't have any actual evidence, but the mountains are obviously there so that's how it MUST have happened, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell scroll down to 'influence of his works'.

Like E= MC2 energy is 'invisible' but can be transformed from matter, another meteor example for you.

I'm just saying, with Campbell, go ahead and believe what you want, that 'truth is one' and if religions are a way of seeking the truth then denying that religions have commonality and are all 'myth' -- may mean dissing one disses them all:

"Campbell's true study and interpretation is in the melding of accepted ideas and symbolism. His iconoclastic approach was as original as it was radical. His take on religion has been compared to Einstein's idea of science in his last days, the search is for a unifying theory. Joseph Campbell believed all the religions of the world, all the rituals and deities, to be “masks” of the same transcendent truth which is “unknowable.” Here we see Campbell as an agnostic, and he also shows his world view to be relativistic at times. He claims Christianity and Buddhism, whether the object is 'Buddha-consciousness' or 'Christ-consciousness,' to be an elevated awareness above “pairs of opposites,” such as right and wrong. Needless to say, many dogmatists dislike him and find his ideas heretical.

"Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names," he often quoted from the Vedas. Joseph Campbell was fascinated by what he viewed as universal sentiments and truths, disseminated through cultures which all featured different manifestations. He wanted to show his idea that Eastern and Western religions are the same on a very basic level, that nobody is right but everyone is searching for the same unknown, and indeed unknowable, answer." from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

If you believe, follow your bliss ! I don't subscribe to the pink unicorn myth, however, but I won't deny you your right to believe in it, just as I'm sure you won't deny others the right to believe what they wish. Go ahead and ridicule and expose frauds however, as that too is important.

I think James Randi Foundation critical thinking site is where you are heading with your logic
http://www.randi.org/

However, belief in Christianity as I've mentioned for myself stems from its effect on Saul of Tarsus and his Damascus Road moment. The historical change--from Saul to Paul--is documented and verifiable. I'd call that miraculous, just as any "twelve step" AA etc. person would :

"Acknowledgment of powerlessness over alcohol and adopting a belief in a "Higher Power" are two of the key precepts of the program, but no specific religious beliefs are required." from:

http://www.wisbar.org/Content/NavigationMenu/WisconsinLawyersAssistanceProgramWisLAP/Substanceabusegambling/Recoveryprograms/12Stepandotherspirituallybasedprograms/Recovery_Programs_Al.htm

This merges with Norman Vincent Peale's Power of Positive Thinking. If you expect the help of a 'higher power', you hopefully will get that assistance. This need for 'hope' in life is both an explanation for religions existence in the first place and a necessary derivative of the natural desire for help in just getting through life, both with your fellow man ... and an overall "deity" for good.

Sound logical ?

The historical change--from Saul to Paul--is documented and verifiable.

Document and verify that for me, please. No, the bible does not count as a source.

Quibble if you must but he was called Paul to begin with and St. Paul now called by others. I can understand the namechange, as with OT Jacob to Israel (Gen 32:28). Then we have "Tomb of Saint Paul Found?"
By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050221/stpaul.html

Regarding St Peter
"...Later traditions hold that the Romans crucified him upside-down by his request; he did not want to equate himself with Jesus. On the way to his execution, it is said, he encountered Jesus and asked: "Domine, Quo Vadis]" ("Lord, where are you going?"). Other versions of this story claim that this occurred as Peter was fleeing Rome to avoid his execution; Jesus' response, "I am going to Rome, to be crucified again," caused him to turn back. This story is commemorated in an Annibale Carracci painting. The Church of Quo Vadis, near the Catacombs of Saint Callistus, contains a stone in which Jesus' footprints from this event are supposedly preserved, though this was actually apparently an ex-voto from a pilgrim, and indeed a copy of the original, housed in the Basilica of St. Sebastian." from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter

Of course, I'm making this all up as these people are just figments of my overactive imagination if I follow your logic.

First off, I didn't ask about Peter. So that's rather irrelevant right now, but we can discuss it elsewhere if you need to.

Second, I asked for independent documentation and verification that a man named Saul of Tarsus underwent a religious conversion to become the man now known as Paul (or "Saint" Paul if you wish).

You offer as "proof" that a tomb purported to be Paul's may have been found.

This carries directly back to my analogy that because mountains exist where they're at, then they MUST have been put there by my invisible pink unicorn.

If you don't understand the illogic in both, there is no point in continuing. I'm not saying that this purported tomb is a figment of your imagination, I'm saying that it doesn't prove anything about Paul or anyone else for that matter. Sorry.

I need further work on string theory to deal with what now, 11 dimensions of reality, maybe I can find the scientific "proof" there.

http://www.scienceforums.com/archive/index.php/t-2040.html

BTW, Something caused the Basilica of St. Peter's to be built, what do you think it was ? And without Paul's conversion to Christianity, the religion probably wouldn't have spread to Rome and the rest of the Western world. Pretty academic if you ask me. But to say Christ, Paul, Peter, were figments of our imaginations...Now there's a stretch worthy of the X-files !

Your analogy of pink unicorns is nice but irrelevent, IMHO, no temples to pink unicorns... Many on earth DO believe in what Freemasons call 'The Great Architect of the Universe', or simply a 'higher power'. You may not like that and I certainly don't like what's being done with the "futurist" end-times eschatology that drives the Bush administration, but facts is facts.

A lot of people believe in Jesus Christ.

Trying to pursuade otherwise ? Why spoil their good time ?

The Crusades is what created the Knights Templar...who eventually morphed into the Freemasons. One of which was George Washington.

The fact that a Third Temple being built in Jerusalem may be a cause of the friction in the Middle East. That Jesus sought to do away with Temples (where sacrifices were practiced) seems ironic now that the Bush crowd wishes to advance the futurist view that promotes rebuilding a Third Temple.

Look into that Temple of Solomon on the Temple Mount site where the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque not stand. The fact that a misleading reading of scripture , futurism, interprets the prophesies of the end times to REQUIRE the antichrist to sit in a Third Temple

www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

thus stirring up trouble in the Middle East seems to be a topic the mainstream media wish to avoid at all costs. This IS an archeological site you must know something about. Correct ?

But you cannot understand the illogic in your reasoning, so there is no point in continuing. People have been martyred and temples built for thousands of gods that you would call false, so why is your history supposed to be viewed differently?

Enjoy your belief; I certainly don't want to take that away from you. But just understand that the facts simply don't support it - you have to make the proverbial "leap of faith."

I and millions of other freethinkers remain unconvinced.

I wouldn't dream of bursting any of your bubbles. I've taken Pascal's Wager it seems.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Faith is faith; belief in the unseen. Like atoms etc. that couldn't be seen before the advent of microscopes they were there all along. I just happen to go along with I Corinthians 13's way of describing the situation personally.

No offense taken and I hope I've given none either.

I hope you've chosen the *correct* god.

Pascal's Wager is based on the flawed assumptions that only the Christian god is the correct one, and that he won't be fooled by people who believe in him "just in case."

Please, don't use Pascal's Wager if you want to engage in any serious discussion.

Christianity, and all religions, have the 'power of myth' working for them. Which is why the Freemasons, who morphed out of the Knights Templar, created a quasi-theological framework of symbols <G> to create a tolerant brotherhood anyone could join (o.k., well, as long as they believed in monotheism).

Look into Washington DC's street layout. David Ovason's The Secret Architecture of Our Nation's Capital shows this too....and apparently Dan Brown's next novel, The Solomon Key, will be using some of this.

I'd like to keep discussion BOTH serious and light. And I think it can be done !

the truth of a religion?

What does Mecca tell us then?

but modern day Bushites are pushing for a Third one.

PBS's Religion and Ethics

www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week319/cover.html

January 7, 2000, did an examination of this but didn't mention the futurist eschatology that it's based upon, which was created by Jesuit Francisco Ribera in order to deflect attention from the Protestants pointing out that the Papal institutions looked to be the likely candidate.

In any event, today even Protestant churches promote this Third Temple agenda along with the 'settler movement' in Israel. See

Chris Hedges' Harpers article Soldiers of Christ II
http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html and also

George Monbiot's
Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power
S Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

In any event, the first two Temples on the 'Temple Mount' are quite archaeologically verifiable. It's the current eschatological prophesy based interpretations that are causing much grief in the Middle East since the Dome of the Rock would have to be destroyed to have this futurist interpretation which Bush's legions favor occur in actuality.

Knowing ignorance
is strength;
Ignoring knowledge
is sickness.
- Lao Tse

"So, those who seek power for 'christians' and 'christianity' are .... unknowingly battling for the power of the roman empire." -- A wonderful example of ignorance and sickness.

More than one historian has noted the resemblance between the Roman Empire and the organization, rituals and even music of the Catholic Church.

A few even say the old Roman Empire just changed its name and became a religious organization bent on worldwide political domination.

They may be joking, though.

called 'futurism'. It was created in the counter reformation as protection from protestant eschatology by Jesuit Francisco Ribera

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

to the historians you suggest support your interpretations of their works. I suspect they would get a giggle out of this, however.

BTW, believers, pointing out truths about Christianity or any religion is not bashing - just getting that out there.

Now, saying "you suck because you believe", that's bashing.

is that many nonbelievers of many religions continually come up with earthshaking revelations that the believers have been dealing with for centuries.

I've been seeing complaints about Biblical inaccuracies for years that amuse me, but since 9/11 I've been seeing an interest in Islam that also amuses, and sometimes scares, me.

Pulling scary phrases out of the Koran seems to be the fad now, and without understanding the Commentaries, or how most Muslims actually live by those phrases and their contexts just causes trouble.

Getting back to Christianity for a moment, every New Testament scholar is aware of the contradictions between the synoptic gospels and John. They are also aware of the massive bookburning going on when Gnostics and other "heretics" were being crushed, and are fully aware that there was much early letter writing going on besides Paul's.

However, the way it works is that what we have left of the early writings is all that we have and the theologians have to dig through it and interpret meaning from these scraps.

This makes, for most Christians, the religion a living one and easy to update as times change.

Most, but, unfortunately, not all.