the fifi organization

Sun 30 Nov 2008

---

332 Responses to “FIFI HISTORY 6: EVERYBODY SHOULD LOVE EACH OTHER AND LIVE IN PEACE AND HARMONY”

Comments:

1. Ericsays:
   
   February 21st, 2009 at 1:09 am

   Eighty floppy discs–just think about it. That would be equivalent to almost 150MB! Can you imagine how many discs that would take TODAY?

   ======

   Re: Evil Dairy

   Holy Crabcakes! I haven’t heard this in so long. I only had a tape of this and all my tape decks have finally succumbed to planned obsolescence. You know, like in “Blade Runner?” I am rather surprised at how it sounds as well. I mean, there are the still-embarrassing errors and all. I also like this one a lot. My one problem to this day is the length.

   The music portion, at eight minutes, could easily have been about five or six minutes and far more listenable. This was one problem with our “Abbey Road”-style of pre-production. Somewhere between my writing the music down and Jason getting the rhythm tracks down on 1/2-in. tape, the song gained an extra few measures. I’m not sure, but my latest estimate has been about 128 measures to be exact. This resulted in WAY too much application of Page’s Principle of Repetition: “If you play a cool riff over and over and over and over, you can kill a lot of dead space.” I still remember when we were actually recording this song and I first realized how far apart the verses were going to be…I still get that sickening chill. This is probably why the guitarist sounds a little tired at the end. You try some twenty or thirty takes of that song. I also like Jason’s vocal interpretation of our Dairy Saga’s Genesis. Very nicely done.

   ==============

   All I have to say about things we may have sung or done that might permanently inhibit one from living the pain- and discomfort-free life to which we are all entitled, is that we were trying to portray two morons in the worst band in the world. You know, like Spinal Tap? The thing is, we started this idea before Tap had come out. Unfortunately, we were a bunch of kids in suburban Seattle, while Tap’s member were all accomplished comic actors and writers, thanks to their connections in the media, and we all know what THAT means. They got the backing for their little project, and we had to figure it out ourselves. Tap sings a song about big bums, we sing about the plight of Africa, from the viewpoint of a couple of stupid musical hacks who grew up in consumerist America. What could be worse than not having jetskis, or lacking the convenience of a next-day, drive-through photo processing center? I think it came out quite on-spot. If this offends you, I mean…Jason, did you actually have people tell you this was offensive??

   ==========

   Movement 1:

   The exact words are “Ich bin ein hund. Ich bin ein rose hund. Pas auf! Ich bin ein gross, rose, Deutsche-spreche hund! Woof.” (“I am a dog. I am a pink dog. Watch out! I am a big, pink, German-speaking dog! Woof.”)

   Movement 2:

   What I always loved about this was the mega-slow vocal track. Jason was trying so hard not to laugh as he read the lines. The painful sob at the end is actually Jason cracking up.

   Movement 3:

   The mandolin was still strung right-handed, but because it is tuned just like a violin, I could still play it like a guitar, sort of. It was really simple. Ever since I first picked this up from Dan, I wanted to put it on a song all distorted and what-not. The only guitars on this are the solo (and the little rhythm behind it) at the end. Everything else is mandolin.

   I have always loved the ending! But it doesn’t seem to work right on my player, which is very disappointing.

   Movement 4:

   I have always considered this one of my favorite fifi tunes. So goofy, but still fun. As simple as it all is, it was actually quite a project to put together, some couple dozen tracks or something, all for your comedic enjoyment. I have always liked the total blowoff solo, too.

   Movement 5:

   I don’t think we ever actually did Neil Diamond at F.A.R.T.S. I think that was performed at F.A.R.T.S. according to the critically acclaimed rock bio, “Fifi: A Band.” (Now available! Ask for details!)

   That song’s performance at F.A.R.T.S. has been disputed by several experts on F.A.R.T.S., and no extant copy of F.A.R.T.S. contains any reference to this song’s existence. Several F.A.R.T.S. probes have been conducted by reputable universities and research organizations. So far, no evidence has come to light supporting the Neil Diamond F.A.R.T.S. theory. I bring this up not only because I feel that absolute accuracy is important wherever possible, but also because, as a father of two young boys, I like to mention F.A.R.T.S. as often as possible.

2. Ericsays:
   
   February 21st, 2009 at 3:25 pm

   Movement 9:

   Oh, come on! Swirls Cookies? by Grandma’s Cookies? Basically, a chocolate chip cookie with all the chocolate arrayed in a swirl? NO??

   Movement 10:

   Definitely a finalist for Fifi’s Greatest. The lyrics are as deep as the rest of the album.

   If I recall, that is the same model toy phone used later by Reeves Gabrels in Tin Machine.

   Movement 11:

   This is quite possibly the best thing we ever did. Now for a little more clarity on the reverb deal. As for the “idea diffusion” concept, I think the earliest example of this is “Waaaaaay down inside, Wo-man, Yoooouu neeeed it” on Zep’s “Whole Lotta Love.” It has always sounded unintentional there, but why on earth would a band at that level release something like that if it were on accident. Answer: because it sounds cool.

   After much “No, that won’t work” being tossed around, I was finally able to convince Clark it would work. The concept is quite simple, really. If you record on Track 1, then turn the tape around, it will play on Track 16 (on a 16-track, as was in this case). Conversely, Track 16 becomes Track 1; tracks 2 and 15 trade places, as do 3 and 14, 4 and 13, and so on to Tracks 8 and 9. So, we marked where my vocals were recorded (i.e. Tracks 5 and 6, one each for right and left) and made note of two blank tracks (3 and 4). After turning the tape, my vocals were on Tracks 11 and 12 and the blank tracks were on 13 and 14. We then heavily reverbed the vocals and recorded the effect alone onto Tracks 13 and 14. Note that the reverb is echoing a backwards voice, and that reverb is going onto the tape in a way that, once you turn the tape around, will actually PRECEDE the sound that generated it. We then turned the tape back around, panned the two reverb tracks (which are back on Tracks 3 and 4) to hard left and right, and dropped my original vocal tracks (Tracks 5 and 6), leaving my disembodied, anticipatory echoes behind.

   Easy, right?

   Musically, this is mostly Dan’s. If I recall correctly, he had a couple riffs he had been working on, and I suggested we put them together. Eventually, we came up with this.

   Movement 12:

   What a weird way to end a fifty-minute epic! You know, that makes it longer than “Thick as a Brick” by over five minutes? And everybody says Ian Anderson is great. Where is the justice?

   ==========

   As for me, a quick synopsis of what was going on in my life during the project:

   I returned from my thirty-month stint in Germany in October 1991, about six months later than originally planned due to the Gulf War. Recording began almost immediately, but it was all at Jay’s house at this time, so I did what I could at the time, which was probably dream up MORE effects we could pile onto the whole thing.

   I had rekindled my relationship with Faith, who was in Alaska. (NOTE: Never, NEVER, start up an old, failed relationship. With all respect to Faith, it didn’t work before, and we really should have accepted that.) Eventually, she came down and, two weeks later, I received notice that I had two options:

   1. Reenlist and go to Panama in a few months, or

   2. Get your discharge papers NOW.

   Uh, wait. I’m not ready to get out NOW. “OK, let’s get married and go to Panama! It’s the only obvious, mature thing to do.”

   So we got married at Ft. Lewis, where the Filipino kept talking about “Eric and Fate,” which is kind of funny in an ironic sort of way. Problems emerged immediately or, rather, intensified immediately. By the time the Army shipped me out (seven months later), our marriage was in shambles. Needless to say, recording an album, while in one sense a needed escape, was not my top priority. I had hoped it would help me create my greatest work. You know, like “Blood on the Tracks” by Bob Dylan?

   The next thing we knew, our time to record was cut short by my impending departure AND we lost our studio again. I went to Panama, was told I was going it alone, and sat down there for two years. Mind you, it is a beautiful country, and I found Love again (at least for a while), so it wasn’t too bad.

   By the time I got back in December 1994, all was done. I’m glad it was finished, and I think Jason did an excellent job. It is surprising to hear this again after all these years, when so many little things others never hear are finally forgotten. Then only the obvious mistakes show up. Hey, the way I look at it is it’s a pretty good record for a couple guys who had no contract so they could book a month at a time in the studio. That’s all I’ve got to say about that.

3. Ericsays:
   
   February 21st, 2009 at 9:27 pm

   Christopher Hitchens? Really? Now, I must say something about that comment right there. “Further proof that religion poisons everything?” That is a statement of bald prejudice, used by bigots of all kinds against their targets. If you use as an example times when religious people have treated you or others unfairly, then times when they have behaved admirably would be a refutation. But the bigot doesn’t see it that way. When their target refutes the argument, it is either ignored or credited to some other cause.

   Suppose I were to bring up the classic example of this argument: “Black people are lazy.” I now have an ironclad argument against blacks. If one is observed to be acting in any manner remotely remsembling sloth, I say, “See? Further proof that black people are lazy.” When we see a hard-working black man, I simply say, “Well, he probably just got threatened with getting fired” or “So? One moment of work doesn’t change the fact that they’re not lazy!”

   Such statements are, at best, ignorant and, at worst, diabolically dishonest and misleading. I have been your friend all along, even though you have totally rejected my religion. I know you were hurt in a religious context, but that was not the fault of religion, but rather the fault of those who use religion for their own gain. To say religion is evil because evil is done in its name is not logical. Application of such logic would result in everything being wrong.

   Guns? Evil. Guns kill people every day. Bad, bad guns.

   Political views? Evil. Only one view is acceptable, and that is the view of whomever is considering the topic.

   Duct tape? Evil, some people use it to kidnap, torture, rape and kill others.

   And so the argument can go for virtually anything. Of course, Mr. Hitchens has already discredited himself in a debate with a Catholic theologian (I’m thinking Peter Kreeft). He admitted in the course of the debate that he was not really an atheist, but rather was just tired of all the restrictions. Simple translation: “I want to do whatever I want, and to Gehenna with anyone who wants to tell me that what I want to do is wrong. That’s MY job for others!” Which brings us to another topic this little sentence brings up.

   I find it fascinating that those who are now so “enlightened” that they know better than all those silly believers seem to fall into a vicious trap.

   “How,” they ask, “can these religious people claim to know what is right and what is wrong, claiming to have some special enlightenment from God?” What actually irks them, you see, is that these believers will disagree on certain things which vary from person to person, things on which THEY want to be the expert. For one it will be sexual morality; for another it will be obligations to the Creator; for yet another it will be some other matter which one way or another cramps their personal style.

   The solution is simple: regard yourself as the holder of all truth, and condemn the teachings of others that don’t suit you. When challenged on that matter, the de facto judge of all things says, “I don’t know all truth. For example,” and will mention things they admit to knowing little about. Almost without exception, this will be a topic they actually don’t CARE about, but the example makes them (they feel) appear humble and reasonable.

   Far more difficult for the human’s pride to swallow is the admission that there are many things we can look at in life where we thought we knew the truth, but later saw were grave errors in our faulty judgment. Given that, we look for answers outside ourselves. We test the proposed answers (as opposed to finding a reason to reject what we don’t like without testing the reason) and, when all objections fail, we humbly accept that answer as our own. The beauty of such an act allows us the freedom to move on to other questions, but it also helps us to be more charitable to those who do not see as we do, for we understand better how our reason can deceive us.

   As for evils committed by religious people, it only takes a moment to see that one’s actions against a religion’s teachings is the fault of the person, not the religion. But further, look at what the atheist/secular nations have done in their brief existence. The Germans, Russsians, French, and Chinese alone killed untold millions in only portions of the past century; in two of those, the expulsion of religion was one of the major causes of their actions. In Germany, religion was all but abolished with a pseudo-religion with Hitler at its center. The French, who 150 years rallied with “Pas de Roi, Pas de Dieux” (no King, no God) then saw themselves as so righteous in their enlightenment that they could randomly abduct and torture Algerians to “see if they know anything” about the insurrectionists.

   Religion does not poison everything. Self-righteousness poisons everything, with or without religion. Hitchens’ less-than-charitable works are solid proof of that.

4. Jasonsays:
   
   February 23rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm

   Oh, it is so ON! (cracks knuckles in anticipation)

   I’ll readily admit that I used the phrase (“Religion Poisons Everything”) glibly, so let me clarify:

   When I called myself a Christian, and lived my life within that context, I looked upon members of other religions with pity (possibly verging upon contempt). While I would never have claimed that every follower of Islam (or Judaism, or Jainism, or Santeria, etc.) was evil, or that every act performed in the name of those “lesser” religions was inherently evil (even the Third Reich got the trains to run on time and kept the streets swept, right?), I would have argued that members of those “lesser” faiths were sadly deluded, that they had constructed their lives around fantasies and outright lies. I would have argued that even their ostensibly “good” works were tainted by the fact that they were performed in the service of a god (or gods) that simply didn’t exist. I would have further argued that belief in this imaginary god, and allegiance to the allegedly inspired writings of that imaginary god often led otherwise decent people to do unbelievably atrocious things. At that time in my life, I would have said “THEIR Religion Poisons Everything.”

   In fact, I still believe this; I’ve simply expanded my pity/contempt to encompass Christianity, and any other system of belief based on following the edicts of imaginary invisible beings that magically influence our lives. Eric, I’m sure you have similarly rejected the gods of Norse mythology, and the gods of the Aztecs as laughable, superstitious nonsense. I have gradually come to believe that proof for the existence of your god is just as lacking.

   Sadly, you are not the first person to make the reductive assumption that I believe what I believe because my feelings got hurt by some mean Christians and I’m sulking. In fact, you’ve got the story exactly backwards. I started walking this path some time before I left my church, and some time before my parents shunned me. As I began to think more critically about the things I had been taught, those dogmatically-held beliefs collapsed under logical scrutiny. As these beliefs fell away, it became harder for my still-believing parents and friends to tolerate my presence. True, I did not give up the last vestiges of my belief until after several years after leaving my church, and did not declare myself as an “atheist” until recently. You’ll just have to trust me on this, I suppose: My current beliefs (or lack thereof) are simply the logical extension of the questions I started asking 11 or 12 years ago, and the lack of legitimate answers that I found.

   I also hope you have more respect for me than to assume that the only reason for my lack of belief is because I childishly don’t want to follow the rules. That is again reductive, and, frankly, insulting. I no longer believe because I have yet to see any proof that stands up to logical scrutiny. Barring substantial proof, if I could see that there were some tangible benefit to belief in God – for example, if you could prove to me that believers are consistently better people – I **might** go along with the charade anyway as a useful, if faulty, social construct. Sadly, such proof is not forthcoming. In fact, personal experience (including an honest assessment of my OWN behavior when I was a Christian) and a brief glance over my world history books and a quick look around the world as it stands today lead me to precisely the opposite conclusion. Anyway, you should know that to denounce someone’s (allegedly) base “motive” for a particular statement or belief is a poor substitute for grappling with the argument itself.

   I think you misunderstand atheism in the same way that most Christians (including me, 20 years ago) misunderstand it. To say “I am an atheist” is not the same as saying “I am the repository of all knowledge.” When I say “I am an atheist” (and, I dare say, when Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins, says it), I am saying, “I have seen no convincing proof for the existence of God. Beyond that, nothing in the world that I observe necessitates the existence of God. Beyond that, belief in this unproven, unnecessary God appears, to me, to be manifestly unhealthy, and the source of all kinds of misinformation and oppression. Therefore, barring some amazing yet-to-come revelation, I choose to live my life based on what I see around me, rather than basing it on the allegedly inspired writings of an invisible man.”

   So far in your comment, you have indirectly called me a “bigot,” accused me of staggering intellectual arrogance, and have portrayed me as a sulky child who doesn’t want to believe in God because it’s too hard, or because my feelings got hurt. Sounds like you’ve read that list, attributed to Schopenhauer, of 38 ways to bamboozle your opponent in a logical argument (impugn his motives, angrily argue against a point he didn’t make, etc.)

   You’re going to have to work a bit harder to prove to me that more people have been killed **in the name of** atheism (not simply acts commited BY people who may or may not have believed in God) than **in the name of** some religion. I don’t think the history books will back you up on that. Also, citing the examples of the evil things some proclaimed atheists have done (the French torturing Algerians), you fall into the same trap of which you accused me. e.g. “Jason is an asshole, and Jason is an atheist, therefore: all atheists are assholes” is a poorly-constructed syllogism. As far as I am aware, the French-Algerian war was a case of colonialist imperialism resisted by native peoples (aided by some French citizens of conscience), which had nothing to do with trying to impose atheism on anyone, or wiping out people who refused to convert to atheism.

   I love you sincerely, man, but this is not the finest showing of your debate skillz. In any case, the comments section of an article (which nobody will read) about our silly band might not be the best place for this conversation…

5. Mattsays:
   
   February 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm

   Okay, I’ll admit right up front that I’m not the most well read, the most intelligent or really, the most equiped to throw my two cents into this argument – so I will just speak to where I am at this time in this moment.

   First: I believe that there is something beyond this mortal coil. This fragile earth. As to speak of miracles or “signs from God” (or others) I still find the birth of a child an amazing thing. Yes, you can scientific that out, but I feel closer to something larger than this world when I stand in a quiet forest or hold a new born baby, or take communion or even pray. Now, yes, that could be construed as endorphins releasing in the brain stem or it could be trapped gas. Whatever it is…I like it.

   The problem that I have with the “God Argument” is that I continue to feel that people, when they refer to God, refer to God in an anthropmorphic way – you know, the old guy in the clouds pulling switches. It’s the image thrust upon us in childhood, in stories (Old and New Testament), used as a way for our parents to control us. I’ve struggled for a long time turning God into energy, into an abstract being, into something that I will never ever EVER comprehend – but would like to be in a relationship with (see comment above about endorphin and/or gas).

   Now, if that makes me crazy. So be it. As for the argument of literal vs. subjective and Bible and Truth and all that, I really have no time for that. I believe that Christ really existed and that he was a way cool dude but was he the sacrifice for my sins? Golly, that I really don’t know. And I struggle every year with the “mumbo-jumbo” parts of the New Testament when it comes to changing water into wine, or raising Lazarus or healing lepers, etc. Instead of that bringing me closer to God in Christ – it instead pushes me farther away because I want more reality than stories that sound like they’ve been padded onto over the centuries.

   So what do I search for in Christ? His love of his fellow man (and woman), his desire for justice for all, his patience, his passion, his anger, his drive.

   As my priest said a couple Easters ago: “We really have no idea if Jesus rose 3 days later and visited the disciples…but we do know SOMETHING happened to change these men from doing nothing to doing something.” Now, Bishop Spong refers to it as, basically, they all came to their senses. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. It is a great mystery but does that really affect where I am today sitting on my fat ass typing this when I should be working?

   Second: The argument that “Religion Poisons Everything.” I realize that Jason is being glib and I don’t take seriously for a moment his comment. That’s his opinion. He’s entitled to it.

   My only comment in regards to a statement like that is: “Interesting.” As much as atheists point to the way religion was used as power over the centuries (and everything comes down to power and control) and people of religion can point to atheists, I choose to look at something more tangible. The lives of:

   Mother Theresa
   Martin Luther King Jr.
   Mahatma Gandhi
   Abraham Lincoln
   Desmond Tutu
   Bono
   Dalai Lama
   and others…

   These are all people who have forged a relationship with God (or Gods), who have tried in their way to change the world for the better – some of them giving their lives in the process. Flawed? Sure. They are all on their journey…the question begs, though, did they accomplish what they accomplished as a result of their faith, or in spite of their faith? Did their assurance of a “Heaven” allow them to take risks they would not have taken if they did not believe in God? Are there equivalent atheists? The most famous athiest I know is Carl Sagan. A great scientist, yes, but is he on par with Mother Theresa? Am I simply comparing apples to oranges? Can I simply even make that argument? Probably not.

   Third: I will be the first one to admit I know nothing and don’t have any answers to anything.

   I have no conclusions. I struggle. What that simply means is that I personally have no dog in this fight. I only know what I am and how I’m doing in this world, flawed and fucked up. My struggle is a deep struggle to find out if it IS just endophins or it IS gas. I choose to seek something outside of myself. Not that I’m on some noble search for truth or redemption, not that I’m on some search for peace and tranquility, but that I can simply be a better person, a better friend, a better lover, a better husband. Do I need religion to become that better? In some ways I think I do.

   Fourth: South Park.

   I know this will sound funny, but I recently watched this 3-Part South Park. I won’t go into details but suffice it to say there is an “imagination land” where all the creatures from our imagination live including Santa Claus, Ronald McDonald, Strawberry Shortcake and Jesus. At the end of the episode Kyle makes the argument that the things that are imaginary are in some ways more real.

   So maybe God is imaginary. Maybe Jesus didn’t really exist. But somewhere, deep inside of me, I feel there is more than what I can see and feel directly in front of me.

   Or maybe it’s just gas.

6. The Fillersays:
   
   February 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm

   “…the comments section of an article (which nobody will read) about our silly band might not be the best place for this conversation…”

   heh heh… It made ME come back.

7. The Fillersays:
   
   February 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm

   You two are an intimidating lot to match words with. I dare not try.

   Except…

   I, too, came to atheism not through some aversion to ordered society and personal responsibility but by considering the most obvious of questions posed by belief in a panoply of apparently non-existent beings. Further, it’s been my experience (since I came to the atheist conclusion 20 years ago) that most like me share a common inability to adopt, without evidence, the religious viewpoint.

   Second, I find many of the values detailed in religious texts and espoused by believers to be dangerous and abhorrent–stoning stubborn children comes to mind, not to mention the whole idea of the “justice” of Jesus taking the punishment for humanity’s sins. Possessed epileptics, transubstantiated crackers, and virgins for martyrs are silly at first glance and disgusting upon the second. Well, maybe not the virgins.

   And, certainly, the religious community has stood as THE barrier to human advancement over the course of the last millennium-and-a-half. From witch hunts to opposition to anesthesia and stem cells, to the opposition to any semi-charismatic worldwide peacemaker (“Kill him! He’s the Antichrist!”) they’ve slowed society’s betterment so that they could cling happily for just another day.

   Ultimately, I might be wrong. I get that. I don’t particularly care, though. I’m comfortable with what I believe in–even in the rare instance that there’s no evidence supporting my belief. The religious have the same luxury of belief (thank heavens?). But the days of atheists cowering in the shadows of the overwhelming world majority are ending. I suspect that, in the cominng decades, there’ll be more like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Toews and, if were lucky, fewer Lindsays, Nostradomuses, Bin Ladens, and Tiltons.

   Oh–one last thing:

   “As for evils committed by religious people, it only takes a moment to see that one’s actions against a religion’s teachings is the fault of the person, not the religion.”

   I seem to recall a certain hippy carpenter telling his buddies to judge the quality of a tree by the fruit it bears. Good advice. He had lots of good advice.

   Kisses!

8. Jasonsays:
   
   February 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm

   A few, hopefully salient, questions:

   Is it possible that the transcendent feeling you have when in a forest, or present at the birth of a child, is simply wonder at the awesomeness of the natural world?

   If it IS possible, is there some other part of that feeling/experience that necessitates the existence of a god?

   Is it possible to perform acts of philanthropy, kindness, or bravery based solely on your observance of the human condition, and your heartfelt desire that all humans receive fair treatment? (I would cite Robin as an example to argue this point.) If it is possible, is there anything else about the actions of the folks you list that necessitates the existence of a god?

   Ooh, Mother Teresa… really? Even though her refusal to sanction the use of birth control or divorce even for the poorest of the poor, and her insistence that non-believers would burn in eternal torment, arguably caused suffering that far outweighed her good works?

   Is Carl Sagan really the only “good” atheist/agnostic you could come up with? Is it possible you missed a couple?

   Finally: Do you **really** not have a dog in this hunt?

9. Keithsays:
   
   February 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm

   Well stated, Jason.

   I was reading Eric’s argument above: “To say religion is evil because evil is done in its name is not logical.”

   But then he says “Guns? Evil. Guns kill people every day. Bad, bad guns.” Taunting the argument.

   Now, lets apply that to his original statement, only replace with ‘gun’: “To say guns are bad because people are shot is not logical.” Sure…guns themselves aren’t killing people, but by their very nature and purpose, they do much harm (and questionable good at best.)

   I would actually say that if something proves itself to be consistently applied for harm, you can start to make some level of assumption about it. Is this biased? Is this discriminatory? I don’t think that is always the case.

   In my experience, guns do more harm than good. It plays out in every schoolyard shooting, every senseless murder, every illegal killing around the world. Do guns serve a purpose at times? Yes. They are used for threats. They are used to control people. Sometimes they are necessary. But on the whole, the harm they do outweighs the good.

   Similarly, religion, in general, is a force that tears people apart. Yes, this is my opinion. Religion segments society, it puts one people’s belief system against another, it creates superiority and inferiority arguments. Even the best-intentioned faith calls upon follows to defend their faith. And in defending, there is a certain kind of offense that comes as well.

   I like a quote that I heard once (which Jason paraphrases above) which was: “An atheist is just somebody who believes about Yahweh the way that any decent Christian believes about Thor, or Ba’al or the Golden Calf. We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has every believed in, some of us just go one god further.”

   My father (who is a deeply religious man) told me a phrase once that has drawn me away from religion ever since: “An unexamined faith is not a faith that is worth having.” You must continually ask yourself questions about your belief system and find out why you truly believe. If there is no basis for believing, then you must reject it.

   I think that has been one of my chief objections all along with the bible…it is a self-fulfilling document that doesn’t truly answer my questions. It kind of says “Believe upon the bible because the bible tells you to believe upon it.” And if I don’t believe? “Well, then you just don’t have faith.” But why should I have faith? “Because the bible tells you to have faith.”

   So…I should have faith because the bible says I should and I should believe in the bible because I should have faith?

   And now…I have a headache. (Oiiii.) Can’t we all just get along?

10. Mattsays:
    
    February 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Yes. I do not have a dog in this fight.

    I simply believe there is a higher power.

    You, and others, don’t.

    Fine by me.

    Feel free to fight it out amongst yourselves.

11. Jamiesays:
    
    February 23rd, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    WOW! Interesting reading… Salient arguments all around. However, I do believe what makes this the hottest topic debated in the history of our history is that all sides have portions of the truth. Portions of the truth can be dangerous indeed!

    My question would be “What do Atheists believe?” I have heard the term bantered around, mostly from atheists, that there are no absolute truths. Jason, am I in the ballpark??? That initial argument, on it’s face, is untrue. To say that there are no absolutes/absolute truths IS an absolute statement! So the logical conclusion is that this statement cannot be substantiated as it is an absolute statement. If there are no absolutes, one can’t base the argument on this “phrase”.

    The argument about guns is silly. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Take away the guns! Ban them all! Put them in a big fire and sing cumbaya! They’ll use knives to kill people. Then sticks, then their bare hands and we are back to the absolute statement, “People kill people.” Their are more responsible, registered gun owners and registered guns than all the handgun violence in America (using local stats, not Ethiopian stats, etc.) per anum.

    Religion is bad. Jesus said as much, which was why he chastised the Pharisees and Saducees and other “religious” leaders who used their power and lofty position to exploit and extort from others. It’s no different today. Priests molesting kids, pastors on TV prophesying if you send them money, and on and on. But for heaven’s sake don’t stop there! All types of people do these types of heinous things, but no one says “he raped her because he’s an atheist!” Put the shoe on the other foot, though, and the argument isn’t that this priest is a sick bastard in need of help, it’s about his religion/religiosity. We all have failings, shortcomings and sometimes sick, twisted perversions. It has nothing to do with our belief system, it has to do with our imperfect disposition. Example…. find for me in the Koran where it says it’s ok to kill yourself and others while doing Allah’s will? You won’t find it. It’s against their religion to kill others or themselves. And so when they commit a suicide bombing in the name of Allah, they do so against their religion, not in the name of or as some sort of enlightenment. And the most important part of it is that they have the choice. Free Will. They can choose to turn their back and walk away. It’s not religion, it’s the choice a person makes. This is a bit disjointed, but a thinking man will understand the underlying point.

    As for all the religious hate talk, ie. gays are going to hell, God doesn’t love fags, etc. (not necessarily in here), Christ was very clear, “Love the sinner and hate the sin.” No where in any bible will you find Christ saying he hates homosexuals. The bible talks about God hating homosexuality. The act, not the person. He hates murder (let’s not debate the definition….maybe another time), not the murderer. He hates lying, not the liar. And on and on. Someone who doesn’t have a faith/particular faith will twist that and say Christians/Muslims/Hindus etc. hate (insert “sinner” here), rather than stating the truth. God hates sin. And likewise, there are many “religious” leaders who use portions of the truth, as stated in my opening stanza, to promote their particular bent. This doesn’t make the faith/religion bad or flawed, it proves and confirms God’s word that ALL have sinned and fall short of His glory.

    I will not argue whether or not God exists. I will argue that the premise that there is no God because you can’t make an absolute statement that there is one is exactly that… an absolute statement. I will use your argument of not being able to make that statement as the very reason that dog can’t hunt is this argument.

    I hope my point was considered, well-made and thought out and you’ll (whoever you are that may be reading this) will contemplate the argument. That is the basis of debate… to hopefully expand one’s view and consider the other side, if ever so briefly. I’ll never try to “prove” the existence of God to you or any other person because I believe one has to come to that on their own. I can share, listen, educate and pray for/with you, but it is true….. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

    This is great stuff! I look forward to more!

12. gidgetsays:
    
    February 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    OMG I really wish I had volume on my computer. There are a few things I would like to say. This entire post is absolutely hysterical. I mean LOL funny. I am not mocking anyone but anyone who grew up with Eric and Jason would be able to imagine there exploits and laugh because you could actually SEE these things going on and their facial expressions while they were happening. I miss you guys so much.
    That being said, religion comment up and coming. I call myself a Christain and maybe that is not the word I should use. I believe there is a God because it makes me feel better to know that when I die I won’t just turn into worm food. That there is a chance that I will see my grandpa again, etc etc. I am dating an atheist. He believes there have been more people killed in the name of GOD than anything else. I agree to a point. I think the “guise” of God has created these wars. The true meaning is POWER. A MAN’S POWER. Lust and greed and the need to control have killed more people than GOD. Of course, if you believe the bible, God killed everyone except for Noah’s family and 2 of each animal at one point and, if you think about it, there is a lot more bad crap happening now than then and we are all still here plus about a kajillion more species.
    Also, if you don’t believe in creatures living on other planets, you must be either scared to walk out your door or filled with ego. If you believe in God wouldn’t it stand to reason that he created other planets too. Wouldn’t it be boring to watch just us. I mean, really? It’s the same BS everyday right?
    So, I live my life as such: I don’t do anything to anyone else that I wouldn’t want doen to me.
    I help people out whenever I can. Sometimes even when I can’t. A friend in need and all that.
    I try not to have regrets (although the past should remain there, it doesn’t always) I believe if you make a mistake and learn from it, then there should be not regret.
    Anyway, thanks for the laughs guys. This is my opinion, for what it’s worth.

13. Jasonsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am

    To Jamie: Well-played sir! But…

    The Koran contains both a (somewhat ambiguous) prohibition against suicide AND direct commands to enslave or destroy the (non-Muslim) infidels. The hadiths (supplementary writings recounting the life of the Prophet) contain numerous exhortations to join the glorious, bloody jihad: “He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief” “Paradise is in the shadow of swords” etc. The Bible contains equally contradictory advice/stories. We’re not supposed to murder, but on the other hand it sure was glorious when we killed every living Canaanite, including the women and children, at Yahweh’s command!

    These internal contradictions, not to mention the self-evidently heinous advice offered elsewhere in the Bible (see Joel’s comment above), leads me to the seemingly inescapable conclusion that it’s not just the adherents, it’s the religion itself that is sick at its very core.

    Finally, you misstate the “beliefs” of the atheists that I know. I would not say that there is no absolute truth. I would say that I’m continually searching for verifiable truth, or a truth that at least holds up to reasonable logical scrutiny. So far – and believe me, I’ve done my fair share of reading on the topic – nobody has offered me anything like that re: the existence of God. In fact, quite the opposite… every avenue of open-minded inquiry leads me to believe that everything we observe is likely the product of naturally-occurring processes, such as natural selection.

    Nothing I see necessitates the existence of God, nobody has offered me reliable proof of God, so… why would I believe? That isn’t an arrogant statement of absolute truth. That’s simply Occam’s Razor in action: Select the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (according to our good friends at Wikipedia).

14. Jamiesays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    I am glad to see that you are continually searching for verifiable truth. It is important to continually examine what we believe and why we believe it. In the absence of that, life is pretty boring and there isn’t much point to why we are here.

    There are several “truths” that are generally accepted about Jesus and no one with any clout denies these things. Oh, sure, we can surf the web and find fringe sites from both sides, but I’m talking mainstream thinkers without some sort of agenda to spew or dull axe to grind. So let’s talk about one of these… Truth #1 – Jesus lived. All major religions accept this and teach this in the context of Jesus being a good teacher, but not Messiah. If that is the case, under their definition of “good teacher” or “rabbi”, is where they place Jesus. However, looking at the evidence would lead one to believe quite the opposite. Jesus either is who he claims to be or he is a blasphemer, heretic, lunatic and every other kind of tick imaginable. I wouldn’t consider someone who is a liar to be a good teacher, nor would I want him teaching me on how to live my life. Now, I have no problem proceeding from that premise in the search for truth. He either is or he isn’t…

    He came because man screwed it up, not because God did. He came to restore the relationship, not confuse people. A question I have often pondered…. because we all want proof… If I had lived during Jesus’ time and SAW and WITNESSED with my OWN eyes, would I believe? Many didn’t. Many did. At some point in time if what the bible says is true happens, the rapture (don’t argue the term, I know it’s not in the bible. It’s a commonly accepted term describing an event in the bible…) will occur and people will vanish from the face of the earth inexplicably. And even then, a pretty miraculous occurance one would think, people will still not believe. Am I one of those people? We clamor for evidence that we won’t accept even if we find it. We have a natural bent to explain things away. I’m quite certain when the event occurs it will be blamed on an alien invasion or some other equally absurd ascertion. Not to get side tracked, but seriously…. if aliens existed we would have made contact by now. Think about it rationally. We gaze at the stars and wonder, “Is there anything out there?” Wouldn’t one conclude they would do the same thing? We search, they search. And upon finding “alien” life on earth after searching all these years they refuse to make contact?! Really… would we do that? No! We’d try to communicate with them and so would they. No aliens, sorry. And now back to our program….

    The point is we say we want facts. We get evidence and dismiss it away as nonsense. Both sides, mind you. We will believe what we want to believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary. It comes down the the central person of Christ. Who is he? Is he who he claims to be? How do we prove or disprove it? Did the miracles he perform in front of thousands do enough to sway us or was it a parlor trick? After his resurrection and appearing to more than 500 people, was their recollection fuzzy or a fanciful exaggeration because they missed their dead friend?

    I am more than willing to explore all of these with everyone reading/responding as long as we keep it civil. No name calling, etc. If someone makes a good point and it has some merit, we don’t dismiss it as “you’re an idiot with blind faith” or “you’re pagan scum and just want to gratify yourself and live without rules”. I’ve heard enough of that crap over the years and it leads to nothing. I’m talking about thoughtful, meaningful dialogue and the pursuit of truth. And since I primarily know who I’m dealing with and have known you all for a long time, I know that may be difficult for us all. We are all smartasses and enjoy witty bantor. No perfunctory elocution or bloviating allowed… well, maybe a little, just among friends. This means you, Joel! So I guess I’ll start….

    Well, I suppose I already did….

15. Keithsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Thanks for the contribution Jamie.

    You mention the question “What do Athiests believe” and I think it is a valid one. But I would also toss out the idea that the burden of proof is on the other hand…in the religious believers court. Especially when you consider the power of religion in society today!

    Sometimes when I look at the state of religion in the U.S. it makes me think of being a Democrat under the Bush administration. Not only did Bush ignore every argument and complaint against him, he pulled the whole argument so far RIGHT that the LEFT couldn’t even dream of winning the argument, they simply had to do everything they could to pull the conversation back to the middle (and didn’t even do that very well.)

    The argument about guns goes something like this: Yes, if people didn’t have guns they would use knives, then sticks, then bare hands. I don’t disagree. But here is my question… if there is something (like a gun) that makes it SO easy to kill, SO easy to deny a person their life, shouldn’t we take a second look and see if there isn’t a reason to curb it? If organized religion is constantly drawing people into war and conflict, shouldn’t we take a closer look? I mean yes, people could probably righteously kill each other over tax law, for instance, but I wouldn’t exactly say that I could look both in the past and present and find huge examples of accountants going out into the street in a holy jihad.

    I guess to your piece about heinous crimes and their religiousness, you have a point. The only thing I would contend there is that if a religion sets people up for failure, can it not be blamed a little? By telling Catholic priests that they cannot have sex (like every other human being), aren’t we kind of setting them up for failure? You say it has nothing to do with our belief system, that it is a human shortcoming or a person perversion. I’m not sure that I buy that if our belief system tells us we should do things that are contrary totally with human nature.

    As far as the ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin thing’, it’s old news. I like the quote from Pope Pius XI: “Zeal against the sin readily becomes zeal against the sinner… zeal against the sinner soon throws off its mask and shows itself for what it really is, an assault, under the pretense of protecting society from a single social group, upon the very basis of society, an evocation of limitless hatred, a license for every form of violence, rapacity, and disorder, and an engine against religion itself.”

    As to the existence of god, I do like the quote by Bertrand Russell in the 50s: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” Take it for what you will.

    Fun stuff!

    Now…back to work.

16. Mattsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Okay, just to clarify…

    Are we talking Religion, Faith or Belief?

    It is clearly obvious to me, at least, that everything comes down to power and control. Whether you choose to use Religion, Atheism, Sexism, Racism, Homelandism (I’m sure there’s a proper word for it – you know, the USA is THE BEST! mentality), etc. It all comes down to asserting one’s power and control over another. And, yes, Religion has used it’s “power and control” for many centuries – mostly for the worse.

    When I told my father that I worked with a Hindu woman he was concerned that I “save her soul.” That it was my CHRISTIAN DUTY. So I had to denigrate her faith and tell her she’s foolish and to look at my bright shiny faith and tell her she’s going to hell unless she accepts Jesus Christ, yadda, yadda, yadda….

    Jason’s comment about how “Similarly, religion, in general, is a force that tears people apart. Yes, this is my opinion. Religion segments society, it puts one people’s belief system against another, it creates superiority and inferiority arguments. Even the best-intentioned faith calls upon follows to defend their faith. And in defending, there is a certain kind of offense that comes as well.” Seems a bit absurd in my opinion due to the fact that I didn’t put my belief system over my co-worker’s or over Jason’s belief system or over Keith’s or anyone else’s. If you so deem to ask me to defend my faith that doesn’t mean I have to denigrate your faith in the process. I can accept your faith (or lack thereof) as your choice and respect you and love you for it – much as I ask you to do the same to me.

    What this all finally comes crashing down into is the simple phrase: “What do you believe?”

    You can argue the existence (or lack of existence) of God. You can trot out historic arguments until the cows come home. You can spew creeds, pick apart arguments, shine lights upon inconsistencies, twist words, untwist words, religion v. society, society v. religion, roe v. wade, Pope Benedict, Bishop Spong, Jerry Falwell, Old Testament v. the Koran, the Torah v. the Church of Scientology, I don’t really give a shit. Honestly. Because all it is – is a vain attempt to create power over another. To create an argument so your team WINS.

    But if you looked a person in the eye and said: How does your faith (or your atheism) affect your day-to-day to day life? Do you believe in equality for women, gays, blacks, poor? Is that belief born out of a desire for justice, or because it’s what Jesus would have done? Does it really matter, in the long run?

    When I was in High School and witnessed the continued tête-à-tête between you and Grace I would just shake my head because I knew it wasn’t an argument either of you would win. I finally read a pamphlet about “How to talk to a Jehovah’s Witness” and it clearly stated in the pamphlet that you could not “argue the Bible” because they were really good at that, what you had to get to was what they believed and challenge them on that.

    If the argument isn’t so much: “Do you believe in God?” But “what do you believe?” – I’m pretty sure we would all find an amazing amount of similarities. Because I can tell you honestly that I’m an atheist to the God that Jerry Falwell and my father worshiped.

17. Jamiesays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    Something to view to set up the discussion:

    http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelP1006

18. Jasonsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    RE: Jamie’s last post. You’re taking this conversation into a whole new arena, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But before we go into the historicity of Jesus’ miracles, I would like to bring y’all back to one of my initial points, which still hasn’t been answered to my satisfaction: Do you believe in the gods of Norse mythology? Aztec? Greek? If not… why not? Your answer to that question is likely similar to my answer re: Why don’t I believe in Yahweh? e.g. No good evidence for his existence, and plenty of evidence that appears to support a simpler alternate explanation: Yahweh (like Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Thor, and Superman) is a product of the awesome and creative human imagination.

    Now, I’m willing to stipulate that there was a charismatic man named Jesus, on which the Jesus stories in the Bible and other texts is based. But when you talk about 500 eyewitnesses observing his miracles… You must be aware that there are books too numerous to mention, which speak of the miracles performed by various holy men around the world, in religious traditions that are diametrically opposed to Christianity. Right? So… what makes these claims about Jesus’ miracles superior to all of those other spurious claims?

    I am in agreement with you that we humans tend to accept evidence that supports our view, and reject evidence to the contrary. I know that I certainly did that during my 30 years as a Christian (and today, though I hope to a lesser degree). HOWEVER – you haven’t actually given me “evidence” of anything, which I could then accept or reject. You simply threw out the blanket statement that we often reject good evidence… and then left me dangling! WTF? Give me some objective, substantial evidence that does not originate in the propaganda documents of the religion itself, and I’ll try to honestly consider it!

    Honestly, the existence of Jesus as a man who did this or did that – while interesting – is a bit wide of the initial question (well, the question in my mind, anyway, and it’s my damn site):

    Religion: Good or Bad?

    And since, in most cases, religion pre-supposes the existence of some or other divine being, we arrive at the sub-question:

    Can anyone offer me some substantial proof for the existence of this invisible divine being?

    Or ANY invisible divine being?

    And when I say “substantial proof” I do NOT mean:

    Because the Bible/Koran/etc. says so
    Because believing gives me comfort
    Because I just KNOW it in my heart
    etc.

    Oh, and the next time you say something like, “Don’t debate the term ‘rapture’” I’m kicking you out of the pool.

    Also, Matt:

    I didn’t say “…religion, in general, is a force that tears people apart.” That was Keith.

    Also, Matt, to your comment: “You can argue the existence (or lack of existence) of God …I don’t really give a shit. Honestly. Because all it is – is a vain attempt to create power over another.”

    I’d have to disagree with you there. The person trying to get power over you is the person placing a holy book in your hands and holding out a collection plate, the person claiming to have a magical “in” with an invisible being who, incidentally, has the power to torture you for eternity if you displease him.

    The atheist, on the other hand, is saying: “You don’t have to listen to that guy! You’re smart enough to make your own decisions!”

    Matt, I like your comments about “what do you believe in” vs. “what do you believe” but… don’t you see that you’re making my arguments for me? e.g. You don’t need religion to tell you that all humans are equal. You don’t need religion to teach you the “Golden Rule.”

    The atheist says: All you need is your wonderful mind!

19. Jasonsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Oh, and I take back what I said about this not being the best place for a theology debate. This is the PERFECT place for a theology debate!

20. Jamiesays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    GOOD QUESTIONS! GREAT COMMENTS! KEEP IT COMING!

    To Keith:

    Burden of proof… If God exists in the way the bible talks about, He existed before the atheist. Wouldn’t that precursor indicate that the burden of proof lies with the atheist? Hmmmm…. No, the burden of proof lies with everyone. And that is the context of my writing. We all find common ground, we work from there to find empirical evidence and make our own reasoned deductions. More on evidence after the commercial intermission….

    I would argue that “organized religion” doesn’t continually draw people into wars, but rather “disorganized” religion. I don’t blame Muslims or Islam for 911, I blame some whacked out nut jobs who were pussies and couldn’t accept responsibility. We did this for Allah! Bull! You did it for yourself and your skewed and twisted perversion of the Islamic faith. History on my side, I’d say the vast majority of Muslims don’t strap C4 to themselves and go BOOM!

    Love the sinner, hate the sin…. It’s an individual thing. Show me a guy who genuinely does this and I’ll show you another “religious” whack job that totally blows it. He’s a dick-head, whether he’s “saved” or not. It’s his nature and personality, not God’s. And it’s certainly not what Christ said or did in the bible.

    The teapot illustration is silly (not you, the observation!) I’m talking about finding facts we can substantiate, not something Russell said when he was smoking his front yard in the 50’s. Empirical evidence…. Does anyone doubt that Plato, Socrates or Homer lived? We have evidence, correct? We have no original materials that they produced, but copies of the originals. We don’t debate the reality of it. We have roughly 600 copies of Plato’s work ranging over an approximate 1,000 year period. We have roughly 50 of Socrates and only 5 of Homer’s “The Iliad”. Again, none are original and we have no doubt they lived. We have over 5,000 copies ranging across a 30 period beginning 5 years after Jesus’ death on the cross. Eyewitness accounts. Enough to convict in a court of law. We can document this evidence all day long and it does support that there is a creator. But will you believe the evidence?

    Matt:

    Good stuff, thanks for chiming in! We are talking about the existence of God. Does He/doesn’t He and how can we prove/disprove He exists.

    I would disagree that it all comes down to control. For some, yes. For most, no. And that goes for all religions.

    “When I told my father that I worked with a Hindu woman he was concerned that I “save her soul.” That it was my CHRISTIAN DUTY. So I had to denigrate her faith and tell her she’s foolish and to look at my bright shiny faith and tell her she’s going to hell unless she accepts Jesus Christ, yadda, yadda, yadda….”

    Notice you wrote what YOUR father told you to do/say, not what THE father told you to do or say. No where in scripture does it tell us to ram our faith down other’s perverbial throat. You had the opportunity to reach out and love her right where she was at and find some common ground. And then you blamed your dad for not doing what you should have done, ie “he told me to…” Let me give an example… “Jason, you ignorant slut! You are an idiot for not believing! Satan is warming up an oven for you as we speak!” I used Jason because I know him and he can take it for the sake of example. (Love you, man!) What I just did was attack him, put him down, make him feel small, put him on the defensive and basically make him cringe everytime he sees me. I was a dick-head! He will never open up to me again about anything, let alone God or religion. It’s all in the approach. Jesus never said to act that way or treat people that way. Talk to them in love and genuinely care for people. It’s never about winning or losing. When that is the case everyone loses. I lost the opportunity to share with Jason. I lost the chance to get to know him better. He lost out because he’ll never get to share with me. It’s not about winning, it’s about giving a damn about the other person.

    On your last point of the “God of Jerry Falwell or my dad’s god”, I couldn’t help you there. He/she/it/sheep has to be personal to you. It’s about relationship, not control. In searching for truth and facts, we find common ground and go from there. It sounds like you aren’t opposed to God or the existence of one therein, rather just not that God. It’s a good place to be!

    ALL:

    I’ll guarantee you there are 2 certainties in life. #1 – your born…. and #2 you’ll die! I’d stake my life on it and win everytime! Along that timeline we go through stages, not the least of which is the BIG question, “Is there a God?” Once we come to terms with that we can move to the next logical step, Step 2 “If there is a god why do bad things happen to good people? Why are there wars? Why did my parents get divorced? Why was my little sister raped when she was 5? Why does my dad hate me?” All valid questions and worth considering. We can use the bible to answer most, but I’ll admit we won’t and can’t know everything. It’s just reality. That’s the way it is. If we can agree we can move on to the next step which is a deeper commitment to God and finally a 4th step, Growth (spiritual).

    When we stop and take the emotional part out of it, it’s easier to look at “facts” that prove or disprove our beliefs. I look forward to more questions, comments, rants, vulgarious explosions and the like.

    Until then, keep your tips up and pointed down the hill…..

21. Jasonsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Amen to that. Those plastic bags are bad for the environment. I agree 100%.

22. Mattsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    To Jamie:

    See my initial comments above after Jason’s comments to Eric. I think you’ll understand where I’m coming from a little better.

    To Jason:

    Your queston of do I believe in a Norse God, or Ba’al or, etc. – I believe that God is energy and hard to quantify. Is He/She “The FORCE?” You know, that binds the Universe together? There! I believe in George Lucas’s image of God.

    My concept of God is too abstract to put into any sort of box…but I do feel/believe/think that there is something beyond all this.

    As for the “person getting power over you is the one holding the book, or the collection plate…” I get that, but I’ve never handed you a book, or asked you to donate to my church (at least that I can recall). And as for my faith (Episcopal) we’re certainly far more open to abstract concepts, differing thoughts, other types of realities than your more fundamentalist faiths.

    OF COURSE you don’t need religion to tell you that all people are created equal. That was never my argument. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you or Keith or anyone else being an atheist. It’s not like you haven’t looked at the menu and made the choices you’ve made. My problem is with blanket statements and generalities that lump my faith into the equivalent of a Robert Tilton or Pat Robertson or Osama Bin Laden or ***shudder*** George W. Bush.

    So to get back to the questions at hand:

    “Is Religion Good or Bad?”

    My answer: Depends.

    “Does God exist?”

    My answer: You have to figure that out for yourself.

    “Paper or Plastic?”

    My answer: Paper.

23. Jasonsays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    RE: That Lee Strobel video… arrrgh.

    First of all, he uses the classic obfuscation technique of impugning my **motives** for believing something, rather than offering anything to show me why my beliefs are incorrect. (Granted, I haven’t read his book; sadly, nothing in this video makes me eager to do so.)

    Secondly… given that I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian, and gradually, over the course of a friggin’ DECADE, rejected my former beliefs as absurd – DESPITE the incalculable personal cost to me (loss of my entire community of faith, circle of lifelong friends AND my parents)… I resent the suggestion that MY beliefs are based solely on my biases or on my alleged “need” for doubt or controversy.

    Bullshit, dude.

    I arrived where I am after painful soul-searching and at great personal cost. If there was any way I could justify continued participation in my former community of faith… I would much rather have stayed there, with my friends, with my parents. My conscience, though, would not allow it. Much to my chagrin.

    Finally, all of Strobel’s exhortation to examine and avoid personal bias was… er, somewhat undercut by his reference to the Jesus Seminar as a “far-left-wing cabal” of scientists “pontificating” on the New Testament. Nope, no bias there, Lee…

    I repeat: Arrgh.

24. Jamiesays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Matt:

    Thanks for directing me to points northward. I had to scroll up and re-read your initial entry. That helped put it into context. I may have lumped you into the “Aggie”/Atheist group unwittingly. Sorry!

    Jason:

    Sorry for not answering the question. I do believe that I ventured across the demarkation line of the shallow end of the kiddie pool and into the shark invested vestibules of the murky deep. Don’t debate the term rapture with…. er…. oh, you already covered that. “Did you know there was a pool under the floor right under where George Bailey is dancing?” Don’t throw me out! I beg of you!

    Back to the program…. Your initial question, “Do I believe in (other gods)”. No, I do not. I have studied the origins of many “gods” which can be traced back through the bible, as different people/families/etc chose to depart from Yahweh and devise their own plans/gods. Notice that all world religions have a hint of the “truth”, subjective as that may be, and that they all have nearly identical dogma/doctrine/theology. Yet only one claims to be the only way and only one had a prophet/teacher/rabbi/saviour who claimed divinity. All the other religion’s leaders/originators all died and remain in the ground. This is a long-winded answer to your question, but I couldn’t very well say “no” and leave it at that. That wouldn’t be sporting of me!

    The original question “Religion: Good or Bad?” I think I summed that up before the same way Christ did. Religion in and of itself is bad. People do use it to gain power and wealth, not to mention an air of superiority. However, entering into a relationship with God is entirely different. When you get married, you enter into a relationship. If you never spent any time with your spouse, never communicated with them, never gave them any attention and never talked about them I would say you didn’t have a relationship or were lying about being married. Going to church on Sunday does not make one more “religious” than the next guy. That’s just something to do. Get up, shower, shave, put on some slick duds, sing some songs, eat the cookies and have some coffee and go home. That’s ritual and has nothing to do with relationship. But in a relationship it’s personal.

    I’ll stay off the Jesus topic for now, but re-read my point above. He lived and died and no one debates that, except maybe Joel. Must still be locked up in the Pen for the day. Have they paroled you yet for the night? Come out and play, Joey!!! Anyway, he either IS who he claims to be or he ISN’T. There is no middle ground with Jesus. He can’t be a good man or good teacher. He is either deity or a liar. As for other men who perform miracles, none claim deity, only that they are prophets, etc.

    PROOF??????????? You didn’t offer me any first, so I returned the favor! The only offering of “proof” I served up was that we have documents, more than enough, that can authenicate the existence of Jesus and eyewitness accounts of his life, wonders and signs. I didn’t think you wanted me to go through an entire evangelical revelation to convince you of anything in our first few entries. I’d also like to hear what others think/feel/believe as well and why they feel that way. I think we are going down the right path.

    And I always choose plastic! It never makes it to a landfill. That propaganda/crap is forced on us to “make” us recycle and charge us more for the recycling bins out front! A friend of mine is the regional manager for LRI and we take our Cub Scouts every year to the dump to learn about it all. What a freakin’ scam! It all gets seperated by hand and I ensure that some guy has a job making $18/hr! Stop seperating! Throw it all in the can and let God, er, Miguel sort it out!

25. Jamiesays:
    
    February 24th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    Yes, I agree… bias all around. Except Len Bias…. bad joke!

    I would like to talk to you on a more personal note. I am disappointed to hear, granted one-sided, that you have lost all of these contacts, friends and family members. It goes back to what I said before about loving the sinner (of which we are all) and hating the sin. We don’t stop loving or caring about people in our lives because our opinions and beliefs differ… at least we shouldn’t. I don’t know all the story nor is an open forum probably the best place for it. I have alot of friends and family that I have remained in contact with despite our diffences. You knew me in high school. It was called “high” for a reason! I was always drinking and partying (not the whacky tobacky) and so were all of my friends. I came to faith in July of 1989. I had always believed in God, but didn’t know what that meant or looked like. And I did change. Joel will remember. He even came to church once with me and asked some beligerant questions of our pastor! Nice… So I understand how excited we can get, however I’ve never understood how someone can read the bible and review the teachings of Christ and “live” as He did and then act in the opposite manner. It comes down to a condition of the heart. I am sorry to hear of your loss. It’s not right, but I do understand it happens. It’s painful and real and it’s crappy. And I am truly sorry that you’ve had to deal with it.

    No need to buy the book. He has plenty of “freebies” on the website to peruse. Some useful, maybe. But I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t biased. I find it hard to believe that anyone could truly be unbiased when it comes to religion/God. Not much room for neutrality. But useful as a tool of research, just as an atheist site would be useful to me to check out (I have been…)

26. Jasonsays:
    
    February 25th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Matt – just to clarify a couple of things you referred to in your last post:

    Nope, you never tried to push your religion on me. If there was any pressure, it was probably in the opposite direction (me trying to convert you)! But that wasn’t my point. My point was this: It’s not fair to say that everyone is motivated by power and control. Atheists are not trying to gain control or power over believers; atheists are urging believers to REJECT the power and control that the church, and their invisible god, holds over them.

    Before the U.S. Civil War, were abolitionists motivated simply by power or control? I would venture to say not. Similarly, atheists see untold millions in slavery to a non-existent god and his self-appointed earthly representatives, and they dream of a future where those millions are free of this superstitious bondage.

    Secondly, yes, I know you never claimed that we “need religion to tell you that all people are created equal.” Of course you didn’t, because that would be absurd! My point was this: You and I are saying the same thing – religion needn’t be the source of our moral/ethical beliefs. In fact, what the Bible and Koran teach is occasionally abhorrent. Therefore, we rely upon our own sense of right and wrong, based on our observance of the world around us. Therefore… why do we need religion, again?

    And Jamie: You don’t get to simply say, “that teapot example is silly” and dismiss the argument that easily. In order to discredit it to the satisfaction of myself or other like-minded folk who find such thought experiments compelling, you’re going to have to grapple with it honestly and directly.

    Also to Jamie: I don’t think anyone thus far in this thread has proclaimed that a man named Jesus did not exist. I’m quite aware that there are independent sources which refer to such a man, who may have been a leader among the Jews. The only bit we take issue with is the supernatural aspect of that story, which is a fairly direct gloss on numerous other such “messiah” stories which preceded it. If the only proof you have of this supernatural part of the story (he was divine in origin, he raised folks from the dead) is the telling of the story itself… that’s not going to be sufficient for me.

    I do promise to look at some of Lee Strobel’s stuff. When I do, I’ll let you know what I thought.

    I have probably spent quite enough time on this thread, so I’ll bow out now (or I’ll try). Feel free to continue without me, however. And thank you to everyone who posted such thoughtful comments. This has been exciting and even enlightening!

27. Jensays:
    
    February 25th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Ahem.

    It seems that I have come late to the party, but hey, I was camping. I was reading along on my Google phone, it’s too hard to type on that tiny keyboard, so I waited till I came home to weigh in on this.
    First of all.. this conversation is so important, so scary, so personal, .. I am relieved that everyone has (mostly) kept snarkicism to themselves, and preachiness to a minimum. It’s much more fun to talk about these things when no one is being a dick head, as Jamie (who are you Jamie???) so eloquently pointed out.
    I’m not even sure why I am posting- as I am not providing proof, creating an argument, or adding enlightenment to these eternal questions. I do however, feel drawn to share- and comment on some of the above. My life has been a strange spiritual/religious/atheistic journey- starting with being raised Lutheran, becoming a fervent “Born Again-er” as a teen, converting to the Jehovah’s Witnesses in my 20’s, then leaving the witnessess and all of organized religion behind for years. Recently, one of my children was diagnosed with a disease that requires constant supervision of his body, and frequent intervention with hormones to keep him alive. (Type 1 Diabetes, y’all.)
    As a resulf of this diagnosis, and the resulting life changes, soul searching, etc. I have come to a new place in terms of my “atheism”.. I call it “open-ism”. I don’t believe in the traditional god anymore. I don’t believe in any specific goddess, or rabbi, or prophet. But I have changed. I have taken down my wall that requires empirical evidence, and simply became open to intervention, help, support, or comfort, if something cosmic wanted to provide, then sign me up.

    My opinion on religion: I agree with Keith and Jason. You DO have to look at the whole history of events, influence and make an informed decision on whether it is helping or hurting our human race. You can find evidence for both- but what I have seen so far, is that it is an improper use of spirit.
    The driving force in each of us to “do good” or “help others” is often squashed in a religious context, as we are encouraged to withold these most basic forms of love, dependant upon whether the object of the action believes as we do, has sex like we do, or eats/prays/concieves/imagines like we do. That is my greatest sadness from my religious days, how MANY people I judged, accused, pitied, scorned- but never helped.
    It’s why I left religion- I felt is was getting in the way of the huge amount of love I have in my heart for humankind.

    So for me, Religion=bleckky.

    Heart? Kindness? Non-judgemental support? These things I can get behind.
    I have come to a place where the Jesus arguement is not my focus, becasue I no longer beleive that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD.
    I believe that there is essence of truth where there is essence of love.
    I believe that where there is judgement and shame, division and closed minds, there can be no god in that.
    I don’t think I beleive in any currently held concept of god.
    Certainly not a “He” certainly not white, certainly not found in any particular church or religion.

    But since my journey with Logan (my son) I have realized, that part of my NON belief, did have to do with hurt, as both Eric and the “Jesus video man” pointed out. I experienced a similar hurt as Jason (to a much lesser degree, as my family was not involved) when leaving the witnesses. To be exiled, reviled, feared- just because I wasn’t sure if I believed every stinking thing they believed! I built a wall, I will admit it. I did not know it, but I do thing that we have to exaine our unknown bias in looking at this question.
    The thing that has changed for me, is just that I have taken down the wall. I no longer need someone to scale it with proof- I just took it down, and am waiting. Not really looking, but not being blind.
    That is why I am drawn to this conversation.. it reminds me of the lunch table in high school where we had Mormons, Catholics, Born agains, Witnesses, Atheists, and more- all presenting our viewpoints over PB and J.

    Not that you are asking, but I also relate to “The Force” style of acknowledgement of higher order or higher good. My husband calls it “The Ether”, I have called it “The
    Great Spirit”, and I don’t know just yet all that I think about it. It could just be wonder at the natural world, but I will leave the gate open in case some kind of god is there.
    I can relate to Matt’s confusion and appreciate his honesty about it.
    I am not really interested in whether Jesus was a real guy or not, or was god or not. What I am interested in, are the parts of his life where he reached out to his fellow man, where he was an example of activism, of exposing untruth in systems of religion, of drawing people back to wonder. I have the exact same feelings of appreciation for Buddha, for Ramtha, for my neighbor.

    I am reading a great book right now, that some of you might enjoy.. by Gary Zukav, who wrote “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”. He is primarily a scientist, but in this book addresses the concept of spirit, of “good”, of Karma, of heart, and reverence for life. It’s called “The Seat of the Soul” and so far, is the closest I’ve ever come to reading in a book a reflection of what I believe- so check it out, all you checkers.

    Much love and props to all for the excellent arguments, I so appreciate your invite to read along, Jason!

28. Jamiesays:
    
    February 25th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Jen:

    That was well thought out and very honest. As for me or who I am (who are you?) I went to high school with Jason. If you are the “ex”, then you will remember me as Jamie Evanoff, hardly the spiritual sleuth back then as I am now. If you are not, my apologies to you and Rednerb!

    Jason:

    The reason I said the teapot argument was silly was because it’s the classic “what if” pontification… you know, “what if pigs fly out me arse”. I have no problem examining things for the intellectual exercise, but I had wanted to keep it to the subject. And since there is so much we can discuss as pertaining to God that is “commonly” accepted/rejected, I felt it better to center the conversation there. Not to impune Mr. Russell’s sirly observation…

    ALL:

    I’ll tackle all the comments in one short, fell swoop. I have much more “proof” we can discuss as it pertains to Jesus if we all want to stroll down that lane. However, my intent was not to try and make an argument for or against him just yet, but rather to establish some common ground. If one reads the bible and the words attributed to Jesus, we see he makes some very bold, troubling and if true, divine claims. As I’ve stated above, he either is who he claims to be or he’s a whack job. That was the pretext for our forthcoming rational conversation about religion, god/gods, etc.

    I have really enjoyed this so far and have appreciated everyone being honest and civil. I’ve heard from several of you about “judgemental, control, hypocritical, etc”. I really have to applaud Jen for being so real, especially when it came to her admission of how she “judged, accused, pitied…” You know, unfortunately, we all do it, whether we have a faith we live out or a credo we live by. When we see the homeless guy standing at the top of the off ramp with a sign in his hands pleading for help, do we say, “oh, he’s just going to buy meth…” or some similar comment? I have, but it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Ususally once the comment leaves my mouth it’s my belief system that reigns me back in. I rarely give them money, but I often give them food or something to drink. I view them as one of God’s kids, someone He deeply loves and who has extreme value to Him. So often we all discard them or others. Since I’ve used Jesus as an/the example before, I’ll use him again. What if we all just did what he taught? What if we all placed value on everyone and realized that everyone has value, purpose and meaning? When we see commercials with scantily clad women we look away or change the channel because that’s someone’s daughter? Or when we have the opportunity to hang around the lunchroom and listen in on the latest gossip, what if we boldly took a stand and told the people involved that what they were doing wasn’t nice or right? A little self-less thought and actions go a long way and it has nothing to do with religion. Still, I don’t believe that doing good is often squashed within a religious context as stated by Jen. After hearing so many of your comments it makes me wonder if you would recognize my church as having any “religion” attached to it and it really befuddles me as to what your churches looked like. By that, I mean where was the love? The acceptance? What or who were they serving?

    If you all want to continue this, post some comments or questions for me. I’ll honestly answer them and we’ll probe possibilities together so we can all get the most out of this discussion. Ultimately, what you believe you will personally own. No one makes anyone accept or reject God. It’s ultimately an individual decision we come to hopefully after careful consideration and deliberate thought.

    And Jen, I will be praying for you son!

    Have a great day and I look forward to sharing and participating more very soon!

    Nice site, Jason… er…. Annette… well, you know…..

29. Korinsays:
    
    February 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    Wow – this is so timely. Thank you all for your respectful, well thought out, riveting posts. I am thrilled to be among such great minds. What a relief! I’ve been hashing out some similar type, um, conversation I’ll call it, with my multicultural studies online class (a requirement). Most of them are much younger and therefore have had much less life to teach them self-control over their emotions (I’m being nice). And mostly I just find myself frustrated, pissed off, and exhausted by the ignorant banter, accusation and name calling. This has been refreshing!
    I have nothing to add to the discussion – most of what I would say was already hit on by Jamie (and some by others), and honestly I’m exhausted by trying to have a similar, um, discussion I’ll call it, with my classmates (How does Robin do it?).
    I will say this: Jason, I agree with your retraction. This was an excellent forum for this conversation! Love to you all!!

30. Mattsays:
    
    February 25th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Just a final thought and I’ll leave the conversation (until later…).

    A response to Jason’s comment: “My point was this: It’s not fair to say that everyone is motivated by power and control.”

    I can equally say it’s not fair say “Relgion poisons everything.”

    What I was saying about “Power and Control” is that simply, when things seem to go “bad” it’s due to the fact that someone (or some religion) is trying to have power or control over someone else.

    Religion should be a way for people to connect and have a relationship with God in a community. It is those times when Religion is intolerant, abusive, controlling, when it skids off the track and simply becomes the evil that it preaches against. Does “Religion poison everything?” I know it was a glib comment used to spark conversation (and boy did it!) and the answer could certainly be “Abusive Religions poison everything.”

    Back to your question of “why do we need religion?” We don’t need religion, we need relationships. We need to reach out of our small boxes we place ourselves and understand the struggles of our friends and common men/women.

    When I look at something like “Prop 8″ it seems abundantly clear that the reason why most people have issues with the gay community is not because the church they go to (or the religion they believe) – but simply that they don’t know anyone who is gay. They’re not in relationship with them. Some of my closest friends are gay (hey Keith!) and I would never think that they shouldn’t have the same rights as anyone else. Whereas my mother who has lived all her life in a pretty sheltered world (along with my father and my brother), it’s far easier for them to not relate or understand the constant struggle in the gay community.

    Did what I just write make sense?

    In all honesty, I think we’re pretty much saying the exact same thing.

    Love ya man.

31. Mattsays:
    
    February 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    In response to my last post about seeking relationships outside one’s comfort zone, there is this recent story:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008719838_journey08.html

32. Jamiesays:
    
    February 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE….

    So let’s start this active debate and the pursuit of truth with some rules. And to do that I need your help. WE need to AGREE on what constitutes as “proof” of God’s existence or lack thereof. I don’t want to spend quality time developing a case only to have someone say at the end, “That’s not good enough, I need more.” So, let me ask some questions.

    1. What kind of “evidence” counts??? What proof will satisfy? Absolute proof, historical proof, philosophical proof, scientific or revelation, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, proof based on preponderance of evidence? What kind of evidence or proof are you looking for? If we can discover this evidence together will it satisfy your questions about the existence or non-existence of God?

    2. A deductive argument? (if, then statement) ie. If man is mortal and Socrates was a man, then Socrates is mortal.

    OBSERVATIONS:

    1. Every effect requires an adequate cause and nothing can be caused by itself. (big bang needs a “big banger”.)

    2. Not all proof is measured by the senses.

    3. Science does not operate on a deductive method of proof. Science operates on an inductive method of probability. Science by nature is never meant to prove anything. Scientist will tell you that they are always “tentative” about their conclusions. Proofs based on scientific evidence have often been “disproved” later OR improved. That’s not a rap on science, it’s that scientific evidence in never absolute and often changes as more “evidence” is discovered.

    4. We have faith because of the knowledge we attain, not in spite of knowledge or lack of knowledge. Knowledge that we act upon is an act of intelligent trust based on evidence also known as faith. (This doesn’t just pertain to “God”, but all areas of our life.)

    PLEASE ENTER YOUR THOUGHTS OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS. If you are sincere and truly want to take this journey together, then let’s go. Please don’t waste my time if you are not open minded and willing to be open to the possibility that God does in fact exist. I in turn, will be open to the possibility that He doesn’t exist. You must carefully consider what you will accept as proof. Once you decide, post it here and Jason will put it up for all to see so we can proceed. I look forward to reading your responses and answering your questions.

    Sincerely,
    James (Jamie)

33. Keithsays:
    
    February 26th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Couple of things:

    Since we looked at another video earlier, this is a slightly different view in video (however you feel about Dawkins, he makes an interesting case here.)

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

    Now…a few thoughts:

    Proof is a tough issue because one of the things that would have to be agreed upon is what constitutes a valid source of evidence. For instance, while I think that the bible is a fascinating read, here are a few facts about the bible:
    1. Even the strongest supporter of the bible has to admit there are plenty of inconsistencies (one paper I saw noted 700.)
    2. The bible has been written, re-written, re-imagined, and re-organized with the deletion and addition of books, throughout the years starting with original tablets and ending with vastly different versions. It’s fairly simple to find a bible version that offers different evidence on any given subject that would support an individuals own belief. And each faith or church claims to have the ONE that’s real and original. Also, when challenged, most will quickly say that their bible is the one that was directly translated from scrolls and tablets…they can’t all be correct.
    3. I like deductive arguments. But the danger with deductive arguments is that all parties have to be on board with the assertion. If I don’t believe that Jesus was the son of god or divine, but then next argument states: “Since Jesus said this, it shows that god teaches that…” then we’re simply talking about apples and oranges. Similarly, we run into the same problem I stated before…Faith supports the bible and the bible supports faith. Therefore, it’s a bit of a circular argument. Also…you mention that ‘we have documents that authenticate the existence of Jesus and eyewitness accounts.’ If I don’t believe the accounts listed in the bible (if I think the bible is a document of faith but not so much a valid objective historical document), then yes, it will be difficult for me to accept evidence. I mean think about the Mormons…there are a group of 11 individuals who signed affidavits that they saw and handled the golden plates along with Joseph Smith that constitute the ‘Book of Mormon’. So, because ‘evidence’ exists, does it validate the book? Does it mean that I must believe? Is it because it was 11 individuals instead of 500 that it is invalid? What if 1000 people had ‘seen’ the golden plates…what then?
    4. Going back a touch, I would also toss this out: I don’t think any sane person would say Jesus simply didn’t exist. He was a very important figure in history and had a lot of interesting things to say in an era where people were quickly killed for their beliefs. I’ve always thought that both Jesus and the Bible were interesting figures in our history. But simply believing that Jesus existed and saying that the bible was interesting doesn’t automatically validate either source as black and white divinity. You mentioned earlier Jamie that Jesus either is the son of god or he isn’t, but he couldn’t have been a good teacher and role model if he was lying about being the son of god. I find that to be a bit narrow…there are people throughout the years that have been good teachers and had interesting things to say but turned out to be completely whacked in the head – a great example of this for me is John Forbes Nash. He created economic and mathematic models that have revolutionized the way that we trade goods and services in the world, he has made amazing contributions to our scope of knowledge about ‘win-win situation’ resolution AND he is crazy as HELL. I mean full on nut case.
    5. I agree…scientists are tentative about their solutions. Because they are always seeking new information and possibilities. If they find better information, they move forward. Principle tenants may remain the same, but ideas change all the time. And even principle tenants may change if good enough evidence is offered. It doesn’t strike me as invalidating religion or science to continue to ask questions. But we can certainly ask why we can’t challenge ‘sacred’ ideas like religion, but we can challenge a basic tenant of our belief about science.
    6. Big bang needs a bigger bang needs a bigger bang needs a bigger bang. I find that particular frame of thought to be a bit of a circular issue.
    7. I agree, not all proof is measured by the senses. But shouldn’t we have some measurable standard for the things we believe?
    8. “…based on evidence also known as faith.” I would say that evidence cannot equal faith. Faith can be based on evidence, but faith equaling evidence means that if I believe strongly enough that something is true, it is THEREFORE true. Again, going back to John Nash, if I said that because he came up with amazing ideas and concepts in the realm of mathematics and economics AND he believed that men wearing ‘red ties’ were chasing him via a secret organization throughout the United States, that as a believer in one of his concepts, that if he had FAITH in the ‘red ties’ theory, then I must also believe in this super secret organization. Similarly, if I like what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and I like the concept that Jesus offered us a good philosophy to treat our fellow man well, do I also THEREFORE have to believe he was changing water into wine, resurrecting people and walking on water?

34. Jamiesays:
    
    February 27th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    KEITH:
    Thanks for the comments and questions. I think some of these are good points worth mentioning and going over and then there are a few with flawed arguments. I’ll cover the faulty points first, then we’ll finish up with points of agreement.

    Points 1 and 2 I would contend are not necessarily “bad” or a source of major contention and here are the reasons why. We have over 5,000 collected copies and portions of the “early” bible date ranging over a 30 year period from 5 years after Jesus’ death. When compared to, say, modern “translations” (NIV, NASB, KJV, The Message, etc) there are no changes made or inconsistencies where major tenets of the Christian faith have been changed. They remain totally intact. Changing words from the to thou and other types of grammatical changes does not constitute an inconsistency. When modern versions are compared to ancient artifacts the same “story” emerges. It is also important to understand the importance of the Greek and Aramaic languages used in initial writings. They are far more descriptive and easier to understand meaning than the English language. When the word “Love” is used we understand whether it is phileo, agape, eros, etc because of the descriptive nature of the languages. In English, I can say I love my dog, I love spaghetti, I love my wife, I love my friends and they all mean something different. Words have been “dumbed” down, if you will, and mean different things. That’s why early transcripts are so valuable in determining the intent and meaning. However, no central tenet of the faith or accounts of Christ have been changed. One can read any version one wants and come to the same conclusions. It’s a matter of style and preference. It is also highly debatable whether or not any books were ever taken out of the original bible. Based on the earliest findings of scientist and archaeologists, not to mention what has been retained, nothing that may have been removed deviated from the message or the central tenets.

    The second point I must address is the statement you attributed to mean on faith. Here is what you wrote, “…based on evidence also known as faith.” That is not what I said. Here is the exact line as I wrote it, “Knowledge that we act upon is an act of intelligent trust based on evidence also known as faith.” I could have just as easily said, “Knowledge that we act upon is an act of intelligent trust based on evidence and the resulting effect is something we call faith.” Hopefully, that clears this up for everyone. The danger in taking “bits and pieces” and not the whole line is to change the meaning and intent of the words. It’s what certain Christians are accused of regularly to use the bible to make it mean what they want it to. An example…. Has anyone heard these before? “God hates homosexuals.” “Money is the root of all evil.” I challenge anyone to find these in the bible. They are portions and twistings of what scripture says. They are used to suit a particular bent. It’s wrong there and equally wrong as used in the above misrepresentations of my words. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional, however, that’s how people perpetuate inaccurate info. Unfortunately, many in the church are guilty of it as they clearly don’t know their bible and don’t check. They believe what they’ve heard. One should always go to the source when it’s quoted to see if it matches.

    Thirdly, your deductive reasoning as pertains to Mr. Nash is highly faulty. It does not follow the natural progression of the “if/then” model and should be reworked. However, I do understand your intent and what you were trying to convey.

    POINTS OF AGREEMENT:

    Not all proof is measurable by the senses and we SHOULD have some measurable standards and we do. I will not use the bible to provide evidence as to the existence/non-existence of God. I will only use the bible to provide evidence of what Jesus said, not what he did. I have an abundance of material from outside the “Christian” world which I will use to lead us all down a very logical, rational, naturally flowing path to God. However, what I will not do is try to convince anyone of His existence. I will present the material and what you do with it is your individual choice.

    Jesus did live and it is important to prove this historical fact. I would encourage everyone to go online to http://www.biblegateway.com and read the first 4 books of the New Testament. There are many “translations” and many languages to choose from. Take your pick! Pay attention to “red letter” items, words directly attributed to Jesus. He never claimed to be a good man, good teacher, mere rabbi or cool dude. He did not mince his words and there is NO middle ground when it comes to who he is. The religious leaders of the day understood exactly who he claimed to be. They had waited for him for thousands of years. He called himself, “I Am, Son of God, Son of Man, Emmanuel, The Way, The Truth, The One, Redeemer, Deliverer” and many more. When he was questioned by religious leaders and he proclaimed who he was, they picked up rocks to stone him and tore their robes. He was ultimately killed because of their fear and disdain. They had NO misunderstanding as to what he had to say, but they didn’t believe him. Not unlike today. And he is explained away as a good teacher in Jewish circles today. They have to in order to create confusion and keep control and they had to in Jesus’ day as well. Again, Jesus either is who he says he is or he is a liar and a hoax and the religion is false. Proving his existence is a starting point. THIS PARAGRAPH IS WORTH RE-READING, PERHAPS SEVERAL TIMES.

    We should challenge beliefs and I am glad you feel the same way! God demands it! Question everything said and research it, test it, dig in deep and go for it! When we don’t do this we have no conviction and are really naïve. In Christian circles, these people are the ones that have a problem or falling out and, to paraphrase Darwin, the weak ones die off. They are the same people who then bad mouth the church and fail to take any responsibility for their part in the deal. And before you get started, JASON, this is NOT your situation nor is this sentence intended towards you in any way. Please don’t read what I didn’t write. It’s about being accountable for what you believe and owning it. We should demand proof and I look forward to providing much of it to all of you to with as you wish. Take it or leave it. As I said, I won’t force you to believe. That’s your responsibility.

    CONCLUSION:

    Keith wins the prize! First entry with good questions and comments! Where do I mail you the tickets to Cabo? I look forward to more questions and comments. Please keep them coming. Again, thanks to Jason for providing a forum.

    James’ FREEBIE for the day!!! “Hey, Jamie, do you believe in the literal translation of the bible?” I take the bible at face value. I read it the same way I read the sports section. When I get to box scores I read it literally. When I read the article that says, “Mariners kill Red Sox in 11 inning thriller! Seattle mopped the floor with Boston’s starting pitching”, I don’t literally believe anyone was killed or dunked in a mop bucket and dragged across Safeco Field. That’s figurative speech and should be read as such. I read the bible the same way. We all should….

35. Jamiesays:
    
    February 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    DUH…….. ALMOST FORGOT!

    Proof?! What will you all accept? Keith is on the right track. Please let me know. What I can’t do is give you a polaroid, so please don’t ask!

    Until again….

36. Jamiesays:
    
    February 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    As I have continued my studies, I came across this debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek. It is 131 minutes long. It is similar to what I would like to do here, however their debate missed the mark on several levels. I found Mr. Hitchens to be quite charming, but would tend to wander on his answers. Similarly with Mr. Turek, he would not answer certain questions in the way I would have or would have wanted him to. The most provacative question came at the end. “What would it take for you to believe the other person’s viewpoint?” Turek answered it, poorly as it was (my opinion) and Hitchens totally avoided it. What I did come away with was a deeper understanding of Hitchen’s bent and what he thinks. The atheist doesn’t necessarily say there is no God as he says he doesn’t see the evidence for it. I do suspect Mr. Hitchens does have a deeply held conviction, however, and won’t be swayed no matter the evidence. Here’s the link:

    http://www.crossexamined.org/turek-hitchens-debate.asp

    Cut and paste if it doesn’t come up as a link. Enjoy.

37. johnsays:
    
    February 27th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    i don’t have the time to read all of this so sorry if this gets answered later.
    Just read “jamies” post about jesus existing and gidget’s post about, among other things, life on other planets.
    gidget. there is no evidence for life on other planets. at least not complex animal life. at least not so far. it has nothing to do with ego. everything to do with observable evidence. Faith is just the opposite.
    Jamie, there is zero-zero evidence that jesus actually existed and even less to indicate that he was of a divine nature. take the time to read the gospels. written, at best 50+ years after jesus supposedly existed. The gospels are contradictory in many places and harken back to earlier stories in the old testament.
    zip nada bupkiss to indicate that they are anything but stories and not history. as time allows I try to go through these comments.
    I think the most telling thing is that there is no evidence for any supernatural, omniscient being. All the arguments boil down to a feeling or faith or belief. I also notice that there is very little mention of any faiths outside of the ones that come out of the hebrew tradition. Jews don’t think Jesus was divine. Muslims don’t think jesus was divine. Hindu’s don’t. Religion seems to be an artifact of consciousness. Faith doesn’t rely on evidence. I do.

38. johnsays:
    
    February 27th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    oh and Homer was not likely a single real person.

39. johnsays:
    
    February 28th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    spending a little more time reading this.
    It seems Jason has the argument well in hand. I just want to point out a few logical fallacies.
    First: The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. You can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove god doesn’t exist. I can only argue that there is no evidence for it. I can’t prove magic elves stop time and hide my car keys either. If I say I am skeptical of the presence of an omniscient being how can I prove that he doesn’t exist? It just may be that he is too subtle to be detected. You are the one that has to provide evidence that he exists. There are repeated requests for Jason to provide proof. The burden is not on him. Second. Argument from authority: Your argument “There are several “truths” that are generally accepted about Jesus and no one with any clout denies these things. Oh, sure, we can surf the web and find fringe sites from both sides, but I’m talking mainstream thinkers without some sort of agenda to spew or dull axe to grind. So let’s talk about one of these… Truth #1 – Jesus lived. All major religions accept this and teach this in the context of Jesus being a good teacher, but not Messiah.”
    Despite your claims I am unaware of any actual eyewitness to anything Jesus was alleged to have done outside of the bible written by a contemporary source. You are dismissive of any source that disagrees with your premise and refer to them as “fringe” ad hominem?. It is well established that the earliest gospels were written some 50 or so years after the alleged crucifixion. The gospels repeat stories from the old testament and contradict each other fairly regularly. Do you really think Jesus walked on water and fed multitudes with a few loaves of bread and some fish? (sorry I just threw in an argument for from personal Incredulity. totally not cool) Just because major religions accept that Jesus was real doesn’t make it so. Consensus isn’t necessarily truth. The great thing about science is that even if there a great deal of consensus on a topic all it takes is some testable, repeatable evidence to change their views. And since I asked you for sources here are two very easy to find and read books on the topic of Jesus being a literary construct and not an actual person or messiah. “Gospel Fictions” by Randell Helms/ Secret Origins of the Bible” by Tim Callahan. It seems that so much or your argument assumes the bible is true. I am skeptical of that assumption.

    It has also been stated that alien life exists by some and by others that it doesn’t. Essentially there is no evidence either way. Some feel that we would have been contacted by now and some think it is egotistical to assume we are the only intelligent life forms. But there is absolutely no evidence for either argument. We simply don’t know. Perhaps complex animal life is vanishingly rare in the universe. See “Rare Earth” by Ward and Brownlee for an interesting discussion on that. There are a myriad of reasons why we might never have been contacted by alien life other than intelligent life never evolved or was created. could be the vast distances in both time and space. perhaps an intelligent alien evolved but at a time when earth was primordial. perhaps they expired before they could get off their planet. Perhaps the distance was too great to travel? Perhaps they are so alien that they are unrecognizable?
    Perhaps they are here and dropped a bunch of thetans into a volcano?
    This is all speculation. There is zero evidence for any of it. Faith and religion don’t require any evidence even if they would prefer to have it. Who knows? Maybe we were created by the flying spaghetti monsters noodlely appendage?
    I am open minded though. If someone can provide repeatable, testable evidence that an omniscient force created this world and all life on it and if science can come to a consensus on it I am all ears.

40. johnsays:
    
    February 28th, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    dang. it fire my proof reader. I can’t prove that magic elves DONT stop time and hide my car keys. a person claiming that would have to prove that they do.
    I regret the error.

41. Jamiesays:
    
    February 28th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    JOHN,

    Good stuff and I appreciate the input. As I stated in an earlier post, the only thing I will use the bible for is evidence of what Jesus said, not what he did. I have quite a few sources from outside the church and outside of other religions to “prove” and document the existence of Jesus dated during and just after his life and death. These are historical documents and works that verify/acknowledge his life and existence and are, again, outside of Christian/religious circles. I am not talking about writings and teachings that sprouted up 300 years or longer after his death and obviously not eyewitness accounts. These would be conjecture are highly questionable.

    Your timeline for the writing of the New Testament is not accurate.

    Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts)
    The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the ‘former accountant’ of ‘all that Jesus began to do and teach’ (Acts 1:1). The destiny (‘Theophilus’), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

    1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
    2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
    3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
    4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
    5. The significance of Gallio’s judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
    6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
    7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke’s Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
    8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
    9. The prominence of ‘God-fearers’ in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
    10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
    11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
    12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul’s prophecy in 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
    13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates ‘the Messiah,’ and is not a proper name for Jesus.
    14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
    15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.

    If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

    Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4]

    Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

    First Corinthians
    It is widely accepted by critical and conservative scholars that 1 Corinthians was written by 55 or 56. This is less than a quarter century after the crucifixion in 33. Further, Paul speaks of more than 250 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when he wrote (15:6). Specifically mentioned are the twelve apostles and James the brother of Jesus. Internal evidence is strong for this early date:

    1. The book repeatedly claims to be written by Paul (1:1, 12-17; 3:4, 6, 22; 16:21).
    2. There are parallels with the book of Acts.
    3. There is a ring of authenticity to the book from beginning to end.
    4. Paul mentions 500 who had seen Christ, most of whom were still alive.
    5. The contents harmonize with what has been learned about Corinth during that era.

    There is also external evidence:

    1. Clement of Rome refers to it in his own Epistle to the Corinthians (chap. 47.)
    2. The Epistle of Barnabas alludes to it (chap. 4).
    3. Shepherd of Hermas mentions it (chap. 4).
    4. There are nearly 600 quotations of 1 Corinthians in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian alone (Theissen, 201). It is one of the best attested books of any kind from the ancient world.

    Along with 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Galatians are well attested and early. All three reveal a historical interest in the events of Jesus’ life and give facts that agree with the Gospels. Paul speaks of Jesus’ virgin birth (Gal. 4:4), sinless life (2 Cor. 5:21), death on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 3:13); resurrection on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4), and post-resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:5-8). He mentions the hundreds of eyewitnesses who could verify the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). Paul rests the truth of Christianity on the historicity of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Paul also gives historical details about Jesus’ contemporaries, the apostles (1 Cor. 15:5-8), including his private encounters with Peter and the apostles (Gal. 1:18-2:14). Surrounding persons, places, and events of Christ’s birth were all historical. Luke goes to great pains to note that Jesus was born during the days of Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1) and was baptised in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. Annas and Caiaphas were high priests (Luke 3:1-2).

    Acceptance of Early Dates
    There is a growing acceptance of earlier New Testament dates, even among some liberal scholars. Two illustrate this point, former liberal William F. Albright and radical critic John A. T. Robinson.

    William F. Albright wrote, ‘We can already say emphatically that there is no long any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.’ (Recent discoveries in Bible Lands, 136). Elsewhere Albright said, ‘In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptised Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)’ (‘Towards a More Conservative View,’ 3).

    This scholar when so far as to affirm that the evidence from the Qumran community show that the concepts, terminology, and mind set of the Gospel of John is probably first century (‘Recent Discoveries in Palestine’). ‘Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D.’ (From Stone Age to Christianity, 23).

    John A. T. Robinson. Known for his role in launching the ‘Death of God’ movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most conservative scholars ever held. Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. This would mean that one of who Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testaments beyond reasonable doubt.

    Other Evidence – Early Citations
    Of the four Gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Irenaeus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236), and 3258 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca.339; Geisler, 431).

    Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians, and 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues powerfully that the gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive.

    I’ll post more tomorrow… to answer a few of your other questions/assertions and several things that are attributed to me that I either didn’t say or were misrepresented. My family beckons me!!! Off to make cookies with my son.

    Until again…

42. Mattsays:
    
    March 2nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    A quick visit to “Postsecret.com” brought up this new link from their page:

    http://www.postsecretcommunity.com/lifedeathgod/

    It might be interesting to see what is posted there, too…

43. Jasonsays:
    
    March 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Jamie – Clearly this is a topic that’s close to your heart. It is also clear to me that you’ve spent a fair amount of time studying your Bible and related history. You provided lots of interesting reference material in your last post, and I thank you for that. If I were engaged in a historical study of the Gospels, that information would be very useful. In light of the current discussion, however, all you’ve really done (for me) is to reiterate that there is substantial disagreement among Biblical scholars re: dates of authorship.

    None of this is getting me any closer to answering the initial questions that were posed, so I’ll back up once again and recap:

    I made the (admittedly glib and not-sufficiently-contextualized) statement that “Religion Poisons Everything.” Contrary to Matt’s characterization, I did not say that merely to spark a conversation. I said it because it is what I genuinely believe, ergo:

    The “proof” that I was given in my youth for the existence of God now seems laughably flimsy and absurd. Despite years of looking for it and being genuinely open to (even hoping for) its appearance, I haven’t found any superior proof to take its place. In fact, the more I consider the subject, the more the whole idea seems ludicrous. Nothing that I see around me necessitates the existence of a supernatural divine being. In fact, everything that I see around me seems to have a much more believable explanation that doesn’t require God.

    Religion, in my perhaps limited definition of it, is based on the acceptance of the idea that there IS such a supernatural divine being. If (as I have come to believe) there is no substantial proof for such a being then religion is based on fantasy or – even worse – lies.

    If I believe that religion is based on myth and untruth, I have to ask myself: What purpose does religion serve? It’s all too easy to make a (lengthy and quite damning) list of all the ways religion has harmed us; some of those have been listed in this thread, and I won’t repeat them here.

    What of the good effects that religion sometimes produces? All too often, I would argue, the good acts of believers come with a whole truckload of ugly baggage attached. I’ll just city Mother Teresa as one example. Fed the poor: GREAT! Unfortunately, she also was unwavering in her denunciations of birth control and divorce (well, except for her pals, like Princess Di), and her public statements that unbelievers were destined for eternal torture in the fiery pit. Ugh. That may be a fringe case, but I feel it illustrates my point: When “good” acts come weighted down with religious baggage, they are more in service of doctrine than in service of the needy. In that sense, I would call those acts “poisoned” even when the net result on the ground is (arguably) ultimately positive. Much preferable, in my view, is to offer yourself as a servant to those who need help: What do you need, to make your life more bearable, regardless of whether that conflicts with what the Bible/Koran/etc. tells me? And I don’t need religion to offer that kind of service; I can do it based on my observation of the world around, and based on my belief that all humans have equal rights.

    Matt says that we don’t need religion, per se, we need relationships and community. I wholeheartedly agree. But I would prefer to find those relationships, or that community, in a group that does not require me to pledge allegiance to ghosts.

    For example, what of that feeling of being united with a like-minded community for a higher purpose? I have had that feeling most profoundly – not in church – but when I volunteered in a hospice, or when I volunteered as a tutor at the jail. Both experiences gave me a strong sense of community, a strong sense of working for something “sacred,” but neither required me to accept medieval doctrines about a triune God who died for my sins, etc.

    What about that rapturous feeling that some believers report when engaged in group worship, that transcendent feeling of giving yourself over to pure ecstatic joy? I never really experienced that in a church, honestly, but I have experienced it many times in the mosh pit at rock concerts and in mildly drunken karaoke parties in my living room, and I didn’t have to pretend that the wine (or, more accurately, vodka) I was drinking was actually the blood of my savior. Plus, I got to belt out “Born Under a Bad Sign,” which is an awesome song, and I can totally nail it.

    Jamie (and others) still seem to be confused about what it means to say one is an atheist. I feel like I’ve said this numerous times, but here I go again: I am not making any absolute claims. I would never say “every action committed in the name of religion is always necessarily evil” nor would I say “every believer is evil” or “everything that the Bible says is untrue” or “God could not possibly, under any circumstances, exist.”

    I am saying: none of the evidence I’ve heard thus far is convincing to me. Nothing I see around me necessitates the existence of any so-called God. Far better, and more testable, explanations already exist. It seems to me, then, that any religion claiming without doubt that God exists is either deluded or lying. For me, everything that religion provides can be found elsewhere, without the medieval doctrinal bullshit.

    As John so rightly pointed out, the believer is making the truth claim, and the burden of proof is thus on the believer. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, as Russell’s teapot allegory so eloquently shows.

    What kind of proof would I accept for the existence of a god? That’s a good question. Consistent, verifiable, testable proof… perhaps consistent, statistically significant proof that prayer yields the expected result? Perhaps a fossil record that showed all current mammals suddenly springing into existence at the same time (instead of the fossil record as it is, which demonstrates the exact opposite)? Perhaps if God spoke directly and clearly to humans in our present day, revealed himself in a sufficiently miraculous way that was visible to all humans… that would be pretty convincing. Perhaps if God’s representatives here on earth historically and consistently had borne fruitage of peace, unity, and love… something that would visibly mark them as morally superior to the average human (granted, that might not be sufficient proof that God exists, but it might make me feel better about religion). Perhaps if the holy books attributed to God were consistently excellent guides to living a moral, peaceful, sustainable life here on Earth (again, perhaps not sufficient evidence of the existence of God, but it would certainly soften my position on religion). Perhaps if God’s holy books were consistently a more accurate predictor of future events than Nostradamus or your average “expert commentator” on CNN…?

    There are lots of ways that God could resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. Hasn’t happened yet. Of course, if my parents are correct, this world will soon end in a cataclysm, after which Jesus will rule with his 144,000 over a renewed earth, and the dead will miraculously rise from their graves. When that happens, I will have to re-assess my position.

    Until then:

    As far as I can determine, there is currently no adequately indisputable evidence for the existence of God, and any group that bases their moral compass on the “revealed” words of such a dubious God is fatally flawed from the get-go.

    I do sincerely appreciate the effort you have put into your posts, Jamie. I’m not being sarcastic about that. BUT: Your encyclopedic historical info has done nothing to address my most basic issues with God/religion.

44. Robinsays:
    
    March 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    If I followed the rule set forth by Jamie – that we have to agree to be open to the possibility that god might or might not exist, I would not be able to weigh in on this discussion, because I am not open to the possibility that god exists. But since my husband is the moderator, I don’t have to agree to that rule.

    OK, I am weighing in to let you know where another atheist is coming from, not to argue or debate the existence of god. Because 1. I hate to argue and 2. I do not believe in god and an on-line discussion isn’t going to change that. I will not be persuaded.

    I was raised as a Catholic by a religious fanatic, but as soon as I could think for myself (by about 12 years of age) I moved on. I am astounded that Jason believed in this stuff for as long as he did (but respect him immensely for his intellectual and moral courage in leaving, given the threat of punishment he had to live his life under and the price he was force to pay for his freedom).

    I believe that when you are dead you are dead – worm food as someone put it earlier. And yes, that terrifies me, but my terror doesn’t compel me to make up a story about living on forever as long as I have been “good”. I just accept death because I have to. And yes, the universe is amazing, but I am OK with not understanding how it all started. It seems to me the ultimate in hubris to think I can or must explain it (and then silly to come up with a great white father figure and his son born of a virgin woman who was her husband’s servant…uh…maybe the human men writing the bible were projecting a bit there?).

    I am not sure why Christians always ask atheists to state what they believe in. But I believe in the natural world. In seems pretty obvious: You are born and you die and more people get born and die and we slowly figure out more stuff and evolve and that will likely continue until we poison ourselves off (yes I believe in recycling). My favorite Sam Harris quote is something to the effect of, “The bible was written by people for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a technological wonder.” They were trying to explain their world and they didn’t have much to go on. The real miracle (and tragedy) is that these stories are still taken seriously! If only Christians didn’t proselytize then it wouldn’t matter what they believed. But they do, so it does.

    I don’t know how life started but here it is. I don’t need god or the bible to lead a good life, and I don’t need a reason like the afterlife to motivate me. Pain and suffering are a drag and doing things that help alleviate them are obviously preferable. I think that is the biggest challenge for religious people in accepting atheists – they can’t image outside of the paradigm they have been socialized in – that only belief in god provides a moral code, and without a belief in god, all hell (no pun intended) will break loose.

    I could go on and on but Jason is calling me to get my receipts so he can balance the checkbook. Forgive me if I sound “snarky.” Atheists are often accused of being angry. And yes, religion makes me angry. Christianity is thrust upon us at every turn, and we are forced to take it seriously even though we see it as absurd. Let me repeat, to me the bible is just a weird old book. It was written by various humans, like any other book, and what was taken out or left in was done by other humans based on politics and power relations (think Catholic Church, the Vatican, empire and riches). Using the bible to “prove” the bible to an atheist doesn’t work, because we don’t take the bible seriously (and are secretly incredulous that anyone does). I am so grateful to folks like Hitchens and Harris for making space in the culture to allow us a voice. Finally!

    Again, I am just giving a little glimpse into where I am coming from. I am not looking for counter arguments or debate.
    hugs,

45. Jamiesays:
    
    March 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Jason,

    I liked your post! I liked the mosh pit reference! Too funny! I think that is also kind of the point as pertains to “worship”. It’s not supposed to be some euphoric orgasm of spiritual emotionalism. Too often I’ve found that people who experience the wave of emotion as tears stream down their face at the “acceptance” of God or during a stirring rendition of “Come Just As You Are” are usually rather weak in their faith. Not true for everyone, but in general that has been my experience.

    My intent is to have a continuing dialogue dealving into the subject, not just puke my beliefs in a 47 page post and have everyone roll over singing Cumbayah… (of course, if you feel the need, go for it!) But to seriously look at evidences in support of a creator, whoever that may be.

    Can I give you irrefutable evidence for the existence of God? No, I cannot. However, I can give enough evidence supported by historic documents and archaelogical facts that support a creator, just for starters.

    As I stated in my post with the debate between Hitchens/Turek, I totally understand the atheist viewpoint and it does not need to be restated. I completely get that you aren’t saying there is no God. In fact, when I heard both Hitchens and Dawkins (yes, I watched that post, too) the definition they gave is almost verbatim as to what you stated in a much earlier post when I asked what you believe. I think maybe only one or two words were different.

    If your argument “Religion: Good or Bad” is all we are going to discuss, then I’ve already agreed with you that it’s bad. However, to say it’s bad because of wars, deaths, etc is a rather whimsical argument for the existence or non-existence of God. And NO, Hitler wasn’t basing his death machine on Christianity or Catholicism. It was based on his following the teachings of Nietche. To say that he and Mussolini were Catholics is a real stretch and neither were living out their faith, if they had any. And they didn’t start WWII as a “holy war” or based on a religion. That is a tired, totally disproved atheist argument that holds about as much water as a sieve. Stalin was an atheist and controlled and built an “atheist” country under communism. Since he was responsible for the deaths of over 10 million of his own and others, should I conclude atheism is bad? No, just one whacked out dude. For every “bad” atheist/christian, I can show you many more who are quite decent. You for one, Joel for another… unless you guys have some bodies stored under your house that I’m not aware of. Atrocious acts in and of themselves don’t prove the existence/non-existence of God, just that some people are really funked up.

    My encyclopedic entry was for John’s sake, not necessarily yours. It illustrates many flaws in the approach those make when they have a dismissive attitude about “facts”. We discussed this in a much earlier post, so I won’t revisit it.

    As far as testable proof, please don’t go the route of “Perhaps if God’s representatives here on earth historically and consistently had borne fruitage of peace, unity, and love… something that would visibly mark them as morally superior to the average human (granted, that might not be sufficient proof that God exists, but it might make me feel better about religion).” The point of the Christian message is not that we/they are morally superior, but that we are all equally flawed. It’s never been about moral superiority. Don’t be so closed minded that you say “…consistently borne fruitage…” as though no “religious” person/persons have done that. Again, the argument that religious people do bad things, therefore their is no God is laughable. In fact, more do good than bad. I would assume that is the same in the atheist camp. People will always do dumb, stupid, sick things and it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, especially when applied the way they were meant to be applied.

    I’m glad you are open to “miraculous” signs, wonders and direct contact from/with God. Like they said in Angels in the Outfield….. “It could happen!” There are lots of ways God could resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction, as you state. So let me ask you this question…

    Suppose for a second, you could suspend all doubt and institute a willing suspension of disbelief, and for hypothetical exercise only…. accept that Jesus is real and he is God and all that happened in the bible is true. If one day we find out this is all true to our satisfaction, what does that say about those who witnessed his life, miracles, and what he taught and still didn’t believe? What about Thomas? He still had doubts until he felt the place where the nails pierced Jesus’ hands. I am convinced that even in the event of a miraculous intervention on God’s behalf, there will still be those who will doubt, refuse to believe, and no matter what the proof will always say there is no evidence for God. They will always come up with an alternative explanation…. It’s human nature!

    As for anyone having to prove anything or someone not being responsible for the burden of proof. When someone such as Dawkins advocates “militant” atheism, isn’t he responsible for the same thing he so adamantly condemns? He wants atheists to be forceful and aggressive in stating their beliefs, as if to get others to accept it without any evidence to support the “No God” claim or the “no evidence for God” claim? Sounds eerily similar to what atheists all rail against…

    Far better, more testable claims for atheism don’t exist as compared to God and we’ll start discussing those more next time. But, NO, it won’t be exhaustive…. we’ll take it one step at a time. Hopefully, we’ve garnered enough attention and interest to sustain a few more weeks of posts.

    Don’t kill anyone before then or take a machetti to your neighbor. It might ruin your argument in the affirmative for atheism! (very much, definitely, 100% said tongue-in-cheek… we are still smart-asses after all these years!)

    Love and kisses in the spirit of harmony….

    Jamie

46. Jamiesays:
    
    March 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Robin,

    I was replying to Jason when you posted this and didn’t see it until I was done, so just a short response. I know… I can read… I am literate, and you said no responses….

    Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate it, I really do. And I respect your comments, beliefs and point of view. I don’t argue as it doesn’t get anyone anywhere. It builds walls. That’s why I’ve been so appreciative of the tone that has taken place in here. You don’ know me, but Jason and I were rather “openly obnoxious” back in the day, and to some extent still are. That’s why it’s refreshing that we can talk about such a significant topic without name calling or bashing each other.

    There are so many distortions, misrepresentations and glib comments in what you wrote that it truly does trouble me. I will speak from what I believe, how I live and what I do, not from what your perception of a Christian is. I only can speak for myself and how I act. I don’t believe you need religion or God to be good, live a good life or be happy. As for proseletizing, people talk about what they are passionate about. I could say the same for Hitchens as I see him regularly on the news channels espousing his viewpoint. He has that right and I have no problem with it. This “topic” was started by Jason and has morphed. I didn’t start the thread, but gladly weighed in on it. The things you stated that “I” (Christians) believe couldn’t be further from the truth. To broadstroke Christians as idiots, unintelligent or needing some type of perverbial crutch (wheelbarrow/Harris) and that one who believes such drivel must not be enlightened is quite insulting. I have never blindly followed anything. I do thoroughly investigate everything, almost to a fault. I also understand that you weren’t necessarily doing that, only quoting from someone who was (Harris). I did not come to faith until later in life, after a much ballyhooed existence living for pleasure and for myself, so hopefully I won’t be lumped into the “raised in the church” camp.

    The problem with the “printed” word is that we can’t hear each other. In no way am I upset with or mad at what you wrote, only a little saddened that your viewpoint is so critical of Christians as a whole. I hope that you will not read it that way. Please feel free to continue chiming in on the subject. I would appreciate it and so would others. If all atheists were like Jason, maybe they wouldn’t get such a bad rap. By the way, your dude is cool! Singing…… hmmmm…. not so much…

    If you’re ok in Jason’s book, I’d probably like you! Talk to you all soon.

    Jamie

47. Jamiesays:
    
    March 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    PS… As I stated above, I won’t use the bible to prove God’s existence, only what Jesus said about himself. Robin, I agree… Can’t use something that one doesn’t believe in to make a case for it!!!

48. Jasonsays:
    
    March 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am

    Jamie says: “the argument that religious people do bad things, therefore their is no God is laughable.”

    Yes, it is. I am not making that argument. On the other hand, John 13:34-35 and 2 John 5, among others, indicate that Jesus’ followers would be known by the love they showed for one another. The Bible also tells us, if memory serves, to judge a thing by its fruitage (as Joel mentioned above). All of which is to say: It seems fair to expect that history would show Jesus’ followers displaying some kind of extra-special love for each other, for their neighbor, for the earth… and my history books don’t show that to be the case. Which doesn’t disprove the existence of a god, but it also seems (to me) that Christians have failed their own test.

    Next, RE: Dawkins’ call for “militant” atheism. Jamie claims “He wants atheists to be forceful and aggressive in stating their beliefs, as if to get others to accept it without any evidence…” If you’ve read any of Dawkins’ books, you would know that this is absolutely not the case. Just as Harvey Milk encouraged his GLBT supporters to “come out, come out, wherever you are,” Dawkins is encouraging atheists to speak up and proclaim themselves as such. The more of us speak up, the more space there is for this conversation, the more atheism becomes a viable option, the more likely a young person will actually reflect on the evidence before blindly following the faith of his/her parents.

    RE: Hitler and Mussolini… I didn’t actually raise that subject, but you’re also stretching the facts if you claim that these were examples of the evils of atheism. For one thing, I believe that the Holocaust was deeply rooted in the Catholic Church’s historic mistreatment of the Jews. Read the excellent “Constantine’s Sword” for a more detailed discussion of that. For another, these were not examples of atheists oppressing all believers, as has already been noted in this thread (way up there near the top, iirc).

    In any case, I’m absolutely willing to stipulate that religion is not the only source of oppression or violence in the world. Nationalism, Racism, Sexism: All Evil. Whether or not they’re also mixed up with religion.

    Jamie says “Far better, more testable claims for atheism don’t exist as compared to God…” I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here, but I THINK you’re saying (again) that atheism cannot be “proved” in the way that I’m asking you to “prove” the existence of God. If I’m reading you right, then I’m not sure where to go from here. Again: Atheism is not making a truth claim. Atheism is saying, “Look, although I’m trying to remain open to whatever arises in the future, I just don’t see any viable proof for this invisible God you believers keep yakking about.” Believers in any God are making the truth claim: There IS a God. That is the only assertion that can be tested. There is no “atheist creed” or “atheist doctrine” as such, which could be tested or proved. There is simply profound skepticism, based on years of study and lack of evidence for the dominant view.

49. Jasonsays:
    
    March 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    After this, I’m going to refer to “Everyone…” as “fifi’s HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL album…”

50. johnsays:
    
    March 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    ahh so much info. I will sort through this later. Jamie,
    nicely done and updated on the scholarship of the bible. I will see if my sources or other sources are keeping up and what the current view is. One of my sources (Callahan) does think that jesus existed but the evidence he offers is indirect at best. Essentially stating that followers wouldn’t have referred to jesus in a certain manner if they really thought he was a saviour. Still, no direct evidence. But if for the moment I can assume that Jesus existed there is nothing to indicate that he was of a divine nature. Again, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The gospels do contradict each other. The new testament does borrow stories and themes from other faiths and plugs jesus into them.
    Jason is correct when he atheism isn’t making a truth claim. (well, many aren’t. there are nut job atheist ideologues as well as religious ones) I prefer non-theist cause it is soft and cuddly.
    I think Dawkins and Hitchens and others want atheists to be more outspoken because they see the problems that can come from blind belief and from a lack of reason. Whether it is christians wanting their peculiar and so off the mark that it is not even wrong views on science being taught in schools or muslim sects demanding governments follow the laws of their own branch of faith or hindus caste system that keeps millions in poverty or a faith that with holds medical treatment in belief that god will intervene if it is his will.
    Religion or faith isn’t necessarily bad or evil. It is the strict adherence to an ideology, whether it is spiritual or political, that is the real problem. Bad science can be guilty of this as well. Eugenics was all the rage for a brief period and it was devastating. Science is self correcting (when it isn’t is when it becomes pseudo science which is more like an ideology) so eugenics didn’t last long. Faith doesn’t really have a self correcting nature. It splinters and branches out (I wouldn’t say it evolves) but rarely does it seem to correct itself because it mostly relays on ancient texts with a poor understanding of how the world really is. A single religious person or even a small group of people may not have an issue with homosexuality but Christianity as a whole does. And it won’t ever change from that position. Jesus might not have ever talked about it specifically but it is certainly forbidden by the faith. If Christians or muslims were to evolve in there faith it might mean that they would need to examine other things that they believed were true that turned out not to be. Things like that don’t happen very often. Martin Luther shook the Christian faith but ultimately things ended up not being so different and I don’t see a Martin luther on the Horizon. The christian church keeps splintering and fragmenting but it is over minuteua. I don’t think there is going to be a sea change.
    Long story short: Religion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Rigid ideology is. without the ability to learn and adapt a point of view as evidence is presented you get a stifling dictatorship and bigotry.
    True, open minded skepticism seems like the most rational approach to the world. It allows for more freedom of thought and ability to adapt as knowledge is gained.
    The burden of proof is on the group making the positive claim. As a Non Theist (atheist) I am not saying there isn’t a god or supernatural omniscient being. What argument could I make that wouldn’t be countered with “well that god guy is pretty subtle lately, yeah sure knocking down towers in babel and sending out plagues and flooding the world was cool and all but now we are keeping it low profile. maybe jesus on a piece of toast or just insisting, and i mean really insisting that angels actually landed the plane, you just couldn’t see em. Nothing flashy like burning bushes that talked or dudes getting resurrected” (sorry, that was rude) but if if you are claiming that an omniscient being exists then the burden of proof is yours.
    and lastly I apologize for any and all grammatical errors. I am sure there are plenty.

51. johnsays:
    
    March 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    oy, there is a there in there that should be a their. and “jason is correct when he STATES”
    i really should read these through before I post. that is why I keep getting totes pwned.

52. Mattsays:
    
    March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    You know…I think it’s hilarously ironic that this thread is under the title of “Everyone should love each other and live in peace and harmony.”

53. Jamiesays:
    
    March 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    LMAO, Toewes!

54. Ericsays:
    
    March 6th, 2009 at 4:17 am

    Wow. Leave for a few days and great spaetzles of fortune, I have unleashed a monster!

    First of all, I would like to make it clear to Jason that I love you, and I have always loved you. It was not my intent to call you a bigot, nor to denigrate or impugn you or your motives. My reference was to Mr. Hitchens, who is most uncharitable to the targets of his screeds (and who has found a most lucrative market). I apologize for any such impression about you. BUT, please watch what you say, because some of your comments since my first post I find to be, well, bigoted.

    As for gloves coming off, such was not my intent, nor was my comment meant to be a thorough apology for my belief in God. It was simply an off-the-cuff comment. But why now? Why not after you left the Witnesses and told me you were searching for God? Was that Atheispeak for “I don’t believe God exists?” I offered at that time to discuss my reasons for belief, but you declined. Oh well, at least we can air it out now. BTW, I have made it clear to you in the past that I respect you for all you have had to go through in reaching your current stage in life. That said, I have a bajillion comments I could add, but I will try to be short. First, I need to make some observations and clarifications.

    Before anything else, I should point out that the recurring comment, “Man does not need religion” for whatever enlightenment or what-have-you he seeks, is not a fully complete statement. If you were to finish, “…nor does he need religion to commit whatever heinous acts he desires,” I would whole-heartedly agree. Man kills over politics, “love”, Pride, Jealousy, Greed, or just about any other reason under the sun. Because religion reaches into deep recesses of our being, as do Politics, it is much easier for one to allow his passions to take control. My contention with Mr. Hitchens’ comment is that he points the gun at the wrong thing. He should have said, “PEOPLE poison everything.” But that wouldn’t sell much, would it?

    I do find it alarming how self-righteously the atheists have thrown around patronizing and insulting comments throughout this discussion. I must say, Jason, that to find that you consider me “half-whacked to begin with” saddening. How can I say anything with any sense that it would be pondered fairly. Considering I have never considered you half-whacked, despite your belonging to groups with concepts of God that bear no resemblence to my own, I would have hoped you could have enough decency to treat me in kind. Considering that I find the evidence for a God to be obvious and apparent, I could think that you are the one who is delusional. But I respect you better than that.

    Joel, what do you have to offer as evidence that religion has been THE impediment to advancement for the past milennium-and-a-half? While I will admit that SOME religions have been impediments to advancement, so have corrupt, totalitarian governments, and widespread poverty due to the greed and selfishness of the wealthy and powerful.

    By your 1,500-year reference, I assume you either mean Islam (1,400 years) or Catholicism, as Protestantism showed up two-thirds of the way through this time. I am not here to defend Islam, but before you make your case, bear in mind that the Catholic Church introduced hospitals, universities and higher education, the Copernican theory of the solar system, and the scientific method, just for starters, although without the last one there would have been virtually zero advancement in the past 800 years.

    And before you even mention it, point of fact: Galileo was not condemned for teaching Copernicus’ theory, as it was being taught in all [Catholic] universities at the time. He was convicted of teaching the theory as fact when it had not yet been demonstrated as such. (Galileo’s proofs have all been refuted, and are not used as proofs today.) The problem was not teaching a fact, but rather teaching AS fact a theory not yet proven. In other words, until it is known to be true, don’t state that it IS true.

    As for stem cells, we do not oppose stem cell research; rather, the Catholic Church supports stem cell research involving adult stem cells. She opposes the use of stem cells harvested from unborn children, who are necessarily killed to get them. We do not accept the use of knowledge gained from the intentional killing of another human being. You know, like the Nazis’ scientific research on Jews?

    And Robin, I too thank you for your contribution. But you should know that you can’t enter a firefight, lob a few missiles, and then run back, saying, “I’m not involved in this and I don’t want anyone firing back.” I am sorry that your experience with Catholicism was so poor, but you admit yourself that you were raised in a fanatical home. Fanaticism is never good, religious or otherwise. (Just sit down with a couple of Motley Crue fanatics and, well, need I say more?) I do find it sad, however, that one as educated as yourself still clings to a very immature image of God (an image the Church specifically points out as fallacious). For me, this is equivalent to Stephen Hawking getting excited about the Easter Bunny! Surely you know that the great white father is merely a straw man?

    Moving on, I keep seeing comments to the effect of:

    1. “There is no evidence for the existence of God for which there is not a better explanation;”

    2. “It is up to the believer to prove the existence of God, not the other way around.”

    Again, I find the evidence for God’s existence to be apparent and abundant. Today we shall start with the argument of causality.

    Nothing in the material world is self-sufficient, that is, it did not nor could it will itself into existence. All matter, down to the smallest atom, is dependent upon other atoms. If one atom’s existence cannot be explained, sheer numbers will not make any difference. Nothing has ever been observed to simply pop into existence out of nothing. The idea immediately strikes one as absurd.

    Nevertheless, the material world exists. It had to come from somewhere. Simply put, it had to be brought into existence by something outside of and independent from the material world. Call it what you want, by the very nature of the act that something is God.

    I have yet to hear any argument from atheism to refute this. Atheists have always answered me that my statement is erroneous, or irrelevant, or some other fobbing off, but without any solid, factual evidence to disprove my statement. If someone can explain this away, please do.

    As for statement two, believers can point to universal reasoning. People all over the world naturally believe in some kind of God. It is intuitive, just as a baby intuitively knows food must pass through its mouth or it will die, or one who falls into water intuitively knows he will drown. One must convince oneself of the nonexistence of God, not the other way around. Therefore, believers have every right to say to nonbelievers, “It is apparent to us that God exists. What proof do you have against His existence?”

    If I were to stand up and declare that Julius Caesar never existed, you may think me foolish. If I then declared that, because I cannot disprove his existence, you must prove he lived, you would think I was either crazy or incredibly arrogant, placing my requirements for proof above the universal reasoning of all historians, scholars, and people with even the most basic education.

    Of course, if I don’t want to believe Caesar lived, I can always refuse to accept any evidence that my opponents offer. Needless to say, however clever I may think myself, the rest of the world would see exactly how much of a fool I am.

    Come to think of it, I would like to challenge anyone to prove to me that Julius Caesar existed. I will gladly explain away any proof offered as “insufficient.” In other words, SHOW ME THE BONES!

    I love you all, really!

55. Jasonsays:
    
    March 6th, 2009 at 9:43 am

    Eric – so glad you joined the fray, and I love you, too. Always have!

    I don’t think I actually said that you were “half-whacked to begin with”… I can’t even find that phrase on this page! Perhaps you misinterpreted a general comment that I made about religion? In any case, I would never want to insult you like that.

56. Jasonsays:
    
    March 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    You know the frustrating thing about the Internet? When you get yourself all worked up about some great thing you’ve said or done or thought, and then you Google it, and find out it’s all been said already, by smarter people. Here’s an excellent distillation of my own experience and my own reasons for discarding Christianity:

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/06/why-i-discarded-christianity/

    Eric – your expansion of the “man does not need religion” dictum is fine with me. I do not think man needs religion to commit good or evil. You’re making my point for me!

    As far as your assertion that politics, etc. also cause unhappiness, I don’t have any problem with that, either. I do not believe that religion is the worst thing in the world or that it is responsible for every evil, as I’ve clearly stated in previous comments. People oppress and kill other people for all sorts of reasons; religion is just one of them. Religion, however, holds a special place in my pantheon of contempt for several reasons: because it duped me for so long, because it claims to answer the most important questions, because it claims to be our only route to spiritual fulfillment and eternal life, and because it is afforded such a special position in our world today. I’ll just mention the outcry over the Dutch newspaper cartoons for one example.

    Eric, I know that you are committed to Catholicism, and I understand how central your faith is to your life. I know that it is a source of comfort to you. I don’t question that. But… seriously? You’re going to rationalize the church’s treatment of Galileo? You’re going to gloss over the Inquisition and the Dark Ages? You’re going to gloss over the church’s Concordat with the Third Reich and its monumentally immoral handling of the ongoing sexual abuse scandal?

    Your church is not alone in these things, by any means. One of the first things that set me on this path, that started me asking questions, was the painful realization that my OWN church (JWs) had signed an equally heinous agreement with the Nazis. I had to come to grips with the enormous moral failings of my community of faith. I urge you to do the same.

    I believe you are overstating the truth when you claim that the Catholic church is solely responsible for the introduction of hospitals, universities, and the scientific method. Even if we accept these bold claims, though, there’s far more than enough in the debit column to balance out those advances. As you have accurately stated, man does not require religion to accomplish good or bad.

    As far as the Argument of Causality (or Argument of First Cause, as some call it), that’s a non-starter for me. Since the fossil record is very convincing, even to the majority of scientists who believe in a god, and since even the pope says evolution is fine by him and not at odds with faith, I won’t argue that point. You must only be referring to the initial moment of “creation” or the “Big Bang.” First of all, if you posit that the “Big Bang” necessitates an even more powerful being to set it off, your very argument implies that this powerful being must have had an even MORE powerful creator, and so on. I can’t take this argument seriously as proof for the existence of a god.

    Secondly… even were I to set aside my basic objection and agree that the Big Bang must have been set in motion by a mysterious, invisible being… nothing that has happened SINCE the Big Bang requires the existence of such a being. Which then leaves us with an image of a god who cranked up the engine, then sat back and just let the machine rattle itself along from that point without intervention, even if the machine throws a rod and bursts into flames… why would I waste my time and energy worshiping such a god?

    Argument from “Intuitive Reasoning”? There are all kinds of things that we “intuitively” know about the world, which have turned out to be completely wrong. To cite one example: As a child, I was positive that the sky was a solid shell around the Earth, and that the Sun was some sort of “plug” in that shell, through which we could see the light outside. My parents explained the correct view, but it took years for me to completely shed my intuitive understanding. To cite another example: Throughout history, and continuing to the present day, people around the world have “intuitively” reasoned that some folks are physically and spiritually inferior, and that there is nothing morally wrong with enslaving those inferior people. In fact, many have pointed to the Bible as support for this seemingly “obvious” conclusion. In both cases, the “intuitive” understanding is not the correct one.

    Nobody is questioning the existence of Julius Caesar. More importantly, nobody is claiming that failure to worship Julius Caesar could result in my eternal torment in the flames of hell. Nobody is claiming that my good friends Todd and Jared are destined for the lake of fire because Julius Caesar proclaimed homosexuality a sin. If you are making such claims about Jesus, or God, then the onus of proving the existence of such proposed deities is on you. My statement is simply this: The reasons I was given in my youth now seem flimsy and absurd. I have not seen or heard any other reasons which were superior. Thus, barring some extra-awesome future evidence, I’m no longer checking the “believer” box.

57. Ericsays:
    
    March 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    I am not going to go into detail about things members of the Church have done through the ages. It is, at this point, irrelevant. We can discuss those matters later. But before I go on to your arguments, I must comment on one item, and will state that much of what you pointed out was delivered almost as well as an Evangelical pastor! Emotional, indignant, and somewhat one-sided.

    Actually, I do believe the Church was justified in her treatment of Galileo, as any actual study in detail soon demonstrates. She was his employer. They said, “Do not teach this as fact. It is still unproven. Teach it as a theory.” Galileo disobeyed repeatedly. As for his “imprisonmnent,” it is well known that he was the guest of the Bishop, an old friend, in a house far larger and hospitable than his old home. He continued to conduct experiments and work on his projects; the only difference was the Bishop was there to check his work. In other words, the Church no longer trusted him to curb his enthusiasm for a new discovery until it were fact.

    Going back to Causality, I am disappointed. I thought you were actually going to dispel my illusions. Instead, you gave the same faulty arguments I have always heard. Please try to follow. (I will ignore the fossil record comment, as I see no way in which it relates to this argument. Besides, the fossil record leaves me with no troubles at all. Evolution was actually first alluded to by Saint Augustine of Hippo. So, any evidence for or against evolution does nothing for me.)

    First, you are confused about the endless chain of superior beings. That would be necessary if the superior being were material. He is not; He is immaterial. The material laws of the universe do not affect an immaterial being. He is outside the material universe, and therefore does not require a First Cause, which only applies to material beings.

    Second, you then pulled a “bait and switch,” moving over to attack the argument of Intelligent Design, which has been so badly handled by Protestants in recent times (sorry, Jamie, I really am on your side here) that Atheists have really attacked it. It’s a shame, because no one is really looking to see if the Atheist argument holds water, which it does not, or if the Protestants are using the ID argument properly, which they largely are not.

    Note that you then tried to “grant” me the existence of a Creator, which was quite generous. Unfortunately for you, you then tried to pigeonhole God into the Theist concept of God, just setting things into motion and standing back. The reason Theism died is because it lacks any logical thought whatsoever. I will explain as simply as possible.

    Attempts to portray God as a divine clockmaker fail on several points, most of which succumb to either anthropomorphism, or to confusion over timelines, or both. You say that even if God set the Big Bang into motion (what other explanation do you offer for matter coming out of nothing?), nothing that follows requires his continued existence, so what’s the point?

    The “argument of superfluity,” when I first heard it, was a little surprising. Something of a “Huh?” emerged from my inner being. I could not believe that an atheist could convince himself that that was any kind of a valid argument. Clever to the superficial thinker, it immediately falls apart because GOD IS NOT SUBJECT TO TIME OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL LAW.

58. Ericsays:
    
    March 6th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    Oops! I wasn’t done. DON’T REPLY YET!

59. Ericsays:
    
    March 6th, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Where was I? Ah, yes. Time. God is outside time. He is, always “is”. As a personal being who brought the world into existence, He is always present, willing the universe in continued existence. That which is not self-sufficient cannot will its continued existence any more than it can will itself into existence to begin with. You confuse human attempts to verbalize the act of creation in terms we can understand. Eternity is incomprehensible to us, so we naturally tend to put things on a timeline.

    Second, if He did just set things in motion, how do you know He no longer has any interest in the world? That is your own faulty reasoning, trying to impose your opinion on how God would act. Besides, even if your assessments were correct, you still grant God’s existence at one point or another, and Atheism is wrong.

    I’m still waiting for the “better explanation.” Where did matter come from? How did life begin, when we know that spontaneous generation is an absurdity not fitting for a modern, scientific mind.

    So, once again, instead of just discarding my question as a non-starter by throwing out a couple of worn-out misstatements, how about actually thinking through the whole thing and offering a better counterargument?

    Now I’m done.

60. johnsays:
    
    March 6th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    Glad this debate is still going on. Eric, Long time no nothing. Thanks for your service in the military. I Hope you are well. I have several friends that are catholic to varying degrees. My friend Liz has been known to rock the scapular(sp?) and put ash on her forehead and she is still smartest person I know. And come to think of it. The third most evil. Tory, whom several of you know is also catholic and we love to argue (he is always wrong). I also have a an ex coworker named Tom that would get very bent out of shape if any shortcomings in the catholic faith were brought up (molesting children, hiding priests that molest children). He even tried to make the ridiculous argument that many of those were acts of pederasty not pedophilia because the the victims were in their teens. Now that is some hardcore excusifiying.
    But faith and religion are not necessarily evil or bad. Like any dogma or ideology though they can lead to and excuse bad things. The catholic church, like many other churches, does some good for people. So when they do something evil and despicable it makes it worse because they should know better. And when they try to cover up that evil or to blame the victims of that evil and rationalize that evil they just become contemptible.
    The catholic church does seem to give some lip service to scientific method and they seem to have come around on the solar system and many even seem to think that evolution isn’t a complete pack of lies ( i am looking at you young earth creationists).
    The thing is, religion is irrational. It has to be. It might be a construct or artifact of consciousness that evolved as a way to understand or explain things that were previously incomprehensible. We don’t need faith or religion now. It isn’t helping. It probably used to be helpful when the world was a strange and mysterious place and there wasn’t any way to figure out how it worked but we don’t need it anymore. (it wouldn’t hurt atheists to do more charitable work though and without the sermonizing)
    There is simply no evidence for an omnipotent and omniscient god. The argument of causality is handled perfectly well by Jason. If everything needed a creator the the creator needs a creator. It is not a very convincing argument. I could argue that a race of intelligent aliens actually created this universe (or the flying spaghetti monster). There is just as much evidence for this as there is for the god of the bible. If I were to make that claim I would also have to provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. It really is. God or Gort did it is essentially the same non answer.
    Turns out there is all sorts of evidence for Julius Caesar. Contemporary writings and sightings in multiple sources. Jesus. Not so much. Doesn’t mean jesus didn’t exist but it makes it much more open to discussion.
    Intuition and instinct are interesting but not really evidence. Just because somebody thinks something is true or because they instinctively know they need to nurse or suck air doesn’t mean that some supreme being filled them with that information.
    The catholic church was at the forefront of education for a while and in many ways it is more open minded than some of the more literal protestants and muslims. Let’s not forget thought that there was some wicked good science (for the times, math really) coming out of muslim territories.
    The problem seems to me that the conservative faithful aren’t willing to take that last step and shed some of the old beliefs. Those that do aren’t strict adherents to any book of faith and border on being Deists like our founding fathers. Many of the teachings in the bible work just fine for secular folks so why bother with all the supernatural stuff?
    I had more to write but I have to split for a while. In the mean time past the link below into your browser to see what some idiot archbishop in Brazil is up to. It is stuff like this that gets people like me (and possibly Robin, not to toss you under the bus) really irked at an unexamined and irrational faith ( no matter the branch).
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/a_follow-up_to_the_brazilian_c.php

61. Jasonsays:
    
    March 7th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Eric – one point of business first. When you attribute statements to me, and place quotation marks around those statements, that implies that you are directly quoting me. I don’t believe that I said you were “half-whacked” nor did I fatuously “grant” you the existence of God. I’m not sure who you are quoting in those cases, but I don’t believe it’s me. There is plenty of valid material for you to dispute, without placing words in my mouth.

    You’re going to have to explain how I performed this “bait and switch” you complained of… I am not clear. I honestly tried to trace out my own thinking on the First Cause argument; if it was logically faulty, give me a fuller explanation why.

    Next – you cite your church’s history when it suits your case (invention of hospitals and universities), but when the numerous and damning counter-examples are cited, you proclaim, “I am not going to go into detail about things members of the Church have done through the ages. It is, at this point, irrelevant.” That doesn’t seem like fair play to me.

    You say: “Nevertheless, the material world exists. It had to come from somewhere. Simply put, it had to be brought into existence by something outside of and independent from the material world. Call it what you want, by the very nature of the act that something is God.”

    I respond with a quote from Richard Dawkins. This argument makes “…the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God.”

    He puts it much more clearly than I could manage. I’m not just being contrary here, Eric; I genuinely don’t see how you work around this logical problem and come out the other end claiming that there must necessarily be a God. Dawkins’ argument has nothing to do with timelines or anthropomorphism; it merely points out the absurdity of declaring arbitrary rules that support the God Conclusion.

    It’s also completely untrue that nobody has come up with any reasonable alternate theories about the Big Bang/Initial Singularity/whatever. “The Origin of the Universe” is a nice slim volume by John D. Barrow that gives a succinct overview of current thinking in this area. Actually, this book is several years old, so there are probably more current books with even more information. Admittedly, this is not my field of expertise.

    I understand that you don’t agree with what you termed the “Argument of Superfluity” but you’ll have to give me a more thorough account of your objections. I see absolutely NOTHING in this cosmos that requires the existence of a divine being. On the contrary, I see everywhere evidence of imperfect natural selection, natural processes, and an underlying randomness. The world around me is the world I would expect to see if the world evolved naturally, without the oversight of a divine extra-dimensional being. Obviously, you, and millions of others, have reached a different conclusion. So what am I missing? What is it about the world as it exists which implies or requires the existence of any god? This is a genuine question.

    Lastly (for today, anyway), when you say things like “God is outside time. He is, always ‘is’. As a personal being who brought the world into existence, He is always present, willing the universe in continued existence…” – on what basis do you make such claims? I can only assume from your study of the Bible.

    How are such claims superior to the contradictory claims made by other religions, based on their study of their own allegedly divine books?

    Why should I accept your claim that your god is “outside time” and yet reject the Muslim’s claim that Muhammed “…flew on the magical Winged-Horse of Fire which he called Burak” etc.? Or the Watchtower Society’s claim that 12 white-haired guys in Brooklyn have been selected by god to serve as the Governing Body? Or Tom Cruise’s claim that he is Operating Thetan Level 5?

    All of these claims are fantastical on their face, and are only supported by the writings on which their respective belief systems are based. This is not proof acceptable to a thinking person, is it?

62. Jamiesays:
    
    March 7th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    JOHN: Entry 60. For the love of Pete!!! I wish all of the “intellectuals” in the room would start thinking before they engage their digits and tickle the keyboard. If I hear one more of the “enlightened” ones makes this ridiculous statement (cutting and pasting to get it correct!) “I also have a an ex coworker named Tom that would get very bent out of shape if any shortcomings in the catholic faith were brought up (molesting children, hiding priests that molest children).” THESE ARE NOT SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH!!! John, show me where, ANYWHERE, that molestation is taught in the church doctrine, the bible or from a priest or pope and I’ll personally give you ONE MILLIONS DOLLARS! Enough of the psycho-babble already. It’s not a shortcoming of the Catholic faith. It’s the shortcoming of men, nothing more, nothing less.

    Religion is not irrational, in fact it is very ordered (from the Christian perspective). Timelines that necessarily overlap, especially in Old Testament writings, that couldn’t have just been a “wing job”. The deliberate historical references and documentation that specifically define the way history is recorded. (as more and more discoveries are made that verify places referenced in the Bible that have long since past… science is actually on the side of the Christian, not the other way around)

    “The thing is, religion is irrational. It has to be. It might be a construct or artifact of consciousness that evolved as a way to understand or explain things that were previously incomprehensible.” John, this sounds like the definition of atheism. It is incomprehensible to you and so you explain “religion” away as fantasy, rather than digging in like a scientist and discovering facts for yourself. Maybe it’s just more hip to not believe… I don’t know.

    “I could argue that a race of intelligent aliens actually created this universe (or the flying spaghetti monster). There is just as much evidence for this as there is for the god of the bible.” NO, YOU CAN’T. There is no physical evidence for your assertion, but there is physical and historical evidence OUTSIDE the church and the bible that support Jesus and his existence. Again, he lived. It’s a historical fact that even Jason acknowledged. If comes down to is he who he says he is…

    JASON: God by his very nature and definition is immune to this regress.

    “I see absolutely NOTHING in this cosmos that requires the existence of a divine being.” If you look at the complexity of cells or any living organism, not to mention life (animals, humans, etc.), DNA and the like…. to think that all of this came about as some sort of cosmic accident takes quite a bit more faith than I thought the average atheist had… not too mention a significantly higher amount of faith than most Christians possess. I don’t even care about the argument many in the religious community will make, “Where did the atoms/particles/matter come from?” To believe that they all collided in one marvelous, chaotic, ambilovent gathering and out of chaos came order and every living thing past and present is, well, naive… and based on mega-doses of faith.

    “How are such claims superior to the contradictory claims made by other religions, based on their study of their own allegedly divine books? ” Because all other religions don’t start with a Creator in the sense of God. Case in point… Hinduism is based on “reincarnation” in all areas including the cosmos. Science has totally disproven this religion to be absurd as the universe is expanding and not shrinking, as would be the natural cycle of reincarnation. Their “cycle”, if you will, is based on a timeframe of 4 thousand, 40 thousand or 4 million years (sorry, I’m not going to look this up again just yet, but I promise I will!) and then a re-birth. Science doesn’t support this. Buddhism steals from Hinduism, so they’re in the same perverbial black hole. I could go on, but you asked….

    Islam/Muslims came from the line of Ishmael, son of Abraham and daughter of his servant, Hagar. Abraham did not believe God when He told Abraham he would have children, and so he took matters into his own hands and slept with his servant. Genesis 16:11-12 ” 11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
    “You are now with child
    and you will have a son.
    You shall name him Ishmael, [a]
    for the LORD has heard of your misery.

    12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
    his hand will be against everyone
    and everyone’s hand against him,
    and he will live in hostility
    toward [b] all his brothers.”

    If you read the Koran, many references to “Adam” and many of the Old Testament peoples appear. This is a splinter group off of Judaism that believe they are the rightful heirs of Abraham and that they were wrongfully expelled and fled into exile. This is why they so strongly hate the state of Israel and want to obliterate it from the Earth, thus ushering in the 12th Mahdi, the twelfth imam of Shiite Islam, who was “taken” up over 1,000 years ago and will only return once Israel is dead. Also, Muhammad formally founded Islam in AD622. What was once just a bastardization of Judaism and loosely followed was now formally introduced to the world as a “new” religion. Not new…. it had been around since Ishmael.

    Begging the question again…. What would be acceptable proof to a thinking person??? To some, only divine intervention, rapture, second coming, God appearing. Again, He’s already done most of that and not everyone believed. I don’t think that will ever change.

    ERIC: Where have you been? I had long anticipated your “second” coming, but just as molasses….. well, you know! Glad to hear you weigh in. Very insightful. As for the “half-whacked” statement… for the life of me I can’t find it and I don’t recall Jason saying it. Let’s blame Robin! She won’t come back to debate it! Just kidding, everyone! Dont’ get your knickered in a whad! We love Robin and she is more than welcome anytime. I was being “snarky”!

    I’ve been away a few days. Glad to see this still raging forward. I imagine it will until Christ’s return and even then it will continue in the face of incontovertible evidence! “It was the aliens!”

    Indeed…..

63. johnsays:
    
    March 8th, 2009 at 3:25 am

    umm, jaime. you are right. it isn’t a failing of the catholic faith. Just the church and it’s hierarchy. I should have been clear and careful. It is the catholic church as an institution that failed. It was the church as an institution that not only allowed to the molestation to happen but actively worked to hide it. Not the faith. Just the institution.
    Jamie, just because places named in the old or new testament existed doesn’t mean that jesus was divine or that god is real. Or that noah collected two of every animal on a boat. or that moses drown out the egyptian army. There isn’t a shred of evidence for divinity or miracles. quoting the bible to assert that the bible is true is tautology isn’t it? Judaism, Islam and Christianity do all stem from the same source. It doesn’t make them true or correct faith. The origin story in the old testament (well, technically there are two of them but let’s not get complicated) is poetic. So is the hindu creation myth. Neither are scientific explanations.
    I don’t think that life began as a cosmic accident although thanks for giving it the old creationist try. I don’t know why there is “something” instead of “nothing” but I do think that physics, chemistry and gravity do a pretty good job of describing how planets were formed and biological life forms started (skipping a lot of detail here but we can go over it if you like) and none of it requires anything supernatural. Religion is not “incomprehensible” to me. Irrational, sure, but not incomprehensible. I understand that it could be a result of consciousness. A way the mind seeks patterns and explanations for things that it doesn’t understand. I think religious faith is irrational because people accept it without evidence and cling to it. You dismiss the idea that an advanced alien race created our universe and life on our planet. I don’t buy it either but nothing you say disputes it. Perhaps the aliens created us and we came up with religion as an explanation.
    I am not sure what I would accept as proof of the god of abraham or any god for that matter. We already know that the world wasn’t created the way it is described in the bible. We know that the stories in the bible are just that. stories. myths used to explain the world. A set of rules for living life and an attempt to explain the world around them. Since god is supernatural I am not really sure what evidence could be provided. What evidence do you have? A book of stories ain’t gonna cut it. A scientific look at the natural world and cosmos don’t jibe with those stories so the burden shifts to you.
    Maybe I haven’t been playing close attention but how is this a list of most of things god has already done?”Begging the question again…. What would be acceptable proof to a thinking person??? To some, only divine intervention, rapture, second coming, God appearing. Again, He’s already done most of that and not everyone believed. I don’t think that will ever change.” Did I miss the second coming and the rapture? When did god appear? How do you prove divine intervention? and frankly, which god intervened? If there really is a supernatural entity out there how do we know it is the one you prefer? you might read the hindu creation myth. it starts with a god. just not the one you believe in.
    There is no physical or historical evidence to support your claims of creation and existence of the hebrew god. I guess if Jason says jesus existed it is indisputable. Not sure what the connection between the argument that an alien could have created life on our planet (which I don’t believe) has to do with jesus existing but lets say i accept that jesus was a living breathing person. Still no evidence that he was divine. There are stories but no evidence. “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. I haven’t heard or seen the proof yet. I would love to see some contemporary documentation outside of the bible that talks about jesus walking on water, curing the lepers, feeding multitudes with a few loaves of bread and some fish. Or even resurrecting. Not stories retold in the bible. Not stories from decades afterwords either.
    the comments started out arguing religion poisoning everything and we have moved pretty far afield from that. I think that religion and faith are fine in moderation. I just don’t think they are useful for describing the natural world. I also think that dogmatic ideology, whether it it is religious or political leads to bigotry and tyranny. And because there religion is irrational it can be used to strike fear, anger and intolerance in people. Read your bit about Islam again. Does that make any sense in a rational world? Really?

64. Jasonsays:
    
    March 8th, 2009 at 8:42 am

    I can’t say any of that better than John, but I would like to add: Jamie, for someone who has repeatedly encouraged the rest of us to engage in a civil tone, you are being a bit unpleasant in your last post. Let’s all play nice, okay? No more sarcastically calling non-believers “enlightened” etc.

    Thank you for your interest in the fifi organization.

65. Jasonsays:
    
    March 8th, 2009 at 8:47 am

    Oh, and: I’m certainly no indisputable source for the existence of Jesus! I have just read enough to know that some extra-biblical support exists. More importantly, it’s a moot issue for me. I also believe there was a historical man named Mohammed/Muhammad/ Muhammed. I just question the alleged superhero exploits of both.

66. Robinsays:
    
    March 8th, 2009 at 8:27 am

    Funny you should bring me up, because I have something I’d like to bring into the discussion that will sustain my interest and perhaps that of the women hovering around the periphery of this thread. But first, let me clarify: you are all welcome to comment or respond to anything I posted. My point was that I wasn’t offering my thoughts in order to engage in a prolonged back-and-forth, trying to prove my points or convince anyone of anything. No convincing has appeared to have happened yet, and this discussion has been going on for weeks. And while I know that Jason enjoys the debate aspect of the thread (and I have to assume that others involved in it do too), I don’t.

    That said, I would like to redirect this discussion and hear your thoughts on another aspect of the bible and the religions that spring forth from it: PATRIARCHY.

    The bible teaches patriarchy and is clearly misogynist (women are fundamentally inferior to men). Can the Christians on this thread please address the bible’s patriarchy and misogyny? And please don’t avoid this issue by finding a few exceptions or pointing out how things are slowly changing – the bible is fundamentally misogynistic. Certainly the Catholic church (not just some bad men in the Catholic church but the institution itself – the same institution that covered up what the individual bad men did to thousands of children) clearly sees women as inferior to men. I grew up around nuns and wanted to be one as a child so I’m very clear that nuns are positioned as the servants (slaves) of priests – sit in the back, do all the domestic work, can’t be priests, etc.

    Here is my hope: That the Christians on this thread will just be honest and admit that you see women as inferior to men (on multiple levels including morally, politically, emotionally, physically, etc.) based on the teachings of the bible (and backed up by the entire culture, including secular culture). But I don’t imagine that you’re going to admit this, so bring on your rationalizations for the bible’s fundamental and consistent misogyny.

67. Jamiesays:
    
    March 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am

    HMMMM…. did I touch a nerve? How is it that I’ve read alot of “attacks” on the church, consistently blaming religion rather than people, and when I make a “snarky” comment one time (actually twice in the last thread) you accuse (thinly veiled) me of not playing nice?…. I know, you said let’s all play nice, not that I wasn’t.

    The reason for the comment is that there is a continual theme that I seem to see here. The atheists in the crowd seem to say they are free thinkers, rational, look for evidence…. implying that anyone with a religious bent isn’t? That’s my question…. do those of you who espouse no faith and no evidence for God believe that those of us who do are blind followers, nothing more than mind-numbed robots? Any intelligent, rational and well-read person should naturally conclude after reading the comments I have consistently posted with great detail, that I do not blindly follow anything. Eric’s entries as well, should lead one to a similar conclusion. That was the point of the comment. Meant to offend? No. Meant to tweak you a little? Definitely.

    Muhammad never had any supernatural exploits. He claimed God spoke to him. He never performed any miracles, alleged or otherwise. His body and grave can be visited by his followers. Jesus left an empty tomb and performed vast amounts of miracles, recorded by the Jews, Romans and his followers.

    Robin, I do not regard women as inferior, nor did Christ. We are co-equal, joint heirs in Christ. God is no respector of persons and that includes what sex they are. Whether Jew or Gentile, free or slave, He made them all. I can’t admit something that isn’t true. Are there Old Testament examples of women being treated as inferior? Sure, I could sight many examples. It had nothing to do with God and everything to do with the culture and times they lived in. To a large extent, it’s still the same in the Islamic culture, but that too is changing…. slowly I’ll admit. It’s what you believe, not what the bible teaches. If the Catholics have taken that to an extreme in your opinion, isn’t that their fault and not the fault of God or His word (bible)?

    John, that was better stated. The institution may have tried to cover it up out of embarrassment, shame, whatever, but in doing so really condemned itself. When that happens, the vultures pounce and say, “See, religion is bad!” Not religion, not the bible, not faith, just men proving they are fallen and woefully in need of help, or as the bible puts it, a savior.

    The reason why Jesus is so central and so important is that he is the only person in “religion’s” history that claimed sole divinity. Other religions claim that there is more than one way. Jesus did not. He made a very bold, unswerving, inescapable and unquestionable claim to be divine. All of you please read the Gospels (treat it like fiction)… Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the first four books of the New Testament. If any of you can read that and still be confused about Jesus’ claims, well then you just don’t want to hear what he had to say about himself and aren’t being intellectually honest. To playfully cast around his existence and then say, “It doesn’t matter if he lived or not. He was a good man who taught some good stuff, but that’s all. He wasn’t God and he didn’t claim to be.” You don’t know your bible (sorry, my bible… glib) and you have no interest in discovering the truth or debating from an informed position on Christ. By that, I mean that you only want to repeat what you’ve heard said by other people rather than honestly sitting down and doing the hard work. Jason, since I know you, I can honestly say that I believe you have read your bible and know exactly who Jesus claimed to be. In all your years of study, can you honestly say that he never claimed to be God? That would be rather disingenuous of you. You haven’t said anything to this effect and I’m not claiming you have. You’ve only skirted around the issue. You have some real hurts, inflicted by real people, and to me that is pretty disgusting. That people/persons would malign you and castigate you because of something your church taught, is inherrantly wrong. What they did to you is not taught in the bible. What part of love one another did your church not understand or practice? And for a father to turn his back on his son is the heighth of ignorance. How will you be loved back to Christ when you feel unloved? It’s something that has bothered me for awhile and I wanted you to know that you do matter, you are loved and you are valuable. I love you, respect you and genuinely care for you as a person. I respect your difference of opinion and I enjoy your quirky dispostion of always looking to push things to the edge. I always have, even in high school. You and I are quite similar, you just had bigger balls when we were younger. Maybe you still do!!!

    And lastly, to address one of the last comments made by John. “I also think that dogmatic ideology, whether it it is religious or political leads to bigotry and tyranny. And because there religion is irrational it can be used to strike fear, anger and intolerance in people. Read your bit about Islam again. Does that make any sense in a rational world? Really?”

    My dogmatic ideology leads to love, respect, compassion and understanding. If I love you, we can agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. If I hate you, that leads to bigotry, anger and intolerance. As for tolerance, you should all really look up the definition of the word. Ah, forget it… freebie of the day! Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.

    Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.

    Notice that we can’t tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

    I have to sign off for now. I’m off to church with my family.

    In His Grip…

68. johnsays:
    
    March 8th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    Robin, If I may,,,,,”you go girl”.

69. johnsays:
    
    March 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Jamie,
    You seem to be making a straw man argument here. I never said (your quotes “It doesn’t matter if he lived or not. He was a good man who taught some good stuff, but that’s all. He wasn’t God and he didn’t claim to be.”
    I believe I said that Jason said he exists then he must have ( a joking acquiescence to an argument from authority) but I don’t see any thing that indicates he is divine. Rev. Moon says he is divine. Doesn’t mean he was. Would you like a nice long list of people that claimed divinity? Can they all be right? What makes jesus’ claim more likely? How about a source contemporaneous of jesus that follows his miraculous deeds? You mention Roman and Jewish sources describing miracles attributed to Jesus. Let me know what they are so can read up on them. Are they contemporary? Are they really divine miracles or just stories and myths and gossip? When you are talking about miracles you are making a pretty extraordinary claim. Just saying jesus died, was put in a cave and a few days later his body was gone doesn’t mean he was a messiah and was resurrected. You might really want to pick up Tim Callahan’s book “Secret Orgins Of The Bible” pg 366 of my copy (original hard back 2002) has a bit about third party writings regarding jesus. And Tim has no doubt that he really existed. While you are at it check “Gospel Fictions” by Randell Helms.
    I have read the bible. Both the old and the new testaments. I have read a few books of the apocrypha. I have also read critiques of the bible. I haven’t read anything that makes me think that the stories contained in the bible are historical documents proving the existence of the divine. Reading the gospels made me nothing but confused about the claims of jesus. I had to read critiques of the claims to find out what the various authors were trying to do and say and explain why the gospels were so contradictory. What I have never seen or read is anything provides evidence for a supernatural entity that of any sort. As science and understanding of the natural world progress the bible becomes less and less an accurate description of the universe and more a collection of stories and laws put down to pass down a belief system.
    You widely miss the point when you say “All of you please read the Gospels (treat it like fiction)… Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the first four books of the New Testament. If any of you can read that and still be confused about Jesus’ claims, well then you just don’t want to hear what he had to say about himself and aren’t being intellectually honest.” I am not confused about his claims at all. I just think that he was wrong. Wrong for a simple reason. He believed himself divine and I don’t see anything stronger than anecdotes to indicate that he was.
    I think the argument you make to robin is disingenuous. If the bible is the word of god then it’s laws and teachings are from god. To say that the teachings in the bible have nothing to do with god is ridiculous at best. If the bible isn’t the lord’s teachings than what is it and if it it isn’t god’s word why should we believe and follow any of it? A People have used what the bible says as an excuse for bigotry, tyranny and subjugation. Unless you are saying that the bible isn’t the true word of god and that it is just man’s interpratation of god’s will? Is that what you are saying? If so then why should I believe anything in the bible more than I believe greek or hindu mythology? If it is the true word of god then Robin makes an excellent point about Patriarchy. Man might be interpreting the word of god incorrectly but bible is pretty clear where it stands on woman, stealing and mixing cloth. And here is a tangent for you. If the bible isn’t god’s word and man is misinterpreting it why doesn’t god come down and correct these mistakes. Now that might be some evidence I could believe. Let’s get jesus back here to straighten this stuff out. Or if he wasn’t the messiah let’s get the messiah here.
    Lastly for now, you take me to task for not acting like a scientist and digging into the facts. What facts exactly? I would love some actual facts? Jesus existed? Let’s say fact. Jesus, divine member of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost? What facts do you have for that? Jesus was resurrected and lifted up to heaven? What facts do you have for that?
    What theories, in the true scientific sense do we have for that? The more we learn about the natural world the less need there is for a supernatural explanation for how the world works. Again the original point of these debates was whether or not religion poisoned everything. With your definition of intolerance I can’ tell if you are being pedantic or if you completely missed the point. How is killing infidels, gays, women and jews ” (1) permitting and allowing”? I said dogmatic ideology in religion leads to intolerance. I would also suggest that since you are friends with Jason and you are willing to engage in debates then you are probably not the type of person I am referring to when I talk about when I refer to rigid ideology. I could be wrong though.

70. Jamiesays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 1:08 am

    John:

    “Reading the gospels made me nothing but confused about the claims of jesus” What, pray tell, confused you? He didn’t mince his words. He wasn’t vague. If you are confused perhaps you didn’t read them. You can intellectually say you don’t believe, but you can’t say his claims or words were confusing. It’s strange, I don’t find Hitchens’ or Dawkins’ words confusing… misguided and inaccurate, but not confusing. But I digress… they are totally entitled to their opinion just as we all are.

    ” To say that the teachings in the bible have nothing to do with god is ridiculous at best.” Here we go again… ascribing words to me that I never said. Had this been from one of my threads farther up the ladder I’d cut you some slack, but not going to happen this time. “Are there Old Testament examples of women being treated as inferior? Sure, I could sight many examples. It had nothing to do with God and everything to do with the culture and times they lived in.” God never in His word (bible) said women were inferior. Really, all one needed to do was look at Mary and her example. Perhaps I clumsily phrased the sentence. Perhaps I should have said, “I could cite many examples of women being treated poorly, but not by God and He never condoned it.” If we were to read a “holy” manuscript and it was nothing short of perfect, I’d really question if that were truly inspired or a fanciful work of fiction. If I were going to invent a religion I’d make sure there was nothing that might make me or the religion “look” bad. It work be glorious, wonderful and perfect. You seem to be confusing documenting events that took place and the people who constantly fell short of perfection (sin) while attempting to please God and live a righteous life. King David comes to mind… Abraham… Gideon… and so on. They all sinned, all fell short, all displeased God with their disobedience, yet God still loved them. And they did marvelous things to please Him as well. PLEASE, DO NOT misquote what I said. I was very clear. I could twist what you’ve said as well, but that would not be fair nor will I play that game.

    “bible is pretty clear where it stands on woman” You are correct! God honors them, men have abused them, including church leaders (doesn’t matter the reason – it’s always wrong).

    “How is killing infidels, gays, women and jews ” (1) permitting and allowing”?” What in the world???? Only an atheist would bastardize that definition of tolerance and twist it so unrecognizably…. Again, What the Heck??????????? I don’t even know where you got that?! permitting or allowing a conduct or point of view one disagrees with while respecting the person in the process. I guess I didn’t speak plainly enough….

    Sorry, I’m tired, it’s late and now I’m just bedazzled by the misquotes and misrepresentations I’ve laid out so plainly.

    Jamie

71. Ericsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 7:30 am

    First, my apologies to Jason for misquoting. In my rush to read everything I thought you had said you thought believers were half-whacked to begin with. I don’t know where I read it now. Maybe I am half-whacked! But, there were still plenty of other comments people have made that were fairly spunky. I will try not to do so myself any more than I already have.

    When I said I was not interested in discussing the evils that men do in this world (or the Catholic Church in this case) I was simply saying that I am interested in focusing on the topic at hand, namely, Does God exist. Such matters as “how can there be a God with all the evil in the world” et al I will gladly discuss once we get through the metaphysical questions. Like Causality.

    As for “granting” the existence of God, Jason, I was referring to your statement about IF you granted that, then nothing necessitates his existence after that. My point was that the superfluity (He wasn’t necessary afterwards) argument is moot: Atheism would be wrong if God EVER existed, even if He didn’t exist now (which is an absurd concept, but I’ll explain that later).
    You wanted to know about the Bait’n’Switch and your alleged logical missteps. The BnS I was referring to was when you started creating a Theistic image of God as a divine buttonpusher, setting things in motion and then letting it go. Theism ultimately failed because it is a poor attempt at simplifying God’s being. It in no way resembles the Christian concept of God. I, too, would refuse to have much to do with a God like that. This is a common method used to attack the Intelligent Design argument, and that is where I thought you were going.

    My “arbitrary” assignment of divine characteristics to God came not from the Bible, but from Aristotle, who pointed out that Man can come to a certain knowledge of God’s existence from reason alone. (If you noticed, I have not once quoted the Bible.) Aristotle also demonstrated that this God is, among other things, one, personal, and eternal.
    Your problem with causality is with infinite regress. Here is the basic layout of Aristotle’s logic:
    1) The material world exists.
    2) Nothing in the material world has willed itself into existence.
    3) Matter had to come from somewhere.

    This leaves us with few options. Either a being had to bring matter into existence (NOT set things in motion—that presupposes the matter already existed); or something else happened; or we’re all imagining this and nothing really exists at all. Despite the spate of philosophies over the last century that entertained us with their witty verbal gymnastics around this thesis, we can discard the third choice as absurd.

    So, either there is a God, or something else happened. Because other explanations ultimately resulted in holding that matter brought itself into existence, Aristotle went the only direction he could: the conclusion that matter had to be created by a being outside the material universe.

    Because he is of a different nature from the material world, it is not unreasonable to assume that his characteristics would differ from us in the material world. In fact, to think they wouldn’t would be absurd.

    There are properties this being would have to possess given his ability to bring about the universe. He would have to be eternal, uncreated, for if he weren’t, the problem of infinite regress comes about. This is important. You were trying to say that this is an arbitrary law to escape infinite regress. I say it is the only direction one can go, as matter cannot will itself into existence, but nevertheless exists. That end of the stick is blocked. You can only go in the other direction and, through the use of our reason, figure out what must be the nature of this being that brought matter into being.

    Aristotle’s description of God is shockingly similar to the Jewish God, despite having no concept of Judaism. He lived in a world where gods abounded, not to explain Man’s relationship to the Creator, but to explain the natural phenomena they witnessed around them. (That should help explain the difference between the Christian God and the mythological gods a bit, although I think you were already aware of that difference.) So, Aristotle reached the only logical conclusion. UNLESS…

    Something else happened. My question is: WHAT??? What is this something else? For crying out loud tell me! I read what I could find of Barrow’s Origin of the Universe. I did not see anything there about where matter came from, just the statement that the Big Bang is not necessarily the way the cosmos started. That’s a question of mechanics, not authorship. Again, I don’t care if it was a Big Bang or a Little Ooze; that has no bearing on the argument. The question is not, how did the matter get arranged the way it did? The question is: Where did the matter come from in the first place, if not created? I think this is a part of the problem for the atheist. He confuses creation (bringing matter into existence from nothing) with organization (taking matter and setting it in motion).

    BTW, I do not wish to linger on this, but for those who have expressed otherwise, it is an absolute fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived. (I am leaving out all the divinity claims/arguments out of this.) His life is for one recorded in the four gospels, but also is detailed quite a bit by Josephus, who recorded his life within twenty years of the crucifixion. Everything was still in pretty clear memory at the time. Also, Eusebius’ History of the Church records the one document written by Jesus’ hand. Sent to the King of Edessa, Eusebius copied it in 325 AD. The document was later destroyed when Edessa was razed by invaders. By comparison, the earliest extant copy of any document even mentioning Homer or his works dates back only to about 850 AD.

    I know there was more I wanted to say, but I’ve written this three times now. Each time it failed to post. So, please forgive me if it’s sloppily written. It’s now 5 AM and I’m going to bed.

72. Jasonsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 9:26 am

    Jamie: Take a deep breath and calm down a bit.

    In court cases, both sides will agree to certain undisputed (or moot) “facts,” so that they don’t have to waste time going over them in court. They call this “stipulation.” I think everyone taking part in this discussion is willing to stipulate the following:

    1. Jesus was a historical man, possibly a charismatic leader of the Jews.

    2. ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, Jesus performed miracles and claimed that he was divine.

    You keep angrily telling us that we’re being disingenuous if we won’t accept these facts, and we keep saying “okay, we accept these facts, but they don’t change anything.”

    Those points have been established (within the confines of this conversation, at least).

    The problem is, neither of those points make a whit of difference to the central questions posed by an atheist.

    Can we move on?

    Now, on to the treatment of women in the Bible…

73. Jasonsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Let’s begin at the beginning: Genesis 2:20-22.

    After naming all of the cattle and whatnot, Adam was dissatisfied, because he wanted a helper, so god took one of Adam’s ribs and created Eve. What have we learned? Woman exists primarily because Man wanted a helper, and could not exist without Man. This sets us up for the consistent secondary status of women throughout the Bible.

    Let’s skip on over to the famous Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:17, where we find that women are classed right in with servants and cattle in the list of a man’s property, which another man should not covet.

    Or how about Exodus 21:7-10, which reviews for us the rules regarding the proper sale of a daughter as a slave.

    Exodus 22:16-17 is also interesting. If a man makes an unwed woman pregnant, he is required to marry her. If her father makes a fuss, the groom has to fork over the accepted dowry price. The woman’s feelings in this series of transactions seems to be of little import.

    Leviticus 1:3 – only male animals are suitable for burnt sacrifice to the lord.

    Leviticus 4:23 – if a KING sins, he must sacrifice a male goat. Leviticus 4:28 – if a commoner sins, a female goat will do.

    Leviticus 12 – all about the extensive purification process women must go through after childbirth, including 33 days of ritual uncleanness.

    Leviticus 19:20-22 – we learn how a man can atone for raping a slave girl.

    Leviticus 27:3-7 – apparently, women are consistently worth fewer shekels than men?

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – rape a virgin? That’ll cost you 50 shekels, payable to the ex-virgin’s Dad.

    1 Corinthians 11:3-9 – God > Jesus > Man > Woman

    1 Corinthians 14:34,35 – it’s shameful for women to speak in church. If they have questions, they need to ask their husbands when they get home.

    Ephesians 5:22-24 – women are subject “in everything” to their husbands.

    1 Timothy 2:8-15 – great example, because it sorta sums up the Biblical view of women in a few short verses. Some highlights: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.” “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” “…Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived…” “…woman will be saved through bearing children…” etc. Good stuff.

    I could go on like this all day.

    I grew up as a believer. I’m not misinterpreting these verses, nor am I distorting the teaching of the Bible as a whole. Yes, there are some powerful female characters in the Bible. Absolutely true. But every event plays out against the background of patriarchal rule and general treatment of women as the property of men.

    When I was a believer, I glossed over such verses, but they became more and more bothersome to me as I grew older. Now, I find them immoral and intolerable.

    Jamie, you admitted that there are examples of the mistreatment of women in the Old Testament. But the examples I’ve cited here are not just stories about men mistreating women, with God disapproving. These are clearly-stated laws or rules, ostensibly divinely-inspired, in both Old and New Testaments.

    Believe me, Jamie, I do sympathize with your position. As a believer, I had to concoct ever-more-elaborate justification and smokescreens to obscure the plainly demonstrable fact that the Bible is filled with misogyny.

    It’s filled with all kinds of other stuff, too – stirring poetry, sometimes-dubious history, culturally revealing parables, etc. And not every word spoken in the Bible about women is denigrating. But none of this excuses the vile misogyny that IS there, in black and white.

    Which leads to John’s point: If you are going to claim that all of the verses I’ve quoted above are merely reflections of cultural values, and NOT inspired by god… that seems problematic. If those rules were not inspired by god, why did he let that shit get in there? Were the human authors or editors of the bible too wily for god? Was there a mix-up at the printing plant? I’m being facetious, certainly, but to make my central point: You cannot point to some Bible verses as proof of divine truth, while simultaneously dismiss other Bible verses as outdated cultural detritus. According to the Bible itself, we are called upon to accept every word.

    So how do you work around this?

74. Jasonsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    …and back to this question of matter, and where said matter came from.

    Far be it from me to claim that I’m smarter than Aristotle, BUT… this argument that Eric cites seems woefully insufficient as any sort of definitive proof for the existence of a divine being.

    Just to recap Aristotle’s argument, as quoted by Eric:

    1) The material world exists.
    2) Nothing in the material world has willed itself into existence.
    3) Matter had to come from somewhere.

    …concluding with: therefore, God must have created matter.

    First of all, point #2. This seems to make the implicit assumption that, apart from the God Hypothesis, the only alternate explanation is that matter is intrinsically sentient and has the power to “will itself into existence.” It also seems to make the implicit assumption that the very existence of matter requires a “will.” I wouldn’t agree with either of these implicit assumptions. As I’ll get to in a minute, there are several other theories in play, which you have not acknowledged.

    Not to mention the fact that this is a classic Deus Ex Machina argument: Here is a phenomenon that I can’t currently explain, therefore it must be the doing of a supernatural god/demon/faerie. This argument was faulty when medieval doctors theorized that epilepsy was the result of demonic possession, and it’s faulty today when you argue that the only possible explanation for the existence of matter is an invisible and time-immune divine being.

    I’m not just being contrary (I’m not I’m not I’M NOT!); I still honestly don’t see that this argument avoids the problem of infinite regression. If the existence of matter implies a creator from a non-material realm… why doesn’t the existence of a non-material creator imply the existence of a yet more powerful NON-non-material creator? Any termination to this infinite regress is completely arbitrary, as far as I can see.

    So, are there other possible explanations for the existence of matter? I could never pretend to be an expert in this field, but this is my understanding of the current thinking: Immediately after the Big Bang, high-energy bosons cooled and decayed into high-mass particles and corresponding anti-particles. This is supported by scientific observation, since gamma rays can be seen to decay into electrons and positrons.

    Of course, that’s not the end of the story, as scientists will readily admit. There’s the question of what happened to the expected anti-particles, and also the question of where the high-energy bosons came from. Did they “always” exist (whatever that means) in one or another form prior to the proposed Big Bang? We don’t know, which is why science doesn’t claim to have a definitive answer to the question, and does not posit an artificial termination to this potentially infinite regress.

    All kinds of questions, lots of proposed answers – many supported by observable experimentation, some not (yet) – but none **requiring** supernatural intervention.

    Throughout history, as I alluded to earlier, theologians and scientists have attributed mysterious (e.g. currently inexplicable) phenomena to the existence of one or another magical being. Time after time, science eventually discovered the answer, and the magical explanation was discarded. I have no reason to believe that this particular case will be any different from the historical norm.

    Note to Jamie, Comment 67. You said: “You and I are quite similar, you just had bigger balls when we were younger. Maybe you still do!!!”

    Much to my chagrin, you are correct. My doctor assures me that it’s simply a glandular condition, however, and nothing to worry about.

75. Jamiesays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Thank God! Or Allah… or Avishnu (sp)…. at least you’re not pulling an Armstrong! We don’t want to be calling you one-nut J! Although, that might be a catchy lead singer name for an eccentric, off-beat band! Or we could just call you neuter… nah, Annette has a nicer ring!

    How do I square it… that is the question of the day. Simply stated… well let me backtrack a little first. Jason, do you remember the reason that God sent his son? Why he needed to redeem the world through him? Now that I’ve asked that question, here goes my answer squaring my stance. God originally had 10 Commandments for his people to follow. 10… Ten. Eleven minus one… Over time, the Jewish leaders and priests continued to “Add” to them. God never told them to. They did it on their own accord. Outside of his will. Catholics of today (sorry, Eric), same thing with the catacisms. It’s all encompassed in 10 things God told them not to do. They added so much that it became all about works and nothing to do with God, His grace and living to please Him. It was about impressing your neighbor with how “holy” you were. That’s why Christ came. To fulfill the law, to bring them back to the center, back to the truth God gave them. They couldn’t live by 10 “simple” laws, so they invented ways around it to grease their own conscience. As an example, one of the teachers asked Jesus (as a trick) about marriage. He was shocked by Jesus’ reply: Matthew 19:3-9 “3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

    7″Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    The Jews had tons of “reasons” they penned into law about divorce (Moses ALLOWED it, not God commanded it) just so they could do what they wanted. Notice, Jesus said their hearts were hard. God’s design is not for divorce, but for unity.

    As for the Adam and Eve comment, man was lonely and God saw that it wasn’t good for him to be alone (gr. monon). He created a helper (gr. bohqon) being the same as him (gr. auton)… where we get our word autonomous. We are the same, not better or worse. Men throughout the bible ruined what God had perfected. Not the other way around. Please don’t confuse the two. I can take any verse out of context and say, “See, God said/did this to women.” No, he didn’t. And it was included for our benefit to see how NOT to treat women. God made Eve from Adam, not dust. He took her from his side. It’s a symbolic reference that they were to live, work, rule, side by side in harmony. Neither was above the other. He did not take Eve from Adam’s head to rule over him or from his foot that she would be under him or from his hand that he would control her. He took her from his side, symbolic of their equality. Again, injustices shown in the bible really, to me anyway, confirm the loving God we have that he tolerates our insulence, arrogance and disobedience and that we often do our own thing. The bible is lined with example after example. It’s also lined with good examples of how women were treated by Godly men who loved Him and knew how to love and treat their women. If all men treated women the way God intended them to (and vice versa – not cutting the women any slack here!) we’d have no need for “women’s lib”. They were liberated in the garden. Also, Paul admonished believers to love their wives and give themselves up for them, even as Christ gave himself up for the church and died for her. That’s selfless. That’s true love. That’s dying to self and living for another person and putting their wants, needs and desires first. Unfortunately, I don’t see alot of that in most areas of life, including in the church. I see alot of selfish people putting themselves first and giving lip service to “oh, yes I love my wife” as they put off doing simple things their wife asked them to do 4 weeks ago, all whilst sitting and watching another “perverbial” important game on ESPN. And you misquoted the verse…. it’s Genesis 2:18….

    Many attach ownership to God in the way women are/were treated without placing the blame squarely where it lies, on those doing the abusing or twisting or adding to what God said. I don’t think I could be any clearer, nor the bible on this subject.

    The bottom is that people are irresponsible and always play the blame game. It’s never my fault, he told me to do it. God said… He said… she said… What this world is in dire need of is personally accountability and ownership. We need to own our junk and not blame others. Especially with God.

    “But none of this excuses the vile misogyny that IS there, in black and white.” It’s there in black and white as an example of what not to do. You have to read deeper. Sorry.

    The horse is dead, beaten to a pulp. The “Jesus” argument/debate keeps drawing me back, not because of the historical fact, but because of what people claim he did or didn’t say, not what he did or didn’t do. As I stated, I can agree to disagree with anyone claiming Jesus was only a man, but when they ascribed things to him that he did or didn’t say, I have a problem with that and that is why it continues to be brought up. I’m done with the Jesus, man or myth lineage. I will only bring it up when others misquote or falsely assign him with something he either didn’t say or do. I’ll grant that. Very beaten up…

    Eric is making some remarkable and very good points, one of which I recall making long ago with Josephus. There are more historical evidences that can be traced to this same period from outside the church, the bible or Jesus’ followers. I’ll see if I can beat Eric to the punch…. Man, he’s fast though…. and wicked smart!

    I took a deep breath, but I didn’t inhale….

76. Mattsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    Wow! This would be more fun if I understood half of what you all are talking about.

    As for Robin’s question about the church and the treatment of women. When the Episcopal Church looked at ordaning women they looked at what is often referred to as the “Holy Tricycle” (that’s tongue-in-cheek by the way).

    Basically the Episcopal Church looks at three sources of authority. Scripture (big wheel), Tradition (small wheel) and Reason (other small wheel).

    So when the subject matter came up, the church looked at what scripture said. Well, the Old Testament is pretty spot on about women being “lesser” but Christ’s treatment of women was with respect and admiration. Mary Magadelene (a hooker) was the first to encounter Christ after the resurrection and Christ never talked of treating women poorly (even stopping the stoning of a woman). So, basically, Scripture cancelled itself out. Leaving “tradition” and “reason.”

    Well, obviously, throughout the traditions of the church women have been treated like shit.

    So then comes “reason.” Reason dictates that the men who treated the women like shit over the centuries have/had really no clue as to what they were doing. So, reasonably, women should be allowed to hold all manner of roles in the church. VOILA!

    I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, it is what it is.

    But…that’s not to say that, during the time of this upheaval that people left the church due to it. Much like what we’re seeing now with gays in the clergy. You see, the same “holy tricycle” applies to this situation. And, once again, reason wins out. And, sadly, once again you’ve got churches fracturing and people going hither and yon and stealing church property, etc. because, by God, we can’t have “homos in the pulpit!”

    I think the problem that I have with some arguments is the belief that just because I’m in for a penny, I’m in for a pound.

    That, by calling myself a Christian, I’m somehow accepting and encouraging all the evil that has come before me and will occur after me by others calling themselves Christians. That could not be further from the truth. But I would say, that if I was Catholic, I would seriously re-think my relationship with the church after the evils the hierarchy did in hiding pedophile preists, etc. But some would say that the Episcopal church is doing the same thing by giving a thumbs up to Eugene Robinson and that’s why people are leaving. Let ‘em leave, let them find their own relationship with God (or whatever you want to call It/Him/Spirit Mother/Energy/Force/Flying Spegetti Monster).

    Let me back up a moment…when the Episcopal Church chose to ordain a gay pastor as Bishop my father instructed me to “leave the church.” You see, he, too felt that if I believed one, I must believe the whole. I don’t “get” that. As I said before (posting 4…I think) I just simply think there is more to this world than what we see. Jason can call it Natural Wonder. I can call it God. He can be right, I can be right.

    What I realized, from my Father’s point of view, was that for him the Church held some GREAT IMPORTANCE. Especially the pastor. The minister, the reverend, father whatever, was the leader! He held a place of GREAT HONOR and was treated as a “spritual leader.” And, yes, 90% of the time it was a he. And, as power and control get to people you get the likes of Swaggart, Falwell, Tilton, and too many more to name. So when Robinson was ordained my father just assumed that I was the one in front carrying the tallest most colorful flag. And, of course, carrying it straight to hell.

    Now, whether the man was ordained Bishop, or not. Was gay, or not. Whether the Church gave their thumbs up, or not – was not of my concern. Because it didn’t affect my relationship with God (It/He/Spirit mother/Energy/Force/Flying Speggetti monster).

    At the risk of continuing to stray off the point (that is if I was getting to a point or not), what I think most bothers me about statments like “religion poisons everything” or “patriarchal blah-de-blah” is, again, this assumption that I buy into it all. That because I believe in God I’m somehow a non-thinking, gay hating, woman hating, slave raping, mysoginistic (sic?) asshole who keeps his wife pregnant and barefoot and naked and in the kitchen. Guilt by association.

    Which, of course, brings me back to MY ultimate question:

    “What do you believe?” And “Why?”

    I would, honestly, like to know.

    So, to not put words in Jason’s mouth…okay…I will, here’s what I’ve gleaned:

    Jason: “I believe there is no God.”
    Matt: “Why?”
    Jason: “Because after my life experience and going through this world and looking and reading and exploring and researching I have not found any reason to believe that some being of which could be called “God” exists.”
    Matt: “Okee dokee”

    Okay Jamie, John, Eric, Robin, etc….

    Simply put:

    What do you believe and why?

    100 words or less.

77. Keithsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    Wow. I step away for a bit and WHAM…70+ posts!

    Quite frankly I think you all have said it all, anything I could add at this point would be a less eloquent version of something someone else said (on either side possibly!)

    I do know one quick way to end this debate, if you feel like it. It’s called ‘Godwin’s Law’. You can take a peek at it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    “References to Godwin’s Law often actually refer to a corollary of it which determines that the person who first makes an unwarranted reference to Nazi Germany or Hitler in an argument loses that argument automatically.”

    I notice that someone in one of the sections mentioned Nazi’s or Hitler (or something along those lines.) So I guess we could just declare a winner for the other side.

    Thanks for the fun guys, hope we all find enlightenment, wherever it can be found.

    8^)

    Keith

78. Jasonsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Jamie – I just want to reflect back what I think I’m hearing from you…

    So when I read in the Bible that women are not allowed to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34,35) or that women are subject “in everything” to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24) or that women are ordered to be silent, subservient, and bear more children (1 Timothy 2:8-15)… those are merely examples of what we should NOT do?

    So these rules are actually telling us to do precisely the opposite of what they appear to be telling us?

    Wow, that’s confusing.

79. johnsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    jamie,
    are you skimming my responses? I said I found jesus’ claims in the new testament confusing because they are contradictory and repetitious. Once I read a few critiques of the gospels I had a better understanding that they were post hoc attempts to match the life of jesus to messianic prophecies. The gospels have jesus speaking in parables, casting out demons and curing lepers. Since I think these are implausible anecdotes I wanted to learn more about them.
    really. go back and read what I actually wrote. I am glad you understand Dawkins and Hitchens. Their writing is clear, concise, logical and direct. (by the way ad hominem arguments won’t get you anywhere with me. Neither will straw man, arguments from authority, arguments from ignorance or arguments from personal incredulity)
    I was referring to INtolerance. You responded with a definition of tolerance “Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.”
    Since I know what both words mean and you, apparently, were skimming or misread what i wrote. You are the one that responded with a definition of “tolerance” when I was asking about INtolerance. It seem to be either a non sequitur or you misread what I wrote. I could copy and paste the whole thing again for you but you can go back and re read it yourself if you like.
    So what parts, exactly, are the word of god and should be taken literally and which parts where written by men? Are deuteronomy, leviticus not god’s laws and rules? Or does the arrival of jesus indicate that we no longer have follow rabbinical law? Can we forget all that stuff about non virgins being stoned to death? Is genesis a true account of how the world was created or poetic metaphor? This is important because it goes to your argument “God never in His word (bible) said women were inferior.” please to read: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
    Jamie, to quote you again: “” To say that the teachings in the bible have nothing to do with god is ridiculous at best.” Here we go again… ascribing words to me that I never said. Had this been from one of my threads farther up the ladder I’d cut you some slack, but not going to happen this time.” You quote from the bible to back up your points. when Jason, Robin or I quote the bible you say it is the actions of men. Read our posts and reread yours. Again. Is bible the word of god or not?
    Since these arguments aren’t moving us forward and a couple of posters have asked us to move on I will.

80. johnsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Hi Eric,
    great to hear from you. I think Jason handled most of the arguments pretty well. Basically it seems that you are putting god where I would put natural causes.
    I think science is leading us to an answer and for me “god” is no answer at all. It is just giving up. A final cause.
    Also I wouldn’t use “homer” as an example that showing indirect records indicating jesus existed. Current thinking is that the writings ascribed to homer are from at least threes sources. I am willing to admit that there is indirect evidence for jesus existing but I balk at evidence for his divinity. For a claim that extraordinary I will need more than anecdotes.
    Glad you finally got your arguments posted.

81. johnsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    keith,
    as far as I know Hitler hasn’t been mentioned. You don’t need to look any further than the medieval catholic church to find christian intolerance of jews. (not to pick on catholics but they were the christian church for awhile)
    Now If I were to say the pope is worse than hitler I would agree. argument over.

82. johnsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    Matt,
    Here is what I believe.
    I don’t think there is any evidence for any supernatural entities. I think the scientific method is self correcting (despite obvious abuses) is the best way to understand the world around us. Pseudo science, religion and spiritualism (I can’t think of a better word to describe what I am thinking regarding supernatural does these count as my 100 words?) are impediments to clear thinking and understanding.
    I think open minded skepticism is the most reasonable and rational way to understand the world. (ooh, use this one!)

83. johnsays:
    
    March 9th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Hi Jason,
    great thread and the only blog I comment on. Well I first on my buddie’s daughter’s college blog and occasionally post more thoughtful comments. She just came out as a lesbian and is finding her political feet. I couldn’t be more proud of her.
    I have some of the same questions for Jamie as you do. They way I understand it (and Jamie, please chime in on this if I misunderstand) is that god gave moses the “ten commandments” and that those are all of god’s laws. everything else up to the gospels are man’s additions to god’s law or stories about men following or disobeying god’s law. The gospels are stories about the life of jesus that are true and evidence for his divinity.
    sorry to make you work with all these posts.

84. Jamiesays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 12:46 am

    To both Jason and John,

    I think Matt summed it up best. He took what I meticulously tried to eloquate and summed it up in a very, simple sentence. “So when the subject matter came up, the church looked at what scripture said. Well, the Old Testament is pretty spot on about women being “lesser” but Christ’s treatment of women was with respect and admiration. Mary Magadelene (a hooker) was the first to encounter Christ after the resurrection and Christ never talked of treating women poorly (even stopping the stoning of a woman).”

    Bravo!

    Christ, Jesus, never talked of treating women poorly. Rather, he not only talked them up, he gave us an example of how to treat them by doing it himself.

    Jason, when you say “when I read….” Who said women can’t speak in church? God? Are the words ascribed to God? Did God say them? No, Paul said them. I can get into the cultural ramifications of it, why he said it and how it’s all changed over the centuries, but you will never accept it or agree with me because you choose to continue to look for the exception, not the rule or as Matt said, reason. By rule, I mean God’s rule, what he actually said.

    What I believe in 100 words or less:

    Jesus Christ is God, was God and continues to be God. He is the only God. He came in the flesh, walked among men, proclaimed himself, died on the cross for all man’s sins, was put in the tomb, rose on the third day, was witnessed by hundreds and is seated in Heaven awaiting the predetermined day of his return when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He Is Lord. Amen.

    74 words… I didn’t want to bloviate.

    I can tell you how He’s changed me, molded me, comforted me in the presence of real tragedy, led me, guided me, corrected me, humbled me and helped me be a better man. It’s still my choice. I blow it daily and he loves me in spite of my shortcomings, just as a loving father should, would and does.

    When I use the bible to back up my point/points and tell you that you are either reading it wrong, reading into a meaning or using it out of context and saying essentially, “See, God did this here but not here… contradiction, mysogeny!” I am merely pointing out the obvious. It’s not confusing, it’s straight forward. When Jesus came to set the record straight and get men back on track, he called into account all of the wrong practices of the day. One short example: John 8 When the Pharisees were going to stone the woman for being caught in the act of adultery…. Whoa! Stop! Back up! Caught? In the act? Sounds like a set up to me…. Caught in the act of adultery they brought her to Jesus and wanted to stone her. Question? What about the guy she was “with”???? No mention! Wasn’t he caught in adultery too??? What? No stoning for him? Hmmmm…. What did Jesus do and say? He began drawing in the dirt, perhaps listing the sins currently being indulged in by every leader accusing her. Notice what the Pharisees said. “The law says we are to stone her!” Really? What law? One of the ten commandments? The commandment is “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” No where was it added, “And kill whoever does!” That was the Jewish leaders adding to God’s law. Wrong law, dudes! Then, Jesus boldly declared, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Hypocrites? Definitely! Doing God’s will? Not even close. Did they know God’s will? Debatable, but I’ll give them that one. And they all dropped their stones and walked away. I think Jesus had all the stones that day. What did man say? What did Jesus say? Big difference. It’s all recorded for our benefit, not confusion. There is no confusion in what Jesus said or what he did.

    Here’s the common theme I see repeating itself from the anti-theist side of the aisle. Take portions of the bible, quote it like a bible scholar, but then ever so slightly twist it to meet your need. Leaving things out or adding to it. That’s not a new trick, but an old one found back in the garden.

    “(by the way ad hominem arguments won’t get you anywhere with me. Neither will straw man, arguments from authority, arguments from ignorance or arguments from personal incredulity)”

    Nor with me….

85. johnsays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 1:00 am

    oh and matt,
    i didn’t address some of the positive things you said. There are many branches of faith that are taking a more enlightened open attitude towards equality and tolerance. I think that is great. We all got kind of sidetracked from the original argument about religion poisoning everything.
    I think that there are some positive teachings that come out of various spiritual teachings. I just don’t think that there is anything that indicates a supernatural world. And I i think that, as I have said in earlier posts, that dogmatic ideology , a rigid sureness that a person is right and is backed by a supernatural, omniscient entity leads to bigotry and tyranny. Fred Phelps would be an example of the latter. I don’t think anyone on this blog fits that description. I think that Pat Robertson is a less extreme example. nations like Iran that practice religious law are another example. Creationists may not be physically harmful but they are intellectually harmful.

86. Mattsays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 11:38 am

    Since I brought it up, I’m not going to follow the 100 word rule as I’m going to go “off book” here for a moment:

    God (….): I believe there is something beyound this world that I can see/feel/taste/hear/reason. When I pray I feel listened to. When I cry I feel comforted. When I ache I feel held.

    Jesus: I believe he was a wonderful man who fought for injustice, fought for peace, challenged authority, and was killed. Was he GOD? When John Denver asks George Burns: “Is Jesus Christ the son of God?” George goes on to explain that we’re all a son of God. We all have a responsibility to fight for justice, peace and the dignity for every human being.

    Religion: Should be a conduit into a relationship with that “other”. Too often it is used as a way to control, “win,” marginalize, hurt, separate, abuse.

    Bible: I believe that it is an interesting book, but not literally transcribable.

    Gay: I believe that 95% of all those who consider themselves gay were born that way.

    Women: I believe that women are vastly superior to men and should be treated as so.

    Heaven: See concept regarding something beyond this world. I would, indeed, like to hang out with Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., my Granpa Mercer, even my father. Is it streets paved with gold and mansions on hills? I don’t know.

    Hell: I do not believe there is a hell as concepted by South Park or “fire and brimstone preachers,” only what you create. But I do wish there was a hell for all the evil people in the world.

    Abortion: I hate abortion, but do not feel I have the right to tell a 13 year old girl raped by her father that she has to carry a child to term, or a woman should die in child birth to save the baby. Abortion should NOT be used as birth control.

    Birth control: Hand it out. Give it away. Make it known, make it accessible.

    Illegal Drugs: Legalize them. Tax them. Provide counseling. Just because cigarettes are legal, I have no desire whatsoever to smoke. If Crack was legal I would have no desire to smoke.

    Health care: Just as the country provides free schooling, the country should provide free health care.

    Love: I believe in love. That love can cross boundaries, can change hearts, can give solace, can create peace, can move mountains and can heal.

    Sorry…I went over 100 words.

87. Jasonsays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Jamie sez (Comment 84): “Here’s the common theme I see repeating itself from the anti-theist side of the aisle. Take portions of the bible, quote it like a bible scholar, but then ever so slightly twist it to meet your need. Leaving things out or adding to it. That’s not a new trick, but an old one found back in the garden.”

    Am I reading the implication of that last sentence correctly? That, by using direct quotations from the Bible to refute your arguments, I am using the trickery of… The Dark Lord Beelzebub? Funny, that’s the same thing the JW elders said when I asked a bunch of questions that they couldn’t answer.

    RE: “Well, the Old Testament is pretty spot on about women being ‘lesser’…” (originally posted by Matt, quoted by Jamie), I would point you to the last few scriptures I quoted, all from the New Testament.

    Jamie, please remember that I grew up with this stuff. I have, in fact, read the Bible from cover to cover (though that was years ago), and I believe I am fairly clear on the colorful panoply of stuff one can find in there. I cited the Scriptures, so that anyone interested can investigate the context for themselves and decide whether I perverted the meaning.

    I believe that I hear you and Matt saying the following (correct me if I’m wrong): Yes, the Bible contains some misogyny and other ugly stuff, but we have to filter that through our reasoning to decide which parts of the Bible to read as positive examples, and which to read as negative examples (I would say: which parts to accept and which parts to toss out).

    If I’m hearing you correctly, then this is almost too easy: Believers are again making the obvious points for me.

    The Bible contains all kinds of stuff, some good (most of the stuff that the Bible writers attribute to Jesus), and some bad (those misogynist scriptures quoted earlier, the parts that condone slavery, the parts where the Israelites are commanded to slaughter or enslave every living human in some Canaanite cities, that weird part where Lot offers his daughters to the crowd for raping, that part where God orders Abraham to cut his own son’s throat but then says “PSYCH!” at the last second). Thus, we have to use our reason and discernment to figure out which parts to take at face value, and which parts to NOT take at face value (I would say: which parts to reject outright).

    Exactly my point. We can’t rely on the Bible as our sole moral guide; we must also rely on our human reasoning. Which prompts the question: Why do we need the Bible, again?

    As I said previously, the fact that the Bible ALSO contains good stuff does nothing to mitigate the bad stuff that IS in there, such as the scriptures I quoted. Jamie, I think you’re involved with the Boy Scouts, right? I love those old Boy Scout manuals. Let’s imagine that you’ve got a Webelos manual, and it contains all sorts of awesome information about stringing a bow, spearing a trout, tying a sailor’s knot, making a crystal radio out of an oatmeal container, and displaying courtesy to old ladies. But then, right after the chapter on building your own bark canoe, is a chapter entitled: “The Sneaky Jews: Sworn Enemy of the Webelos,” guest-written by Mel Gibson, which reiterates the Blood Libel and explains how the Jews have rigged the banking system and orchestrated all the wars for their own benefit. Your reasoning would tell you that this chapter is flat-out wrong, even abhorrent. Not only that, wouldn’t it make you question the usefulness of the rest of the manual? Particularly when all of the useful information found in the rest of the manual can be found elsewhere, in books NOT containing bizarre outbursts of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semitism?

    Again – Jamie, I have read the Bible. I am relatively familiar with its contents. If I have misquoted or misrepresented any of the scriptures I cited, please tell me. If not, kindly drop your accusations of devil-inspired scripture-perversion, and grapple with my points directly. If you are concerned about my immortal soul, and wondering how you can love me back to Christ… well, you could do better.

    Sorry, Matt – I know you are trying to turn this tanker toward a more positive destination, and you are right to do so. In my next post, I promise!

88. Mattsays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    First, I will admit right up front that I’m not much of a “bible reader” and cannot quote chapter and verse. But again you have to look at everything in the context in which it was written, who was writing and why.

    Yes, Jason, you are correct about what I am doing with the bible, using reasoning and thought to try and figure out what the writer was saying and to whom. My father was a “bible worshipper” – meaning that if it wasn’t in the bible, it wasn’t true. He held up the writings/letters of Paul to some sort of absoulte truth (or something) and I frankly said to him, uh, Dad…wasn’t Paul, you know, HUMAN? But because someone put it in the bible and called it the “word of God” that somehow everything was okee dokee.

    Every time I see some street preacher standing on a corner yelling about being saved and forgiven I only think about the scripture where Jesus says: “Don’t stand on the street corner and pray.” And laugh to myself. That street preacher knows more about the bible than I probably ever will in my lifetime and he’s contradicting the very words of Jesus? Uh….? Okay…?

    So then, of course, it comes back to interpretation. I’ve often wondered how differing churches who all call themselves literalist can have such differing views of what is written. I mean, honestly, shouldn’t they all believe the same thing?

    At some point I’ll discuss my theory of the “fundamentalist tight rope.”

89. Jasonsays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    Based on the last few posts, here’s another proposed stipulation:

    We can’t take everything the Bible says at face value. Rather, we must filter it through our own reason and discernment, based on what we know of cultural norms/scientific knowledge/etc. at the time it was written.

    Can we all agree to that stipulation?

    And, as promised:

    I believe the natural world is mysterious and awe-inspiring, yet see no need to postulate a divine creator. I believe that those of us in positions of privilege should be better allies to those who have less privilege. I believe that, when making life decisions, we should favor the choice that will open us up to the world in greater measure (new friends, new experiences, new insights). I believe everyone should do some volunteer work and expend some time/energy/money making the world a better place, not simply proselytizing our own beliefs. I believe we all should listen more attentively and speak less. I believe Crowded House’s debut album and the Posies’ Dear 23 are two of the finest guitar-based classic pop albums ever recorded.

    And just because I believe the above… that doesn’t mean that I successfully follow my own advice. Particularly the part about talking less.

    A couple of folks have noted a shift toward the negative in recent posts, and they’re probably right. For my part in that, I apologize. I do believe this is an important and edifying conversation/debate, but I don’t think it’s important enough to lose any friendships over!

    Peace to all of you, and thanks for being willing to engage in this conversation, even when it’s gotten a bit rough. Particular thanks to Matt for his efforts to re-direct the conversation and reduce the snark. You are a prince among men, my friend.

90. Mattsays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Just doing my Christian duty (rim shot).

91. johnsays:
    
    March 10th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    I am glad we finally have this all sorted out.
    I think a natural world is more interesting. I find life more beautiful and precious in a natural world. I don’t see anything that necessitates a supernatural world or a god. I would rather have a difficult truth than a comforting falsehood. While I agree that many people do good things in the name of faith and religion it is also true that they do horrible, awful things. If this is the only life we have and there is no reward at the end of it then we should make the most of it and treat other lives as the precious things they are. No reward for dying while fighting my enemies. No assurance victims are in a better place. No reason to despise or kill because someone doesn’t have the same god. No reason to hate or kill because someone isn’t following some archaic rules or laws or living and loving in a way that offends someone else’s beliefs.
    I think getting past religion and superstition is the best thing that could happen to this world.
    And I have to agree. Dear 23 and Crowded House are great pop albums.

92. Jamiesays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 1:19 am

    I agree wholeheartedly with the Matt post, Jason’s post about civility, etc. I feel I need to respond to several things that were said, so I’ll do it with no snark. I’ll just do a straight forward post.

    Jason said, “Jamie, I think you’re involved with the Boy Scouts, right? I love those old Boy Scout manuals. Let’s imagine that you’ve got a Webelos manual, and it contains all sorts of awesome information about stringing a bow, spearing a trout, tying a sailor’s knot, making a crystal radio out of an oatmeal container, and displaying courtesy to old ladies. But then, right after the chapter on building your own bark canoe, is a chapter entitled: “The Sneaky Jews: Sworn Enemy of the Webelos,” guest-written by Mel Gibson, which reiterates the Blood Libel and explains how the Jews have rigged the banking system and orchestrated all the wars for their own benefit. Your reasoning would tell you that this chapter is flat-out wrong, even abhorrent. Not only that, wouldn’t it make you question the usefulness of the rest of the manual? Particularly when all of the useful information found in the rest of the manual can be found elsewhere, in books NOT containing bizarre outbursts of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semitism?” This is not the same as the argument I made for the bible. First of all, that is not in any Webelos manual I’ve ever seen, so it’s not relevant. Glib yes, relevant no. It’s apples and oranges. And you started the statement with the word “imagine”.

    Jason said, “The Bible contains all kinds of stuff, some good (most of the stuff that the Bible writers attribute to Jesus), and some bad (those misogynist scriptures quoted earlier, the parts that condone slavery, the parts where the Israelites are commanded to slaughter or enslave every living human in some Canaanite cities, that weird part where Lot offers his daughters to the crowd for raping, that part where God orders Abraham to cut his own son’s throat but then says “PSYCH!” at the last second). Thus, we have to use our reason and discernment to figure out which parts to take at face value, and which parts to NOT take at face value (I would say: which parts to reject outright).” As for slavery, I see no where that God condones it. His “chosen” people were enslaved. As for others enslaved it was equally wrong. He never condoned it. Lot offered his daughters, yes. Did he hear the audible voice of God say, “Lot, offer them up. They’re hot!” No… And that’s the point I’ve been trying to show. God gave men laws to follow… 10 of them. They couldn’t, try as they might (I know I can’t either…). The bible shows their valiant attempts as well as their feeble attempts, successful and unsuccessful. In testing Abraham’s “heart”, He knew he’d go through with it. It was for Abraham’s benefit, and perhaps Isaac’s as well. It helped strengthen his faith and his trust in God. As for the Canaanites, the key question is why did God ask the Israelites to do that? What were the Canaanites doing that so angered God?

    My ex-wife was born in the church, grew up in the church and still attends. It didn’t mean she knew what she was talking about (she really didn’t!). I think you are more well-versed than she, but growing up in it doesn’t mean we totally know our bible so it’s not an argument to make. I’ve already shown several misquotes you’ve made. Hey, I’m no bible Einstein either, I’ll admit it. I think you have a solid grasp, but I also believe based on the things you’ve written that you don’t want to acknowledge certain points I’ve made, as obvious as they seem to me and to others who are reading these posts but choose not to participate (I’ve gotten emails…). I believe (totally my opinion, I’m not saying this is a fact) that you are using the bible much the same way that many “preachers” use the bible, to suit their needs. Truth, but not the whole truth. Most of the meaning, but not the entire meaning. That’s my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize up front.

    I did not accuse you of devil-inspired scripture perversion. I am saddened that you took the liberty to go that route. I said the tactic was not new and referred to the original twisting of something God said that was distorted by the serpant in the garden. I’m not going to cut and paste the Genesis account. It’s not necessary. Clever word games and super imposing of personal interpretations of what others say is mean-spirited. If you sincerely feel that I was likening you to Beelzebub, I do apologize and am truly sorry. I was not. I am also not acting like the JW elders. I believe I am very matter of factly answering all of your questions and not shirking them off as dumb or trying to stir up trouble. There is not a single question that you’ve asked (or anyone for that matter) that I’ve said “I don’t know” or “that’s a dumb question”. I don’t mind answering people with a dissenting viewpoint. It’s intellectually challenging and spiritually stimulating.

    “We can’t take everything the Bible says at face value. Rather, we must filter it through our own reason and discernment, based on what we know of cultural norms/scientific knowledge/etc. at the time it was written.

    Can we all agree to that stipulation?”

    Here’s my cut and paste I wrote way back in post 34 to answer the above stipulation…

    James’ FREEBIE for the day!!! “Hey, Jamie, do you believe in the literal translation of the bible?” I take the bible at face value. I read it the same way I read the sports section. When I get to box scores I read it literally. When I read the article that says, “Mariners kill Red Sox in 11 inning thriller! Seattle mopped the floor with Boston’s starting pitching”, I don’t literally believe anyone was killed or dunked in a mop bucket and dragged across Safeco Field. That’s figurative speech and should be read as such. I read the bible the same way. We all should….

    That’s my definition of face value. What’s yours? It seems to differ from mine.

    If I have offended, I do apologize.

    Matt, thanks for centering us!

93. johnsays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Yep, I think we can all agree that the bible isn’t meant to be taken literally. And sure there is some pretty questionable things going on. Abraham being asked to sacrifice his child (then told not to at the last minute) as a way to show his loyalty. Job being tortured so god could show how much job loved him. Jonah being swallowed by a leviathan. works and miracles being attributed to jesus so his story more closely aligns with old testament expectations of the messiah. a super crazy fever dream explaining how the world is going to end.
    The bible is simply the myths and teachings of a particular religion. There are some valuable lessons from it just like there are valuable lessons from other religions. Essentially it isn’t that different than other myths. In fact it borrows pretty liberally from many sources. That is one of the reasons why I think it is time to put it away. We don’t need it anymore and in many ways the way people are interpreting it is holding us back.
    I do think that there is no evidence or need for a divine being to explain the world around us. I think that religion can be and has been used to encourage and rationalize some of the worst crimes man has committed to each other. It has been used for good as well but that is the problem. When you are dealing with myth and faith arguments and rationalizations can be made to defend almost any idea.
    It is time to move past the supernatural

94. Mattsays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    I just think “Everyone Should Love Each Other and Live in Peace and Harmony.”

95. Jasonsays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Jamie, I guess you didn’t like my “Anti-Semitic Webelos Manual” parable! You said:

    “This is not the same as the argument I made for the bible.”

    Nope, it’s my own parable, meant to illustrate my argument re: why I reject the Bible as a reliable source of moral guidance.

    You said: “First of all, that is not in any Webelos manual I’ve ever seen, so it’s not relevant. Glib yes, relevant no. It’s apples and oranges.”

    Yup, no actual Webelos manual exists as I described; it was a metaphor. I used this metaphor to illustrate the absurdity of accepting a human-authored document which contains demonstrable bigotry as any kind of reliable moral compass.

    In the same way, there was no actual camel that wished to pass through the eye of an actual needle; Jesus used this metaphor (Matthew 19:23,24) to illustrate the unlikelihood of a rich man entering into the kingdom of god.

    I thought Christians were down with parables and metaphors? Jesus used them fairly often. I say that in all seriousness. Even when I called myself a Christian, I understood and appreciated a good parable or metaphor to illustrate a point.

    You said: “I’ve already shown several misquotes you’ve made.”

    No, I don’t think you have, unless I missed something. I tried to transcribe all of my quotations accurately, primarily from my handy “Layman’s Parallel Bible.” Most were from the “Revised Standard” column in that book. Seriously, Jamie, if I have misquoted any scriptures, please give me details. It’s certainly possible that I made a mistake, but you’ll have to show me, rather than just stating the accusation as an established fact.

    You said: “I also believe based on the things you’ve written that you don’t want to acknowledge certain points I’ve made, as obvious as they seem to me and to others who are reading these posts but choose not to participate (I’ve gotten emails…).”

    First of all, the reference to your anonymous friends is a little weak. So far, this is an open forum; I have approved every post. If your friends believe I have missed an important point, they can speak up for themselves. Perhaps they can argue for your position in a way that makes sense to me; I’m all ears!

    Secondly, this accusation: “…you don’t want to acknowledge certain points I’ve made” is consistent with your previous accusation that I take scripture and “…twist it to meet your need” and your reference to a “trick” that was originally perpetrated “in the garden.”

    …all of which – whether or not you are implicitly classing me as an ally of the Dark Lord – implies deceitful intentionality. This, as you admitted, is an assumption on your part. An insulting and incorrect assumption, as it turns out.

    I grew up believing, and now I don’t. I’ve attempted to trace out my thought process for y’all. I’ve answered, to the best of my ability, the objections you have raised. You have no idea how much easier my life would be if I believed! But I don’t, and I can’t pretend that I do. I am not intentionally being deceitful or using clever but hollow debate trickery. I am telling you what I see in the Bible, and quoting from it directly. If I’ve made a grievous logical error, by all means, point it out. But I also reserve the right to point out your logical errors. Fair enough?

    Finally, you say, “That’s my definition of face value. What’s yours?”

    If I believed that the Bible was divinely-inspired and if I considered myself a Christian, taking the Bible at “face value” would mean the following:

    Upon reading 1 Corinthians 14:34,35, I would order my wife to keep her mouth shut in church.

    Upon reading 1 Timothy 2:8-15, I would tell my wife to keep her trap shut and start being more subservient, if you know what I mean.

    It would mean following all of the apparent “laws” and “rules” found in the Bible, just like this guy:

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html

    It would mean accepting the “apparent value” (Webster’s) of such scriptures, rather than filtering them through the reasoning and discernment of my amazing human mind.

    So… by that definition, are you taking the Bible’s contents at “face value”?

    Jesus, I hope not.

    Your analogy to the sports page only works if the statements in the Bible are metaphorical, e.g. “Mariners kill Red Sox” = “Camel through the eye of a needle”

    Your analogy falls apart, however, if you’re trying to describe how you read direct, literal commands in the Bible, e.g. “Mariners kill Red Sox” <> “…women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate…”

    See the difference? I’m still not getting how you work around direct commands written in the Bible. Matt has stated clearly that his church takes into account cultural norms at the time, and filters the result through our human reasoning (which is one reason I have a soft spot for the Episcopal Church). But what about you, Jamie?

    Again: I absolutely understand that not every reference to women in the Bible is denigrating in the same way. I am not disputing that.

    I just don’t understand how you talk your way out of the icky stuff that IS there, or how you decide which laws are good and which aren’t. If you’re only accepting the Ten Commandments and rejecting the rest as human accretion, then I guess you’re okay with gay relationships?

96. Jamiesays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    Does anybody understand the things I’ve written? Have I not been clear? I am apparently speaking in parables and it sounds like Greek to Jason. I will try once again.

    One last time… I will just use one passage of scripture to try and simplify this process.

    1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ” As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

    This was written by the apostle Paul. Paul was a convert to Christ. He formerly persecuted and executed followers of Jesus. He was raised as a Jew, well taught and versed in the “laws” of the Jews. This is a man, not God. He had one meeting with Jesus, a rather scary one (since Jesus was dead), on the road to Damascus which lead to his conversion. It is the only time God ever spoke to Paul, formerly Saul. Disecting the passage above as Paul wrote it, what law is Paul referring to? Is it rabbinical law? God’ law? I don’t recall God ever telling anyone anywhere that women couldn’t speak in the churches… This is Paul falling back on his Jewish upbringing (oops…) and a custom and accepted practice of the day. It is not accepted today, nor is it a relevant practice of our day, nor was it ever something God set down as law. While Paul taught Christ the best he could, he also fell back on tradition and custom. I can’t be any more clear than that. If you don’t understand it, you don’t want to.

    I recall one of my last posts correcting your reference to a scripture in Genesis, but I’ve also corrected omissions in “partially quoting” scripture. I will look back at past posts and cite the misquote verbatim, to satisfy your curiosity. Most of the things are words you’ve attributed to God or something He taught, when it was something man did or said…. case in point the above butchered passage from 1 Corinthians.

    “Matt has stated clearly that his church takes into account cultural norms at the time, and filters the result through our human reasoning” And I agree. That was my definition of face value. Your parable was flawed because it was not teaching a truth. It was superimposing a lie. The camel/eye of needle parable was teaching a truth about how hard it is for a person to stop pursuing wealth and greed and pursue righteousness instead. Much different from your Mel-aphoric assertion.

    I have to run as I am in the middle of moving. If I am gone for a day or two, not to worry. A lightning bolt hasn’t struck me and I haven’t been taken up in the whirlwind…. well, unless I have. You’ll know by my absence!

    Peace and love.

97. Jasonsays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    This is great! I think we’ve found some common ground. Jamie, Matt, and I all seem to agree that many parts of the Bible – even those parts that appear to be direct commands – cannot be taken literally, since they may be the result of human imperfection, outdated cultural biases, etc.

    Our conclusions differ, of course: I **think** that Jamie would say these passages are there for a reason – as an example of what NOT to do. I would simply say they’re wrong-headed bullshit, and can be discarded without repercussion. But still: We do (appear to) agree on something!

    Working forward from there, let’s take Paul as a case in point. Since you’ve already clearly explained why Paul’s biases undermine his reliability as a moral compass… how do you decide which of his statements ARE worthy? Or can we safely skip over any books written by Paul? Given what you’ve written about him, he sounds kinda iffy.

    Regarding my alleged misquotes, I think I may know the source of the problem. As a Christian, I was always taught that the ENTIRE Bible is the inspired word of God (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5,6; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Psalm 119:160; 2 Timothy 3:16), so when I read something like 1 Timothy 2 (or any of the other scriptures I’ve quoted), I assumed that you saw those commands or guidelines as a direct transcription of the thinking of the Christian God. Based on this, I may have attributed certain scriptural passages to God, but – if I am understanding correctly – you see those passages as simply the reflection of their imperfect human authors (like Paul). Is that what’s going on? Or are there scriptures that I actually misquoted, as you allege?

    Actually, the only correction that I could find thus far to my Biblical citations was back in Comment 75, where you said: “And you misquoted the verse…. it’s Genesis 2:18″

    Whereas I had cited Genesis 2:20-22. I just looked back at my Revised Standard, and the citation looks correct to me… can you clarify?

    Believe it or not, Jamie, I do think I’m getting closer to understanding your point of view. Thanks for continuing to engage.

98. Jasonsays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Oops, forgot to add: Jamie, you’ll need to explain how I “butchered” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

    Here’s the scripture itself (Revised Standard):

    “34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

    And here’s my paraphrasing:

    “…it’s shameful for women to speak in church. If they have questions, they need to ask their husbands when they get home.”

    Obviously, you and I have different opinions about why such bollocks was included in the holy canon, but… “butchered”? That seems a bit unfair, dude. I’m just sayin’.

99. Jamiesays:
    
    March 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    We are making some headway, I agree. Thank you for continuing to engage as well. I think we’d be at a significantly less number of entries if we were all sitting in a room and talking rather than typing.

    As for Paul, I believe he is significant and reliable as a moral compass, however the things you’ve cited as mysogeny or patriarchal and attributed to God’s view is/was the “viewpoint of the day”. Matt covered it well as the cultural “norm”, if you will. What’s cultural vs. what God said is two different things in this instance.

    You can put the cleaver down… I’ll retract the remark….

    JE

100. johnsays:
     
     March 11th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

     I just can’t not read this! It has become a real time hog. Nicely done one and all. I think it is pretty clear that the bible can’t be taken literally. Jamie has seemed to argue several times that the bible is written by men and that those men are flawed. I am unclear on which, if any, portions are supposed to be divinely inspired. Since much of it borrows from other myths and much of what is attributed to jesus is actually attempts to have jesus align more closely with old testament messianic prophecy. Also since jesus casts out demons and comes back from the dead and walks on water and since there are no contemporary accounts of jesus’ word and deeds, just amazingly detailed (and contradictory) transcriptions by apostles written anywhere from a decade to much longer after the events supposedly took place, that there isn’t any reason to most of the stories in the bible actually happened and there is no reason to think jesus was divine.
     One of the reasons people that religion poisons everything is because people have been taking things like “wives should shut up”, and “adulterer’s should be stoned to death as should homosexuals” from the bible (incorrectly, sure) and using it as their rational. They think that a command from an omniscient, supernatural deity has demanded they do so. It is poison and it is irrational. It isn’t everything or everyone but it is enough to be a big problem.
     Matt’s church (and I assume Jamie’s) sound nice enough. They seem to take the cafeteria approach to faith. They pick and choose the parts they like and leave out what they don’t like. Which is fine but I don’t see any reason to bother with faith or church at all. Obviously the bible isn’t literally true or god’s word. I don’t see any evidence or need for the divine or supernatural. I think at this point it is an impediment to progress and reason and understanding of the world around us.

101. johnsays:
     
     March 11th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

     I noticed Keith hasn’t popped up in awhile.
     Keith, I totally missed those earlier Nazi examples. went back through the posts and saw them. I like goodwin’s law but I think we managed to avoid having to enact it.
     Eric, the logical arguments you make are interesting and I think Jason responded very well to them. I think the problem with logical arguments in this case is the fall apart when discussing the supernatural. They also are not evidence. I like arguments from logic but I think we need extraordinary proof for these extraordinary claims.
     I remain, as always, skeptical.
     (and yes, this was a blatant attempt to keep the discussion going, Hi Robin!)

102. Mattsays:
     
     March 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

     As I hinted above, I will now discuss what I refer to as the “fundamentalist tightrope” – this is just my own two cents, my own opinion, not to stir up trouble but just what I’ve observed (correctly or incorrectly).

     As we’ve seen above with Admin/Jamie/Me, etc. that a lot of what this ultimately comes down to when it comes to the bible is “interpretation.” As I’ve said before how can two churches who take the bible as LITERAL have differing ways of looking at it. I mean, really.

     How can some pig-f*cker like that guy who protests gay funerals call himself a Christian when what I interpret Christ’s word to be totally contradictory as to what he is doing? But…tomato/toMAHto, right?

     Back to my point… Okay, you’ve got some fundamentalist yay-hoo who believes the Bible is the literal word of God, transcribed to men in some sort of trance while they were God’s secretaries writing every word out…word…for…word…for…word.

     Then you’ve got, I don’t know, Oliver North. Here’s a guy who lied to the Congress, to the American People, funneled money to the contras, etc. He, of course, is hailed as a hero by Jerry Falwell and clan. I REMEMBER Falwell begging people to give the guy money to support his cause, etc.

     Uh…didn’t the guy lie? Isn’t that like one of those commandment thingys? And I’m supposed to SUPPORT HIM?

     You see, like my father, his image of God was this guy with a box of candy in one hand a lightning bolt in the other and if you dare step off that tight rope you were either turned into a pillar of salt or you were loved and cherished. As my priest said: “God is not a psychopath.”

     But – honestly, how do fundementalists live in this environment? How do they walk that tightrope? From what I’ve seen it’s very simple: Rationalizations. Just like in the film “The Big Chill” – the Jeff Golbum character says that “rationalizations are better than sex.”

     Well…you see…Oliver North was lying, yes, but FOR A GREATER GOOD! Jimmy Swaggart was sleeping with prostitutes, Ted Haggard is snorting cocaine off a gay man’s ass, etc. I’m not saying that they’re all rationalizing but, golly gee, how wide is their tightrope?

     My father did the same thing. He would accuse of me of not following the bible, but would lie. But, somehow, in his brain…it was “okay.” Christ’s death and resurrection would forgive him for his sin, though he would pontificate and judge and tell the rest of us we were on a firey path to hades.

     My priest’s speciality is PTSD. He was a torturer during the Vietnam war. He killed. He saw death surrouding him. He now helps other Veterans deal with it. The biggest issue he has to deal with is the fact that the soldier cannot get beyond the fact that he has killed and, thus, will never be forgiven. You’ve got people in between the God with box of chocolates and God with the lightning bolt and it is, seriously, driving them insane. They haven’t rationalized a wide tightrope.

     Again, is this religion doing this to them? Is it God? If they did not believe in a God would it help them reconcile the fact that they killed another human being? Those are tough questions, and I’m not seeking an answer. Nor would I ever want to be in their situation…but I would kill someone who entered by house and tried to harm my wife or children.

     I don’t know, as usual, if I fully made my point. But, at least, give me props for trying.

     Word.

103. johnsays:
     
     March 12th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

     Matt, full Props.
     Like I have been saying. Faith/religion can be interpreted so broadly that it is meaningless. It can be used as a rational to slaughter and it can a reason someone tries to give aid to poor.
     What is clear to me is that we are better off without supernatural superstition.

104. johnsays:
     
     March 12th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

     why here is an example.http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women.php

     if you don’t feel like reading it a young man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for circulating a document on women’s rights that questions passages in the koran.
     Robin, if you want to get worked up. go right ahead.

105. Jasonsays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

     In a slightly different direction: I am wondering how the various believers in this discussion would respond to the Riddle of Epicurus, which I paraphrase below:

     If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
     Then He is not omnipotent.

     If He is able, but not willing
     Then He is malevolent.

     If He is both able and willing
     Then whence cometh evil?

     If He is neither able nor willing
     Then why call Him God?

     As grist for the mill, I recommend watching the video below. For you believers – don’t worry, this guy is a believer just like you, a priest in fact, but I greatly admire his willingness to grapple with these questions. I don’t agree with his conclusions, but I think he’s asking the right questions, and I’m curious how the rest of you answer the same.

     http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/112

     But by all means, if anyone wants to continue any of the existing threads of conversation, don’t let me stop you! This is just something I keep wanting to ask.

106. Eric Creerysays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

     Well, I’m back. I see there are other things to respond to, so I’ll get to those after this.

     I must say that this has been a terrific series of conversations. Jason, it is a delight to engage in this tete a tete with you. To find such formidability among my dearest of friends! I commend you for continuing to offer answers for my ever-so-mundane, archaic comments. 

     John, I did not mean to ignore you in this. It is great to hear from you after all these years. I am assuming this is the unparalleled John B., correct? I base my deduction upon the continued presence of your trademark, scimitar wit and penchant for the word “repetitious.” Don’t mind my not answering your questions. I feel they are more directed towards Jamie’s conversation, anyway.

     So, on with the debate:

     Jason wrote:

     “This seems to make the implicit assumption that, apart from the God Hypothesis, the only alternate explanation is that matter is intrinsically sentient and has the power to “will itself into existence.” It also seems to make the implicit assumption that the very existence of matter requires a ‘will.’”

     You know, I knew I should not have tried to simplify into a few statements what Aristotle and, later and in far greater detail, Thomas Aquinas argued in thorough detail. In addition, I did not mean to imply that matter is sentient. I meant to say that matter cannot bring itself into existence, or “pop” into being from nowhere. It is not self-sufficient. All matter is dependent upon a previous cause. Molecules are dependent upon the combining of various atoms, the shin bone’s connected to the knee bone, etc. This is what I mean by not willing itself into existence. Of course, one must ask how matter comes into existence without a will, if there is no external will to bring it into existence. There is still no empirical evidence for matter coming into existence. To say that we know did so because it exists is no better than the deus ex machina tailored for atheism.

     “Immediately after the Big Bang, high-energy bosons cooled and decayed into high-mass particles and corresponding anti-particles. This is supported by scientific observation, since gamma rays can be seen to decay into electrons and positrons.”

     No problem here. Fascinating stuff.

     “Of course, that’s not the end of the story, as scientists will readily admit. There’s the question of what happened to the expected anti-particles, and also the question of where the high-energy bosons came from.

     “Did they ‘always’ exist (whatever that means) in one or another form prior to the proposed Big Bang? We don’t know, which is why science doesn’t claim to have a definitive answer to the question, and does not posit an artificial termination to this potentially infinite regress.”

     This is a remarkable discovery. Please remember that I am also a firm believer in Science. It explains a lot about our temporal and material existence. Science is one of the greatest achievements of humanity. I still am a little fuzzy on some details, though, so I just want a few clarifications.

     It appears we are still talking about after this occurrence we call the Big Bang. Since we don’t actually know if it was a Big Bang or several Big Bangs, or something entirely different, I propose the term “Occurrence”. By it I mean to apply no properties, personality, or characteristics, just a point where something happened, and our temporal world came into existence. We will eventually, however, probably have to address what this Occurrence is in relation to the sposons

     I understand that the bosons existed before the Occurrence, right?

     Can we get a clarification on the “always existed (whatever that means)”? Is that your interjection, Jason, or the scientists’? “Whatever that means” renders the term meaningless. Does “always existed” mean an eternal, uncreated existence, or does it mean “always existed, from the beginning of time?”

     If the latter, we still have the question of what brought the non-self-sufficient material popping into existence. How did that happen?

     If the former, it would appear that eternal, uncreated bosons suddenly transformed into a temporal, material universe. Could you explain that?

107. Eric Creerysays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 6:36 pm

     Now, regarding the Epicurean Riddle. But first, John, I must disagree with you when you say that logic falls apart when discussing the supernatural. Science is excellent for the natural world, as it relies upon data which can be observed. Logic is, actually, just about the only way we can discuss the supernatural. Our thoughts themselves are immaterial. (Ever try to actually weigh your thoughts?) Logic and reason are what give us the ability to use science and any other source of evidence to reach a conclusive end, if possible. We must be careful not to restrict ourselves to a single source of evidence, as that can prove most unreliable.

     OK, Epicurus and his riddle. It has been a long time, and I’m in a hurry, so I’ll give it my first shot here.

     “If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
     Then He is not omnipotent.

     If He is able, but not willing
     Then He is malevolent.”

     This supposes that we have no choice in the matter. Sure, if we were automatons without the ability to do anything but God’s wishes, and evil still occurred, God would be most malevolent. But, apparently, God decided that our freely given love was worth the evil that would ensue from the rejection of Love. When we hear about a gruesome, senseless murder, it is easy to remember all the evil things in the world and ask why a loving God would permit such evil. At the same time, when we hold our newborn child for the first time, how often do we ask why a loving God would permit such joy?

     “If He is both able and willing
     Then whence cometh evil?”

     I already answered that–evil comes from our free, wilful rejection of Love.

     “If He is neither able nor willing
     Then why call Him God?”

     This is irrelevant, and sounds much like a petulant child saying, “Since when are YOU my father?” To which the father replies, “Since I took part in your existence!” Just because we don’t like the evil we, as a race, have brought upon ourselves, doesn’t mean that God ceases to be our Creator.

108. Jasonsays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

     Eric – just a brief addendum to my previous post, before we go too far down this road. When I say “evil” I am actually thinking of all the horrible things that happen to humans, including natural disasters, painful and debilitating illness, etc.

     I’m going away for the weekend, so probably won’t respond further until next week sometime.

109. Eric Creerysays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

     Oh, I sent that before I was done with John. I did have one other question. What, exactly, constitutes “extraordinary proof”? That sounds like a very convenient way of saying, “Don’t bother. I will never accept anything unless I like it.”

110. Eric Creerysays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

     Well, as for natural disasters, it is not God’s fault if we decide that volcanic soil is worth living on, for example. Pain is the body’s natural alert to problems: just imagine never feeling pain. You could sit in a pot of boiling water without feeling a thing, then you’d die.

     As for accidents and natural illnesses, one is then talking about “apparent” evil, at which point I must first ask if your idea of a loving God is one that puts us in little safety bubbles? I mean, accidents do happen, and most of the time it can be traced to the erroneous judgment of at least one person. Is God to be blamed for that as well?.

     The second question would be if evil is actually what you define as evil? Who made you (or us) the final judges as to what is evil?

     How, for that matter, does an atheist define “good” or “evil” without invoking some kind of will to power as authority over others? I did not want to digress on these matters just yet, but Epicurus kind of set this all off. The only authority Atheism offers is the authority imposed by power, be it by majority rule or by threat of imposed consequences. Because these authorities still come from one human to another, what right has one to tell the other what is right or wrong? Majority rule varies from region to region on any given topic, and can change with fluctuating opinions. One could be an upstanding citizen one day and a vile criminal the next. How do we determine what is evil? Is death inherently evil? If not, then neither are illnesses. Perhaps the seriousness of the pain is meant to prompt us to find a cure faster?
     If death is inherently evil, I must ask why?

111. johnsays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

     Hello Eric,
     Yes, it is John B. so much to go through and I want to be clear but here is a start. I will flesh it out later.
     The reason I don’t think you can use logic to explain the supernatural is because the supernatural defies logic. When you are dealing with the supernatural no rules of evidence seem to apply. It makes for interesting debates but I don’t think it provides proof. An omnipotent, supernatural being isn’t constrained by or to logic. I need something more than a thought experiment.
     Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity he predicted that gravity would bend light. in 1919 it was observed that gravity did indeed bend light. It was extraordinary proof for his extraordinary claim. I am willing to accept evidence even if it proves a claim that I find difficult to believe, provided the evidence is strong enough and well supported enough. What evidence do you have for god or the supernatural? I am willing to hear it. I have to admit that I have heard an awful lot of evidence and I haven’t found it compelling. I think the evidence for evolution is so robust that I can dismiss current creationist arguments. There is going to have to be some very compelling, new and widely accepted in the scientific community, evidence to change my mind. I think gravity is pretty well established. The germ theory of disease. I think any device that violates the second law of thermodynamics can be dismissed out of hand. All of these things are well established enough that arguments against them (extraordinary claims) are going to have to provide some pretty amazing proof.
     Is there such a thing as free will if god is omnipotent and omniscient? Dawkins makes the argument, not original to him, that if god can’t be both because they are contradictory. If he is omniscient then he is powerless to change the outcome of events because he already knows the results. How is that for logic? I probably biffed it a bit and I am sure someone out there will sort me out. If god knows everything that is going to happen then we have no free will. Our fates have been decided. who decided them? God? If god isn’t omniscient but is omnipotent then why all the all the suffering? why are children starving in droves? Where is there free will? If god has the power to prevent this suffering why doesn’t he? Doesn’t that make him indifferent at best and a monster at worst? If he isn’t all knowing and his power is limited to floods and burning bushes why should we worship him? We already know the bible isn’t a true accounting of the world. It is a collection of stories both good and bad. I don’t see any evidence of divinity or need for the supernatural to explain the world around me.
     Eric, there is more to say but I gotta go study up. Nice to hear from you. keep me on my toes. too many distractions now to argue more now.

112. johnsays:
     
     March 13th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

     I should have said above that “I have heard a lot of what people call evidence but it is all sorely lacking. Nothing in the our natural world is better explained by the supernatural.

     and I haven’t addressed why just because we don’t know where matter comes from or why there is something other than nothing but I don’t think that just saying god did it is an answer.

113. johnsays:
     
     March 14th, 2009 at 12:06 am

     and lastly, does god decide who dies so someone else can learn a valuable lesson about life? Is that That sounds like crazy narcissism ( or solipsism) for someone to believe that god wants them to learn from others suffering or that god is so is powerless or indifferent to suffering.
     I think a more logical and rational explanation is that there is no god.

     wheww, okay. more later.

114. Eric Creerysays:
     
     March 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm

     John, nice of you to respond during Jason’s absence. Before I continue, I should point out a couple possible misconceptions on your part. First, neither I nor the Catholic Church have ever espoused Creationism, as generally defined in Evangelical circles, to be a viable explanation for the origins of life or the universe. Rather, the Church has always been open to scientific and other viable research into all things. It is, sadly, a little known fact that the Church encouraged universities in the Middle Ages to pursue knowledge in both theology/philosophy and the “natural philosophies”. In addition, she insisted the two be researched independently so as to prevent any bias from either discipline upon the other.

     As for logic and reason not being applicable to the supernatural world, I must ask what evidence you have that logic does not apply there? Also, if there is a supernatural world which we cannot directly perceive, then the existence of God is not that irrational a notion, is it? Problems such as human suffering do not do away with evidence of the existence of God. Rather, it shows that there are aspects of an infinite being we cannot in our finite essence comprehend. But that is to be expected. Before we can address such problems, the logical problems before us must be resolved.

     In addition, it will not do to simply pass off my argument as “an interesting thought exercise.” It is a logical deduction, which applies wherever you are. Deductive arguments are inflexible and direct. Nor will it do to call it a “deus ex machine” argument as Jason did, although my simplification of the argument made it like that. Perhaps I can explain the argument a little better:

     You enter a shoe store and go to take a number. As you go to take a number, you find that you must first take a number for the previous number. Again, as you reach for the second number, you find there is a third number that needs to be taken, and a fourth, and a fifth, and so on as far as you can see. It is and endless, infinite line; you will never get your shoes. That is a deductive fact, as it is apparent that, if the numbers go on forever, so will you without ever reaching the shoes.

     This is a case of infinite regress. The problem with infinite regress in the existence of the universe is yet another logical deduction: Because all things in the physical universe is the result of a previous cause, the universe cannot go back infinitely. To do so would mean that nothing actually exists, as it never reaches a beginning.

     Suppose, however, you were to see someone leaving the store with a new pair of shoes from that store. You would then know that the series of number tickets have a definite end, with a first ticket to begin it all.

     In the case with the universe, we can observe with our own faculties that the physical universe exists. We also know that matter cannot simply come spontaneously into existence. Therefore, we know that something outside the physical universe brought it into existence. That something would have to have existence as a part of its essence, unlike humans, who only exist for a period of time. Before that time we never existed. After that time we cease to exist (outside of any theories of spiritual immortality, of course). Existence is not a part of our essence. To exist essentially is to always exist.
     This is not in the sense of a timeline going on forever forward and back. It means, to quote Jesus’ example, (HERE IT IS: MY FIRST BIBLE QUOTE!!! Please note I am simply using its content, not making any claims about the veracity of the sentence itself.) “Before Abraham was, I am.” This is perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate something that is really out of our grasp. In other words, Jesus is saying that Abraham was, he existed. There was a time before when Abraham did not exist, and he ceased to be materially after his death (“…Abraham WAS”). But Jesus, as Divinity, at all times “is”. Before Abraham was, He is. In other words, God’s knowledge of what you will do in no way obstructs your free will, because God’s knowledge is not a premonition. He knows because everything for Him is now. The problem people have with free will is obvious: it pins the responsibility for your actions directly on the one who did them. Really, to argue that God is evil because we do evil is a pathetically obvious shoving of our guilt onto God’s shoulders.

     The problem with Faulkner’s “thought exercise” (going WAY back here) is that it places restrictions upon the concept of God and fobs off all arguments to the existence of God as artificial rules without actually tackling the task of dismantling the arguments themselves. It is similar to going to a game where the other team’s coaches are the officials, on their court. What is the point in taking part in such an “exercise”? I, for one, simply toss it aside as a sophomoric attempt at modern philosophy. My logical arguments, however, invite any reasonable argument to test against it. When the only way to argue against a logical argument is to say, It’s a thought exercise, not evidence, then I would propose that it is a pretty solid chunk of deductive evidence.

     There is more, I am sure, so forgive me if I didn’t cover every point. Again, scientific facts don’t dispute any of my personal views. This is something I hope we can dispel here: belief in science does not necessitate the disbelief in God.

115. johnsays:
     
     March 16th, 2009 at 12:13 am

     Hello Eric,
     Actually I understand very well the Catholic Churches stand on science. I am sure I didn’t clearly delineate between the Catholic and Protestant, with all its evangelical subsets. I think it was sometime in the 1940’s when the pope tried to make it clear that there wasn’t any discrepancy between science and the church. Pope John Paul 2 reiterated that stand as has the current pope. I was lumping all of the faiths that sprang from Abraham (if that makes sense) together. That being said I have a catholic friend, a few actually, that are strong subscribers to folks like Michael Behe and other ID/Creationists. So the Catholic stance ain’t exactly catholic, even amongst Catholics, if you get my drift.
     http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
     I have noticed that my urls don’t always work on this blog and tiny url doesn’t work with flash ten. so, sorry. anyway that website has an interview with Ken Miller and he discusses this very topic (catholics and creationists. Ken is a catholic).
     Eric, I might be thick but we are back to the argument of material spontaneously coming into existence. If I understand it correctly you are saying that since matter isn’t spontaneously created it had to have been created by god. God is outside the rules of the physical universe so god is didn’t need to be created. Just saying god is outside of these rules seems to be a sort of special pleading. god was created out of nothing or didn’t need to be created. and since nothing existed before god how did he spontaneously create matter? And I think this is where the logic falls apart for me. We might not know why there is something instead of nothing but that just putting god in there (and which god by the way? why not the hindu god or are they all the same?). If god is uncaused why can’t the universe be uncaused?
     more links that won’t work
     http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html
     (i looked that up after I wrote the argument above except the last line. I think it might make a better logical argument than I do.)
     Logic and the supernatural. The reason I don’t think logic makes a good argument for the supernatural is because logic isn’t evidence and the supernatural isn’t constrained by logic. Think of it with something like a ghost. What argument can I make that ghosts don’t exist? A person that believes in ghosts will not accept any amount of logic regarding non corporeal entities not being visible because they aren’t made of matter so they don’t reflect light. The argument I get back is “I have seen them”. That is why the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. The supernatural defies any attempts to explained away by logic and reason.
     Also, i don’t think you got around the free will argument. You say that god’s knowledge isn’t a premonition because everything for him is now. How is that not predetermination really? If god is out of time he still knows what happened. and again, where is the evidence for this? Saying don’t make it so.
     In a previous post you stated: “As for accidents and natural illnesses, one is then talking about “apparent” evil, at which point I must first ask if your idea of a loving God is one that puts us in little safety bubbles? I mean, accidents do happen, and most of the time it can be traced to the erroneous judgment of at least one person. Is God to be blamed for that as well?.” I am not asking for a safety bubble but how is starving in Darfur an erroneous judgement? How is the rape and murder of a child (say, polly klass) an erroneous judgement? If god is capable of preventing tragedy he is obliged to. Why isn’t he? If a man decides he doesn’t want to move from his home on the side of a volcano even though he has been warned then sure, god is off the hook. But if people are being slaughtered because people that believe in slightly different rules from god are begging for gods help and the slaughter continues then yes, he is a monster. How is he not? I get that folks argue that god leaves us to our own devices but they also argue that he is a kind loving god and helps those that ask and believe. All of that just sounds like rationalizations. When people get what they want god was with them and when tragedy occurs it is the mysterious will of god. It seems god is whatever the person discussing him says he is. Why do bad things or good things happen? As St. Geldof, patron saint of starving children and boomtown rats says, “you can see no reasons, cuz there are no reasons, what reasons do you need to be shown?”
     I think more logical, rational and dare I say, parsimonious, argument is that there isn’t a god at all.
     This gets us pretty far afield from the initial discussion about religion poisoning everything but it was bound to get here. see my earlier arguments about rigid ideology etc. being the real problem.
     I see no evidence or reason to believe god exists. Logic doesn’t demand it and evidence doesn’t support it. Our belief in god and the supernatural might be explained as an artifact of consciousness and pattern recognition. While many scholars and clergy concur that there is no dispute between religion and science (depending on what the claim from either is at the time) what can be determined without a doubt is that real science and the scientific method works. Experiments are consistent. Results are repeatable. Religion, not so much. The magisteria of faith is shrinking because it ultimately is out of step with the way the world really is.
     Catholics and others may claim that science and faith aren’t at odds but the book used to promote religion used to promote religion certainly are.

116. Jamiesays:
     
     March 16th, 2009 at 12:21 am

     Wow…. I’ll just sit back and watch for awhile!!! Eric is far more verbose than I… and again, wicked smart!

117. Jamiesays:
     
     March 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am

     John,

     If I were to repeatedly say in my posts, “Hitchens and Dawkins contradict themselves often (cite the name of their book) and therefore have no credibility in any theological debate”, how would you react? What contradiction/s in the NT are you referring to when you repeatedly throw that out there as if it were fact while not citing any specific contradiction? That is a rather flimsy argument.

     Secondly, the claims of the bible of miracles performed by Jesus were well known “back in the day”. Copies of the earliest “writings” of the NT were widely circulated throughout the region that Christ lived as well as in Rome within the first 100 years of his life, well within the lifetimes of his followers as well as those who didn’t believe. One part of gathering historical evidence is also looking for antithetical evidences from the same time period. As the “miracle” claims were widely known, would it not stand to reason that if there were any claims of hoax or myth that those claims would have been made known at the time? I don’t put much stock in claims of hoax or myth that are authored hundreds of years later, if not a thousand or more years… For much the same reason the Gnostic Gospels and the Gospel of Judas are dismissed as they arose hundreds of years later and not authored by eyewitness accounts, nor the actual person they are attributed to.

     Just something to ponder.

     JE

118. Mattsays:
     
     March 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

     Just a couple quick comments and then I’ll go away…

     I love Eric and he’s doing a fine job in making his statements and John’s responses are spot on and it’s a great debate to watch fluctuate back and forth…but…what I see, and feel, when the argument of “god intervening” is back to the anthropomorphic (sic?) God that I, personally, am trying to move away from. You know, the big guy with the white beard, pushing buttons.

     If my image of God is energy and energy focused, is energy realized (I’m trying to sound pretentious here…is it working?) then what gets created? When discussing an “energy” or “force” God to someone they say: “Well, we prayed for Susan’s cancer and now it’s gone! It must be God!” Well, it could have been that somehow the energy of what is around us “healed” her or it could be that he body fought back. Whatever it is, I struggle mightily of working away from that image. Towards an energy force, thank you Obi Wan (and George Lucas).

     So if you imagine God as energy, then the “why do bad things happen to good people?” argument shifts.

     Thanks for listening, I’ll go away now.

119. johnsays:
     
     March 16th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

     Jamie,
     I have repeatedly given you the names of books that discuss the contradictions. I can’t make you read them or make you read critiques of them. Here they are again. “gospel fictions” Randel Helms. (third time i have cited it.). “Secret Orgins” of the bible” Tim Callahan. Would you like some more? There are plenty. It isn’t really a secret or a new discovery.
     Here is a website you can look at.
     http://tinyurl.com/5ynmm
     for things like this I prefer a book that has presumably gone through an editorial process however a google search that takes all of 10 seconds will give you more than you could read in a lifetime..I don’t really want to clog up a blog with page after page about this but if you keep insisting then I will.
     As for claims of miracles being known at the time or at least by people that were alive during jesus time there are people today that think miracles are being performed now. People also think they are seeing ghosts. You take me to task for not citing my examples (which I have done several times) what are your citations? You also mention that Paul tried to teach christ but occasionally fell back on his old ways. Did his old ways include making up BS so they guy he was talking up sounded better? Obviously the miracles performed by jesus weren’t enough to convince the jews he was of a divine nature. The romans didn’t buy it. The story wasn’t getting around that much then or at least not in a plausible manner.

120. johnsays:
     
     March 16th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

     Hello Matt, Thanks for the props. I agree. Eric is making great arguments. Well thought out and articulated.
     Regarding your description of god. That is a pretty common “new age” version of god (or something) but it doesn’t really square with the version in the bible. It is even looser than the concept of god that deists had that essentially god starts the universe and then retires never to be heard from again.
     You are right when you say that kind of god wouldn’t be an interventionist god. the problem with what you are describing is that it could be anything or nothing. Parsimony leans towards nothing.
     The other problem is that if there was some sort of energy we should be able to measure it. We can measure planks distance. we can detect a forces weaker than gravity. I would also like to know what created the energy that healed susan and how that energy healed susan.
     I know you can’t really answer that and it is all mysterious and it makes you feel better and that is all cool. I need evidence though. Like I said earlier, an energy can be measured. A fossil can be dated. The brightness and composition of a distant star can be determined.

121. johnsays:
     
     March 16th, 2009 at 10:04 pm

     oh and matt, if i wasn’t clear i think bad things happen for a variety of reasons. None of them having to do with the divine. I don’t expect divine intervention for them either. because i don’t think there is anything to the divine. I am merely arguing that if the god of the bible is real and interventionist and doesn’t intervene he is capricious or cruel. Or completely indifferent. Either way I am not asking him for anything.

122. Jasonsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am

     Not to worry, my friend. I was gone most of the weekend, and now I’m trying to catch up on my Janus reviews. I have not left the fray for good, however…

123. johnsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 10:30 am

     Hi Jason,
     I miss you in here.
     here is a little article that you won’t want to show to robin. please, whatever you do. do not let robin see this article.
     http://tinyurl.com/cdg6de

     It would be unfair to use these idiots as example of why religion poisons everything. It is, however, a good example of the perils of not thinking critically or rationally. And an excellent example of people using the bible rationalize their own peculiar beliefs.
     and again. please don’t show it to robin.

124. Jasonsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

     This is not by way of answering any of the ongoing questions, but I just read this and felt compelled to post it:

     http://2parse.com/?p=2435

     Perfect example of religious ideology blinding people to the plain truth… resulting in increased pain and suffering for millions. I read stuff like this, or watch a documentary like “Deliver Us From Evil” (about a pedophile priest repeatedly sheltered by the Catholic Church) and I actually feel rage. Profound sadness. Deep disgust.

     Yes, I know: This is emotional, inflammatory, not particularly helpful language, given the generally respectful tone of this conversation, but… really, how can thoughtful Catholics accept these outrages? I feel stymied by the enormity of it, by the flat-out glib ignorance, the seeming lack of concern for the human consequences.

     Arrgh. Very angry at the moment. I will write something more useful and coherent later.

125. Jeff Lsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pm

     How this got past me when I have been reading and commenting on the Janus series is beyond me … and partly that I do not have a home computer or spend that much time online …

     Um, wow. I would love to have you all over for Scrabble now.

     Back in college I came to the conclusion that I would not dive into arguments like this one ever again after many late nights with various roommates. I extended the rule to include topics that begin with G; gays, god, guns, and Gorbachev (which dates me I know). So, I will only state that I am enjoying the read and will move on.

126. Mattsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

     John,

     Thanks for your comments. As for my “new-agey” God think, yeah, I can see your point. As to your desire for what is concrete, I choose to believe there are things we will never be sure of. You mention the ghost story, my wife saw a ghost when she was a child, lived in their house. Of course, I wasn’t there and certainly others in the house saw it but was there ectoplasm? Did Bill Murray show up to get rid of it? No, but they did have the house “exorcised” by a Catholic priest and they did not encounter the ghost again. Supposedly the ghost was of an old lady who lived down the street who always wanted to live in that house.

     Seemingly you have a desire for absolutes while I have a desire for mystery. I don’t question how the universe was formed – only that I think that it’s pretty f*ing cool.

     As for logic, Jason can tell you that I am one to point out logic gaps when it comes to films. That’s one of my huge sticking points and one of the reasons I didn’t much care for “Little Miss Sunshine” or “The Dark Knight.” So, yes, I try to look at things in logical ways but always leave myself open for the unknown. I’m not saying you don’t – I’m just stating my thought process here.

     I have continued to talk not just about religion and faith, but of also belief. What of “spirituality?” What of the woman in the church who heard God speaking to her and she became a priest? Is she insane? Hearing voices? What about people being “called” to a faith/religion? Can we just write it all off to endorphins, chemicals in the brain stem, emotional reflexes of the cerebreal cortex? Or is there more to it than that?

     What of love? Again, is this just an innate desire to procreate, make babies, sustain the population, continue the species…or is there more to it than that?

     What of the unknown? Couldn’t there be something beyond our reach that none of us can explain?

     As for the “God of the Bible” – I’ve said I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the Old Testament and I continue to question Jesus as both God/Human and his ultimate sacrifice. The writings of Paul are, just that, writings of Paul. Some poetic, some annoying. So, yes, I continue to fight against the “God As Man In White Beard” because it is a concept that I think continues to cloud people of their perception: If God is a “Man in a White Beard” then, he needs to be on MY side! If God is energy or a concept that is even more complex to fully comprehend the he/she/it isn’t “punishing” other people, etc.

     My comment for the day.

127. Mattsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

     Another response, sorry – TWO comments today.

     This is in regards to the link that John posted.

     When my mother and father lived in Japan in the 1950’s he, of course, was the “head of the family.” She had to do what he told her to do.

     My mother gave birth to my brother in 1958. Two years later she was pregnant with another child. Though she was very ill, my father insisted, INSISTED that she go with him to give out religious tracts. When she said that the doctor told her to get bed rest, he admonished her by saying that “he was the head of the house, she had to listen to him.” The baby was still born.

     Two years after that my mother was pregnant again. Again, she got sick, again she was told to take bed rest, again my father insisted that she walk and give out tracts and do all the things a subserviant wife SHOULD DO. Once again the guilt overtook her, the baby lived one day.

     ***note, during one of these births, my mother hemoraged and was giving blood transfusions***

     Finally in 1964 she got pregnant with me, she stood up to my father, told him that she would do what the doctor ordered – NO MATTER WHAT. Though angry, he listened. I was born healthy. By mid 1965 my mother escaped the bastard and returned to America. I was 9 months old.

     She now suffers from Heptitis C due to the blood tranfusions…

     Madness.

128. Jasonsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

     I keep throwing the train off the rails, I know. I apologize in advance BUT… I wanted to circle back and pick off some low-hanging fruit.

     Comment #67, Jamie: “Muhammad never had any supernatural exploits. He claimed God spoke to him. He never performed any miracles, alleged or otherwise.”

     Incorrect, based on my (admittedly limited) research. See the following link for a partial list:

     http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/miracles-of-mohammed.htm

     (Side note: please read the first paragraph on that page, which touts the divine origins of the Koran. Sounds like EXACTLY what I used to say about the Bible…)

     Next, to those who would dismiss clearly misogynist commands in the Old Testament, or who would claim that any commands not attributed in the Gospels to Jesus himself are merely the words of imperfect humans… I wonder how you square this with Matthew 5:17-20. At least in THIS scripture, Jesus appears to wholeheartedly support every Old Testament law and rule.

     Next, a question for Jamie: Does your church support gay/lesbian relationships? As far as I remember, Jesus never said anything about it, and there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments about it, so… couldn’t we simply assume that this is another one of those “cultural holdover” scriptures? Which brings me back to my central question on this subject: Who gets to decide? It certainly sounds as though Jamie’s church (and Matt’s) have different ideas about the infallibility or the applicability of scripture than, say, Eric’s church. Or my church, when I went to one. In fact, when I was a Witness, we viewed Episcopalians as theological slackers. I wager that folks in Eric’s church feel similarly about Witnesses. So who’s right? And what are the consequences for being wrong? And what about the millions of Hindus who believe something completely different?

     Comment 70, Jamie: “You seem to be confusing documenting events that took place and the people who constantly fell short of perfection…”

     Let’s be clear: I was not talking merely about stories in the Bible which “document” ill-treatment of women. I was speaking also of plainly misogynist commands and laws, which I see as a completely different thing, particularly in light of Matthew 5:17-20.

     Comment 71, Eric: “When I said I was not interested in discussing the evils that men do in this world (or the Catholic Church in this case) I was simply saying that I am interested in focusing on the topic at hand, namely, Does God exist.”

     The original topic was actually “Religion Poisons Everything: Discuss.” Later, it necessarily evolved to include “God: Fiction or Non-Fiction?” But that doesn’t mean that we’ve stopped talking about religion and its usefulness (or not).

     By which I mean to say: Eric, I’m still interested in how you justify things done by your church. Let’s start with the news story I posted in Comment 124. Then, by all means, continue on to the church’s handling of the ongoing sex abuse scandals, the Inquisition… Nobody would deny that the Catholic Church has done some great things, too, but when they screw up, they screw up big, and it hurts many, many people. I’d love for you to read “Constantine’s Sword” (or watch the documentary) and hear your comments on the issues raised therein.

     All of which gets to one of my main points: If religion is no guarantee of good (or evil, I’ll grant you that), and since plenty of good works are done by groups NOT based on believing in an invisible entity who roasts unbelievers for eternity… why do we need religion? What does it give you, that you can’t get elsewhere, with less baggage?

     More comments to follow; just clearing out some of the thoughts accumulating over the last few days.

129. Jasonsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

     Comment 76, Matt: You know I love you, dude, and would never class you with the worst perpetrators of religious abuse and repression. As I said before, I do have a soft spot for the Episcopal Church. I also know that you do more than your share of “good works” – and would do so whether you were affiliated with a church or not.

     My intent is not to tar everyone with the same brush, but to ask the question: What does religion give you, that you can’t get elsewhere, with less baggage? Why do any of us NEED religion, given that we all agree it’s no guarantee of good, and we all seem to agree that it has frequently been the source of repression?

     Because this is a question I have had to struggle with, painfully, and because I see the damage religion has done in the lives of my family and friends, and because I see the ill effects of religion in the world on a daily basis… this is a question I intend to ask loudly, over and over.

     But that don’t mean that I love you any less.

130. Jasonsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

     Comment 106, Eric: “There is still no empirical evidence for matter coming into existence.”

     Actually, yes there is. See my comments on the observable decay of energy particles into matter and anti-matter.

     There is not, however, any empirical evidence for the creation of energy or matter by an invisible, time-immune deity.

     I enjoy reading your posts on the subject, Eric, and I flatter myself that I can follow the arguments pretty well, but you have not convinced me of the necessity of a god. Observation and logic can give us part of the answer, but we may NEVER know where matter (or its predecessor, energy) came from. Any proposed theories are just that: theories. You prefer to impose a termination to the regress that seems artificial and contrived to me. I prefer an open-ended “we just don’t know yet, and may never know, but we can make some guesses based on what we observe.”

     Also from Comment 106: “Since we don’t actually know if it was a Big Bang or several Big Bangs, or something entirely different, I propose the term ‘Occurrence’”

     I prefer the term “singularity” used by some cosmologists, since (to me) it captures the idea of a massively dense nucleus of energy/matter that exploded outward (supported, in my understanding, by the gradual expansion of the observable universe and the discovery of the predicted residual background radiation). It also captures the idea that this was a tremendously rare, perhaps never-to-be-repeated event.

     Also from Comment 106: “I understand that the bosons existed before the Occurrence, right?”

     There’s no way for us to definitively know the answer to that question. I would say, with my limited understanding: We can prove that matter (and anti-matter) result from decaying energy. The so-called Conservation Laws tell us that the amount of matter or energy in a closed system can’t change, though it can change form (energy to matter, matter to energy). That makes sense to me, and jives with scientific observation. My guess is that the energy/matter that we see in the cosmos right now has always existed, in one or the other form, or possibly in some form not yet full understood. But let’s be clear: That is a THEORY, based on a superficial understanding of the applicable science.

     So, if we start with the statement that nobody has observed the creation of energy/matter out of a void, there are a couple of possible responses.

     One is to postulate the existence of a sentient non-material time-immune deity who created the energy/matter out of nothingness.

     Another response is to say, “well, we don’t know, but observable science seems to tell us that what we see now has always existed, but in different forms. But that’s only a theory pending further proof.”

     I favor the second response. I am honestly trying to remain open, Eric, but you are using similar arguments to the ones I used in years past, and they are no longer convincing to me.

     Can you admit, at least, that proposing a divine entity is only one of several possible explanations? I understand that this explanation works for you and millions of other folks, and lord knows you are one of the smarter people I’ve had the pleasure of knowing. Still, you’ve got a ways to go if you want to present a watertight, indisputable case to someone who doesn’t share your faith.

     Also from Comment 106: “Can we get a clarification on the ‘always existed (whatever that means)’? Is that your interjection, Jason, or the scientists’? ‘Whatever that means’ renders the term meaningless. Does ‘always existed’ mean an eternal, uncreated existence, or does it mean ‘always existed, from the beginning of time?’”

     That was my interjection, based on my thinking that the word “always” is inextricably bound up with my concept of forward-moving, linear time… which may be a faulty paradigm when dealing with events that happened “before” the “singularity” or “Big Bang”. The interjection was only meant to reference the fact that I’m no cosmologist, so Caveat Emptor and all that.

     Continuing with Comment 106: “…we still have the question of what brought the non-self-sufficient material popping into existence. How did that happen?”

     Again: There’s no way for us to definitively know the answer to that question. We can only speculate based on observable science… or take the easy way out and postulate the existence of a non-material, time-immune deity who created everything.

     More from Comment 106: “If the former, it would appear that eternal, uncreated bosons suddenly transformed into a temporal, material universe. Could you explain that?”

     First of all, the transformation of energy particles into matter and anti-matter happens as a natural product of decay, and this is easily observable, as I have now belabored ad nauseum, I’m sure.

     If you’re asking what triggered the Big Bang… we just don’t know, dude. As I understand it, some scientists theorize that the observable universe may be engaged in an eons-long expand-contract-explode-rinse-repeat cycle. Right now, the stars are red-shifted, which means that they (along with everything else) are moving away from us – or, more accurately, moving away from the time/space location of the singularity. There may come a time, far in the future, when the outward expansion might slow and eventually stop, at which point gravity might draw everything back together again. Then all the stars would be blue-shifted, and eventually everything would crash together into a super-massive bundle, then (perhaps) explode and start expanding again. All speculation, but one possible explanation, which jives with observable data.

     Or… we can take the easy way out and say an invisible deity (who also threatens to roast us for an eternity of pain in the fires of hell if we put our pee-pee anywhere dirty) just, you know, flipped a switch.

131. Jasonsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

     Comment 114, Eric: “Because all things in the physical universe is the result of a previous cause, the universe cannot go back infinitely. To do so would mean that nothing actually exists, as it never reaches a beginning.”

     First, I don’t accept your simplification here. The so-called Laws of Conservation tell us (in line with observable evidence) that the amount of energy/matter in a closed system cannot change, though it can change form. I see no reason to postulate an arbitrary terminus e.g. God. I look around me and see a certain amount of energy/matter in the cosmos. Why would I assume that it has not ever been thus? Why would I not assume that what is currently here has always been here, but in different forms? As you say, nobody has ever observed energy/matter being created out of nothing. Yet, oddly, you are proposing that an invisible being did exactly that. While it’s not possible to disprove such speculation, it doesn’t have much to recommend it, either. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, I could postulate all sorts of bizarre explanations for the existence of energy/matter, and (if my explanation was sufficiently removed from scientific or sensory apprehension) nobody would be able to disprove those explanations. But they are also not testable in any definitive way. Thus, they would remain speculation.

     Second, if existence requires a beginning, wouldn’t that put god right out of the running? Of course not, because the believer will say, “well, the normal rules don’t apply, because he’s, you know, GOD. He’s all… immaterial and shit.”

     This line of reasoning seems full of holes to me. John said it best: “If god is uncaused why can’t the universe be uncaused?”

132. Mattsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

     Comment to “Admin” on Comment 129 on comment 76.

     Maybe it’s not necessarily that we NEED Religion, just a relationship with God, but maybe there is a core desire to make what religion we are a part of better. Instead of rejecting it as flawed and walking away. Maybe I see the good in what my local faith community does and want to be a part of that and change the “baggage” that you refer to for the better?

     Reminds me of when my children were in a fundamentalist school. My kids were probably the most liberal, gay loving, episcopal yahoos there and they kept getting all the best awards. Maybe their participation within that environment changed some of the other kids, made them think, made them question some of their faith issues. Made them look outside the four walls of their oppressive church.

     I don’t know. Maybe.

133. johnsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

     RE: Admin.
     Yeah, what he said.
     glad you are back jason. I can piggy back on your crazy big brain.

134. johnsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

     Hello Matt, Thanks for the kind words. Undeserved I’m sure. I would like to clear up a few things.
     I didn’t mean to give you the idea that I would only be satisfied with absolutes. That is not the case. That is one of the things I really like about the scientific method. You can keep asking why. I would posit that faith is actually an end of curiosity and is much more about absolutes. Once you put god in mix the argument has sort of ended because god is outside the bounds of logic or reason. I think the discussion about the creation of the universe is a good example of this. I know a couple of the boys disagree with me but as Jason points out in our discussion with Eric at some point you bump up against god not being constrained by the same rules. It is argued that matter can’t be created from nothing but god can be because he is god.
     That to me is an absolute and an end to curiosity.
     I think and hope that I remain curious and open minded. I think the most exciting thing is learning something new. What I do require is evidence. I love a mystery but I want to solve it.
     As for the woman in the church I don’t know what the voice in her head was. A thought? A chemical reaction? A waking dream? A synapse firing off? All of these things are plausible. I don’t think it was a divine entity or some sort of conscious “energy” that was directing her. Parsimony and evidence would tend towards it being a function of consciousness rather than divine direction.
     Here is the problem I have with belief in the supernatural or spiritual. When people readily accept things without evidence or don’t think critically they expose themselves to harmful superstition, prejudice and fraud, both medical and financial.
     The article Jason included about condoms is a great example. The subjugation of women is another. Killing jews. The caste system in the hindu faith. Christian scientists and JW’s refusing medical treatment. People continuing to hold onto outdated and clearly wrong beliefs with absolutely no evidence for them. Faith is almost like “the gambler’s fallacy”. The occasional prayer that seems to come true. the random time when something goes right or wrong that they ascribe to god’s will that keeps people thinking there is something to god or that lucky rabbit’s foot.
     You might like to read “How We Believe” by Michael Shermer. Also I highly recommend “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. It really is a classic of clear thinking and skepticism.
     Now about movies. I am a complete killjoy. No one likes to go see movies with me because I complain about the lapses in logic or folks behaving in ways that make any sense. If you really to torture yourself see the tim burton (no relation) of “Planet Of The Apes”. Not a single frame of that film makes sense. “Le, Pacte des loups” is another film that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. And that is even discounting everyone in 18th century france knowing kung fu. (see, now you are dying to see it.)

135. johnsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

     Hey Admin, if that is your name.
     since we all seem to have our favorites how about some folks suggesting their favorite books on the topics we have been discussing here? I am always looking to learn more.
     It can be sort of like Oprah’s book club except good. (by the way, Oprah is stone cold, gullible idiot-discuss. it is gonna take a lot of
     “the road” to erase “a million little pieces”)
     Jason, “Constantine’s Sword” sounds very interesting. What else?
     anyone else got any suggestions?

136. johnsays:
     
     March 17th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

     Matt, the bit about your mother is tragic. I am glad she was able to get out.

137. Jasonsays:
     
     March 18th, 2009 at 9:19 am

     The simple fact that Oprah touts “The Secret” is enough to convict her in my court.

138. johnsays:
     
     March 18th, 2009 at 10:01 am

     agreed. “the secret” is even worse.

139. Mattsays:
     
     March 18th, 2009 at 10:25 am

     For those of you in the Seattle area:

     http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2008877678_satan18m.html

     I don’t know if the link above will work but in today’s Times there’s going to be a discussion (debate?) about whether or not Satan exists. It’s for an upcoming episode of Nightline. One of the persons in the discussion is a former hooker who has started “Hookers for Jesus.”

     She’s SMOKIN’ HOT! Oh, that was a bit sexist…

140. Mattsays:
     
     March 18th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

     More about “quiverfull movement:”

     http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763

141. Korinsays:
     
     March 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

     Okay, I’m going to try to jump on this fast train, but I have no confidence that I will keep up with you all. However, I feel the female perspective in the conversation is terribly under-represented (probably wisely so), but here I am to attempt to inject some…from the “believers” perspective anyway.

     Let me start here – Jason, you ask:

     What does religion give you, that you can’t get elsewhere, with less baggage? Why do any of us NEED religion, given that we all agree it’s no guarantee of good, and we all seem to agree that it has frequently been the source of repression?

     One point I would like to make that seems difficult for “non-believers” to comprehend is this: Religion is not the same thing as faith, furthermore, religion is not necessary for faith. Personally I find I agree with most of the statements that may be considered “against” religion. I am not a fan.

     I believe Jesus is also not a fan of religion – yet people tend to dump him into the religion category.

     Seriously I wonder, how does one honestly expect to define God within the limits of one’s intellect?
     I liken my relationship with God to my childrens’ relationship with me.
     They don’t understand the why’s or how’s much either, and I get that they just don’t have the cognitive ability, perspective or life experience to relate to or understand most of the decisions I make on their behalf.
     When they are teens, they may think I’m full of crap and have no real authority or power, and that their wisdom and intellect are much greater than mine. They can very clearly see flaws in my reasoning. And yet, when they grow and have children of their own, they suddenly begin to have these epiphanies of insight into the why’s and how’s…
     But to try to explain to my 6 year old (or my teenager) about being an adult – trying to get them to see ME – is probably something like trying to describe Niagara Falls to a blind person. They pretty much have to take some of it on faith. As they trust me, and as I honor that trust, we can build on their understanding and expand their wisdom.

     I do have a question for Robin, if you care to answer. Something in your first post has really stuck with me – if you believe that when you die, you are worm-food, I think you put it, why does that scare you? I’m not asking to argue, just curious about just what this fear is.

     I’ll try to respond to more later on. Tomorrow I have finals, so I’m off to hit the books.

142. Korinsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 5:05 am

     To answer the question about what religion gives me that I cannot get somewhere else with less baggage…
     Given that I’ve already made my point about religion…and believing that you would consider my church to fall into your “religion” category… I don’t want to split too many hairs over this one.

     Belonging to a church community offers me real community and all that generally encompasses, based in love and on a common set of beliefs and values (give or take a few). It offers me the opportunity to be “real” and have it met with love and respect, even when I’m not eloquent or particularly graceful, and to have deep meaningful relationships.
     I don’t have to agree with everything and everyone on every point to take part in what’s offered – I wouldn’t accept anything less – from my friends who share my faith, and my friends who don’t.

143. Mattsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 11:41 am

     Korin, welcome to the discussion/debate. Nice to hear another “voice.”

     Just to bump up on what Korin said, and to quote Jason, to what “baggage” do you refer to?

     I’ve wondered about this the past couple days, trying to wrap my brain around it… Jason, you felt shock and where appalled when you found out the JW’s were in bed with the Nazis. I, personally, would have left the Catholic Church if I found its leaders were harboring child molesters. Much like people have left the Episcopal church when it chose to ordain Homosexuals (or for that matter – women). NOTE: I am NOT equating the ordination of someone who is gay as equal to hiding sexual diviants and moving them about parish to parish. I’m just giving examples.

     When I look at my religion and/or faith, I’m trying to, seriously, see the baggage that I am carrying. That you refer to.

     A few comments ago I brought up the fact that maybe one of the aspects of my faith, or being in a church community is to try and make that community and/or church better. To right the wrongs. To be a voice. Though I fail more than I succeed.

     One final point…during the last presidential election (I think) there was an article I read about the evangelical conservative Republicans no longer able to take a stand on homosexuality. Basically, the old rallying cry of gays=bad was no longer holding weight due to the fact that, simply, young Republicans were rejecting it. Many had friends who were gay and it was no longer an issue as it was in the 70’s or 80’s.

     What caused this? Was it Ellen Degeneres coming out of the closet? Watching Pedro on MTV’s Real World die of AIDS? What caused that shift? Certainly the prejudice is still there. Certainly the issue is a “hot button one.” But could it be that there is a portion of this conservative literal evangelical group that is slowly shedding that “baggage?”

     A Costco muffin calls out to me. Must eat.

144. Jasonsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

     vis-a-vis Korin, Comment 141:

     First off, I’m so glad you decided to add your perspective, that the male tone did not deter you!

     I hope my disagreement with your points won’t deter you from responding further…

     You said: “One point I would like to make that seems difficult for ‘non-believers’ to comprehend is this: Religion is not the same thing as faith”

     I don’t think that’s a sticking point for anyone on this list. Are you just making a general observation, or were there comments in this thread that led you to believe otherwise?

     When you say: “how does one honestly expect to define God within the limits of one’s intellect?”

     I respond: The only reason you would pose that question in the first place is because believers have declared God to be invisible, immaterial, time-immune… in other words, have conveniently defined God in such a way that his existence can never be comprehended or disproven.

     (SIDE NOTE, ADDED AFTER: I can say from personal experience that when my wife asks me to explain something, and I irritatedly say, “you wouldn’t understand!”… that’s kind of a dishonest and condescending dodge on my part. It’s not an answer, it’s a way of avoiding the effort of giving an answer. To say that there can’t be true evidence for the existence of God because he’s, well, beyond our comprehension… that strikes me as the same kind of dodge. Not intentional on your part, but a philosophical dodge, nonetheless.)

     The atheist says: okay, we’ve all been indoctrinated to believe in God from the day of our birth… but what if we take a step back and ask whether this belief really makes sense? If we hadn’t been told this story time and again, is there anything around us that legitimately points to the existence of such a fantastical being? Upon reflection, the atheist says: well… nope.

     Furthermore, the atheist asks: Well, what about these books that were supposedly written by or inspired by this invisible being? Are the miraculous stories they tell verifiable by any other source? Are these books internally consistent? Most importantly (for me): Are these books a reliable guide for human morality? Again, upon reflection, the atheist answers: um, HELL no.

     There are lots of other questions that follow, such as: Are people who believe in this invisible being demonstrably more moral than people who don’t believe? Let’s set aside faith for a moment and ask: have the institutions of religion, on balance, made the world a better place? And I’m sure you know how I would answer that.

     My point is simply: To say that God is not comprehensible to our human intellect is probably not a good argument to make to an atheist.

     And probably comparing your parental relationship to your children with the relationship of the alleged divine being to humans is an even worse argument (sorry).

     When my son didn’t understand why I instituted certain rules or why life seems so fucking pointless and painful sometimes, I was right there to talk to him, cry with him, argue with him, and to answer his questions to the best of my ability.

     Where’s God? I know you believers would say, well, we have the Bible. I say, yeah, but we also have a panoply of other supposedly inspired books, all with conflicting rules and conflicting answers to life’s most important questions. Worst of all, those books are dead; they can’t respond, they can’t evolve, they can’t learn and change. And, as Jamie and Matt have acknowledged, these books also contain the ignorant and bigoted advice of humans, bogged down in their own cultural norms; some of the advice contained therein is morally abhorrent.

     When I made a bad decision and Max challenged me, I could (sometimes) acknowledge my mistake: “You’re right, Max. I shouldn’t have yelled at you” (or whatever). Where’s God, to tell us, “yeah, I apologize for all that sexist stuff that my people put in the Bible – honestly, I didn’t even see that shit until it was at the printers.” or “Yeah, I really should have proofread the Bible more closely and removed all of those parts that seem to implicitly approve of slavery. Sorry ‘Bout That.” etc.

     As Max grew, his father also grew. As I grow, I want my own “father” to grow. But he can’t; his words (and, yes, Jamie, the words written by his culturally retarded followers) were written in a book that can no longer be changed. Taking everything in the Bible at face value, I get the impression of a very immature parent – jealous, petty, violent, judgmental, remote.

     When my own parents chose to shun me, based on my disagreement with their doctrines… I rejected them as my parents, which – as sad as it is – still seems to me the correct response. Why leave myself open to further hurt?

     Even if the evidence led me to believe in a God (which it manifestly does not), I would reject him as any kind of “parent” or moral authority, for the same reasons.

145. Jasonsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

     Matt, Comment 143: You asked “…to what “baggage” do you refer to?”

     In general, being required to profess something which I believe to be untrue, even harmful.

     Also: pledging even partial allegiance to a book that contains ignorant bigotry. Even if I’M smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, other folks won’t be: Look at the Quiverfull stories you’ve been posting, or the ignorant and insensitive proclamations of the pope in recent days, to cite a couple of examples.

     Sam Harris makes the provocative claim that so-called “moderate” Christians are enablers for a sick and abusive belief system. I tend to agree. The more that “reasonable” people proclaim faith in the Bible while they simultaneously sweep the more illogical and offensive passages under the carpet… the more entrenched is the cultural acceptability of the ENTIRE BOOK and of the belief system called “Christianity.”

     You may not personally accept some of those weird passages in the Bible, but if you call yourself a Christian, the Bible is one of the cornerstones of your faith. You are a carrier of the “Bible is a suitable moral compass” meme. You would add a bunch of caveats to that statement, but those caveats get lost in the transmission.

     And yet, you raise good questions about working within the system for change vs. attacking the system from the outside. Believe me, that’s a question I have mulled over many times in the last 8 years. Ultimately, though, I could not preach what I believed to be untrue. Ultimately, I believed that it was a more progressive step to add my voice to the growing chorus of doubters.

     Like me, I would assume your decision can only be based on whether you think the system in question is worth saving. Since I believe the entire “Christianity” enterprise is based on a lie, and since I don’t see that Christianity has been a net benefit to society… I do not think it’s worth saving. YMMV.

146. johnsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

     hey matt, just really quickly.
     I am sure I will have more to write later but I gotta run.
     all you have to do is look at California and prop 8 and realize that the article you read about conservative republicans unable to take a stand on homosexuality was completely and totally wrong.
     fags might be getting their asses kicked on the streets less but they are still treated as second class citizens that when they can’t be ignored can at least be disenfranchised.
     More later. Take care.

147. Mattsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

     Thank you “admin” for your comments. Just a few back…

     You make a proper point that just because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean that I buy into what other Christians believe or interpret. I am quite offended when I see Christians acting in ways that reprehensible to what I believe and strive to accomplish.

     As I said in one of my earlier points, I see my faith (religion if you will) as a conduit to a deeper relationship with God (energy/force/FSM/mother). I see others who use their faith (religion if you will) as a way of trying to control other people. An “Us v. Them” mentality. My father was a big proponent of that. When faith shifts from relationship with something deepr or more profound to a score card and a bible, then something is sorely amiss.

     But, since you: “believe the entire “Christianity” enterprise is based on a lie, and since I don’t see that Christianity has been a net benefit to society… I do not think it’s worth saving.”

     I then ask how you see Atheism AS a net benefit. Would Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished what he did if he was an athiest? Would Mahatma Gandhi go to the lengths he did if didn’t think there was a paradise upon which he would enter? What of many others who, based on their faith, found some sort of resolve to stretch beyond their reach because they felt strongly that if they were to die in the cause – they would find their way to heaven?

     I, personally, feel that many Christians/Buddists/Muslims/Hindus/Jewish people have been a great benefit to society partly (or mostly) based on their belief in a God and a heaven. Which brings me back to one of my original questions: Would they have been that way had they chosen a path of no diety? Certainly we will never know that…but it’s a question I ponder.

     To John: Your comment on Prop 8 is correct, but it’s my understanding that much of the influence came via the Morman faith and their political machine – not necessarily the 20 year old Republican. Plus, according to Rachael Maddow – a strong voting contingent against it was of Hispanic origin which, of course, has a strong Catholic connection. Not the sort of “cookie cutter” Southern Baptist Oral Roberts graduate that I’m thinking of. But, valid point.

     Still…20 years ago would it have even made it to a vote? 30 years ago the person bringing it up probably would have been shot.

148. johnsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 8:48 pm

     Okay Matt let’s us finish up the gay republican thing. I will try to be succinct and will no doubt fail. In fact I already have. Superstition, faith, religion are all very likely part of the human condition. An evolutionary spandrel that resulted from consciousness. The problem with this kind of thing is it allows and excuses all sorts of irrational prejudices and bigotry as well as some demonstrably false beliefs. Some people use it to claim that god says that homosexuality is evil and they should be killed at worst and that they are sinners at best. All of which gives people a divine excuse for their bigotry. It’s in the bible. When a more liberal person like yourself points out that jesus wants us to love everybody you usually don’t get much traction. Who is to say that your interpratation is more correct than theirs? You both refer to the same book just different sections. Your argument is no more valid than theirs is in their mind.
     I don’t think bigotry and prejudice are ever going to go away. They are just a part of the way the brain works but once we get superstition out of the argument we can realize that there is no sound reason to deny any person equal rights.
     It is the same sort of irrational thinking that lets people believe in things like homeopathy and ghosts. No matter how many times things like that fail to stand up to rigorous investigation people still cling to the belief that they are real.
     It seems to be that being a non theist (atheist) and remaining an open minded skeptic is an intellectual challenge. It would be much easier to just go with the flow and hope and pray that god is directing me and gays are sinners. Jason wouldn’t have be alienated from his family. All much easier.

149. johnsays:
     
     March 19th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

     Jason, when you ask “where is god?” I would point out that I have had many christian friends claim that they speak directly with god and that god speaks directly to them. I don’t know if they were literally hearing voices or if they couldn’t (or didn’t want to) tell the difference between thoughts and wishes or if they were exaggerating to make point to me.
     I think your arguments with Kristin are absolutely spot on.

150. Mattsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 1:41 am

     Hey John, just a follow-up…

     Yes, bigotry, oppression, fear of the unknown exist. How people react to it, whether throwing the bible at it or analyzing it clinically doesn’t make it right, of course. Again, I come back to the power and control thing.

     But…getting to my point about the GOP and Prop 8, etc. I DO see a shift, albeit slowly, of people more and more accepting of gays. Now, I can’t speak for Keith, who is gay. My friend Stephen who is in a committed relationship with a transgender male to female, or many of my other gay friends. Maybe they see and feel a continual oppression or bigotry. I’m just going by my own concepts (basically what I see on TV) and see that homosexuality and tolerance of it (though that sounds wrong – I admit) has become more widespread.

     What it comes down to again, is relationships. Ellen Degeneres has done a great job in opening up the closet, so to speak, and putting a human face on homosexuality. So I think there is a shift. That’s not to say it won’t shift back, or that people will find something else to shift to, you know like them “illegals coming into the country to take our stinkin’ jobs!” Why is it there always seems to be some group to oppress?

     Speaking of talking to/from God. I, personally, trust no one who says that they’re talking to God (and God is talking back) on a regular basis. But…my mother has the ability to “speak in tongues” and when I was a kid, it scared the crap out of me. But…this is also a woman who, when she can’t find a parking spot prays to God to provide her with one.

     In the same thought, when my son was going to the evangelical conservative Christian school he related a story to me when in class one day they were to watch a video about missionaries. The teacher couldn’t get the video to work and announced to the class that “the devil didn’t want them to see the video.” And Nick was thinking to himself… “Uh, couldn’t the VCR be broken? Or the tape screwed up? Not THE DEVIL?!”

     As for the comment of “going with the flow” – I agree that many people do (see above about parking spots and VCRs) – always easier to say that God (or the Devil) intervened. I hope that just because I am a Christian there isn’t an assumption that I “go with the flow” – but continue to think and challenge and wonder (though I could do a bit more reading – I’ll admit).

     Oh, one last comment about my kid’s Christian school. One year Michelle was going through a tough time. Seems they couldn’t keep a teacher in her class. For some reason they kept leaving and one year in particular they went through three teachers – the last one the worst. He was a dick. I digress. Every time a teacher was hired, there’d be what I would call “Christian speak” – you know the: “God has blessed us with Miss so-and-so, Christ really shines through her. We are so blessed that God brought her into our life.” Three months later she’s fired or she quits. What…God stopped? She wasn’t as “blessed” as we thought?

     Thanks to everyone for keeping this dialogue up. I have found it very thought provoking and inspiring, challenging and moving.

     Keep up the good work.

151. Mattsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 11:08 am

     Just to clarify, when I wrote: “Speaking of talking to/from God. I, personally, trust no one who says that they’re talking to God (and God is talking back) on a regular basis.”

     I should have said that when it comes to Televangelists and people in some sort of position of power (see Robert Tilton – okay, DON’T see Robert Tilton). I talk to God all the time. I’ve never heard God talk to me, though I have felt a “pressance” around me.

     My grandfather-in-law used to have the “gift of prophecy” where an angel would show up and talk to him about things. He wrote all these down in books. I’ve never seen the books and have no idea what they say. My grandmother-in-law (on the other side) was certifiably insane – paranoid. People shooting lasers through her windows, Nazis marching down the street, etc.

     Were they BOTH crazy?

     I really have no idea.

152. Jasonsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

     Matt, Comment 147: “I am quite offended when I see Christians acting in ways that reprehensible to what I believe and strive to accomplish.”

     You’re making my points for me again!

     You find their actions reprehensible because they conflict with your personal code of morality. Sadly, if you’re talking about denigration and abuse of women and children, discrimination against GLBT citizens, execution of infidels… those actions do NOT conflict with the code of morality displayed in the Bible (or the Koran, if we’re talking about Islam).

     I’m sure someone will say (again): but there’s GOOD stuff in the Bible! Jesus treated women with respect! And I would not argue with that. I would just point you (again) back to my earlier list of counter-examples.

153. Jasonsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 3:53 pm

     Eric, Comment 110: “How, for that matter, does an atheist define ‘good’ or ‘evil’ without invoking some kind of will to power as authority over others? …The only authority Atheism offers is the authority imposed by power, be it by majority rule or by threat of imposed consequences.”

     “Threat of imposed consequences”? You mean like, “do what I say or else I’ll roast you in a fiery pit for eternity”? That kind of threat?

     Seriously, though, I don’t see the problem. In the U.S., and around the world, we see various systems for balancing the desires of the individual vs. the needs of society and the rights of the individual vs. the rights of his next-door neighbor. That’s the system we have today, and, as any Catholic can tell you, there are all kinds of laws (more every day!) that allow consenting adults to engage in behavior that contradicts the outdated moral code outlined in the Bible. Mostly, this works well, or at least it is the least bad of all possible systems.

     Let’s contrast countries where we have a separation of church and state (like the good ol’ U.S. of A.) with countries where the government of choice is a theocracy. Where would you rather live?

     Honestly, I’m not entirely sure what point you’re trying to make here. “Atheism” is not trying to impose rule over anyone. At the moment, atheists are simply trying to carve out a space where they are free to raise questions and express their genuine doubt. I’m not asking for any kind of atheist world government.

     If all you’re asking is how I define ‘good’ or ‘evil’… I would say that’s easy to answer without the intervention of the supernatural. For ME, good is that which leads to more happiness and freedom for more people, that which oppresses the least, that which works toward a sustainable future for humans and the earth they live on. Evil is the opposite of that. My right to indulge my own desires extends right up to the point at which they infringe upon your rights.

     See? No ghosts necessary.

154. Jasonsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

     John, Comment 134: How can you dis “Brotherhood of the Wolf”? See, it totally made sense that they knew martial arts back in 18th Century France, because the one character was an American Indian, and…

     oh, wait.

     Well, still. That murderous robotic wolf/hedgehog thing was fuckin’ AWESOME.

155. johnsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

     Jason, You are absolutely right about “Brotherhood of The Wolf”. The scales have fallen from my eyes. Thank you. The indian thing clears it up and that murderous robotic wolf/ hedgehog was totally awesome. Thanks for reminding about the good things.
     (planet of the apes sucked though right?)

156. Mattsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

     “Admin” – I’m glad I keep making your points. As I said very early on that if we all just state what we truly believe we’re probably all very similar in many ways (except for that whole belief in God thing).

     The point I’m making is just because I find what other Christians do as reprehensible or offensive doesn’t mean that I completely discount Christianity and religion on a whole. Just as you could find something an athiest would do as reprehensible or offensive, you don’t make a blanket statement that all atheists are reprehensible or offensive.

     Again, I bring up the conversations I had with my father over Bishop Spong and his questioning of the Apostle Paul’s sexuality and my father’s DEMAND that I reject Spong. As if Spong speaks for me. Or Jerry Falwell spoke for my father.

     And going back to your comment on the Bible baggage. There is a vast difference between looking at a book as a cultural reference with interesting stories of a time thousands of years ago and taking the book as a perfect literal translation of the very word of God, as transcribed to people in a trance.

     Your quote: “You may not personally accept some of those weird passages in the Bible, but if you call yourself a Christian, the Bible is one of the cornerstones of your faith. You are a carrier of the “Bible is a suitable moral compass” meme. You would add a bunch of caveats to that statement, but those caveats get lost in the transmission.”

     I don’t think I am a “carrier of the Bible as a sutiable moral compass” as I don’t pop open the bible every time I have a question as to whether or not I’m doing something right or wrong. As for the caveats getting lost in the transmission – transmission from or to whom? My tranmission of the words in the bible to my brain or my transmission of the bible into society? Or are talking a manual transmission or automatic (ha!).

     But, yes, thank you for pointing back to your counter-examples.

157. Jasonsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

     Just looked it up on Amazon – the sidekick who dies was Iroquois. You know, the ones who practiced Tae-Kwon Do?

     Oldboy: Fantastic, bloody, delirious, hysterical, heartbreaking. So is the whole “Vengeance Trilogy.” In fact, I’ve got a nice Italian poster for “Lady Vengeance” hanging in our kitchen.

     I still have a soft spot for “Brotherhood of the Wolf,” but you’re totally right about Tim Burton’s “Planet of the Apes”: UNMITIGATED, NONSENSICAL CRAP.

158. johnsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

     Hi Matt,
     briefly, I am not sure what an atheist would do that would be reprehensible that would reflect their philosophy as an atheist. I don’t consider a persons faith when they shoot up their office or murder someone. I do consider their faith if they murder a woman for breaking some tenant of faith. I consider their faith if they discriminate against homosexuals in public but snort meth off the ass of the gay escort in private or rape a child. If the crime committed is done in the name of faith or is hypocritical. What would you consider an atheist themed crime or hypocrisy?

159. johnsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

     Admin:
     You silver tongued devil. I am so used to agree with your infallible logic that for a moment there I thought maybe “brotherhood of the wolf” wasn’t a terrible movie.
     As I was driving home I thought about the film a bit more.
     If I remember correctly wasn’t the Indian guy referred to as “a Mohican, the last of his tribe” or something like that? Didn’t the plot have something to do some crazy conspiracy? Also if I remember correctly the indian and kung fu french guy spent a year looking for the wolf and once the indian guy got killed (spoiler alert) the french guy put himself out as bait to finally draw the wolf out. Why the hell did that take a year in movie time and almost three hours in film time? why the eff not do that in the first place? That really pissed me off. “Brotherhood,,,” is back on my list of lousy movies. You almost had me there though. Kung Fu goes a long way in my book.
     By the way. Have you seen “Old Boy”. There is a movie that doesn’t really make sense that I really like.

160. johnsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

     so, not surprisingly my memory didn’t serve at all. I forgot that the Iroquois were practitioners of Tae-Kwon Do.
     I like the vengeance trilogy as well.
     were you able to sit through “vistor Q”?
     I actually cleared out several back line guys from the front lounge of bus with “Old Boy”. I wished I had “visitor Q” or “ichi the killer”.

161. johnsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 10:31 pm

     To Matt, in brief.
     Atrocities are committed in the name of Jesus, god etc.
     What atrocities are committed in the name of atheism? not communism or socialism but atheism?
     (wow, I think i just made a point in under 400 words. wow, didn’t think i could do that. brevity is the soul of wit. except that there aren’t any souls. does that mean I am witless?)

162. Mattsays:
     
     March 20th, 2009 at 11:36 pm

     I have Burton’s “Planet of the Apes” – don’t ruin it for me…I haven’t watched it…yet. But you’re saying it’s good, right?

163. johnsays:
     
     March 21st, 2009 at 11:06 am

     That’s what she said.

164. johnsays:
     
     March 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm

     Eric & Jaime are you still lurking out there?
     Since we seem to have reached in impasse on god existing and the divinity of jesus how about the original argument or variation of? Since the pope has come out making demonstrably untrue scientific claims when referring to a moral or ethical stance.
     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm
     Does faith or religion in general help or hurt? Does it do more harm then good or is it a draw? Do secularists do as much charity work as the faithful or is the sample size too small? Do we need religion or faith to make moral decisions?

165. Mattsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 am

     Comment to John’s comment of 164.

     1. I’M still here.

     2. As I mentioned above, the Pope, Bishop Spong, Robert Tilton, Jerry Falwell or my father do not speak for me. And though the Pope, or any other religious leader, may have influence on people as a good/bad example, I do not necessarily agree or disagree with what they have to say.

     3. Does faith or religion in general help or hurt? Depends. Does a lack of faith or religion help or hurt? Depends.

     4. If secularists do as much charity work as the faithful, or is the sample size too small, I’m still not impressed by what I see of athiest leaders. Note: I asked Jason quite a while ago who the athiest leaders were. Is there the equivalent of a Mahatma Gandhi? Or a Martin Luther King Jr.? Or a Dalai Lama? I anticipate the response from John or Jason to be: “Well, why do we need leaders anyway? We’re open to all thoughts and circumstances and truth.” That’s all fine and good but I haven’t seen what I consider the “selling points” of no faith.

     5. Do we need religion or faith to make moral decisions? Obviously not, in my opinion, but I do think that there are some people who are willing to take potentially MORE risks if they solidly believe that there is a heaven or paradise upon which they will enter as opposed to being “worm food.”

     Follow-up comment to #4. A number of years ago my neighbor (who is more of a fundamentalist bent) wanted me to go to “Promise Keepers.” “PK” was/is a group started by some old football coach and the point of the group was to re-establish the male dominated household. There was some of what I would refer to as “politically correct” statements about women but those were undercut by the constant mantra of the “Man is the Head of the Household.” But a lot of what they taught was that the husband SHOULD be more active in his children’s lives. If, IF my neighbor came home from one of these meetings and I saw an honest change, a real awakening, a new man – so to speak – I would probably say: “Golly, that sure worked for him! Why don’t I take a look.” But, honestly, I never saw one bit of change.

     I don’t NEED an athiest leader to wage a march on Washington to stop the war in Iraq but, golly, if I saw one and they said: “Hey, I’m an athiest. And I successfully did…” Then, yeah, maybe I would say: “That’s cool. That athiest guy really made a positive difference.” But I have yet to see that. When I asked Jason early on in this discussion to give me a few more names than Dawkins, Hitchins and Sagan he dismissed my comment. Okay, that’s cool.

     Years ago, a good athiest friend of mine said to me: “You know, Matt, I’m not into the whole religion thing but if I was, I really think I see Christ in you.” Now, that might not have been good enough for my father. But it sure meant a helluva lot to me.

     It’s late and I don’t want to ramble on too much. I certainly hope Jaime and Eric return to the fray (and I hope others, do, too).

     Luv ya!

166. Jasonsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm

     Matt, #165: “When I asked Jason early on in this discussion to give me a few more names than Dawkins, Hitchins and Sagan he dismissed my comment.”

     Actually, no, what I said was:

     “Is Carl Sagan really the only “good” atheist/agnostic you could come up with? Is it possible you missed a couple?”

     Finding a list of notable atheists is as simple as typing “famous atheists” into Google and perusing the results. Here are a couple of lists that I found within seconds.

     http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html

     http://machineslikeus.com/famous-atheists.html

     http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

     I particularly like the last one, because it includes some fantastic quotations.

     Matt sez: “I’m still not impressed by what I see of athiest leaders.”

     (Note: It’s ATHEIST, not ATHIEST. Common mistake)

     First of all, you are aware that polls regularly show that we’re far more likely to elect a openly gay or lesbian person, or a person of color, than a self-proclaimed atheist? You are aware of the overwhelming social pressure to believe in a god? The myriad ways that our society is set up to favor Christians over non-Christians? For these reasons, many non-believers don’t advertise themselves as such.

     Secondly… I think you still have a fundamental misunderstanding about what “atheism” is. It’s certainly not a community that thinks, speaks or acts in any organized, coordinated way. It’s not even a set of beliefs or a moral code. To call myself an atheist means only this: That the reasons you give me for the existence of a divine entity seem logically flawed. That science tells me everything I need to know about the universe. So, barring future astounding revelations, I’m not going to construct my life around belief in what appears to be a fantasy.

     Thirdly, let’s remember that every believer taking part in this discussion is an atheist as regards thousands of other postulated gods, demons, and ghosts. You have rejected (or, more likely, simply not investigated) those other supernatural beings because the claims made by their adherents are preposterous. Well… I’ve simply added one more god to your list of gods that do not exist. Let’s be frank; you are pleading for Yahweh as a special case. When you make a case for “belief” you are actually making a case for the superiority of CHRISTIAN belief. Doesn’t it seem remarkably convenient that you happened to be born into the only true faith, Christianity?

167. Jasonsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm

     Still responding to Matt:

     I would argue that anyone who speaks up loudly against the dominant paradigm, anyone who deconstructs our unexamined beliefs, can be rightly classed as a hero, as a freedom fighter. Just to take the small group you cited: How many have been emboldened to ask important questions, to examine their beliefs, based on the writings of the current crop of populist atheists?

     And yes, let’s talk about MLK. You wonder if he would have fought so hard for civil rights if he had not had his Christian faith.

     In response, I ask if the practice of enslaving humans would have been as widespread in the U.S. if Christians had not found support for such atrocities in their Bible?

     (As an aside, note that Abraham Lincoln was apparently a non-theist)

     What about the historical and ongoing abuse of our GLBT friends? Would that have been as widespread and venomous if Christians had not found an endorsement of such views in the Bible?

     What about the historical and ongoing maltreatment of women, both here and in Muslim theocracies such as Saudi Arabia? I ask if this maltreatment would have been as widespread if Christians and Muslims had not found support for such views in the Bible and Koran?

     Would Gandhi have had such a hard job if denigration of non-Christians had not been so ingrained in the British, and such a convenient justification for colonialism?

     I don’t know the answers to the above, but I would hope you can at least admit that it’s food for thought. For every god-fearing freedom fighter, I could list a hundred examples of oppression based on religious belief.

     In short: To trumpet the heroism of a Christian freedom fighter who is fighting an oppression that has been historically held in place by other Christians (and even supported by the Christian Bible)… doesn’t do much in the way of selling Christianity to me.

     You ask what’s the “selling point” for non-belief… What is the “selling point” for refusing to submit to a belief system which a) is lacking substantive proof, and b) has historically been the source of more oppression than freedom?

     How are these for “selling points”: No 9-11. No Crusades. No Inquisition. No oppression of our GLBT friends and family supported by God’s Holy Word. No Catholic sex abuse scandal. No more wasting time trying to correctly interpret a centuries-old book of bizarre fairy tales and abhorrent laws. No more crazy televangelists. No more “God Hates Fags” signs at military funerals. No more riots in response to some lame cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. No more bombs at Planned Parenthood offices. No more Quiverfull. No more David Koresh. No more… how long should I go on?

     Of course, even if there were no religion, bad things would still happen if folks had free will. I’m not suggesting that the world would be a paradise if religion and belief in the supernatural was eliminated. But one of the most common causes of oppression and violence would be eliminated, and we would all be able to negotiate based on what is visible, on the tangible results of our actions, rather than factoring in the will of some vindictive and judgmental invisible guy.

     Even if you could prove to me that believers do more good than non-believers (which I do not think you can do), all that tells me is that imaginary future reward (heaven, eternal life) or punishment (everlasting death or torment in hell) is an effective way to manipulate humans. It says nothing about the veracity of their beliefs.

168. Mattsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm

     Jason “Admin” Toews – good points all and, certainly, food for thought. As always you bring up challenging questions and I appreciate everything you bring to the table.

     One point, though, that I will take issue with. Your quote of: “When you make a case for “belief” you are actually making a case for the superiority of CHRISTIAN belief. Doesn’t it seem remarkably convenient that you happened to be born into the only true faith, Christianity?”

     I have never said that Christianity is the only true faith. I see things to praise in most all faiths (at their core – not the bastardazation of faiths as perpetrated by men – including and predominently – Christianity). I see things to praise in the way that you (and Johna nd Keith) have embraced what it is you all believe.

     As for “even if you could prove to me that believers do more good than non-believers” – I could bring up hundreds of years of Christian missionary work, millions upon millions of dollars raised every year through religious (not just Christian) charities. You could quickly point out (like you did with Mother Theresa) that just because she did good works in the slums of Calcutta – you take issue with her ties to the Catholic church. Certainly some missionaries used their faith as not a way of bringing God’s love to the masses but as a way of using power and control over the natives (along with sickness and death). Now whether they did this to protect themselves from a vindicitive (i.e. crazy) God, or to punch their ticket to heaven or both…I don’t know. I can only speak for myself and the concept of heaven doesn’t really float through my mind when I buy a newspaper from a homeless guy, or pretend to be Santa at a shelter.

     In a couple weeks my church is going to do a foot washing for the homeless in Seattle. It is sponsored by the United Way. They do not come in with “Jesus Saves T-Shirts” or announce they’re from a church. Instead, they do the service out of a need for these homeless to not only be cleansed but also get new socks, shoes, and have doctors check them out. More often then not, the opportunity to wash these feet open up conversations about the struggles these men and women have had and, often times it is the homeless who bring up Jesus.

     The members of my church, again, aren’t there out of guilt, or the desire for another room in their mansion in heaven, but out of a desire to help those less fortunate and connect in a real, concrete way.

     Also…I thought it was “I before E, except after C.”

169. Jasonsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm

     Matt, I know you personally would never make the explicit claim that Christianity is the one true religion. I love you precisely because you are too kind and too even-handed to say something like that.

     I would argue, however, that you are implicitly saying exactly that, by your actions.

     My point is that, if we’re talking about any of the other gods throughout history, you and I are in agreement, e.g. There’s no proof for the existence of Zeus. To our modern minds, his “existence” is clearly the result of a sociological urge to make meaning of the world, to give context to confusing reality. The myths surrounding Zeus appear morally abhorrent to us, and definitely not a reliable guide for ethical behavior. Neither of us waste much time trying to parse out whether – despite all of the logical and ethical objections – Zeus may actually exist. As far as you and I are concerned, the same goes for every other god throughout recorded history.

     Except one – Yahweh – which you (and all Christians) still cling to, even though all of the objections that you have to Zeus (and Thor, and Ra…) are equally relevant when considering the existence of Yahweh.

     Which is my point: You are using the same reasoning that I am when it comes to every other god. But you (and I) happened to be born into a culture that reveres Yahweh, and so we set aside those objections in his case, and when considering the Christian Bible. You yourself spoke of the process by which your church parses out Scripture, filtering it through tradition and then human reason. If your church didn’t believe that the Bible was a special case, they wouldn’t make the effort to interpret it; they would just regard it as one more in the pile of curious and hopelessly outdated “holy” books throughout history. In fact, if they didn’t regard it as a special case, there would be no need for an Episcopal (or any other Christian) Church. If you didn’t regard the Bible and its alleged author as a special case, you wouldn’t spend your Sundays attending a church that reveres them.

     I am pointing my finger not at you only, but to all Christians, including me when I was younger.

     Regarding the reward/punishment issue, my point in post #167 is this: Given a system of belief which promises eternal life for certain behavior, and which promises eternal torture for other behavior… there is no way that the actions of believers can ever be “clean” – whether you are thinking about it consciously or not, your behavior is tainted by this unhealthy bribe/threat mentality. It cannot NOT be, I would argue.

     You mention “hundreds of years of Christian missionary work”, which honestly surprises me, given what you have told me about your own father. I put it to you that any “good deed” done with the intent of bringing “the truth” to the ignorant heathens is so adulterated with misguided arrogance and ethnocentrism that it is fucked from the get-go.

     Again, I’m not arguing that every act done by every Christian is evil. I’m simply saying that if I can come up with an indisputable equal (or greater) evil done IN THE NAME OF religion for every example you can cite to the contrary, you’ve got yourself a net wash. At best.

     Both Robin and I have been involved in volunteer work that had nothing to do with religion of any kind. The folks doing education work in the jail, the folks providing end-of-life care and comfort in the hospice, the folks providing anti-racism workshops to high schools… we, and others, were doing that stuff because we looked around us and saw a need, and it wasn’t weighed down with completely irrelevant beliefs about a lazy and mean-spirited time-traveling ghost who may or may not burn you for eternity. Ya know?

     It is very possible – and more common than you seem to realize – to do good works outside of a religious context.

     This particular conversation is funny, given my own experience. When I was a Witness, but on my way out, I wondered aloud, “well, if we’re so concerned about humanity, why don’t we get involved in some volunteer work?” The answer I received was, “if you have free time, why aren’t you spending that doing something of REAL benefit, like… (wait for it) GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR!”

     What with the five hours of meetings, two hours of ministry, and several hours of studying I had to do every week as a Witness, I felt like I had little time or interest to devote to other social issues. When I finally got out, volunteering in a hospice was the first thing I did, and for the first time in my life, I realized the beauty and the importance of doing good works without the baggage of trying to save that person’s soul at the same time (though Witnesses don’t believe in the “soul” per se, but I think you get my drift).

     Witnesses also weren’t big on recycling or any “excessive” focus on environmental issues, because, after all, God’s gonna sort it all out at Armageddon. Why waste the time and energy trying to fix it ourselves?

     I realize this is an extreme case, but I think it does illustrate one thing eloquently: Though religious faith can sometimes be an encouragement to do certain good works, I would argue (and I think with some authority) that religious faith can just as often be a DETERRENT to perform good works that don’t fit with the religion’s “mission statement.” Witness the pope’s recent comments on distribution of condoms in Africa for one excellent example. I bet you could come up with many others.

170. Korinsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm

     Admin says: I hope my disagreement with your points won’t deter you from responding further…

     Nah, I fully expect you to disagree with my points. If I don’t respond you can be certain it’s either that I am too busy with things I have deemed a higher priority, or because I have not yet formulated a response.

     Admin says: “One point I would like to make that seems difficult for ‘non-believers’ to comprehend is this: Religion is not the same thing as faith”
     I don’t think that’s a sticking point for anyone on this list. Are you just making a general observation, or were there comments in this thread that led you to believe otherwise?
     My answer: both.
     Admin says:
     When you say, ““how does one honestly expect to define God within the limits of one’s intellect?”
     I respond: The only reason you would pose that question in the first place is because believers have declared God to be invisible, immaterial, time-immune… in other words, have conveniently defined God in such a way that his existence can never be comprehended or disproven.”

     Korin says: It’s rather egotistical of you to determine that you know “the only reason (I) would pose that question”. While you may be able to correctly assume my reasoning in some cases, it would be friendly and considerate of you to allow me to make my own points anyway. (not angry, just saying…) AND you may be surprised, I may have something new to say.
     I honestly don’t understand what sounds to be a complete reliance on intellect, while ignoring the other valid aspects of humanity – instinct, emotion, intuition, etc. That being said, I personally don’t find it convenient at all that believers have declared God to be invisible, immaterial and/or time-immune. I would argue that God’s existence can be comprehended and proven (probably not disproven) – all depends on what one is willing to receive as proof.
     As to whether or not this is a good argument to make to an atheist, I’m not concerned about that. I’m not trying to change your mind, I respect your mind, just as it is and really appreciate and enjoy the contrast. I only chimed in because I thought you had an interest in understanding why/how an intelligent, self-assured, open-minded, culturally aware person would consciously believe, and actually does so in the face of what you consider to be such great lack of evidence of God’s existence.
     It also may be interesting to note that I was not indoctrinated to believe in God from the day of my birth – I am not alone in that. My step-father, who was the only dad I had, is not a believer, but rather an atheist. And there is a fairly equal mix of believer’s and non-believers in my family. I began my journey as a believer in may late teens, and was (and still am) a quite skeptical one at that!
     As to using my parental relationship as a comparison for the relationship between God and man – again it’s not an argument- I find it to be a wonderful and accurate metaphor to describe what is to me an obvious gap in understanding. I do however find it hard to believe that when you were running late for work, and you son didn’t want to put his shoes on, you got down and cried with him about the injustice of wearing shoes and going to childcare (or school or whatever). Maybe you did… We very well may have extremely different ideas about parenting too, it would stand to reason.
     It has been my experience that the Bible does in fact inspire greater and deeper wisdom as you yourself grow and your capacity for wisdom and understanding expands. However if you are simply looking for something to react to, you will find that also. Perhaps taking the Bible at face value is not the way to approach, personally I prefer to ask for insight and do not rely upon my own understanding.
     As to whether you would accept or reject God as any kind of “parent” or moral authority – doesn’t really change who He is. It is unfortunate (although understandable) that you would choose to judge God by your parents actions. This is an emotional decision, not an intellectual one. If your emotions play a large part in this decision, is it not fair to also suspect that same emotion colors your argument against the existence of God at all?

     By the way, God is not interchangeable with ghost or superstition or any other words that might be chosen to otherwise express the lack of significance you choose to ascribe. When you do this, for me at least, it lessens the strength of your argument by the level of your disrespect. It smacks of intolerance, bigotry and hate. Reminds me of using “nigger” or “spic” instead of African American or Latino. Just thought you might like to be aware of that.

171. Jasonsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm

     Eric, Comment #114:

     “The problem with Faulkner’s ‘thought exercise’ (going WAY back here) is that it places restrictions upon the concept of God and fobs off all arguments to the existence of God as artificial rules without actually tackling the task of dismantling the arguments themselves.”

     Who the hell is Faulkner? Whoever he is, you said the following about his thought experiment:

     “I, for one, simply toss it aside as a sophomoric attempt at modern philosophy.”

     Hmm…

     A few sentences later, you said:

     “When the only way to argue against a logical argument is to say, It’s a thought exercise, not evidence, then I would propose that it is a pretty solid chunk of deductive evidence.”

     Equivalently, I suppose that means I could say:

     “when the only way to argue against a logical argument is to say, it’s a sophomoric attempt at modern philosophy, not evidence, then I would propose that it is a pretty solid chunk of deductive evidence.”

     …and receive no argument?

     Seriously, though: who in the hell is Faulkner?

172. Korinsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm

     To quote Matt: “Can’t we all just get along?”
     I really enjoy an open and respectful sharing of ideas.
     When the conversation becomes aggressive or offensive, I don’t find it to be productive.
     I would rather just send you all my love and a big hug!!

173. Jasonsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm

     Korin ~ I am very glad you (and everybody else) chimed in, regardless of whether I agree with y’all or not! I tried to respond to your points without rancor, to simply tell you how those arguments strike me, as a non-believer, and also to pose some counter-arguments. If you don’t mind my asking, which parts of the ensuing conversation did you find aggressive or offensive?

     In any case, I will definitely accept the long-distance hug!

174. Mattsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 pm

     Jason, in regards to your comment as to: “I would argue, however, that you are implicitly saying exactly that, by your actions.”

     To what actions are you referring to? Again, we have gone over the fact that I have never ever NEVER proselytized (sic?) to you or Robin or John or Keith or anyone else (not even in High School…I think. Wait, I did suggest one time that you could come to my church and you WERE the best man at my wedding…okay, guilty). Nor have I ever (at least to my knowledge) put myself or my belief system over you or your belief system – I’m simply arguing my points (albeit poorly). And, yes bringing up missionary work and my whack-job of a father was a bit of a stretch – but I’m sure some Christians have done GOOD work out there.

     As to the thought process of hell, I’ve already said I don’t think it exists. As for my concept of God I’ve quite clearly stated that my image of God is far beyond the George Burns of “Oh God.” And, yes, I reject Zeus but am completely accepting of whomever chooses to latch on to Zeus as some righteous dude.

     I guess what I’m getting at is that I feel there is still an assumption that just because I’m a Christian I buy into or accept all the evil and all the good that other Christians do in God’s name. We’ve gone over this point and I know that I’m probably making your point(s) again and that’s fine by me because, again, I don’t think we’re that far off the mark in terms of a core center.

     I, by no means, meant to denigrate your volunteer service and Robin’s volunteer service. Though I know you probably did not take it that way, I just want to be clear. You two have done far more than what I have done in terms of volunteer work and I give you oodles of credit for it.

     Your comments about the earth and recycling are humorous in the fact that there is now a movement in the more fundamentalist factions where they’re starting to really push the environmental causes because for many years (and probably still in a lot of sectors) there IS that belief that it’s all going to be burnt up anyway so what the hell…

     Lastly…going back to one of my original postings (I think) – religion/faith/belief/spirituality are all very personal things. Taking part in this debate/discussion/roundtable/forum/think-tank/consortium has been very liberating in some ways but it again reminds me that what we believe and how we function within that is very personal. Too often when religion or faith goes beyond the personal, to the pulpit, to the political party, to the leader – that is when it gets abused.

     Final note, on the news the other night there is a new advertising campaign in the Seattle area where atheist (sic?) signs are going to be put up in buses. I think that’s very cool. Start the dialogue. Open minds. Open hearts.

175. Jasonsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm

     Matt, Comment 174: “To what actions are you referring to?”

     Simply this: Attending a Christian church, which professes belief in the Christian God and respect for the Christian Bible.

     Rest easy: I’m not accusing you of the worst trespasses of religion or Christianity, and I know you don’t condone those things. I’m merely asking you to consider whether, like the sad wife of a drunkard husband, “moderate” Christians might be enablers of an unhealthy system. That’s how I see it, but I recognize that is a minority viewpoint!

     Part of my feelings on this issue, certainly, are tied to my own feelings of remorse for hurt that I caused to others, unethical behavior that I accepted, while I was a believer. Accuse me of projecting, and you’d probably be at least half right.

     In any case, you’re one of my best friends and favorite people, and I have enormous respect for you, Matt. As you noted, it’s difficult to talk about these issues without it becoming – or at least feeling – personal.

176. Korinsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm

     I know several people who attend church every Sunday and do not believe the Bible is a special case. Some of them have told me the following reasons they attend: they enjoy being around such happy people; the relationships are what bring them to church; for some it is tradition – nostalgic – reminds them of happy memories as children… and many, many other reasons. There are as many different churches as there are personalities. Your experience in the Witnesses is not a good platform from which to judge all other churches, Christians, or religions. Your argument stating that given a system of belief which promises eternal life for certain behavior, and which promises eternal torture for others, makes my case. Christianity (as I know it) simply doesn’t teach or state that. Again your religious background is coloring your understanding of what it means to be a “believer”. Furthermore, I think the following statement could encompass people as a whole: …there is no way that the actions of believers can ever be “clean” – whether you are thinking about it consciously or not, your behavior is tainted… I doubt there is any purely selfless acts – there is always a benefit to the giver, and it could be argued that this benefit is always in the back of one’s mind – I would say it is this “benefit” that motivates people to do good works in the first place and perhaps for some the fear of “curse” – but I do have serious doubts that fear of “curse” alone could motivate a person to do good.
     Seems you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is a good work done with ill intent still a good work? Or does the intent define it as bad or evil?
     As for your and Robin’s volunteer work, there quite possibly were some Christians mixed up in that group, you never know. When you make comments like this one, it seems you are insinuating that people who are involved in volunteer work that is related to religion of some kind ARE weighed down with completely irrelevant beliefs about a lazy and mean-spirited time-traveling ghost…etc… Forgive me, is this an unfair argument? I find this offensive. My church supports an orphanage, a sustainable farm, and a school for children (that also feeds them the only meal most of them have for the day). I am often inspired to hand over cash for one of these causes, and this ghost that you speak of has never crossed my mind, in fact I’ve never heard of any being described in that manner.
     You ask if moderate Christians are enabling an unhealthy system. This is a good question, one that should be asked again and again. Personally I think the unhealthy system is much bigger than religion (although religion is often used as a tool), the real culprit is greed, power, control, laziness. If you abolish what you define as religion, this problem will still exist under some other definition – of that I am completely convinced. It is a human condition.

177. Jasonsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm

     Korin ~

     You said: “how does one honestly expect to define God within the limits of one’s intellect?”

     I said: “The only reason you would pose that question in the first place is because believers have… conveniently defined God in such a way that his existence can never be comprehended or disproven.”

     You said: “It’s rather egotistical of you to determine that you know ‘the only reason (I) would pose that question’.”

     Perhaps I spoke clumsily. My comment has nothing to do with your motives, character, or intelligence. I merely say that Christians have defined god in a way that precludes apprehension by our senses or by science. You grew up with that paradigm, as did I.

     If they had defined the Christian god differently, as someone who is visible or as someone who consistently responds to prayer in a predictable way, or if he was given any other characteristic that made him comprehensible to humans… you wouldn’t be making the argument that he can’t be defined by the human intellect. You would making arguments like, “I know God exists, because I can see him right there in the sky” or “I know God exists because I pray for my severed leg to be re-generated, and, look, it’s re-generated!”

     But instead, the Christian god was defined as an invisible, immaterial, time-immune being which humans can never fully comprehend, thus you must rely on faith and, as you have demonstrated, reject attempts to apprehend him via application of the human intellect. You accept these rules, while I see them as absurd and self-serving.

     You said: “I would argue that God’s existence can be comprehended and proven…”

     By all means, give it your best shot! I’m not being sarcastic, either: I’m genuinely interested to hear what proof you (or anyone else) may have. I’m still waiting to hear a proof that I find convincing; maybe you’ve got it!

     You said: “I do however find it hard to believe that when you were running late for work, and you son didn’t want to put his shoes on, you got down and cried with him about the injustice of wearing shoes and going to childcare…”

     Nope, but that was never my claim. When situations like that arose, however, I tried to talk it through at a more opportune moment; perhaps that evening before bed, or while we were driving to school, or whatever. Which is exactly what I would expect your god to do, if he existed and wanted my worship: Apologize and explain what he was thinking when he allowed all of that misogynist crap in the Bible, explain why slavery used to be okay, etc. So far, he has failed to do that, which leads me to deem him a bad parent.

     You said: “It is unfortunate (although understandable) that you would choose to judge God by your parents actions.”

     Not sure how you got that out of what I said! What I actually said is that if there were a Christian god who felt that he deserved my worship, I would hold him to the same standards as I would my human parents.

     You said: “By the way, God is not interchangeable with ghost or superstition or any other words that might be chosen to otherwise express the lack of significance you choose to ascribe… It smacks of intolerance, bigotry and hate. Reminds me of using ‘n*****’ or ’s***’ instead of African American or Latino.”

     I hear that you don’t like it, but I have to take issue with your comparison. The epithets you cited have historically been used to further denigrate an already marginalized community, to reinscribe an existing hate, to perpetuate slavery.

     Christianity, on the other hand, is well-entrenched in our society. You may have noticed the “In God We Trust” on our money, the prayers said at the inauguration and before each session of Congress, the oath sworn on a Christian Bible by witnesses in a court case. Christianity is in no danger of being marginalized at the moment.

     Bigotry? Hate? You might want to do a little research on the historical direction of the oppression – has it traditionally been from atheists oppressing and marginalizing Christians? Or has it traditionally been in the other direction?

     Words like “ghost” and “superstition” are not expressions of hatred, but they are chosen specifically to challenge what I see as traditional taboos against questioning or criticizing Christianity or belief in god in the U.S. All part of my long-term destabilization plan!

     It’s nothing personal, Korin. But just because it’s a deeply held belief of yours (or Jamie’s, or Matt’s) does not mean it’s protected from the critical reasoning of doubters.

     Robin teaches multicultural ed classes and anti-racism workshops, and she has noticed the following: Members of the dominant group frequently get concerned about issues of politeness when they are challenged by members of the marginalized group.

     I would say to you: Christianity, and – if he exists – the Christian god, have nothing to fear from my rabble-rousing. They will be in power for a long time to come.

178. johnsays:
     
     March 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 pm

     admin,
     I haven’t left the fray I have just been very busy.
     I don’t know what I could add that you haven’t already stated more clearly than I ever could.
     I can’t keep quiet though so there will be some notes coming. I am glad this is continuing.
     All very interesting.

179. Jasonsays:
     
     March 24th, 2009 at 10:15 am

     Korin, Comment 176: “I know several people who attend church every Sunday and do not believe the Bible is a special case.”

     If they did not believe that the Bible is a “special case” e.g. somehow superior to all other holy books… I argue that they would not be attending a Christian Church. All of those other benefits you mention – community, friendship, opportunities to do good works – can be found elsewhere.

     You said: “Your experience in the Witnesses is not a good platform from which to judge all other churches, Christians, or religions.”

     Believe it or not, lady, I’m fairly well read! I also have many friends who attend other Christian churches. During the years after I left the Witness org, I attended several other churches sporadically. Based on your arguments, I’m willing to posit that I have a more thorough knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity in general than you do.

     As an example: Witnesses don’t believe in hell, though many other mainstream Christian churches do. Witnesses only believe a small number of humans will go to heaven; most other Christian churches have a different view.

     The arguments I’m making in this forum are based on my knowledge of Christian tradition as a whole, not simply on my experience as a Witness. If you have been reading all of my posts, that should be clear.

     You said: “Your argument stating that given a system of belief which promises eternal life for certain behavior, and which promises eternal torture for others, makes my case. Christianity (as I know it) simply doesn’t teach or state that.”

     YOU may not personally believe this. As a Witness, I did not believe in the hell part. But I put it to you that this IS a common, underlying teaching of mainstream Christianity. You might want to ask Eric.

     You said: “I doubt there is any purely selfless acts – there is always a benefit to the giver, and it could be argued that this benefit is always in the back of one’s mind”

     I don’t argue that there is always a benefit to the giver. I do argue that there is a meaningful difference between:

     a) The good feeling that you get when you know that you’ve helped someone in need, and

     b) That same feeling, but complicated by the inclusion of a hovering, judgmental god who has the power to reward or punish.

     You said: “As for your and Robin’s volunteer work, there quite possibly were some Christians mixed up in that group, you never know.”

     Yup, there were! My point was that Robin and I were there, and we ain’t Christians. I was merely making the point that I’ve made time and time again in this thread: Religion or belief in the supernatural is not a necessary prereq for good works.

     Finally, back in comment 170, you said: “Perhaps taking the Bible at face value is not the way to approach, personally I prefer to ask for insight and do not rely upon my own understanding.”

     Ask for insight from who? And, if you don’t rely upon your own understanding, whose understanding do you rely on? How do you make sense of all the scriptures quoted throughout this thread which denigrate women, endorse slavery and child abuse, etc.? (Jamie, note I did not say that “God” said those things; only that the “scriptures” say them!)

180. Jasonsays:
     
     March 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

     Fascinating blog post + discussion over at the “unreasonable faith” blog, on the subject of “morality” and where it comes from:

     http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/24/do-atheists-get-their-morals-from-the-bible/

181. Mattsays:
     
     March 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

     Comment 180. Interesting.

     Here’s an additional comment: Where do we get our drive, our passion, our desire? Well, it certainly depends on what that drive and desire and passion are, correct? If I desire pizza, it’s probably because my brain is telling me that I’m hungry. If I’m in the mood for some boot-knockin’, that’s a passion of a different sort… What I’m talking about is:

     Why do I write? Why MUST I write? I wrote my first book when I was 12. I’ve always wanted and had a desire to write. WHERE did that come from? I’m not saying it’s from the Bible or God or whatever…I’m just saying WHERE did it come from?

     Certainly we can pick apart my brain and find a certain endorphin pattern, or tweak my DNA and determine that somehow I was “set on my path” due to the fact that my father was a writer then I, too, must be a writer (though my brother is not a writer but…for a time…became a teacher like my mother).

     What is it that drives us and where does that drive come from? I remember John Burton running down to Tower Records when I told him about the gatefold Marillion album they had down there. Didn’t he and (name escapes me) go over to the UK and stalk Peter Gabriel? Now John is in the business…SWEEEEEET!

     I haven’t seen the documentary series by Michael Apted (sic?) “7-up”, “14-up”, “21-up” etc. but it’s my understanding that what the kids talked about wanting to be at the age of 7 (or 14) – a number of them had gone on to do those very things at the age of 28 and 35. But where does that come from? Again, it certainly doesn’t come from the bible.

     Sooooooo…couldn’t it be remotly possible that morals and moral center comes from that pocket of gray matter where this other stuff comes from?

     Lastly, the sense of touch is one of the five senses. Out of the womb I would say it is probably the most important than any other sense (taste, smell, hearing, style – ha!). So it is soon learned that certain touches cause pain and the receptors in the brain know to not do or touch things that will cause pain. I think it’s soon figured out, with a whack upside a sibling’s head, that you can cause pain and that pain can be caused right back. All this is determined, I would think, by the end of the first year of life. I would assume, then, by the first birthday the “golden rule” is already well placed into the brain.

     My two cents.

182. Korinsays:
     
     March 24th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

     Ugh, I thoughtfully composed a lengthy response to your latest responses to my responses… and I posted it, and something happened…it’s not there. Grrrr….so frustrating. Now sadly it’s lost and I just don’t have the time to re-respond, maybe later tonight.
     I checked out the site you just posted – I was struck by how unoriginal our thoughts (and this conversation) are. These arguments have all been made before it would seem. It’s ironic to me that some evangelical Christians search for truth, or simply try to disprove atheism, and find themselves atheists. And then on the flip side some atheists search for truth, or simply set out to disprove Christianity, and find themselves Christians.

183. johnsays:
     
     March 24th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

     Okay, I am sorta back.
     Matt, You are a swell guy. Very nice. Probably like a lot of christians or, really, any religious person. I have several friends who are religious and they are some of the nicest people I know. When the religious get together in groups it seems to be a different story. When they get together the decide that gays don’t have the same rights, or the try to pass off fairy tales as science or molest children and hide it and complain and rage and talk of being oppressed when they don’t get their way or their beliefs are questioned.
     Of course there are some lousy individuals as well. Like the teacher I had that threw away a book I was reading (the fog-i was in junior high) because he didn’t think it was appropriate. Of course he sent me on an errand and threw it away while I was gone so he wouldn’t have to confront me. At least he finally admitted what he did after I started asking classmates if they stole my book. He didn’t make me an atheist but it was a good lesson for me. Just because someone believes in god doesn’t mean that they aren’t a lying hypocrite. Of course anecdotes are evidence so lets just look at what the pope has been up to lately. Who is he going to confess to since he is going to be responsible for hundreds (or more) deaths? Why doesn’t jesus set him straight?
     Korin, I think Admin has a pretty good handle on his argument with you so not much I need to add. Unlike Jason, I wasn’t raised in a particularly religious household. I did read the bible. It didn’t describe a real world and it was packed with ridiculous stories, contradictions and just plain old bad ideas.No, none of that led me to questioning religion and superstition. What lead me to skepticism or secularism was a real interest in science and how the world actually works. I was interested in what made people susceptible to being taken advantage of by psychics or charlatans and quacks. It was pretty clear that christianity wasn’t really that different than any other faith or myth. As jason points out most people nowadays don’t believe in most gods. I just believe in one less than you do. I am open to evidence though. If anybody has some I would love to hear it.
     If you read the comments above I think we have shown that god can’t shown to exist with logic. We have also shown that the bible is full of contradictions and myths and editorializing. It might be a book of interesting stories but it isn’t proof of the divine.
     Matt, your version of god reminds me a little bit of the dragon in the garage that carl sagan discusses in his book “Demon Haunted World” (great book Jamie, check it out).
     http://tinyurl.com/547ao6
     It seems like your version of god is more like an idea or feeling that you like having as opposed to an interventionist entity responsible for creating the universe, which is fine but very vague. The way I understand your description of god seems more like a sunbeam or a nice spring day. very nice but pretty insubstantial.
     It is actually kind of odd to me to see skeptics and atheists getting organized and having signs put on busses and other activities. I suppose it stems from the fact that religious groups are working so hard to weaken science in schools and to prevent everyone from having the same rights under the law.
     Jaime, if you start posting again I promise I will send you all sorts of citations for what I have said. Eric, I just flat out miss you.

184. johnsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 12:00 am

     Matt,
     I am glad you are still posting. I can’t miss you since you haven’t gone away. Thanks for keeping this going. It has been very interesting and entertaining.

185. Jasonsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 12:08 am

     Korin ~ so sorry to hear your post got deleted; I was looking forward to it! If I’m writing a lengthy post, I generally compose it in Notepad or something first, then cut and paste, to avoid that irritation. Don’t give up!

     I’m reading an excellent book at the moment, which I think bears directly on our discussion: Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman. He’s a dedicated Bible scholar, but no longer a believer, based on what he has found in his studies. He lucidly explains, with copious citations, why the Bible we read today cannot possibly be the same as the books as they were originally written. He convincingly argues that the scriptures have been corrected, un-corrected, re-corrected (incorrectly), and flat-out modified to more closely match the beliefs of the editors. Earlier in this thread, there was some discussion of how soon after Jesus’ death were the gospels written. Ehrman argues that, even if some of the gospels were written within the decade or so after Jesus’ death, it hardly matters because we don’t actually HAVE those original writings. We have copies of copies of copies, with a myriad possibilities for errors to creep in. Earlier in this conversation, we also talked about Jesus’ treatment of women, specifically the story of Jesus stopping those who wanted to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery. Ehrman lays out convincing proof that this story was never in the original version of the book; it was a later addition by a creative scribe. (Interestingly, I already knew this because it is actually noted in the JW’s “New World Translation” of the Bible).

     Incredibly informative, highly engaging, not at all partisan or “angry” (like it would be if I wrote it, you can bet), plus it’s short. Highly recommended.

     He’s written some other books, also worth checking out.

     On a completely unrelated note: Just got back from seeing the Mountain Goats and John Vanderslice in Northampton… one of the best live shows I’ve been to in the past couple of years. I love where I live!

186. Jasonsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 12:17 am

     Korin: Yeah, it’s hard to come up with anything original when you’re talking about the BIG QUESTIONS… too many smart people have come before. I don’t think that makes the conversation any less important, however.

     Often, when writing my little stories, or recording with Eric, or making our silly movies, or putting on our Paul’s Basement performances, I’ve been paralyzed with that thought: All of this has been done before, better, by someone smarter and more talented…

     Then I generally say, “ah, fuck it. If I sell it with lots of gusto, nobody will notice or care that I’m ripping off X.” And then I put on a ridiculous costume, down a brew, and storm on stage like I own the damn place.

     I try to follow that same general philosophy when discussing religion: Just bluster in, spouting lots of “facts” and citing books that nobody has read, and most people won’t notice that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

     Did I just say that out loud? I should really go to sleep…

187. Korinsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 2:52 am

     ahahahahahah….damn you are funny. I love it when you get honest!! (heeheeheehee)

188. Korinsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 5:05 am

     Okay, I’ll give this another try, thanks to your encouragement.

     Matt – before I forget again, thanks for the “welcome”. I’ve been enjoying getting to know you better through your posts.

     I said: “It’s rather egotistical of you to determine that you know ‘the only reason (I) would pose that question’.”
     You said: Perhaps I spoke clumsily. My comment has nothing to do with your motives, character, or intelligence. I merely say that Christians have defined god in a way that precludes apprehension by our senses or by science. You grew up with that paradigm, as did I.
     Not to worry, I didn’t fee my motive, character, or intelligence was in question. Rather that you are predetermining my reasoning – it doesn’t build my confidence that this is an open forum is all. I also said, I honestly don’t understand what sounds to be a complete reliance on intellect, while ignoring the other valid aspects of humanity – instinct, emotion, intuition, etc. I agree that it would be much more convenient to this conversation if God were more easily defined and understood. The bigger picture of the personal relationship, would then be unnecessary, and I imagine there are greater purposes to this design, that I haven’t yet considered. I believe God does respond to prayer in a predictable way – for the greater good. He has a much broader perspective.
     I said: “I would argue that God’s existence can be comprehended and proven…”
     You said: By all means, give it your best shot! I’m not being sarcastic, either: I’m genuinely interested to hear what proof you (or anyone else) may have. I’m still waiting to hear a proof that I find convincing; maybe you’ve got it!
     I don’t think I can tell you anything that will change your mind. I think to try is a fool’s errand (no offense to anyone who might try). I think you and God are at a stand off. The most I can/will do is to share with you my beliefs and experiences, but I will not try to convince you. You won’t be convinced by my beliefs, just as I won’t be convinced by yours.
     You said: …When situations like that arose, however, I tried to talk it through at a more opportune moment; perhaps that evening before bed, or while we were driving to school, or whatever. Which is exactly what I would expect your god to do, if he existed and wanted my worship: Apologize and explain what he was thinking when he allowed all of that misogynist crap in the Bible, explain why slavery used to be okay, etc. So far, he has failed to do that, which leads me to deem him a bad parent.
     Perhaps He would love to talk it through with you – do you talk to Him? He may be explaining, maybe it is you who fails to listen?
     I said: “It is unfortunate (although understandable) that you would choose to judge God by your parents actions.”
     You said: Not sure how you got that out of what I said!
     I got it from this: When my own parents chose to shun me, based on my disagreement with their doctrines… I rejected them as my parents, which – as sad as it is – still seems to me the correct response. Why leave myself open to further hurt?
     Even if the evidence led me to believe in a God (which it manifestly does not), I would reject him as any kind of “parent” or moral authority, for the same reasons.

189. Korinsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 5:11 am

     (cont’d) I said: “By the way, God is not interchangeable with ghost or superstition. …Reminds me of using ‘n*****’ or ’s***’ instead of African American or Latino.”
     You said: I hear that you don’t like it, but…The epithets you cited have historically been used to further denigrate an already marginalized community…

     While these epithets and others may be in hindsight, in the bigger historical picture, used to further denigrate an already marginalized community… On a personal level these words are used in fear, anger and hatred. When a person uses these types of words I don’t think their purpose is so mindful to encompass this great motive. I think they are just afraid and pissed off.

     You said: Bigotry? Hate? You might want to do a little research on the historical direction of the oppression…

     This does nothing to negate my point.

     You can use critical reasoning to challenge, question, and criticize to your heart’s content while being respectful. I would be just as offended if you were to refer to President Obama as Mr. Obama. For me, your argument gets lost in the disrespectful words and/or tone. I hear your anger, but not necessarily your point.

     Robin teaches multicultural ed classes and anti-racism workshops, and she has noticed the following: Members of the dominant group frequently get concerned about issues of politeness when they are challenged by members of the marginalized group.

     This seems reasonable to me. If the members of the marginalized group are being impolite, then it seems perfectly understandable to me that the dominant group would want them to be held to the same standards of politeness.
     I also want to add that in my multicultural studies class, I never felt I belonged to the dominant group as a Christian. In Seattle I usually feel that being a Christian is socially unacceptable.

     You said: If they did not believe that the Bible is a “special case” e.g. somehow superior to all other holy books… I argue that they would not be attending a Christian Church.

     Well perhaps they are lying – is that what you suggest? I don’t know why they would, but it’s possible.

     You said: Believe it or not, lady, I’m fairly well read! I also have many friends who attend other Christian churches. During the years after I left the Witness org, I attended several other churches sporadically. Based on your arguments, I’m willing to posit that I have a more thorough knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity in general than you do.

     Sorry, no offense intended, you are clearly well read and knowledgeable – I retract that statement. I don’t know that you have a more thorough knowledge than I do. However, I think that would be difficult to measure.

     You said: … a system of belief which promises eternal life for certain behavior, and which promises eternal torture for others…IS a common, underlying teaching of mainstream Christianity. You might want to ask Eric. (I’m paraphrasing, correct me if I’ve misquoted you).
     Eric – what say you? I’ve been taught that being a Christian means you believe men are sinners by nature, and that God sent his son Jesus Christ to live a sinless life, die on the cross, paying the price for our sins. And that through Christ, we have the gift of eternal life. Good works won’t get you to heaven, nor will lack of good works land you in hell. Am I a edge-dwelling believer and I don’t even know it?

     I agree that religion or belief in supernatural, are not prerequisites for doing good works. I haven’t seen anyone here argue that point.

     You said: Ask for insight from who? And, if you don’t rely upon your own understanding, whose understanding do you rely on?
     God and God’s

     You said: How do you make sense of all the scriptures quoted throughout this thread which denigrate women, endorse slavery and child abuse, etc.? (Jamie, note I did not say that “God” said those things; only that the “scriptures” say them!)
     I don’t make sense of them. I cannot relate to it – to the time period, to the culture, to the religious beliefs. So, I don’t feel qualified to judge it. My grandmother used to tell me this (you’ll hate it): You’ll understand all these things when you get to heaven. Of course she was simplifying the point so that a little girl could accept and understand that not all wisdom could be mine at that time. The main point that I see is this – wisdom and understanding have to build. Just as I have to do in my science classes, I have to accept certain concepts, in order to learn and understand more complex topics. If I try to go back and reprove each and every theory to my own satisfaction, I won’t get very far. Believe me, some of the ideas and concepts presented in biology and chemistry are difficult to swallow.

190. Jasonsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 10:03 am

     “While these epithets and others may be in hindsight, in the bigger historical picture, used to further denigrate an already marginalized community…”

     “In hindsight”? “in the bigger historical picture”? The epithets you cited, which I can’t bring myself to repeat, have been used and continue to be used today in the way I described. Those epithets are associated with real discrimination and real physical harm against real humans. You simply cannot say the same about me referring to your god as “superstition.”

     Believers have described the Christian God in a way that now seems ridiculous to me. I don’t feel bound to accord this postulated invisible being with the respect that you demand for him.

     I hear that you sometimes feel in the minority as a Christian, but you must know that is a fleeting feeling. Look at the statistics. You are a member of the largest religious group in the U.S. Every President since forever has called himself a Christian. ETC. You’re going to have to get a thicker skin and put up with some pushing from those of us in the minority, who think your system of belief is silly and oppressive.

     Besides which, let’s be real: “ghost” is not a term of hatred, no matter how many times you assert that it is. You’re free to tell me how it impacts you personally, of course.

     You said: “I honestly don’t understand what sounds to be a complete reliance on intellect, while ignoring the other valid aspects of humanity – instinct, emotion, intuition, etc.”

     Not believing in the Christian god does not mean that I reject instinct, emotion, or intuition. It simply means that, if I’m going to invest my worship in a postulated invisible being, if I’m going to build my entire life around that being and his decrees… I want the existence of that being to be logically demonstrable. I want that being to make sense. I want the supposed holy book authored by that being to be a reliable moral guide. I haven’t seen any of that, unfortunately.

     I’m guessing you use the same reasoning when you decide NOT to worship Zeus or Ra, or any of the other thousands of postulated supernatural beings.

     You said: “I believe God does respond to prayer in a predictable way – for the greater good.”

     Really? I find that shockingly insensitive. So your Christian god did not answer the prayers of millions of folks who have died horrible, degrading, painful deaths throughout the centuries “for the greater good”? This sounds like a sociopath you’re describing, not a god I’d want to worship.

     You said: “Perhaps He would love to talk it through with you – do you talk to Him? He may be explaining, maybe it is you who fails to listen?”

     Hmm. Well, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and spent 30 years of my life praying to him every day, and reading a ton of books that might enlighten me, and talking to other believers about these same issues… but nope, no answer from a burning bush, nothing. This sounds like the old “you just don’t have enough faith” canard, which is awfully useful for holding Christianity in place.

     Finally, on my comment about my parents – I’ve said this a couple of times now, but I see that I haven’t made myself clear. I’ll try one more time:

     Holding the Christian god to the same baseline standard of behavior as my human parents is NOT the same thing as judging god by my parents’ actions. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re alleging that I took my bad experience with my parents and held that against god. That was not my point at all. I hold both (my parents and the Christian god) to the same standard. They both failed. Worse, I have come to suspect that one of them doesn’t even exist, in which case his inattentiveness is not surprising.

191. johnsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

     Admin says, “I try to follow that same general philosophy when discussing religion: Just bluster in, spouting lots of “facts” and citing books that nobody has read, and most people won’t notice that I don’t know what I’m talking about.’
     That is exactly what I do. And occasionally books that don’t even exist. Does this mean I am not fooling anybody? Too late to change tactics now. Oh and I will occasionally shout “Liar”! Sorry.
     Korin, the reason that I try to rely on intellect is that “instinct, emotion, intuition etc.” aren’t evidence. They are valid aspects of humanity but they aren’t proof. I wouldn’t want my doctor to say “rather than x-ray you lets just go with my instincts” or ” I am pretty optomistic that you don’t have cancer. It is just a feeling but it is pretty compelling.”
     Comedian Stephen Colbert’s character on his talk show is a humorous, over the top version of a person that “thinks with his gut” and relies on feelings instead of facts. His routine is great parody that offers an example of why thinking that way is a terrible idea.
     To go back to the doctor if his training and instincts lead her to think I may have problem x, great. But I hope she will actually use her intellect to diagnose me.
     I think people can use the attributes you mention but they shouldn’t be relied on for evidence and things that can be determined empirically. It might make you feel better but it is no way to understand the world around you. It can also lead to terrible tragedy. People fall for scams and quacks and it can impoverish or kill them. People “felt” they could trust Bernie Madoff. Jenny McCarthy uses her “mommy instinct” to determine that her child’s autism was caused by vaccines and now she advocates against children getting vaccinated. This is completely insane.
     Not only is she completely wrong in every way about vaccines but she is putting other children’s health at risk. Her “mommy instinct” also told her that her son was an “indigo child”. Instinct
     http://tinyurl.com/3w3v87
     http://skepdic.com/indigo.html
     People also stop visiting doctors and see “healers” or stop taking medicine and start taking homeopathic cures. All complete frauds. Science is really the only way to understand world that is testable and repeatable and works.
     Prayers healing the sick has been scientifically studied and it failed.
     http://tinyurl.com/cy9hvg
     People feel like prayer works but evidence doesn’t back that up. The problem is confirmation bias. People remember when the make a positive association like I prayed for grandma to get better and she did but the forget when they prayed for grandpa to get better than he dies. Or the pass it off to god’s will. The mind is a funny thing. Correlation is not causation.
     The reason i use ghost or superstition when discussing god and miracles is simple. They are the same thing. The trinity is “father, son, holy ghost”. Ghosts exist because people think there is some sort of afterlife and that before ghosts go to heaven they hang around pestering people. ghosts are immaterial and can’t be measured or weighted or photographed (despite what you see on the sci fi channel). There is no actual evidence that ghosts are real. So far it seems more like they are a figment of peoples imagination. Their instincts and emotions tell them ghosts are real despite that there being no evidence for it.
     When it comes to superstition there are many aspects of religion that seem to be similar. Asking god for help or uttering incantations or lucky phrases seem to be appealing to something similar. A non corporeal entity is being appealed to for luck or help or health. The link below explains more politely and clearly than I can.
     http://tinyurl.com/csmffq
     I am not surprised that you feel like a minority as a christian in seattle but trust me, your feelings are misplaced. Christians still feel persecuted even though the make up over 70% (some say closer to 90%) of the population and our government and schools bend over backwards to accommodate the faithful. A simple look around will show what I mean. How many churches are there in a single square mile of where you live? How many christian based schools and colleges? How many politicians say there are christians? How many of your friends are christians? We just had a president that was a born again christian and instituted “faith based initiatives” that gave government money to religious organizations. School board after school board try to get prayer in school and have moments of prayer. A christian that feels persecuted in this country is, frankly, delusional. By that I mean you are fooling yourself. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your brand of faith and it’s particular subset of beliefs and rituals doesn’t mean you are being oppressed. It seems that christians have a bit of a persecution complex that kicks in at the slightest provocation. It is not supported by evidence. Again, emotion leading to an incorrect conclusion. The united states is far more religious than dozens of other countries. It isn’t Saudi Arabia but it ain’t exactly Denmark either.
     I am going to have to finish this later. Thanks for playing.

192. johnsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

     quick note about instinct then I really gotta go.
     instinct and feeling are fine for deciding not to walk down the dark alley. Intuition evolved as a mechanism to keep us cautious in unknown situations. It should not be used to determine the state of our health or the world around us.

193. Mattsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

     Hey John, in regards to comment number 183: “It seems like your version of god is more like an idea or feeling that you like having as opposed to an interventionist entity responsible for creating the universe, which is fine but very vague. The way I understand your description of god seems more like a sunbeam or a nice spring day. very nice but pretty insubstantial.”

     And this is an issue why? As I’ve said before, I struggle against the anthropormorphic (sic?) image of God because I think there’s far more to it than George Burns chatting up John Denver.

     I’ve noticed in recent posts Jason referring to the “Christian God.” Are we talking the God of the old testament? Christ the son of God? God the Holy Spirit? But we’re back into the spiral of God and image of God, etc. and I think that’s pointless because it all comes back down to belief. Whatever MY image (or lack of image) of God is, probably won’t jell with what you think God is (or isn’t).

     Jason said early on as I felt close to God when I go camping that maybe I’m just enjoying nature (or something – sorry – I’m not going to scroll through 800 postings to find the quote). I guess my answer to that is…can’t it be the same thing?

     Now, of course, the issue isn’t MY image of God it’s the image of God that is used to bind, control, force, persecute, etc. etc. etc. that we see many religions use and as I’ve said before…that God doesn’t exist to me.

     Jason then makes the point of my using the Bible as a “source of authority” in the Episcopal church and that brings me back to the argument that just because it’s a source of authority doesn’t mean I take it literally like some of the more fundamental churches do.

     It’s this continual sort of “lumping together” that I struggle with in this conversation/debate/discussion/blogosphere…

     As for Korin feeling a bit “marginalized” for being a Christian in Seattle (sorry I don’t have the actual quote), that is too bad. Early on in one of the posts Jason (or Robin, or both) talked about the pressure of society to be a Christian. I’m sure they can give me all sorts of examples (and there were some just recently) but all I know is what I see in society (TV and Film) – I’m not a big magazine reader.

     Last Sunday I sat down and watched two films with my son. Mad Max and The Road Warrior – both films had no reference to God or Christianity, though there were two crosses that Max put on his wife and child’s grave.

     After that I started watching “The 400 Blows” – didn’t see any reference in the first 30 minutes. Maybe I missed it…they are French after all (whatever that means).

     I followed this with three hours (yes – 3 HOURS) of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” – again, no mention of God/Christ/Christianity. This butted right up to “The Amazing Race” – now I know that Mel White is a gay priest (Episcopal? I don’t know. His son Mike is a screenwriter/actor “Chuck and Buck”/”School of Rock” and also gay). I think there were a couple “Oh Gods!” in there but no mention of God/Christ/Christianity, etc.

     We then ended the evening with “Celebrity Apprentice” – two hours of arguing “celebrities.” Now, I must say, in one segment Jazz singer Brian McKnight said: “God bless!” But…that was about it.

     What is my point in all this? I don’t see it. Maybe Jason and Robin do. Maybe if they watched the exact same 18 hours of television/film that I did they would glean that there is an undercurrent of judeochristian mythology going on when Max, like Jesus, sacrifices himself for the good of the group and the obviously gay bad guy in the S&M outfit bites it on the front of the semi-truck is God’s retribution for all their sins but…golly…I don’t know.

     Wait…I think I missed my point in there somewhere. Okay, whatever.

     Point for the day:

     Judge me not by the color of my skin, by my image of God, or others that call themselves Christain: Judge me by my character.

     P.S. I wonder if the “feral kid” in “The Road Warrior” ever went on to do anything else. I’ll have to look him up on imdb.

194. johnsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

     I meant to say “School board after school board try to get religion taught as science in school and have moments of prayer.”
     Korin says “I have to accept certain concepts, in order to learn and understand more complex topics. If I try to go back and reprove each and every theory to my own satisfaction, I won’t get very far. Believe me, some of the ideas and concepts presented in biology and chemistry are difficult to swallow.” As you mention you don’t have to do the science all over again. You can rely on scientific consensus for much of this. fortunately for you science keeps testing itself and getting better and better. Now if some scientific concept seems dodgy you might want to investigate it further. The consensus may change or evolve (tectonic plates is an example) but science does keep moving forward. What concepts of biology and chemistry are “difficult to swallow” for you and why?
     Also I don’t think that comparing the mental rigor required to accept scientific teachings and accepting a divine creator who sent his only son (or was it himself) to earth to absolve man of his sins are the same thing. One requires evidence the other requires faith.
     gotta go again.
     more later.

195. Korinsays:
     
     March 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

     Admin –
     You said: The epithets you cited, which I can’t bring myself to repeat, have been used and continue to be used today in the way I described. Those epithets are associated with real discrimination and real physical harm against real humans. You simply cannot say the same about me referring to your god as “superstition.”
     You misunderstand me. Of course it’s not the same thing, the way you describe it. Racial slurs are also used in some cultures simply as slang words – they are not used in the way you describe in every case. When my grandpa for example used the “n” word, he wasn’t thinking about denigrating an already marginalized community – that’s just what he called black people, there was no malice in it on his part. It had to be explained to him why that was offensive. Sometimes I hear black people calling each other that downtown, it’s not meant the same way. Sometimes I hear white people calling each other that, because they think it’s a swear word.
     My point was just to say it’s not necessary to be disrespectful to get your point across. And to say that when you are trying to make a point to me that way, it loses it’s strength, and I get distracted by what I perceive as hostility. I don’t need to develop a thicker skin – it’s valid to be offended when someone shows disrespect towards something you value. I’m not crying over it or any other type of overreaction – I’m not even angry about it.
     You say: Believers have described the Christian God in a way that now seems ridiculous to me. I don’t feel bound to accord this postulated invisible being with the respect that you demand for him.
     Since it’s my God, it seems appropriate that you would use my terms. You are not bound to accord respect to me or to Him, but as my friend, I thought you would like to know how it affects me.
     You say: I hear that you sometimes feel in the minority as a Christian, but you must know that is a fleeting feeling. Look at the statistics. You are a member of the largest religious group in the U.S. Every President since forever has called himself a Christian. ETC. You’re going to have to get a thicker skin and put up with some pushing from those of us in the minority, who think your system of belief is silly and oppressive.
     As a Christian, I feel the minority most of the time actually. But I think my skin is thick enough, I have no trouble putting up with the silly and oppressive system of belief you ascribe to. I did in fact join into this conversation voluntarily. And when I’m not in the mood, it’s fairly easy to say nothing and blend into the crowd. It’s not like you can tell I’m a Christian by looking at me!
     You said: “I honestly don’t understand what sounds to be a complete reliance on intellect, while ignoring the other valid aspects of humanity – instinct, emotion, intuition, etc.”
     I was referencing this thread up to this point has not acknowledged or addressed instinct, emotion or intuition. I feel you want God defined within the limits of intellect, and to ignore these other aspects of human experience.
     You say: Really? I find that shockingly insensitive. So your Christian god did not answer the prayers of millions of folks who have died horrible, degrading, painful deaths throughout the centuries “for the greater good”? This sounds like a sociopath you’re describing, not a god I’d want to worship.
     I could simply refer back to comments by others about free will, etc… But I’ll take my usual path and use a metaphor (old dog) – My daughter has had a drug problem in the past. I don’t want her to experience the pain of addiction and of withdrawal; I don’t want her to die from a drug overdose. I pray for God’s protection over her. However, if she makes choices to use, she will face these known consequences. I understand this, even agree with it. We are very motivated by pain and by avoidance of pain – sometimes this is the only way we learn to make a different and better choice. Of course if she drinks a bottle of tequila and then gets behind the wheel of a car, and kills a family of five, I don’t think the family of five deserves what they got, but then again, who ever promised a full long life free from pain and suffering? How do you know he did not answer their prayers? You don’t – you are assuming too much.
     You say: Hmm. Well, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and spent 30 years of my life praying to him every day, and reading a ton of books that might enlighten me, and talking to other believers about these same issues… but nope, no answer from a burning bush, nothing. This sounds like the old “you just don’t have enough faith” canard, which is awfully useful for holding Christianity in place.
     I would never say you don’t have enough faith – or anything along those lines. I was asking a question, with a genuine interest in your response. I don’t claim to have all the answers, you know, this is a learning experience for me (hopefully for all of us).
     Thanks for the clarification – I think I finally understand your point with the holding parents and God to the same standard.
     John – I think I understand that you do not accept instinct, emotion, or intuition as evidence. I find this a very convenient way for people to dismiss things they cannot comprehend. As for your doctor, who uses best guess to diagnose and treat you. I personally prefer when my doctor uses all her knowledge, experience and senses together, when making a diagnosis. Sometimes a person does not follow the norm, I find it frustrating when medical professional find their hands tied at these times. I prefer them to use their instinct, intuition (even emotion when appropriate) along with their intelligence and scientific evidence. Of course you should know I plan to enter the medical field (am currently in school) and will definitely keep you perspective in mind when treating my patients. I will probably be sure to check in with the patient before using anything beyond medical science, to be sure they are comfortable with that. So thank you for sharing this example.
     By the way, I don’t agree that Jenny McCarthy’s ideas are completely insane. Surely she is not a scientist by any stretch and is clearly reacting to a very emotional issue for her. Vaccines can be harmful – any doctor or scientist will tell you that. Vaccines are about risking the few to save the many, as most drugs are. Surely though, we have to apply wisdom in all things.
     “Science is really the only way to understand world that is testable and repeatable and works.” This simply is not true.
     I appreciate your explanation as to why you use ghost or superstition when discussing God and miracles. I obviously am not going to agree with you (smile), but I have a better understanding now about why you do it.
     As to your points about me feeling like a minority as a Christian in Seattle – (I like this gentler side of you). Your points are well taken. By the way, I don’t feel persecuted – never have – and it bugs me when Christians in this country say that they are. Also, I don’t actually have a larger percentage of Christian friends…most of my friends are not Christians. I prefer it that way to be honest. I find I learn more when stretched outside what might be my comfort zone – but I guess this has become my comfort zone.

     You say: A christian that feels persecuted in this country is, frankly, delusional. By that I mean you are fooling yourself. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your brand of faith and it’s particular subset of beliefs and rituals doesn’t mean you are being oppressed. It seems that christians have a bit of a persecution complex that kicks in at the slightest provocation. It is not supported by evidence. Again, emotion leading to an incorrect conclusion. The united states is far more religious than dozens of other countries. It isn’t Saudi Arabia but it ain’t exactly Denmark either.
     Amen brother (wink) – I couldn’t agree with you more!

196. johnsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 12:53 am

     Matt,
     I never said that your version of god was an issue. I was just observing that your version of god isn’t the typical version. Your version is so insubstantial that it could really be anything or nothing. Which is fine. It just seems like a vague feeling more than a faith.
     As a side note I find it interesting that everybody seems to have a different version of god. That, almost as much as anything, seems to indicate that god is all in their heads rather than something that actually exits and interacts in (let alone created) the world.
     I think your tv marathon is a non sequitor. I am not complaining or even saying that I am being proselytized by ever aspect of American culture. Although I will point out that you watched two Australian movies and a French film so I wouldn’t really used them as an example of what were discussing for a variety of reason. TV isn’t the problem. I can turn the tv off or change the channel. What am I supposed to do when every branch of government, local and federal, including schools are teaching fairy tales as science, denying citizens equal protection under the law and funding religious organizations. That is a problem. And Matt, how the **** could you watch that much tv? Again, for christians to feel discriminated against is ridiculous and delusional. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that christians are being discriminated against in this country. A group of people that are a huge majority of the population, run the government and schools and create the laws of this country simply should not feel oppressed. Some might feel that way but there is no basis for it.
     And Matt, even though I haven’t seen you for over 20 years (25 maybe?) I am convinced that your character is unassailable. (ps.. Max Rockatansky is more of the hero’s journey rather than an allegory for christ I think.)

197. johnsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 1:33 am

     Korin, there is nothing convenient or dismissive about attitude towards instinct and emotions and intuition. In fact it is a carefully considered and researched and studied. I comprehend very well, I think, that out look. I believe I even mentioned it as being a result of evolution and consciousness and useful for certain things. I just don’t think it is useful or accurate way to understand the world around us.
     If you would like I can give you a list of books and sources that I used to examine things like this.
     Korin, since you are going into the medical field you might want to look into something called “healing touch” which was and for all I know still is popular with nurses. Eventually a 12 year old girl devised a simple test to determine if healing touch worked. I won’t spoil the end for you.
     I still say that Jenny McCarthy’s ideas on vaccination are insane and dangerous. Her reasoning is deeply flawed, magical thinking and demonstrably false. She is endangering children’s lives based on her “mommy instinct” and refuses to believe any sort of scientific evidence no matter how much consensus there is in the medical community. She is a dangerous nutjob because of this alone. Did you look at the indigo children link? Of course there is a very small risk to a vaccine just as there is risk in any medical procedure. There is no, none, zero, nada, zip risk of causing autism with a vaccine. To say that repeatedly and to encourage other parents to put their children and others children at risk is irresponsible and despicable. Illogical, irrational, emotional, instinctual thinking on Miss McCarthy’s part as well as proselytizing is going to result in children dying needlessly. She is a dangerous idiot.
     When people think with their guts and follow what feels right we get things like “faith healing” and “the Secret” and “chelation therapy”. What science gets us is heart surgery, chemotherapy and electric cars. With science we have a better understanding of the world. With intuition we get oprah believing every psychic fraud, and all psychics are frauds, preying on peoples emotions and bilking them of their money.
     What, besides science, is testable and repeatable that works to understand the world around us? Not a snarky question. I am really curious.
     thanks.

198. Mattsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

     Hey John, thanks for being part of the continued debate.

     As for: “As a side note I find it interesting that everybody seems to have a different version of god. That, almost as much as anything, seems to indicate that god is all in their heads rather than something that actually exits and interacts in (let alone created) the world.”

     I couldn’t agree with you more. We all create God(s) from our experience, our upbringing, what was taught (or not taught). As I’ve stated clearly…I just honestly believe there is something beyond this that I want to relate to.

     Ooops, gotta run, I’m at the front desk.

199. Mattsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

     Okay…continuing my thought (before I RUDELY got kicked off the reception desk).

     My point is that everyone’s version of “God” is somewhat different because of everyone’s expereience/upbringing/concepts/intelligence is different. The Bible is open to as many interpretations as people who read it. Certainly people can have very similar images (see George Burns) but people can have very abstract versions.

     Even the Bible, if we want to go back to that again, has what I would consider the “Old Testament God” the “New Testament God (Jesus)” and The “Holy Spirit” – all in one, three in one, Holy Trinity, whatever you want to call it.

     In my screenwriting class I talk about the fact that all screenplays come from only three basic concepts:

     “Boy Meets Girl” (and all the variations therein)

     “Fish Out Of Water” (and all variations)

     and

     “Incredible Journey or Adventure”

     Some films contain just one, while some contain all three. But as I explain in my class the “Incredible Journey or Adventure” can also be defined as “other.”

     So when I look at the Holy Trinity, I see the Holy Spirit as the “other.” The concepts upon which we can’t define or struggle to define. That is why when the argument is “Does God Exist?” My answer is, he/it/she/FSM exists in the way that I perceive him/her/it/FSM – but how does that relate to what I believe and why and how?

     My God is a loving and accepting God of all faiths/sexual orientation/belief systems, etc. Where as so-and-so’s God is hovering in the clouds with lightning bolts and arms crossed and just a-waitin’ for some sinnin’ to happen.

     I think the issue of Religion=Bad is when the combined group’s concept of God is used to marginalize, dehumanize, control, destroy, etc. another group for whatever reason. That God, or image of God, does not exist for me…but I’m more concerned with what these people believe and why because it is in their beliefs that they are going to act.

     Back to work…

200. Mattsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm

     From Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong:

     JJJord Writes:

     The Church of England apologized to Charles Darwin last fall, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work, for its initial rejection of his theories. The church conceded that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin’s ideas, and it called “anti-evolutionary fervour” an “indictment” of the Church.
     The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin’s views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching. The apology, which was written by the Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown, the Church’s director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians in their response to Darwin’s theory of natural selection repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo’s astronomy in the 17th century. The statement read, “Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of “faith seeking understanding” and hope that makes some amends.”

     Opposition to evolutionary theories is still “a litmus test of faithfulness” for some Christian movements, the Church admits. It says that such attitudes owe much to a fear of perceived threats to Christianity.

     Dear JJJord,

     Thanks for your e-mail and the news that the Church of England has apologized to Charles Darwin for rejecting evolution. It is better late than never. My sense is that this action is more embarrassing than helpful. Darwin doesn’t need the Church’s apology. His thesis is now accepted academically across the world. Evolution is taught in fourth-grade science books. Medical science assumes its truth and the discovery of DNA took away the last vestige of the suggestion that it was still “an unproved theory.” The fact that there are some benighted souls in the world who believe that quoting the book of Genesis can somehow counter the insights of Charles Darwin, or that it is their Christian duty to resist Darwin, is hardly determinative in the debate.

     It is a tragedy that the Church officially resisted Darwin for the last 150 years, but that is quite typical of church leaders’ behavior. Recall that it was in December of 1991 that the Vatican finally admitted that Galileo was correct. This was about 40 years after space travel had begun. If Galileo had not been correct, our spacecraft would have collided with the sky that separated heaven from earth.

     I would suggest the leaders of the Church of England must now practice what that apology to Darwin suggests that we believe. For Darwin attacks the basic Christian myth of a perfect creation, the fall into sin, the divine rescue carried out by Jesus and the restoration through faith to our status as those created in the image of God. If we evolved from single cells into complex self-conscious creatures then there was no perfection from which to fall, no fall into sin, no need for a divine rescue and no capacity to be restored to something which we have never been. This means that the whole way of telling the Jesus story must be rethought, and this reformulation will threaten church leaders deeply. Clergy on Sunday mornings can no longer address “fallen sinners.” The mantra that “Jesus died for my sins” will have to be retired. The traditional meaning of the Eucharist will have to be revised. We will have to recognize that we are now addressing not those who need to be rescued from a fall but those who have not yet achieved the status of being fully human. Jesus must then empower us to be fully human; he cannot rescue us from sin.

     I’m glad to see the Church of England begin to enter the 20th century. I will be happier when they finally begin to enter the 21st century.

     – John Shelby Spong

201. Jasonsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

     Korin I’m curious about your response to John. He said, “Science is really the only way to understand world that is testable and repeatable and works.”

     You said: “This simply is not true.”

     What other method of understanding the world is testable and repeatable?

202. Jasonsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

     Matt, Comment 199: “My God is a loving and accepting God of all faiths/sexual orientation/belief systems, etc.”

     I put it to you that you are simply not talking about the “Christian” god, in that case. Would you agree?

     More importantly: If all screenplays are either “Boy Meets Girl” “Fish Out Of Water” or “Incredible Journey or Adventure”…

     What the hell is Eraserhead?

     Or Frank Zappa’s Baby Snakes?

     I challenge you to a duel at dawn, sir! (slaps Matt with glove)

     Hey, did anyone notice we’re now over 200 comments on this thread? Dude. All because I said (wait for it…)

     RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING!

203. johnsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 10:17 pm

     Matt, I think I just had a revelation. Are you teaching or taking a screen writing class?
     I took a film as literature class in college (yeah, I went for about a minute, wanna fight about it?) and really loved it.
     So you only talk about 3 basic plots. I seem to remember there being 7 basic plots. What are you hiding?
     So, what are a couple of your favorite films? favorite scripts and best films (not necessarily the same as favorite is it?)
     And Jason, i think in eraserhead the guy fell in love but she gave birth to a chicken. so, basically a love story. Baby Snakes I haven’t seen. (I have several porno plot jokes in mind but I think I will just chuckle to myself quietly.)

204. Robinsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

     Can someone who talks to god please explain how that works? And I mean concretely explain it. I get the part where you pray or talk to him in your head. But then do you actually hear his voice in your head, talking back to you? Is it a real voice, separate from yours? Is it male? Deep? Or is it that you pray, and then you have some thoughts – in other words you decide what to do – i.e “I need to let go” or “I need to make a call”, and then you say,”god told me to let go or god told me to make a call.” If you don’t actually hear him talking to you in a separate male voice, then “I talk to god” means I think things and decide things and attribute them to god. If the things I think and decide turn out well, I say “Thank god!” or “God guided me to do this…”If they don’t, I say, “I guess god didn’t have that in store for me” or “I asked god but in the end only my daughter can decide …” If only your daughter can decide, than why do you ask god inside your head?

     And when you suggest that perhaps god has been talking to Jason, but perhaps Jason wasn’t listening, do you really mean that Jason wasn’t attributing his thoughts and decisions to god? Because if he was listening, then he would believe that what he thought and felt came from god? Is that what listening to god is? Believing that everything you think and feel is from god and not yourself? Or should he have heard the separate male voice?

     I am with John. I think people call good feelings and good thoughts and good outcomes god. And since we would have these things without god (I certainly have good feelings and thoughts, etc.), I think what believers really get from god is a way to cope with the uncontrollable suffering of life and the terror of death.

205. johnsays:
     
     March 26th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

     and before this blog peters out and we quit fighting about god my rants about Jenny McCarthy are germane. Sloppy, irrational, magical thinking is a problem that affects the religious and the gullible.
     now fight.

206. Mattsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 2:11 am

     “Eraserhead,” “Baby Snakes,” Andy Warhol’s “Empire” (8 hours of the Empire State Building) fall into the “Incredible Journey or Adventure” in other words “Other.”

     As for your comment about “simply not talking about the “Christian” god, in that case. Would you agree?”

     Let me see how I can respond to that. First, I don’t think God is a Christian. But I don’t think that’s what you mean. Second, it would depend on your church. My father’s God, whom I guess you would call a “Christian” God, is the angry vengeful insane God. My God, and since I call myself a Christian, is a “Christian” God, doesn’t look like that, or act like that.

     I don’t know if you can classify a God as a “Christian” God or a “Hindu” God or a “Jewish” God. Maybe you can, but I don’t see it. But I also think there was a shift in the Christian faith when Christ came and brought a change. You know the only constant IS change. Maybe God is change.

     When I was in confirmation class at the age of 13 or 14 the priest in my church asked us what our image of God was. This wasn’t a question you normally ask tweenagers, you know. And we all came up with things, including the plain business card that said “god” in the middle (like George Burns had in “Oh God.”) My image was something more anthropomorphic with arms reaching out but words like love, compassion, peace, hope coming from them. Our priest looked at all of our “images” and simply said: “you are all correct.”

     I certainly have shifted in that image over the 30+ years I’ve been a Christian and have had experiences.

     But that’s an interesting question.

207. Jasonsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 11:54 am

     Matt, when I question whether you believe in the “Christian” god, I mean the supernatural deity as described in either the Old or New Testament. Your description of god is much more appealing, but definitely not in line with Biblical teaching, so I wonder why attach yourself to a Christian church at all?

     I guess you’ve already answered that; you get community and a feeling of closeness with the god you describe, so maybe I should really personalize my comment: If I believed in the god you describe, I can’t imagine attaching myself to any kind of “Christian” church, no matter how liberal. Back to my question of whether “moderate” Christians are enabling an unhealthy and ultimately destructive system.

     Hawking and some other scientists will sometimes refer to God, but when pressed will answer that what they REALLY mean is the ineffable mystery and awesomeness of the cosmos (or something like that). If we could define “God” in that way, I could get behind it. But then I would ask… well, why attempt to clumsily anthropomorphicize (sp?) that mystery? Why not just remain in awe of the natural world, without postulating an (entirely unproven and un-implied) immaterial, time-traveling ghost? As soon as you do that, people start attributing all sorts of unhealthy human characteristics to that ghost, and ultimately, divisiveness and bloody wars ensue.

     As Douglas Adams (yes, THAT Douglas Adams, R.I.P.) said: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

     That may have been quoted previously in this thread, but it perfectly sums up my thinking, so I’m quoting it again, dammit.

208. johnsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

     ummm, matt,
     i can’t speak for everybody but when i refer to the christian god or the hindu god i don’t mean that god is christian or hindu i mean the people of a particular branch of faith and how they describe themselves. It is the god of the christian faith. not god is a christian.
     however, i have heard that “god is vampire”.

209. Mattsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

     Administrative Being, I don’t recall the quote but it’s a damn fine one.

     In Katzanakis’s (sic?) “Last Tempation of Christ” he starts his book (I assume – since I’ve only seen the film) as the struggle of his soul over whether Christ is Divine or Human.

     I would say my struggle within my soul is battle between the “old judgy guy” and the “unknown mystery of energy, force, other” – too many times in the bible I see things that enforce the “old judgy guy” but I also see things that confirm the “unknown mystery…” – “God is Love” and all that jazz. What the f**k does “God is Love” mean when in the Old Testament “He’s” turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt or whatever?

     Of course my upbringing from day one was in a church, my father was a So. Baptist Minister, my Mother a devout church goer, my Uncle a pastor, etc. so I have been surrounded by the Christ story, the Christian story since I was ejected out of the womb. So, certainly, my leanings are towards that. Again, I’m not rejecting Judaism, Hinduism, or any of the other “isms” because of that (as some people might) it’s just that it is within the Christian environment that I choose to have my relationship – more probably out of what I was born into than by a conscious choice.

     My mother left the Episcopal Church due to the fact of their ordaining a gay bishop and went to my brother’s Free Methodist church. I’m all for my mother doing whatever she wants, though I disagreed with her. The Free Methodist faith is pretty conservative as they don’t allow dancing or drinking or any of those other sinful activities. But my mother still, on occasion, pops in on her friends in the Episcopal faith and she really connects to God through the Eucharist and misses that when she attends the Free Methodist church – as they only do it once a month and with grape juice. Certainly we can analyze this activity with the release of endorphins, we can “science it down” to the base – but the reality is that she feels a connection through that activity. I feel it too. Am I connected with my image of God at that point? Sometimes I feel that, sometimes I’m thinking about the Seahawks and hoping they’ll win so they can make it to the playoffs, or I’m thinking about the really hot sex I had the night before…I digress…

     The point is…that is where I feel I connect. I also feel I connect when I’m out camping and, in some ways, I feel I’m connecting when I write these comments in this discussion. Sometimes I connect when listening to the St. Mark’s Compline Service on KING FM. But…that’s getting me back to my original point about relationships. Does the community help that connection? Yes. Does the priest help that connection? Sometimes. Does the building, the cross, the statuary? Not so much for me, but for others…sure.

     The thing with God images, is that I said early on in one of my posts, I think it’s a natural desire by everyone to seek something outside themselves. Some have done so, reasoned it to something and have come to a conclusion that they accept as God, or not. By keeping my image of God as one of obscure, vague, feeling, emotion, energy, force, whatnot…I don’t start putting all my eggs into the baskets that are eventually going to fail me.

     Some people worship the Bible (my father) but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Some people worship money (see recession), some people worship the church (see pedophile priests), some people worship televangelists (see Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, et al), some people worship celebrities (do I have to list them all?) or sports figures (etc.). THAT is how they connect to the unknown – somehow believing that they (or the object) have the power to connect them with happiness, fulfillment, eternal life, what-not. (A recent ad campaign for “Best Buy” was simply: “You: Happier.”) They worship at the church of Oprah. I struggle hard to make sure that I’m not falling into those mindsets, working to be the best person I can be to the people around me and, if I dare call myself a Christian, to be as Christ like as possible. Do I succeed? Sometimes. Do I fail? Most of the time.

     The other night I was talking to Michelle at 12:30 in the a.m. She’s struggling with her boyfriend (they might break up – he’s a jerk) and she admitted to me a couple things as items were coming off her chest. 1. She doesn’t like church. She connects to God more sitting in her room and praying, then she does sitting in the pew and getting communion. 2. She loves “God” with all her heart, but she doesn’t feel like she should tell ANYONE what they believe or, actually, talk about her church and invite people to it. She says that it makes her feel very uncomfortable to do something like that. 3. She’s afraid that we’ll be very angry with the fact that she doesn’t want to go to church any more. I kind of laughed and told her about all the things we’re discussing. Frankly, she’s growing up and I couldn’t be MORE proud of her. I’d rather she question and form her own conclusions than blindly follow what we’ve raised her in. College should be eye opening for her and I’m excited (and a bit jealous) that she will have those opportunities.

     Back to work I go.

     Love to you all.

210. Jasonsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

     I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Matt, you are an excellent parent. I like both of your kids a lot, and their smarts and general coolness speak well of you.

     So, while it pains me to say it… it APPEARS that your religious upbringing failed to poison at least one thing: your parenting skills.

211. Korinsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

     If you did or did not watch nightline last night – the online content is more complete and very interesting. I thought all the panelists did a great job of making their points without getting personal. Check it out: http://www.abcnews.go.com/nightline

212. Mattsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

     Thanks, AdminaJason, and though I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again… There’s no way I can comprehend what you went through in regards to the way you were treated by the JW’s, your parents, the divorce, the depression, the frustration, the anger, the emptiness, the guilt, the confusion, etc.

     How you came out of it alive, I have no idea.

     However you found hope and a will to live and desire to struggle through all the “stuff” you were dealing with, whether that was holding Max’s hand, or romancing Robin or diving into a complete destructuring of your faith structure and coming up with new ideas and concepts – I honestly applaud you for coming out of the stuggle and succeeding in the many ways you have. Though I’m sure the struggle still continues in some ways.

     Jason “Admin” Toews you have my deepest respect and admiration and I love you more than you know or will probably ever know.

     Word.

213. Jasonsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

     (sniff)

214. Mattsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

     Quick follow-up to my comments in post 212…

     My praise and respect for what Jason went through does by no means dis-respect what Jenny went through at the same time. I am sure she was devastated in a number of ways and what she went through in the process of all that happened should not be ignored.

     So, Jenny, love you, too, man.

     P.S. Max helped me at Borders today. Even ignored a REAL customer to say Hi. What a good kid.

215. Mattsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

     Though it has nothing to do with God (or this blog really) it does have to do with the devil. As in “runnin’ with…”

     http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/david-lee-roth-isolated-devil-noises/

216. Robinsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

     I have another question for the Christians on this list. What have you been taught / believe will happen to me when I die, since I do not believe in god? And what do you believe will happen to you after you die, because you do believe in god? (Catholics need not reply – I know what you are taught).

     Since the afterlife figures predominately in Christianity, please be very specific (read: honest and courageous – don’t dodge the questions). Here are the questions again:
     1. What will happen to me when I die because I am an atheist?
     2. What will happen to you when you die because you are a Christian?

217. johnsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

     I have some catching up to do but I found this interesting.
     This is an a subscription email I receive from Bob Park an author and professor at the university of Maryland regarding the pope’s latest comments. It relates to religion poisoning everything.
     “ABSTINENCE: POPE BENEDICT XVI SAYS IT WORKS FOR HIM.
     An editorial in today’s Lancet points out that, “When any influential
     person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a statement that could
     devastate the health of millions of people they should retract it,” It was,
     of course, a reference to the Pope’s claim, made during his trip to Africa,
     that condoms may exacerbate the spread of AIDS. It was an egregious
     example of what Paul Tillich labeled “sacred dishonesty,” in which the
     facts are revised to support a supposedly worthy conclusion. In fact, this
     was “sacred-dishonesty squared” the Pope’s real concern was not the spread
     of ATDS, but the spread off birth control. As terrible as AIDS is, the
     population explosion in Africa causes far more suffering, and it will only
     grow worse. The Pope preaches abstinence to prevent the spread of AIDS.
     But our sex drive was shaped by Darwinian evolution to ensure procreation.
     It works extraordinarily well, and manifests itself even within the
     Church. Against it, the gods themselves contend in vain.”

218. Jamiesays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

     Wow…. there’s alot to catch up on! I’m all moved, sorta/kinda back up and running and tried to read all the way through all of the posts. Sorry, I skimmed most of it. Don’t have time to go back to post 114 by Eric (whichever one you cited, JT) and reread all the prefunctory statements of times gone by. It is rather fascintating, astonishing, amusing, and every other word imaginable to describe my thoughts on how this continues to “Ramble On” (in the immortal words of Robert Plant and Led Zeppelin). I, unfortunately, really have nothing more to add to the fray. I could spin my 235/70R/15’s much to the frenzied delight of my atheist friends, just salivating at the chance to respond to one of my posts…. But alas, I think too highly of myself. My arrogance precedes me!

     A couple of observations: One of my favorite topics…. The N word. I hate this word. As a guy who played sports my entire life, played college ball at UW, and coached inner city kids in football, I have never heard this word used as much or as often as I have with black “kids”. And, yes, I say black. It’s not derogatory, it’s actually what most of them prefer to call themselves and to be called. No one has ever called me a Bulgarian-American, Irish-American, etc. It’s just silly, politically correct nonsense. Not one of the kids that I ever coached liked the term. And none of the coaches did, either. (All of the coaches were black with one exception… I was their white brother from another mother!) I would much prefer people just refer to us all what we are – Americans. We actually had a policy on the team that if the N word was used you got one warning and a second offense you were kicked off the team. I was the coach every year that got to give the N word talk at the beginning of each year. I always used one of my position kids as the example and would ask them if it was ok for me to say “nigger”? They would look at me funny and say, “Uh, no.” I would respond with, “why”? And I’d hear some comment like, “Well, because you’re not black.” So it’s ok for you to call each other that, but not me? Yep… Why is it ok for you to call each other that and it’s cool? ….uh…. I don’t know, coach. So then I would educate them on the term, how it originated, why it was used and how sick a term it is and they usually all stopped using the term. My point to them was simple. If you want others to stop using the term, YOU stop using the term. They got the point. See Chris Rock for further commentary.

     Korin, good job stepping into the batting cage and taking a few swings! Commendable in the face of overwhelming odds. Jason, you have to admit, you are fairly odd!

     John you ignorant slut…. I couldn’t resist some old SNL humor. Actually, I’ve heard you aren’t ignorant….

     Matt, you underestimate the climate in Seattle. They call this the “left” coast for a reason! I’ve personally never felt persecuted, though. That would require hot pokers or being nailed to a cross or something equally heinous. Having liberal agendas passed in this state or on a national level doesn’t pass for persecution in my book. Marginalizing, maybe… persecution, nope.

     Just a quick, whimsical, tongue in cheek hello, although Jason should stop “sexting” me those pics of Robin by the pool last summer. Very hot!!!

     Loving you from the dark side of the moon,
     James

219. Jamiesays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

     And a quick PS (I just saw Robin’s post)

     Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what any of the Christians think. You won’t believe and it won’t change your mind, so it’s irrelevant. You believe you’re wormfood, as you stated earlier (ah, my mind and recollection powers haven’t failed me in my old age…) It’s like asking a drunk to be your designated driver. It’s not being serious and I don’t believe the reason you’re asking is to truly hear what we think. You already know what we think. So I’ll ask you the same question…. What do you say Christians believe about the afterlife and what happens to you when you die, according to Christians?

     Not dodging the question in Puyallup,
     James

220. Mattsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

     Hey Robin, welcome back. Okay, just to clarify…what I was TAUGHT or what I BELIEVE? Here is what I was taught through my many years of Sunday School.

     1. If you don’t accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you go to Hell.

     2. If you don’t believe in God, you go to Hell.

     3. If you do bad things, you go to Hell.

     4. You only get to Heaven through Christ….or you go to Hell.

     5. If you’re not baptized, you go to Hell.

     6. If you don’t confess your sins, you go to Hell.

     7. If you don’t speak in tongues, you go to Hell.

     That, well, pretty much covers it.

     What I BELIEVE is vastly different…

     1. You go to Heaven (or some such place in the ether) – no matter what.

     As to what will happen to YOU? Well, my father would believe that you burn in the firey pits of hell for all eternity, or something. Some would believe that you go to Heaven if you accepted Christ at some point (or got baptized) no matter what you end up doing after that (or believing after that). So if Jason was baptized…he’s got his ticket punched.

     Again…I believe everyone goes to Heaven (or some such reality beyond this place).

     I, personally, honestly, believe that I will be reunited with friends and loved ones when I go to “the other side.” There have been many, MANY accounts (and yes, John, they can’t be PROVEN Scientifically), that people are welcomed to the other side by loved ones, family members (I assume pets, too), and a big bright light.

     Maybe it’s wishful thinking, maybe its that way during the last few moments and then the light goes dark and that’s it. I don’t know.

     Back to your question (and I’m not dodging it).

     If, IF, you’re looking at mainstream Christianity as taught by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Robert Tilton, because you are an atheist, you will go to hell.

     If, IF, you’re looking at mainstream Christianity as taught by the likes of liberal churches such as Episcopal…the jury is still out as to what happens to you.

     Question 2.

     If you are looking at mainstream conservative Christianity I will be happily walking the gold streets of heaven, hanging with “the big guy” and living in a mansion with swimmin’ pools and movie stars.

     If you are looking at mainstream liberal Christianity, we will become part of that which is not known…so…the jury is still out.

     Did that answer your questions?

221. johnsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

     Hey Matt,
     I don’t want to be pedantic but do people really worship athletes and celebrities? Is that really happening? I know they admire them, stalk them and want to be like them. Maybe even build shrines to them but do they pray to them? I mean outside of few mentally unstable people are they really being worshipped?
     I only bring this up because I think it diminishes faith and the things people are willing to do in the name of it. I suppose some peoples faith might not be any deeper than liking Hannah Montanna but I would suggest that those people are essentially agnostic but just not willing to admit it or don’t realize it.

222. johnsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

     Korin,
     I followed the link to Night Line but I have to admit I didn’t watch it.
     Deepak Chopra is a stone cold idiot and while I am sure the lady that runs “hookers for jesus” is very nice and well intended but I can’t bring myself to spend 6 minutes watching this. Sorry, could you sum up?

223. Jamiesays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

     Stone cold idiot? That’s not nice. I’m sure he’s very articulate, well schooled and quite intelligent. I don’t agree with alot he says, but that doesn’t make one an idiot.

     It would have been faster for you to watch the six minutes than for Korin to type up a response….

     JE

224. johnsays:
     
     March 27th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

     ahh James, ad hominem right out of the gate? I am glad you are back though. I kinda thought you bailed after your were shown to be wrong. Besides Matt is so nice and sweet and his idea of god is all sunshine and rainbows. Can’t even get him worked up over anything.
     I am, however going to try.
     Believing you are going to meet back up with family and loved ones is fine and dandy. I suppose it wouldn’t be as great for someone who had terrible parents. I am sure heaven is going to be awkward for the wife joining her husband that used to beat the crap out of her or the guy whose dad molested him or for the person that was disowned because they were gay. I guess Jason’s folks will get say “I told you so” for eternity. Good times.
     the life after death experience. Well, you are right it can’t be proven scientifically. Lots of people reports seeing big foot. can’t be proven scientifically. lots of people see alien space craft. can’t be proven scientifically. Many people report being abducted by aliens and their claims are every bit as scientifically credible as life after death. People see and believe all sorts of things without a shred of evidence. In fact people make lousy eyewitnesses.
     forgive the copy/paste but I thought this might be easier than following the link which I will include.
     “neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy, with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia), and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots, or as in hyperventilation followed by Valsalva manoeuvre. Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor, and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned, as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD, psilocarpine, and mescaline. These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.”
     and the link
     http://skepdic.com/nde.html

225. Mattsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 1:25 am

     John, my comment in regards to celebrities is to whom people give allegiance or pay attention to. Where the focus is. A good example of this is Michael Phelps. He’s treated like a God, everyone pays attention to him, he gets money, power, fame, etc. Then he gets photographed smoking dope and he’s suddenly fallen. I’m certainly not saying people pray to them…but I am certain that absurd amounts of attention are paid to celebrities or sports figures and they begin to take on God-like importance. Look at pastors like Jimmy Swaggart. Or Joseph Smith. Or even Barack Obama. Some people invest more time/energy/money/beleif in them then they give to their God.

     That was my point. Albeit possibly not as clear as I would like.

226. Jasonsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 10:37 am

     Jamie, in response to Robin’s question about life after death, you said:

     “Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what any of the Christians think. You won’t believe and it won’t change your mind, so it’s irrelevant… It’s not being serious and I don’t believe the reason you’re asking is to truly hear what we think.”

     That’s not playing fair, now, is it? First of all, you have no way of knowing whether her question was “serious” or not. I happen to know her fairly well, and I can assure you it is entirely serious. She is genuinely interested to hear your response.

     Secondly, if you plan to refuse to answer any question to which (you assume) the asker knows how you’re going to answer… you may as well drop out now! I’ve answered plenty of such questions, so have you. That’s how this conversation works. I **think** I know the answer, so I pose a probing question which I assume will expose the fallacy of your thinking, but then you answer truthfully and show me where I’m wrong. Or not.

     Even if the asker has a good idea how you’re going to answer the question, your answer may still be interesting/informative to the rest of us!

     Lastly, just because you tack on the phrase “not dodging the question” doesn’t make it true.

     Like a loving god (by which I mean: moderator of this forum), however, I’ll give you another chance to make good:

     So, Jamie, based on your Christian beliefs, where do you think Robin will go when she dies, given that she does not believe in your Christian god?

     What if she leads a completely moral and upright life, in fact a life full of good works, yet she denies the holy spirit? What then?

227. Jasonsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 10:44 am

     That Nightline episode: I don’t necessarily share John’s level of antipathy toward Chopra, and I did watch the opening arguments, but I couldn’t help thinking, Jeez, is this the best group you could assemble? Really? That Hookers for Jesus lady had clearly experienced some profound trauma in her life that had nothing to do with the appearance of Satan. And could they not find a well-spoken atheist or even a sociologist who could speak to the projection of evil onto a Satan character, etc.?

228. Mattsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 11:46 am

     John, just a quick comment on my comments about death. Thanks for the “cut and paste” – I don’t often see big words with four or five syllables.

     Just a point of fact…just because I believe family and friends are going to be in the “afterlife”, “heaven”, “temoporal plane”, “purgatory”, or whatnot doesn’t mean you or anyone else you know has to believe it. It’s just what I believe. Personally.

     As for Jason’s comment to Jaime about Robin being an upstanding person who doesn’t believe in the Holy Spirit, I believe she’ll go to heaven (or whatever you want to call it) because I don’t buy that ALL Jews and ALL Hindus and all those in tribes all over the world who’ve never heard of Jesus are going to end up in “hell” – it goes back to the image of God thing again. It puts God on your side, it gives you the power to point and choose, etc. It flies completely in the face of my image of God so…why would I believe it?

     Now…lets say I’m wrong. Lets say that I go through all the LSD whatnot that John talked about. Lets say there is no bright light, no Motorboat (my cat when I was a kid), no Kristen (a friend who died at 17), no Granpa Mercer, no Loring (a friend who died of AIDS), etc. Oh well. At that point, who cares? It’s not like I’m shaking my finger at John or Jason or Robin and saying: “You’re gonna lose out, I’m going to be with all my buddies! And you’re going to fry in eternal torment!” I’m just holding on to what I believe and, I don’t think, forcing that belief on you all. Robin asked – I answered.

     Okay…then…what if I’m right? What if I will see friends, family, pets. What if I enter into a different plane where I become part of what I feel/think/hope God is. What if that becomes a reality of some sort? Then…okay. I’ll deal with that at that time.

     So, honestly, I have no idea what happens after you die. What will happen to Robin or Jason or John or Jamie or Eric or Korin…but I would love to meet up with you all and keep this discussion going, whether it’s in “heaven” or at a Pub in Boston.

229. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

     http://tinyurl.com/cdvcdt
     a link to a church sign that sort of sums up their philosophy.
     please to enjoy.

230. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

     Matt, thanks for clearing that up. That is what I suspected you meant but I wasn’t really sure. It seemed to be equating following the exploits of celebs and worshiping a god. I suppose in many it is closer than either of us would be comfortable.
     Admin, The reason I have as much antipathy towards Mr. Chopra as I do is because he is a quack and fraud that spouts BS that varies from silly and meaningless to medically dangerous.
     but don’t take my word for it.
     http://skepdic.com/chopra.html

     oh and the church sign says “reason is the greatest enemy faith has” That is something that chopra nows very well.

231. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

     I apologize if my comments towards deepak seem to be ad hominem but there is plenty of evidence to back them up. sometimes when you come across a spade you gotta point it out.

232. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

     and a follow up to the view of heaven. When is the cut off for getting into heaven. everybody after jesus? what about people pre abrahamic people? do early prehistoric people get into heaven? Neanderthals? Hominids at what point in evolution does god say “okay, you start getting into heaven?”

233. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

     jaime,
     follow the link i provided regarding deepak. see if you feel the same way. he might not be an idiot but he he is apparently a hypocrite and possibly a fraud. certainly at best he is flat out wrong in many of the assertions he makes regarding medicine and quantum mechanics.
     It isn’t nice but fleecing the gullible and dispensing dangerous medical advice ain’t exactly the path to saint hood. (well, actually it may be but that doesn’t make it right.

234. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

     admin, sorry for all the posts. it seems it is all short bursts.
     Matt, I know I sound grumpy (and I am) but not with you. You are a genuinely nice guy and it sounds like you are a great parent. If all self professed christians were as mellow and kind as you admin would have a much shorter blog. They aren’t though so I get to rant and rave.
     In my comments about heaven I am trying to show that while your concept of heaven is all encompassing it runs into logical problems. If everybody gets in who is everybody? Cavemen and pedophiles?
     or is getting into heaven more complicated? Only christians? Jews and christians? which christians?
     And don’t worry, you won’t have to put up with my BS in heaven. I was never baptized so the best i can hope for is purgatory and at worst hell or just being dead.

235. Mattsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

     John (comment 234), in response to my “everyone gets into heaven” and all that…there’s some thought in religious circles that once you die you don’t “automatically” go to heaven. You hang out on different levels. So if you’re a f*cking bastard, you don’t get to go to the front of the line and have some learnin’ to do before you get there…again, these concepts are, well, just that: concepts. Plus, of course, there’s the thought that you’re buried until Christ returns and you get ressurected for his reign (or something). Again, I don’t know…

     There was a “St. Elsewhere” episode from years ago where Howie Mandel (yes, THE Howie Mandel) dies and goes to hell, heaven and purgatory. Heaven was what you expect, mansions, big lawns, fountains, God looked just like Howie (scary thought). Purgatory was kind of out in the desert. Hanging out under umbrellas, drinking margaritas and waiting. Hell was loneliness. Sitting in a boat surrounded by no one and nothing. Just…existing.

     As for Mr. Chopra. He reminds me of sort of a “feel good guru” that if you want to feel good about yourself, then read his book (or something). All I really know is that he was in that shitty “Love Guru” film.

     ’nuff said

236. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 9:44 pm

     hi matt,
     I understand that there are many different conceptions of heaven. I was curious about yours and how you believed it worked. I was trying to reconcile what you had described as heaven and what the ramifications of that could be.
     Mr. Chopra is far worse than feel good. He offers medical advice that is false and possibly dangerous. I don’t think the man that sued him for plagiarism felt good when he read his book.
     Feeling good isn’t good enough in my opinion. If a person has undiagnosed cancer and Chopra is saying “think positive” and you will never get sick and never grow old that is a problem. blissful ignorance seems to me to be cowardly and weak minded. Isn’t better to seek the truth? To know what is really going on? To keep searching and striving to understand the world and life?
     It seems to me that thinking rationally, skeptically and being inquisitive and charitable is the most interesting and productive thing a person can do with the short time they have.
     ignorance may be bliss but a life unexamined isn’t worth living. I wish I had thought of that myself. Unlike Chopra I will source my quote. Socrates, well the bit about life unexamined.
     I hope we keep this discussion going. It is very interesting to me. I would like to put forth that a statement that religion poisons everything is probably not literally true if for no other reason then “everything” is an awful lot to cover. I would also say that failing to critically examine a belief and to ignore logic and reason leads to the kind of thinking that allows religious beliefs that forbid medical care to children, or violence against different faiths and the ostracism of homosexuals. This same weak mindedness is why people follow guru’s or believe that there autistic children are somehow on a higher evolutionary plane or perhaps affected by a vaccine. Some people believe both.
     Religion and faith may be a result of consciousness and evolution but continuing to accept things uncritically and not examining why we believe what we believe to see if it makes any sense is the real poison.

237. johnsays:
     
     March 28th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

     matt, what possessed you to watch “The Love Guru”? You didn’t know going in that was going to suck or are you some kind masochist? Or do you just like train wrecks? I think I like you even more now.

     admin. sorry for the grammar. I thought I caught it.
     and all the posts. I need a hobby other than ranting.

238. Mattsays:
     
     March 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

     John, I have not seen “The Love Guru” so maybe my harshness of it is a bit misplaced. You know, it might be just miss-understood comic genius like, uh “Zohan” or “Hotel For Dogs” or “Freddy Got Fingered.” Full disclosure, I have not seen “Zohan” or “Hotel” but I HAVE seen “Freddy.” And it was shit.

239. Jamiesays:
     
     March 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

     John,

     Yes, I think Deepak is a kook. I don’t think he’s an idiot. Feel good guru, definitely. It’s the Oprah approach to spirituality. It’s all good, no one’s right, no one’s wrong. Let’s look at a “logical”, reasoned response to that argument. It is quite possible that no one is right, but by nature someone has to be wrong. Does anyone agree with that?

     I’ll type a response to Jason, Robin and John’s question about heaven later today. Not ducking any questions and haven’t been proven “wrong” yet, as John asserts. Just been overly busy moving and working.

     James

240. Jasonsays:
     
     March 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

     The Witnesses came by the house yesterday; a very sweet little old lady and her son in his 20’s. I felt bad being so blunt with her, but had to say, “Look, I know you’re coming to my door out of the goodness of your heart. I know you are trying to help me. But you have to understand that, from my perspective, you represent an organization that destroyed my family. My father sits alone in the basement and cries because he believes that he can’t in good conscience associate with his children or grandchildren. My mother is slowly losing her mind because she is trying to follow the leadership of her husband, against the dictates of her heart. My sister and I are left without parents, and our children are left without grandparents, because of your religion.”

     The elderly JW woman was genuinely saddened and confused. She couldn’t believe that anyone could shun their own children and grandchildren. (This is not the first time I’ve had this befuddled response from a JW at the door.) I wanted to be nice, but that’s when I started feeling angry with her. She may gain some (false) comfort and (entirely provisional) community from her religion, but she doesn’t actually know what the Watchtower Society teaches re: shunning members of your own family. She was sweet and harmless and only meant well; that’s clear to me. She probably does all kinds of nice things in her life, and is a genuinely good-hearted person. Still, she is an unquestioning enabler of a dysfunctional system that divides people, that stifles inquiry, that destroys families, that breaks hearts.

     I’m wagering that everyone reading this, including all of my beloved Christian friends, would agree with my assessment… as long as we’re only talking about this woman or only talking about those silly JW’s.

     In a larger sense, though, this is my accusation against all “moderate” Christians. You may not personally approve of all the things done in the name of Christianity. You may feel that your church is special, your church accepts everyone, your church doesn’t stifle inquiry, etc. You may get a nice feeling of community and shared purpose when you attend. I still assert: You are enabling a system that is a) built on untruth and b) ultimately divisive and unhealthy.

     (Remember: my parents’ actions are absolutely supportable, if you claim to follow the Bible as your moral compass. Just like slavery and polygamy and stoning adulterers and lots of other ugly things. Regardless of whether Jamie believes that the Christian god said those things or not, those things are unquestionably in his holy book, which is used as a moral guide by his followers, to varying degrees.)

     Which is what I mean when I say, “Religion Poisons Everything.”

     I’m sure that in response to this, some of you are again going to pull out the “well, naturally YOU feel this way, because you had a particularly bad experience” argument, as if that is some kind of logical rebuttal.

     It is true that I had a bad experience, but I would argue that my experience is not unusual when believers start thinking for themselves, start critically examining and questioning previously-accepted doctrines. Look at the schism in the Episcopal church, and in Matt’s own family, when church leaders re-examined their thinking on some key issues.

     I would also point out that my wife Robin never had the traumatic experience with religion that I did, nor did John, nor did many other non-believers, and they have reached the same conclusions.

     Thus, I respectfully request that you not dismiss my arguments by speculating on my emotional state.

     And, Jamie: Yes, you are ducking the question. When you say that you won’t respond because you don’t think the question is an honest one, that is ducking the question. I won’t speculate on your motive for ducking, but you are manifestly refusing to answer a simple and direct question, while simultaneously casting aspersions on the person asking it.

     And, yeah, I’ve been convinced: Chopra is a dangerous kook. I’ve never really paid attention to him in the past, and thought of him as semi-harmless. But, just like that accursed book, “The Secret” (shudder) he is actually preaching something dangerous and stupid and solipsist.

241. johnsays:
     
     March 29th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

     Hello Jason,
     Very well said. I wish I could articulate my thoughts as clearly and concisely as you do. I agree with everything you said in #240 (and probably everything else).
     Jaime, I put the “you were wrong” in there mostly as a tweak for the lifting of the very old SNL lift you did. However I think an argument could be made when you said I need to cite sources when I had been citing them all along. I am eagerly looking forward to you completing your move and getting back into the fray.
     and if you follow the links above where I complain about Deepak you will see a great deal of reasoned, logical arguments against the dangerous and sloppy thinking. Let’s put it this way. Deepak is either too much of an idiot to understand why his “beliefs” about quantum physics have nothing to do with his brand of spirituality or he doesn’t care that he is purposely misleading people and jeopardizing their health in order to enrich himself or he is insane and really believes what he says.

242. johnsays:
     
     March 29th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

     crap. i said lift twice. i meant “lifting the very old SNL joke”.
     I am so easily distracted.

243. johnsays:
     
     March 29th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

     AND oprah is a big part of the problem as well. She lends credibility to the charlatans and quacks she puts on her show. Because of her popularity and influence she does more to promote uncritical and magical thinking than almost any single person in the U.S.

244. johnsays:
     
     March 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

     The pope is probably close behind oprah.

245. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 12:43 am

     Jason,

     Please reread my last post. I said I’d answer the question later…. and I will. “You are enabling a system that is a) built on untruth and b) ultimately divisive and unhealthy.” You haven’t proven it to be untrue, while I understand you believe it to be and there is a big difference in the two. Ultimately divisive… hmmm… I have to admit that people that live by strict black and white tend to be divisive and derisive when you go against their grain or their beliefs. The sad part is that when a believer does this they get lambasted for it. When a non-believer does it we just call him a jerk. Anyone truly living for Christ should love and not shun. Christ didn’t do it and neither should anyone, believer or not. What your dad did is wrong, period. I don’t care how he justifies it. I bet you can find other JW’s who have gone through similar things that didn’t cast their kid out with the bathwater. I know I can at my church… and by that I mean both ways. I’ve seen families shun their “wayward” kid and others love them in spite of disagreeing with choices they have made. It doesn’t make “religion” bad, rather I think it shows an immature believer for what they are. I’m on short time, so I’m being straight and blunt. Not intended to cast a blanket “judgement” of anyone. And I could really care less about Deepak, Tupac or X-Pac.

     John,

     Thanks for the jab…. I get it! Sometimes I’m a little slow! When I got on you about citing sources, all of your stuff are links to something someone else said. I don’t care what others say, per se. I just wanted to hear you articulate it or cite the reference as I have done. I know it saves time, but then you might come across as some describe “christians” or religious people as non-thinking, spoon fed robots. I don’t want you to come off that way.

     The problem with many is that they are like Oprah. Luke warm, milk toast “believers” who say there is no One Way as to not offend and be politically correct. Jesus offended. He said, “I am the way”… the only way. No one comes to the Father except by me. He didn’t say he was “a” way, “one” way, a “possible” way, he said The Way.

     As for heaven, I believe in the heaven of the bible. There is a place we will all spend eternity, Heaven or hell. If you don’t believe in “my” god, it doesn’t matter. No one is a non-participant because you don’t believe. Not believing or being non-commital IS a choice. As far as those who have never heard the gospel or babies or people incapacitated by mental or physical disability I have to say…. I don’t know! I’d like to think that they will be in heaven, but I have to admit there are some things we won’t and can’t know until we stand before God. And even then, there are things we won’t need to know, in my opinion. The argument “what about good people” doesn’t hold up. There is no one who is perfect, which would qualify someone as “good”. Gandhi, the Pope, a local pastor, Robin, etc… we all fall short. We have a standard we live by and we fall short of our own standards all the time. And our standards (well, mine anyway) aren’t perfection. You can’t earn your way into heaven (Mormon and Catholic theology, to name two…). It’s by grace we are saved. It doesn’t affect me if you don’t believe. And if I’m wrong, I’ve led a good life (mostly!) just like you all have and we’re wormfood. If you’re wrong, that’s a big woops. We don’t get a do-over. We get one shot at this vapor called life. I’m not a luke-warm guy. I don’t believe in multiple ways of salvation. I believe in one. I respect your non-belief even if I don’t agree. That is called tolerance. I won’t force you to believe what I believe. That’s called dictatorship or facist. You have every right to believe the way you do. I can only share how I believe and why I do. And I can still love you all in spite of our differences. That is what we are all called to do. I think that we all are alot similar to each other than we think. Whether it’s belief or non-belief, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican (libertarian), we all want about the same things in life. We wonder is there a God? What’s life all about? We want our kids to be warm and safe and the bad guys to be locked up. We want more money coming in each month than we spend and we don’t want anything bad to happen to us or our loved ones. My mom died last year from Alzheimer’s. She battled it since 1992. I was never mad at God or say “why?” I accepted that He had a plan for her and that through her and the illness that His will would be done. I saw many, including my sister and very liberal brother-in-law, come to faith in Christ through my mother’s illness. My sister was mad as all heck at God for “doing” this to my mom (before my sister came to Christ). I told her God didn’t do this. He allowed it, but didn’t do it. Maybe he knew this would bring our fractured family together. Maybe He knew my mom could handle it. I don’t know and won’t know until I am reunited with her in the presence of God. And maybe not even then because it will no longer matter. My earthly perspective will be gone and I’ll have an eternal perspective.

     I love you all and am enjoying sharing with you even when we don’t agree. I look forward to more, but I have to go spend time with my wife. Have a great night and I look forward to more open discussion of this terrific thread. Thanks again, Jason, for making this possible.

     In His Grip,
     James

246. johnsays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 10:20 am

     Hi James,
     I am going to read your post a little later today, while I was swinging by my second favorite blog (after this of course) I came across this news story.
     http://tinyurl.com/cfogz9
     it is about a family that starved a 16 month old child for not saying amen. I found the part about her not being “criminally insane” because she was following a religious belief interesting. Also she won’t have to serve time or parole if her child is resurrected.
     and here is the link to my second favorite blog.
     http://tinyurl.com/cgx7wr
     read it and see what you think. I really don’t think I need to say anything else right now. I will check back in later.

247. Jasonsays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am

     Jamie, Comment 145: “What your dad did is wrong, period.”

     I agree! In fact, I think everyone participating in this discussion would agree. The problem is, my father’s position is absolutely consistent with the teachings found in the Bible, which you (and most other Christians) claim is divinely inspired, to wit:

     Matthew 10:34-36: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.”

     1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”

     2 John 9-11: “Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. In any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.”

     Titus 3:10,11: “As for a man who is factious (or: a heretic, according to the King James), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

     1 Corinthians 5:11: “But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber – do not even eat with such a one.”

     (You could reasonably argue that the punishment for being an apostate would be at LEAST as severe as that for being a drunkard.)

     Now (in part because it affects me so personally), I could probably make a convincing argument that the above scriptures don’t apply in MY case… but a reasonable believer and Bible scholar could probably make (in fact, HAS MADE) a more convincing case that mine is EXACTLY the sort of case referred to by the above scriptures. Former believer, now spouting heresy, lobbying for gay marriage, etc.

     But, Jamie, you (and Matt, and the sweet little old Witness lady that came to my door) look at the above scriptures and (I would assume) reason in your own minds… nah, no loving god could actually expect me to shun my own children. That’s crazy talk!

     (In fact, I assert that in this case you would be doing exactly what Jesus warns against in Matthew 10:37: “…he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”)

     So, based on your human reasoning, you must either a) sweep those scriptures (along with a zillion other scriptures, which run the gamut from weird to flat-out abhorrent) under the carpet, or b) come up with convoluted arguments to explain why those scriptures aren’t actually saying what they plainly appear to be saying.

     Believe me, I speak from experience!

     Which brings me back to one of my central points (which I intend to keep hammering): If you continually use your own human intellect to determine which scriptures are reasonable and which are, frankly, nuts… I assert that you are placing your humanist reasoning, your non-Bible-derived conscience, ABOVE what is written in your divinely-inspired book.

     So why not simply throw the book away, and rely on your clearly superior human reasoning? You are aware, of course, that the moral precepts found in the Bible (do unto others, etc.) are not original to the Bible…?

     Note: The existence of OTHER scriptures, which might contradict or soften the above-cited scriptures (there are several, all of which I threw at my father) does not strengthen your case; it only – AGAIN – proves that you can find just about anything in the Bible, because it was written (and dictated, and transcribed, and erased, and gathered, and edited) by a bunch of different humans, over many centuries, each with their own theological agenda, varying levels of literacy, and cultural baggage.

248. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

     Jason,

     A quick rebuttal to the above:

     You have taken these out of context, so I will try to quickly put them back into context.

     Matt 10 – This is the only scripture that one could possibly use to condone their actions against their biological family, however if we read the entire passage before and after we see that Christ isn’t talking about breaking up families, he is talking about how some will believe in him and some won’t. Some will be confused and some will not. It will cause discussion, division, argument, but is not intended to be interpreted to break up families nor should it ever be interpreted that way.

     1 John 2 – Speaking to the church about outsiders or unbelievers who were trying to infiltrate the church and cause dissention. Not directed to families or those within the church.

     2 John 9 – Again, directed to those outside the church who were heretical and trying to lead members away from the church. The warning was to admonish the church to not be so quickly deceived and fall away from the teachings of Christ.

     Titus 3 – Church discipline “doctrine”. This is intended for “corporate” worship, not families. In other words, if someone within the church falls into significant moral failure we go to them in love and confront the sin (I admit, it’s tough to do correctly as the one receiving the admonishing isn’t usually accepting of the encouragement to turn from the particular sin they are involved in) If they aren’t returned in good standing and turn from the sin, take 2-3 witnesses to make amends. If that doesn’t work, they are to be put out of the church. They aren’t allowed back in the church until they make things right with God. This does not apply to their biological family. I have huge problems with the way some churches use this and apply this. One being my former church. It wasn’t applied the same in each case, particularly when it came to one of the pastor’s kids. I was very vocal about it and many people left the church over it. This doesn’t make church, the bible or religion bad. It shows people to be partial and human. The church is supposed to be about grace and public humiliation isn’t showing Christ’s love, in my opinion.

     1 Corinth 5 – A man had come into the church (again, not someone within the church) teaching sexually immoral practices. Some participated in the rituals, which caused problems within the church at Corinth. He was not immediately put out of the church, but should have been. Again, someone looking to cause problems within the church, not a believer. It goes on to talk about how a little yeast works it’s way through the whole dough, causing an effect in the entire batch, an alliteration of how when someone comes into the church looking to fracture it has ripple effects across the whole congregation.

     I could invent an entire religion taking things out of context, giving a verse here and there and convince you all I was right. Many try. Many churches go too far in their discipline measures, or take things like the above referenced “church discipline doctrine” too far. I’ve been involved in church discipline the correct way, and I’ve witnessed it done the wrong way. You are incorrect in all of your citation and the way you have liberally applied them to attempt to make your point. I think I have plainly shown them to be inaccurate. But at least you cited stuff on your own and had a loose grasp of the context. I applaud that and your sincere efforts.

     As for your dad and the scriptures you threw at him, I can only say that most likely he was hurt by your refusal/denial/walking away and reacted the way a parent might when confronted with a situation he never expected or prepared for. He didn’t have an intelligent answer to your questions and really didn’t know what to say. I’m not going to get into JW doctrine and theology, but I will say he had an inaccurate view on what the bible teaches versus what his church taught. And unfortunately, it’s damaged the family as a whole because he has an inaccurate theological view. I have been praying for a restoration in your family and will continue to do so. Love you brother, have a great day!

     JE

249. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

     PS…. there was nothing convoluted about my arguments/rebuttal.

250. Jasonsays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

     Jamie, Comment 248: “You are incorrect in all of your citation and the way you have liberally applied them to attempt to make your point. I think I have plainly shown them to be inaccurate. But at least you cited stuff on your own and had a loose grasp of the context.”

     No, Jamie, you have not plainly shown them to be inaccurate. I have somewhat more than a loose grasp of the context. I am aware of all the contextual information you cited; they are the same arguments I made to my father.

     But… I made those arguments when I was still holding on to a misplaced faith in the Bible. I needed it to make sense. I needed to explain away the words, because what the words seemed to be saying was monstrous. Also, at the time I didn’t want to think of myself as a “heretic”… now, I’m pretty sure that that is exactly what I am. In fact, I will talk about my antipathy toward Christianity passionately and with little provocation, as this conversation has shown.

     Now that I am no longer bound to uphold the Bible, I can look at those scriptures and say, well, yeah… IF I believed that the Bible was divinely inspired, I would have to admit that my dad’s reading of these scriptures is not incorrect.

     Nowhere in any of the cited scriptures does the Bible make exception on the basis of biological relation, as you do throughout your apologetics above. In fact, Jesus is very clear about the fact that his teachings will tear families apart: “…I have come to set a man against his father” etc.

     Believe me, it wasn’t that my dad was flustered and didn’t have a grasp on the proper understanding of scripture. My dad interpreted the above citations in an entirely logical way: heretics must be shunned, regardless of whether it hurts to do so.

     My dad isn’t the only believer to interpret such scriptures in this way. If I understand you correctly, even your previous church held this interpretation. This interpretation is not some crazy idea with no support in the Bible, no matter how much context you take into account. The Bible is clear: Heretics should be shunned. Jesus’ teachings will tear families apart.

     If the scriptures are (as I argue) so ambiguous as to support multiple interpretations, sometimes at the expense of destroyed families… then why doesn’t your god come back and clarify? It’s a faulty text, badly in need of a corrected second edition. But we’re stuck with it, because your god is, sadly, silent on the matter.

251. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

     Thanks for the quick reply. You have fallen back on your original statement from the previous entry that Jesus’ teaching will tear families apart. That is not entirely accurate. It’s a half-truth. The context of what Christ said was that what he was teaching could/would set people against each other, not because he taught that but rather because not everyone would believe Jesus and what he taught. What you espouse and what I espouse sets us against each other, does it not? But I’m not shunning you, casting you aside like a leper and hating your guts, am I? No, quite the opposite. We are divided because of what we believe. That was the context of Jesus’ claim in the verse/verses you quoted and I clearly showed that to be the case.

     Matthew 10:24-42 ” 24″A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub,[c] how much more the members of his household!

     26″So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

     32″Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

     34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
     ” ‘a man against his father,
     a daughter against her mother,
     a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law –
     36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[e]

     37″Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

     40″He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”

     Verse 34 – The sword is a metaphor, in the Greek meaning to divide. You will not be neutral. You will be for him or against him. One will believe or not. Fathers will believe, kids won’t and vice versa. It will cause division, not castigation or ostricization. He doesn’t teach that.

     Verse 35-36 is Old Testament prophecy quote, now fulfilled in Christ. The Greek for “enemies” is not how we would describe the meaning of the word, but rather someone who is against us or our beliefs. Seriously, it’s no different than when you have disagreements about non-spiritual things in the house with Robin. You go out and buy a Mazerati or a Donzi when you can’t afford one and do it behind Robin’s back. There is guaranteed to be a disagreement (kind of like you and Jen and the Fifi album….) and you will be at odds with one another. But Jesus didn’t teach to cut them off, especially in the case of family. Look to the parable of the Prodigal Son for more evidence. The man didn’t kick his kid out or cut him off. The kid left on his own while the man eagerly waited and anticipated his return. It’s the analogy of God waiting on us, but it’s the same principal.

     If you want to justify your position, fine. Use the bible anyway you want. I’ve clearly and concisely told you what it says. If you want to go to the Greek, let’s go for it. I will be happy to debate it with a more descriptive and accurate language that will show you the error in your “translation”.

     Again, you’ve fallen back on destroyed families and your “logical” conclusion is that because families have been destroyed because of a faulty teaching or church doctrine, you conclude there is no God and it’s all bad. That’s a big stretch to go from one to the other. How about the in between part? How about maybe your church and your dad had teaching contrary to what Christ taught? Like I said, I’ve seen it in all different types of churches. I have a very firm grasp on the bible, what it does and doesn’t teach. Above all, Jesus commanded us to love God and then love each other. I don’t see how stopping all communication with someone because they disagree with us or we disagree with them is showing Christ’s love. Do you? Or how about just showing love in general.

     You should be the bigger person here and contact your dad and never stop trying to make it right (if he won’t, as it appears). Ultimately, the parent should be the initiator, but if that’s not working love your dad anyway. I have NO DOUBT that you love your dad very intensely, or this would not be so emotionally upsetting to you. Show him love in spite of the fact he maybe doesn’t deserve it. My guess is that he’ll come around. Maybe not in our timing, but he will come around. Think about your son and how intensely you love him. Your dad loves you the same way. He’s just stubborn and stuck. Unstick him!!! Do it because you love him. Not because of any of this spiritual stuff we’re talking about, but because it’s the right thing to do. Dude, you have a big enough heart. Don’t stop using it! At least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing you didn’t quit trying, you didn’t lose your sack. You manned up and did the right thing, the way we raise our kids to do the right thing. And your dad will be proud of you and will come around.

     Thank you for being so real. I appreciate you being sincere and telling it the way you see it. I appreciate you being vulnerable and open and not “surfacy”. I would rather talk to someone who has a strong opinion than someone who is luke-warm and is blown back and forth by whoever makes a stronger or louder argument.

     Thanks again. You are the man!

     JE

252. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

     PS.. you were correct. My previous church held this belief, I believe incorrectly. And I called them on it in a business meeting right to their face (pastor/board/congregation) Once I stood up, as a leader in the church and the head of a ministry, it was funny how the “frozen chosen” piped up and were like, “yeah, we were thinking the same thing. Sounds hypocritical and un-Christ-like.” And I backed it up with scripture, Greek and every other weapon I could to stand on firm, biblically defensible ground. And because the pastor and board would not budge, many of us left. A non-growing church is a dead church, in my opinion. They get steeped in dogma and get very rigid (black & white). They can have that church because that isn’t what Christ taught. And that is what poisons…. people, not God.

     Signing off, yet again…

253. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

     …. and the arguments you made with your dad were accurate… and biblically defensible.

254. Mattsays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

     Jamie, glad to see you are back on board. In response to your comments to Jason.

     I went through some issues with my father, though not as brutal, we had some basic issues in regards to the way the bible should be read and interpreted. Though my father had read the bible 80 times (or something) his image of God was still one of the fire-and-brimstone old testament images. Plus my father took the bible literally. It wasn’t so much that I had issue with his interpretation of the bible, I had issue with his image of God.

     The point I keep coming back to (or try to keep coming back to), is understanding where “this all comes from.” What story is behind what we believe, how we got there, what that brings to the mix. Jason was brutally “raped” by his church. Mentally and spiritually IMHO, he was torn assunder, chewed up and spit out all in the name of “God” and faith. As I said before, if I went through what he went through, I would probably be in the same school of thought as him.

     After my father died, my brother and family went to check out his house. The photos showed that my father had, basically, gone insane. Then a book that he published right after his death, confirmed that very thing. My father did not have a solid grasp on all his senses. When this became clear to me, I think I understood more of what was going on inside his head (or lack of going on). I certainly did not condone his “trying to save me” and his continual efforts to get me out of a “godless church” but it kind of made more sense to me.

     My father used to fax me messages on a near daily basis. Absurd ramblings, accusations, bitter angry statements. I got to a point where I said to myself…why? Why do I even bother? I had made my points. I wasn’t going to change. His anger at people like Bishop Spong made me more interested in what Spong had to say. The more he pushed me the more I felt I was just banging my head against a wall. So I cut off all contact with him (except for the holiday letter with family portrait from Sears).

     Certainly Jason can speak for himself and his relationship with his father. I’m just telling my story.

255. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

     Good stuff and good insight. I am the last one who would know anything of Jason’s father’s frame of mind. I am not inferring that you are saying Jason’s dad is insane. And I hope that is not the case. If so, then yes it would explain. Only Jason can tell us that. Our hindsight is pretty clear after all is said and done.

     JE

256. Jasonsays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 9:21 pm

     Sorry, Jamie… merely quoting the verses before and after my citations doesn’t change what the scriptures in question say, doesn’t change the fact than many fine, upstanding, smart Christians have interpreted these scriptures to support the practice of shunning heretics.

     You said: “Verse 34 – The sword is a metaphor, in the Greek meaning to divide… It will cause division, not castigation or ostricization. He doesn’t teach that.”

     I am well aware that the sword is metaphorical; did something I wrote lead you to believe otherwise? Bottom line: Jesus says he comes with a teaching that will potentially cause families to be torn apart by disagreement. He does not explicitly recommend shunning in this verse, nor did I ever claim the opposite. What I do claim is that all of the verses I cited, when taken as a whole, seem to paint a clear picture in support of shunning.

     I hear that you don’t agree, and we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one. I would ask other Christians taking part in this discussion to read the verses I cited, in their own bibles, and honestly think about what those verses seem to be saying, taken as a whole. I am well aware of the contextual arguments that can be made, and yet I still maintain that intelligent Christians could (and have) rightly argue that the scriptures support shunning of heretics, even if that heretic is a family member.

     But shunning is not the only problem. As we’ve already gone over, there are all kinds of scriptures in the Christian bible that seem to tell us to do things that we naturally find abhorrent. If there is reasonable cause for confusion (and clearly there is, given the historical panoply of conflicting Christian doctrine), why isn’t your Christian god clarifying for us, sparing us further pain based on misunderstood passages in his book? That seems like such a reasonable request.

     Jamie, you said: “Again, you’ve fallen back on destroyed families and your “logical” conclusion is that because families have been destroyed because of a faulty teaching or church doctrine, you conclude there is no God and it’s all bad.”

     Sigh… no, Jamie, that’s actually not what I said at all. Please re-read my comments.

     As to your “prodigal son” comments: As I already said, the existence of contradictory scriptures does nothing to disprove my thesis that the Christian bible is full of contradictory scriptures, some of which preach things which are morally abhorrent.

     Finally… I do appreciate everyone’s sympathy etc. regarding my family situation. It’s a bummer, right? But please try to refrain from limiting me to that story, or reductively attributing my thinking to that one experience. I have a fairly thorough understanding of the Christian bible and of Christianity in general. I have done a fair amount of thinking and reading on the subject. My declaration as an atheist was the end point of a long and painful journey which began some time before I left the Witness church; it was not simply a petulant response to having my feelings hurt. If my reasoning is poor, then by all means engage with me and point out my mistakes. But, please, no more comments like, “if I went through what he went through, I would probably be in the same school of thought as him”… okay? Thanks.

     And, Jamie, regarding your comment: “You should be the bigger person here and contact your dad and never stop trying to make it right…”

     Please don’t advise me on my relationship with my family, particularly in this public forum. I find that highly presumptuous on your part. You have no idea how hard I’ve tried, or what I’ve done to try to make the situation better. You have no idea, because I haven’t told you, and that is intentional. Capice?

     Matt, every time I hear that story about your Dad, it makes me feel sad. I am tempted to score a cheap shot at Christianity here, but my larger feeling is simply that it’s so sad. Why are so many of my friends separated from their parents? I wish I knew how to fix that – for you and me and everyone else.

257. Jamiesays:
     
     March 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

     Jason,

     “Sorry, Jamie… merely quoting the verses before and after my citations doesn’t change what the scriptures in question say, doesn’t change the fact than many fine, upstanding, smart Christians have interpreted these scriptures to support the practice of shunning heretics.” And it doesn’t change the fact that many fine, upstanding, smart Christians have interpreted and believe as I do, which I guess we’ll have to call a stalemate on. Some do, most don’t. You took it out of context, I put it back into the entire context. Please don’t totally dismiss the rebuttal because it doesn’t fit your argument or your conclusion.

     “Sigh… no, Jamie, that’s actually not what I said at all. Please re-read my comments.” I’m sorry. I was summarizing all of what you’ve written throughout the context of this discourse. That was not correct or accurate of me to do. My apologies.

     “What I do claim is that all of the verses I cited, when taken as a whole, seem to paint a clear picture in support of shunning.” And I would argue that I clearly picked apart your synopsis in detail to show you that is not what is being taught. I took the whole context, not single verses to accurately portray what is being said and taught. You did not do that. If you want to play ball, don’t fudge on the factuality of what was said and twist it to fit your meaning. 5 minute penalty for high-sticking….

     There was/is nothing contradictory about the prodigal son story that Christ gave or what is taught or said about how we treat others. Some churches get it wrong. I have no problem admitting that. Most, I would argue, get it right. There is nothing contradictory there, so please don’t make statements of fact without supporting evidence. It does nothing to shore up your case and puts you in a defensive position of weakness.

     I will respect your wishes to refrain from commenting anymore on what you went through. I never felt into the camp of “I don’t know how I….” I did say many times what he did was wrong. I was not being presumptuous as to what you have or haven’t done. Please don’t label me that way. I am well aware of your efforts because you have continually laid them out for us all… not in detail, but that you have made the effort extensively. My exhortation to you was to continue putting forth the effort, not to start trying. Please re-read my comments above… Not presumptuous in the slightest, rather encouraging you. And certainly wasn’t advising in any respect of the word. I didn’t tell you how to approach it, what scripture/s to use, who to talk to, where to seek advice…. nor would I unless asked. Unwanted advice is just that, unwanted. So please accept my apologies if I have offended. That was not my intent or my desire. It was to sincerely encourage you to keep doing the right thing as you say you have.

     What really sucks… I am saying this again… is that we are reading way too much into the “typed” word and can’t hear the tone in which these things are being entered. I have the deepest respect for you, your beliefs, your ability and freedom to exercise them and hope you would have the same respect for me.

     We should all meet up in Cancun on a beach to discuss this stuff some more…. relaxed, mellow, soaking in some rays… I can hear the waves gently lapping up on the shore right now… Can you smell the beach?

     JE

258. johnsays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 2:41 am

     nothing to add now. I have a few more 15 hour work days ahead.
     I will keep checking.
     I will just say this. Jaime, I am not sure how much stock I would put in the bible. as discussed it has been edited and translated so many times before ending up in it’s present form(s). The authors of the gospels (whomever they were) contradict each other on numerous occasions. certain parts attributed to some authors bend and twist to get the tale to conform to old testament prophecy that episodes are demonstrably false. The census being the reason for joseph to return to Bethlehem is just one. The language is poetic at turns and despicable at turns but it in no way offers any proof for divinity. In fact the bible seems like exactly what it is. A heavily edited and transcribed bit of propaganda to promote a particular religion. and man has still cocked it up.

     http://tinyurl.com/2fsba8

     Matt, That sounds like a very painful thing regarding your father. I know from experience that there is almost nothing you can do for someone with certain types of mental illness. I wonder if it would have been easier to deal with if he was talking about conspiracies or aliens. I think so often with religion people are inclined to let things go because they don’t want to offend a deeply held belief. A fervent faith seems understandable to some where as being convinced that aliens are after you might be easier on the other members of the family. I am happy that you are as kind and caring as you seem to be.
     I will be reading but not posting much for the next few days. All very interesting.

259. Mattsays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 2:51 am

     AdminaJason, my apologies if you felt I was lessening your journey with my comments as to the eventual results. As I was not a part of your life when this turmoil happened – and have not discussed it with you at length – I’m still not entirely sure what happened.

     As for my father, mother, mother-in-law, etc. it goes back to what I said before in terms of interpretation and the image of God. Everyone interprets the scripture their own way, everyone has their own image of God (or lack of God). So as Jamie makes his points I find myself agreeing and disagreeing in the same sentence. Same as statements that you and John make…

     But I also continue to bring up where we came from, what our story is and how that puts us in the place we are now. When I made a comment about how all fundementalist/literalist churches should be exactly the same, I wasn’t being flippant about that. If each church believes the bible to be the EXACT PROVEN WORD OF GOD, then logic dictates that each church should be EXACTLY the same…but they are not (obviously).

     So I go back to our journeys. The lives we’ve led, the way we were raised, the influences in our lives, the moments that defined us, the risks we took (or didn’t take), the moments where we stepped outside of ourselves, and the moments we didn’t. We are all weaved into an ornate fabric – no two alike.

     What is it that brought us to this point in our lives right now…

     As for my father and those others in my life that have such virulent opinions…I just chalk it up to their interpretation and their image of God. Sad, yes. Frustrating? Sure. But they probably think the same thing about me (obviously since my father pushed my family to “save me”). Point of reference, when it came out that my dad was putting pressure on my mother and brother to “save me” – they told me and said: “We know you’re a good Christian, Matt.” In other words…they had/have a relationship with me. They know me and what I believe and know that my father was wrong. He did NOT have a relationship with me – as sad as that might sound. But, hey, you live in Japan for 50+ years and hardly ever visit…

     Another point in regards to my father…I separated from him more than he separated from me. But, that was more of a result of him never listening to me and/or changing the rules. As I said before he would splay Spong’s name around like he was the defacto leader of the Episcopal Church but the moment I would mention Jerry Fallwell, his response would be: “Fallwell doesn’t speak for me.” And, again, how many times did I have to bang my head against that wall. I just made a concious choice that trying to foster a relationship with him was just going to cause me pain and frustration and, frankly, it wasn’t worth it. If we could have had a dialogue (much like this blog – thank you very much) it would have been fine. But…we could not do that.

     Feel free to score whatever cheap shot you want, it doesn’t bother me because, again, it goes back to him and his interpretation (as wrong as I might think it is).

     Love you all.

     G’night! Drive safe! God bless! (sorry, just had to do it)

260. Jasonsays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 11:47 am

     Jamie, Comment 251: “If you want to go to the Greek, let’s go for it.”

     That’s the kind of thing I would have said in years past, as if going back to the existing Greek manuscripts would resolve anything.

     The facts, as I now understand them, do not support this belief. We do not possess the “autographs” or originals, of ANY of the New Testament books; what we have are copies of copies of copies, most dating from hundreds of years after the originals were penned.

     During the first few centuries of the Christian church, copying of manuscripts was largely performed by anyone in the congregation who was moderately literate and who had the free time; professional scribes did not take over the job until later. Errors in copying – whether unintentional slips (such as my favorite: “periblepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton” or “eye-slip caused by two lines with the same ending”) or intentional “corrections” of earlier “errors” or modifications to reflect current/local theology – were abundant.

     By the time professional scribes took over the job, thousands of different manuscripts, containing tens of thousands of textual variations, were the existing source material for all future copies.

     The publication of Mill’s Apparatus in 1707 was the first attempt to thoroughly catalog all of the textual variations in the New Testament manuscripts. John Mill had access to 100 Greek manuscripts, and listed 30,000 textual variations.

     Today, we have access to over 5700 Greek manuscripts. Experts in the field of New Testament textual criticism now estimate that the number of variations in the text is between 200,000 to 400,000. Some place the estimate even higher.

     Granted, MOST of the variations are not doctrinally relevant, and can safely be ignored by the faithful Christian.

     But some of the variations ARE doctrinally relevant, related to such issues as the divinity of Christ, the role of women in the church, and the relationship between Christians and Jews.

     In any case, the result of all this copying and re-copying by humans with varying levels of literacy and varying theological and social agendas is exactly what we would expect: A self-contradictory book filled with great poetic passages AND dull recitation, moral uplift AND bigoted oppression, sage counsel AND morally repugnant bullshit.

     In short: Going to the Greek is not the solution to my problems with the Christian Bible.

261. Jasonsays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 11:55 am

     Matt: Maybe “cheap shot” wasn’t the right word… I’m just struck by how, among the Christian families I’ve known (I am NOT just speaking of JWs here)… Christianity has not once (in **my** experience or observation; YMMV) served to resolve or “cure” the dysfunction present, but has pretty consistently led to even deeper, more painful rifts.

     I’m certainly not saying that religion is the only thing that can wreck a family. Lots of things can pull a family apart – politics, money, etc. But – again, in my experience and observation – when there is a religious disagreement, the level of angst and antipathy is even deeper and more divisive because, well, we’re talking about the SOUL or SALVATION of a beloved family member.

     Again, Matt – you deserved a better father, and so did I. So did most of our friends, come to think of it.

     Sigh.

262. Jasonsays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 12:16 pm

     David Hodgson – a Christian – wrote an article responding to Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” The entire article can be found here:

     http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/Dawkins.htm

     One part that I’d like to highlight, and to which I invite my Christian friends to respond, follows.

     (begin quotation)

     It is right for Christians and Jews to condemn genocide and terrorism. But I suggest that to be consistent they should, with no ifs or buts, squarely acknowledge the following eight statements:

     (1) It would have been wrong for God to order Abraham to kill his son, as the Bible says He did.

     (2) It would have been wrong for Abraham to set about doing so.

     (3) It is wrong to kill an innocent person because you believe God has told you to.

     (4) It would have been wrong for God to kill children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites. (It would have been terrorism.)

     (5) It would have been wrong for God to order the Israelites to kill all occupants of defeated cities. (It would have been to order genocide.)

     (6) It would have been wrong for Joshua and his followers to kill all occupants of Jericho. (It would have been genocide.)

     (7) If Jesus believed that God had killed children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites, it would have been wrong for him to celebrate the Passover. (It would have been to condone terrorism.)

     (8) The Bible stories of Abraham and Isaac, the Passover and the battle of Jericho were written by fallible human beings and convey wrong messages about God and morality.

     (end quotation)

     Discuss.

263. Jamiesays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 1:02 pm

     Jason,

     You wrote, “I’m just struck by how, among the Christian families I’ve known (I am NOT just speaking of JWs here)… Christianity has not once (in **my** experience or observation; YMMV) served to resolve or “cure” the dysfunction present, but has pretty consistently led to even deeper, more painful rifts.”

     Let me be the first one that you know that it has resolved or cured our dysfunction. My dad (step dad) grew up in the Catholic church and was an altar boy. He did not have a personal relationship with Christ, but does now (1998). So did my mom. As well as my sister and brother-in-law (2005). Jesus changed my life in 1989. I’ve prayed for all of these people. My sister for 15 years! I could tell you of hundreds of others I personally know, but you don’t know them. And if you are honestly saying you don’t know one (a single instance) Christian family including JW families that it has healed the dysfunction, I find that to be like finding a needle in a haystack. Well, actually probably even harder than that.

     We actually have nearly 25,000 of the early “Christian” manuscripts/copies (call them what you may) of the bible dated within a few hundred years of Christ. Scholars have looked at, read, disected, compared ad infinitum.

     I have a quote here from Will Durant. He’s the author of The Story of Civilization . In part three, “Caesar and Christ: A History of the Roman Civilization and of Christianity from Beginnings to A.D. 325,” Will Durant writes this. Now remember, this guy is a world class historian. He mentions that at first there seem to be contradictions between one Gospel and another and there are dubious statements of history and suspicious resemblance to legends of old pagan gods, etc. All this granted he says, “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries, the higher criticism has applied to the New Testament text tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, Hammurabi, David, Socrates, would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.” Here is a man of world class status that says the higher critics are out in left field and if we follow their methodology nothing would be considered reliable history.

     The simple question could be asked, how would one know what Jesus actually said? The answer is simple: you read what those closest to Jesus wrote about Him, rather than take the word of those who are two thousand years removed from the events, those who cast their vote on a multiple choice quiz, choosing among undoubtedly authentic, probably from Jesus, doubtful, and Jesus never said this. Listen friends, the disciples who walked with Jesus, the ones who said, “We did not follow cleverly devised tales, but were eye witnesses,” those who heard, who saw with their eyes, who beheld, whose hands handled regarding the word of life, these men signed their testimonies with their lifeblood (many put to death for their belief and evangelizing) and they all answered with one voice, “Undoubtedly authentic.”

     More evidence is present to convict Jesus in a court of law that he is who he says he is than there is to prove even the existence of Plato and Socrates, let alone their works.

     James

264. Jamiesays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 1:19 pm

     I’ll respond to that:

     (1) It would have been wrong for God to order Abraham to kill his son, as the Bible says He did.

     No, in fact it wouldn’t. There is no commandment that says, “Thou shalt not order the killing of a son.” It’s “Thou shalt not kill.” My question to you all is simple… Did Abraham kill his son? The answer is no.

     (2) It would have been wrong for Abraham to set about doing so.

     No, he was obeying God. Not a figment of his imagination, but the real deal. I’m not talking about whackos who think they hear God and go on killing sprees, either. So please don’t make that fallacious argument. (Ah, question 3…) In his obedience, God spared Isaac.

     (3) It is wrong to kill an innocent person because you believe God has told you to.

     Believing God told you to do something is entirely different than knowing God told you to do something. If you called me on the phone and said, “Jamie, I need you here now to help save my family or we will all die.” I’d hop a plane and come. If Eric told Joel who then called me, I’d question whether you really said that and get on the phone with you personally. Big differnce.

     (4) It would have been wrong for God to kill children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites. (It would have been terrorism.)

     No, the Israelites were already being terrorised for over 400 years, being in slavery to the Egyptian Pharoahs. It was going to take something radical to let the people go and for the people to believe God was at work. You live in slavery that long and see if your heart grows weary.

     (5) It would have been wrong for God to order the Israelites to kill all occupants of defeated cities. (It would have been to order genocide.)

     No, because they knew the God of Israel and what He said about worshipping other Gods and inventing Gods. These societies were steeped in Paganism and idol worship and had been terrorising the Jews for a long time. You seem to keep leaving that part out… the fact these people were killing the Israelites and subjegating them. It helps to include in the context and timeline of story. It flows better that way.

     (6) It would have been wrong for Joshua and his followers to kill all occupants of Jericho. (It would have been genocide.)

     Again, see above statement #5.

     (7) If Jesus believed that God had killed children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites, it would have been wrong for him to celebrate the Passover. (It would have been to condone terrorism.)

     No, because Jesus didn’t believe it, He did it. He is I AM. He is God. He had first hand knowledge of why and how.

     (8) The Bible stories of Abraham and Isaac, the Passover and the battle of Jericho were written by fallible human beings and convey wrong messages about God and morality.

     They are completely accurate accounts written by fallible humans conveying the right message about God’s deliverance and His ability to do as He wills.

     That was fairly easy…

     JE

265. Jamiesays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 1:26 pm

     John,

     Comment 224… ad hominem right outta the gate? Where did I personally attack anyone rather than the argument or topic? I missed that one… Please enlighten.

     JE

266. Jamiesays:
     
     March 31st, 2009 at 1:34 pm

     I “lifted” this from Greg Koukl/Stand to Reason. It’s only a portion of what is written, but very compelling evidence.

     The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

     By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]

     Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]

     Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

     The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]

     The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.

     Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.

     Ancient Versions and Patristic Quotations

     Two other cross checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions and citations by the early church Fathers known as “patristic quotations.”

     Early in the history of the Church Greek documents, including the Scriptures, were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries the New Testament was translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew.[15] Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called “versions”) help modern-day textual critics answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.

     In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources–characteristically catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers–that record the Scriptures. Paul Barnett says that the “Scriptures…gave rise to an immense output of early Christian literature which quoted them at length and, in effect, preserved them.”[16] Metzger notes the amazing fact that “if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”[17]

     The Verdict

     What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential–spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

     Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

     Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: “The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.”[20]

     This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we’d have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

     Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

267. johnsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 12:24 am

     jaime,
     Your comment upon returning to the blog was “John, you ignorant slut, no you are really not ignorant”. I am pretty sure that calling someone an ignorant slut would be considered ad hominem. You don’t know me well enough to know whether I am a slut or not. Ignorant you could argue, possibly even successfully, but I think I am fairly well informed on the topic at hand.
     I haven’t read through all of the stuff posted here yet. The gist of it seems to be that you have some folks that say the bible hasn’t been edited or changed and I have some folks that say otherwise.
     I will go through this at some point but for now…
     MT 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay until after Herod’s death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.)
     LK 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants.

     MT 2:23 “And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.’” (This prophecy is not found in the OT and while Jesus is often referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth”, he is seldom referred to as “Jesus the Nazarene.”)

     MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John’s baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
     MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.

     MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
     MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an “outer darkness” (and therefore dark).

     MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
     JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.

     jaime, pick it up and read it again. It never occurred to me that bible was rife with inconsistencies when I first read it. As I waded through it I noticed that there were some problems with it.
     that is got me interested in bible criticism.
     Tell you what. You tell me which of your biblical scholars books I should read and I will. If you read one of the books I recommend for you.

268. johnsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 12:55 am

     Jaime, you write:…”I have a quote here from Will Durant. He’s the author of The Story of Civilization . In part three, “Caesar and Christ: A History of the Roman Civilization and of Christianity from Beginnings to A.D. 325,” Will Durant writes this. Now remember, this guy is a world class historian. He mentions that at first there seem to be contradictions between one Gospel and another and there are dubious statements of history and suspicious resemblance to legends of old pagan gods, etc. All this granted he says, “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries, the higher criticism has applied to the New Testament text tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, Hammurabi, David, Socrates, would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.” Here is a man of world class status that says the higher critics are out in left field and if we follow their methodology nothing would be considered reliable history.”
     this seems like an argument from authority with perhaps some special pleading thrown in. He finds it incredible and unlikely that if jesus wasn’t real then nobody would write all this great stuff about him and he wouldn’t have been so influential. I keep linking to sites and books that discuss verifiable errors, inconsistencies in the bible and you quote apologists with dodgy arguments.
     The bible doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as an inerrant document (and I don’t think you were making that argument) and the attributed writers are not who they are claimed to be.
     The book of mormon is demonstrably wrong according to biology and archeology and yet it is a thriving religion. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it is true.

269. Jasonsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 9:04 am

     Jamie, you quoted Will Durant as follows: “Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.”

     He is not saying anything here that I disagree with. We’ve already been over this: I am willing to stipulate that there was a charismatic Jewish teacher named Jesus, and that he had some interesting (though not as original as Christians would like to believe) things to say. As Durant also notes, however, the “prejudices and theological preconceptions” of his very human followers are plainly visible throughout their writings.

     Which is exactly my point.

     You keep bringing up variations on this point: “More evidence is present to convict Jesus in a court of law that he is who he says he is than there is to prove even the existence of Plato and Socrates”

     …but I’m not sure why.

     A. I’m not attempting to disprove the existence of a man named Jesus, and…

     B. Nobody is basing a religion on the teachings of Socrates. The President of the United States doesn’t have Monday-morning conference calls with the followers of Socrates. As far as I know, no wars have been waged in the name of Socrates. Nobody is being excommunicated because they don’t accept the teachings of Socrates.

     You quote from Stand to Reason: “New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential–spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.”

     Yes, exactly as I mentioned in my earlier comment. I have no disagreement with this.

     You quote D. A. Carson: “The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.”

     Other scholars disagree. As I’ve mentioned before, Bart D. Ehrman (a former student/colleague of Bruce Metzger, who you quote above) argues that there is compelling evidence that passages related to the role of women in the church, the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, and the divinity of Christ, have been altered.

     Bottom line for me: If the original content of the Bible seemed to be internally consistent, scientifically accurate, or morally enriching… I would probably make the same arguments you are making. In fact, I did make those same arguments, in years past. As it stands, I see the Bible as a crazy-quilt anthology penned by humans of varying intelligence and morality. Nothing about it speaks to me of divine inspiration, any more than any other alleged holy book.

     In which case… the problems in transmission only heighten my sense of the Bible as a culturally interesting but hopelessly flawed book written and transcribed by humans, which no sane person would use as any kind of a moral guidebook.

     You say: “This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason.”

     Have I mentioned this book I’m reading…? Written by a non-Christian scholar…?

     You finally say: “Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.”

     Jamie, you don’t get to just say things and expect everyone to accept them as unassailable fact. I didn’t look very hard, and quickly found scholars who disagree with your statement.

     By the way – it was nice (and unexpected) to hear your voice on the phone yesterday! Be well.

270. Jasonsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 9:14 am

     I said: (1) It would have been wrong for God to order Abraham to kill his son, as the Bible says He did.

     Jamie said, Comment 264: “No, in fact it wouldn’t. There is no commandment that says, “Thou shalt not order the killing of a son.” It’s “Thou shalt not kill.” My question to you all is simple… Did Abraham kill his son? The answer is no.”

     I’ll respond in more detail later, but… Whiskey? Tango?? Foxtrot???

     Seriously, Jamie? Is that your… final answer?

     It’s morally okay for God to order me to murder my own son because there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments that specifically prohibits (falsely) commanding someone to kill their child?

     Hmmm… you may have stumped me there.

271. johnsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 10:42 am

     regarding my previous comments. argument from personal incredulity as well. not good arguments.

272. johnsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 11:14 am

     again. Jason has articulated my thoughts (and some i wasn’t smart enough to think of) perfectly well. GET OUT MY HEAD JASON!!)

273. Mattsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm

     To All–

     In regards to this whole Bible business (and God business), it still ultimately comes down to interpretation. Lets say, today, at noon, God speaks to me. Forms words on my computer that says: “This is God” and gives me a link to it so I can show my friends and family. So I send the link to Jason and John. They still, ultimately, can say: ‘I don’t accept that.’ And give reasons why. I can scour the internet for hours, read hundreds of books, present my argument and still any one of you can say: “Oh, yeah, interesting. Thanks.” And walk away.

     That’s why, when I originally said this in posting 4 or 5 or whatever that “I have no dog in this fight” it is because it all comes back to interpretation.

     Now, lets say that the Bible is the absolute word of God, everything is true, people were put in a trance and dictated what God said. That still doesn’t mean that everyone is going to grasp the concepts or meanings and it still means they will use the Bible to whatever means they want. Why do my Free Methodist family members not want to having “Dancing” and alcohol is bad, where as we in the Episcopal church have no problems with dancing and you’re welcome to a glass of wine (or stronger)?

     In all these arguments (God v. No God/Relgion good? v. Religion bad?/Pepsi v. Coke) it all comes down to where we are at this time in this life and how we came to that point. We are all products of our upbringing (right or wrong), our environment (I was the son of a single mother until I was 7, poor, she married an agnostic man who I never got along with much, went to church every Sunday, etc. etc.). Jamie, you have talked much of how God impacted your life and your families life – that is SOOOOO cool but, honestly, THAT is the story you should be telling…

     Same with Eric, or Jason or John or Korin or any one of us. As I said a number of postings ago, Keith hates cats.

     So Keith comes to my house and says: “I hate cats.” Golly, that’s a pretty blanket statement. Seems a bit harsh since I’ve had cats since I can remember and they’ve all been fine (except for the stupid cat we saved from the bushes who recently bit me and we had to pay $300+ in doctor bills). It wasn’t until I asked Keith as to WHY he hated cats (Mother was allergic, watched her suffer, that prejudiced him towards cats from day one.) OH! So THAT’S why he hates cats. Okay, it’s all clear now.

     So when Jason said: “Religion Poisons EVERYTHING” I had to look at the statement in context with Jason’s story. What his approach is, where he’s “coming from.” For me, Religion hasn’t poisoned everything. It gave solace to my mother as she struggled to raise two sons after escaping an abusive relationship, it affected my step-father in a way that was very positive, though I don’t think he ever “accepted Christ,” it obviously poisoned my father who withdrew from not just me, but his Japanese children, but my father would say that he wasn’t poisoned, that we were all the ones that were poisoned. And now there is proof to the fact that my father had some serious mental issues.

     The woman in the cult who starved her child to death? Oh, yeah, WAY poisoned. But as Jason sees (I think) the fact that I’m a Christian as somehow condoning, accepting, furthing all the nasty bits of religion – mostly because I admit that I read the Bible and it’s a “source of authority” – my point is that I am JUST as sickened as he is…

     Jamie, I’m all for pro arguments for the Bible but, honestly, what does that mean for you, today, in your journey?

     Jason, I’m glad you’ve come to this point in your life and I love you dearly but what are your next steps to stop the poison you see that is so prevalent? Start a website for recovering JW’s? Write a book about your struggles? Get on public access? Talk the college into giving you a class to discuss Religion as poison? Print up shirts to hand out a “Coachella?”

     I remember in High School you went to a JW conference in Tacoma (THE conference? I don’t know…). But there were people there protesting the JW’s and you said to me: “Look, they may have their points – but why are they picketing us?! If they really feel strongly that way, then they should be going door-to-door themselves teaching their way.”

     A few Sundays ago, our Priest in his sermon talked about baptism and the resurrection. The whole point of the sermon was to ask us all in the congregation: “So what?” So you’ve been baptised. So what? So you don’t believe in God. So what? So you believe Christ has changed your life. So what?

     So, Jason, you believe Religion poisons Everything. So what?

     What are you going to do about it?

     Oh, I choose Coke over Pepsi any day of the week.

274. Jasonsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 1:38 pm

     Matt said: “So when Jason said: “Religion Poisons EVERYTHING” I had to look at the statement in context with Jason’s story.”

     Dude, it seems that you just can’t stop yourself from using this “Jason had a bad experience; no wonder he is an atheist” argument. Why is that? I would simply ask you: Do my arguments appear to be sound, or not?

     Your “I hate cats” analogy is not particularly apt, for the simple reason that nobody is waging war based on their affinity for cats. Nobody is drowning their children, or excommunicating anyone, or flying planes into buildings, or oppressing women, children, or teh gayz based on their affinity for cats. The questions we are discussing are of vital importance to our society, to our world, perhaps to our survival as a species; to compare it to a question of pet preference is a bit glib, don’t you think?

     You said: “It gave solace to my mother…”

     Look, I do understand that, for some people, religion is a great solace, giving context to the pain of living, hope for a brighter future. My father is one of those people.

     And yet… if, as I now believe, that religion is based on untruth, I can’t help but feel that whatever solace it offers is shallow and cheaply-bought. A man can tell his wife all sorts of lies, to “spare her feelings” etc. And perhaps his wife remains blithely ignorant and happy. Can you say that relationship is healthy? I say no.

     Then there is all the bullshit baggage that comes with the false solace. Forgive me if I’m speaking out of school, but your mom is pretty conservative. I know you absolutely don’t agree with her views on a whole range of issues. I would argue: That conservative, judgmental, divisive baloney is the price she pays for that false solace. I would say the same about my father. His religion gives him solace, and it also closes his mind and destroys his family.

     Again, let me reiterate: I’m VERY CLEAR that you don’t condone the worst excesses of Christianity. I know that you are just as sickened as I am by the abuses committed in the name of Christianity. I do say that – despite how much I love you – I believe you and other “moderate” or “progressive” Christians are unintentionally enabling a sick and destructive system.

     Lastly, no, I don’t plan to start picketing churches! Yikes. But I do plan to proclaim myself as an atheist, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. When the subject naturally arises, as it did in this forum, I plan to argue to the best of my ability for a secular humanist, atheist viewpoint.

     And, yeah, maybe I WILL write a book…

     Actually, that brings up a good point: Several friends have said that they find our ongoing discussion to be fascinating, well-spoken, enlightening, and entertaining. I was thinking it would be cool to turn the whole thing into a book of some kind… thoughts?

     I know, I know, another one of Jason’s project ideas…

275. Mattsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 5:59 pm

     Thank you Jason for your comments but in response to this: “Dude, it seems that you just can’t stop yourself from using this “Jason had a bad experience; no wonder he is an atheist” argument. Why is that? I would simply ask you: Do my arguments appear to be sound, or not?”

     My question is…if you had not had what happened to you with the JW’s and your father and friends treating you the way they did…would you still believe what you believe now? My point – which I seem to fail to be making – is that we are ALL PRODUCTS of our experiences. I’m not trying to be glib but I also think that you cannot honestly separate the two. Your thoughts on “Religion Poisoning Everything” is in direct connection to how religion treated you (and your family and others) even if you were already tipping in the direction you already are. I honestly don’t think that anyone can be unbiased about anything because we all bring something to the table.

     As to your arguments – yes you make good points but I also disagree with you in the continual fact that you seem to have some sort of knowledge on how people have solace or peace. If my mom finds solace in her religion – who are you to judge that? Just because you say religion is bad, doesn’t mean that she has “false solace” or that someone doesn’t find forgiveness or a new life in Christ. That seems a bit presumptious on your part. You don’t know their story, you aren’t holding their hand, you don’t know the depths of despair they are in. As I said before, if what you believe is what you believe, than that’s all fine and good. But I hazard to guess that if someone said: “Well, golly, I believe Christ saved my life.” You’d write it off as: “Hmph… Well, yeah, but they’re just continuing a sick and destructive system.”

     You note that: “I do say that – despite how much I love you – I believe you and other “moderate” or “progressive” Christians are unintentionally enabling a sick and destructive system.” I could easily say the same thing about people who drink alcohol. I know that you like to make a mojito, or two, but aren’t you “enabling a sick and destructive system?” Financing companies that make alcohol that some people drink in excess and beat their wives and drive drunk (yes, I’m being glib here – but let me make my point). If you’ve smoked an illegal drug aren’t you “enabling a sick and destructive system?”

     Television is quite destructive in terms of the images it portrays. Aren’t you enabling it? I hear tell that some of that there Rock Music can be quite destructive. Aren’t you enabling it?

     (I would hazard to guess that Television in some ways is MORE powerful than Religion.)

     So…question to you (and you’ve probably answered this already). How am I enabling a “sick and destructive system?”

     When I can separate my father’s intrepretation of scripture from the whole? Just because my father was a whack job doesn’t mean that all So. Baptists are whack jobs.

     Seemingly how you think I can’t separate your thoughts from your experiences it seems to me that you can’t separate me from “enabling the sick and destructive system.”

     As I have said before, I’m doing my best to change the “sick and destructive system” from within. You can do what you can from the outside, more power to you!

     Last note: I still want to make that documentary with you and Cami and I think a book would be excellent idea.

276. Mattsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 6:13 pm

     Oh, side comment: I’m going to Eastern Washington Thursday visiting colleges and friends and family. I will have limited computer access.

     I know, I know, just as it was getting good…

277. Jasonsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 7:33 pm

     Matt, Comment 275: “I honestly don’t think that anyone can be unbiased about anything because we all bring something to the table.”

     We are in absolute agreement there! But it has no bearing on whether my arguments are sound or not. I’m asking you to grapple with my arguments directly, without speculation on what private experiences may have brought me to this point. If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong. If I’m right, give me props!

     You said: “Just because you say religion is bad, doesn’t mean that she has “false solace” or that someone doesn’t find forgiveness or a new life in Christ.”

     A “new life in Christ”? Who are you and what have you done with Matt?

     Seriously, though, I think I already explained my thinking on this. I call it false solace because I believe it is based on untruth and because it requires a whole carload of repressive, regressive, divisive beliefs in the bargain.

     I do understand that, for some people (my Dad, for example), religion may be the only solace that “works”. Believe me, if I was in a conversation with your mom, I wouldn’t try to talk her out of whatever comfort she’s getting from her belief system; that would be cruel. Because I know you and the rest of this crew personally, and because I know you can handle “full-strength Jason,” I will speak my mind and say that I think it’s simple-minded bunkum. I believe the world would be a better place if we dealt with things as they actually are, rather than comforting ourselves with fairy tales (and then dividing up the world based on which particular fairy tales we accept as divinely inspired and which we reject as the teachings of Satan).

     Okay, I have to admit you’ve got me a bit stumped on the alcohol/drugs/TV thing.

     Here’s my first-draft response: Alcohol is not a system of belief, with attached rules of behavior. Alcohol is a natural substance that has no intrinsic morality. Same with marijuana – though I’m certainly not saying or implying that I would ever touch the Devil’s Weed! – absolutely natural, with no intrinsic morality, not requiring belief in fairy tales, etc. The ONLY reason that marijuana is problematic is because of the current ridiculous and unjustified legal prohibition against it. Yes, people can abuse either, just as they can abuse any kind of food or drink, but neither has any intrinsic morality.

     Christianity, on the other hand, is a whole different ball of wax. Christianity, I have come to believe, is based on a book of fairy tales, dubious history, and morally questionable rules supposedly handed down by an immaterial, time-traveling ghost. (I have been waiting to use that again!) I would argue that Christianity is intrinsically flawed from word one, and that there is no conceivable circumstance under which Christianity could be seen as a net good for our world.

     We’ve already gone over many of my objections to the Bible itself. You have agreed with many of those objections. Yet the religion around which you base your life was born of that deeply flawed book, a book which advocates all sorts of immoral and repugnant behavior and beliefs (which you have rejected).

     Oh, yeah, you mentioned TV, too. My answer to that one would likely be similar to the one above: It’s not **intrinsically** fucked.

     RE: how you are enabling divisive, destructive fundamentalism? I think I’ve already answered that, several times! But, for something new, here are a few quotes from Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith”:

     “The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism.”

     “Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.”

     “By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally.”

     I think Jesus would say that so-called moderate Christians are “lukewarm” and worthy of being “vomited out of his mouth” – right?

     I would agree. Moderate Christians give a cover story of liberal respectability to a system of belief that is actually – when practiced “correctly” – abhorrent. Moderate Christians, I argue, are never going to substantially “change the system from within” – in fact, they are ensuring that the system stays in place.

278. johnsays:
     
     April 1st, 2009 at 11:05 pm

     quickly. more later.
     1. Leave rock stars out of it okay? Those guys are saints.
     2. television worse than religion? what about televangelists? Seriously, as JT keeps pointing out. No one is going to war or burning people over television. It ain’t the same effing thing.

     I am not a christian but I haven’t had any deeply scaring religious issues. well, mr. bjorn threw my book away but that is it. I didn’t leave the faith. I never really had it and once I was old enough to start thinking on my own i examined it and found it lacking.
     There are some truths. 2+2=4. not everything is subjective and open to interpratation. That the bible is flatly wrong on some historical elements and that the authors were presenting writings as a way to promote their beliefs is reason enough to be skeptical.
     gotta go. sorry for incompl…

279. johnsays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 am

     okay, a few more minutes.
     I like the Sam Harris quote. I may not agree with everything he says but he makes some good points.
     where was I..
     While science is always open to change and being tested there are a few things we know. We know the shape of the earth. We know the speed of light. We understand the germ theory of disease. Evolution, Chemistry. I could go on.
     the bible just isn’t in the same league. At the end of the day, as we have been stating repeatedly the christianity isn’t any more true or any better than any other religion. It is just a very popular one at the time we are living in.
     Again, to equate something as insignificant as television just says to me that religion or faith just isn’t that important or meaningful.
     As a side note I am currently reading a series of historical fictions by Patrick O’Brian about a captain in the british navy in the early 1800’s. My understanding is that many of the events in the book are based on things that really happened and they are fairly accurate in their portrayal of life than. One of the more interesting and relevant bits are about the role faith and religion played. For example. Catholics had to renounce their faith to be promoted to Admiral. (i may have the rank wrong). The reasoning was that if you were loyal to the pope you couldn’t be loyal to your country since it was run by a protestant king. Now, If you can find an incident of someone not being promoted to high military rank because they watch “Rock Of Love” or that people are being killed because they prefer Showtime to HBO I will entertain the argument. I don’t mean to sound snotty but I just don’t think the things are equal.
     While I hope this debate continues because I find it interesting it seems sometimes we are at a bit of an impasse. The faithful here are never going to be convinced that they are wrong about religion, god and faith. They are never going to be convinced because it is essentially meaningless. It seems to mean whatever the person wants it to mean. If it can mean anything it really means nothing. (you follow?) Everybody interprets the bible and their faith and god differently. No amount of logic will convince believers. No matter what how much we argue that the bible isn’t the word of god or that the scriptures are the work of man are going to persuade believers that the god is a creation of man. At the very base of it religion is irrational. People won’t be swayed by outsiders. The need to learn it for themselves.
     As a skeptic I try to go where the evidence leads. Sometimes that means I have to disabuse myself of some of my favorite sacred cows. That doesn’t make me morally or intellectually superior and I am not making the case that I am. It just means that I prefer evidence and facts and I think that irrationality is dangerous.
     ’nuff for now. It sounds like the blog is going to slow down a bit with matt not having a connection and jaime doing whatever it is he is doing (time with family, can’t complain about that) and Eric hasn’t emitted a peep since admin schooled him with some serious vulcan logic fu.
     Now I say any one on the sidelines. what say you?

     Matt, as a side question. You are a film maker. What editing software are you using? I have final cut pro but I don’t get to use it much and it takes me awhile to get familiar with it.

280. johnsays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 2:49 am

     jamie,
     going back through the blog because sleep is for suckas and I wanted to see what I may have missed.
     You conception of Heaven. Where did you get it. What part of the bible? Do you take the bible literally? Where do you draw the line between “this is real and true and this is a story?” I ask this because I am curious about who you think gets into heaven. Is it only people that accept jesus as the lord and saviour? Since, according to catholic dogma as I understand it, jesus and god are the same entity.
     jesus was also god’s son but as I understand the trinity they are the same thing. jesus is god
     so if jews accepted, believed and worshipped god before jesus they get in or only those that accept jesus? Did adam and eve get into heaven? Did moses?
     Re: me linking to sources. So,,.you want sources you just don’t want me to link to them or would you rather I type out my argument so you can ask me what my sources are?
     I get to a degree the distaste for some one who doesn’t make any arguments and just pastes in internet rants but I don’t think I do that. I make a point and when necessary I link. Turns out. I like facts.
     and lastly for now, and Matt, chime in.
     what is a personal relationship with god? Does god talk to you? do you hear his voice? How does god impact a persons life? I understand how believing in god impacts but is god talking or acting directly with you? these are serious questions.
     Slightly less seriously but still sorta serious. Why isn’t god as active in everyday life anymore? why isn’t he wrestling with people anymore? Why isn’t he appearing in front of people and kicking them out gardens? Why isn’t he making it clear that he is still around? I know he isn’t gonna do the whole flood thing again but still…
     why are we still here? according to some stories of jesus he mentions that the end was coming and that some of those alive at the crucifixion would not know death before he comes again into his kingdom. Are there folks still alive from those times or was he wrong? Or was his resurrection a few days later what he was referring to?
     or were jesus last words (according to some, but not all of the gospels..thanks or making my points for me bible) were “my lord why have you forsaken me?” Is it possible that jesus thought he was divine and was going to be resurrected and he was just realizing that it wasn’t going to happen and he was surprised and disappointed?

281. Jasonsays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am

     Also, RE “TV = RELIGION”: I can be choosy without repercussion. In other words, I can watch LOST every Wednesday night, but refuse to watch American Idol under any circumstances, without causing myself any cognitive dissonance or condemnation by a time-traveling ghost.

     In contrast, the Bible tells us that we must accept EVERY WORD contained within, including the icky parts. If you refuse to do so, you can’t really call yourself a Biblical Christian. Jesus himself condemns such cafeteria Christians as “lukewarm”.

     On another note, let me state unequivocally that I do NOT agree with everyone Sam Harris says. I generally agree with his conclusions vis-a-vis the irrationality and unhealthiness of religious faith, but his views diverge from mine when he starts offering half-hearted apologia for torture. Same goes for Christopher Hitchens.

     See, that’s the great thing about not being bound by the restrictions of a religion: I am free to use my wondrous human intellect to examine the available information, accept some bits after consideration, and reject others outright as rubbish. Christians, on the other hand, are ordered by their own book to accept every word within its pages.

     Including that part where god, through his prophet Hosea, says that, due to the unfaithfulness of the Northern Kingdom, pregnant women of Samaria will be torn open and their babies will be dashed against the rocks (Hosea 13:16).

     Yikes.

282. Jasonsays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 am

     A while back, Korin made the claim that Christianity is not about reward or punishment. To anyone who is similarly inclined, I would ask that you first read the “prophetic” books of the Bible in their entirety, then come back and tell me that the Bible doesn’t preach a “reward/punish” message.

     Does the Bible ALSO contain other, less scary, Scriptures? Yes, indeed; the cafeteria Christian who wishes to gloss over the violent ranting of the prophets can certainly find verses to “prove” that God isn’t really the alcoholic and abusive parent that Hosea would have us believe.

     Which, again… is exactly my point.

283. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 am

     John,

     Comment 267…. Not ad hominem attack. I was making a poor attempt at humor. However, your calling of Chopra an idiot was AH…

     Let’s dive in!

     JOHN SAID IN COMMENT 267:

     MT 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay until after Herod’s death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.)
     LK 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants.

     MT 2:23 “And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.’” (This prophecy is not found in the OT and while Jesus is often referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth”, he is seldom referred to as “Jesus the Nazarene.”)

     Jesus was between one and two years old when the Magi came to him. They first came to Herod who had inquired of the star and sent for them. They knew his intent was to kill the child, so they did not return to him as he wanted. They went home via another route. The timeline totally follows the correct and logical path. At 40 days old, the Magi had still not yet visited Jesus. Like I said, not until he was at the very least one year old.
     Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt to avoid the death of their son. Let me ask you this logical question: Why would Herod be killing kids under 2 years old? Because it had been nearly 2 years since the first appearance of the star. As for Elisabeth and her son John, leaving out where they fled, if they fled, etc is not a contradiction. It wasn’t relevant. The New Testament is about Messiah, Jesus, not about John.
     Old Testament does not have a “specific” prophecy about the Messiah being from Nazareth or being a Nazarene, however the Aramaic in Hebrews 11:1 does refer to it. The Aramaic word for “branch” has literally the same meaning as the word Nazarene and is where the prophecy comes from.

     MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John’s baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
     MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.

     John was in prison and was very troubled (wouldn’t you be!) and was beginning to wonder aloud if Jesus really was who he said he was. He was having doubts. Jesus sent word to him in prison in a way he would understand and take comfort in knowing he really was Messiah.

     MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
     MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an “outer darkness” (and therefore dark).

     Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
     Psalm 91:4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
     God is a blast furnace, no wait, he’s a big bird…. No wait! It’s called metaphor… Geez, you can do better than that, can’t you?

     MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
     JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.

     Everyone there heard the voice of God and the dove (spirit) descend on Jesus. Again, no contradiction… And since the book of John is written in the first person, wouldn’t it stand to reason he would give HIS account that he saw the dove descend, not Jesus saw the dove descend. Again, the all saw it descend, but now I’m splitting hairs.

     jaime, pick it up and read it again. It never occurred to me that bible was rife with inconsistencies when I first read it. As I waded through it I noticed that there were some problems with it.
     that is got me interested in bible criticism.
     Tell you what. You tell me which of your biblical scholars books I should read and I will. If you read one of the books I recommend for you.

     Is there an “atheist manual” that has these so-called contradictions in them that they ask you to regurgitate, or do you actually do intensive study of the bible as I do? It appears you do not, as you claim, or you would not have lobbed up such giant sized softball questions…..

     Something to ponder,
     JE

284. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm

     PS…. I am a bible scholar, not a half-witted blind follower. You need to do a better job in framing any arguments centered around bible contradiction.

     JE

285. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm

     Matt,

     Comment 273:

     We’re not talking about people “thinking” or “maybe God said”, but about the actual personage of God himself appearing to and talking to people in the OT (and Jesus/God in the NT). If something popped up on my computer telling me it was God, I’d assume Jason was playing an April Fool’s Day prank on me!

     As for dancing and alcohol…. the bible is clear not to be a drunkard. It does NOT say we can’t drink alcohol. And for dancing, they used to celebrate God by dancing, playing instruments, etc. This is nothing more than different “denomonations” setting down rules to “curb” what they believe leads to immoral behaviour. Good? Bad? I don’t know, but it is bad theology.

     Matt, in my opinion, it doesn’t all come down to where we are at and that’s how or why we believe. The bible is clear. People twist it, yes, on both sides of the belief aisle. But that doesn’t make IT (the bible) vague or fuzzy. People attempt to make it vague or fuzzy to suit their whim. Unfortunately, that is the human condition.

     Keith hates cats. You love cats. It doesn’t matter what either of you believe. THE CAT STILL EXISTS! That’s the point of God and the example you’ve made, even if you didn’t realize it.

     Matt, I love your heart and your passion. You have alot of good stuff. Keep on typing, dude! We all gain from what you post on here!

     JE

286. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm

     Matt,

     Comment 273:

     We’re not talking about people “thinking” or “maybe God said”, but about the actual personage of God himself appearing to and talking to people in the OT (and Jesus/God in the NT). If something popped up on my computer telling me it was God, I’d assume Jason was playing an April Fool’s Day prank on me!

     As for dancing and alcohol…. the bible is clear not to be a drunkard. It does NOT say we can’t drink alcohol. And for dancing, they used to celebrate God by dancing, playing instruments, etc. This is nothing more than different “denomonations” setting down rules to “curb” what they believe leads to immoral behaviour. Good? Bad? I don’t know, but it is bad theology.

     Matt, in my opinion, it doesn’t all come down to where we are at and that’s how or why we believe. The bible is clear. People twist it, yes, on both sides of the belief aisle. But that doesn’t make IT (the bible) vague or fuzzy. People attempt to make it vague or fuzzy to suit their whim. Unfortunately, that is the human condition.

     Keith hates cats. You love cats. It doesn’t matter what either of you believe. THE CAT STILL EXISTS! That’s the point of God and the example you’ve made, even if you didn’t realize it.

     Matt, I love your heart and your passion. You have alot of good stuff. Keep on typing, dude! We all gain from what you post on here!

     JE

287. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm

     Jason,

     Comment 274: I would argue: That conservative, judgmental, divisive baloney is the price she pays for that false solace. I would say the same about my father. His religion gives him solace, and it also closes his mind and destroys his family.

     Judgmental… seems the bible warns us about that. If I point our your error or “sin” and am attempting to help you turn from it, I’m not judging you. If I tell you, “You shouldn’t be doing that because that’s just stupid!” Now, that’s judging. Telling someone that I have a close, personal relationship with, “You are committing adultery with your secretary and you need to stop. How can I help you?” is not judgmental (provided I know FOR SURE he is…). People fall too hard on the whole judgmental issue. Jason, if you see your kid doing something wrong, do you tell him or do you let him slide because you don’t want to be “judgmental”?….

     Your dad’s religion may give him solace, but he is responsible for his actions, not the bible or his religion. He is wrong and so are you in this analogy.

     I LOVE BOOKS! As long as one reads the entire thing before making a decision on it’s merits….

     JE

288. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm

     Matt,

     Comment 275. Wow! Now that was really awesome! As Tommy Smothers would say, “Touchy, touchy.” (He meant to say “touche, touche… You had to be there, I guess!)

     JE

289. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm

     Comment 277: I love full-strength Jason! I can have a discussion, debate, argument, beer…. with someone who has some gonads and a backbone!

290. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm

     John,

     Comment 279: Again, to equate something as insignificant as television just says to me that religion or faith just isn’t that important or meaningful.
     As a side note I am currently reading a series of historical fictions by Patrick O’Brian about a captain in the british navy in the early 1800’s. My understanding is that many of the events in the book are based on things that really happened and they are fairly accurate in their portrayal of life than. One of the more interesting and relevant bits are about the role faith and religion played. For example. Catholics had to renounce their faith to be promoted to Admiral. (i may have the rank wrong). The reasoning was that if you were loyal to the pope you couldn’t be loyal to your country since it was run by a protestant king. Now, If you can find an incident of someone not being promoted to high military rank because they watch “Rock Of Love” or that people are being killed because they prefer Showtime to HBO I will entertain the argument. I don’t mean to sound snotty but I just don’t think the things are equal.

     I THINK YOU SAID IT ALL WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS A WORK OF FICTION. You could have stopped there…

291. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm

     A PS to John and comments made in 267:

     John,

     Have you ever been in a house fire? The smoke is very thick and black. It is encapsulated by the house in much the same way the fire is contained in a furnace. Even though there are flames, it is extremely hard to see through them as it is very dark. Ask a fireman, he’ll tell you…

     Either way, it’s still a metaphor.

     Man, I have way too much time on my hands today!

     JE

292. Korinsays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm

     Re: Robin’s post #204. Because I trust that it is an honest question, I have taken my time and tried to be very thoughtful about my response. I think Robin, you have already made up your mind about this, but perhaps you are curious enough to try to understand if from another perspective (or perhaps not, and you’ll just think I’m a crackpot). Either way, I really appreciate you posting a challenging question. I have taken some time to really think about my answer – and I am still thinking about it. I find it is difficult to explain to someone with a different frame of reference, which makes is a great exercise. I’ll start by responding to your questions and statements- my responses are in all caps (not because I’m yelling) just so you can easily see them, apart from the questions:
     But then do you actually hear his voice in your head, talking back to you? SOMETIMES Is it a real voice, separate from yours? YES- OF THIS I AM SURE Is it male? NOT NECESSARILY. Deep? NOT IN TONE, BUT IN WISDOM Or is it that you pray, and then you have some thoughts – in other words you decide what to do – i.e “I need to let go” or “I need to make a call”, and then you say,”god told me to let go or god told me to make a call.” I DON’T GIVE MYSELF THE CREDIT FOR THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF MY CHARACTER BUT WITHIN HIS. I AM USUALLY (NOT ALWAYS) QUITE CERTAIN WHAT IS COMING FROM MY MIND AND WHAT IS NOT. I RARELY SAY “GOD TOLD ME…”If you don’t actually hear him talking to you in a separate male voice, then “I talk to god” means I think things and decide things and attribute them to god. If the things I think and decide turn out well, I say “Thank god!” or “God guided me to do this…”If they don’t, I say, “I guess god didn’t have that in store for me” THAT MAY BE HOW YOU DEFINE SOMETHING YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SO THAT YOU ARE NOT LEFT WITH AN UNCOMFORTABLE UNANSWERED QUESTION, BUT IT IS NOT MY EXPERIENCE. I AM QUITE CLEAR ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN I THINK THINGS AND DECIDE THINGS, AND WHEN GOD IS SPEAKING. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THIS IS MY TRUTH, BECAUSE I’M NOT SURE HOW TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU IN WORDS. or “I asked god but in the end only my daughter can decide …” If only your daughter can decide, than why do you ask god inside your head? I DON’T ASK GOD TO MAKE HER DO THINGS.
     And when you suggest that perhaps god has been talking to Jason, but perhaps Jason wasn’t listening, do you really mean that Jason wasn’t attributing his thoughts and decisions to god? NO THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT. IT WAS AN HONEST QUESTION, NOT A SUGGESTION. Because if he was listening, then he would believe that what he thought and felt came from god? NO – I BELIEVE JASON WOULD LIKELY KNOW IF HE WAS HEARING FROM GOD. Is that what listening to god is? Believing that everything you think and feel is from god and not yourself? NO – I DON’T THINK SO. THERE IS A DISTINCT DIFFERENCE FOR ME. Or should he have heard the separate male voice? SEPARATE? YES, MALE? CAN’T SAY, AUDIBLE, MORE OFTEN NOT I’D SAY.
     I respectfully disagree with you (and John). I am however, glad that you are sharing what you think. When I first gave my heart to Jesus, and all the times that I have laid more of myself down for his purposes, it honestly hasn’t been from a motivation to deal with the uncontrollable suffering of life or the terror of death (although I too think this may be how/why some people come to Him.) I haven’t had uncontrollable suffering in life, sure I’ve suffered heartbreak, but I’ve always had the ability to cope, or people around who could help me cope, encouraging me with their stories and love (I am remembering a time that you did that for me, not so long ago). Personally for me, it’s been more about wanting more – more love and ability to love, more wisdom, more understanding, more compassion, more joy, more purpose. More of all those things than what life without God has been able to offer.
     I honestly don’t think I am afraid of death. I am perfectly comfortable being in the presence of the dying, and I really try to be wide open to what is happening during that process. Maybe because I think this is where many of my questions will be answered, in death. I was very closely connected to my mother-in-law when she was dying, it was an amazing journey. I am also oddly comfortable with unanswered questions – I think the learning process is rich and incredible and we miss a lot when we rush to the answer.
     I guess that above part was an extra – not really related…but felt important to add at the time. You won’t be hearing much from me (if at all) for the next 10 weeks as school’s back in session and working full time, being a mom, and getting a 4.0 in anatomy is going to take all I have Thanks to each of you – I’ve learned much in this thread so far! I have a new appreciation for each of you – all amazing minds and I would be/am honored to call you friends.

293. Jamiesays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm

     Good post, Korin. Well thought out and nicely articulated from your heart. Best of luck with school, mommy duty, etc. We all hope to hear from you soon. Keep us posted! Anatomy,,,, geez…. My ankle bone’s connected to my… oh never mind!

     JE

294. Jasonsays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 9:57 pm

     Korin, I also appreciate your heartfelt and honest answer. I hope you know that I am proud to call you a friend, even if we disagree. I want to tread lightly here, because you shared something that is clearly personal and important to you, and it would be crass to be snide or sarcastic in response. On the other hand, I’m sure you must know that, to those of us who are not believers… well, it’s a bit hard to swallow, this “god-talks-to-me-personally” business.

     Here are some of the questions that your comments bring up for me.

     First, you must know that even those of us without a belief in god have consciences, and these consciences – which can sometimes seem like a voice in the back of our minds – sometimes push us to do the “right thing” instead of the thing that our old lizard brain wants to do. Sometimes, I so badly want to do A, but my conscience stops me and nags me into doing B. How is this different from the experience you are describing?

     Secondly, when you say that you know it’s God talking when he urges you to do “THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF MY CHARACTER BUT WITHIN HIS”… that seems very frightening to me, because, while I know you are a thoughtful and deeply moral person, God has occasionally ordered his followers to do things like…

     Slaughter every man, woman, child, and animal in an unbelieving city or nation (which everyone except Jamie would call genocide)…

     Offer up slaughtered animals to atone for their sins…

     Murder their own children (though, of course, that was just a psych-out, because he rescinded the order at the last minute)…

     Judging by the Prophetic books of the Bible, God is kind of a murderous and vengeful warlord. Of course, there are other scriptures where he is portrayed as a loving and caring parent. Unless I’m completely misunderstanding the Bible, God has done, and has ordered his followers to do, things that we in the modern world find morally abhorrent. Not to mention all of that stuff he left in the Bible about women not being allowed to speak, and the proper rules for selling people into slavery, and…

     So, when you hear this voice, telling you to do things… how do you make the judgment that those commands/suggestions are within god’s character? And can you really argue, based on the Bible, that god’s character is something to emulate?

     Bottom line for me: what you’re describing sounds very simply like the voice of your “better nature,” the voice of your human conscience, which was shaped by all of your experiences in this world.

     Also: Our last president claimed that god spoke to him, told him personally that we had to wage war against the evildoers. Given what I’ve read in the Bible, that wouldn’t actually surprise me; it’s totally in keeping with the kind of crap god would say. But, given the massive bloodshed that followed (just like in similar stories in the Bible), don’t you wonder if perhaps our leader was… mistaken?

     In fact, lots of crazy and unpleasant people throughout history have claimed that god spoke to them personally, and have done crazy and unpleasant things as a result. Were they lying? How would we know? How does God choose who to talk to, since he clearly doesn’t talk to everyone? What about folks who are suffering and begging for a sign or a word of comfort from god, but receive nada? What’s up with that? Why would god speak to you, but remain silent to millions of others, including Mother Teresa?

295. johnsays:
     
     April 2nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm

     okay, jaime before I go through the contradictions let me sort out a few things.
     1. yes, I have been in a house on fire. have you? what is your point? Actually I have been in at least two burning buildings. One was a barn on our property that was being burnt down and as it was on fire we walked through it. Visibility was fine. We walked around and looked at the flames and the glowing wood.
     The other was a much smaller single room building that was a small house. It was much smokier and hard to see.
     2. ad hominem. I said very clearly that my points about deepak could be interpreted as ad hominem attacks. Then I provided evidence for the what I was saying. Referring to Ted Bundy as a murder and a rapist isn’t ad hominen anymore than what I said about deepak is ad hominem. It is verifiable by evidence.
     3. When referring to Patrick O’Brian I was pointing out certain religious viewpoints and mores that existed at the time. It was a work of fiction that contained factual information. You know, a work of fiction with a few facts thrown in. Like the bible. Well, except O’Brian’s books describe events that actually happened.
     If your reading of the bible is as lazy and facile as your responses of these posts then I am not sure I should take you very seriously.
     More later.

296. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 am

     Jason,

     My first question to you is…. “How do you know it isn’t God talking to you urging you to do the right thing?” Your lack of belief doesn’t keep God silent. It certainly didn’t with Saul, The Christian Killer. He didn’t believe and wasn’t listening to God until he met him on the road to Damascus. A murdering, lying, deceitful, vengeful guy giving orders to kill people of “The Way”…. and God chose to use him in spite of himself. Are you sure God isn’t speaking to you or is that your own human understanding and explanation?

     “and the proper rules for selling people into slavery, and…” Where, pray tell, does God do that? Just curious since you keep bringing it up…

     “Slaughter every man, woman, child, and animal in an unbelieving city or nation (which everyone except Jamie would call genocide)…

     Offer up slaughtered animals to atone for their sins…

     Murder their own children (though, of course, that was just a psych-out, because he rescinded the order at the last minute)…

     Judging by the Prophetic books of the Bible, God is kind of a murderous and vengeful warlord. Of course, there are other scriptures where he is portrayed as a loving and caring parent. Unless I’m completely misunderstanding the Bible, God has done, and has ordered his followers to do, things that we in the modern world find morally abhorrent.” I find it chilling that you continually only give half the story. Do you have some ulterior motive? You only show the “bad”, as you see, and not the reasons behind why God ordered or allowed things to happen. Not to mention the fact you RARELY EVER talk about the good things God did in the bible, ordered, allowed, etc or that believers do/did. Isn’t that a bit slanted? Which is of course another argument for the authenticity of the bible. The fact that they put it all in… not just the good stuff that makes God and His followers look saintly, but also their foibles and shortcomings. King David is a man after God’s own heart, yet then he goes and has Uriah killed so he could have Bathsheba for his own wife. Man, I’ll tell you what. If I were trying to “create” a religion, I’d do it by making it look so good you couldn’t say no. No plagues, disasters, death, sin… I’d have ‘em singing in the aisles and signing up to give me their money! Yee Haw!

     You said it best…. “God has occasionally ordered his followers to do things like…” Yep, I agree… OCCASIONALLY.

297. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 am

     ooops…. hit the submit button and wasn’t done…

     Occasionally being the key word. More than not, his followers are doing amazing acts of charity and kindness. You keep leaving that stuff out. Why? Are you really that morbid and into dark, twisted, sick perversions? (kidding, but trying to prove a point…. please forgive because I don’t think you are any of the above.) Quote and cite some good stuff God and/or his people do/did in the bible. Pretty please???

     C’mon, rock my world with some of that snappy banter and lay some good, good loving on us…. straight outta God’s word!

     Hugs!

     JE

298. johnsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 am

     Jaime: you write..
     “Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt to avoid the death of their son. Let me ask you this logical question: Why would Herod be killing kids under 2 years old? Because it had been nearly 2 years since the first appearance of the star. As for Elisabeth and her son John, leaving out where they fled, if they fled, etc is not a contradiction. It wasn’t relevant. The New Testament is about Messiah, Jesus, not about John.”
     Does the bible mention them fleeing? Do you just assume they did or did the slaughter not happen.
     Matthew is the only gospel that mentions the “slaughter of the innocents”. It seems that the earliest account other than matthew is the protoevangelium of james, which is an apocryphal gospel. I guess that means it was too blatantly BS to be included in the bible so not sure it is a good source of evidence for this actually occurring. However it does explain how john the baptist avoided getting slaughtered. god cleft a mountain so john and his mom could hide and them some angels hung out with them. yeah,,probably best to leave that bit out.
     Josephus, who wrote about Herod doesn’t mention it even though he does talk about many of the other atrocities Herod committed. Apologists claim that in Herod’s reign of terror it wasn’t worth mentioning since the number of infants killed was, depending on the source, thousands, dozens or just a few. Still, it is just a guess as to why it wasn’t mentioned. Below I will put forth a more likely reason (hint..it didn’t happen)
     More likely matthew was trying to get the birth of jesus to line better with old testament prophecy. It was very important for him to have “jesus fulfill the scriptural references to the new Davidic king”(1)(callahan p381).
     There are also a number of mythic themes in this story. The slaughter of innocents is one as well as a reference back to moses’ birth. The gifts of frankincense, myrrh and gold are the same thing given to solomon by the queen of sheba.
     The star over bethlehem is a problem as well. Naturalistic explanations don’t cut it. No one else records a new star shining in the sky. The romans and the chinese were avid watchers of the sky and they make no mention of planetary conjunctions or new stars being spotted in the sky. Seems if it was a natural event and not supernatural they would have mentioned it. No other gospel mentions this star so it would seem to have been a supernatural event.
     The magi are following the star but for some reason have to stop and ask herod “where the new king is being born” (2) (Callahan p.379).
     Why can’t the keep following the star? Did it wink out? who knows? Why does herod trust the magi to come back and tell him when they find jesus? why doesn’t he have his troops follow the star? or the magi? The stopping off at herod’s and the fleeing to egypt by joseph are all in the service of getting the birth of jesus to fulfill OT prophecy. None of the actions make a lick of sense otherwise.
     So,, herod dies. joseph has a dream telling him it is safe to to return from egypt but not to go to bethlehem because it is ruled by one of herod’s sons. It is however safe to go to galilee and settle in nazereth because it is ruled by one of herod’s sons. oh wait. that doesn’t make sense.
     Luke has a few problems as well. Like the census. I am going to do a lot of summing up so if you want all the names and dates send my your phone number and I will read the text for you in any voice you like.
     the idea of a census that requires you to return to your place of orgin for tax purposes means that if you were born in seattle but had moved to boston you would have to go back to seattle to be counted. That seems like a really impractical way to conduct a census. There is no record of that ever happening in rome. Even if the policy were enacted it shouldn’t have affected judea which was a protectorate but not administered by rome directly. There was a census mentioned in Lk.2:2 when quirinius was legate in syria but in Lk 1:5 the birth of john and jesus takes place when “herod the great” was king of judea. He died in 4 bce. the census was in 6 ce. ten years later. the bogus census was a way to get the nativity to take place in bethlehem and fulfill micah’s prophecy and still account for jesus coming from nazareth. It is all to create an origin that follows mythic traditions and lines up with OT prophecy.

     jaime, the bible is full of literary allusions, myths, and metaphors. It is full of implausibilities and propaganda. In fact I would like to quote one of the people posting here…”I THINK YOU SAID IT ALL WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS A WORK OF FICTION. You could have stopped there…”"”
     I really could have stopped when I said the bible is a work of fiction because, clearly, it is.
     since you sometimes like sources and sometimes don’t much of the this comes from “secret origins of the bible” by tim callahan.
     as far as there being some sort of atheist manual to regurgitate contradictions there aren’t any that I know of. I provided some links a while ago you didn’t want to look at. go back and find them. better still read a few books of criticism. Hopefully the above meets your standards for framing an argument.
     jaime, how about addressing some of the questions I ask in 280? Or are those not framed to your satisfaction or just not the softballs you were hoping for?

299. johnsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 am

     i can’t believe i typed ‘burnt’.
     i must be tired.
     i apologize for all the typos and grammatical errors.
     i swear jason. satan totally is making me spell that way.

300. johnsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am

     Jamie, I understand you were making a joke when you lifted the SNL bit and called me an ignorant slut. So you get to make a joke that calls me stupid and of low morals, implying, as dan akroyd does to jane curtain that my opinions are unworthy because of who I am (ad hominem) . you also get to put me in the submissive female role as dan does by bullying jane. You get to do all of this under the guise of a joke so it’s not like you meant it only you really did.
     If you think I wouldn’t catch the reason you made that joke and the subtext of it then you are not as clever as you think you are. If the subtext and misogyny didn’t even occur to you then you are not as clever as I think you are.
     Perhaps you can explain when the bible is using metaphor and when it is literally true? I assume that since there is no evidence for a world wide flood and noah couldn’t have fit every single animal on his boat and people mysteriously turn up after the flood even though they have been wiped out (the whole point of the endeavor, which was questionable to begin with) is that the story of noah is not to be taken literally. And where the heck do these people keep showing up from? Adam and Eve have a couple of boys and then they go out into a fully populated world? Same with noah? so since the makes zero sense it must be just a story to prove a point or teach a lesson? what lesson? that god is a dick that slaughters every living thing because people are pissing him off? (or should I avoid using that term of patriarchal hegemony in upholding the bibles long tradition of treating women as equals?

     in genesis 19:8 all the men in sodom go to lot’s house because they want to ‘know’ the two new boys that have stopped by. now “know” is generally means rape in this part of the bible but I suppose it could mean they just want to hang out and shoot the sh*t. Except of course in a similar story a women gets “known” to death so i think the rape interpratation is probably the right one.
     so rather than send his guest out lot offers up his two virgin daughters to the crowd so the can all get to know each other. fortunately for lot the new guys are some ass kicking angels that tear that town a new a**hole (ironic isn’t it?)
     judges 19:16-30. like the story of lot the townsfolk want to rape a visiting levite. again the term they use is “know” but rather than send out the levite they send out hosts daughter and a concubine rather than the men. shame there were no angels to do a little ass kicking!. The concubine gets “known” to death. we know this because the next day they stumble over her body.
     there are two lessons here. one is the bible is really repetitious and a complete drag to read all the way through. jamie, when I read the bible i did it from front to back like one would read a work of fiction or a biography. That is when it became apparent that many of the stories are very similar. the often use the same language, like lifted directly the same language. this happens in the NT as well.
     The story of abraham sacrificing isaac (or ishmael) ends up alright although if I were abraham i might be a little pissed that god scared the crap out of me telling me to sacrifice my son. and if i was isaac or ishmael i might think twice about going out for a walk with my dad.
     for more repetition and lady killin’ you can enjoy Judges 11:29-40 where jephthah ends up sacrificing his DAUGHTER because he promised god he would sacrifice the first living thing he saw for god’s help with whole bunch of other killing. soo, he lets his daughter hang out for a couple of months to bemoan her virginity and the he kills her and cuts her up into 12 pieces. I guess isaac/ishmael was worth saving because they were guys and were actually going to be worth something but chicks are a dime a dozen. I guess he could have had the town rape, i mean know, her so she wouldn’t have to spend a couple of months in the mountains complaining about being a virgin.
     what is the point of all this? What parts of the bible are allegory and what parts are literal? what is god trying to say other than he isn’t all that keen on the dames? doesn’t the repetition of themes and stories suggest rather strongly that the bible was written by a lot of people over a long period of time and that it borrows liberally from other myths and legends?
     Jamie, as a self professed scholar of the bible you must already know all of this right?

     Look, arguing for god doesn’t pass the logic test as the debate between eric and jason pointed out. the bible doesn’t pass as an accurate historical document in it’s current form. It is clearly the work of many authors that has been edited, transcribed and fudged to make the points that the writers want to make. It is not divinely inspired. we could go back and forth about this for a thousand years i doubt that any amount of evidence is going to change your mind.
     That brings us back to the main point jason was making. that religion poisons everything. And so far, it looks like he was more right than wrong.

301. johnsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am

     hey jason, if robin wants to read up on just how the folks in the bible are to the “weaker sex” she might follow this link. or ask jamie.
     http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

302. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 am

     Senior Juan,

     You said,”Does the bible mention them fleeing? Do you just assume they did or did the slaughter not happen.”

     Matt 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appreared to Joseph in a dream, “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to
     Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” That’s where I got it. Was that a serious question? Are you sure you’ve read it?

     Gospel of James…. Here we go again, another “phony” account that atheist like to cite. It was written circa AD 150, obviously not by the person it is attested to, Jesus’ brother James (who had long since died!) Based on the style of language used and since the writer was not aware of contemporary Jewish customs, this has been passed off as garbage long ago. Seriously, if you want to have a theological discussion, use materials that haven’t been proven to be an attempt to pollute the purity of the bible. Otherwise, just sit back and enjoy the ride. I find your citings incredulous and a half-hearted attempt to discover truth. You can do better than that, please I beg of you.

     Because this “gospel” is a proven work of fiction, you can throw out all claims about John, where he went, what he did or didn’t do. When you make these arguments, you make yourself look like you are grasping at straws. “I gotta find something… anything…” If you want to seriously discuss this stuff, cite reliable sources.

     Please don’t try to equate modern day politics and taxes to ancient practices. The analogy works that you use if you state the reason why you had to return to Seattle. The Romans ruled by greed and fear. They seized every opportunity to tax the people they ruled or punish them. It was very oppressive. Your analogy fails insomuch as the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem was only 60 miles, a few days journey on foot, not several thousand (Seattle to Boston and back). And you are incorrect, there are many records from ancient Rome of census’ taken, how and why etc, so it is not uncommon or out of the realm of possibility as you state. You are inaccurate in your information. Much like using the Gospel of James to attempt to make a point.

     As far a OT prophecy goes, Jesus fulfilled over 300 distinct and seperate prophecy, many of which he had no direct or indirect control over. I am not going to debate OT prophecy with you. It doesn’t matter to you and you’re blinded by your antipathy towards God.

     I have several meetings this morning and so I am cutting this short, however I will return later today/tonight to give a more thorough account and answer, as well as answer some of your other questions. I will also have some pointed questions for you all as well.

     And no, John, Satan didn’t make you spell that way. It was the public school system! Oh, I err…. Perhaps that was Satan after all.

     JE

303. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am

     John,

     “Jamie, I understand you were making a joke when you lifted the SNL bit and called me an ignorant slut. So you get to make a joke that calls me stupid and of low morals, implying, as dan akroyd does to jane curtain that my opinions are unworthy because of who I am (ad hominem) . you also get to put me in the submissive female role as dan does by bullying jane. You get to do all of this under the guise of a joke so it’s not like you meant it only you really did.”

     GET OVER IT ALREADY! YOU ARE READING FAR TOO MUCH INTO THE COMMENT. IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO OFFEND IN THE MANNER IT APPARENTLY HAS OR SUBJEGATE YOU TO A LESSER ROLE OF AN INFERIOR THINKING BEING.

     SERIOUSLY, TAKE ME AT MY WORD. DON’T PUT THEM IN MY MOUTH.

     JE

304. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 am

     Lady killing… seriously…. there’s alot of man killing too. Or did it not fit your neat, little argument? It is apparent you have a bent. I would say you aren’t very subjective…. or open minded.

     JE

305. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm

     John,

     You linked a site above for us to look at. I went to the site and in the first 2 bullet points, I am already finding an outright lie and distortion. Let me cut and paste for all to read:

     “But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: “…the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs.”

     God did not march them past Adam to find a mate, helper or any other such nonsense. He marched them past him to name them. After he finished naming them it states that it wasn’t good for him to be alone and he should have a helpmate (you can call it soul mate, wife, partner, significant other… I really don’t care what you call it). If I, or anyone else, is to put any stock into a website, they should at least be biblically accurate on the opening page. That was an outright fabrication.

     Furthermore, this is their mission/belief statement:

     “We do believe:

     In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human. Unfortunately, we have not reached a consensus on when human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon, becomes a human person. On this matter, our lack of agreement mirrors that of society at large.
     In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, physical disability, age, etc.
     In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment including the death penalty. 1
     In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures.
     In the separation of church and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression. 2
     That the systems of truth that we have studied on the topics of morals, ethics, and religious belief are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time. 3
     In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society. 4
     In the importance of individual believers determining evil influences and policies within their chosen faith group, and strongly advocate for their correction.
     In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied the world’s major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society. 5″

     Several points to make and why I don’t put any stock in this fringe group:

     1. They can’t agree on a consensus view and are vague/use vagueness in describing what they believe.

     2. Anytime someone says there are no absolutes…. wrong! You just made an absolute statement when you said that and disqualify your argument for there being no absolutes.

     3. They want to work towards a society that is “relatively” free of discrimination. What??!!!! That would imply that there is some discrimination. I want no discrimination and so does the God I serve.

     I’ll stop there. Again, cite things/sources/resources that have some merit. These people disqualified themselves right out of the gate. Fringe at best, dangerous at worst.

     JE

306. Jasonsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm

     Yoiks, Jamie, take a deep breath and count to ten.

     Comment 297: “Occasionally being the key word.”

     Someone who “occasionally” beats his wife for her disobedience is still a wife-beater.

     Someone who “occasionally” slaughters entire communities because of a difference in theology is still committing genocide, even if he rescues stray puppies and donates to the United Way the other 364 days of the year.

     This is exactly my point.

     You asked why I am so focused on the nasty stuff in the Bible. Primarily because I think many Christians are in denial. If they are aware of those scriptures at all, they have compartmentalized and rationalized them into meaninglessness.

     My point from the beginning has been that the Bible offers a whole range of material… some of it lyrical and uplifting, some of it thuggish and horrifying. It reads like a book compiled from the writings of a bunch of different humans over several centuries, with varying levels of intelligence, varying knowledge of the events they write about, varying theological and social agendas.

     When Korin says that she knows the voice in her head is God because it tells her to do things that are “in God’s character”… that, frankly, worries me. Has she read the same Bible that I have? Is she aware of all the ugly threats of genocide and terrorism that have come from this god of hers? If she has read and absorbed the Bible in its entirety, how could she possibly believe that god’s “character” is consistently admirable?

     When Matt says that his Mom received solace from her faith… does he really know what this “faith” entails? If he’s talking about a faith based on what is recorded in the Bible (and she is a Christian, so he must be), I’m not sure what kind of solace she could be getting. The Bible is pretty explicit in many places that human suffering is the result of, or punishment for, sin. Read any of the Prophetic Books, Proverbs, or Revelations, if you doubt this. Of course, the Bible says lots of other things, too… This kind of solace boils down to: “well, whatever hell I’m living through is my own fault (or the fault of humanity in general, or the fault of Adam), and God has repeatedly and consistently chosen NOT to save humans from untold, unnecessary suffering… in fact, the Bible plainly states that, at least some of the time, the suffering comes DIRECTLY from god… but I know that god loves me, and eventually I might get to go to heaven! Because the Bible Told Me So!”

     What the hell kind of lame “solace” is that?

     My frustration is with “cafeteria Christians” (which I used to think was kind of a silly term, but now it totally makes sense to me) who pick out the comforting bits – hooray! we’re all going to heaven! – and conveniently ignore the ugly, murderous, and misogynist bits – hey! apparently all of the other people on earth who don’t believe in the same god as us are… going to be roasted for eternity! and the bible says women aren’t supposed to speak in church! and my gay best friend is going to hell! and on and on and on.

     Of course, besides the comforting bits and the ugly bits, there is a third category, which I like to call the “Mind-Numbingly Boring With Absolutely No Possible Sodding Relevance to My Life” Bits: begat… begat… begat… (snore)

     Lastly, Jamie, I would have to agree with John: you do seem to have a habit of making sort of nasty yet passive-aggressive jokes, but then bristling when someone calls you on it, or dishes it back to you. “GET OVER IT ALREADY” etc.

     That joke about me “sexting” you pictures of my wife was off; I should not have let it pass without comment. Your joking references re: who has bigger “balls” or “cojones” are also unwanted; kinda reeks of a high-school locker-room badgering that I don’t wish to relive. Next we’ll be calling each other faggot and dickweed, and nobody wants that.

     I’m enjoying this exchange of ideas, but I will shut it down toot-sweet if it devolves into this kind of sniping.

     Capice?

307. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm

     Jason,

     In response to Mr. Hodgson:

     I have been doing some research on him. He’s probably a rather likeable bloke, although he is a judge… I find some of his views to be thought provoking, but moreover I find him to be more of a philosopher of sorts, rather than as you stated a “christian”. He may well be, that is not my intent to impune him or question his beliefs/what he truly believes. I do agree with him that we should be able to and allowed to have critical discourse on the Bible. Question, disect, investigate…. it’s all good in my book. I’ll just have to look more at his viewpoint as well as read the entire article on Dawkins. Very long…. like some of our posts….

     John,

     I do check the links you all put up. I simply find that most don’t pass mustard when put to the test, as the one above I pulled apart clearly showed. When I see inconsistencies in what they think or believe or see where they purposely misquote or misuse the Bible, they get disqualified. Not because they have a different opinion than I do, but because they base what they call truth on flawed ground. Example: what you did to me above about the ignorant slut comment. I genuinely was making a funny, light-hearted attempt at humor. You took it and based an entire argument on what you read into it. I never said the things you said or thinly veiled any attempt to relegate you to the realms of bumbling dolt. And you based your entire rant on an inaccurate accounting of my intent. And so I dismissed your post of incorrect and apologized for offending. Hopefully, you have accepted it graciously.

     JE

308. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm

     Admin,

     You said, “Lastly, Jamie, I would have to agree with John: you do seem to have a habit of making sort of nasty yet passive-aggressive jokes, but then bristling when someone calls you on it, or dishes it back to you. “GET OVER IT ALREADY” etc.”

     I don’t bristle when someone calls me on it. I used cap locks to show my response. I “bristle” when someone attributes things to me that I didn’t say or say by way of inuendo that I said something hidden or secretly. He gives me way too much credit. I can dish it out and take it. You of all people should know that. In the future I will go plain vanilla on you all. No funny comments, intended or otherwise. I will play it straight and just be matter of fact. If I have offended anyone, accept my apologies. There have been many offensive things others have said, yet I have given you all the grace to say those things and taken it in the spirit intended.

     You can shut this down anytime you wish if you feel the need. It’s your site. But don’t do so on my account. I’ve said far less offensive things than most in here. And henceforth, I will confine my comments and opine humorlessly….

     JE

309. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm

     …. took the deep breath…. although I didn’t need one. I wasn’t upset.

     You occasionally misquote the bible. You occasionally take things out of context. You occasionally attribute things to me that I didn’t say.

     By you, I mean the posters at large, not any one individual. Therefore is everything you all say untrue and in need of refutiating?

     You keep citing things “man” does… beat his wife, etc. That’s not condoned by God, man or anyone else. You only prove we are desperately flawed as humans and confirm what God says in the bible about our human condition.

     JE

310. Jasonsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm

     Jamie, Comment 305, your reasons for dismissing the Religious Tolerance website:

     “1. They can’t agree on a consensus view and are vague/use vagueness in describing what they believe.”

     Can you be more specific?

     “2. Anytime someone says there are no absolutes…. wrong! You just made an absolute statement when you said that and disqualify your argument for there being no absolutes.”

     Here’s how the item in their mission statement actually reads:

     “…the systems of truth that we have studied on the topics of morals, ethics, and religious belief are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.”

     They did not say there are “no absolutes.” They said that religions and other belief systems vary by culture, by religion, and over time. The meaning of that item is clear and, I would think, indisputable. You claim to have an inside track on the “correct” way to worship god… yet your beliefs directly conflict with the beliefs of other people, in other parts of the earth, and at other times.

     “3. They want to work towards a society that is “relatively” free of discrimination. What??!!!! That would imply that there is some discrimination. I want no discrimination and so does the God I serve.”

     That is a clear expression of a realistic goal, given the varying belief systems prevalent around the world. They plan to do everything in their power to decrease intolerance, but realistically acknowledge that they cannot change the minds of hardcore, irrational believers who base their bigoted ignorance on what they believe they were told by a time-traveling ghost.

     It all sounds pretty good to me… In fact, I think I’ll send ‘em some money.

     Also, if you’re going to say, “You occasionally misquote the bible,” you’re going to have to give specifics. I think I’ve read all of the posts thus far, and I don’t remember an instance where you pointed out an actual misquoting of the Bible. You have certainly complained that we are interpreting the Bible incorrectly (which I take to mean “differently than it is interpreted by the leadership of my current church”), but misquoting? Them’s fightin’ words, hoss.

311. Korinsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm

     Jamie – Thank you for the kind wishes, I will definitely keep ya posted – keep up the good fight !! I’ll be checking in from time to time.

     Jason – Thank you for being thoughtful in your approach – it is appreciated deeply. Now, on to the content…
     Yes, I realize it is hard for you to swallow…I suggested as much from the get go. And I really do get it.
     So how is conscience different from my experience? Beyond conscience, there are situations where there may be several choices that are “right” in terms of conscience. But perhaps there is only one (or two) that are right for me – on my path, or purpose. Or you can choose to do the right thing, but miss some of the nuance through inexperience, lack of wisdom, insight, or awareness. I prefer to ask for God’s direction (wisdom and insight) when making decisions about my job, living situation, finances, relationships, etc… because His perspective is so much greater than my own.
     Secondly, when you say that you know it’s God talking when he urges you to do “THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF MY CHARACTER BUT WITHIN HIS”… that seems very frightening to me, because, while I know you are a thoughtful and deeply moral person, God has occasionally ordered his followers to do things like…
     Firstly, this is what I said in context (my responses are all caps): Or is it that you pray, and then you have some thoughts – in other words you decide what to do – i.e “I need to let go” or “I need to make a call”, and then you say,”god told me to let go or god told me to make a call.” I DON’T GIVE MYSELF THE CREDIT FOR THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF MY CHARACTER BUT WITHIN HIS. I AM USUALLY (NOT ALWAYS) QUITE CERTAIN WHAT IS COMING FROM MY MIND AND WHAT IS NOT. I RARELY SAY “GOD TOLD ME…”
     I was referring to character that you seem to choose not to acknowledge – His great, undying love and passion for our salvation. For example there have been times when God has specifically asked me to pray for a certain person who has been threatening me and verbally attacking me. Personally I would much prefer to pummel them into the ground – trust me, it’s true. Praying for someone you dislike so greatly is not an easy task, and certainly not in my character, but it is in His character. Obedience to these requests allows His characteristic to be built in me, and perhaps after some practice, he will not need to ask or tell me, but I will do it of my own accord. I have many other examples, if this is not adequate.
     Your fears (I believe) are unnecessary where I am concerned, as I am a sane, reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent individual, and in no present danger of being warped by power, greed or vengence. If at some future time, you find me losing my faculties, reason, or becoming morally perverse, I would hope that you would kindly confront me and insist that I get some mental help. As for sacrificing animals, luckily for me, Jesus already paid the price for my sins, so there is no longer a need for this type of sacrifice – which I am pretty sure you already know… However, I will be sacrificing a cat, and perhaps (unintentionally) defiling its body, in the name of science this quarter, so if you want to go after that, feel free. (while I am not personally killing the cat, am I not at least partly responsible for its death, by taking the anatomy class and partaking in the learning?) Honestly, I think you are being a bit wacky with your examples – surely you are not really frightened of these things – at least not where I am concerned? As for President Bush – he will have to answer to God one day, and what God may or may not have told him will be addressed at that point. As for the here and now, we have a political system in place that can and should be used in its full force to address these things. Unfortunately for us, the mega-wealthy have too much power in this country (and world) and “we the people” are too comfortable and apathetic to confront it. But let’s not blame on God or religion, what is clearly human failing. Let us rather take full responsibility for our part in it, and start by making a change there.
     I suspect the conscience is very closely related to what I’m talking about – I think this is the part of God, innate in us, that was planted from the beginning – that we know right from wrong. When conscience is missing, we see terrible things occur with humans – Ted Bundy comes to mind. Most of us have a tool set that helps us to make good and wise decisions – some of us use that tool set well, and others, well, they just tend to please self above all else (even consequence). I know there are some believers/Christians/religious people, what have you, who say “God told me” when following their conscience, or when they are doing the things they have been taught, or even when they are serving self. I don’t really buy it either. I think we would all roll our eyes simultaneously (well, at least you, Robin, Jonathan and myself) at that sort of (for the lack of a better word) weirdness. I don’t think most people who follow conscience and attribute that to “God telling them” mean any harm, or are aware of any harm they may be inflicting – but I do think this contributes to the craziness surrounding religion – the crackpots and nut jobs – the religion poisons everything idea. The people doing bad things in the name of God or religion, do not make God any less real or valid to me. People do bad things in the name of all sorts of reasons – country, family, faith, flag, school, team, club, fraternity, etc… – God is a great choice if you want to feel validated – except of course for the fact that it is not God at all, and you will have to answer for that one day. Which is one big reason why I am particularly cautious about attributing things to God, than I am not certain are His purpose.
     I won’t talk scripture with you, because you can pull it out of context to make your point, backed up with other random citations, faster than I can circle back and research it. You have clearly put much more energy into disproving the Bible, than I have put into proving it. Someone with a degree in apologetics would be better suited to have that argument with you.
     As for why God doesn’t talk to everyone…I’m really not sure, but I have my theory. I think he does talk to everyone (hence my question to you on that subject early on). Some people either choose not to hear, or simply cannot hear for some reason. Sin separates us from God – I suspect pride, selfishness, ego, fear, to name a few, block our hearing. In my experience, which is all I can really speak from, when God speaks, he is rarely telling us something easy to hear, but rather challenging us – sometimes the very basis of who we think we are. That can be a hard pill to swallow, and I think stands in the way of our “hearing”.
     Okay, that’s all I can offer you for now – I’ve got to get some work and studying done today.

312. Korinsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm

     When Korin says that she knows the voice in her head is God because it tells her to do things that are “in God’s character”…

     Jason – that is not what I said. Please don’t take my words out of context and use them to make your own points that are not relevant to the conversation in which I was speaking. If you are unclear about my meaning, feel free to ask me to clarify.

     Secondly, I just want to say I hear your frustration. And I find myself at least somewhat culpable in regards to your accusations. I believe I have certainly “turned off” some of my questions relating to the atrocities you (and other non-believers) have sited from the Bible. I have justified this to myself in the following ways: I cannot possible chase down each and every doubt or question at the same time, and some things are just going to have to be unanswered for a while. Many other well respected and trustworthy individuals have studied these topics at length and still some end up on one side, and some on the other – no consensus has been reached. I trust what I believe to be the character of God to be consistent and true throughout existence – this is purely based on my own experience and perspective – my faith is based on my personal experience and relationship; and so on, and so forth. From the sounds of it, nothing you haven’t heard already. These are all valid, and we apply them liberally to lots of other topics as well.
     However, I want you to know I am not ignoring the concerns or frustrations that have been honestly stated in this thread. Many of these points seem very valid to me and this may be the time for me to address these questions in greater detail. Surely if I am to be consistent and true to who I say I am, this could certainly be considered a sign from God that it is in fact time to do so. I don’t know if this will bring you gladness, or further fear, but you have inspired me to read my Bible more thoroughly, and to get back to asking difficult questions, with a honest intent of finding the truth, not simply looking to justify what I already believe (to the extent that is possible). I believe I have a church community that will fully support my honest research, but if I get kicked out – I will promptly let you know!

313. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm

     Korin,

     Great stuff!

     Jason,

     You said, “but realistically acknowledge that they cannot change the minds of hardcore, irrational believers who base their bigoted ignorance on what they believe they were told by a time-traveling ghost.”

     What about substituting the word “people” where you put the word “believers” and remove the words “time-traveling ghost.” I have found in my experience far more people without any particular faith that fit that mold than people of faith. Remember, I was not always a faith-based person. I had my prejudices and ideas based on how and where I was raised. Most of my prejudices were overcome by my participation in sports from a young age. In inner-city Seattle, I had many black friends in and out of sports. In eighth grade when I moved to lilly-white Brier, I brought what I learned with me. It got me through high school and well into college where most of the guys I hung with were black. They were my friends from the team. We ate, slept, traveled, went to the bathroom, did everything together. We spent more time together than we did with our girlfriends. You grow tight. And yet I wasn’t saved and saw alot of bigoted comments from them and from others on the team. Usually it was a slip about “whitey”, only to be quickly followed by, “We don’t mean you, you’re cool.” I got it. It wasn’t coming from the faithful, though. You need to stop lumping that together as if that is some sort of badge of honor and a label you can only bestow on Christians or other people of faith. Ask Robin. She’ll help you out. I read her bio on her webpage. Very impressive body of work and quite the long resume. My cudo’s to her. We need more people like her that get it, faithfilled or not.

     People are ignorant and it doesn’t just fall to one group of people the way you seem to continue to “label” and spew bigoted, Christ-o-phobic comments around. You want to lump all believers into some type of whacko-ville, kill all the infidels, rape all the women and plunder all the cities bag and I find that offensive. You don’t talk about the hospitals founded by Christians/Christian organizations (far more than secular hospitals). You don’t talk about all the charitable organization founded by faith-based organizations like World Vision and the good they do all over the world no matter if the people they help have the same beliefs or not. You fail to cite atrocities committed by atheists/agnostics etc. and the millions of innocent people they’ve slaughtered, so I will.

     The following statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

     My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category “Judicial” and under the subject of “Crimes: Mass Killings,” the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

     In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.

     The worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 per day.

     Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people.

     China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

     Add up ALL the deaths in the bible, all the atrocious acts of religious persecution, all the deaths brought on by wrongly attributed religious belief (Hitler, Mussolini, etc) and they pale in comparison to these numbers.

     If you were walking down a dark alley at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw ten young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class? Of course, the answer is certainly you would. That demonstrates that religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.
     It is true that it’s possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following (or any other faith for that matter – Islam…). So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We’re talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.

     Please feel free to cite all of these statistics from now on. It makes a more compelling argument for God and makes atheism look more like the value-less, winner take all, I live by my own rules mentality that it is.

     Jamie

314. Jamiesays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm

     Here is my question to all the atheists:

     Why do you spend so much time trying to disprove or debunk the Bible, Koran, Torah, among other things, and more importantly the existance of God? Why spend so much time studying(I’m accepting that you do) trying to disprove the very thing you don’t believe in? If it were me, I’d just go away for awhile until the subject changed because to me it would be a gigantic waste of my valuable time arguing about something I believe is ridiculous. I’d go sit by the pool with my kids and wife and hang for a bit. I’m genuinely interested to know why.

     James

315. Jasonsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm

     Korin, Comment 312: “Jason – that is not what I said. Please don’t take my words out of context and use them to make your own points that are not relevant to the conversation in which I was speaking.”

     My sincere apologies if I misunderstood. Here is what Robin originally asked:

     “Or is it that you pray, and then you have some thoughts – in other words you decide what to do – i.e ‘I need to let go’ or ‘I need to make a call’, and then you say,’god told me to let go or god told me to make a call.’”

     I understand Robin’s essential question to be: How do you know that the voice you are hearing is God, and not just your own mind?

     Your answer was:

     “I DON’T GIVE MYSELF THE CREDIT FOR THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF MY CHARACTER BUT WITHIN HIS. I AM USUALLY (NOT ALWAYS) QUITE CERTAIN WHAT IS COMING FROM MY MIND AND WHAT IS NOT.”

     I paraphrased your answer as follows:

     “Korin says that she knows the voice in her head is God because it tells her to do things that are ‘in God’s character’”

     …which reflects my understanding of what you said: You can distinguish between the voice of god and the voice of your own mind because the voice of god tells you to do things that are in god’s character, but not in your own. What part did I get wrong? I was not twisting your words intentionally.

     Korin, Comment 311: “I won’t talk scripture with you, because you can pull it out of context to make your point, backed up with other random citations, faster than I can circle back and research it.”

     If you don’t want to talk scripture, I understand. I agree; I’m not sure it gets us anywhere. But unless you are going to take the time to actually give me examples where I have misrepresented the meaning of a scripture by the kind of shenanigans you describe… I would ask you to leave off the accusation, and simply take responsibility for your own decision not to engage. Fair?

     Korin, Comment 311: “I was referring to character that you seem to choose not to acknowledge – His great, undying love and passion for our salvation.”

     As I have said repeatedly, the Bible contains a whole range of stuff, some lyrical and uplifting, some barbaric (and some dull as dishwater). I don’t deny that some Scriptures portray god in the way you describe. My experience in the world, my reading of history, my observation of the world around me today, does not lend credence to this kinder portrayal of god’s character, quite honestly.

     Apart from that, we’ve got millions of self-proclaimed Christians in the U.S., all talking about god in the way you describe, and conveniently glossing over or setting aside those other scriptures – the ones where god sounds like a jealous, alcoholic and abusive husband. If I’m reading your most recent comment correctly, you have done much the same. John and I, and many others like us, are merely saying, “hey, the Bible also contains all this other, wacky stuff…”

     In the class Robin teaches, when she goes over the history of racism in the U.S., she consistently gets these kinds of comments from students: “Why do you have to focus on all the bad stuff?” “I’ve got a black friend, so we can’t you stop talking about racism? You’re just being negative!” etc. They get uncomfortable and defensive when someone challenges the dominant paradigm. In the same way, when atheists start poking at the soft underbelly of Christianity, asking questions, pointing out some of the horrible things that Christianity has wrought, questioning some of the more bizarre passages in the Bible, Christians respond in much the same way: “Why do you have to be so negative?”

     Again: I don’t deny the good stuff that’s there. In my observation, in my opinion, the bad stuff far outweighs it. When you add the fact that there is absolutely no proof for the central beliefs of Christianity, and that the explanations that Christianity offers for the reality of human suffering are so lacking…

     That’s why I talk about the bad stuff.

     To answer your related question, Jamie: I actually don’t spend that much time debunking Christianity. I was raised as a Christian for 30 years. Every waking moment was suffused with that belief. Along the way, unanswered questions accumulated. When I gave some space to those questions, I found out that there actually weren’t satisfying answers to the most important ones. Brick by brick, the edifice crumbled. When the facade fell away, the flimsy superstructure that was holding it all together became visible. Most of my “atheist studies” were done while I was a Christian; when the central lies were exposed, all of the rest of the poor reasoning and misdirection was just… obvious to me.

     This is actually the most time I’ve spent discussing these issues… ever.

     It’s important to me for all the reasons I’ve already mentioned. You could just as soon ask Robin, “why is fighting racism and sexism so important to you?”

     At the same time, as you all have pointed out, many people are clearly reliant on their religion, clearly need the comfort they receive from religion. For that reason, I would never go out and try to “convert” religious people. This conversation is different; Eric threw out some well-aimed jabs, I responded, and others joined in. Nobody is being cornered at their door, nobody has to engage if they don’t want to. Plus you’re all smart and I know y’all well enough by now to know that my comments are not going to destroy your faith, so I feel free to speak my mind.

316. Jasonsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm

     Oh, and Jamie ~ I would never deny that people kill and oppress other people for all kinds of reasons. The examples you cite prove that beyond a doubt, and we’ve actually been over this ground before; do you remember?

     John has tackled this several times before; the examples you cite don’t prove anything about “atheism.” Atheism is not a system of belief or a moral code or anything else. It is quite simply, a lack of belief in a divine being, based on the available evidence. If there was an organized belief system called “Atheism” and the members of that system were – based on the tenets of that belief system – killing and oppressing all those who chose to believe in a god, then you would have a case.

     Hitler’s ideology of Jew-hatred had several mothers. One of those was the pervasive cultural anti-Semitism, which was largely the result of centuries of slanderous teachings by the Church.

     We’re starting to repeat ourselves here…

317. Jasonsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm

     …and I think I’m done. I’ll be out of town for a lot of this month (Coachella! Joshua Tree! Atlanta…sigh), and several household projects to complete, new job, etc.

     This conversation has definitely been edifying and enjoyable, but I think it has run its course (for me). I do thank all of you for participating, and for remaining mostly respectful. I do hope that my occasional snarkiness or dogged insistence on some or other point (I know, I can be a pain) hasn’t alienated anyone. I do love everyone here: Robin, Matt, Eric, Korin, John, Jen: I consider you all friends (and more, in the case of Robin!), and hope we remain such. Jamie, it really was nice getting to know you better, and seeing your brain in action!

     I’ll leave the comments open, so if anyone wants to post “closing arguments” – feel free to do so.

     Much love and respect!

318. Korinsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm

     You said, When Korin says that she knows the voice in her head is God because it tells her to do things that are “in God’s character”… twice you launched straight from there in to your fears about the character of my God – about genocide and terrorism that you attribute to his character – that clearly I attribute to mankind. Suggesting that somehow I (or someone like me) could be duped into participating in some mass murder campaign in the name of God by our sheer ignorance of what you see as his true character.

     To clarify, I understood Robin’s question to be Do I pray, then have some thoughts and then attribute those thoughts to God. I was saying – No, I don’t have thoughts and say they are from God, and I also don’t take credit for God’s thoughts, insight or wisdom as though it was my own. Robin’s examples were simplistic, basic and harmless.
     Perhaps that was a trap I stepped into as Jamie had suggested – but I chose to believe it was an honest question in the interest in gaining insight into another perspective.
     I don’t think it was fair play for you to use me to make a point outside the context of that question.
     enough said – I can take it. Seems you feel I have dabbled in a bit of unfair play myself – I assure you it was unintentional. (not sure you should be talking about what’s fair – on the heels of your comments)

     I do wonder if people repeatedly comment that you are focusing on the bad stuff and negativity, perhaps there is something of merit there worth looking at…

     Have a great month – safe travelling! I’ll be watching facebook for some more awesome pictures.

319. johnsays:
     
     April 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm

     Hello Jason, good times,
     very interesting. probably a good time to stop.
     I will write up a few closing arguments and post them this weekend if you have no objections. Shame Matt couldn’t be here.
     Take care and enjoy. If work takes me out your way I will drop you a line.
     (what’s this about a new job?)

320. Jamiesays:
     
     April 4th, 2009 at 1:18 am

     Comment 316… Atheism is not a belief or a moral code. I would disagree. It is a belief in unbelief. The reason I cited the atrocities I did (finally) was because they were rooted in Atheism, the lone exception being the ancient Chinese atrocities. Many have continued to expound on the cruelties and atrocities of “religion” while I have quietly waited to give the numerical facts of atheist governments and the millions they’ve killed. My point in that is when there is an absence of God/religion/faith whatever you want to call it, larger atrocities occur. Far more in the course of human history than that of religions or God followers. Again, I contend that nearly all who have done so in the so-called name of God/religion etc. have done so from a perverted teaching and not what the mainstream teachings of the religions espouse. But even including them in the “religious” atrocities committed thoughout the course of history, pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by Godless societies.

     I have enjoyed the exchange as well. Hopefully, we all walk away with a deeper respect for one another and what each other believes. I will defend your right to believe what you do all the way to the grave if need be. In most parts of the world we would not have been able to even have this conversation. Not even on the internet. It would be shut down and we would be hunted down. I know because I have a friend from my church who is a missionary in Tibet. Very scary stuff. He has been threatened with his life before and has left the country in the past. He’s been back twice and served for over 8 years. That’s more man than I am. Thanks for the vessel, Jason. Glad we were able to catch up. Glad you are doing well and have a solid woman by your side. She seems pretty cool.

     To everyone else, thanks for participating. I’ve appreciated your opinions and your ability to unabashedly express them. Don’t ever lose that. Never be luke warm. Stand for what you believe in. Others will respect you for it, just as I do, even when we don’t agree.

     In His Grip,
     James

321. johnsays:
     
     April 4th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

     Well, this has been interesting. It does seem to have run it’s course and this is probably a good place to stop.
     I will just go over a few of the last arguments sum up. While no one will read it I hate to leave things unfinished.
     Jamie: RE 302.
     Thanks for the citation. I traded my bible in a long time ago so I couldn’t look it up.( just discovered the google for bible passages! so kewl) I wasn’t sure from what you wrote if you assumed they fled or if they had actually fled.
     Gospel of James. I indicated it was from the Apocrypha which, as we all know, means that it was left out of the bible. I even said I can see why it was left out of the bible although I didn’t site scholarship just the plausibility of it. However, Since the main people posting on this blog have read the bible I thought it was safe to assume that they know why things are part of the Apocrypha and not the bible. (unless they are conspiracy loons). I was just pointing out that the gospel of James was the earliest record of the “slaughter of the innocents” outside of Matthew and it isn’t mentioned in other Gospels. So, the earliest source outside of Matthew wasn’t credible enough to be in the bible itself. You and I dislike the gospel of james for the same reason you just misunderstood how I was using it.
     You say it sounds like I am grasping at straws but you got my argument completely backwards.
     Jamie, your responses are more like retorts and non sequiturs.
     I didn’t equate modern day politics and taxes to ancient practices. You are arguing the wrong point. If you actually read what i wrote you may notice that while I did use the seattle to boston as an example of practicality (which was really just a matter of distance. i can drive to boston in a few days. joseph and mary could have walked 60 miles in a few days) you completely ignore the real point of the argument. The real point of the argument is that there is no record of that census taking place. There are records of a census but it occurs after herod’s death and it wasn’t conducted in the manner described in Matthew. We have records of how these things were conducted. You dismiss out of hand that they would if there was a census that they would have the judean’s conduct it since rome did not administer there directly. Also you say joseph and mary only had to travel 60 or 70 miles. What about everyone else the census would have affected? by myopically fixating on the two people the story follows you have complete missed the realities of what a census that required everyone. Everyone. Every One. to return to the land of their origin to be counted. It is not practical or plausible.
     It is a work of fiction that is used to have the nativity take place in bethlehem. I hate having to type the whole thing twice and wish I could be more succinct but you have glossed over or ignored the most salient points of the argument.
     It isn’t surprising that jesus fulfilled over 300 distinct and separate prophecy. That is exactly what the writers of the gospels were doing. creating a version of jesus’s life that conformed to OT prophecy and to confirm and persuade that he was the messiah. You are right about us not debating prophecy but for the wrong reasons, tha OT prophecy doesn’t matter to me. It does matter to me because people use the bible and its teachings for some very wrong headed and unpleasant things. It is also pointless because it is clear you are never going to change your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists.
     RE 304. again (and again) you miss the point. I noted a lot of man killing. How many slaughters were going on in post? I was talking about the killing of women because while it could be argued that the men were killed in battle (or slaughtered by angels but since this is probably an allegory, unless you really think angels slaughtered a city and woman got turned into a pillar of salt) while the woman were treated like cattle or property. Gang raped, or if you prefer “known” to death or sacrificed. So, you misunderstood or willfully ignored what I wrote. It is apparent we both have bents. I find human sacrifice and rape abhorrent and it seems you like to project the very attributes you display onto those you are arguing with.
     I try to be as open minded as I can. If you can find a convincing argument for a person letting their daughter be raped or sacrificed like a goat I could be convinced. But it would have to be pretty compelling. I mean really, really compelling.
     and just to show you that there are no hard feelings and that I do try to be open minded I googled Genesis 2:18-23 and I agree. the interpratation they have at the website doesn’t seem to agree with what the KJV says. While I won’t dismiss everything on this website because of it I would certainly double check any time I used it as a reference and it makes me skeptical of the other interprataions. It might prove helpful when discussing the the topic of the treatment of women in the bible to use the site to quickly locate passages in the bible regarding it’s stance on women and then either check the bible itself or a reputable website, if like me, you don’t have a copy of the bible.
     AND that is how an open minded skeptic does it.

322. johnsays:
     
     April 4th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

     And Lastly, as discussed much, much earlier it is rigid ideology, dogmatic beliefs and intolerance, I am including political, cultural and religious prejudice in this, that are humanities greatest failings. I think an interesting argument would be whether people commit atrocities like the ones Jamie describes because of or in spite of their religious or political beliefs? I think that a strong argument could be made that atrocities committed in the name of religion were made largely because they could be rationalized as the will of god and they could back those arguments up by pointing to passages in their sacred texts. It is pretty tough to resist divine authority.
     Whereas something like communist purges in both Russia and China were undertaken despite the political beliefs they professed. Both regimes were dictatorships that were interested in power both politically and economically not in actually creating a workers utopia where everyone was equal. (an argument for another time I suppose).
     This is why I am so willing to argue and debate and discuss religion or politics and culture with people. I strongly feel that any ideology, religious or political, that isn’t logical, testable and evident based lets people start down a path to irrational and harmful decisions. Whether that be homeopathic medicine and new age quackery, burning witches and jews or the unrealistic and unworkable “One works according to his abilities and gets according to his needs” (Proudhon)
     comparing sheer numbers of atrocities can be a bit misleading since there wasn’t the population density and tools of destruction that we have now. Although I will admit that many places were slaughters are occurring now can be accomplished the old fashioned way.
     Atheism might be defined as a “belief system” by some (and is) but certainly not a moral code. A lack of belief in god as a belief? okay, whatever. Personally, I am not an atheist and the “belief system” argument is why I never use the term to describe myself. I use skeptic if I use anything or occasionally non-theist. I will explain why in the sum up.

     this is already wayyy longer than I wanted and I haven’t even summed up yet but I felt the points I made earlier were either ignored, misrepresented or framed in a manner that made them easy to dismiss.
     So the next post will be my sum up. Really.

323. johnsays:
     
     April 4th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

     To Sum Up:
     As explained I love a good debate but this one seems to have run its course. We weren’t making any real progress any more. I wish Matt could have been around for the end but perhaps we will check in and submit some final thoughts. I would love to hear them from both Matt and Eric before we shutter this thing up and I stop obsessively checking it

     An exercise like this helps sharpen critical thinking skills and can reveal errors in logic and judgement and hopefully get people to think more critically about what they believe to be true.

     Here are a few books and ideas that I would like to recommend.
     Carl Sagan: Demon Haunted World. Just a great book about critical thinking and how important it is.
     Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things. another interesting read on how and why we think what we think.
     Michael Shermer: “Denying History” This book is about Holocaust deniers but it goes deeper than that and into how people manipulate history and evidence and why they do it.
     Randel Helms: “The Gospel Fictions” and “Who Wrote The Gospels”
     Tim Callahan: “Secret Origins Of The Bible”
     Robert Parks: Voodoo Science. More critical thinking.

     I would also recommend the magazine Skeptic. (slightly less so Skeptical Inquirer. It is good but if you can only pick one)

     Here are a few links.
     http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

     okay, that is enough. I could go on and on.
     It was great to reconnect with Jason and more briefly Matt and Eric and I thought everyone was very interesting and made good points and I enjoyed the discussion with all of you.
     Take care
     Kung Fu Grip
     John

324. johnsays:
     
     April 4th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

     Oh, I forgot.
     “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” that seems to be self explanatory but if you could google it to be sure.
     If I say I can read french you might just believe me or you might ask for a demonstration. but if I claim I have achieved cold fusion you would do well to ask me for the parameters of the experiment and try to have them it replicated.
     “You can’t prove a negative” The person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof. You can’t prove I can read french because I might not do it in front of you or I may have memorized certain passages. It is up to me to prove to you that I can read french by demonstrating it well controlled and repeatable experiments. (same with cold fusion)
     Now, I Am Done.
     john

325. Jamiesays:
     
     April 4th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

     John,

     Thank you for your points, your time and your committment. I have said and could continue to say the same things about many of the things you’ve responded with (“this is already wayyy longer than I wanted and I haven’t even summed up yet but I felt the points I made earlier were either ignored, misrepresented or framed in a manner that made them easy to dismiss.”)

     With as much as we’ve covered, not all questions were answered by everyone. And I do mean everyone. I did make an honest attempt to answer direct questions that seemed to be pointed to me and that had strong merit or warranted a response. I’m quite certain there were questions I didn’t/couldn’t get to or simply didn’t answer out of sheer volume of what we’ve covered. I would at least hope that you would agree I didn’t take the easy way out and answered questions in a way that you would hope I would. Not say things like “I don’t know, That’s just what I believe, everything is open to interpretation.” No. I took a stand and presented my case. While you don’t have to agree with any, most or some of what I said, hopefully you’ll give me props for having conviction and using something to back up what I believe and not just say “that’s what I’ve been taught or how I was raised to believe.”

     Everyone in here missed questions. Everyone at some point glossed over stuff or simply just dismissed the other’s argument occasionally. I felt I used valid points and wasn’t missing the point, as you stated above. If I answered off base out of misunderstanding your question or intent of the question, my apologies. I just went back up and reread your census argument and realized you weren’t saying there were no census’ ever taken, which was how I framed the response and based my answer. We all did it, but I would hope no one did it intentionally. I know I didn’t.

     This will be my last post. I’m not a last word kind of guy. I don’t feel the need to be or to have to get the last word in. I’ve enjoyed this very much. Trust me at my word when I say I have no hard feeling, John. This would have been more fun and interesting had we been in the same room together with laptops and WiFi so we could have actually heard the tone of voice from each other and understook when someone was mad or upset. I think that’s called a think tank…. It didn’t happen often for me as sometimes Jason would say things like “take a deep breath”. I was never in need of one except for one time and that was early on after several times being misquoted and attributed things I did not say or imply. The last “John Episode” didn’t have me upset, I simply used caps to show my response and make it easier to see what I was saying.

     I look forward to reading the last few entries. Hopefully, Matt will survive his weekend in Neverland (E.WA) and chime in with some final thoughts. Eric as well. Funny, we didn’t hear much from Joel except early on and I thought he’d be vocal. Maybe he took the approach I suggested I’d take near the end of all this if I didn’t believe. I’ll have to call him and find out. Wife, kids, family, work…. maybe he had much more important things to tend to. Or Comcast disconnected his cable/internet.

     God Bless you all.

     James

326. johnsays:
     
     April 4th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

     okay, really and truly last thing.
     Stand up for what you believe in is fine. but make sure it is worth believing and don’t ever refuse to re-examine those beliefs.
     To believe something despite strong evidence to the contrary is really what we have been arguing about. Belief is what gave us crusades and Stalin’s purges. It was gave us war in the middle east.
     Rather than belief rely on evidence and be flexible.
     Strongly believing in something that isn’t true is harmful.
     Believing blacks are inferior to whites repugnant. Believing jews are subhuman is repugnant. Believing your wife (or husband) deserved a punch in the face because they mouthed off is repugnant.
     Don’t Just Believe. wow, just wow.
     I will check this space for a few more days. If anyone has something they want to address to me directly Jason has my email address.

327. johnsays:
     
     April 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

     James,
     I didn’t see your post between my last two so I just wanted to acknowledge comments in 325.
     I agree, it is so difficult to get a persons tone from writing. a face to face discussion would have probably cleared up a number of these misunderstandings. Thanks for engaging in this debate. I found it really interesting and everybody made some excellent points. Hopefully there are no hard feelings all around. Perhaps some post of Jason’s will cover another topic that engages all of us again.
     Like you am looking forward to any responses from those who have been keeping quiet lately.

328. Jasonsays:
     
     April 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am

     As my “closing argument,” I submit the following video, which addresses the crux of the debate (for me, anyway) over the existence of god:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

     When I say “I don’t believe in your god” or even (when I’m feeling more cantankerous) “I am an atheist”… I am simply saying that the available evidence has not convinced me. I am not saying “there could not possibly be a god” nor am I making a case for a wider system of belief.

     To the end, it appeared that this point was lost on the Christians in this thread – witness Jamie’s repeated insistence that atheists are making “absolute” claims, etc.

     I have learned much during the course of this conversation. If the Christians take away one nugget, I would hope that it is this: To say I am an atheist merely means that I have seen no convincing evidence for the existence of god, therefore I don’t believe in him. It does NOT mean: “There absolutely cannot possibly be a god,” nor does it imply any wider “system of belief” or set of moral guidelines.

     To Korin and others who complain that atheists are “too negative” – would you have said the same to those fighting for civil rights, who pointed out the long history of racial oppression in our country? Try to understand that, to the non-theist, it appears that the history of religion is a history of oppression, violence and mental slavery; that is why I keep pointing out the negative. And I will continue to do so. As I said before, you’ve got millions of Christians like yourselves, all pointing out the glorious positive side of your faith and religion. Don’t begrudge the few voices who push you to acknowledge the rest of the story.

     Korin – you said you would follow up, do some research on the more unpleasant things found in the Bible. From personal experience, I can guarantee you that you WILL find answers to those questions. There is no shortage of apologists, eager to explain away those scriptures. I would ask you, though, to look a bit deeper. Don’t simply be satisfied that answers exist; ask yourself honestly whether those answers are good enough.

     Thanks again, everyone.

329. Mattsays:
     
     April 6th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

     So…here’s the point I was going to make…

     **chirp chirp**

     Uh? Hello? Anyone here?

     (tumbleweed blows across main street – a dog barks in the distance)

     Actually I was going to return on Monday with my final comments. I spent WAY TOO MUCH time running my last comments through my head, banging myself upside the head by trying to sound “glib” – coming up with Jason’s arguments, John’s arguments, etc. Rattling this here and there.

     Since I was a minor player in this exchange here’s my last comment(s).

     1. As for the Bible, I think I said early on that I gave no real stock to the “Old Testament” and looked upon the “New Testament” for more truth.

     2. As for being a Christian, I do believe in the Jesus Christ that said that the two greatest commandments are to “Love God” and “Love your Neighbor.” There’s nothing in those two commandments that talk about marginalizing others, killing, protesting funerals of AIDS victims, popping out kids by the dozens, etc.

     3. For the point of “cafeteria Christians” that Jason used…I spent the weekend with a priest and his wife. The same man who married Miriam and myself. Friends since I was 17 years of age. Good, honest, people struggling like we all struggle. I went to a beautiful church yesterday, stained glass windows, old people clinging to a hope of an eternal life, children confused and curious as to what mom has dragged them to, crippled people possibly hoping for a miracle or, at the very least, hoping for hope. Religion poison everything? I don’t know. Unitentionally enabling a sick and destructive system? Honestly…I didn’t see it. I witnessed people in a community trying to connect with something beyond themselves.

     4. John asked about my relationship with God. It’s simply a desire to seek that which I can’t see or feel but sense is there. Connecting through a church, a community and through acts and rituals that enhance that connection to the “other.”

     5. Though the initial comment was “Religion Poison’s Everything” and then turned into “Does God Exist?” – I still say that we should be truly judged on what we believe and how we show that belief in the world and to our fellow man and woman and member of the LGBTQ community.

     6. I strongly encourage all of us who participated in this “banter” to work towards the vision(s) that we feel will bring more peace, unity, love, compassion to this broken world. Whether it’s Jason’s book “Ex-Witness to the Truth” (feel free to use that title), John producing “Weird” Al Yankovic’s song “Hawkins is Just All Right With Me” (sung to the tune of “Jesus is Just All Right With Me”), Cami and Jason and I making that documentary we want to make (seriously) or Korin and Jamie and Eric and Keith doing whatever they’re doing…we all have a vision as to the future and we all have an obligation to see if we can make that vision happen…or come to the conclusion to see if it’s really plausible.

     7. Lastly…As much as we might not feel it, or see it, I do honestly think that this world is sloooooooowly changing for the better (Prop 8 not withstanding). I do honestly think that people ARE becoming more tolerant of those we don’t understand, more loving of those we fear, more hopefull for those who don’t have hope. The world IS brighter, the glass IS half full and more positive change IS coming.

     Thank you Jason, and everyone else who participated.

     Matt….out.

     (saloon doors slowly creak shut and footsteps and spur jangles fade into the distance)

     Roll credits.

330. Korinsays:
     
     April 6th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

     Jason,

     Thank you for the forum, and for your input, energy, and thoughts. In direct response to the points above (where you use my name specifically):
     I don’t believe I have ever “complained” that atheists are “too negative”. I wonder why you included me in that statement by name…
     From my own personal experience, I am also well aware that I will find answers; I already know a number of them . I’m quite strong-minded, strong-willed, and intelligent and I have been in (and out) of this Christian camp for 26 years now, and in that time I have always been open to engage in the tough questions (and in forums such as this one) with believers and non-believers alike. I am well aware that I could find an answer to each and every one of my questions (and yours) in just about any flavor and color I might prefer. Although I may be coming from a different conclusion than you and than John, you shouldn’t think I am any less a skeptic.
     You can be confident that I am consistently looking for a deeper truth, and I’m not one to ever fully trust any one person’s answer about anything (we are all colored by our own experiences). While for the sake of relationship, I may be agreeable, I have never allowed anyone to tell me what to think. I think you probably know me well enough to see the truth in that.

     For my sum up I would say to each of you, as dangerous as you might feel religion – or lack of religion, may be. I say the real danger is in judging one another without truly understanding one another. I would encourage you all to ask more questions and make fewer judgments. I think when we are open to learning, questioning all our preconceptions, we get closer to truth (which may not be the same as answers). There should be no fear in questioning what we think we know and even what we know we know. I believe the truth should be able to stand in the face of ALL OUR experiences.
     Don’t let your ego stand in the way of learning.

331. Korinsays:
     
     April 6th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

     I wish I were a better writer – please know that I could be looking in the mirror and saying all those things directly to myself (and really that is how I am thinking) – I hate the use of you/your because it sounds so pointed – It’s not meant to be!
     much love to you all!!

332. Korinsays:
     
     April 8th, 2009 at 4:46 am

     Sweet post Matt – just wanted you to know it was appreciated You Rock!

Leave a Reply

Name(required)

Mail (will not be published)(required)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail