| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Abraxael" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2005 09:36:40 AM |
| Object: |
God or No God? Let's Chat |
Hey Everyone,
I've been on Usenet for many years, and I've had a bellyful of flame wars
and useless bickering between Christians and Non-Christians.
But I think the discussion about whether or not there is a God, and why
people believe what they do, is an important one to have. So I'm hoping to
start a conversation.
Now, let me be plain. I am a fervent Catholic of the rarer progressive
variety. I understand that God presents himself to different people in
different ways. I understand that he speaks to everyone, atheist and
Catholic, Muslim, Jew and hindu,with unfailing commitment and passion.
I know the Incarnation to be truth. Two thousand years ago, God did walk
among us as a man, taught love, ethics and faith, and was humiliated, beaten
and executed for his trouble. I also know that this is very difficult to
believe or understand, and I completely get, given the condition of the
world and the difficulty of most human lives,why the very idea of the
Incarnation can seem ridiculous or offensive to some. There are compelling
reasons --or anyway, convincing ones--to believe that the Cosmos is a
pointless mechanical husk, devoid of any process more interesting than
gravity, atoms or self-replicating DNA.
While I know this to be, wonderfully, quite false, I also know that bullying
people into sharing my perspective is an ugly, violent thing to do. I'm not
interested in scoring converts; I don't get Catholic browniepoints or a
medal from His Holiness if, by the grace of God, someone reads my words and
thinks differently afterward. I only want to have a discussion. A real one,
not a ruse for me to sneak ideas into atheist heads with a friendly manner,
nor for atheists to use me for a punching bag because they were abused by
mediocre fascist bullies who affected to be Christian.
But if you're bitter or furious, I can take it. I get it, I totally do,
I've been there myself. But what I've found is that God is not prissy and
he's not the psychopath that Christianoid zombie masters make him out to be.
And in my understanding, he's as much like a seven year old girl playing in
a mud puddle as he is some kind of avenging king.
So if you would like to talk with a Christian who's not trying to hustle
you, who's suffered a bit and knows that life is often a hard goddamned
uphill slog in the rain; and who also understands God to be the funniest
comedian in the Cosmos, then I'm your guy.
Tell me what's up, read me the riot act, and I'll respond, probably without
any Scripture. I know that it's the most maddening thing in the world to be
in throes of despair or bottomless grief, to have your whole life collapse
upon you and to have some glowy Christian Smurf throw Scripture in your
face, or tell you that it's God's will and just have faith and it will all
be better tomorrow. Intelligent Adults need something more than that, and I
might be able to provide it.
--Brax
"So come and dress me up in pretzels,
dress me up in bark beer suds!
For I'm going doe mi doeing
in my doe mi doe duds!"
.
|
|
| User: "Paercebal" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 07:12:41 PM |
|
|
"Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com> faithfully wrote :
[...]
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
[...]
While I know [..] I also know [...]
[...]
--Brax
You seem quite eager to share *your* truth. The discussion has not
yet started you *know* you are right. You don't have the smallest
proof to justify your faith, but you *know*. DNA, physics and science
had proved themselves quite efficient, but they can't be true because
you *know*.
The problem is : Should I decide to use the same reasoning you used, I
would say "I *know* you're wrong".
But I won't play along. Your attempt to discussion is sterile because you
came here with *your* answers to *your* questions.
-- Paercebal
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 12:17:32 PM |
|
|
"Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:1134833799.397858@jetspin.drizzle.com:
Hey Everyone,
I've been on Usenet for many years, and I've had a bellyful of flame
wars and useless bickering between Christians and Non-Christians.
Well, you came to the right place to get more of that.
But I think the discussion about whether or not there is a God, and
why people believe what they do, is an important one to have. So I'm
hoping to start a conversation.
Ok.
Now, let me be plain. I am a fervent Catholic of the rarer
progressive variety.
Too bad. Sounds like a personal problem.
I understand that God presents himself to
different people in different ways. I understand that he speaks to
everyone, atheist and Catholic, Muslim, Jew and hindu,with unfailing
commitment and passion.
And how do you know this? Is there any way anyone else can verify this?
I mean unless you can provide something to verify, this is all just a
figment of your imagination.
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
How to you know this? What can I do to verify it objectively?
Two thousand years ago, God did
walk among us as a man, taught love, ethics and faith, and was
humiliated, beaten and executed for his trouble.
And where is your evidence for this? Other than one book of judeo-xian
myth and legend?
I also know that
this is very difficult to believe or understand, and I completely get,
given the condition of the world and the difficulty of most human
lives,why the very idea of the Incarnation can seem ridiculous or
offensive to some.
As well as down right silly since you can't provide any objective
verifiable evidence that supports this fantasy.
There are compelling reasons --or anyway,
convincing ones--to believe that the Cosmos is a pointless mechanical
husk, devoid of any process more interesting than gravity, atoms or
self-replicating DNA.
That's funny, I find gravity, atoms, DNA... quite interesting.
While I know this to be, wonderfully, quite false, I also know that
bullying people into sharing my perspective is an ugly, violent thing
to do. I'm not interested in scoring converts; I don't get Catholic
browniepoints or a medal from His Holiness if, by the grace of God,
someone reads my words and thinks differently afterward. I only want
to have a discussion. A real one, not a ruse for me to sneak ideas
into atheist heads with a friendly manner, nor for atheists to use me
for a punching bag because they were abused by mediocre fascist
bullies who affected to be Christian.
So, what's your point? Until you provide objective verifiable evidence
for gods, why would we be interested in your imaginary friends?
But if you're bitter or furious, I can take it. I get it, I totally
do, I've been there myself. But what I've found is that God is not
prissy and he's not the psychopath that Christianoid zombie masters
make him out to be. And in my understanding, he's as much like a seven
year old girl playing in a mud puddle as he is some kind of avenging
king.
And how do you get this understanding of god? Do you have some objective
verifiable means that I could use to find out the same thing?
So if you would like to talk with a Christian who's not trying to
hustle you, who's suffered a bit and knows that life is often a hard
goddamned uphill slog in the rain; and who also understands God to be
the funniest comedian in the Cosmos, then I'm your guy.
Yeah, I'm sure we all think that last years tsunami, or hurricanes, or
earthquakes are really funny.
Tell me what's up, read me the riot act, and I'll respond, probably
without any Scripture. I know that it's the most maddening thing in
the world to be in throes of despair or bottomless grief, to have your
whole life collapse upon you and to have some glowy Christian Smurf
throw Scripture in your face, or tell you that it's God's will and
just have faith and it will all be better tomorrow. Intelligent
Adults need something more than that, and I might be able to provide
it.
Well, you're going to have to do better. You haven't provided anything
worthwhile yet.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abraxael" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 11:20:47 PM |
|
|
And how do you get this understanding of god? Do you have some objective
verifiable means that I could use to find out the same thing?
I'm not offering that, and I've never said that I was. Go back and read
earlier posts, bub. You're not dealing with a missionary here; that's not
my gig.
Yeah, I'm sure we all think that last years tsunami, or hurricanes, or
earthquakes are really funny.
Okay, that's good. That's *very* good. Now we can talk some turkey . But
first I'm going to tell you something about me.
About eight years ago, I came down with a slight case of AIDS. Hey, I know:
cry me a river. I'm a big kid, I knew what I was doing. Noone's to blame
but me. Adult swim, please.
As a result of the encephalitis enabled by the disease, I also lost half my
eyesight. Same thing. Pay to play. You go to the baths, you're not taking
precautions, then as Daffy Duck says, you're asking for it.
Now, I was furious at God for all of that. It was all his fault. He gave
me AIDS, he stole my eyes, he's a big sadistic *****, I was sure of
it.
And during one of my frequent bouts of rage, I screamed some blasphemies at
him. I won't say here what they were, but it was everything I could think
of, packed into a sentence and flung at Godwith all the strength that
despair can give an arm that's been wasting for two years. Not very much,
in other words. But I hoped it would be enough to provoke an annoyed and
terminal lightning boltfrom Heaven.
Well, clearly, I was dreadfully disappointed. And after I had emptied
myself of all that bile, I got really quiet and sat down on my bed. And
then I heard what I knew was the voice of God.
It was utterly silent, and to say that it was a voice is just a way of
talking about it. It was very small, almost a smell as much as a sound, and
it was a smell that I heard in my heart.
it was unmistakable. I'm not talking aboutsome fleeting idea or thought.
I'm not talking here about something which could be mistaken for gas or
nerves or anything else. It felt like nothing I have ever felt in my life,
and hardly dare to hope that I shall ever feel again.
And what he said was: Yes.
He said a good deal more, but that was the gist: Yes, I know. Keep talking
to me. Don't be scared. Your fury is appropriate, it's good and just.
Yes.
It was all in that word, and more that I don't even have the skill to
translate.
I didn't cry or fall on the floor. I didn't start speaking in tongues (That
was another time, and I fear it had nothing to do with God.)There was
nothing dramatic, no Industrial Light and Magic or soaring strings. But
with that one word, which was a smell that I heard in my heart, I was
transformed.
Attend me, though, closely. There were no miracles of the National Enquirer
kind. I was not cured of blindness, and I was not cured of HIV, and I
nearly died of pneumonia trying to prove it. I had then, as I like to say,
another hard goddamned uphill slog in the rain, and it lasted for seven
years.
But very recently, I reached the top of the hill; or anyway, I can see the
summit. And I still have HIV, and I still can't see, but I am happy. I have
never been so happy. I write these emails to you all, and I spend most of
the time either laughing or sobbing. Not for me. You've never hurt my
feelings, though some of you have played hell with my patience. Which listen
to me, DESERVES to be tried, because I'm a vulgar impatient swine.
Bully for you, I say. Give me hell!You fucking DESERVE a punching bag, and
I deserve to be one. Do you know how good it can be to be a punching bag
when you've been an arrogant selfish ***** your whole life?
You arrogant swine!
Oh my dears, say that to me again.
Shut the ***** up, you phony Christian windbag!
Oh God, I'm going to *****.
--Brax
any Scripture. I know that it's the most maddening thing in
the world to be in throes of despair or bottomless grief, to have your
whole life collapse upon you and to have some glowy Christian Smurf
throw Scripture in your face, or tell you that it's God's will and
just have faith and it will all be better tomorrow. Intelligent
Adults need something more than that, and I might be able to provide
it.
Well, you're going to have to do better. You haven't provided anything
worthwhile yet.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
18 Dec 2005 07:32:18 AM |
|
|
"Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:1134883248.987316@jetspin.drizzle.com:
And how do you get this understanding of god? Do you have some
objective verifiable means that I could use to find out the same
thing?
I'm not offering that, and I've never said that I was. Go back and
read earlier posts, bub. You're not dealing with a missionary here;
that's not my gig.
I'm not sure I see the point of your posts then. If you aren't trying to
proselytize they why are you here telling us about your god? It's not
like you came in asking reasonable questions in an attempt to better
understand atheism, atheists and why we aren't interested in your god
beliefs. (Except perhaps to defend ourselves against those xians who are
trying to run this country, its schools, people's lives, etc. according
to their myths.)
Yeah, I'm sure we all think that last years tsunami, or hurricanes,
or earthquakes are really funny.
Okay, that's good. That's *very* good. Now we can talk some turkey
. But first I'm going to tell you something about me.
(snip sob story)
Bully for you, I say. Give me hell!You fucking DESERVE a punching
bag, and I deserve to be one. Do you know how good it can be to be a
punching bag when you've been an arrogant selfish ***** your whole
life?
You arrogant swine!
Oh my dears, say that to me again.
Shut the ***** up, you phony Christian windbag!
Oh God, I'm going to *****.
--Brax
Ah, I see, it's part of your sexual fantasy to be verbally abused and
your religious fantasies offer a convenient way to ***** people off.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "navi-gater" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 11:40:49 AM |
|
|
"Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:1134833799.397858@jetspin.drizzle.com:
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
Then there is nothing to discuss on the matter.
gater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abraxael" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 09:04:02 PM |
|
|
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
Then there is nothing to discuss on the matter.
If you say so, Wally.
--Brax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 10:22:16 PM |
|
|
"Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:1134875043.603376@jetspin.drizzle.com...
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
Then there is nothing to discuss on the matter.
If you say so, Wally.
Obviously.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 10:47:29 AM |
|
|
"Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:1134833799.397858@jetspin.drizzle.com...
Hey Everyone,
I've been on Usenet for many years, and I've had a bellyful of flame wars
and useless bickering between Christians and Non-Christians.
But I think the discussion about whether or not there is a God, and why
people believe what they do, is an important one to have. So I'm hoping
to start a conversation.
Now, let me be plain. I am a fervent Catholic of the rarer progressive
variety. I understand that God presents himself to different people in
different ways. I understand that he speaks to everyone, atheist and
Catholic, Muslim, Jew and hindu,with unfailing commitment and passion.
Can you prove this?
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
Really? How? Based on what evidence?
Two thousand years ago, God did walk
among us as a man, taught love, ethics and faith, and was humiliated,
beaten and executed for his trouble.
Please prove this.
I also know that this is very difficult to
believe or understand, and I completely get, given the condition of the
world and the difficulty of most human lives,why the very idea of the
Incarnation can seem ridiculous or offensive to some. There are
compelling reasons --or anyway, convincing ones--to believe that the
Cosmos is a pointless mechanical husk, devoid of any process more
interesting than gravity, atoms or self-replicating DNA.
While I know this to be, wonderfully, quite false,
Based on what evidence? Hint: The bible doesn't count.
I also know that bullying
people into sharing my perspective is an ugly, violent thing to do. I'm
not interested in scoring converts; I don't get Catholic browniepoints or
a medal from His Holiness if, by the grace of God, someone reads my words
and thinks differently afterward. I only want to have a discussion. A
real one, not a ruse for me to sneak ideas into atheist heads with a
friendly manner, nor for atheists to use me for a punching bag because
they were abused by mediocre fascist bullies who affected to be Christian.
But if you're bitter or furious, I can take it. I get it, I totally do,
I've been there myself. But what I've found is that God is not prissy and
he's not the psychopath that Christianoid zombie masters make him out to
be. And in my understanding, he's as much like a seven year old girl
playing in a mud puddle as he is some kind of avenging king.
How do you know this?
So if you would like to talk with a Christian who's not trying to hustle
you, who's suffered a bit and knows that life is often a hard goddamned
uphill slog in the rain; and who also understands God to be the funniest
comedian in the Cosmos, then I'm your guy.
Okay, well, first off, prove your god exists.
Then we'll take it from there.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abraxael" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 02:55:04 PM |
|
|
I understand that God presents himself to different people in different
ways. I understand that he speaks to everyone, atheist and Catholic, Muslim,
Jew and hindu,with unfailing commitment and passion.
Can you prove this?
No, I'm pretty sure I can't. What's under discussion here, as I understand
it, is not a theorem in algebra, but a Mystery.
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
Really? How? Based on what evidence?
Well, you see. There's an issue here which might be an even more
fundamental problem than our philosophical relationship to the idea of God's
existence.
Baiscally, I don't deal in evidence. My faith was not formed from following
clues, at least not in the way you mean. I went to Mass one day. I was not
yet baptized, but I wanted to check out this Catholic thing. I always had a
penchant for costumes and big hats; it's a queer thing.
But what happened to me once I was in the Cathedral and heard Father Ryan
say the homily is that I had a powerful experience of truth. I had a certain
knowledge that what was being said, though it had been written two thousand
years ago, was meant for me, pertained quite precisely to the details of my
life, which at the time were not very happy ones.
And I went from that Mass, and I did some things that were indicated in the
homily, and things began to change. more to the point, I was transformed.
Situations which had seemed hopeless and stagnant began to break apart and
resolve,and I felt good. There was new hope in my life, new energy, a way
to proceed from where I was, when --I know this is a dogeared Christian
formula--I had been terribly lost.
Two thousand years ago, God did walk among us as a man, taught love, ethics
and faith, and was humiliated, beaten and executed for his trouble.
Please prove this.
No, I think not. But I would like very much if you continued to ask me
questions. It might be more interesting if you brought to bear something
more than terse demands for incontrovertible proof of God's existence, which
were never on offer here. You've obviously had some ugly experiences with
Christian zealots, and I'm *very*sorry about that. My hope here is to create
an atmosphere of trust, so that people who've been fucked over by the Church
in one way or another, or who hate the name of Jesus Christ because of the
nine billion butcheries committed in his name, can talk turkey about what's
really at stake, instead of bickering over things which probably can't be
proven, no matter what the zealots might say.
And in my understanding, he's as much like a seven year old girl playing in
a mud puddle as he is some kind of avenging king.
How do you know this?
It is difficult for me to answer that question in those terms. I know it,
but it is not the sort of knowledge you're talking about, and it might be a
kind of knowledge whose validity you simply do not acknowledge.
There is a crisis herein a way much more worrisome than your relationship to
God. Because whether you want to go right now or not, you're going, and
you'll kick yourself when you realize what a terrible time you gave poor old
Brax back here on Earth.
Not really. I enjoy this conversation. It's my favorite thing really, or
one of them. I have other favorite things, but if the Pope got wind of
them, I'd be canonized, and I can't think of anything worse, besides
listening to "The O'reilly Factor".
Okay, well, first off, prove your god exists. Then we'll take it from
there.
You're asking a completely reasonable question. The problem is that God's
nature, strictly speaking, is not rational. There have been others who
approached the question in terms which might be more familiar to your
particular tilt of consciousness. Saint Anselm wrote a sort of
theo-mathematical proof,and Saint Buonaventura penned a book entitled "The
Mind's Rode to God". But those are heavy hitters, guys who'll get a
screaming ovation when they ride down Yeshua Boulevard in a purple
Lamborghini during the Festival of Heaven. Now, those were some real
saints. I'm just a guy in his underwear. If we're going to talk, we'll both
have to make do.
--Brax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 07:05:36 PM |
|
|
"Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:1134852906.381791@jetspin.drizzle.com...
I understand that God presents himself to different people in different
ways. I understand that he speaks to everyone, atheist and Catholic,
Muslim, Jew and hindu,with unfailing commitment and passion.
Can you prove this?
No, I'm pretty sure I can't. What's under discussion here, as I
understand it, is not a theorem in algebra, but a Mystery.
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
Really? How? Based on what evidence?
Well, you see. There's an issue here which might be an even more
fundamental problem than our philosophical relationship to the idea of
God's existence.
Baiscally, I don't deal in evidence.
Oh well. I do.
<story snipped>
Two thousand years ago, God did walk among us as a man, taught love,
ethics and faith, and was humiliated, beaten and executed for his trouble.
Please prove this.
No, I think not. But I would like very much if you continued to ask me
questions. It might be more interesting if you brought to bear something
more than terse demands for incontrovertible proof of God's existence,
which were never on offer here.
Sorry, bud. This is what I do. If you can't answer my "terse" questions,
then there's no point in continuing further.
You've obviously had some ugly experiences with
Christian zealots,
You're obviously incorrect.
and I'm *very*sorry about that. My hope here is to create
an atmosphere of trust, so that people who've been fucked over by the
Church in one way or another, or who hate the name of Jesus Christ because
of the nine billion butcheries committed in his name, can talk turkey
about what's really at stake, instead of bickering over things which
probably can't be proven, no matter what the zealots might say.
What IS really at stake? In your opinion, of course.
And in my understanding, he's as much like a seven year old girl playing
in a mud puddle as he is some kind of avenging king.
How do you know this?
It is difficult for me to answer that question in those terms. I know it,
but it is not the sort of knowledge you're talking about, and it might be
a kind of knowledge whose validity you simply do not acknowledge.
Okay. Interesting non-answer.
There is a crisis herein a way much more worrisome than your relationship
to God.
Excsue me? You think I'm ungoing some kind of a crisis? Hate to burst your
bubble, but I'm not. And I don't spend much time considering a
"relationship" with a mythological being.
Because whether you want to go right now or not, you're going, and
you'll kick yourself when you realize what a terrible time you gave poor
old Brax back here on Earth.
Uh huh. I have a feeling you have a bit of an ego problem.
Not really. I enjoy this conversation.
Whatever blows your dress up.
It's my favorite thing really, or
one of them. I have other favorite things, but if the Pope got wind of
them, I'd be canonized, and I can't think of anything worse, besides
listening to "The O'reilly Factor".
Yep, you definitely have an ego problem. Is it difficult getting that head
of yours through the door?
Okay, well, first off, prove your god exists. Then we'll take it from
there.
You're asking a completely reasonable question. The problem is that God's
nature, strictly speaking, is not rational.
How do you know this?
There have been others who
approached the question in terms which might be more familiar to your
particular tilt of consciousness. Saint Anselm wrote a sort of
theo-mathematical proof,and Saint Buonaventura penned a book entitled "The
Mind's Rode to God". But those are heavy hitters, guys who'll get a
screaming ovation when they ride down Yeshua Boulevard in a purple
Lamborghini during the Festival of Heaven. Now, those were some real
saints. I'm just a guy in his underwear. If we're going to talk, we'll
both have to make do.
Forgot it then. No evidence - no interest.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 07:17:43 PM |
|
|
In <1134852906.381791@jetspin.drizzle.com>, "Abraxael"
<abraxael@drizzle.com> wrote:
Baiscally, I don't deal in evidence.
Well, we do.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We need everything you've got"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2726554C
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
18 Dec 2005 06:18:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:55:04 -0800, "Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com>
wrote:
I understand that God presents himself to different people in different
ways. I understand that he speaks to everyone, atheist and Catholic, Muslim,
Jew and hindu,with unfailing commitment and passion.
Can you prove this?
No, I'm pretty sure I can't. What's under discussion here, as I understand
it, is not a theorem in algebra, but a Mystery.
So you believe and understanding is based on .... nothing? A warm
feeling?
I know the Incarnation to be truth.
Really? How? Based on what evidence?
Well, you see. There's an issue here which might be an even more
fundamental problem than our philosophical relationship to the idea of God's
existence.
Baiscally, I don't deal in evidence.
Pity. We do.
But what happened to me once I was in the Cathedral and heard Father Ryan
say the homily is that I had a powerful experience of truth.
Now, if you by the same coincidence walked into a mosque, and heard
iman Ali Baba say exactly the homily, would you now have been
mohammedan?
- snip -
Please prove this.
No, I think not.
Kindly do try. I admit pissing in a dark suite gives a warm feeling,
but I don't recommend it.
But I would like very much if you continued to ask me
questions.
Which you will answer with cute stories, gut feelings and no proof.
What would the use be? Can't you play solitaire?
It might be more interesting if you brought to bear something
more than terse demands for incontrovertible proof of God's existence, which
were never on offer here.
You believe in gods (at least five: Daddy, Sonny, Spook, Mommy and Bad
Boy), but you can't find any evidence for it?
You've obviously had some ugly experiences with
Christian zealots, and I'm *very*sorry about that.
Don't be. Not your fault. Besides, why is it obvious? I haven't had
any problems at all with religious idiots; I normally ignore and avoid
them.
It seems not so obvious to you at least that one might reject your
grimory because there is no proof for it? That it makes absolutely no
sense at all?
My hope here is to create
an atmosphere of trust, so that people who've been fucked over by the Church
in one way or another, or who hate the name of Jesus Christ because of the
nine billion butcheries committed in his name, can talk turkey about what's
really at stake, instead of bickering over things which probably can't be
proven, no matter what the zealots might say.
Sweety, if you can proof, won't proof, kindly *****. This is
al.atheism. We don't believe in gods, we don't particularly like gods
(though I find Ganesh rather cute). What you want is to participate in
alt.roman.catholic.converts.atheists.
And in my understanding, he's as much like a seven year old girl playing in
a mud puddle as he is some kind of avenging king.
How do you know this?
It is difficult for me to answer that question in those terms.
Let me get this straight: you just said your five gods behave like a 7
yr old toddler. Asked why, you basically say 'why, I don't quite kow.
It's just the way I feel it."
Are you able to find the loo unassisted?
I know it,
but it is not the sort of knowledge you're talking about, and it might be a
kind of knowledge whose validity you simply do not acknowledge.
You are talking about it. Not only that, you are the one to start the
debate.
There is a crisis herein a way much more worrisome than your relationship to
God.
Probably no use in asking 'why' here.
Because whether you want to go right now or not, you're going, and
you'll kick yourself when you realize what a terrible time you gave poor old
Brax back here on Earth.
Brax? Whose Brax? Buddy of Bruce?
Not really. I enjoy this conversation. It's my favorite thing really, or
one of them. I have other favorite things, but if the Pope got wind of
them, I'd be canonized, and I can't think of anything worse, besides
listening to "The O'reilly Factor".
Okay, well, first off, prove your god exists. Then we'll take it from
there.
You're asking a completely reasonable question. The problem is that God's
nature, strictly speaking, is not rational.
Why?
There have been others who
approached the question in terms which might be more familiar to your
particular tilt of consciousness.
I don't particularly like your sneering attitude.
Saint Anselm wrote a sort of
theo-mathematical proof,and Saint Buonaventura penned a book entitled "The
Mind's Rode to God".
If I recall correctly, those chappies are early middle ages. What the
***** I do I have to do with some morons who also believed in a flat
earth?
But those are heavy hitters, guys who'll get a
screaming ovation when they ride down Yeshua Boulevard in a purple
Lamborghini during the Festival of Heaven. Now, those were some real
saints. I'm just a guy in his underwear. If we're going to talk, we'll both
have to make do.
I don't have to do anything, kiddo. You have to do the footwork.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
18 Dec 2005 03:50:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:55:04 -0800, While I was gettin a beer,
somebody, could have been "Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com>, wrote:
Baiscally, I don't deal in evidence.
Now there is a bloody surprise.
You can make whatever, bull *****, *****-a-meme, assertions you like,
and do not need to support them, because you "don't deal in evidence".
Wonderful; And you expect debate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
18 Dec 2005 04:54:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:50:14 GMT, Nightshade
<nightshade@thedeepwoods.web> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:55:04 -0800, While I was gettin a beer,
somebody, could have been "Abraxael" <abraxael@drizzle.com>, wrote:
Baiscally, I don't deal in evidence.
Now there is a bloody surprise.
You can make whatever, bull *****, *****-a-meme, assertions you like,
and do not need to support them, because you "don't deal in evidence".
Wonderful; And you expect debate?
"*****-a-meme" !
The real Richard Dawkins would be proud of that Darwinian Slip! ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
18 Dec 2005 10:32:04 PM |
|
|
Abraxael wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I've been on Usenet for many years, and I've had a bellyful of flame wars
and useless bickering between Christians and Non-Christians.
But I think the discussion about whether or not there is a God, and why
people believe what they do, is an important one to have. So I'm hoping to
start a conversation.
I admire your attitude, but if nobody's mind is going to change, I'm
not sure what the point of this conversation would be. I'm always happy
to vent my frustrations, though.
Having read many responses already, I have two things to say.
First of all, beliefs are not choices. To believe, means to think
something is true. You can't will yourself to think something is true.
And if you feel you need to will yourself to believe something, it must
not be very believable. Belief can only happen through evidence or
experience. It's simple cause and effect. So, by necessity, evidence
needs to be the focus of any discussion about belief. Evidence is the
means by which beliefs spread from person to person. Proof is the means
by which knowledge spreads from person to person.
Most Christians come here expecting to change people's minds, without
the tools for the job. They have never had a non-Christian worldview.
They have never been through a conversion; therefore, they do not know
what is necessary to cause a conversion. So we tell them. Evidence is
necessary. Proof is necessary. When you think about it, we're doing
them a favor by telling them this. Now they know what to do. They can't
do it, of course, but that's their problem, not ours. And the thing
that really pisses me off, is when they tell me that they were atheists
until God came along and spoke to them, or knocked them off their horse
on the road to Damascus, or whatever... God did something to convert
them, God did something to them or for them that God never bothered to
do to us. They couldn't convert until God forced them to. They couldn't
do it. But they expect us to do it ourselves. And if we can't, we're
just being stubborn. Riiiight.
Second, about God being a psychopath. It's not just the Pat Robertsons
and the Jerry Fallwells who portray God as a psychopath. The Bible
itself portrays God as a psychopath. It's the whole basis of
Christianity. A God whose "name is Jealous", who loves the smell of
burning flesh, demands bloodshed and death as the only possible payment
for even the smallest of sins. And by "sin", I mean something as
innocent as wearing the wrong kind of fabric. "Vengeance is mine,
sayeth the Lord." Not justice, but vengeance. Jesus is the path to
salvation, but what are we being saved from? From the wrath of a
psychopath. If God is not a psychopath, then the scarifice of Jesus on
the Cross becomes utterly meaningless. Why would you need to be saved
from someone sane?
Thanks to Jesus, the only sin anybody goes to Hell for anymore, is
doubt. There is absolutely nothing wrong, certainly nothing MORALLY
wrong, with doubting things that don't look true. Nobody wants untrue
beliefs. Skepticism is the key to avoiding untrue beliefs, especially
in this world full of deceivers and false prophets. But the "one true
God" demands that we lower our protection against false beliefs, in
order to better believe in Him. So the choice offered to us is, either
stop caring about truth, or go to Hell.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
19 Dec 2005 01:28:56 AM |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2005 20:32:04 -0800, "William T. Goat"
<ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote:
Most Christians come here expecting to change people's minds, without
the tools for the job. They have never had a non-Christian worldview.
They have never been through a conversion; therefore, they do not know
what is necessary to cause a conversion. So we tell them. Evidence is
necessary. Proof is necessary. When you think about it, we're doing
them a favor by telling them this. Now they know what to do. They can't
do it, of course, but that's their problem, not ours. And the thing
that really pisses me off, is when they tell me that they were atheists
until God came along and spoke to them, or knocked them off their horse
on the road to Damascus, or whatever... God did something to convert
them, God did something to them or for them that God never bothered to
do to us. They couldn't convert until God forced them to. They couldn't
do it. But they expect us to do it ourselves. And if we can't, we're
just being stubborn. Riiiight.
All of these start off from the implicit presumption of God - even
though the person doing it knows it's mythical to his audience.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 11:46:55 PM |
|
|
Abraxael wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I've been on Usenet for many years, and I've had a bellyful of flame wars
and useless bickering between Christians and Non-Christians.
But I think the discussion about whether or not there is a God, and why
people believe what they do, is an important one to have. So I'm hoping to
start a conversation.
I'm curious, having read the thread.
In what way do you hope to have a conversation about whether or not
there is a God with people who clearly operate from a different
paradigm? In other words, you are convinced god is, and they are
equally convinced that god isn't -- and though any or all may at some
point change their minds (and in fact, many including you *have*
changed their minds) the discussion is basically about the premise of
an opening gambit. If one doesn't accept the premise, what else is
there to discuss?
Secondly, on the topic of whether God exists or not, what purpose does
conversation hope to serve? Why is it important?
Now, *why* people believe what they do is -- to me, anyhow -- an
extremely interesting topic, and the answers are as varied as the
people who give them.
Anyhow, you seem like a nice person who perhaps might be casting a net
for people who might want to engage on some topics you're passionate
about. Usenet's a good place for that. So a friendly word of caution
-- talking about God's existence when it isn't acknowledged by your
target audience is probably not going to be productive, and is probably
going to look like the same proselytizing they can read here on a
hundred different threads (only perhaps gentler, better thought out,
and better written). Yet good conversation can still be had on a
variety of sub-topics, including the one about reasons for believing in
a given way.
I'm not an atheist, by the way. I had a period of time of enjoying
participating on this newsgroup a great deal, have learned a lot (if
only because I'd get intrigued and have to go look things up), and have
made several extremely good friends on here. And as I happen to think
that dialogue between opposing groups to seek common ground is a good
and necessary thing *all* the time, and since your tone seems genial
and funny and engaging, I'm hoping you'll have as enjoyable a sojourn
as I did. I believe you can.
Sunny
and for heaven's sake, put some clothes on -- it's winter!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 11:56:37 PM |
|
|
On 17 Dec 2005 21:46:55 -0800, "stillsunny1@yahoo.com"
<stillsunny1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abraxael wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I've been on Usenet for many years, and I've had a bellyful of flame wars
and useless bickering between Christians and Non-Christians.
But I think the discussion about whether or not there is a God, and why
people believe what they do, is an important one to have. So I'm hoping to
start a conversation.
I'm curious, having read the thread.
In what way do you hope to have a conversation about whether or not
there is a God with people who clearly operate from a different
paradigm? In other words, you are convinced god is, and they are
equally convinced that god isn't -- and though any or all may at some
point change their minds (and in fact, many including you *have*
changed their minds) the discussion is basically about the premise of
an opening gambit. If one doesn't accept the premise, what else is
there to discuss?
Secondly, on the topic of whether God exists or not, what purpose does
conversation hope to serve? Why is it important?
Now, *why* people believe what they do is -- to me, anyhow -- an
extremely interesting topic, and the answers are as varied as the
people who give them.
Anyhow, you seem like a nice person who perhaps might be casting a net
for people who might want to engage on some topics you're passionate
about. Usenet's a good place for that. So a friendly word of caution
-- talking about God's existence when it isn't acknowledged by your
target audience is probably not going to be productive, and is probably
going to look like the same proselytizing they can read here on a
hundred different threads (only perhaps gentler, better thought out,
and better written). Yet good conversation can still be had on a
variety of sub-topics, including the one about reasons for believing in
a given way.
I'm not an atheist, by the way. I had a period of time of enjoying
participating on this newsgroup a great deal, have learned a lot (if
only because I'd get intrigued and have to go look things up), and have
made several extremely good friends on here. And as I happen to think
that dialogue between opposing groups to seek common ground is a good
and necessary thing *all* the time, and since your tone seems genial
and funny and engaging, I'm hoping you'll have as enjoyable a sojourn
as I did. I believe you can.
Sunny
and for heaven's sake, put some clothes on -- it's winter!
For half the planet, maybe.
The internet stretches to the Southern hemisphere, you know.
It's "still sunny" here in Australia.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Time Shifter" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
28 Dec 2005 05:31:33 AM |
|
|
Abraxael wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I've been on Usenet for many years, and I've had a bellyful of flame wars
and useless bickering between Christians and Non-Christians.
But I think the discussion about whether or not there is a God, and why
people believe what they do, is an important one to have. So I'm hoping to
start a conversation.
Now, let me be plain. I am a fervent Catholic of ...
*Thus spake God's Creator*
Nice chatting with you, Good Bye!
:-(
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: God or No God? Let's Chat |
17 Dec 2005 10:49:31 AM |
|
|
How can you justify your belief in the face of these facts?
Amazingly, Christians almost never question the authenticity of Jesus and
the Bibles, yet the very foundation of their faith is based on their
authenticity.
If religion was based on facts instead of pure faith the followers would be
called knowers instead of followers. Why are there thousands of different
"one true faiths"?
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus;
no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. No
contemporary Roman records show Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.
Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing
that mentions Jesus. All documents ( the Bibles )about Jesus were written
long after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors,
people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or
allegorical writings. It is reasonable to assume that these ancient
documents were doctored and altered to enhance the power of the clerics of
the time. Many of these writings come from fraud, interpolations and
hearsay.
The documents included in the Bible were selected by the church leaders to
support and enhance their power. The rest have been destroyed by church
leaders.
The earliest part of New Testament was written more than 60 years after the
claimed death of Jesus Christ and the Old Testaments were just a collection
of various regional stories from older civilizations. Why are there NO
contemporary documents created while Jesus was claimed to be on earth? Could
it be that Jesus is just a fable created by church leaders to enhance their
power? There are NO originals of any of the Old or New testaments. They are
all hand copies of copies of copies with alterations to suite the copiers.
The Bibles contain both historical and scientific errors. They contain
manifest absurdities, unfulfilled prophesies, immoralities, indecencies,
obscenities, atrocities, barbarities, myths, folklore and legends. They are
mostly nonsense and hearsay.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a
witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not allow hearsay as testimony, and
nor does honest modern scholarship.
We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or
monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies that are believed as fact
are taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. Humans are known to lie and
exaggerate to benefit themselves or express their delusions.
Valid historian's do not just tell unsubstantiated stories, but cite their
articles with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to
eyewitnesses and physical artifacts.
The most claimed "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from
the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not
come into the Bible as original and authoritative documents from the authors
themselves, but rather from copies influenced by early church leaders,
especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in
the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels were written by
that time, but Irenaeus selected only four of them, out of almost fifty, for
mystical reasons.
The four gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew and John) then became Church cannon
for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were
burned, destroyed, or lost.
Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag
Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually
wrote any of them. Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that
NONE of the Gospels were contemporarily written during the alleged life of
Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly
Jesus. Add to this that NONE of the ORIGINAL gospel manuscripts exist; we
only have copies of copies of copies etc. ( The printing press was not
invented until 1400 years AFTER the last Bible was claimed to have been
written. )
Why would any REAL GOD permit the destruction of his words and the
distortion of his history???
The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest New
Testament Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last
Gospel, John after 90 C.E. This would make it some 40 years after the
alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have ANY Gospel writings that mention
him!
The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke,
Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that
there is simply no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the
apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests
and ministers describing these authors as the actual Disciples of Christ.
This is factually false.
Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them,
consider that the average life span of humans in the first century was about
30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occurred at
about the same time as the alleged Jesus crucifixion, and wrote their
gospels in their old age, Mark then was at least 70 years old, and John at
over 110. Rather unlikely.
The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although
Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark was
written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can
deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his
personal follower.
Whoever wrote the gospel, simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without
question and wrote a crude and ungrammatical account of the popular story at
the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark,
Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and
Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some
600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the
author of Mark, stands at least at a third removed from Jesus and more
likely a fourth removed. [Helms]
The author of Matthew had obviously obtained his information from Mark's
gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal
to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel,
corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened and
embellished the miracles and magic.
The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and
not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4).
No one knows the author or where or how he got his information or the date
of its authorship. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and
obscure sources.
John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological
discourses from Jesus that could not possibly have come as literal words
from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described
in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of
eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown
authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe
narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who
wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person,
not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus
could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of
the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone.
If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists
report about what Jesus thoughts. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts?
Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any
case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as
fictional, mythological, or false stories.
Doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as
Hebrews, James John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude and Revelation, were raised even in
antiquity by Origen and Eusebius. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of
James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude,
Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. ALL New Testament writings came
well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors.
Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest
surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars
have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However,
there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever
meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus'
life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come
from other believers or his imagination. Paul's Biblical letters are pure
hearsay.
Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter
writer, but which James? The Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an
introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical
Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.
Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation
appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the
same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of
a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from
the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church.
The epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do
we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay
accounts.
Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the
epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote
it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright
forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full
edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985. In short, no one has any way of
determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author
also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims
of the Church.
Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no claims or
eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus.
As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No
book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we
have, come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals and
copiers. The earliest copies we have were written more than a century later
than the autographs, and these exist only on fragments of papyrus.
[Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to
find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century,
and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]
The editing and formation of the Bibles came from members of the early
Christian Church. Since the leaders of the Church possessed the texts and
determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of
opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster
the power of the Church and it's leaders.
Take, for example, [Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church
historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he
openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests
of the Church (Remsberg). The first mention of Jesus came from Eusebius
(none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes as no
surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In
his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history
in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and
afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio
Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting
to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be
Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).
The early Church had such power over people, that to question the Church
could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had to
take it as "truth." St. Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We
should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is
really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus,
who determined the four gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the
Heresies." According to Romer, Irenaeus' great book not only became the
yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of
later inquisitions.
" [Romer] The early Church burned many heretics, along with their sacred
texts. If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings were burned along
with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.
With such intransigence from the Church and the admitting to lying for its
cause, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how
could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute,
much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intolerant and
biased position, as reliable evidence? Certainly NOT the word of any God!
Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, was born in 62 C.E. His letter about
the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian
believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range
of eyewitness accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a
common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if
Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus.
Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported
Jesus.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a
collection of Jewish civil and religious law, including commentaries on the
Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in
Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus,
according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua
Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey]
Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud was written
between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the
3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged
crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan
legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Because the religious mind relies on belief and faith, the religious person
can inherit a dependence on any information that supports a belief and that
includes fraudulent stories, rumors, unreliable data, and fictions, without
the need to check sources, or to investigate the reliability of the
information.
What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what was later written
about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a
single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during
the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!
If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then
the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that
people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of
followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who
claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only
read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great
multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem,
and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless
times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who
congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that
Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one
upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and
great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in
Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes,
including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in
his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The
multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle
healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).
So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a
prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him,
including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the
area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the
poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about
Jesus, who would not have heard of him?
Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the
attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45,
there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the
earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the
temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour
ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and
astrologers, anywhere in the world. Nor does a single contemporary person
write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth
shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.
Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of
the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If
such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't
anyone write about it?
Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming
that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the
lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier,
the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But
the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of
education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course,
also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times,
not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high
priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the
capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but
significant events, especially from a religious sect which allegedly drew so
much popular attention a famous and infamous Jesus.
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20
B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic
philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem
during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish
events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his
volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ."
Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.)
writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23?B.C.E - 79 C.E.).
If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any
reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus
would not have reached the ears of one of these men?
Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who
lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever
mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary,
and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this
embarrassing fact.
Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth,
the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence.
You'd think a Creator might at least make sure there exists some good solid
evidence of his power and existence.
The gross lack of evidentiary evidence was illustrated clearly in an
interview by the renowned Biblical scholar, David Noel Freeman (Freeman, the
General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works). An
interviewer asked him about Biblical interpretation. Freeman replied:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to
convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing
with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little;
otherwise, we can't really say anything."
-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)
The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical
Jesus, he must accept it based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact
that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of
sand.
When a story uses impossible historical locations, or geographical errors
there is serious evidence of fiction.
For example, in Matt 4:8, the author describes the devil taking Jesus into
an exceedingly high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world.
Since there exists no spot on the spheroid earth to view "all the kingdoms,"
we know that the Bible errs here.
John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida
of Galilee. . . ." Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of
the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river.
John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." Critics
agree that no such place as Aenon exists near Salim.
There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time
of the alleged Jesus. [Leedom; Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old
Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even
though he provides a detailed list the cities of Galilee).
Many more errors and unsupported geographical locations appear in the New
Testament. And although one cannot use these as evidence against a
historical Jesus, we can certainly question the reliability of the texts. If
the scriptures make so many factual errors about geology, science, and
contain so many contradictions, falsehoods could occur in any area.
If we have a coupling with historical people and locations, then we should
also have some historical reference of a Jesus to these locations and
people. But just the opposite proves the case. The Bible depicts Herod, the
Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search and kill
the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history supports such a story. Pontius
Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus,
yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels portray a multitude
of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet, and
healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or several decades after, ever
records such a human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known
historical record speaks for itself.
Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of
evidence by claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis
of Jesus, then we cannot establish a historical foundation for other figures
such as Socrates, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc. However, there sits a
vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs either
artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas,
for Jesus we have nothing.
Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind.
We have buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his
name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of
Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Socrates, we have the
eyewitness writings of Plato that depicts his philosophy and life. Napoleon
left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters.
Interestingly, almost all important historical people have descriptions of
what they looked like. Plato described what Socrates looked like, we have
busts of Greek and Roman aristocrats, artwork of Napoleon, etc. We have
descriptions of facial qualities, height, weight, hair length & color, age
and even portraits of most important historical figures. But for Jesus, we
have nothing. Nowhere in the Bible do we have a description of the human
shape of Jesus.
Not until hundreds of years after the alleged Jesus did pictures emerge as
to what he looked like from cult Christians, and these widely differed from
a blond clean shaven, curly haired Apollonian youth (found in the Roman
catacombs) to a long-bearded Italian as depicted to this day. This mimics
the pattern of Greek mythological figures as their believers constructed
various images of what their gods looked like according to their own
cultural image.
Historial people leave us with contemporary evidence, but for Jesus we have
nothing.
If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical
evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts
based solely on hearsay and belief?
To take one example, examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek
mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such
an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a
historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for
a historical Jesus.
Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. Hercules was born as
a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene, his
mother. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill
Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping
mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to
heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives
example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They
believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and
dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have
historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to
the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic
stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and
quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have mention of Jesus in Joesphus'
Antiquities, so also does Joesphus mention Hercules in Antiquities (see:
1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also
mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we
have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have
nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from
stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical
Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have
stories and beliefs about him?
Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth because
they think there never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples
of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails
in the light of the most obvious example-- the Greek mythologies where Greek
and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there
must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus,
Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes
into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to
determine when Hercules lived. As Robert M. Price revealed, "The whole
approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it."
[Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized
mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily
invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have
formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure
fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction
but believed by their constituents.
People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no
longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so
go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand,
still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges.
Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his
existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or
fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends on
establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the
most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief
alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and
secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and
historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a
historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even
the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside
with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation
as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should
depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he says so.
Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably
without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.
===================================================================
THEN WHY THE MYTH OF JESUS?
Some people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has
spread the word of a character named Jesus throughout history, that this
must mean that he actually lived. This argument simply does not hold. The
number of people who believe or write about something or the professional
degrees they hold say nothing at all about fact. Facts derive out of
evidence, not from hearsay, not from hubris scholars, and certainly not from
faithful believers. Regardless of the position or admiration held by a
scholar, believer, or priest, if he or she cannot support their hypothesis
with good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.
While the possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, the possibility
also occurs that a mythology could have arrived totally out of earlier
mythologies. Although we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we
certainly have many accounts for the mythologies of the Middle East and
Egypt during the first century and before that appear similar to the Christ
saviour story.
If you know your ancient history, remember that just before and during the
first century, the Jews had prophesied about an upcoming Messiah based on
Jewish scripture. Their beliefs influenced many of their followers. We know
that powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies, and surely this
proved just as true in ancient times. It served as a popular dream expressed
in Hebrew Scripture for the promise of an "end-time" with a savior to lead
them to the promised land. Indeed, Roman records show executions of several
would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). Many ancients
believed that there could come a final war against the "Sons of Darkness"--
the Romans.
This then could very well have served as the ignition and flame for the
future growth of Christianity. This coupled with the pagan myths of the time
give sufficient information about how such a religion could have formed.
Many of the Hellenistic and pagan myths parallel so closely to the alleged
Jesus that to ignore its similarities means to ignore the mythological
beliefs of history. Dozens of similar savior stories propagated the minds of
humans long before the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus
"the Christ" came to the Christians as original or new.
For example, the religion of Zoroaster, founded circa 628-551 B.C.E. in
ancient Persia which roused mankind in the need for hating a devil, the
belief of a paradise, last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Mithraism,
an offshoot of Zoroastrianism probably influenced early Christianity. The
Magi described in the New Testament appears as Zoroastrian priests. Note the
word "paradise" came from the Persian pairidaeza.
The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to
Jesus. [Leedom, Massey] For some examples:
Horus and the Father as one
Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of
salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)
According to Massey, "The mythical Messiah is Horus in the Osirian Mythos;
Har-Khuti in the Sut-Typhonian; Khunsu in that of Amen-Ra; Iu in the cult of
Atum-Ra; and the Christ of the Gospels is an amalgam of all these
characters."
Osiris, Hercules, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and others compare to
the Christian myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus, all
served as pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers,
virgins for mothers; had their births announced by stars; got born on the
solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their
infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got
worshiped by "wise men" and had allegedly fasted for forty days. [McKinsey,
Chapter 5]
The pre-Christian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of the
Most High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos. Pagan
Mithraism mysteries had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament
of bread & water (Eucharist), the marking on the forehead with a mystic
mark, the symbol of the Rock, the Seven Spirits and seven stars, all before
the advent of Christianity.
Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and
Paganism. To the Pagans, he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is first
born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ,
our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into
heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those
whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]
Virtually all of the mythical accounts of a savior Jesus have parallels to
past pagan mythologies which existed long before Christianity and from the
Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old Testament. The accounts of these
myths say nothing about historical reality, but they do say a lot about
believers, how they believed, and how their beliefs spread.
In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents
not only a challenge to the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals
that early pre-Gospel Christian documents show that the concept of Jesus
sprang from non-historical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from Jewish
scripture and Hellenized myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New
Testament epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of
the epistles mention a Jesus from Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a
human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers quoting Jesus.
Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus' life on earth or
his followers. Nowhere do we find the epistle writers even using the word
"disciple" (they of course use the term "apostle" but the word simply means
messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for two well known interpolations,
Jesus always gets presented as a spiritual being that existed before all
time with God, and that knowledge of Christ came directly from God or as a
revelation from the word of scripture. Doherty writes, "Christian documents
outside the Gospels, even at the end of the first century and beyond, show
no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus
were in circulation."
These early historical documents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus but
they do show an evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts
of Christianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of Christ to a human
figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the Gospels. The New
Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized
and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience
for their particular religious times.
A NOTE ABOUT DATING:
The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method got invented by
a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth-century. Oddly, some people seem
to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has
nothing at all to do with it. In the time before the 6th century, people
used various other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (ab urbe condita,
or "from the foundation of the city," that being Rome). The Jews had their
own dating system. Dionysisus simply decided to reset time on January 1, 754
A.U.C. to January 1, of year one A.D., to fit his beliefs about the birth of
Jesus. He conjectured his information from the Bible (which he got wrong).
[Gould, 1995]
Instead of B.C. and A.D., I have used the convention of B.C.E. (Before the
Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature.
They correspond to the same dates as B.C. & A.D., but without alluding to
the birth or death of an alleged Christ.
QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:
Although apologist scholars believe that an actual Jesus lived on earth, the
reasons for this appear obvious considering their Christian beliefs.
Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus
(minus the miracles), they, like most Christians, simply accept the
traditional view without question. As time goes on, more and more scholars
have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or should
I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly
opinion, I will give a few quotes from Biblical scholars, past and present:
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all
the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a
matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now
appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in
which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered,
abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The
library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine
them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a
personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of
contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in
the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was
a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators,
critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus
Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered
that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this
character never existed as a person.
-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's
Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)
Many people-- then and now-- have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are
genuine, and five of them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament
as "letters of Paul." Even today, scholars dispute which are authentic and
which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually wrote only
eight of the thirteen "Pauline" letters now included in the New Testament.
collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1
Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually all scholars agree that Paul himself
did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus-- | |
