http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/folk-arabic/g598/

http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/folk-arabic/g598/

E Favorite,

"just as men and whites felt threatened by women and people of other races when those groups began demanding equal rights."

This sounds like you are one of those feminist do-gooders thinking that they have all the wisdom to cure the world of its ills with their reason. Typical twisted group think...isn't it.

See how you lump people
together....
"men".....
"whites".....
"people of others races"
Who are the men and women you are talking about?

Are women of other races not women first or do you think of them as a skin color and object that can be used as pawns to further a particular political agenda?

“By the way, our founding fathers did not operate by faith, but by reason.”

The founding fathers did not live by bread (reason) alone.....their heart and mind was in balance that's why they were able to come up with the unique document called the Constitution for the United States. Popular culture want people to believe that reason alone gave the United States the strong foundation that it has....well I am not buying that because history can recall that what you are claiming is another falsehood and mere propaganda.

Why is it that people and organizations like the ACLU are so eager to undermine the constitution and take God out of the public square?

“The Preamble of the Declaration is influenced by the spirit of republicanism, which was used as the basic framework for liberty.[2]In addition, it reflects Enlightenment philosophy, including the concepts of natural law, and self-determination. Ideas and even some of the phrasing was taken directly from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Thomas Paine's Common Sense had been widely read and provided a simple, clear case for independence that many found compelling. According to Jefferson, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

No where do they talk about secular (liberal) democracy. Secular humanism is just another invented ism....it is a Schism period.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—

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

All human beings are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights. This is important because the founding fathers knew that rights granted to you by government can and will be taken away by government. What we see happing in the United States is that some people are using the might of the government to deprive others of their inalienable rights…..out of ENVY…..the same envy that created the many wars throughout the history of mankind and butchering millions of innocent people. America is at the cross-roads because people are now trying to do the same expecting different results….because they think their reasoning is supreme.

Reminder: the mind is a dangerous weapon…it is capable of great good but it is also capable of great evil. With reason alone the mind becomes an unguided missile and the result of that can be felt throughout the world today!

Did not the flower power brigade of the 60's thought they would cure the world of social ills?

Yeehaa, no more war and poverty but free love and everthingelse perverted....what is the result of that....more chaos, confusion, lawlessness, perversion, deseases, poverty more than ever...way to go...what's next with this secular humanist schism....I bet authoritarianism....where freedom would not be for all but only for some!

Freevoice - I think it just seems that way to you ("if you are Christian you become persona non grata and suspect") because you're used to special treatment, not knowing it was special - just as men and whites felt threatened by women and people of other races when those groups began demanding equal rights.

By the way, our founding fathers did not operate by faith, but by reason.

E Favorite

That's right.....that means the government should not be used to give special treatment to some people based on religion and trample the rights of others because they are of a particular faith. If you are Jewish, Muslim or any other you are OK but if you are Christian you become persona non grata and suspect. The founding fathers operated by faith and came up with the constitution which is unique in the history of mankind and I think it should be respected in stead of being debauched one step at the time to satistfy the perverted pleasures of some. This document which a great many see as out-dated is what holds this country together...without it the United States will be no more than a authoritarian gulag......like so many countries in the rest of the world.

Freevoice - here's what the Constitution says about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

JWest:

I have a way of communicating and it would only take another inquisitive mind to get my point wihtout getting confused. Science claims to reason and using the mind to come up with its belief system......so when I said imaginary I gave a clue that I also use my mind together with the most vital organ inside of my being. Without a heart you are a death and empty bag....because the God concept comes from the balance between heart and mind. Men cannot live by bread (reason) alone.

With my mind and soul I live life to the fullest...no hangups about the things that my eyes can't see and banging my head against the wall, creating chaos and confusing because I can't handle the things I cannot change. Science wants to proof everything in the flesh but the universe does work that way...and I do face that reality. I regard the things unseen as the mysteries of live no human mind will ever be able to unravel....no matter how hard they try and how many ism's they come up with.

Freevoice said:
Nobody is forcing you to wrap your head around the concept of worshipping God....the same way I don't want to be forced to wrap my head around the concept of secular humanism which is also imaginary. Makes us even!

Freevoice you gave me the idea you think you worship is imaginary when you said "which is ALSO imaginary" To some of us your argumment rings true.

E-Favorite:

Do you know what the Constitution for the United States of America says about religion? It was also set up that way by the founding fathers.

JWest:

What do you mean I am not paying attention to the religious right in this country? As an individual I do not practice tribalism and do not think in terms of left, right, liberal, conservative, believer or non-believer because it is all non-sense…..you on the other hands do because you are pre-occupied with my post and see it as appropriate to pass judgment that my worship is imaginary. This is not a popularity contest and I agree to disagree with people, I am not talking politics here.

In all my post on this blog I made it clear where I stand…I refuse to let other people control my thinking with their hogwash and force their non-sense down my throat. Since I come from a background where secularists, atheists, humanists, socialists, multiculturalists, feminists play God on earth and used the might of the government to oppress me I am inclined to let them know that its time for them to take a look in the mirror instead of pointing the finger at others. Inhumanity is not exclusive to the so called religious right as they would want me and many others to believe….that’s all I am saying.

I do not see myself as having evolved from the common beast walking the face of the earth; I therefore refuse to be reduced to a common beast as some would like me to. I hope that you in the future read between the lines before passing judgment. I am not left I am not right but I am that I am.

Freevoice - did you know -- We live in a secular democracy - specially set up that way be our founders.

The concept of God comes from the science of nature which has a tradition going back to the beginning of man and it is universal. The alpha and omega is eternal no one has a monopoly over IT. People came up with the concept of religion and wrapped it around God in order to claim privileges and gain control over others.

Secularism, humanism, socialism and the many others ism’s floating around in this world today have the same origin. They were all beliefs invented by the emotionally incompetents among us to control, manipulate and pervert things their mind could not comprehend. You don’t need a PHD to figure this out…just plain old common sense is enough!

“Anyone can make things complicated but it takes a genius to keep things simple.”

FREEVOICE

Your not paying attention to the religious right in this country. They are trying to force all of us to worship in their way, your way. Even the tone of your posts are anti atheism, agnostic and anything else that doesn't measure up to your standards. And the fact that you compare secular humanism, atheism et al. to your own imaginary worship proves your locked in the concept of atheist bad, worshiper good idea. I hope in the future you look for the good in people that don't agree with you spiritually.

Mr. Mark,

Nobody is forcing you to wrap your head around the concept of worshipping God....the same way I don't want to be forced to wrap my head around the concept of secular humanism which is also imaginary. Makes us even!

Freevoice writes:
"God is spirit and those who worship him should worship him is spirit and TRUTH!"

Sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around the concept of worship, especially when the worship is demanded by the one being worshipped...and more especially when the object of said worship is imaginary.

God is spirit and those who worship him should worship him is spirit and TRUTH!

Since we live in a world where truth is not absolute people create their own paths to manipulate and pervert things and come up with a lot of ism's to rationalize their perversions.
Some people created their own god image because their mind was/is incapable of dealing with the unseen...which is spirit.

Those who believe and seek will find him.....

Spirito Santos
Jah Adonai

Yes, Jwest, it was the same for me: "when I let go of the "rope" I felt lighter, a realization came over me that this is the way you are supposed to feel."

And my faith wasn't even oppressive or deeply held!

Mr Mark: "Perhaps [losing faith] happens all the time, but it just doesn't get reported." I suspect you're right and I suspect the next big change will be that it happens more and is reported more - the result of consiousness-raising.

Your very welcome Mr. Mark.

That "exchristian" article was quite good. It got me thinking.

It seems that we Americans are often afraid to admit anything negative about our country. No matter what the injustice or atrocity, we hold back on the criticism because we've had it drilled into our heads since childhood that we're the good guys and anybody who utters even a peep of negativity about us is somehow a bad guy.

Couple that with the high rate of religious belief in this country (much of which is based on the same good guy/bad guy BS), and you've got a one-two punch that pretty much destroys the chance for honest self-assessment. You can't criticize your country or your god...so you must live in god's country.

Considering the background of the writer of that web article, it's amazing that he was able to break free from the shackles of his religion. Or maybe not. Perhaps it happens all the time, but it just doesn't get reported (a healthy dose of post-Xian shame and guilt kept me quiet about my non-belief for years after I abandoned my personal god delusion. I'm sure the same is true of others).

Thanks to JWest for posting the link.

E FAVORITE

I think the web will go a long way in bring people out if you will. Christains have been able to disparage everyone they disagree with to the point most people are afraid of negative social repercusions if they aren't believers. I am reading more and more about ex believers and they all say the same thing. It's like a weight taken off your shoulders. I know that when I let go of the "rope" I felt lighter, a realization came over me that this is the way you are supposed to feel. It's time for christians with a conscience to start accepting people and society as it is. Instead they demonize everyone they don't like. Well I am going to demonize them that do.

Thanks, Jwest - that was great. There should be more former fundamentalists like that.

Maybe there are, but they just can't write as well or don't know about that website.

E FAVORITE

I came across this article and thought of you. It is well written and articulated.
http://www.exchristian.net/testimonies/2007/05/straw-that-broke-camels-back.html
I address this to E FAV but invite the rest of you to read as well.

Hello, Dis-interested. OK. Certainly if you lack the proper credentials, I wouldn’t expect you to make a statement about Jesus’ historicity. Even if you had the credentials I would understand your reluctance. This subject is a real hot potato. Meanwhile, you can see how hard some of us interested lay people are trying to figure this out and I think you know how important the question is.

Please think about who would be able and willing to take it on. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of biblical scholars could fill in my blanks quickly and consistently – but hesitate to do so for political reasons.

"Philo isn't considered to be half the historian that Josephus was, and Josephus does mention Jesus."

1. I was speaking of contemporaneous sources, ie: sources who lived when Jesus supposedly lived. Philo lived from 20-50CE - his life overlapped that of Jesus in large part. Josephus was born in 37CE, ie: after the death of Jesus. His first works date from 70CE. It's a stretch to consider him a contemporary of Jesus.

2. There are two mentions of Jesus in the works of Josephus. The most-extensive - the Testimonium Flavianum - is most certainly a forgery from the 4th century (the research on this is extensive) and can be dismissed out of hand as such.

The other mention of Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities comes in a passage that speaks of the brother of Jesus, James:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others"

But a few sentences later, Josephus adds some more information about this particular Jesus, saying:

"Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

Hmm? Here's another Jesus, the son of Damneus. Is it possible that the Jesus Christ Josephus mentions earlier in the paragraph is Jesus, son of Damneus? After all, this is the only instance in any of his writings where Josephus uses the term "Christ" (ie: annointed), and he offers no explanation for the term.

In short, this brief mention of Jesus could also be a forgery, just like the forgery in the TF. OR, it could be speaking of a Jesus who wasn't the Biblical Jesus, OR...

In any case, there's nothing in Josephus that adds veracity to the reality of Jesus having existed.

3. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Josephus did write about Jesus Christ, that it's all in his hand and that no forgeries took place. Fine. It's all still second-hand knowledge, written in 94CE by a man who never met Jesus and never witnessed any of the events of his life. It's a "history" written 60 years after the event based entirely on, at best, second- and third-hand oral-exclusive sources.

Is THAT what you wish to hang your "Jesus was real" hat on?

4. As with all ancient sources, we're dealing with a lack of any original manuscripts. Though Josephus' Antiquities were written in 94CE, the earliest extant copes we have of his works date from the 9th century, and all of these extant copies of copies come from Xian sources (which most-likely accounts for the forgery in the TF). All things considered, it's not a slam-dunk to view Josephus as a wholly accurate independent source, especially when one attempts to employ him as an unimpeachble independent source confirming the existence of the Jesus of the NT.

E Fav:

Any contribution I can make to a discussion of the historicity of Jesus was exhausted in our previous discussion. And I don't have the credentials to make a summary statement about the question.

Sorry about that. I enjoyed our previous exchange.

Dear Anonymous -

OK, I'll break my personal ban on replying to Anonymi:

Where did you get your info? Wikipedia? You give no citation. It could come from anywhere.

In contrast, I have provided you with a direct quote from the works of Philo where he states unequivocally that Herod was his grandfather. Can you disprove the validity of this quote from Philo himself? Please address directly what he has written.

I am quite willing to entertain proof from a reputable source that Philo's own writings are in error/forgeries/whatever to dispute the grandfather claim, but what you have provided to date certainly doesn't meet any kind of evidentiary standard that would lead me to discount Philo's own account of his family relationships.

Dear Interested -

Your point is taken. I probably erred in referring to Philo's writings as "histories." After all, Philo didn't title his writings as being histories, at least in the very specific way that Josephus titled his works.

However, if you take my original post in the context of comparing the writings of Philo to the "history" presented in the Bible, then I believe that my original post holds water: if we want to call something a history, Philo's writings better qualify for that term than do the Gospels.

In fact, neither the Bible nor Philo qualifies as history per se.

Again, point taken.

Mr Mark:

In your original post you spoke of "competing histories" against which the Bible "comes up short."

Philo is a great example of a contemporaneous writer that has overlaps with biblical writers in some of his historical references as well as some of his ideas. I disagree with you that the Gospels portray Pilate as a just and fair ruler, but that doesn't really matter. In Philo we have a contemporaneous writer who doesn't mention Jesus, does mentions political figures also mentioned in the New Testament, and may have a different view politically of some of those figures. The overlaps between Philo and the New Testament are interesting and can be used in a variety of ways, but that's hardly a "competing history" against which the Bible "comes up short."

But let me be clear. I'm not defending the Bible as historically accurate. I just don't think that your rhetoric in your post matches the facts.

Mr Mark:

In your original post you spoke of "competing histories" against which the Bible "comes up short."

Philo is a great example of a contemporaneous writer that has overlaps with biblical writers in some of his historical references as well as some of his ideas. I disagree with you that the Gospels portray Pilate as a just and fair ruler, but that doesn't really matter. In Philo we have a contemporaneous writer who doesn't mention Jesus, does mentions political figures also mentioned in the New Testament, and may have a different view politically of some of those figures. The overlaps between Philo and the New Testament are interesting and can be used in a variety of ways, but that's hardly a "competing history" against which the Bible "comes up short."

But let me be clear. I'm not defending the Bible as historically accurate. I just don't think that your rhetoric in your post matches the facts.

Mr. Mark:

"Born about 25 B.C.. Philo's family, of a sacerdotal line, was one of the most powerful of the populous Jewish colony of Alexandria. His brother, Alexander Lysimachus, was steward to Anthony's second daughter, and married one of his sons to the daughter of Herod Agrippa, whom he had put under financial obligations."

So Philo's nephew married the daughter of Herod Agrippa, who ruled from 37 - 44 B.C..

"Philo was not a grandson of Herod."

"But why need I invoke the assistance of foreign witnesses when I have plenty with whom I can furnish you from among your own countrymen and friends? Marcus Agrippa, your own grandfather on the mother's side, the moment that he arrived in Judaea, *when Herod, my grandfather, was king of the country,* thought fit to go up from the sea-coast to the metropolis, which was inland."

- On the Embassy to Gaius, XXXVII. (294) by Philo, 40CE

Am I reading this incorrectly? It seems to me that Philo is stating that Herod was his grandfather. Please advise.

Mr. Mark:

Philo was not a grandson of Herod. And he didn't write "extensively about the political and theological movements in the Mediterranean"; he wrote about struggles between the Jews in Egypt, where he lived, and the Roman rulers. He isn't considered to be half the historian that Josephus was, and Josephus does mention Jesus.

How in the world would anyone know how many times Jesus cried in is lifetime 400 + years after the fact.

As far as all the belief out there, there is one that has my attention and respect for some odd reason. They are snake handlers. They put their faith to a test by handling poisonous snakes. They even allow their children to do the same. It just goes to show you how powerful the human mind is if we let it. Instead we mask it with religion. Religion provides all the answers so we don't need to think anymore. To extend this discussion, I have a gideons bible on my desk and actually read it from time to time. A person saw it on my desk and told me that it is not a true bible. It was interpreted by a group of men throughout the world as their interpretation of the mind of god. These men think they know the mind of god better than anyone else in the world. One day religion will be so diluted as to be meaningless.

interested writes:
"Mr Mark:

Can you name one example of "competing written histories that were set down contemporaneously to the time in which Biblical events were supposed to have occurred"

Thanks for the question.

I was thinking specifically of the writings of Philo who was the grandson of King Herod and who lived from about 20-50CE. We have his 39CE account of the mocking of a man as the Jewish King. IIRC, Philo is the only contemporaneous account in all of ancient literature that speaks of Pontius Pilate. Unlike the NT, which portrays Pilate as a fair ruler who is troubled with the idea of putting Jesus to death, Philo depicts Pilate as a cruel and bad ruler - and he does discuss a number of executions that took place under Pilate, though not that of Jesus.

As modern Biblical scholarship puts the birth of Jesus at 6CE, and if we believe that Jesus supposedly died at the age of 33, then that would mean that Philo was definitely a contemporary of Jesus. Though Philo wrote extensively about the political and theological movements in the Mediterranean - including reports of conflicts between Pilate & the Jews - he never mentions Jesus.

While I realize that this is the classic "argument from absence" in the case of Jesus, it IS an example of a Jewish writer who was a contemporary of Jesus, who knew historical figures like Pilate and was even related to King Herod, and who wrote extensively of the history of that time.

I think that qualifies Philo as a contemporaneous source.

Hello, Interested – I’m very happy to see you here. I last spoke with you on the Fredriksen “Education” thread, where we had a very interesting discussion about how scholars use evidence to determine historicity of biblical figures – specifically Jesus. At the end I proposed language
for “Interested” to flesh out, to help educate the public, but never heard back from you. I assumed you did not check back, thinking the discussion was over.

I’m repeating my proposed language here, including gaps [in brackets] to be filled in by experts, in hopes that you and other scholars will offer feedback:

“- Based on accepted academic methods of ascertaining ancient historicity [e.g., …], the existence of Jesus as a first century Jew seems likely, although not firm, as it is in the case of [e.g., Herod? Pilate?].

- Using modern standards, [e.g., contemporaneous writings outside of scripture, archeological findings, etc., …], his existence seems unlikely.

- Please understand that when biblical scholars are assessing the existence of Jesus [and other ancient figures], they must do so using only the evidence they have on hand. Also, it’s important to note that scholars are only commenting on the *existence* of a certain first century Jew. Our studies do not address and are not intended to address any of the miraculous Biblical claims about Jesus, as born of a virgin, Son of God, resurrected or ascended into heaven. That type of study is beyond our purview and is addressed by theologians and clergy, whose opinions are based on their religious beliefs [assuming that’s the case].”

So, “Interested” – if you’re still interested in pursuing this, I’d really appreciate your feedback. I also raised this on the recent Jacoby discussion in which she mentioned that she accepted Jesus’ historicity, (but not his divinity) and wondered why this bothered non-believers so much. It bothers me because I still don’t understand how anyone can be so sure. I do think it’s an important issue, that scholars could help with. Please give it a go.

Thanks

Vern:

There does not appear to be any meaningful distinction between religion as an invention of man and religion as an expression of man, particularly if religion, as you say, "is about OUR understanding of meaning and purpose - aka God."

Further, arguing that a diversity of religious views "is a sign of it's truth," is just sophism. If A, B, C, and D are mutually inconsistent, then they cannot ALL be true, but they can all be false.

Mr Mark:

Can you name one example of "competing written histories that were set down contemporaneously to the time in which Biblical events were supposed to have occurred"?

Ummm... There aren't any.

I'm not saying this to argue that the Bible is historically accurate (although there's plenty history in it). Let's just not make smug claims that aren't true.

There are texts of historical value that are roughly contemporaneous with events described in the Bible or are contemporaneous with when many scholars think parts of the Bible were written. But in general these describe the histories of:
(1) other nearby cultures. These texts only have small areas of overlap with the Bible.
(2) empires that dominated Israel. These texts help us understand the larger context of the Bible but rarely address the local events described in the Bible.
Hence, they are not "competing" histories.

Where these texts overlap with the Bible, they do raise interesting historical questions. But whether they affirm the historicity of specific parts of the Bible or not is usually open for debate.

Viejita del oeste: "I find it interesting that so much of the evidence used on both sides of any religious argument can prove either conclusion."

If evidence -supports- multiple and incompatible conlusions, then it doesn't -prove- any of them. A proof, by definition, shows one conclusion to be true and anything incompatible with it to be false, given certain premises.

Vern makes the best point here, that as diverse human beings we have diverse views of the almighty. I find it interesting that so much of the evidence used on both sides of any religious argument can prove either conclusion. For some of us that is part of what makes the conversation worthwhile.

SOK& sez:

"Talk to any police detective and he will tell you that no two eye-witnesses tell exactly the same account of an event."

How right you are.

Which is why forensic evidence always trumps even the most-compelling eyewitness evidence.

When it comes to Biblical "evidence," we have "eyewitness" second-hand accounts that were penned decades if not centuries after the fact. This hearsay evidence must be weighed against the "forensic" evidence of modern archaeology, evidence which includes competing written histories that were set down contemporaneously to the time in which Biblical events were supposed to have occurred.

In every case, the erroneously termed "eyewitness" Biblical accounts - particularly those of the Gospels - come up short.

Sok7 - as you say, "in a nation as culturally, economically, and spiritually diverse as ours..."
*I" think we should have diversity, not just of religion, but of measurement, depending on individual preferences. Metric system for some, English for others. The same for temperature - centigrade for some, Fahrenheit for others. Everyone chooses his/her own. Same for traffic signals, why not? There are sooo many colors to choose from!

Of course, some colors are better than others (according to me, and I have impeccable taste) but in our open society, if some people want to choose inferior colors for their traffic signals, and chance having more traffic accidents, that's up to them, Free will, you know.

Ash – good idea -- “If we could just replace the countless hymnals printed every week with copies of Free Inquiry, millions of kids could be liberated from a lifetime of superstition.”

I suggest we also set the words to the music of familiar hymns – much easier to remember that way and makes for a nice group experience. Most of the hymns should be in 4 part harmony to attract people looking for an outlet for their musical talent.

Peter Flynn – thank you for the great essay that just makes sense and lacks the “attitude” of Dawkins, Harris’ and Hitchens’ works. Maybe believers will be more influenced by this.

I think there's a difference between the non-validity of certain assertions *about* religion (say, 'Perfect, One True,' etc) and saying that nothing about, say, spirituality is valuable.

Confusing the two happens a lot: often what is being refuted is a *presumption* that religion must be the 'only truth' in order to be valid. Which obviously causes or at least 'justifies' a lot of strife and uncool situations. :)

I think 'secular humanism' as is described in whatever tone people choose about it, is really ....a description of the common ground where people can live together with what beliefs and non-beliefs they see fit.

It shouldn't be dismissed.

Why would you expect Religion to converge to a single conception of truth the way Science does?

When it's culture, art, music, in fact pretty much any disciple EXCEPT Science, diversity is a sign of it's "truth." Why? Because we understand art music and culture to be are about US and we are diverse.

Well guess what, so is Religion! Religion is about OUR understanding of meaning and purpose - aka God. WE use the term God to define that experience, anthropomorphizing it with a He or She but even the religions tell us God is not really that). Regardless, this does NOT make it an "invention of man," so much as an "expression of man" about something that is very very real.

More importantly, you say "evidence" of God is non-existent. But what would this evidence be?

The more real the evidence was (i.e. the more you could observe it and ultimately understand it scientifically) then the more you would say "God is not needed" as an explanation for it.

But the more mystical the evidence was (i.e .the less you understood what was causing it) then the more you would say the evidence was not believable.

You want fire in the sky. But if you saw fire without a fuel source you'd question whether it was really fire. And when you did finally find the source you say "see, that's just a cloud of methane that ignited, nothing special there."

It's completely circular reasoning.

I once heard a man argue that the Gospels could not all be true, and that probably none of them were true, because they did not match each other exactly in their content. For example: the parable of the Prodigal Son is found only in Luke and since the other three Gospels didn’t have this story, well, Jesus probably never told it.

What hogwash.

Talk to any police detective and he will tell you that no two eye-witnesses tell exactly the same account of an event. One person will notice something the other misses or thinks unimportant – or vice versa. All the Apostles had a hard time comprehending the scope of what Jesus Christ said or did during his time of earth.

Luke only mentions Jesus crying twice, while most of the other have him crying many more times than that. Why? Is there a reason? Luke wrote his Gospel for the Greek peoples of Asia Minor. One of their beliefs was that crying could be a sign of demonic possession. Yes – Luke could have argued that this superstition was false. Yes – Luke could have said that demonic possession is not what made Jesus cry. Yes – he could have just told the truth and had Jesus crying however many times he actually cried. But that’s not the point. Luke had a number of things to say that he felt were very important about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Fighting against a societal preconception that did not affect the central message of Christianity was a waste of time and ink.

Matthew tailors his Gospel to the Jews. That is why be begins his writings with the lineage of Jesus through Joseph. Matthew was writing to a people who already knew the promises of God for a Messiah and linking Jesus to these promises was a very important message for the Jewish people - while for the Greeks it was probably not as important. So Matthew focuses on some things that Luke did not.

Do any of these points make Matthew more right or more wrong than Luke, or was each author simply writing in a way that his audience would best understand who Christ was? Luke and Matthew agree on all the key points: Jesus died and then rose from the dead. He died so that sin does not have to keep you apart from the love of God.

I am not surprised that in a nation as culturally, economically, and spiritually diverse as ours that there is a need for so many denominations. Different people need to hear different things from their maker in order to thrive. One person may respond to a more authoritarian presentation of God while another person may find that another church’s rituals help them focus on their spirituality. What is essential is that every Church walk a path that will bring its members to a closer relationship with the Almighty.

Does this mean that all denominations, that all religions, are equally valid? No. However, I believe that there is more than one or two that are. I believe that while one particular church may not be the church for me, that it might speak to someone else’s heart in a meaningful way without distorting the essential message that God has for us. And if they focus on hell and damnation more (or less) than the church I attend, perhaps someone different from myself will hear God all the better for it.

One denomination, perhaps even one religion, makes no sense. His people are too diverse in their needs and inspirations to be put on an assembly line.

Nicely stated, Mr. Flynn. If we could just replace the countless hymnals printed every week with copies of Free Inquiry, millions of kids could be liberated from a lifetime of superstition.

The conversation is great. Perhaps there is a difference between faith and religion. None the less to attach much credence to Mr. Flynn's arugument is a waste of effort. Faith, religion, non believe and all other looks into the unknown require that decision to accept that a position is correct, true and water tight.Unfortunately, no one can prove their God is about the universe and conversely no one can prove he isn't.

Just looking at how much we don't know about this space we occupy, makes me take a cautious stance. At this point in our understanding anything is possible.

I'm not a buyer, the premise has no foundation of truth. Good concept for a book and resulting sales.

Excellently put Mr Flynn.
Religion is groupthink,pure and simple.

As added evidence, there is no religion in Heaven. The Good Words of earthly religion or no religion are simply the keys to the Gate.

sorry about my triple postings..PC issues

i agree there are few myths about the existence of god that has been formed along the ages. but that in itself is a beautiful thing. man aknowledged a higher being . someone that has created them ..in a perfect image. someone who has provided for them. unlike athiests they want to find the first and the smallest reason to ssay ..you see what happened there is no God just for the sake of being different or out of their arrogance. not everyone follows what he has been taugh it does not mean the teacher was bad. it only means that people are waek ..they follow what they can .. and fail at what they cant. and i am sure you have kids..if you think all of them are saints you are mistaken!

dear sir
i agree there are few myths about the existence of god that has been formed along the ages. but that in itself is a beautiful thing. man aknowledged a higher being . someone that has created them ..in a perfect image. someone who has provided for them. unlike athiests they want to find the first and the smallest reason to ssay ..you see what happened there is no God just for the sake of being different or out of their arrogance. not everyone follows what he has been taugh it does not mean the teacher was bad. it only means that people are waek ..they follow what they can .. and fail at what they cant. and i am sure you have kids..if you think all of them are saints you are mistaken!

Very well said, Mr. Flynn.

I don't know what is more laughable -- the wildly different concepts of god among major religions, or the silly-serious intra-denominational debates on trivial issues that has led so many sects to break off from their partners.

Or we could talk about whether or not god cares how we cut our hair or what food we should eat.

just because the people have waek memory it does not mean the revelation has not been sent. i agree that there are quiet few myths of god or how god created all of this. but this search and search only reinforces that man aknowledge the existence of higher power. even if they get it wrong . at least they have tried to connect with their creator ..and that is a beautiful thing. and you must keep in mind..people dont follow everything you teach them..i am sure you have kids.. and i am sure not all of them are saints like you imagine,!!!!!

Of course men make their gods in their own image. Hence the shortage of methane breathing gods or gods who have 11 genders, although I suppose that planets that have methane atmospheres will have methane breathing gods. It's great fun to see how seriously people take their own religion and laugh at the absurd beliefs of others. They are right to laugh at the odd beliefs but are wrong in thinking that their beliefs are any less absurd.
If religious people would keep their beliefs to themselves they wouldn't be a problem but they (most of them anyway) can't seem to respect the rights of others. Which is why you see kids being hanged in Iran for 'sodomy' and 3 US Supreme Court Justices (at least) think this is OK at least in principle. Maybe they wouldn't go for the hanging part but who knows - the bible says 'Kill them'. Can anyone think of a non-religious reason to punish someone for having consensual sex?
Me neither.