The Jewish Advantage

Lots of misinformation here.

1st Biblically speaking neither I nor any other Christian can make anyone else a Christian. It is God who saves not man. My only duty as a Christian is to act as a watchmen and warn people of the consequences of sin which is hell and ultimate separation from God.

2nd This means that not only is it stupid to force people to be baptized (Baptism doesn't save you any more than Circumcision saved the morally corrupt Caiaphas) it is equally pointless and in fact down right dangerous for the church to compel unbelievers to attend services.

Hi Karen:

I agree with your idea about the difference between acceptance and tolerance. There is an important place where we differ though. I am happy to explain to one who is interested how my system works for me, but I will never attempt to tell you that you should believe as I do. My practice tells me that it doesn't matter how one comes by their relationship with the Divine, as long as you feel that you have established a relationship that works for you. As we are wont to say, All paths lead to center.

Having said that, I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about how Christians see the world. I was raised Jewish and therefore have a limited knowledge, although we do learn a LOT about the formation and influence of the Church. How many of the holidays currently celebrated still have Pagan themes throughout. And when I try to ask, I seem to often end up in discussion with those that are out for conversion, rather than discussion. And sometimes it really saddens me, that one's faith isn't so strong that it can't be talked about without trying to persuade someone else to join it too.

And what really fascinates me is how someone comes to their current decisions on faith (or even lack thereof), whatever it may be.

Dear GK -

Thanks for the response. I also appreciate the dialogue.

A few comments:

You wrote, "I dispute your 2nd century dating." Fine, but the dating isn't mine. It comes from the website earlychristianwritings.com. I think we can both agree that this is an unbiased reference site and that the dating provided for the composition of various ancient texts is pretty much the standard you'll see everywhere else.

Second - I realize that there are many other texts I didn't mention. My listing wasn't meant to be comprehensive. The fact remains that if only ONE Gnostic Gospel has its composition dated to the same period as the writing of the 4 Gospels, it puts the lie to your statement that "the Gnostic gospels came much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." Indeed, the website I linked to above shows OVER 40 non-canonical texts that were written in the same time period as the 4 Gospels (though not all of these are Gnostic texts and not all are Gospels).

Third - my original post was not limited to the discussion of Gnostic texts. I only gave them as an example of texts that were in use by various sects of the church. My whole point was to counter the thrust of your argument which seemed to me to argue that Xianity was set in place and grew quickly as some unified movement. Your post also gave the impression that the 4 Gospels were agreed on early on in the church's history and that the competing texts all came well after. That's simply false.

Fourth - you wrote, "See The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, & I Clement. I could name several more that you didn't list above, not to mention several other works by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Minucuis Felix (the list goes on and on!) You certainly will not find any significant theological variations within these works."

That's call loading the deck. Of course you won't find "significant theological variations" in those PARTICULAR books, but those aren't Gnostic books, are they? I'm trying to have a discussion here on the striking differences between the canonic/Gnostic differences that is like unto a political discussion of the significant differences between Democrats and Republicans, and you're limiting the discussion to only the various Republicans.

And, it's not insignificant that the ARE some theological differences even between the books you cite. That's why they were left out of the canon...which is the whole point of my post above with the references to Nicea and the homogenizing of Xian dogma.

Thanks again for the chat.

Freedom of Speech Challenged in Canada-

PLEASE READ AND WATCH YOUTUBE-

A controversial conservative commentator was unrepentant going into a Human Rights and Citizenship Commission hearing yesterday, using his Web site to republish the same cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that got him into trouble in the first place.

"Contriteness implies that you've done something wrong for which you need to apologize or atone," Ezra Levant said moments before his 90-minute meeting with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission in Calgary.

"I have not done anything wrong."

Mr. Levant's dispute with some members of Alberta's Muslim community became even more personal, as the head of a Calgary Muslim group said he now fears for the safety of his family due to "lies" Mr. Levant has been spreading about him.

The commission is investigating Mr. Levant's decision two years ago, as publisher of the Western Standard, to print a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The same cartoons had already ignited violent protests and death threats from Muslims around the world after the images appeared in a Danish newspaper.

Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed a complaint after the Western Standard published the cartoons, which included a Muslim man with a bomb-shaped turban, and the commission is now investigating.

Mr. Levant, his lawyer and his wife attended a 90-minute meeting yesterday with a human rights officer.

Mr. Levant, who occasionally writes for the National Post, said he was asked about his rationale for publishing the cartoons.

"I don't need to be reasons-able. I have maximum rights of free speech," he said later.

"I have the right to publish this for the most offensive reason, for the most unreasonable reasons."

The commission's director said it would hear from both sides and decide whether the complaint should be dismissed, go to an arbitrator, or go to a full human rights complaint hearing.

"We don't talk about individual complaints until they get to the public stage," said Marie Riddle, the commission's director.

For Mr. Soharwardy, the issue has become intensely personal.

He fired off a letter to Calgary police yesterday, complaining about statements made by Mr. Levant on his blog that refer to the Muslim leader as a "radical, Saudi-trained imam who has publicly called for shariah law to be imposed in Canada."

"I have asked him what kind of training did I get in Saudi Arabia?" an angry Mr. Soharwardy said from Calgary.

He said Mr. Levant has also called him anti-Semitic, despite the fact Mr. Soharwardy's mosque celebrates Hannukah with the local Jewish community.

"These people have the intent to incite hate against Muslims," Mr. Soharwardy said.

"God forbid if somebody reads from his Web site -- [if ] any fanatic reads it -- and he attacks me, who's responsible?

"If any crime [is] committed against me or my family, I will hold Mr. Ezra Levant responsible."

Calgary police said they were actively investigating the complaint, as well as another complaint Mr. Soharwardy made in December.

That complaint centred on comments made on a blog connected to the Western Standard Web site.

The comments, from an unknown user, included "There is no such thing as innocent Muslims," and "They must all be killed. All of them."

"The file is still open and we are still actively pursuing it," Insp. Bob Couture said.

Mr. Levant called his appearance before the human rights commission "an interrogation.""To me, this is offensive," he said.

"A secular government bureaucracy has essentially been hijacked by a radical Muslim imam," he said. "It's being used to further his fatwa against these cartoons."

"We have a great tradition of free speech in Canada," he said.

"My freedom to publish a cartoon that some radical Muslim imam doesn't like, well that's the free West for ya."

There are 6 youtubes posted. Go to related videos to link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

"To assert that the writings of Paul and the 4 Biblical Gospels preceded the writing of the Gnostic Gospels by one to three centuries is ludicrous.

I'll stand by all of my statements made above."

Mr. Mark,

If that's what you really want to do, be my guest!

Based on your earlier comment regarding the early church in which you posted, "The "way" it started was with many different sects who didn't even agree on the basic tenets of the faith - like, was Jesus a man or a pure spirit" I offer the following in response to your texts cited above:

First Point - Some of the non-canonical texts that you cite above DO reflect great theological unity with the canonical Gospels. See The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, & I Clement. I could name several more that you didn't list above, not to mention several other works by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Minucuis Felix (the list goes on and on!) You certainly will not find any significant theological variations within these works - in comparison with the theology (and the belief that Jesus was bodily raised) of the canonical gospels which are most assuredly written all within the 1st century. (I dispute your 2nd century dating.)

Second Point - Your citing of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts and dating: Yes, these texts represent a VERY significant departure from the canonical texts because obviously they are gnostic. Regarding the canonical understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, they aren't even in the same ballpark with the New Testament! They represent a completely different Jewish sect, taking bits and pieces from the Christian movement and deviate greatly from the strong Jewish belief that creation is good and will be redeemed by God.

Third Point - I date the gnostic gospels on the upper end of the range you cite above based on the work of several scholars and because gnostic theology began to gain considerable ground within mainstream Judaism especially following the last Jewish revolt in the 2nd century.

I appreciate the exchange while respecting our difference of opinion.

GK wrtites:

"The gnostic gospels (2nd to 4th centuries) came much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John (last 3rd of 1st century) so your comments which imply that there were significant variances within the 1st century Christian sect are not historically accurate and do nothing to explain why Christianity grew while all the other messianic movements ceased."

Sorry, that's just not true.

There are estimated date ranges for the composition of all of these ancient texts. The only way to support your statement is by assigning the earliest possible date of composition to the canonical books while assigning the latest possible date of composition to the Gnostic texts.

Here are the canonical books of the NT set along a few Gnostic texts with a range of dates given for their possible composition, beginning with the earliest composed:

Date Written Order in Bible Book Name Description

50-60CE 13 1 Thessalonians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Thessalonica, Greece

50-60 11 Philippians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Philippi, Greece

50-60 9 Galatians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Galatia, in modern Turkey

50-60 7 1 Corinthians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Corinth, Greece

50-60 8 2 Corinthians Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Corinth, Greece

50-60 6 Romans Authentic letter of Paul, written to congregation in Rome

50-60 18 Philemon Generally accepted as authentic letter of Paul written to Philemon of Colossae

50-80 12 Colossians Disputed letter of Paul, written to congregation in Colossae, in modern Turkey

50-95 19 Book of Hebrews Anonymous work of a Jewish nature that refers to Christ as an apostle and high priest

50-120 NA Didache Anonymous work that is almost impossible to date. Contains sayings like those in the Gospels, but not attributed to Jesus. Has description of Eucharist rituals, but not associated with the death or body of Jesus.

50-140 NA Gospel of Thomas Anonymous "Gnostic" sayings gospel with statements attributed to Jesus. No mention of Christ, and most sayings contradict the canonical Gospels, though a small number are shared by both. There is no narrative or details of a life of Jesus.

50-140 NA Oxyrhynchus Gospel Scraps of a sayings gospel (possibly Gnostic), mentions Jesus approaching "in a vision"

50-200 NA Sophia of Jesus Christ Anonymous Gnostic story about Jesus, possibly written after "the Gospels", but dating is difficult

65-80 2 Gospel of Mark Anonymous narrative story about the life of Jesus starting with his baptism

70-100 20 Epistle of James Letter of disputed authorship. Traditionally attributed to "James the brother of Jesus", though the work itself makes no such claim.

70-120 NA Egerton Gospel Anonymous scrap of a narrative Gospel. One of the oldest original pieces of text about Jesus.

70-160 NA Gospel of Peter Anonymous "Gnostic" passion narrative similar to that in the Gospel of Mark

80-100 14 2 Thessalonians Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name

80-100 10 Ephesians Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name

80-100 1 Gospel of Matthew Anonymous narrative about Jesus based on Mark, but with the addition of the virgin birth story and other elements

80-110 21 1 Peter Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Peter's name

80-120 NA Epistle of Barnabas Letter about the sacrifice of Jesus. Refers to Jesus as "the calf" who is sacrificed for sins

80-130 3 Gospel of Luke Was perhaps signed at one time, but original signer in unknown. The work is written in the form of a researched historical account for someone named Theophilus. Luke is based on Mark with additional elements.

80-130 5 Acts of the Apostles Written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, also as a history for Theophilus. The work covers the period from the resurrection of Jesus to the imprisonment of Paul.

80-140 NA 1 Clement Letter regarding problems befalling Christian communities.

80-150 NA Gospel of the Egyptians Writing about "Salome", a woman in the Gospel of Mark. It states that the end of suffering will only come when all women stop giving birth, then the end of the world will come.

80-150 NA Gospel of the Hebrews A story that may have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic about "James the Just"

80-250 NA Christian Sibyllines Book of Gnostic prophecies about the future

90-95 27 Apocalypse of John Letter written by an unknown John, though traditionally ascribed to "John the disciple of Jesus". The work is metaphorical tale of coming destruction in the tradition of Jewish apocalyptic literature.

90-120 4 Gospel of John Anonymous narrative story about Jesus, which has traditionally been ascribed to "John the disciple of Jesus". Scholars agree that this is not the case and that the author of this Gospel is also not the same as the author of Apocalypse of John or the epistles of John. May have been written in two stages.

90-120 23 1 John Letter by someone named John warning against deceivers who say that Jesus was not real

90-120 24 2 John Letter by someone named John warning against deceivers who say that Jesus was not real

90-120 25 3 John Letter by someone named John emphasizing that their witness is true

90-120 26 Epistle of Jude Letter which claims to have been written by a Jude, brother of James, but is generally considered by scholars to be of unknown authorship. The letter is a polemic against "godless men" who don't believe in Jesus, and it also begins to outline the concept of the trinity.

100-150 15 1 Timothy Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name, which seeks to support elements of Catholic doctrine

100-150 16 2 Timothy Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name, which seeks to support elements of Catholic doctrine

100-150 17 Titus Regarded as a letter of unknown authorship that was written in Paul's name, which seeks to support elements of Catholic doctrine

100-150 NA Apocalypse of Peter A work attributed to Peter by Clement, though only fragments remain. Talks about the coming end of the world.

100-150 NA Secret Book of James A letter claimed to have been written by James which talks about Jesus and salvation

100-160 NA Gospel of the Ebionites A work that attempted to harmonize the Gospels of Matthew and Luke

100-160 NA Gospel of the Nazoreans A work that quotes many passages from Matthew, but it also has several variants that are different from the current Matthew

100-160 22 2 Peter A letter written under the name of Simon Peter, but regarded by scholars as of unknown authorship. The letter is a polemic against false prophets and seeks to downplay expectations for the end of the world, addressing questions that were rising about why the world had not yet ended "as Jesus had promised"

Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

As you can see, some of the Gnostic gospels (like that of Thomas) could have been written as early as 50CE OR as late as 140CE. Similarly, the Gospel of Luke could have been written as early as 80CE and as late as 130CE.

To assert that the writings of Paul and the 4 Biblical Gospels preceded the writing of the Gnostic Gospels by one to three centuries is ludicrous.

I'll stand by all of my statements made above.

Priver,

Thank you for your kind response as well.

I think that the reason people end up being so hostile on these threads is that many do not understand the difference between tolerance on one hand, and agreement or acceptance on the other. I disagree with your worldview, and given the opportunity to meet you one day, I'd love to engage with you in a debate and try to convince you of my faith, as you may be interested in sharing with me why the pagan worlview may be the way to go. We will likely not convice each other, but neither will we villify the other on the basis of our beliefs. I think that many people on these threads feel that they have to villify the other side. It is not enough for them to reject other points of view, they have to be hostile and insulting as well. Me saying that I respect your right to be a Pagan does not mean that I agree with Paganism, it just means this is a free country, religion is a matter of free will and each of us has to worship, or not, according to her/his freely made choice. I do not see any contradiction between respecting other people's right to believe whatever they want and my own deeply held Christian beliefs. As I said before, I may believe that others are wrong, but that is their choice to make.
Jesus said He came into this world not to condemn us but to save us. Then we turn around and condemn everybody... instead of showing Grace, as it was shown to us.

"The Christian church existed as many different sects with many different beliefs. There was no unanimity of belief among sects and there wasn't even "one church." The Gnostics, for example, didn't believe in a corporeal Jesus."

The gnostic gospels (2nd to 4th centuries) came much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John (last 3rd of 1st century) so your comments which imply that there were significant variances within the 1st century Christian sect are not historically accurate and do nothing to explain why Christianity grew while all the other messianic movements ceased.

I'll try to be gracious and allow you the last word if you so choose.

As always, nice chatting with you as well.

Dear GK -

Your last comment relies on any number of common misunderstandings of the Bible, Jesus and the early church.

Your statement that, "in trying to explain how the Christian movement grew as rapidly as it did and the way it did, and here's the important part - in the 1st century Jewish worldview that we know to be true - one viable explanation is that Jesus actually was resurrected from the dead," gives one the impression that Jesus came to earth, died, was resurrected, the church was formed and it was off to the races, with the church enjoying a QUICK and steady rise as some unified faith movement. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The Christian church existed as many different sects with many different beliefs. There was no unanimity of belief among sects and there wasn't even "one church." The Gnostics, for example, didn't believe in a corporeal Jesus.

No, the church started very slowly. The "way" it started was with many different sects who didn't even agree on the basic tenets of the faith - like, was Jesus a man or a pure spirit. It was hardly a smooth ride. Indeed, we have documented proof in the Roman histories of Xians easily rejecting their faith to be spared death that rivals reports of Xians being led to their deaths for their faiths. The point is that early Xians were just as adept at chucking their faith when it meant life or death as any pagan.

I don't blame them. Why die for a lie? In fact, I would would be willing to wager that 99.999% of Xians living today would reject their faith in a heartbeat if not renouncing Christ meant that they watched as their children's brains were splattered on the wall by the agents of some competing power (political or religious).

But back to the days of the early church, these sects existed and competed with each other for dominance for 300 YEARS until Constantine called together his Nicean council and told the boys to get their story straight so he could sell it throughout the Roman Empire. Out went most of the 200-odd "Gospels" that the Xians were using, along with MOST of the suddenly heretical beliefs of most of the Xian sects. What the world was left with was the homogenized version of Xianity that we see today.

Perhaps you believe 300 years of vastly competing beliefs and incessant squabbling among the same qualifies as a "rapid" rise of a particular religion, but I would hardly characterize it as such.

Contrary to what you think, I do not de-Juadize Jesus. Indeed, Jesus could not exist without a firm basis in Jewish mythology and its apocalyptic and messianic teachings. What I DO attempt to do is to de-legitimize illegitimate claims about the Bible, a-historic claims about the "quick" spread of Xianity, and the whole-cloth belief that the "only viable" explanation for the Jesus resurrection story is that it among all resurrected god stories must be the only true story for the sole reason that the New Testament as decided upon in 326CE said so.

Nice chatting.

Mr. Mark,

Not much to say that hasn't already been said!

When you dismiss the gospels as non-biographies (biograhpies are their proper ancient history genre which you conveniently ignore) I wonder who is wearing the blinders!

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, in the context of a Jewish worldview that held the following beliefs...

a)The term, "resurrection" was not seen simply as metaphorical but was a reference to "transformed bodily physicality."

b) Jewish messianic movements did not continue after the death of the Messiah if that Messiah was unsuccessful in defeating the empire that was controlling Israel at the time.

c) After the death of a Jewish Messiah, followers of that Messiah would select a relative of the Messiah to continue that particular messianic movement. Never, did the followers of the crucified Messiah continue to refer to that person as the Messiah!

...and based on the particular messianic movement of Jesus in the context of this worldview,

a) the followers of Jesus used the specific and distinctive Jewish term of "resurrection" in describing what happened to Jesus three days after his crucifixion. (Note: It is highly unlikely that 1st century Jews would have used this term in any other way, since it had a very specific meaning.)

b) Jesus didn't defeat the Romans and yet his followers continued and Christianity spread! (Note: One of the expectations of the messiah was to defeat the pagans ruling over them.)

c) James, Jesus' brother, and one of the leaders of the early church, was never considered as someone to take over the Jesus' messianic movement - a very odd and strange thing based on the other Jewish messianic movements of that era! And yet, even after Jesus' death, Jesus' followers continued to give Jesus the title, "Messiah."

Therefore, in trying to explain how the Christian movement grew as rapidly as it did and the way it did, and here's the important part - in the 1st century Jewish worldview that we know to be true - one viable explanation is that Jesus actually was resurrected from the dead.

The only way around this historical problem of the rise of Christianity is to do what a lot of people have done and what you seem to do, Mr. Mark and that is to take Jesus out of his Jewish world and worldview thereby de-Judaizing him. See, I have even given you an out but my hunch is you've already taken it. The problem with taking that route only leads to another historical problem and that is - the four gospels are thoroughly set in a Jewish worldview context which has been described above!

Last but not least, I'm bewildered by your assumption that I have not read books that question the historicity of the Bible.

Sincerely,

GK

Dear GK -

OK, this will be the last comment (maybe).

You wrote:

"We have a lot of "corroborating evidence" that Christianity, a sect within Judaism, grew rapidly because the early Christians said Jesus was bodily raised from the dead in the Jewish sense of resurrection. No other Messiah movements in the time of Jesus continued after the deaths of these "Messiahs." Observation: The historian asks why a Messianic sect within 1st century Judaism grew rapidly and one of the strong possible explanations is that it's because Jesus did in fact rise from the dead."

You are correct that there were many Messianic sects about in the first century. In fact, the life story events of all of those Messianic figures were strangely similar at the time they supposedly existed. But that fact that the Jesus story is still active while, say, the Mithras story is long forgotten has to do precisely with the fact that the Gospel writers decided to make Jesus a real-world figure, rather than a spiritual-world figure.

So what if Jesus emerged as the "preferred format" for belief in a resurrected god? Out of the lot of them, one and only one would emerge as THE resurrected god. Jesus had a leg up on the rest because the men who wrote the Xian religion brought Jesus into the realm of the natural world. They put a human face on their "god," and people bought it.

In modern times, one can look at the early NASA programs which were quite successful at launching chimps into space. But the public felt no attachment to chimps, so NASA starting launching humans into space, even though those humans were along for the ride just as surely as the chimps had been along for the ride. Every school kid knows the names Alan Shepherd and John Glenn, but none of them have ever heard of Albert II or Able and Baker - ie: monkeys who were launched into space years before men made the trip.

Here's a question to ask yourself: why does the Jesus of the Bible bear absolutely no resemblance to the Messiah promised in the OT (which is why Jews have never accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah. God told them what to look for and Jesus ain't it) while at the same time bearing striking resemblance to many of the resurrection gods who you yourself admit were in vogue in the first century? What's more likely? That the Jesus myth is just a version of a very common manmade resurrected god story that was popular at the time, OR that the OT god decided to abandon the Messiah model he had promised the Jews (the Messiah who UPON HIS ARRIVAL would usher in an era of justice & peace) and decided to send a Messiah whose life story comported in great detail to that of every other "false" resurrected god?

As far as the "corroborating evidence" you imagine, it is at best circumstantial evidence. There's quite a difference between the two.

For example, both of my cars unexpectedly went on the fritz on Wednesday. Out of the blue, the both started chugging and misfiring, and both had been serviced less than a week prior. I started wondering how both cars could suddenly exhibit the same symptoms, when it suddenly hit me: I had filled both cars at the same service station on the same day. They both started acting up at exactly the same time (in fact, I got in one and turned it over, and when it starting sputtering, I got in the other and had the same problem. Both cars had been purring like kittens only hours previously).

The logical conclusion was that I had gotten bad gas from the service station. What could be more obvious? The circumstantial evidence was quite clear.

So, my mechanic friend came over to look at the cars, prepared to drain both gas tanks if necessary. Imagine my surprise when he checked under the hood and found that the one car was sputtering because a clamp had broken and a wire to the engine had popped loose, while the other car had a problem with the spark plugs. Both were the result of normal-use part fatigue. Nothing more, nothing less. My friend diagnosed and fixed both problems in under 10 minutes.

So, it turned out that the problems had nothing to do with bad gas, but were mechanical, and different mechanical problems for each car. The problems happening at exactly the same time on exactly the same day WERE PURE COINCIDENCE! The truth of the situation did not support the hypothesis that I developed purely through observation and my surface knowledge of automobile mechanics.

Now, would I need to exactly replicate the problem with my two cars to confirm what had actually happened? No, and I probably couldn't. What's clear is that no matter what I tried, I was NOT going to find a way to make the explanation for the problem conform to my hypothesis that I had put bad gas in each car. No matter how great my faith in my hypothesis, it turned out to be dead wrong.

Think about it.

Dear GK -

Thanks for staying engaged in the chat.

If we are to agree to disagree, then I would add only one final comment to your last post, and that is that what you offer to support your belief is at best the rosiest of the rosiest takes on the early church and the spread of Xianity, coupled with a description of the Bible (and the 4 Gospels, in particular) that does not stand up to even a cursory examination of the sources and the actual words contained within.

Far from being 4 "biographies" of Jesus, the 4 Gospels range from Mark's allegorical fiction to Matthew and Luke's reworking of the same into a "real life story" to John's not-always-successful attempt to combine Matthew's reworking with references to OT prophecies that are supposedly confirmed through the Jesus story.

These 4 "biographies" as you call them can't agree on salient "facts" in the "life" of Jesus, not because the writers had access to eyewitnesses who couldn't agree on events, but because the events themselves weren't meant as real-life experiences in the first place. Worse, when the writers decide that it's time to add a whiff of historic verisimilitude to their tales by referencing REAL historic people and events, they often get it wrong. When they attempt to portray the godly wisdom of Jesus through his observations of what we would now call the "knowing scientific view" of the world, he gets it wrong as well.

Don't get me wrong, the study of the Bible is both fascinating and rewarding, but not if one approaches it with a blinders-on attempt to justify the myths contained therein.

I'd encourage you to read a few books that challenge the historic validity of the Bible, if for no other reason than to challenge your faith. You may be surprised at what you learn.

Thanks again for the chat.

Mad Love -

Agreed that Jung is a modern Socrates of sorts & went where few would dare to go in his day. His ongoing interest and even identification with Gnosticism and transformation seems to permeate his work. I aspired to collect all of his works at one time, but stopped after half a dozen of his core treatises - very dense reading and who can give it the time these days??

Both he and Abraham Maslow well understood the goal (of self-completion) that individuals should aspire to - and all too often religion (in it's exoteric form) obstructs rather than facilitates that goal.

Mr. Mark aka CSI Grissom -

Great work as always removing the 'non' from
'nonsense' and separating fact from fiction - always a joy to read!

"The resurrection of Jesus is not on par with real events. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed outside of the Bible, and the Bible is rife with inaccuracies and inconsistencies and can't be trusted to get anything right, including the birth year of Jesus. To move a fictional character into the world of reality AND to find corroborating evidence for ANY event in his life is impossible. HOWEVER, IF Jesus did exist and IF he was indeed resurrected, THEN there would be a GREAT CHANCE that there would be corroborating evidence to support such a claim, and that evidence would be both physical and supported by histories outside of the Bible, just as physical evidence exists for events documented in Greek, Roman and Egyptian history."

A couple of responses:

We have a lot of "corroborating evidence" that Christianity, a sect within Judaism, grew rapidly because the early Christians said Jesus was bodily raised from the dead in the Jewish sense of resurrection. No other Messiah movements in the time of Jesus continued after the deaths of these "Messiahs." Observation: The historian asks why a Messianic sect within 1st century Judaism grew rapidly and one of the strong possible explanations is that it's because Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Even if I wasn't approaching this topic as a professing Christian, I would concede that this is a viable and very possible explanation.

Regarding the bible, just because the books of the bible became canonized in the 4th century, doesn't mean that we can't look at each book separately and as collaborative documents when they were first written. We have 4 biographies of Jesus that tell the story of Jesus that were written within the lifetime of the first followers of Jesus.

Long story short - no deal, Mr. Mark. We'll have to agree to disagree. Until the next topic...

Dear GK -

I wanted to address one other point you made when you wrote:

"The task of the historian or philospher is to accept this as a given and from that point, examine the information that is available to us (as well as our own biases) and from this information draw plausible conclusions."

You are correct. ALL of us who so severely criticize the Bible as a historical document do so under the scenario you outline. I hope you realize this.

"One can not totally prove something unless it is a repeatable event, hence we would turn to science experiments, etc."

It goes without saying that if one cannot offer total proof for contemporaneous events that one doesn't demand total proof for events from antiquity.

"Total" proof is NOT the standard of science. Never has been, never will be. The strength of science is that it always questions, tests and proves conclusions, always allowing for revision even if that revision amounts to .00001% of a change.

This is why science never asserts total proof, only proof to an extremely high degree of probability that may well be statistically as close to "total" as we'll ever get.

"Total" and "absolutes" are the stock-in-trade of religion, not science. But they are absolutes that demand no proof, and are, therefore, not of equal value to scientific proof. How could they be. They are opinions, and they remain opinions, even if a third of the world falsely believes them to be facts.

"But obviously we can't come to objective conclusions when we study unrepeatable events, such as the resurrection of Jesus. We can only determine viable options."

Not true by any shred of the imagination. There have been many, many singular events in earth's history that cannot be repeated (especially in a controlled situation) for which exists ample evidence that corroborates the event's occurrence. One cannot, for instance, recreate exactly the Challenger disaster, yet myriad evidence exists to corroborate the event's singular occurrence.

We know Hadrian built his wall, for there it is. We know Julius Caesar existed because physical evidence exists to support his written life story (battle field artifacts, coinage, buildings, etc), yet we don't believe that the very real Caesar was a god, even though he asserted that he was one.

The resurrection of Jesus is not on par with real events. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed outside of the Bible, and the Bible is rife with inaccuracies and inconsistencies and can't be trusted to get anything right, including the birth year of Jesus. To move a fictional character into the world of reality AND to find corroborating evidence for ANY event in his life is impossible. HOWEVER, IF Jesus did exist and IF he was indeed resurrected, THEN there would be a GREAT CHANCE that there would be corroborating evidence to support such a claim, and that evidence would be both physical and supported by histories outside of the Bible, just as physical evidence exists for events documented in Greek, Roman and Egyptian history.

But even in those histories, there is one thing for which any corroborating evidence is lacking, and that is proof that THEIR GODS were real, just as there's no proof that Jesus was real.

That's the problem with gods - even the most-powerful and the most-interventionist of them LEAVE NO TRACE of their existence outside of the fanciful words that litter the holy books of their respective religions.

What's that tell you about Yahweh and Yeshua?

Anonymous-

I am familiar with Fred Alan Wolf from his book "The Dreaming Universe". Good stuff.

I agree with you regarding monism vs dualism. There is a lot to be gained by attempting to unite the opposites. I would add the Alchemists and the theories of Carl Jung to the list of those who have seen the wisdom of this. If there is any advantage to a dualist point of view I can't see it.

DITLD-

What is it you would like to see here that this forum isn't providing? To me it seems like a pretty wild exchange of views sometimes positive, sometimes negative.

Mr. Mark-

Our GK Chesterton, like his namesake, uses rhetoric paradoxes that sound convincing to the already convinced. In my opinion the original wasn't much better.

GK- No offense, just saying...

Dear GK -

Thanks for the comment.

The reason I ask for objective facts from the religionists is because the religionists like to present hearsay, opinion, tradition, legend, myth and personal belief as if they were objective fact, or, if not objective fact, on a par with objective fact. They are not.

One may call a dozen witnesses into testify in a trial, but contrary forensic evidence will always offer greater proof of the truth. I like to use the Liberty Valance example. Who killed him? If you're Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart), you aimed your gun and pulled the trigger. You believe you shot him. From a certain view of the shooting, people believe you shot him. If you're Tom Doniphon (John Wayne), you know that you actually shot Valance. The whole town comes out of the bar and hails Stoddard as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance because they see Stoddard, Liberty's corpse and a smoking gun. Doniphon is hidden in the shadows.

However, were forensic evidence taken, we'd know immediately that Stoddard didn't shoot Valance. The angle of the entry wound and the caliber of the bullet would all point to Doniphon's across-the-street rifle, not Stoddard's head-on positioned pistol.

The objective facts would override not only the received opinion of every witness, but of Stoddard and probably Liberty himself, had he lived.

Ryan wrote, "the reality of our God and the unreality of other so-called "gods" is not a matter of opinion, but of fact, whether embraced as such or rejected by whomever." I asked Ryan for an objective fact to prove his statement to be factual, and you (GK) answered, "I have 66 books that bear this out. OK, maybe 65 since "God" isn't mentioned in the Book of Esther."

Why call it a fact when it isn't a fact? Facts BY DEFINITION are based upon objective reality. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I expect better from somebody of your intellect.

"Let's make a deal: when you're objective enough to consider the possibility that Jesus was a totally mythical character, that Thor and Zeus were "real" gods and the Biblical god is quite false, then we can maybe have a discussion. Until then, you are "showing me that you are very far from the objectivity you demand from others" when it comes to matters religious."

When you ask for objectivity in proving the existence of God or whatever else you are trying to "prove," you are asking for the impossible, Mr. Mark. Once you demand objectivity as it relates to historical research or philosophical world origin explanations, you are defeated before you even get started. Why? Because none of us are objective in the technical sense of that word, primarily because of our own particular worldviews and experiences. And for that matter, people writing during the time period of said events are not totally objective either.

The task of the historian or philospher is to accept this as a given and from that point, examine the information that is available to us (as well as our own biases) and from this information draw plausible conclusions. One can not totally prove something unless it is a repeatable event, hence we would turn to science experiments, etc. But obviously we can't come to objective conclusions when we study unrepeatable events, such as the resurrection of Jesus. We can only determine viable options.

So in a way, I think we have some agreement if I'm reading your previous post correctly. I'm still not sure that we can make a deal, though.

I fail to understand why you demand "objective facts," assuming you agree with me that non-repeatable events can't be proven. I find that to be a silly demand, especially of someone of your intellect.

Sincerely,

GK

Dear GKC -

Thanks for the comment.

My comments no more drip with sarcasm than do yours.

Objective means, "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum."

Your beliefs are purely subjective. Why not just admit that and move on, as does the man running this blog (Jon Meecham) who admits this faith is totally irrational but prefers to believe anyway? Why do you feel that you need the imprimatur of science/reality to justify and explain your beliefs?

BTW - is there anything more patronizing than religious belief? Is there anything more haughty than believing you not only know god but know his thoughts?

Let's make a deal: when you're objective enough to consider the possibility that Jesus was a totally mythical character, that Thor and Zeus were "real" gods and the Biblical god is quite false, then we can maybe have a discussion. Until then, you are "showing me that you are very far from the objectivity you demand from others" when it comes to matters religious.

Think about it.

"Well, he proves that the eye did evolve, but apparently, the eye is not fully evolved in the humans who call themselves Christians, for where the rest of us can read dictionary definitions of words like "fact" with no problem whatsoever, the Xian eye apparently can't read the word "OBJECTIVE" when it appears in such a definition."

Your dripping sarcasm is nauseating and patronizing, Mr. Mark. Ironically, your use of the word "objective" in the discussion of the existence of God (not to mention as it applies to historiography) is revealing of your own post-modern bias.

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who lives within a "closed universe" worldview to ever be objective enough to study such weighty matters. I was quite serious about the books of the Bible being evidence of the existence of God.

Your refusal to even allow for the plausible historical argument that the rise of Christianity could have been the result of the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ based on the context of other 1st century Messiahs who died and whose followings dissapeared, shows me that you are very far from the objectivity you demand from others.

Hi Karen,

Thanks for the kind response. I understand to a degree why you feel that way. When it comes to something as monstrous as the Nazis, the intense and very narrow focus of energy, skills, resources and time and effort into dehumanizing the Jews far outweighs anything put out by the Jews. It's sort of like the duel in Indiana Jones where the guy has a machete or a whip and is impressively swinging it around and Indiana Jones gets annoyed and shoots him. The bigger guns, and the most ammunition tend to decide such things.

There's an interesting book out called 'On Killing' that was written by a soldier/psychologist that talks about the ways in which armies across the centuries trained their soldiers to fight and kill other people. One of the most hopeful things was to learn that the closer in proximity one has to the enemy, the less likely they are to want to kill them. There is an innate human response to not kill- which has been systematically broken down by armies in the more 'modern age of warfare'.

It's reminding people by looking into the faces of the survivors that we stand the best chance of prevention. I also have worked in hospitals and now work with developmentally disabled children in the inner city under 3 years old, some of whose parents are struggling in other kinds of war zones. I still hold out hope though. Because if one person is helped by your work or what I do, they can begin to choose a better life for themselves. And that's what makes it worth it.

You also wrote: "Because I believe very strongly in free will and personal choice, I could never abide the idea of forcing any beliefs on others, even if I am convinced that I am right and they are wrong. For example, I disagree with my Jewish friends when it comes to who Jesus is, we have great conversations about it, but at the end of the day, we agree to disagree and I would be the first in the public square to defend your right to be a Pagan and live your life as you see fit,even if I totally disagree with your faith. My faith is not a weapon that I use to clobber others. It is a source of comfort and hope."

And I would also stand up and defend your rights as a Christian. That's the beauty of this country. And many thanks for saying that too. It gives me hope that Christianity, like any religion, can be about inspiring people to be the best they can be.

It's sometimes hard to know, especially on these threads when I'm going to run into one of those folks who aren't content to live and let live. It's happened a couple of times, where I thought I was getting into an actual debate and end up getting bashed on the head with the bible.

Thank you for not being one of them.

Blessed be.

Dear Daniel -

Thanks for your comments.

I was raised Lutheran in a town of about 20,000. There was a RCC down at the other corner from my church. The nuns would walk by our church on occasion - we assumed they were witches and called them so! I don't recall anyone correcting our childish observations.

I always felt sorry for my Catholic friends as they had to go to church more than once a week, and on Saturday, to boot!

Being Lutheran didn't mean that one learned anything about the anti-semitic, anti-intellect founder of the sect. Oh no! We just knew that those Missouri-Synod Lutherans weren't "real" Lutherans like us Ohio-synod types!

Looking back in retrospect, I don't think that learning tolerance was anywhere on our religious agenda.

Priver,
Thank you for your detailed response. I apologize for not answering sooner due to a very busy day.
I appreciate your explanation but it still seems a little bit of picking and choosing as to when your world view of the rule of three applies and when it does not ie, it applied to the nazis bringing their defeat upon themselves, but it does not apply to the victims of the holocaust bringing calamity upon themselves. Maybe I am being dense and just not getting what you are trying to say. It's friday... and brain is slowing down...

I would like to clarify one thing though. Yes I believe that we live in a fallen world, but I absolutely do not believe that we do not have choices. We are born with the potential to do good and to do bad and every day we are confronted with choosing either, many times over. Looking around us, it is clear to me that most people, most of the time, choose the bad over the good. I don't think that this is a pessimistic view of the world, I think it is very realistic. Plus, I grew up in a war zone, and I have worked for 15 years in an inner city hospital and everytime I think I have seen the most eggregious thing that one human being can do to another, there is more.

Because I believe very strongly in free will and personal choice, I could never abide the idea of forcing any beliefs on others, even if I am convinced that I am right and they are wrong. For example, I disagree with my Jewish friends when it comes to who Jesus is, we have great conversations about it, but at the end of the day, we agree to disagree and I would be the first in the public square to defend your right to be a Pagan and live your life as you see fit,even if I totally disagree with your faith. My faith is not a weapon that I use to clobber others. It is a source of comfort and hope.

Dear Mr. Mark

Is it me, or does it seem that this whole "On Faith" forum seems to have taken a sudden turn for the worse?

You asked me before, in another thread, how I come to have my relligious beliefs. At first, I didn't understand what you meant; I thought you were asking a deep philosophical question, but when I saw you give your own background, then I understood that perhaps you were referring to something like that.

I grew up in a small southern town with less than 3,000 people. We had 12 churches; I know, because when I was about 12 years old, I counted them. Even to a little boy, it seemed like alot, for such a small town.

I was a Methodist; three doors down from our church was the Baptist Church. There was alot of rivalry and one-ups-manship among the many churches. Our church always championed "ecumenicalism." If we invited the Baptists to conduct a joint service with us, they always hated it, but felt that they had to do it. They didn't like us for compelling them to associate with non-Baptists, and we enjoyed rubbing their noses in their delusions of superiority.

I was taught from early childhood to beware of the Baptists, and other people like them. I think this sort of rivalry and competition perhaps makes it easier to question things with an open mind, and learn more, than say, for example, if I had been brought up in a fundamentalist church off in the country, with no other church rivals.

Even though the Baptists were the dominating cultural influence in town, they were famous and well-known for being difficult people. They were often mocked behind their backs, by all the others, from whom they did not try to disguise their imagined superiority.

I must admit, that I carry these childhood impressions into adulthood and they seem valid today as well. I think that I learned one of the most important lessons about being a Christian from my Baptist neighbors, that being a Christian does not make a person better than anyone else. So, I thank them for that.

I wrote:
"Please provide a SINGLE FACT to support the reality of the Biblical god."

GK CHESTERTON replied:
"I have 66 books that bear this out. OK, maybe 65 since "God" isn't mentioned in the Book of Esther."

Our friend GK provides interesting evidence to support evolution with his statement.

How, you may ask?

Well, he proves that the eye did evolve, but apparently, the eye is not fully evolved in the humans who call themselves Christians, for where the rest of us can read dictionary definitions of words like "fact" with no problem whatsoever, the Xian eye apparently can't read the word "OBJECTIVE" when it appears in such a definition.

Similarly, when Xians like Ryan read the definition for the word, "proof," they apparently see some form of the Bible code within that definition that says, "see: opinion; sub. pure conjecture."

Whowouldathunkit?

Dear Ryan Haber

The existence of God cannot be proven. Therefore, if your religion and religous belief depend upon such a proof, then you are up the creek. Merely stating "how can it be otherwise?" is not a proof; it may be your particular reason for believing in God, but it is not proof that would appear on the headlines of all of the newspapers, not proof that would change the thinking of non-believers. It might be better to give your particular and personal reasons for believing in God, without calling it proof.

Also, the divorce rate in modern America is the highest in the Bible belt and it is the lowest in the liberal Northeast. Being a Christian does not make a person better or superior to people who are not Christians. This can be observed in all aspects of life, among many different kinds of people, in all kinds of places, any day of the week.

Also, Christians, including Evangelical Christians in the South believed in slavery and defended iit by force of arms. And also, the people who kidnapped Africans and brought them to America were Christians, and he people who bought them were Christians, who promoted Christian principles and attended Christian services on a regular basis.

Remember the scene in Gone with the Wind, when the family said their prayers in their personal chapel, the night before the barbecue? (A fictional story, but it was an approximate representation of life in that culture).

I am not trying to run down Christianity, but just making observations, and pointing out that your arguments and not convincing to people who may be truely skeptical.

Mad Love -

Talbot's book is a good one.

Try 'Parallel Universes' by Fred Alan Wolf - I'd say somewhere in between Talbot and Bohm. A physicist that dropped out of the university life to become a novelist in the 'esoteric' field of literature, his books are still dosed up with plenty of physics, but an easier read than Bohm.

Goswami's 'The Self-Aware Universe' is also filled with quantum ideas. He does take up the idea that mysticism and mystical experience through the ages has always pointed to the unitive nature of reality, rather than the false dualism of the 'exoteric' doctrines preached by the Abrahamic faiths (in particular) - their mystical traditions are another matter altogether.

Mystics from all the various religious traditions seem to confirm what is now being hypothesized by a number of quantum physicists regarding the holistic 'hidden' nature of reality (e.g. monism vs dualism).

Eventually science and religion may find common ground, but not while fundamentalist thinking (in both areas) reigns supreme. Many quantum physicists are still emotionally committed hard-core material realists, contrary to what their own evidence demonstrates!

best -

"Please provide a SINGLE FACT to support the reality of the Biblical god."

I have 66 books that bear this out. OK, maybe 65 since "God" isn't mentioned in the Book of Esther.

"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred."

Utter rubbish and post-enlightenment snobbery.

Anonymous-

Great post!

I tried reading David Bohm a while back but a lot of it was over my head. A book by Michael Talbot, "The Holographic Universe' broke it down where I could get a handle on it. You're probably familiar with that one, I would guess.

Well Ryan, I've always found semantic arguments to be tedious so I'll let you have it. But I'll maintain that any religion that states that everyone out side of their faith is the enemy is bankrupt and brings nothing good to the table.

Karen,

There's a difference between projected energy (what you put out when you set out to put a plan into action- in this case, the Nazis) and absorbed energy (those who receive it- in this case the Jews and the Germans and the others who were killed for trying to stop it). The Nazis invested a whole lot of energy in trying to exterminate people. I don't think that even the most imaginative Jewish person could have dreamed up what the Nazis did. A lot of the German population didn't believe it until they actually walked through some of the camps with American and Allied forces. And some people deny it to this day. And therein lies the danger.

At a governmental level, it doesn't matter what the reality of a situation IS if the government is able to convince people to go along with it. (Think how we got into Iraq). I think that the Holocaust happened because people failed to do nothing about the situation that was created. People didn't challenge the propaganda machine. It was so effective that even to this day there are people who would like to finish what was started. People created an image of what they were told a Jew was, and stopped seeing them for who they were. And that image became the 'reality'- the idea of the 'devil' linked with Jews so completely in their minds that nothing could undo that. And a LOT of innocents died.

And I think a lot of it was done in the name of national unity. I think a lot of our perception shapes our reality. The Jews were able to be villified to play upon people's fears of a people who were, in essence, different. They weren't allowed even to come here for many years.

Actually I think that the freeing of the camps and the ultimate fall of the Reich was the Rule of Three coming back to the Nazis. The Jews were massacred in unconscionable actions by the government. They didn't ASK to be put in camps, but the government at that time sure wanted them to. And when you've got an army behind you, the
bets are pretty good you're going to get your way. For a little while, at least.

As a Pagan, I am aware that I've gone from the frying pan into the fire, so to speak. There is a special hatred reserved for those of us who seek to learn from Nature and find our transendence IN the natural world, and in each other. It's probably somewhat similar to what folks like Mr. Mark and other atheist posters have had to deal with from the more virulent fundamentalists here. The only difference as I see it is that people are still fired and lose children for being Pagan.

Homosexuality and Paganism are probably some of the last acceptable prejudices here in the US. In other parts of the world, women, minorities and anyone considered 'different' is automatically suspect. We're making progress, but it's slow.

I understand your confusion. I really do. I also think the outside world had to be taught 'this is what can happen when you sit by and do nothing'. It got to an unbearable extreme before the world said 'hey, maybe we should do something'. The rumblings were there, and had people taken notice earlier, it could have been if not avoided, much less effective than it was.

Which incidentally, is why I'm glad people can see through the current presidency. But that's a different story.

I am a Jew, culturally and through my family. From my mother and her lineage. And I'm EXTREMELY proud of my heritage.

I will not say your or my view is somehow more ethical than another. Just different. From my point of view, if you start off with a 'fallen' world and believe that people don't have a choice whether or not to do the right thing, then that is the energy that will be attracted. It becomes a self defeating cycle, especially for children, who don't even know who they are yet but know that they're somehow 'sinful' just for being human.

What I see these days is Israeli actions that are hurting people. And I see Palestinian actions that are hurting people. Both groups should know better. As a Jew, I don't agree with all of Israel's actions. If Israel wants to be respected as a democracy then it must act like one and include all of its citizens. But throwing rockets every other day isn't helping the other side be heard.

I believe strongly that everyone has a choice as to determining the kind of person they want to be.

Blessed be.

On this:

"Ah, see, you still wouldn't get there by going south. And going north, you would be taking a faster method, not a different direction."

What if I start from Maine? Or the North Pole? And what if it's not about being the fastest?
It all depends on perspective. And it really is OK to have a different one than most people.

"Unbalanced, chaotic, bad people do real harm to themselves and to those around them. No, not every experience is a flower to be smelled. Some are best just left alone; when we are talking about getting to God, that is, to Goodness Itself, the most direct route will be the best for all involved."

People's definition of what the 'most direct route' will differ, too. Doesn't make them wrong.

"Some are best left alone."

True, but how will you know them unless you've had experience with them before? A child has to touch a hot stove sometimes to find out why Mommy says 'no'. Often it's the experience, and sometimes how one reacts to it, that teaches us to be more cautious in the future. If these forums have taught me anything, it's that.

For me, the things to learn are so subtly given and often easily missed until they get to a point where I can't ignore a situation anymore. At that point I say 'Ok, what am I not learning here?' Once I get the point, and make the necessary changes, the next one comes along. All part of the process.

Mr. Mark:
Very well put. Thanks. :)

I agree that some people are asleep through the scenic route. There's so much to be discovered below the surface if we only stopped to look.

Priver, you said: "As I am a Pagan, and have a much different definition of what constitutes Divinity, I do not subscribe to the biblical ethos. I subscribe to the rule of Three, in which whatever I do comes back to me threefold. Sort of the karmic idea, but much more immediate."
According to your world view, the victims of the holocaust and other genocides would have brought their torment upon themselves because what ones does comes back to them threefold. Is that a more ethical perspective than to say that there is a loving God who cares for us but that suffering still happens because we live in a fallen world and are subjected to the actions of wicked people (ie Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)

If I drink and drive then wreck my car and kill someone, yes my own actions came back to haunt me. But if I am a moral Jew (or gypsy etc.)living in Germany and Hitler decides to exterminate me, how does the rule of 3 apply to me? Or does your world view work in some cases but not others?

"What if I decided to fly a helicopter to NY?"

Ryan sez:
"Ah, see, you still wouldn't get there by going south. And going north, you would be taking a faster method, not a different direction."

Sure you would. You might have to circle the world to get there, but you'd still get there. Hate to break it to you, but the world isn't flat. In fact, you'd get there faster in an airplane going south than you would on foot going north. The different direction still gets you there, which was Priver's point.

It's all about what one wants out of the journey, a quick commute or a more-scenic route...which isn't to sat that some people don't sleep thru the entire scenic route.

"Now I understand why guys don't stop for directions. :)"

Lol.

"For me it's less about arriving at all and enjoying the path, and stopping to smell the flowers and enjoy the people also in the maze."

If we were talking about nice experiences, then I'd agree with you entirely. I'm 30 and so far I've spent most of my life smelling nice flowers around the world. But in the spiritual life, we are talking about how to be a good person, a peaceful person, a balanced person. Unbalanced, chaotic, bad people do real harm to themselves and to those around them. No, not every experience is a flower to be smelled. Some are best just left alone; when we are talking about getting to God, that is, to Goodness Itself, the most direct route will be the best for all involved.

"But please don't try to tell me that your way is the ONLY way to get there."

I wouldn't dream of telling someone that they are wasting their time, or on the wrong path, if they are genuinely seeking truth. They will find it. That is not the same thing as to say that all roads are the same.

"What if I decided to fly a helicopter to NY?"

Ah, see, you still wouldn't get there by going south. And going north, you would be taking a faster method, not a different direction.

"Well, not in real life. In real life.."

Now I understand why guys don't stop for directions. :)

What does this have to do with anything? The way to transcendence is different for people but people can still come out with a Divine that speaks to them just as much without subscribing to your worldview. Consider it like a labyrinth, with openings all around the outer parts that may not get there right away, but will ultimately lead to the destination. And along the way, it's about learning what needs to be learned. For me it's less about arriving at all and enjoying the path, and stopping to smell the flowers and enjoy the people also in the maze.

You've found what works for you.. and that's great. But please don't try to tell me that your way is the ONLY way to get there. I have found what works for me, and it's not the same as yours. And that's ok too. To expand on your analogy, what if I decided to fly a helicopter to NY? Which road to take becomes unnecessary, yet I still get there. And by driving the helicopter I had a hand in getting myself there.

We all create our own meaning. And if we expect to find it we will. And no two people's definitions will be alike.

On this: "The Holocaust, and other large-scale crimes, are composits of hundreds of thousands of little, individual deeds of wickedness and indifference."

Actually the Holocaust is probably one of the few examples where there isn't just little composite deeds.. but a systematic failure on an unprecedented scale. It's far too simple to say 'well if this person had done something, things would have been different'. In fact, a lot of people did little things that prevented it from getting even worse than it was, by harboring Jews and others in their homes at their own personal risk. But the failure was systemic.

You want to look at 'little composites of individual deeds', look no further than our 'compassionate conservative' President.

"But I cannot imagine that you actually want God to step in and intervene every time YOU do something wrong. While you were not likely complicit in the Holocaust, that fact alone hopefully doesn't convince you of your flawlessness. Do you really want God interfering and intervening in all your decisions, good or bad, to make sure only the good ones have the intended effect?"

But this isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the most systemized massacre of a group of people in history.

---

Priver, it IS what we are discussing. The Holocaust, and other large-scale crimes, are composits of hundreds of thousands of little, individual deeds of wickedness and indifference.

"...and how that is even remotely ok."

Priver, you've missed the Christian contention. The Christian contention isn't that wickedness or horrifying evil is somehow OK. Not at all. We only contend that God is more powerful than it, and is working in it, and redirecting it toward something better, something that could not have happened otherwise.

When we ask God (or anybody, for that matter), "Why?" We might do it in two different ways. One way is as an accusation, with the underlying assumption that there is no reason, no purpose, and that all is vain. The other way of asking is as a genuine question, assuming that the questioned might have an answer, and might reveal it if asked. This second way of asking also has a further, deeper assumption, that is, "The person I am asking might know more than me," either by a matter of degrees of knowledge, or on the level of whole orders of knowledge.

"All paths are valid, even those that we don't agree with."

Well, not in real life. In real life, if you are trying to get to New York, some paths are better than others, and some won't get you there at all. That's because New York is a real place, and its real position relative to one's own position isn't at all relative to where one would like to think one is, or what the best path is. If you try to get to New York from Washington D.C. by heading south on I-95 you will simply never arrive. If you try to go by US-15 you will perhaps arrive, but only with some turns and twists. I-95 North, on the other hand will eventually get you there (depending on traffic, lol).

If the Divinity is real, then the reality of the Divinity isn't at all dependent on what I want it to be. My desires and opinions alone can't change what is and what isn't. Consequently, my beliefs about the Divinity are accurate or flawed to the extent that they match up with how the Divinity really is. If the Divinity is real.

If It isn't really real, then to hell with the whole thing. Who needs a self-delusion? How can that help me live well and be happy in the real world?

In any event, I congratulate you on your efforts to be a good person; may you have great success. Please pray for me to succeed as well.

"But I cannot imagine that you actually want God to step in and intervene every time YOU do something wrong. While you were not likely complicit in the Holocaust, that fact alone hopefully doesn't convince you of your flawlessness. Do you really want God interfering and intervening in all your decisions, good or bad, to make sure only the good ones have the intended effect?"

But this isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the most systemized massacre of a group of people in history.

Anyone who claims that the god found in the bible is at all loving has to explain why that God sat around while millions of his 'chosen people' were massacred. Why rape and incest was allowed to occur. In such a case as that, it's on the burden of those who proclaim a 'loving' one God
to show that allowing millions of his 'children' to be murdered, and did nothing about it, and how that is even remotely ok.

And this is beside the point, anyway. As I am a Pagan, and have a much different definition of what constitutes Divinity, I do not subscribe to the biblical ethos. I subscribe to the rule of Three, in which whatever I do comes back to me threefold. Sort of the karmic idea, but much more immediate. It makes me much more aware of my actions and increases the likelihood of making a better choice. Am I perfect? No. But I learn from my mistakes and that's what builds confidence.

On this: "It is incapable because if one wants to do something forbidden by one's "god," one has only to find another "god" more suited to one's desires."

It doesn't work that way, and shows how little you really do understand about Paganism. Just because actions have consequences doesn't necessarily mean that there's a Divine hand behind it. And it certainly doesn't justify the 'hate the sin love the sinner' thing. It's not love, at all.

Oh, and BTW: We, unlike many others, are not afraid to look at the nastier parts of early Paganism and talk about it. To try to understand it in its historical context and to understand how our current religions came to be today. Because by understanding and learning about the past, we can adapt those religions to the present society for the benefit of our communities.

And we have no need for unification. Why would we want to? To start wars? All paths are valid, even those that we don't agree with. The only objections we raise is when others try to push their beliefs onto our civil rights to practice as we see fit. Or try to define what they 'think' we are about.

Please, again, do not make statements about religions that you don't know anything about.

Quantum physicists are by no means in agreement on all the details of the quantum world, but one thing they all agree on -

Observation/measurement changes the nature of that which observed. Quantum probabilities waves show evidence of becoming observable particles once apprehended by whatever means. The true nature of waves and particles e.g. wavicles is clearly beyond these two paradoxical characteristics (as shown particularly by the study of electron behavior).

The many worlds theorum (eg. parallel universes and the multi-verse) attempts to deal with quantum uncertainty as originally postulated by Heisenberg.

Quantum thinker David Bohm postulated a couple of fascinating concepts - first that the infinity of all possible things is contained in the Implicate (unmanifest) order of the multi-verse, whereas the manifest or objective universe of materiality is contained in the Explicate order. These twin phases of the Wholeness of reality are ever-changing in their functions.

The Explicate universe furthermore manifests through higher order Holographic displays and this helps explain the non-local nature of the 'wavicles' - where shared characteristics of entangled particles can be found virtually anywhere in the universe (instantly or superluminally and without an obvious mode of information exchange). This is also one of the known characteristics of holograms (the whole is contained in each 'part' of the holographic image).

Perhaps the multi-dimensional universe is merely a giantic shadow panel, and Brahman is really
'all that is' after all (as Vedanta tells us). Trying to locate a 'remote' creator outside of the creation itself is a logically impossible task that religionists nevertheless pretend can be done. A task worthy of Sissiphus himself.

Mr. Mark,

Here's something that we see around us: everything we have ever observed had a beginning at some point, before which it did not exist. Their existence isn't necessary, but only contingent. Each of these things, that begins, was begun by something else, something that exists before it. The universe, as I said, is the some-total of things that exist contingently (can you think of a better definition?).

If everything we have ever observed (observation is at the heart of the scientific method) has a beginning and a prior cause, it only stands to reason that everything has a beginning and a prior cause.

I have heard of infinite regression, and here's the point. If there were some kind of god that existed as part of the universe, then it would be as contingent as everything else. It would be just part of the show. But if there is something that needn't be created, that in its nature isn't the sort of thing that is created, then that thing wouldn't be like the rest of the universe, like everything else we have ever observed.

If there isn't something that never needed to be created, that in its own turn could at least start the rest of it off somehow, then we are in a hard place to explain the universe.

So why can't the universe as a whole simply be the sort of thing that needn't be created? Because of the simple fact that everything we have ever observed came into being somehow at some point - EVERYTHING in the entire universe.

I wonder how much Plato or Aristotle you've read. Usually people get a few ideas in their head about the Ptolemaic model of the solar system and start thinking that all the ancients were dunderheads. Actually, Plato was rarely interested in the physical workings of the material universe (he was an idealist, and so thought the material universe trivial compared to the "realm of forms" or "ideas", as he called them). Also, Aristotle was remarkably reserved in his discussion of the material world, the purview of the natural sciences.

"BTW - the universe is NOT the sum total of reality. There's the concept of parallel universes and the multi-verse."

Yes, there's the concept. As far as I know, there isn't really much physical evidence that even leads to the thought - and certainly nothing remotely conclusive. The idea of a multiverse is a neat way to kinda explain otherwise very weird phenomena.

"The fact is that the objective facts all support the Big Bang theory, and in spades."

Why do you think that the Big Bang theory is somehow incompatible with a Creator to instigate it?

Mr. Mark, you seem very hostile. I'm sorry if you're not having a nice day. I hope you do.

Mad Love,

"I see what you're saying, but I don't think 'paganism' is a good word for what you describe. At least not a very helpful one."

It's a perfect term. A "pagus" in Latin is a district in the countryside, like a county or a township. Its equivalent in Greek is a "deme". "Pagani" were simply the rustic country folk, the "bumpkins" if you will, left to their own uneducated, simple devices (in the Roman way of thinking). Anything you might attach to that way of life, things you might label "folk," would be called "pagan" by the Romans: the pagan religions (it is scarcely possible to speak of one pagan religion) first and foremost. The official civic cults practiced in the major cities, like Rome, were essentially crystallizations and formalizations of the same folk religions. This is the paganism(s) about which I have been writing, and which the bishop has in mind.

Modern "pagans" have no more put together a coherent, unified faith or system of beliefs than the ancient pagans had.

Modern "pagans" have made a deliberate attempt to resuscitate these ancient religions, but of course without their excesses. Nobody ever wants to take responsibility for the excesses of their group, their forebears, their family, etc. What modern pagans have done is essentially piece together an ersatz collage of these past religions, usually Celtic (rather than Greco-Roman, say, or Egyptian) and conducted a revision of their history to sanitize their past, or to disclaim their past altogether. Anthropologists and historians have documented the phenomenon of the multiplication of gods; over time, as one god fails to answer, new ones are called upon. More gods were worshipped in late Rome (say, 300 AD) than were dreamed of in the city's early days (say, 300 BC). Such a religion is incapable of restraining man's worst instincts, as (not only Christianity or Judaism, but also probably, for example) Buddhism generally is able to. It is incapable because if one wants to do something forbidden by one's "god," one has only to find another "god" more suited to one's desires.

But the excesses of paganism that I listed are simply the excesses of human nature left unchecked. The reason that they are identical is because paganism never had success in restraining human nature.

"Is he welcoming people outside the church to come in, or is he declaring them the enemy?"

Ah, perhaps a little of both. You must have heard the maxim, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." So it is that pagans are beloved of the same God as we, but paganism (the erecting or discovering of gods to suit one's needs) as a set of ideas is wrong an needs counteracting. Of course, that maxim is hard to live out and is very often botched. When botched, the maxim gives sinners the impression of being hated. As bad, when botched it gives the self-righteous the impression that they are only hating sins, while in fact they are actually hating people.

Priver, you wrote,

"Besides, nobody, no matter how religious, ever follows ALL of the laws. Conscientious, maybe but unable to do all of it. It's not possible in this day and age. Stoning disobedient children and adulterers? Keeping slaves?"

That's actually part of the point of the Jewish Law, from the Christian perspective at least. That it is impossible to keep - and not just because some of it is passe or bizarre - but because it is too difficult. The Law is meant to serve as a pedagogy in what goodness is, and in the fact that we humans cannot attain it.

"So God sat by and let it happen until people stepped up to stop it. He did nothing."

But I cannot imagine that you actually want God to step in and intervene every time YOU do something wrong. While you were not likely complicit in the Holocaust, that fact alone hopefully doesn't convince you of your flawlessness. Do you really want God interfering and intervening in all your decisions, good or bad, to make sure only the good ones have the intended effect?

Ryan -

Ever heard of "infinite regression?" As in, if everything needs a creator, then who created the creator? If you mean to say that god didn't need a creator to exist, then why can't you say the same about the universe?

As far as Plato and Aristotle's ideas about the universe, they were wrong. It's that simple. They didn't have the scientific proof we have today. They way they thought about things was different. Were they around today, they would embrace scientific knowledge, something lesser men refuse to do.

BTW - the universe is NOT the sum total of reality. There's the concept of parallel universes and the multi-verse. Does god exist within the universe? If god existed before the universe, then he had no need of the universe, ergo he doesn't need to reside in it now that it's created, does he? I guess that puts god outside of reality, at least if we stick to your description.

I agree with you on this: god isn't real.

I asked you to provide objective fact that god exists. You haven't done that. The fact is that the objective facts all support the Big Bang theory, and in spades.

BTW FYI - the Big Bang didn't happen "out of nothing."

Ryan Haber-

I see what you're saying, but I don't think 'paganism' is a good word for what you describe. At least not a very helpful one.

Historically it would imply everyone outside the church, and in a modern context it would imply a specific faith that doesn't stand for any of the things you mentioned. Personally I don't see where either of those would be acceptable from the Bishop.

Is he welcoming people outside the church to come in, or is he declaring them the enemy?

The Jewish People have survived for over three thousand years.

(The earliest reference to Israel is from the funery stela of the Egyptian Pharoah Merneptah, now in the Cairo Museum, which dates to 1209 B.C.)

All other empires that persecuted the Jews, from the Arameans to the Moabites, from the Babylonians to the Assyrians to the Selucids, from the Romans to the Spanish Inquisition to the Nazis to Communists, have fallen.

Yet the Jewish People are still here.

Yes, they are very tiny: there are only 13.2 million Jews in the world, compared to 1.7 Billion Muslims and 2 Billion Christians. However, I believe they will continue to survive.

Today, every Jew by birth that is alive is not only a descendent of the people of ancient Israel, but a descendent of those who survived great persecution and pressure to convert over countless centuries.

This is a great privilage and an incredible legacy.

Yet, today many Jews are ignorant of their own heritage, from the Hebrew Bible itself to the archaeology of Israel, from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the great works of the Rabbinic Era.

Thus, in this country and others they are intermarrying, turning away from the sacrifices of their ancestors and casting out this heritage.

Pressured by societies that still hold true to the ideas of Replacement Theology--the theology that the Church, or the Islamic Ummah, has replaced the Jewish People as G-d's choosen--they often want to assimilate into the maintstream.

Without the knowledge of their history, the Jewish People cannot understand the religious roots of Replacement Theology and how it evolved into anti-Judaism and then anti-Semitism.

They forget that Jesus was a Jew, as was Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, all the Disciples, Isaiah, Jeremiah, all the Prophets, Kings David and Solomon, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses...

Thus, they simply, and tragically, internalize it.

So, will the Jewish People disappear over time?

No, it cannot be a coincidence that after 2,000 years of Exile the Jews have returned to their ancestral homeland to build a state, as it was predicted by Jeremiah and Isaiah.

Here is the future of the Jewish People, and as they have done for three millenium, they will--however small their numbers become--continue to survive and continue their ancestral legacy.

"It's important at this point to remind ourselves that God did not murder His chosen people - the Nazis did."

So God sat by and let it happen until people stepped up to stop it. He did nothing. That makes it murder. Just like if you see a woman being assaulted and do nothing to help, you are just as bad. There is no excuse for it.

And that version of God does that over and over again in the so called 'holy scriptures'. The plagues. Rape, incest.. it's all there. Why is it when something like this happens, it's 'god has a plan?'

Not a deity I want any part of.

Besides, nobody, no matter how religious, ever follows ALL of the laws. Conscientious, maybe but unable to do all of it. It's not possible in this day and age. Stoning disobedient children and adulterers? Keeping slaves?

Ryan Haber -

I can see you need more exposure to Buddhism. The universe was never created, but has merely changed form periodically from beginningless time - an infinite revolving cycle. We're anxiously waiting to see whether science confirms or denies this postulate - but probably not in this lifetime.

PS - in this view a creator is quite unnecessary, so that tends to simplify matters, don't you think??

Mad Love,

"It looks to me like a few of your pagan offense would apply to our modern Day 'Christian Nation'of America as well."

Too true. You know, actually, the reason why I defined paganism using the precise language I used (rather than other, more or less interchangeable terms) is because I also postulate that America has been becoming more and more pagan for quite some time - maybe 70 or 80 years? By pagan, here, I do not mean "people who call themselves Pagans and feel or attempt some continuity with the various pagan groups of pre-Christian Europe." By pagan, here, I mean people who set up idols for themselves. In America, we've set up a couple political leaders, the government itself, the television and the entertainment industry as a whole, capitalism, "free choice" and a number of idols, expecting any, each, or all of them to deliver what everybody wants: happiness. None of them can do so, though.

I agree with you that modern-day "Christian America" has done a number of really stupid and wicked things. Whether America ought to be Christian or not, and what that means, are separate questions - in point of fact, I contend that it hasn't been Christian (if ever) in a long time.

For a practicing Christian who makes his decisions based on what God commands and desires, it is laughable to think that one is a Christian because one goes to church sometimes, even routinely; because one likes to get a whoopin' and a hollerin' during church or prayer; because one votes for this political party or that; because one likes this political cause or that. All those may or may not be nice things, but they are not what make a Christian. Nor does having 200+ million people doin' them in the same place make it a Christian nation.

For a practicing Christian, what makes a Christian is trust in God's loving promises, a trust that is so real that it reorganizes the entirety of one's life, changes all of one's priorities, and bears on all of one's goals and decisions.

To the anonymous writer,

"Philosophically, Christians and Jews could not be more different. This is even more obvious when you accept that Christianity is mainly a religion, while Judaism is a culture, identity, and religion, and to some degree a nationality (no, I am not referring to Israel)."

Hmmm... It is true that Christianity, in its varied forms (it's hard to speak of it as a single religion, really) is primarily religion. Judaism, on the other hand is a cultural/national identity and a religion. Again, though, like Christianity, when looking at the range of practice between Hasidim and Reformed Jews, it seems hard to speak of one religion (if by religion we mean a set of beliefs describing God and practices designed to draw the practicioner into union with Him). With both Christians and Jews, the range is so wide that comparisons are very hard.

But if we are going to look at philosophy, specifically, something might be done. Protestant Christianity has tended heavily toward the gnostic/dualistic philosophical underpinning that underpins the entire modern/Enlightenment culture. Renee Descartes really popularized dualistic philosophy and that has paved the way for its more radical variation: gnosticism. I rather suspect, but cannot say for sure, that more liberal or reformed Judaism shares the same philosophical underpinnings. Gnostic/dualistic philosophy posits an absolute distinction and separation between the material and the formal (spiritual/intellectual) dimensions of reality, so that they have no point of contact. Gnostic philosophy goes beyond merely dualistic philosophy by also asserting the superiority of the spiritual, and sometimes even labels the material (the flesh, it might be said) as bad in one way or another. Gnostic philosophy also generally has secret knowledge involved, which when attained, is supposed to bring either great temporal or eternal benefits, or both. You see something like it in our modern question for all sorts of self-help "techniques" for everything from finances to health to relationships.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianities both soundly reject both gnostic and dualistic philosophy. While observing the distinction between the material and the formal (spiritual/intellectual), the philosophies prevelant as underpinnings of these religions all observe the interaction between the material and formal. "If matter and mind have nothing whatsoever in common, how can they interact?" these groups ask. The Catholic religion tends to be undergirded by one realist philosophy or another - usually thomistic realism. Eastern Orthodox thinkers tend to think in augustinian/platonic/ideal realism. For present purposes, the difference between the two are trivial.

What's not trivial, and what's right to the point, is that modern Orthodox and Jewish commentators, resting on the same philosophical underpinnings as the Hebrew Scriptures, tend to gravitate toward one of those philosophies or another, as well - just like Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

Here's a key example.

Descartes, or one of his modern-day philosophical descendents of whatever religion might say something like, "What does God care what I do with my body?! My body isn't ME." Nowadays, modern people very often make such statements. Such a thought would be shockingly senseless to an Israelite of the Old Testament times. The separation between body and soul, even moreso between body and self, was impossible for them to imagine. The separation of body from soul is how they defined death. Modern day Hasidim and Orthodox Jews, staying close to their roots, share very similar ways of thinking about the universe. While individual modern-day Catholics and Eastern Orthodox might have accepted the prevailing modern assumptions, their structural leaders and teachers as a whole have not, but have instead embraced (a long time ago) the frameworks of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Thomas.

So you see, philosophically, Jews and Christians aren't so far apart. Modern Jews tend to think in many of the same terms as Protestant Christians, where more traditional Jews tend to think in terms at least similar to the terms used by more traditional Christians as well.

All that said, you are probably right. I rather suspect most Jews don't want much to do with Christians except to get along and not get beaten up by them. And they've good reason. Over the last 1700 years or so Christians have done a great many very nasty things to them. If I were a Jew, I'd probably avoid Christians too.

Priver,

I didn't write that the orthodox Jews were interested in "building a new society 'founded on god'" as you paraphrased me. I wrote that they were "interested in reminding the broader society that a society will only be well founded if it is founded on God."

Without meaning to be pedantic, but only clear and precise, there is a difference between "building a new society" and "reminding the broader society". There's a big difference.

It has to do with being a light to the nations, as I mentioned later in my letter. That is very much was the entire Torah and all the Prophets write, on almost every page. It is precisely the Jewish groups, the Orthodox, Hasidic, etc., that are most interested in close adherence to the Scriptures that are also most conscious and conscientious of this lifestyle. It is the more liberalized / modernized / secularized groups that neither adhere closely to the Law nor see themselves as chosen to be a light to the nations by living it.

As for the Shoah (Holocaust) and the chosenness of the Jews, it will be for each believer to resolve that struggle himself. The Book of Job is clearly meant to shed some sort of light on the question.

I can't blame anyone for losing faith in God's loving goodness, especially when crap seems to fall from the sky on them. Not raised a Jew, and only in recent years exposed more to Judaism, I won't tell Jews how to respond to the Shoah. I will relay my Orthodox Jewish (German) grandmother's response when I asked her, "Grams, what do you make of it? Why did it happen?"

My grandmother lost much of her family in the Holocaust. So did her husband. She (who left Germany in 1935) said, "Am I God? If He is God, then He knows more than I do. I only wait for Him to make His purpose clear."

It's important at this point to remind ourselves that God did not murder His chosen people - the Nazis did. And the Children of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel have had to ask themselves this question before, many times over history - dating back to before the time of King David.

Ok, Mr. Mark. No need to bother with me. Lol. But still, the existence of the universe (which is the sum total of reality) is pretty hard to explain without something prior to it to bring it about.

Can you think of a better explanation than a Creator external to it? Plato and Aristotle couldn't.

Sadly, this writer is mistaken. Jews do not and are commanded not to judge other religions, races, etc. Frankly, it is alright if everyone in this world is a Pagan, Jews just want to be left alone. Why can't Christians seem to understand this?

Christians do not seem to understand that Jews have little in common with Christians. I suppose given Jesus was a Jew and the mangled contents of the so called "old testament" perpetuates this false assertion. Certainly, Jews and Christians share certain values and morales, but no more so than with any other religious, racial, or social group. There are parallels between everyone, but also just as many differences.

Philosophically, Christians and Jews could not be more different. This is even more obvious when you accept that Christianity is mainly a religion, while Judaism is a culture, identity, and religion, and to some degree a nationality (no, I am not referring to Israel).

Ryan Haber-

Thanks for engaging, but it appears that the Bishop is speaking present tense, while you seem to be discussing ancient history.

I'm sure that anyone so inclined could put together an equal or worse list of the offenses of Christian dominated cultures. Would it be fair to say that Christian dominated societies tend to burn nonbelievers and scientists at the stake? It looks to me like a few of your pagan offense would apply to our modern Day 'Christian Nation'of America as well. Still, I'm not ready to declare Christians as MY enemies. Not yet anyway.

NTW (sounds like a tire store) is only protecting his income. The article, as his most often are, was a waste of good reading time.

Providence

Ryan Haber:

Your belief that somehow raising an 'idol' is at the heart of Paganism shows how little you know of Paganism. Please do not attempt to define something you know nothing about.

Besides, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Hitler claimed that by exterminating the Jews that he was doing 'the lord's work', and claimed to be a Christian.

Modern day Jews know that the modern Pagan movement has nothing to do with them. Pagans are not a threat to Jews today. It's certainly not Pagans who are threatening to wipe Jews off the map.

On this: "Religious Jews, particularly traditional/orthodox Jews, are probably (in my experience very much) interested in reminding the broader society that a society will only be well founded if it is founded on God."

And your evidence for making such a statement is what? Even the orthodox denominations are split on if that's even feasible in this day and age. They seem to me to be more worried about survival, both of themselves and the old traditions. not building a new society 'founded on god'.

"Abandonment of that knowledge, by however many, is a loss of the Jewish faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in his promises for His people's good."

Baloney. I'd say a better indicator of the loss of faith in the 'chosen people's' God of Abraham, et. al is those families impacted by the horrors of WWII. What kind of 'God' allows that to happen to anyone, never mind his 'chosen people?'

Dear Ryan -

That's your answer? "The universe exists?" Your answer contains no objective proof of any god causing it to exist.

Pathetic. You're not capable of having an intellectual discussion.

No use bothering with you.

Done.

Mr. Mark,

Fact: the Universe exists.

Gaby,

You missed the key part of my point about Christian kings and mass baptisms. We don't view our presidents, or even our kings, as fathers of a vast family. For that matter, we don't really view the actual fathers of actual families in the same way that medievals (Germanic tribesmen as they settled down) or ancients (Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Semitics, etc) did. They all had a shared sense that family was more fundamental than individuality, and that the father (paterfamilias, the Romans called him - the head of a household or clan) acted on behalf of the family. With a stronger sense of individuality and of interpersonal equality underlying our (in the West, pretty much everyone's) thinking, the idea that people would convert simply because their father, king, or president did, makes no sense. Nor would has any king or president in 350 years (roughly since the 30 Years' War) really contemplated the idea that his kingdom should have his religion.

Gaby, you're mistaken again. In a democracy it is precisely that: majority wins. That's what the word means ("rule of the people") and has always meant. How it actually plays out, what rules everyone agrees to follow, if/how protections for subgroups and individuals are brought to bear - all those are variables. But some form of majority rule is exactly what democracy always entails. If people are not supposed to vote based on what they think is good, right, fitting, proper, and best for themselves and their society - well, Gaby, can you suggest other criteria for voting?

Priver,

Secularized Jews are probably about as much interested in injecting transcendent values into culture as secularized non-Jews are. Which is to say, they probably aren't.

Religious Jews, particularly traditional/orthodox Jews, are probably (in my experience very much) interested in reminding the broader society that a society will only be well founded if it is founded on God. They are also acutely aware that paganism, in diguised and modern form, is exactly what fueled the Nazi movement in Germany. The government itself wholeheartedly endorsed and orchestrated a revival in "folk practices" pertaining to the ancient Germanic religion. On an even deeper level, the establishment of an idol (ascribing to something that is not God the properties proper only to God) is what is at the heart of paganism. Nazism established Hitler, the German nation, the army, and a number of other institutions as idols. Hitler was the faultless leader, the German national blood was the source of greatness and virtue, the army was the source of honor and power, and so on. That's paganism; only the gods' names have been changed.

That's one good reason the Jews have to be weary of pagans. They know also that before Christians ever treated them badly, pagans (Romans, before them the Greeks, before them the Assyrians and Babylonians, and before them the neighboring Semitic nations) had long since started the tradition.

Priver, my grandmother was an orthodox Jew, and to her dying day she was awaiting the advent of the Messiah. She knew she was called to be a light to the nations around her - to live differently, to live by a higher standard. And she did. Abandonment of that knowledge, by however many, is a loss of the Jewish faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in his promises for His people's good. The bloodline remains, perhaps, but that's all.

Jack Knife,

God did make the world good. Every day, I wake up, and with my own stupid self I make it a little worse. We can't blame the Hitlers and Osamas of the world on God - we've got to blame them on Hitler and Osama. But most of the crap isn't caused by Hitler and Osama - it's caused by you and me. Driving negligently, arguing thoughtlessly, acting self-righteously, scowling cruelly, drinking heavily, banding together against peers on the playground - this sort of petty, day-to-day badness causes most of the problems that you and I have to deal with regularly. And the only way for one to make it better is to start by admitting to oneself that one is part of the problem.

For God to fix the problem would mean that he has to fix us. As most of us spend most of the time thinking we are A-OK just as is, this path seems like an unlikely route to world-fixing. Alternatively, God could just prevent all the bad stuff from happening, which would mean that none of us would have freedom but to do the very best thing, which would mean that we'd all be drones. For whatever reason, he clearly doesn't want that. He must want us actually to learn to love and desire the good, and then to put it into practice, without being forced to. We're not there yet. At least, I'm not.

But I'm going to have the integrity not to blame that on someone else.

Thor's Child,

I agree with your last post pretty wholeheartedly. Us vs. them is rarely a productive mentality, one conducive to reconciliation once conflict is over, or even a realistic way of seeing things. It is also prime grounds for demogoguery of every sort.

Mad Love,

I will start off the bishop's list for him, if I may make so bold. Wherever paganism has been the dominant culture:

1) abortion and infanticide have been widely practiced

2) divorce and adultery has been admitted as acceptable or normal, and usually on terms favorable to the men involved

3) public lewdness gains acceptability

4) the rich are favored over the poor not only in fact (as everywhere) but in law; slavery becomes institutionalized (it must be remembered that in the early modern West, slavery was instituted by wealthy landowners and abolished at the urging of evangelicals)

5) leader-worship has taken over

6) militarism and a might-makes-right mentality have prevailed

These phenomena are all abhorrent to the traditional Christian and Jewish conscience. In Christendom, they appeared only as Christianity broke down - as in Nazi Germany. These phenomena are evident in the Greek/Macedonian cultures, the ancient semitic cultures, mesoamerican cultures (Aztec, Maya, Inca, for example), Roman culture. They are not documented by Christian sociologists, anthropologists, and historians, but by sociologists, anthropologists, and historians across the board.

Have I accused pagans, much less individual pagans, of abortion, infanticide, divorce, adultery, public lewdness, slavery, favoring the rich over the poor, leader worship, militarism, or brutality?

Not at all. But the historical precedent is that the pagan civilizations have all been patently marked by those trends.

Perhaps the Bishop would be kind enough to lay out his grievances with "all forms of paganism" as there are a number of Pagans who regularly read this forum. It seems only decent to explain why you have chosen to declare and entire group of people as your enemy.

Well Ryan, I do not fear the burning at the stake version of Christianity at present, but several other less-lethal fears are far more plausible, your revisionist history of a benign Christianity notwithstanding.
Threats of and/or acts of violence against person or property, along with risk to job and career are unfortunately too common stories among those who do not 'fit the mold' that the majority Christian population prefers. Such individual acts are made more likely when Christian leaders make it clear that 'they' are out there and 'they' are dangerous. (And in this case, the Pagans are supposedly dangerous enough that 'we' should even join up with the Jews(!) to combat them.)
You may think it's silly to worry about 'Good Christians,' but but hymns like the classic 'Onward Christian Soldiers' sound a lot more insidious from the other side, especially when coupled with the 'Take Back America for Christianity' rhetoric of the religious right.

That said, my concerns with such comments are to a lesser extent with Christianity, and to a greater extent in the ugly 'us vs. them' polarization of society that can easily follow if such rhetoric is allowed to go unchallenged; no matter how the author defines 'us' and 'them.' Motivation of the masses by fear of the 'other' is a very dangerous political tactic. People in fear for themselves and their families are ripe for inciting into acts (or tacit approval of acts) against whomever the leader declares as 'them,' be they Pagans or Christians or anyone else.

Since a Democracy involves both majority rule and protection of minority voices, such rhetoric must be confronted wherever it is found. When we lose the voices with whom we disagree, we have lost Democracy.

You state: "...to the one creator God, who made this world and will one day call it to account and remake it in justice and peace."

Questions:

If this god was powerful enough to make this world, why wasn't it made "in justice and peace" in the first place, and made to last (no need for Noah's flood)?

If the Jewish people are "God's chosen" (book of Exodus), and if Jesus is the son of God, why would the father not make this son known not only to his "chosen" but to everyone?

Also on the supposed 'advantage' you say we have-

I cannot look at the sheer magnitude of an event such as the Holocaust and say with ANY conviction that we are somehow god's 'chosen' people. I think a lot of Jews would agree with this.

"common stands against all forms of paganism,"

Um.. what? Is this really necessary? I really don't think that a people who were set aside and slaughtered in the millions would have the stomach for such a thing. For most, Jews are very much into doing good for their fellow humans because it's the right thing to do. I've never even heard of a Jew proselytizing. It doesn't work that way.

Growing up I was called a Pagan simply because I wasn't Christian.

that thought of 'common stands' is truly frightening. What does that mean?

"Common stands against all forms of paganism"

You disgust me.

Ryan,

"Christians, for our part, haven't ever really forced our NEIGHBORS to be Christian, but Christian kings have ordered their subjects all to be baptized, attend church, take religion lessons, etc."

And that is precisely what scares me. I would rather NOT live under a Christian king pr president who orders his "subjects" into that kind of mumbo jumbo.

"But, Thor's Child, if you are alarmed that we Christians (and Jews, perhaps) will set about trying to use what influence we have to organize the world according to our vision - well, of course we will. But then, that's what everyone's supposed to do in a democracy."

No, Ryan, that is not what you are supposed to do in a democracy. It's not supposed to be the majority wins. Cause if it is, then we are back to the Christian king. In a true democracy there is room for those with opposing views.

Dear Ryan -

Thanks for the comment.

Please provide a SINGLE FACT to support the reality of the Biblical god.

Just so we understand each other, I would ask that you use the dictionary definition of what constitutes a fact, which is:

"a piece of information presented as having OBJECTIVE REALITY."

Pleas do not offer opinions ("belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.") and beliefs ("a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.") as facts.

Thanks.

Mr. Mark,

Yes, the bishop's assertion is based on precisely that belief, that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is real, really real, like the computer I am sitting at is real - and that other "gods" are not. His assertion is based on the conviction that the reality of our God and the unreality of other so-called "gods" is not a matter of opinion, but of fact, whether embraced as such or rejected by whomever. You've got it, Mr. Mark. This core belief is what has distinguished Jews from the people around them from their inception.

The second conviction is that the reality of One God makes a difference. If there were five gods who got along or warred with each other, as the ancient pagans believed, that would make a difference too - and a very crucial difference in how we live our lives, in how we interact with each other, and how we understand right and wrong. That's hard for a secular-minded person to understand because secular-minded people tend to put religion in a box or a category, and segregate it from the rest of the world's affairs, which they categorize as secular affairs. The innovation of the Jews is that religion matters in the rest of life's matters. That's because they (we) understand the One God to be the underpinning of reality, and not merely a category of within it. He claims, and we admit, His right to order and organize all of reality according to His plan for crafting it. We insist on our obligation to actively collaborate in that work.

Thor's Child,

It depends on what alarms you.

If you are worried that Christians or Jews will force their neighbors into this belief or that, you've misread history. Jews have never done, or been accused of, forcing others into Judaism. Judaism was the tribal religion of the Jews - and to a great extent still is - and one can no more or more easily join it than one can join the Pygmies or the Slavs. Christians, for our part, haven't ever really forced our NEIGHBORS to be Christian, but Christian kings have ordered their subjects all to be baptized, attend church, take religion lessons, etc. That was because Germanic kings (and they were all Germanic kings) saw themselves as the fathers of extended families and exerted the rights universally understood to be that of a father. That isn't the understanding of anyone Westerner anymore. It's been 400-600 years that a solid sense of the individual with as conscientious agent has changed the way that conversions were expected.

But, Thor's Child, if you are alarmed that we Christians (and Jews, perhaps) will set about trying to use what influence we have to organize the world according to our vision - well, of course we will. But then, that's what everyone's supposed to do in a democracy. It's just that the Christian worldview has a broader sweep and deeper implications than that of P.E.T.A. or even Greenpeace, and there are more of us working on more fronts, each in our own little way in our own corner of the world in our own little day-to-day lives.

And that's been no secret. That's the gospel commission to evangelization and social transformation. It's been on every page of the all four gospels since the 1st century AD.

But especially nowadays, there's no need to be too afraid - we're usually frightfully bad at social organization, and we've really outgrown the burning-at-the-stake thing. Really. Occasionally some horrid Christian starts demanding the return of the auto-da-fe, etc., but the rest of us mostly tune such people out. It's hearts and minds we want to win over, and burnings are bad for that.

Thor -

Excellent point.

It's born in the conceit that the Judeo/Xian god is "real" and every other god is a myth.

Careers and incomes are on the line.

Ideas like those in the Bishop's second paragraph (Jews and Christians should unite against Paganism) should be a warning bell to all, for who will be next after the Pagans are gone? How does that square with 'love thy neighbor?'

I can't agree with the good Bishop.

Jews "are called to be different" not by god (who doesn't exist) but by the writers of the OT who were men, not gods. The OT was written to give the Jews a sense of oneness and purpose, to be god's chosen people even as their actions made one wonder why god chose them. The OT is fiction, down to and including the exodus which has to be the greatest "mouse that roared" story ever written.

Jews are "called to be different" the way Americans are "called to be different." The difference is that to be American means to fully embrace a Constitution and founding documents that are NOT dependent upon any god for their authority or power, but whose power and authority are drawn from the people themselves through "the consent of the governed."

There is a huge difference in believing that you are called to be different when the call has been issued by god, rather than men. One is fantasy, one is reality. One embraces the good inherent in humanity, one proposes that men are by nature evil. One proposes that the rights of men are endowed to them freely and without any conditions whatsoever, the other that men have no rights to speak of, except to serve and worship god, with the that the way one serves and worships god both specific and conditional.

The idea of DEMOCRACY is the truly different idea. Kingdoms and monarchies are the stock-in-trade of most religions and have been the basis for most governments throughout history. A dictatorship is still a dictatorship, no matter how benign.

There are no votes in heaven.

Perhaps the way for Jews and Xians to work together is to ignore the religious labels altogether and to embrace our common humanity. Perhaps it is time to throw the god-baby out with the 20th-century (or 14th-century, for that matter!) bath water, and to "start thinking of ourselves in terms of the good things that the recognition and embrace of our common humanity has in store for us for the 21st."

The Jewish people must come to the realization that there are some significant flaws in their religion just as there are significant flaws in all religions. Once they accept and correct these flaws, then religious issues can be dealt with on a human scale vs. the current mythical "chosen people" scenario.

The 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the USA and their rabbis are well on their way as noted below:

From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "