Ever-Present Political Panderers

Dear Seeker -

Thanks for your response. I'm glad to see you are seeking.

I fully realize that my response to you was a bit of a slap down, but it comes with the territory. Our passions on this blog are like pregnant - there's no "a little bit."

I would ask that you peruse the talkorigins link that I provided BEFORE you read anymore of the ID BS sites. You must first know what science actually says before reading an ID site which sets up straw man arguments.

When reading ANY ID/Creationist website, you need keep only ONE question in mind, and that is this: "as you purport to be a scientifically based website, where is the peer-tested and proven scientific data that supports your position?" If the answer isn't, "right here, tested and proven by numerous independent third parties including those who vehemently disagreed with the premise," then the answer is a lie.

About blogging at On Faith: the discussion moves around these threads pretty rapidly. As this particular thread has been supplanted on the home page by a new question, this discussion will die out here and will probably re-emerge on a newer thread. Don't get discouraged, that's just how it works.

Hi Jihadist:

This made me chuckle when you said "One must expand one's knowledge on contemporary American English forms and usage."

Given the quality of posts here, I figure if you're looking HERE for contemporary English forms.. well.. I'm not entirely convinced that most of those pass muster. Probably including my own, too.. So good luck finding that. I'm just not entirely sure this forum in particular is the right place to find it. :)

Blessed be and Happy New Year!

I see The Obfuscating Jihadist has returned but fails to note the most important of contemporary Holys, i.e. Holy Stench of Islam!!!!!!

Anon,

You asked: "we've seen all of this before but the question remains: How was such a minor character in the historical scheme of things (generously assuming he actually existed) transformed into
the Savior of Mankind??

Money and power!!!

Mr. Mark

I apologize for the comments I made at the end of my last entry they were insensitive. Your anger was diserved. I misunderstood the purpose and committment of this forum and was just taking shots. I appriciate the research and thoughtfulness that I am beginning to see on this blog. Being new to this and truly seeking pleae forgive my impertinence. That is not how I want to be perceived.

Information for the most part comes down not up, therefore I am learning I would assume much the same way you are. Unless we are publised we all have to rely on those doing real science.

I have been reading a site called "IDEA Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center". There are two articles that caught my attention. "A Response to Newsweek's "Doubting Darwin", by Ryan Huxley 2-09-05. Also, Response to James O. Goldsborough's "Another Attempt to Deny Evolution". 02-12-04. Would you help me again by viewing these and giving feedback?

I am checking out the Behe contoversy as I did not know what had transpired. I will get back when I know more.

Humbly yours

Pilgrim -

Thanks for the response. I didn't mean to accuse you of being a Christian.

There are certainly philosophical ideas of value in some of Jesus' teaching, though certainly not all of them. I don't begrudge anyone that, but I do feel compelled to point out the shortcomings in their perspectives when they claim Jesus originated certain philosophies. The Golden Rule springs to mind

In my post above to Mike (DECEMBER 30, 2007 1:46 PM - still no response from Mike), I offered a perspective on why I believe Jesus was a mythical, rather than a historic figure. I had another thought along those lines, and it concerns the figure of Yahweh in the OT and the Jewish image of the Messiah.

Yahweh is a god who was NOT born of a virgin. He was NOT a god who was resurrected. He was NOT a god who wished to be worshipped by everyone. He was quite specifically the God of Israel. When the enemies of Israel were killed in battle, they didn't go to heaven or hell. Their total existence simply ended (Isaiah 26:14 "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased they shall not rise.") Yahweh did NOT promise eternal life to any and all who offered propitiation to him, only to the Jews.

The Jews believed that they would know the Messiah when he came because UPON HIS COMING he would usher in an era of justice and peace. This clearly did NOT happen with the appearance of Jesus. No justice, no peace and a crucifixion to boot.

So, let's consider Yahweh's background as a non-virgin birthed, non-resurrecting god, couple that with the Jewish belief of what their Messiah would do as soon as he arrived on the scene, and consider the figure of Jesus as I outlined in my post to Mike by considering the following question:

is it mere coincidence that in a time when virgin-born, martyred, resurrected, paradise-for-anyone-who-follows-me gods were the NORM in multiple religions, that Jesus would arrive on the scene and bear NOT ANY RESEMBLANCE TO THE MESSIAH PROMISED IN THE OT, but, rather, would bear an OVERWHELMING RESEMBLANCE to the savior-gods who were rife in almost all of the contemporaneous pagan religions?

OR,

is it MOST-likely that the figure of Jesus is a simple repackaging of the popular godman figures of the time, and -like them - an entirely mythical figure?

Thaks for the chat.

E Favorite,

No problem. I was mightily puzzled by your slip, because your posts have always been well put together.

Yes, faith is the word. But I search, or try to, in science as well.

Pilgrim - sorry about that - Of course, I meant the "God of Abraham" - just shows how easy it is to slip up -- think of all those biblical scribes!

Meanwhile, sounds like the questions and inconsistencies don't bother you much. Sounds more like faith than conflict (as you call it above)

E Favorite,

And a great and grand 2008 to you!

Er, Abraham was not the Jewish God, he was the father of the Jewish people, and hence the father of three great religions. Abraham, so far as I believe, is the beginning of history in the Bible. (Yes, I know, not a shred of proof.) I won't make excuses for the excesses; they make me very uncomfortable, and I am not sure what to make of them. As to God waiting so long to send Jesus - well, how the hell should I know? (grin!)

Pilgrim: “I commend you on your rebuttals to Seeker re that fundamentalist wolf in sheep's clothing, 'Intelligent Design'

Thank you! Here’s something for you to ponder on the eve of the new year -- If god created the world over 14 billion years ago, why did he wait so long to send his son to save people? Along the same line, assuming that as a Christian, you believe Jesus’ father was Abraham, the Jewish god of the old testament, what do you make of all the murderous mayhem he permitted and encouraged before Jesus came along?

I was recently a progressive left-leaning Christian myself and must admit, I never thought about these things.

Hope to hear from you. Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you and to all my old blogging buddies hanging out here today.

Mr Mark - no, I didn't. It's on my Tivo. I'll have to check it out tonight. Thanks!

Mr Mark,

While your criticism of the bible-thumpers is valid, please note that I am not one of them, and I do not accept any literal acceptance of those parts of the Bible as valid. My emphasis is on the spiritual, and the teachings of Jesus.

Pilgrim writes:

"Actually, I find no long-range conflict between religion and science. I accept them as different ways to seek the truth."

There are many ways to seek the truth, but not all the ways are equal. Isn't the proof in the pudding?

One accepts the Biblical explanation of things with a bowed head, a shuffle of the feet and an "oh, well" on the lips. It's that uneasy feeling one gets when they're forced to listen to the solecisms of the proverbial crazy uncle.

In our scientific- and secularly informed age, no one would aver that the Bible's advice on how one should treat their slaves is "a different way to seek the truth" in human relations, yet, we carve out a special pleading for Biblical nonsense when it comes to how the universe came into being and how life on our planet evolved. We jump through hoops trying to justify and rectify the Biblical accounts of "creation," employing excuse-making techniques that most of us abandoned in elementary school for everything else that touches our lives.

Why is it that the excuse-making, the overt and embarrassing rationalization, the "what that REALLY means" pretenses ALWAYS excrete from the Biblical side of the Bible/science dialogue? When's the last time science floated a whopper of an explanation on par with the stock-in-trade conjectures of the Biblical apologists?

Athena -

I agree with you on The Universe series on History. Did you happen to catch "How The Earth Was Made" last night? Really excellent. Highly recommended, especially to those still laboring under the duress of justifying the Biblical account of the same.

Happy New Years to all!

I was always taught that yes, God created the universe. But what is a "day" to God? One rotation of the Earth? One trip around our star, the Sun? Or maybe much longer. We can't know. Science is the way that human beings discover more about the universe. The Divine gave us our intellect and our curiousity. To not use it because one believes that the creation story of a small Middle Eastern tribe is true, is criminal.

I've been watching "The Universe" on the History Channel. It's fascinating, and really explains complex astronomy in layman's terms. I highly recommend it.

Norrie,

And the very best to you and yours for a great 2008!

Actually, I find no long-range conflict between religion and science. I accept them as different ways to seek the truth. Perhaps this is possible because I do not regard religion as absolute, fixed dogma.

I appreciate your posts as well, keep 'em up!

Pilgrim.

A Happy 2008 to you!

You wrote:

"I happen to be Christian, but left leaning (progressive?), and firmly believe that the universe that we know came into being some 14 billion years passed. As a Christian, I also believe that God created it. I am aware of the conflict there. But, further, I am also convinced that Darwin was correct. More conflict, oh well."

I think of myself as left leaning and progressive, too, and also as agnostic with Buddhist sympathies.

I don't see any conflict in what you wrote. You believe that God created our universe and that it came into existence 14 billion years ago.

If God did create the universe, it had to have happened at some point on our human timescale. So where's the conflict?

[By contrast, Buddhists believe that the universes were uncreated and exist eternally, and that no "God" exists.]

Similarly with Darwinism and evolution. Of course those scientific hypotheses contradict the biblical account of the creation of the earth and its inhabitants, but I don't see any conflict with a belief that God created our world and let it proceed to evolve as it has.

I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent comments on these threads.

E Favorite and Mr Mark,

I commend you on your rebuttals to Seeker re that fundamentalist wolf in sheep's clothing, 'Intelligent Design'. I happen to be Christian, but left leaning (progressive?), and firmly believe that the universe that we know came into being some 14 billion years passed. As a Christian, I also believe that God created it. I am aware of the conflict there. But, further, I am also convinced that Darwin was correct. More conflict, oh well.

Religion, like any established power structure,does strive for the status quo. Religion perhaps more so. But, being run by humans, it still 'evolves'. If it were totally stagnant, the Reformation would have never happened. And even today, the Evangelical crowd is changing, many accepting that the stagnant view that abortion, gays, and stem-cell research is the only agenda has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus (true). Not that they reject these, but they are now including efforts to combat hunger, disease, global warming. One can disagree with their methods, but I would contend that it is a step in a better direction.

JESUS' EMPTY TOMB

When trying to prove that Jesus was resurrected, Christians have always relied on the empty tomb as proof that Jesus was resurrected.

If a body were missing from a mortuary, would you assume that miraculously the dead body was resurrected and the deceased had gone on his way? I seriously doubt it.

My cousin, Kathy, moved to California, and wanted to move the body of my uncle from a cemetery in New Jersey to one in California close to where she was now residing. She went through a lot of legal haggling and eventually secured a court order to move the body. When they dug where the body was supposed to be, the coffin and body were missing. You may have read about this in your newspaper when my cousin sued. My family jokes about Uncle Ed being resurrected, and my Aunt Peggy claims she saw him in the stands while watching a football game on TV, but nobody seriously believes that he is walking around somewhere wearing the new suit he was buried in.

Yet this is the type of evidence that Christians present to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

Don't you expect extraordinary evidence to prove extraordinary claims?

Or do you believe that Jesus and my uncle Ed are alive and hanging together at football games.

Ebal Trace

JESUS' EMPTY TOMB

When trying to prove that Jesus was resurrected, Christians have always relied on the empty tomb as proof that Jesus was resurrected.

If a body were missing from a mortuary, would you assume that miraculously the dead body was resurrected and the deceased had gone on his way? I seriously doubt it.

My cousin, Kathy, moved to California, and wanted to move the body of my uncle from a cemetery in New Jersey to one in California close to where she was now residing. She went through a lot of legal haggling and eventually secured a court order to move the body. When they dug where the body was supposed to be, the coffin and body were missing. You may have read about this in your newspaper when my cousin sued. My family jokes about Uncle Ed being resurrected, and my Aunt Peggy claims she saw him in the stands while watching a football game on TV, but nobody seriously believes that he is walking around somewhere wearing the new suit he was buried in.

Yet this is the type of evidence that Christians present to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

Don't you expect extraordinary evidence to prove extraordinary claims?

Or do you believe that Jesus and my uncle Ed are alive and hanging together at football games.

Ebal Trace

Newblogger writes:

"If even a fraction of the energy spent here was used to volunteer at a charity of your choice, imagine the good that could be accomplished."

Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. My blogging here doesn't interfere with my work, my meals, my sleep or my exercise, so why would it interfere with my charity work?

BTW - one can save time blogging by taking a typing course before beginning blogging.

Dear Seeker -

Haven't noticed you here before. Welcome.

What Darwin wrote in 1859 is immaterial. Darwinism is a dynamic science, a science that serves as the foundation for many other sciences. Darwinian scientists continue to make discoveries that expand and refine our knowledge of evolutionary fact. Quoting what Darwin wrote 150 years ago means nothing in the context of today's discussion of evolution, anymore than Darwin's pre-Origin of Species writings hold sway over the things he believed after he formulated his magnificent theory of evolution. Following your illogic, any changes made to the strike zone in Major League baseball are subject to the rules of baseball as first set down in the 1800s.

In other words, the game hasn't changed, but the details have, be it baseball or Darwinism. What hasn't changed is the basic truth of Darwinism. The changes are in the details. The details Darwin offered in the quotes you cited have evolved. Darwin would have had it no other way.

Science is not static. Science doesn't need or allow itself to be shoe-horned into some pre-determined mold that cannot be changed when the evidence leads it elsewhere. For that, you must turn to religion.

Michale Behe is an idiot and a fraud and was totally unmasked as such (at his expense...and most entertainingly so!) in the Dover trial. His hypothesis on the flagellum has been countered in great depth by real scientists, INCLUDING THE SCIENTIST HE MISREPRESENTED TO MAKE HIS CLAIMS in the first place! Read HL's post above, or do your own search and the web and you'll maybe you'll save yourself the embarrassment of citing a lying fraud like Behe in future posts.

BTW - as E Fav pointed out, my comments about Jesus had nothing Darwinian about them. Your BS ID agenda is showing. Stop it. It's beneath the general level of intelligence on this blog and insulting to boot.

Time to start living up to your moniker, Seeker. Here's a challenge for you, Seeker:

Name a SINGLE creationist hypothesis that has been submitted to peer review and subjected to the scientific method, including falsification of the hypothesis. THERE. ARE. NONE!

And you have the audacity to use the words "bad science" in your post! Well, bad science is better than pseudo-science.

ID is NOT a science. It is a group of Bible-agenda driven pseudo-scientists who make their living taking pot shots at the still-unknown areas in science THAT SCIENCE FREELY ADMITS ARE UNKNOWN and that science continues to explore in its quest for knowledge. They present this pseudo-science to gullible innocents like yourself who are NOT interested in what science actually says, but who are looking for someone in a perceived position of authority to dispute scientific fact - no matter how idiotically - so YOU can hang on to your Biblical myths and treat them as truth.

YOU are not concerned with whether the science is true. You are concerned with finding an excuse to distrust the science so you may engage in some boneheaded exercise in relativism and false equivalency. That you are doing this is made CRYSTAL CLEAR by the ridiculous and oft-refuted examples given in your posts. I doubt very much that you even know what the meaning is of the words you posted above. I have seen these cut-n-paste jobs from ID websites before, word for word as you posted.

Be honest with us, and tell us where you got both the Darwin quotes and the info on Behe. Answers in Genesis, perhaps? The Discovery Institute website?

BTW - there is NO DEBATE "RAGING" between evolution and creationism. Creationism isn't a science, and it has been struck down in every single court decision in history as SPECIFICALLY NOT BEING SCIENCE. Dover is simply the latest and most-damning strike down of this laughable piece of Biblically driven crap. And it is CRAP, my friend!

You'll need to do much better than this if you want to debate in this forum. Go and read some info on evolution from REPUTABLE sources. Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/

And, we'll see you later.

Seeking,

I am Muslim and as much as I like the idea of design I disagree with you on the irreducible complex system you mentioned as proof for design. You wrote of the bacterial flagellar motor:

“This naviagtional tail spins at 100,000 rpms and can stop and change directions in a quarter turn. Behe believes these complex molceualar machines cannot come into being by Darwinian processes due to Irriducible Complexity defined above.”

Actually, Behe’s flagellum irreducible complex system, a term which he coined, was refuted by David DeRosier from Brandeis University. Michel Behe tried to use the work done by Derosier on the flagellum bacteria to prove his theory of an irreducible complex system; but DeRosier’s work on yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague, proved the opposite which is that the “flagellum motor has all the earmarks of something that arose by an evolutionary process.” The Yesinia pestis has a structure that resembles very much the flagellum bacteria but without the rotation of the filament proving Darwin’s evolution processes right. You can read more about it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_08_056.html

Seeking - regarding your comments on Mr Marks comment that "physical proof exists for things that "have happened" millions and even billions of years ago."

Instead of addressing his comments, you went into a whole discussion of Darwinism - a subject Mr Mark did not raise at all. I bet he’ll be back to speak for himself, but as I was reading his remarks, I assumed he was referring to archeological evidence, as well as the preserved written records which he mentioned. Darwinism doesn't enter into evidence for the existence of Jesus. There’s no question that people in the first century CE were fully evolved humans, as our species had evolved long before that.

It seems that you simply wanted to raise the subject of intelligent design, Your last paragraph is a clue: "Real or empirical science looks at the facts and lets the facts speak. There is a debate raging and bad science will not win. Design is on the table of truth seekers."

What about archeological and written evidence? Are truth seekers interested in that as well?

Newblogger:)

Welcome to On Faith.

Holy Cow indeed. We'll be arguing till the cows come home or pigs fly. And Holy Cow! is acceptable as is Holy Mackerel! or Holy Toledo!

Yes. This is comparatively "tame". Should have been here when the death of Jerry Falwell and the private doubts of Mother Teresa were topics. Some other topics too. I've been picking up interesting American inventive invectives in On Faith threads I've never heard of before. One must expand one's knowledge on contemporary American English forms and usage.

Hope you have had a great Christmas, and Happy New Year to you.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Mr. Mark

You talk about evidence in your last comment. "Yes, one can prove many things that happened 2000 years ago, at least to a statistically high degree of certainty. It's simple, because physical proof exists for things that "have happened" millions and even billions of years ago."

Is it that simple? Charles Darwin wrote in 1859, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Irreducible Complexity states, "All the parts of each machine must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes, in opertating order, at the same time, for the machine to function." Micro-biologist Michael Behe, after reading Michael Denten's discourse on the inability of Darwinian processes to produce all the working parts in the cell; began his research and found 40 working parts in the tail of the Flagellun Bacteria. This naviagtional tail spins at 100,000 rpms and can stop and change directions in a quarter turn. Behe believes these complex molceualar machines cannot come into being by Darwinian processes due to Irriducible Complexity defined above.

Darwin also wrote, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermiediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

According to your statement, "contradiction to physical/empirical evidence" According to the author of the theory, Darwinianism does not past the test in either mirco-biology or geology.

Our logic cannot supply its own beginning, logic is merely a way of reaoning correctly, moving from premise to conclusion. The premise must come from elsewhere. Your premise like much of the scientific community is what Havard biologist Richard Lewontin implies as "philosophical naturalism". Lewontin states, "Science itself has been refashioned into a machine for cranking out stricktly materialist theories. . .science has been turned into an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations. The reason science has been so redefined, Lewontin writes, is "because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism". Nancy Pearcey says,"So what drives the show is not the facts but the philosophy"

Having started with a false premise your conclusions are flawed. From Phillip Johnson's book "The Right Questions, Truth Meaning and Public Debate", The question then, "can natural forces alone explain the universe and everything in it? Did life arise by blind, materialistic Darwinian processes, or does the evidence point to other forces?"

Real or empirical science looks at the facts and lets the facts speak. There is a debate raging and bad science will not win. Design is on the table of truth seekers.

Holy Cow! Some of you really go over the top! I'm new to blogging, so maybe this is all kinda tame comparatively, but ... WOW!

If even a fraction of the energy spent here was used to volunteer at a charity of your choice, imagine the good that could be accomplished.

The deviation from the original question posed was unexpected. I just want to comment on the original question:

1. I support HR 847. While I hate the commercialization of it, Christmas is a great holiday, and I believe we need to allow people, even government officials, to say, "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Merry Kwanza", or any other positive, good salutation without being slapped with a lawsuit. I am not offended when my Eastern Indian or non-Christian friends tell me about their beliefs and holidays, and they are not offended when I tell them about Christianity.

2. This resolution is not unconstitutional to me. The Constitution (Amendment 1) reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”. First, HR 847 is not a law, and second, it does not seek to establish Christianity as our nation’s religion. Amendment 1 of the Constitution is about protecting religion and free speech, and HR 847 is only protecting Christianity and Christmas, not establishing it as a state religion. It is just sad to me that there is a need to protect it.

3. I believe in Christ. This belief is the foundation for all the happiness I have. And I believe He gives the only answers to the problems we are facing.

4. Finally, I just want to say that the pun was intended (Holy cow). :)

CCNL - we've seen all of this before but the question remains: How was such a minor character in the historical scheme of things (generously assuming he actually existed) transformed into
the Savior of Mankind?? We know his status as a divine being evolved over time and was intimated only later in some but not all of the Gospels (Luke and John?? - just guessing).

Of course the gospels of Thomas, et al were eliminated early on because of their association with Gnostic sentiments (heretics all) - no divinity to be found here! Thus leaving only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the sole true & valid chroniclers of the life and times of Jesus -well, let's not forget Paul (perhaps the real spiritual godfather of the early Church).

To sort out 'truth' from 'fiction' seems to have taken centuries and not a few revisions before the one true Apostolic Universal (catholic) church appears - See Irenaeus et al as the early Church Fathers battled good vs evil and truth vs fiction & with their version emerging victorious.

The writings of Elaine Pagels is a good place to start for an objective and scholarly view of early Christianity - since I'm always a little suspicious of the real objectivity of researchers that also are members of the clergy in their spare time. Just saying!!

Why the protestants remain ungrateful to the one true original Christian church even today can only be attributed to the (genius of opportunism) and the ongoing influence and original mindsets of the anti-papist Protestant Reformers themselves - but the true reformation seems to have begun very early in the Christian era.

It apparently took the efforts of many (unidentfied) writers working randomly and in a highly unorganized fashion over a 200-300 year period before any kind of cohesive story (of Jesus) really begins to emerge - call this the theological winnowing process. Only later would we have the doctrine of the virgin birth in order to coincide with the alleged divinity of Jesus - many church doctrines were fashioned later to validate the basic tenets of Christianity (speaking now of the Catholic church).

For example, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven was a recent 19th century doctrine created to give consistency to her status as the sacred vessel of Christ's birth - she was therefore declared incorruptible and was said to have been taken bodily into heaven as a person born free of original sin (very special status indeed).

Not long after this we have the Papal Infallibility doctrine - where the truth of the Pope's pronouncements cannot be doubted when he is speaking of doctinal matters as guided by the Holy Spirit (speaking ex cathedra or literally from his chair). In like fashion, the much earlier doctrine of the Trinity in the 5th century triumphed over the then-prevelant Arian/unitarian view.

People do work long and hard in the name of religion. I'm convinced of something, but I'm not sure of what!

The sources showing Jesus of Nazareth lived in 1st century CE: (the same sources provide no proof of his resurrection or deity):

Besides the Josephus reference (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html), NT exegetes use the following attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.-

Were these stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the same throughout.

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened. While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

"Therefore to scotch the rumour, Nero substitured as culprits and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of the procuator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out again in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find vogue." (Tacitus, Annals 15:44; Moore & Jackson 4.282-283)

MIKE writes:

"Give me a break!!! Can you prove to me ANYTHING that happened 2000 years ago? Here, I'll give you a break and answer that for you....NO. If your only argument against Christianity is this, you need to get out of your biased covered world and read a few books. You can't prove to me, or any other Christian, that Jesus DID NOT exist. If that happens, which it wont, then let me know. Christianity is not in vain...if it were, 1/3 of the world would not be professing Christians. Wake up!!! It's time to catch a glimpse of reality, regardless to how painful it may be to you. Sucks being beaten, doesn't it?"

Quite the uninformed, illogical rant, Mike.

Yes, one CAN prove many things that happened 2000 years ago, at least to a statistically high degree of certainty. It's simple, because physical proof exists for things that "have happened" millions and even billions of years ago. For instance, the written histories of the Egyptians and Romans are well supported by CORROBORATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for their claims, even in many cases where said written histories have been embellished with the mythical beliefs of those people and the times in which they lived.

What one CANNOT prove to a statistically high degree of certainty are things for which ONLY A LIMITED ORAL or WRITTEN RECORD EXIST, especially when said records stands IN CONTRADICTION to physical/empirical evidence, the laws of physics and many, many other markers that we humans use to separate REALITY from MYTH.

Can one prove a negative, ie: that Jesus didn't exist? Of course not. But what one CAN do is offer evidence that Jesus was MOST LIKELY a mythical creation of his times, a godman formed by men in the image of what a god was supposed to be.

Ask yourself this question: when were the attributes of what it meant to "be a god" defined? Before the birth of Jesus, or upon the birth of Jesus? The answer, of course, is BEFORE the birth of Jesus. Those common attributes of many (not all) gods included (in various combinations) virgin birth, supernatural powers displayed on earth in the form of performing miracles (like the ability to bring people back from the dead), martyrdom, resurrection, paving a way to heaven (Elysian fields) for the believers, promises of eternal life after death, and the many other attributes that we as humans associate with what it means to be a god.

Why do we do so? Because we humans have NONE of those attributes! We can't work miracles, we can't come back from the dead, etc. Beings who can do such things are different from humans. We call them gods. WE have defined what a god is, not the "gods" themselves.

Were Jesus the one and only true god, we would look at what he did and say, "his life and what he did is UNIQUE and it defines what it means to be a god." But the TRUTH is that IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Jesus' life CONFORMS to what ancient man had ALREADY DEFINED to what it meant to be a god, a definition and a description that proceeded even the creation of Yahweh in the OT.

Think about it.

In closing: why would you aver that "Xianity is not in vain...because 1/3 of the world's population...are professing Xinas?" Doesn't that mean that TWO THIRDS of the world's population are NOT professing Xians? If you are going to float numbers to support what you believe to be the truth, do you not LOSE the argument based upon the very numbers you offer to support the argument?

Thanks for the chat.

What is curious is the fact that so many characters in early Greek and Roman history have well established and well documented biographies, and yet the most important figure of all, Jesus of Nazerath, is such a tenuous figure.

After all, nothing whatsoever was written that referenced his life until perhaps 50 years or so after his death. The most famous historian of the day, Flavious Josephus, barely mentioned his existence if at all. Biblical scholars even today cannot say with certainty that Jesus ever lived, much less as a divine incarnation of God.

What we do know about humans (through much research) is that they can fabricate a reality out of absolute thin air and then proceed as though that illusion was the most solid and well established fact in the universe!

Religion is such a human thing, the gods are really secondary. How can the 'facts' of any theology really be trusted beyond the super-charged emotions that are invested in the associated beliefs?? Faith = fact in religion.

And that's the key - religion is non-rational and emotional and requires two things: a belief in life after death and a moral judgement of past behavior. These two elements are at the heart of every religion in some way, shape, or form.

It does seem as though one life is not sufficient unto the day - and this is true whether or not your faith subscribes to the doctrine of reincarnation.

Life after death is actually life after life said another way ..... and this twisty bit of psychology is really at the heart of religion when all is said and done.

Ebal Trace

Give me a break!!! Can you prove to me ANYTHING that happened 2000 years ago? Here, I'll give you a break and answer that for you....NO. If your only argument against Christianity is this, you need to get out of your biased covered world and read a few books. You can't prove to me, or any other Christian, that Jesus DID NOT exist. If that happens, which it wont, then let me know. Christianity is not in vain...if it were, 1/3 of the world would not be professing Christians. Wake up!!! It's time to catch a glimpse of reality, regardless to how painful it may be to you. Sucks being beaten, doesn't it?

I think that it would be appropriate to acknowledge the "international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith" and "support for Christians in the United States and worldwide," IF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH WERE TRUE. But Christianity is not true and the Christian faith is in vain.

The Apostle Paul said.....
""And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."" [1 Corinthians 15:14 (King James Version)]

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, as Christians believe, then the Christian faith is in vain. In my opinion there is no credibile evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. No one witnessed Jesus rising from the dead. Christians point to the "empty tomb" and the supposed "post resurrection appearances" reported in the Bible, as "proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. But this "proof" is easily explained away by a competent skeptic.

Extraordinary claims, such as Jesus rising from the dead, require extraordinary evidence, for a reasonable man to believe. Christianity has no credible evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and therefore the Christian Faith is in vain, and it would be silly for the the US Government to acknowledge Christmas, Christianity, and the mythical Jesus.

Ebal Trace

Ahh, Pseudo, and one day you will finally see the light of fighting 1400 years of scripted koranic nonsense!!!! Feel free to use any of my fighting, factual scripture!!!!

Susan,

"'Twas the night before Christmas
And all through the House
Not a brain cell was stirring
Though non-Christians groused.
But Christians can revel with nary a care
For Congress hath spoken: elections are near."

Out of gas? Name calling is all you have left?

Calvin once said:

"Soozie is a booger brain"

Have you found your level?

csh nl:

Keep pasting the Same Old Stuff. But know that my shell script is more superior. It has a larger and more interesting string database.

Below freezing IQ, if you are not a bot. Not a very good bot, if you are one.

One just shakes one's head when reading posts by The Obfuscating Jihadist.

So let us repeat the real issue i.e. the stench of koranic Islam that brainwashes the minds of their members to the point they kill themselves, killing and maiming others in planned "imamian" processes in the name of Allah to include members of supposedly their own religion.

But Sunni and Shiites consider each other infidels as the Sunni vs. Shiite centuries-long, pre-USA feud continues 24/7. It even appears Benizar Bhutto may have been killed as part of this significantly stupid feud. And to think it all traces back to the hallucinations of an illiterate Arab!!!!!!

http://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2006/10/13/pakistans-transition-from-shia-to-sunni-leadership/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p01s02-wosc.html

"If we want peace as a nation and as humanity, it is up to each of us to work for it..and blasted all to Hades, stop blameing the innocent for the wrong doing of the guilty.

terra"

Thank you.

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

I just noticed and read your post on Benazir Bhutto's assassination.

I'm in a mood.

You stated: "Wherever they are, these people represent the forces of darkness, repression, and contempt for anyone who does not share their insanity."

Pro west or pro US leader
--------------------------

To be appended with being "pro west" or "pro US" is political loss of credibility for an aspiring politician in developing and/or Islamic states.

Being said to be "pro west" or pro US" made or many suspicious as to whether the said person is actually going to, or already prioritising and subsuming his/her country's political, economic and security interests for that of the west/US.

Agreeing on mutual interests and collaborating on them instead of one person or one state subsuming or marginalising the interests of the other is preferable to "US vs them", or "With US or against US". A famous riposte by you know who after 9/11 - "We are not with you, we are not with them."

US Interest
------------------------

In this age of CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and the Internet, what the very talkative American officials, politicians, think tankers and assorted pundits said on countries they may not have heard of before, or do not know much about, or cared for much until chaos happened there, and they realised the said country has "strategic importance" in this and that way for the US, are very much quoted and reported. For example:

"The US interest is severely compromised"

(Not much said about the interest and well-being of the affected people of the country and the country itself).

"The US has lost influence and sway in the internal affairs there".

(Implying that the personalities and parties groomed, supported and projected by the US in the governemnt, media and funds are rejected by the locales)

"The US has lost a reliable friend and ally in (name of person, not country stated)"

(Same as above)

"We have to identify the right leaders there and support the political process."

(Always stated after a coup or an election results showing the US prefered and supported personalities and parties trounced badly)

The pattern - Very little said about what is good for the people and country in questioned, or whether they have any say in what kind of leaders and government they want.

Forces of darkness
--------------------

Forces of darkness, repression, and contempt for anyone who does not share their insanity is not necessarily the monopoly of rabib and ragged fanatics, extremists and fundamentalists who resort to violence to remove a democratically elected government or a dictatorship.

Forces of darkness, repression and contempt for anyone who do not share their insanity can also be applied to the Burmese Junta regime, the North Korean regime, the Cuban regime. Fanatics, extremists, fundamentalists, terrorists can be found in every stripe, mode and methods as forces of darkness. The Thai educated middle class that supported a coup removing a democratically elected government can also be said that too.

Musharraf of Pakistan consistently maintained (since he executed a coup removing an imperfect but still legitimately elected government) that he is against and after the forces of darkness and repression. Many Pakistanis said the very same thing about him and his regime regardless of whether they are liberals or fundamentalists.

There are different versions on what has happened, is happening and will happen in Pakistan by Pakistanis. The US version, interests, and aspirations for their country is something they are not into right now. A friend is only to butt in only when requested, wanted, accepted and trusted by all. Obviously, unilaterally butting in and interfering creates more problems. Especially by those coming out from behind walled up embassies increasingly designed like self-contained prison and self-imposed ghettorised life.

Makes one wants to weep for Americans how much their government's unnecessary blunderings and incompetence is costing their tax dollars. Money that could be used to address health and poverty alleviation among others. One can only suppose that only the rich and reckless can afford to waste money like that. What did F Scott Fitzgerald actually said in the "Great Gatsby"? Ah yes, "..the vast carelessness of rich."

Thank you and best regards

"J"

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan,

For the "upteenth" time, here is a synopsis of the major contemporary religions: (peruse it and give your "op-ed" as to their validity)

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. ***http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus. Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Benizar Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.
And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site)

- "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

CNNL, I didn't criticize you for being anonymous; I criticized you for being rude. Sorry I confused you with my simple observation. (You never did reply, though, by the way.)

I don't know why you would suppose or imagine that I should be able to answer your poorly formed questions; I certainly cannot.

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan,

Hmmm, "Anon"? Yes indeed. Muslim "fruit cakes" don't take kindly to the truth about their founder and foundation. So "Anon"/CCNL is necessary.

And "Dan in the Lion's Den" is not Anon?

And I am surprised you do not know all the flaws in the major contemporary religions. They are presented on this forum on a weekly if not daily basis.

Dear CNNL,

How could you possibly expect me to know the answer to a question like that?

Sometimes, when faced with a perplexing problem, you just have to suck it up, and press on, with existential grit, and make the most of what you have. Being an anonymous sorehead isn't going to help.

I know you are rude because you are anonymous, and if you met the people here, in person, you would be polite to them. So, how come I know that, and you don't?

New to this kind of forum. You are interesting and concerned people!
Having just read the 64 comments that came from Susan Jacoby's response to HS 847: I am reminiscent of my early days at college. We were all dying to be heard, ready to espouse, ready to eloborate, ready to change the world. Words were powerful and those who wielded them masterfully held sway. It was only through the words of a humble sage that we "The Captains of Thought" were able to see the futility of fixing a broken planet without conviction and workable solutions to its problems. The dialogue I just read (though very interesting) is like a debate with no guidelines and workable conclusions. I agree it feels good to go off on someone whose worldview is not well conceived, but since all worldviews can not be true, the questions is which truth overshadows all the rest? Fearing the answer to this question could perpetuate into a never ending dejvu on the Blog. It is pretty much a given that we do not need HS 847--it is as was said in the comments "just a resolution". What then causes the heat that mashes our buttons? What in our worlds really make us passionate to action? Ms Bhutto's actions were in line with her conviction--had it been a preference she would still be alive. How are her convictions any better than the Jihadist who blows himself up for his belief?

One world view believes "Matter by itself arranged itself into information" Is that true? Another worldview believes a designer created all things and desires a relationship with his creation. Is that true? And many worldviews fall inbetween. It has been said, "To be wise is to know reality and then accommodate yourself to it." It has also been said, "Folly is a stubborn swimmng against the stream of the universe...spitting into the wind." And finally it has been said, "It is not only immoral but also foolish if we fail to recognize the structure of the universe--failing to recognize this we are constantly at odds with reality."

An old sage said, "What good is it to have all the answers if you don't know what the questions are?" I hate or love Christmas is not a question. What are the questions?

I apologize in advance if my thoghts are just provoking and not thought provoking.

NO MORE MR. & MRS. NICE GUY!

You killed "ALLAH" and now Allah is no-more "AKBAR" (Not Great!)!

We, not American's , but ECLATi-ON(s), of Space-Ship Earth, Will annhilliate your KABBA & your AL AQSA mosque in JERUSALEM !

Pleas, you have 72 Hours from this post , or else!!!!

Islam will be NO MORE! Good bye KABBA! Good bye AL AQSA!

Remember, surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden , et al, or else!

The Destruction of the Kabba, like World trade Center's will be the fault of the Bin Ladin FAMILY!

We will Execute All your 73 Children & ALL of Mr. Osama's Family! et al!

WE win you loose! Ya Ya!

G-D Bless E*C*L*A*Ti-ON's!

'Chara' Islam & 'Gondoo' Islam! [Shiiiiit] Ya Ya!

O.U.R. PEOPLE are in position!

Good bye KABBA, good bye Al AQSA DOME!

This is not a game not a Test! You weill see!

Mr. Osama Bin Ladin et al, Last Time, Please

"Surrender" (DEAD or ALIVE), surrender in less than seventy two hours!!!!! Ya Ya!

P.S.: Pakisatan is "The VANGUARD of ISLAM" yet ECLATi-ON(s) are the VANGUARDS of SPACE-SHIP PLANET EARTH!

This is O.U.R. Prophecy not your's Islam!

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan,

Since by now you know all the flaws of all the major contemporary religions and as all concerned global citizens wish to have them corrected, please give us your recommended procedures on how to proceed before the followers of the "death to the infidels" cults get their koranic hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

CNNL,so you liked Benizar Bhutto, is that correct? So you liked her, a Muslim? So you are on record with that, that there is at least one Muslim person in the world, or there WAS one, whom you definitely did like? I am just trying to get this straight. Even though she, herself, was Islamic, you do not blame her for any of the supposed sins of Mohammed, but you think she was a good and worthy person? That is correct, right? Well, maybe there could be others, too, on whom you would not cast the collective guilt, of the guilty few. Maybe. Think about it.

And another thing, if you read this and decide to answer, I know exactly what you will say, the exact words, the repetition of my name three times in exasperation with my ignorance, and that "list" copied and pasted innumerable times. Why don't you suprise us all, with something original, this time?

CCNL,
I am so sick of the hate and discrimination that seems to grow every time there is a death or a news item. A woman is dead that was a Muslim...she like millions of her co religionists, wanted democracy and peace.

There is nothing wrong with the koran...nothing more then there is with the bible. It is how both of them are translated by those who want to breed chaos between people.

It seems everyone needs others to feel better then. And no one is better then any other..and all are unique. This religious bigotry has brought the death of millions maybe hundreds of millions over the millenium..and I am tired of it. Is this what our forfathers left their own nations for, hoped and wished for, died for?

You think any Muslim is happy on this day? A intelligent, beautiful woman that put her life on the line to bring her nation to peace is dead. The darkness won that battle..and all you can talk about is the flawed Koran. Brother..look at any religion, they are all flawed. They are human created and we are flawed. We are power hungry, so the gods who reflect us are power hungry...We like to think we are superior to others who are different...so there are jealous gods.

If we want peace as a nation and as humanity, it is up to each of us to work for it..and blasted all to Hades, stop blameing the innocent for the wrong doing of the guilty.

terra

The stench of Islam raised to a new level today with the assassination of one their young and bright leaders by one or more of their own significantly stupid and koranic brainwashed Islamics.

Rants by liberal Muslims against this violence will not suffice. The flaws in the koran which are the foundations of said violence must be corrected now.

Anonymous? Jacob Jovetz?

You want Saudi Arabia to surrender bin Laden or the Kaaba and Al Aqsa will be destroyed in 72 Hours?

BEHOLD!

Att: SAUDi ARABIA at MECCA via KABBA!

Hear ye Hear Ye, The KABBA will be destroyed in 72 Hours, unless Al Quada Surrenders! no Compromise!

Surren Mre. Bin Laden Et al, Dead or alive!!!!!!

We, not American's , but ECLATi-ON(s) Will annhilliate your KABBA & your AL AQSA mosque in JERUSALEM !

Pleas, you have 72 Hours from this post , or else!!!!

Islam will be NO MORE! Good bye KABBA! Good bye AL AQSA!

Remember, surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden , et al, or else!

Ya Ya!

JoeT

At least the Evangelicals have the courage of their convictions, leading them to their declining credibility.

Congress is just trying to pander to their electorate, allowing the congressmen who voted for the resolution to tell their constituents that they are as Good Upstanding Christians as Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

Henry: and we can expect the same response to Congress as to evangelicals. and I wonder what the response would be if the question had been whether you unconditionally accept the teachings of Christianity? I would have identified myself as Christian most of the way through my process of lapsing as a Catholic, for example.

Christianity on the Wane

an article in the NYRB by Bill McKibbon reports that
* the number of Americans self-identifying as Christians has declined in the last ten years from 4/5s to between 2/3 and 3/4s.
*40% between the ages of 16-29 are outside christianity, and 85% of those find Christianity Hypocritical, 70% find it "insensitive to others."

The numbers seem significantly a result of Evangelicalism in the last few years.

figures from The Barna Group.

Bhutto's assassination brings into sharp relief the fact that under gw bush, our nation stands powerless to offer any solutions to the world's problems. The world is not looking to the USA to be an effective leader in addressing the many perils facing Pakistan and the world. We are the zoo elephant, looking out at the world around us, unable to act or even to move as we stand shackled to the philosophical pole in the ground that is the bush-view of the world.

How distressing that today's tragedy will sit to fester for at least another 13 months until bush and his minions finally depart the WH.

I am not convinced that Musharraf was behind the assassination. Not that his hands are particularly clean, but he is on Al Qaida's hit list, and this was said publicly by OBL himself. Plus Musharraf has survived a number of attempts on his life. Bhutto's murder, I would think, has the marks of a terrorist effort to create chaos.

I agree that Bhutto's assassination has eclipsed all of the earlier comments on this forum. It seems to me that it hardly matters whether she (and many others with her) were murdered by fundamentalist Islamist terrorists or by order of the shady president of Pakistan. It is the presence of terrorist fanatics in Pakistan that has brought down any hope of democracy and secular government there. That Bhutto was herself a Muslim is irrelevant; all that matters is she was the kind of Muslim who did not want to preside over a fascist theocracy. Yitzak Rabin was assassinated in Israel by a Jewish fundamentalist, and it is equally certain that Islamist fundamentalism was responsible for Bhutto's murder. Wherever they are, these people represent the forces of darkness, repression, and contempt for anyone who does not share their insanity.

Christmas is over, and the assasination of Bhenizar Bhutto has eclipsed the questions on this forum.

I don't think Al Qeida did it; I think the government of Pakistan did it, their President did it, the man who holds nuclear weapons, who is our President's dearest friend in the world.

Maybe she had her faults; some people have pointed them out.

But Bhenizar Bhutto was fabulously charasmatic. She was glamorous, sexy, seemingly wise and intelligent, yet conservative, matronly, and motherly, all in a single person.

What will happen in Pakistan, now, I wonder?

Mr Mark

I would not call you cynical; what else would one think? Our President and the President of Pakistan are both so clever; they each have each other in the palms of their hands; they each have each other tied around their little fingers; they each make the other do as they please. They are both such clever little pip-squeaks, dancing to the the tune of the other, both assured that they control the other. (Barf).

AlphabetSoupBoy:

Just to help you gain a more realistic and less propagandized view of the world, Christianity claims 33%, or 2.1 billion adherents, of which over half, about 1.6 billion are Catholic or Greek Orthodox. Now having been raised amongst the mislead myself, I know that fundamentalist Christians do not consider most Catholics to be necessarily saved...i.e. Christian. Add also, that the Catholic Church counts everyone that was ever Christened as a child as a member, and that regardless of birth records, 60 percent of Europe and 12 percent of Americans now consider themselves agnostic/atheist, your numbers don't add up.

The majority of the world is not Christian. As will eventually happen with Islam, ancient tribal religions, particularly those cults of Abraham, cannot stand up long in the face of rationality and reason, and just like Christianity, Islam's numbers will decline as they become better educated, and learn to read the ancient compilations of tribal knowledge that make up the Torah, Quran and the various forms of the New Testament without the reinterpretations of the priesthoods. All of those text, when read literally, are guidelines for repression, slavery, the subjugation of women, and exhortations to murder and mayhem in the name of a mythical god created by men from even older god myths.

As Steven Pinker so expressively states in "the Blank Slate" the need to believe in gods and an afterlife have been hardwired into the human psyche, and helped make tribes united under priest that used those beliefs to make the tribe stronger.

Under Alexander, who was considered blessed of, then finally the Son of Zeus and Diana, a small number of Greeks/Mycenaean’s conquered the known world. His offspring, Ptolemy was then declared the incarnation of Ra and his family ruled Egypt after Alexander’s death for generations, until the Divine Julius Caesar ended the Ptolemy rule by impregnating the Divine Cleopatra, thus breaking apart the dynasty and replacing it with a short lived Roman one.

Genghis Khan was known to his clan as a God, while the Ottoman Empire ruled for hundreds of years under the Divine Guidance of Allah and his prophet Mo.

The Christian religion was spread by the might of the Roman Empire, and did so successfully by killing off the competition, and outlawing any other religious practices. 40 million natives of the New World, north and south America were massacred in the name of Manifest Destiny and Spreading the Good Word of Jesus by Catholic and Protestant alike.

So, does the success of a religion and the culture that support it make it TRUTH?

If so, then Mithras, Zeus, Pan, Ra, The Goddess, Jupiter, Allah, Jehovah and even the supposed Prince of Peace, have all existed and brought success in battle to their followers.

Can even an idiot like you believe that?

If not, then quite simply Occam's Razor says...they can't all be true, and since they all had similar results and were believed equally by similar people, THEY ARE ALL FALSE.

I don't deny the existence of a Universal Mind, but if It exists, it obviously doesn't give a rat’s arse about how we fight our petty tribal wars, or reward our barbarity. In the end, all of these civilizations will fall because their religion are all created by priest, and doomed to fail close inspection.

Secular Humanism is the only chance humanity has to create a world view that doesn't have a man created god driving it to kill in its name.

Secular Humanism fastest growing religion in the world, and it is the only hope that humanity can evolve a consciousness capable of compassioned reason the development of ethics untainted by the ancient tribal customs and racism that have taken the Abrahamic cults to the precipice of the destruction of humanity.

Daniel, et al.: the ceremonial deism you mention has also been referenced in some Supreme Court arguments. The irony is rich, that some references to religion don't offend the constitution because they are so innocuous as to be virtually secular, not exactly the argument the proponents wish to have recognized.

I don't think the resolution is harmless, however, because it doesn't adopt the ceremonial deism defense. On the contrary, it pretends to do just the opposite, and those who take comfort in it don't think it's ceremonial at all. it is them I fear.

Pilgrim writes:

"I was nearly in tears when I read of Ms Bhutto's murder. The only winners are Al Qaida and the Taliban."

Call me cynical, but I can't help thinking that the forces of darkness are meeting in the WH as we speak, discussing how they can turn this murder into an excuse to expand presidential power and to further curtail our civil rights.

I, too, recently discovered "ceremonial deism" but it is apparently a recognized legal doctrine. I was trying to find about the "Deism" of the Founding Fathers, and stumbled upon it.

It is an acknowlegement that alot of Western traditional thinking was founded upon some sort of belief in some sort of "God" but without being specific, and definitley wihtout any spiritual intent or meaning,

It is actually sort of humorous, that a relgious reference or ritual can only be acknowleged by the governmnet if it is certified to be, basically, meaningless, and therefore, not truely offensive to people whose relgions may differ from this acknowlegemnet. So, in order, for Christian conservatives to wiggle their way into the government, they must demonstrate that what they are promoting is basically meaningless.

That is one of the problems with government sponsored relgion, isn't it? That is is all meaningless, from a relgious perspective, and pointless, as well. And in order to promote it, the beliefs of all people must be watered down, and then synthesized into this "ceremonial deism." Why not, on the other hand, just go to the church of your choice, or none at all, to practice your true and heartfelt relgion? What is so hard or complicated about that?

Apparently, it is pretty hard and pretty complicated.

Hi, Daniel ITLD - I must say, this is the first of heard of "ceremonial deism." I'm googling it now, so I see there's a lot about it.

Interesting concept, about the use of "God" being non-controversialin some cases.Ir was certainly very controversial in the 50's when it was being added to the pledge and put on the currency. It's controversial now, that fundamentalists use it to prove we're a Christian country.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think we'll be hearing more about it these days.

Daniel ITLD,

No use talking to 'Concerned', he will keep spewing his chunks of bigotry no matter what.

I was nearly in tears when I read of Ms Bhutto's murder. The only winners are Al Qaida and the Taliban.

Aren't you being a little cynical,CCNL, to exploit the death of such a fine and wonderful person, to suit your own rigid and unchanging monolgue on the evils of Islam, since she was, herself, Islamic, too, and someone I am sure you would not admire?

Bhutto's assassination just proves once again:

Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe!!!"

I live in a city that is dominated by a Christian, faith-based approach to life. It makes me very aware of the power of the religious right. This, frankly, is scary. Many people blindly go along with policies espoused by their leaders. This necessitates a complete disdain for rationality and enlightened thought.

There is a reason that the founders put forth a separation between government and religion. This activity by our congress is an obvious demonstration of this.

I live in a city that is dominated by a Christian, faith-based approach to life. It makes me very aware of the power of the religious right. This, frankly, is scary. Many people blindly go along with policies espoused by their leaders. This necessitates a complete disdain for rationality and enlightened thought.

There is a reason that the founders put forth a separation between government and religion. This activity by our congress is an obvious demonstration of this.

Funny, I don't feel left out in the cold - my house has heat and so does my work, however, many god-fearing christians are left in the cold because they are homeless, but who cares as long as it isn't you? Too bad Jesus can't warm them, and too bad his people could give a damn. Shame, shame.

This is for E Favorite, who always seems interested in finding about new, obscure things, and for Jihadist, who seems interested in learning about all our strange Western ways, and for anyone else who may be interested:

Below, I am quoting excerpts from Wikepedia on "Ceremonial Deism."

"Ceremonial deism is a legal term used in the United States for nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. Proposed examples of ceremonial deism include the reference to God introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and the phrase "In God We Trust” on U.S. currency."

(End of quote; this is Daniel, talking again.)

This legal doctrine of "ceremonial deism" is the justification for having prayers in Congress and saying "in God we trust." It is a way of acknowleging that people make these references casually, without giving even one second of thought to the words, much less a second thought.

Obviously, Congressional comment on anything relgious is absurd and rediculous. They have to take time out from stealing and stabbing each other in the back, which they do routinely and publically, for all to see, to fold their wrinkled old hands together to mimic a prayer, and bless Christmas.

They do it, because it is simple and easy, and takes no effort or sweat or worry or trouble, and because when it appears in the newspapers, they know that people whill glance over it, and sigh, and think well of their actions, but when the nuanced and complicated criticisms appear, people will have neither the time, nor the intellectual capacity to pay further attention.

So when government officials recite or reference anything religious, they already know in advance, that legally, it is all just pretend, not really religious, and done just for show, and to appease sappy, possibly not-very-bright people.

So, even if the conservative Christians think they have won something, what have they really won?

Pseudo - please point out the hostility in my response -- I don't see it.

Also, a question -- did you mean your response to CCNL to be hostile?

E Flavorite

"Pseudo, regarding CCNL: "You sound like a chat 'bot. Your discourse is very mechanical."

Sort of like reading verses from the Bible?"

What is this "Bible" of which you speak? Why do you capitalize this Word? What is wrong with you? So hostile. so confused. So like my Dearest Eliza after her string data base was vandalized by Lewis Black.

TTWSFFAM .....etc.etc.etc.

Thanks for your long-winded fundamentalist diatribe. We certainly needed it because we haven't gotten quite enough of your completely self-righteous juvenile nonsense in the last 7 (unlucky) years. Completely fallacious but well written!!

And never forget, your religious beliefs are based on your own emotional need to believe.
Whether it be 1 believer or 225 million. There is no truth to be had in mere believing.

Unfortunately the House went along with a proposal by another right-wing Christian fundamentalist pandering to his evangelical constituency - out of fear of being branded 'non-religious' the rest of the sheep went along.

Lack of real courage among our elected representatives is one of the nation's very biggest problems today. Instead, we have groupthink for the sake of political self-preservation. Today we have a perfect example in HR 847 - a statement without teeth but a statement of consensus nonetheless.

No guts - no glory... we used to say in the good old days.

I hadn't realized our Congress has been so busy officially endorsing religions. Prehaps we should send them a complete list so they do a great big blanket gold star for all of them, then get on with the important business, LIKE GETTING US THE HELL OUT OF AN ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ, AND IMPEACHING CHENEY BEFORE HE HAS HIS HAND PUPPET START ANOTHER ILLEGAL WAR WITH IRAN!

I for one think PASTA DAY is long overdue, MAY THE SAUCE BE WITH YOU!

HR 847:

A statement about Christianity and Christmas was agreed to by the US House of Representatives, who are the voice of America. It states the Truth; it states that Christmas is an important holiday and because of its importance, it’s time that it be recognized. However, it’s not important to the amoralist.

The resolution is not a law but a statement of fact, However the antagonist don’t care for facts that contravene their beliefs and apparently not much for freedom of speech when the voice echoes a sense of Congress which is adverse to the amoralist’s proclivities. Consequently, they prefer to live in darkness grumbling, whining, fretting, malcontented, and sullen. It’s a sad state to be in.

The iconoclast believe they have certain rights that only apply to them. Ergo, if they want to have sex with the same sex, they claim a right to homosexual activity. It follows marriage is redefined, and a right to Gay Marriage supervenes though it is detrimental to the social order—namely, AIDS and STDs.

The iconoclast redefines his own morality. Hence, in respect to their rebuttal of the Natural Moral Laws that govern man’s behavior, they cry, “Don’t force your morals on me.” The problem is there not our morals, they are God’s morals and they govern man irrespective of what anyone believes. When they are violated tragedies inevitably occur; so it’s propitious that we know what they are. Hitler didn’t, know, and it cost him his life and nearly destroyed his country. However, Christian values were restored and Germany was salvaged. Sixty million died because of the wrong morality.

Saddam didn’t know and he got hung by his people. In the process, 300, 000 were murdered and as many maimed. After Saddam came, his maniacal mad men and more are dying.

The agnostic solves the problem of absolute morality, by claiming there is no God, and subsequently justifying that there are no absolute moral laws. What ensues is the consequences that follow from the moral disruptions that we see today and in the past by countries ruled by such a belief. Unfortunately, the amoralist closes his mind to the tragic reality caused by their.

For instance, antagonists redefine humanity to suit their purposes. Subsequently man looses his human nature and morphs into a materialist nature, just like any animal. Accordingly, animals can be disposed of at will as was Schiavo. Hence, when a contraceptive fails, the antagonist just has the pregnancy legally murdered. Billy Jean King had her pregnancy murdered for a tennis match. So far, over 48 million unborn have be legally murdered.

Christianity defends the dignity and sanctity of humanity. The agnostic says it's not anyone’s business and individuals who can decide what humanity. Man makes his own moral laws, and objective becomes relative and subjective. That's why they abhor Christianity.

Contrary to Christians, antagonist claims it’s a human right to legalize murder under certain circumstances because of the autonomy of individuals to do with their bodies what ever they wish, irrespective of how it affects society, even to disposing of their unborn children. One problem is the conceived is not any more their body than a seven-year-old child is. The conceived just isn’t as old and developed, but it is a human person.

http://wonkette.com/politics/war-on-christmas/hr-847-to-save-santy-claus-332436.php

The Resolution notes that there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population, and that there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population. Why?

It notes Christians have contributed greatly to the development of Western Civilization and acknowledges its accomplishments in the formation of Western culture.

It’s Christmas and the Atheists and Agnostics haven't showed up for the greatest birthday in the world. They stand out in the cold and darkness, while bemoaning the newborn was giving out gifts that neither ear has ever heard, eye has never seen; the wonder of a light for all eternity. There’s still time to come to the party in this Eight-Day Octave of Christmas.

The House passed a statement that recognized the importance of Christmas and the contributions. Christianity has given to out country. That has the atheists, the agnostics, the troglodytes and anarchist in panic and convulsions.

You see Truth will set you free but the agnostic crowd don’t want to be free; they want to be a prisoner to wiles of their own self-importance. They want to be their own God, even though God made them and succors to them.

So don’t be foolish enjoy the gifts of the infant brings, his precious gift of eternal life, the wisdom, and the delight of eternal joy. All one needs do is to ask for it, to open the door of one's heart, and the Infant, the Creator of the world, will give you the happiness and joy that he promised is waiting for you. So, celebrate Christmas and have a joyful and happy life.

My Amendment to the Resolution:

"Whereas we recognize that this is a totally stupid resolution.

"Whereas we assure you that we were just kidding."

Pseudo, regarding CCNL: "You sound like a chat 'bot. Your discourse is very mechanical."

Sort of like reading verses from the Bible?

In that case,CCNL has 2,000 years of catching up to do and as he says, his info is about facts, not mythology and legend.

Pseudo,

Hmmm, how about may Mohammed (bless his warmongering head) visit you in the night.

CSH NL:

a.k.a. "Eliza"

"Facts need repeating when trying to correct 2000 years of biblical mumbo jumbo and 1400 years of koranic mumbo jumbo."

You sound like a chat 'bot. Your discourse is very mechanical. You sound like as shell script named "Eliza" I once new. She still lives in emacs. Say something unscripted.

Ramen Pastafarian, ramen.

I demand a resolution recognizing the international significance of the Church of FSM, the celebration of ChriFSMas, and a pledge of support for Pastafarians around the world.

Moderator:

You said, "Jihadist and Pilgrim are one and the same."

Wrong. I am American, and male.

Merry Christmas!

Jihadist and Pilgrim are one and the same.

Merry Christms to all.

Ahh, I see The Jihadist has developed her own definitions of the various Muslim cults but she forgot to note which cult she belongs to. Actually she failed to define her group, i.e. obfuscating Muslims, the most dangerous of the bunch.

Again, when dealing with Muslims of any type, keep the following quote in mind:

"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe!!!"

Pseudo,

Facts need repeating when trying to correct 2000 years of biblical mumbo jumbo and 1400 years of koranic mumbo jumbo. When these facts set in, you will be welcomed into the World of Reality.

Pseudo,

Facts are the facts especially when trying to correct 2000 years of biblical mumbo jumbo. When all the facts set in, you will be welcomed into the World of Reality.

As I enter my second (and last) winter up here in Wisconsin, I think of that Bing Crosby song about dreaming of a white christmas.

Well that jerk never had to ride a bicycle to work on snowy icy roads with incompetent and impatient drivers sliding all over the place! I never knew there were so many middle fingers up here in the great white north.

Do you think some of the northern congressional types might put forth a resolution dreaming of a white christmas? Would anybody vote against it? Wouldn't that be unamerican?

At least I don't have to ride to work tomorrow, christmas has some good uses after all.

Merry Christmas, and uh, try to stay off the roads this week, ok?

Oort

Dear Susan,

1. Nya Nya Boo Boo. Nya Nya Boo Boo. Your mother dresses you funny.

2. "Twas the night before Christmas
And all through the House
Not a brain cell was stirring
Though non-Christians groused.
But Christians can revel with nary a care
For Congress hath spoken: elections are near."

1. does not differ from 2.

Happy Winter.

Shell scripts are boring.

Concerned Shell Script Now Liberated:

1. Repetition is for computers. Shell Scripts do it even better than you, and they have less environmental impact.

2. Repeating circular reasoning is not eduction.

Merry fallacious argument.

I assure you, Ms. Jacoby, that when it comes a time to start 'resolving to acknowledge the importance of European Pagan traditions to our civilization,' ...as well as the rights, dignity, and holiday observances of modern Pagans, that some Christian will say 'Witches!'

And it won't happen.

And that's pretty much the problem with resolutions like these.

It's handing the government power to 'recognize' or 'not' recognize' the validity of religions, ...like Bush policies had Pagan war-dead unable to be buried with dignity for as many years as they could stonewall.

Bad idea.

It's not what they will recognize, it's what they *won't,* and since when did we have to ask *them,* anyway?

Thought this was America.

Pilgrim,

Hello and thank you. I'm not a professional writer and flattered that you think so and that I should be so. I'm a professional something else and come to On Faith to make sure my regular English don't rust too much. You don't want me to be lapsing into Manglish (Malaysian English).

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

Norrie Hoyt,

I love your story on the Miss America Pageant Resolution as only a former legislator could know. LOL

And thanks for the tip on how the process really work and how to kill a resolution or bill.

Now, perhaps, I can whisper to my Member of Parliament if any Bill praising the Mr. Universe Pageant is tabled, he is to rise and get the ayes that it be sent to the Forestry Committee for further study. Reason - all the Mr. Universe candidates look like tree stumps or tree trunks.

So, resolutions passed in Congress and state legislative bodies have no bite. Good for Americans then. But I am wary of such like resolutions passed in the Malaysian Parliament as it is always waved by what Malaysians call, "certain quarters" or "certain vested interest" to get what they want from the government subsequently, and to remind others of what it stated. There is politicisation of such resolutions here, even if it is not a Bill.

Hope your holidays are good. It is already Christmas morning here. A free day for us as we're not Christians, but there will be many places to visit for Christmas open houses tomorrow, Boxing Day. It's a tradition here.

The first day of festivities - the Eids, Diwali, Vesak Day, Christmas, Chinese New Year are with family, but the subsequent days are open houses for friends and friends and friends and their families. Bring along your step great-grandmother and pets too. No problem.

As Eid Al Adha morphed into Christmas, and then Cristmas into New Year, open houses by Muslims from last week, to Christians starting theirs from tommorrow to New Year makes it a two week stretch of receving guests and visiting others.
So, today is a quiet respite, a day off and out of the outside world, and in the house for the family until tomorrow. We had our Eid El Adha open house last Saturday from 10 a.m. supposedly, to er, no time limit by Malaysian time standards.

Malaysians regard specified times an open house start and end as merely indicative times. The first arrived at about 8.45 a.m. The last group came around 11.30 p.m. having made their rounds at other open houses and saving ours for last they said. No matter and never mattered in open houses when the guests came and leave. Only the buffet table to have no shortage of food and drinks for everyone of every taste and there be sparkly music. ABBA forever!

Best regards

"J"

I would like to apologize to the forum community for my post from before.

As always, it seems, the holidays were proving quite stressful and I felt the victim of neglect and negativity directed at me from my posting-worthy loved ones. It is not you, kind internet users that I so offended that are in the wrong. It was me, failing to cope with the side-effects of a loved one's internet addiction that is to blame.

Merry Christmas, and may your holidays be filled with fun and happiness.

Once again, I brought down the entire level of discourse, and for that I was wrong. I am the loser, not you.

Christmasmonster.me

from The Independent UK.

Dawkins to lecture in US Bible Belt
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 24 December 2007

Richard Dawkins, the scourge of pseudo-science, Christianity and homeopathy, is to step up his campaign for rational thinking with a series of high-profile lectures deep in the heart of the American Bible Belt.

The Oxford University professor travels to the US next year as part of his battle to promote evolutionary theory in the face of a backlash against the concept in the world's most-advanced industrial nation.

He is to address a series of 2,000-seater venues in the American heartlands. The tour will coincide with the publication of his best-seller The God Delusion in paperback in the US in January and act as a prelude to a series of global events to mark the bicentenary of Charles Darwin in 2009.

Professor Dawkins has charities in his own name on both sides of the Atlantic to promote reason and science. He has said that it is in the US, where 50 per cent of the population believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old, that the Enlightenment is most threatened.

However, he said he did not expect audiences to be too tough on his atheist beliefs and that many thanked him for speaking out. "The Bible Belt is a lot less monolithic than it portrays itself. I have a feeling that there is rather a large groundswell of people who agree with me," he said.

Norrie,

Your tale of the Miss America resolution is a glorious and hysterical classic. Made my day, thanks! Yes, we need more legislators like that Young Turk, and we need them everywhere.

Ho ho ho!

What better way to spend Christmas Eve than posting on the Godless internet, and ignoring all family and loved ones.

Losers of the world, unite!

Merry X-Box and a happy new PS2!

Jihadist,

Susan may have made clear the meaning of "Christmas Tree Bill", but, if there should be any doubt, its called that because, like a real Christmas tree, it's laden with unmerited goodies for frequently undeserving recipients.

That Christianity and other religions seek legislative backing for their sects through a legislative resolution shows that they are uneasy in their faith. If they were secure in the belief that their faith is true, the last thing they'd want would be those legislative bozos saying so.

Anyone who has ever served in a legislative body knows that legislative resolutions are nonsense:

They are introduced by a legislator to please a constituent regardless of its content; passed automatically without debate so as to assure that every legislator's future resolution will also be automatically passed; full of sound and resounding nonsense, meaning and accomplishing absolutely nothing.

My favorite legislative resolution story:

For decades before I was elected to the Vermont Legislature, every year the sponsors of the Miss America Pageant had a member introduce a resolution praising the Pageant.

It had always passed automatically without debate.

One year, while I was a member of the House, when the Miss America resolution came up for adoption in the House of Representatives, a young-turk Democratic member friend of mine rose and spoke:

"Mr. Speaker, the Miss America Pageant is nothing more than a cattle show, so I move that the Resolution be referred to the Committee on Agriculture."

The legislative mouths, poised to approve the resolution they hadn't read and didn't care about, automatically and unanimouly uttered "Aye", so the Miss America Pageant resolution was sent to the Agriculture Committee, from which it never emerged.

The Miss America resolution was never introduced again in the Vermont legislature.

I wish that some young Democratic member of the federal House of Representatives would do the same thing when these religious reolutions come up for a vote.

Pseudo,

Repetition of the historical facts is one of the great forms of education. Tis my gift to you on this Merry Day of Reality.

Oort,

The fruitcake theories are evolving. If, in fact, they are primordial, then I have a vision of cavemen using them as lethal frisbees. Sooner or later one will turn up in a Neanderthal burial....

Damn, ain't Christmas fun?

Oort,

Trebuchet payloads, excellent! Noted and remembered. And if the origin of fruitcakes was earlier, maybe the Romans used them too.

It's a seldom known fact that during the middle ages fruit cakes were used as trebuchet payloads. Owing to their industructability they were recovered and saved after the siege was over, often passed down from father to son as a family heirloom.

Mr Mark,

No problem! I was just poking a bit of fun at you. I agree, though, that a fruit cake is more appropriate for the HR; perhaps we should all send one to our representative.

There are some interesting theories about fruitcakes. One, the most prevalent, is that they were all made in the Middle Ages, and have been passed down through the generations. Every Christmas, they are sent and received as 'presents', and seldom, if ever, consumed. Another theory, somewhat more obscure, but more interesting, is that fruitcakes are leftover artifacts from the Big Bang, and occasionally fall to Earth and are recovered. Then, originally as religious objects, then, as things to be disposed of, they are passed around.

Shell Script Now Liberated:

Can you get some new material? Or do the voices keep telling you to keep repeating the same thing over and over?

Dear Pilgrim -

Sorry about the fruit cake. It seemed apropos to the fruit cake who came up with the HR.

There's also H.Res. 635, passed in October 2007: "Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and expressing respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion, and for other purposes."

Both this resolution and the one recognizing the significance of Diwali passed without a single "nay" vote, according to www.govtrack.us .

My amendment to HR 847:

As per many NT exegetes to include Professors John D. Crossan, Marcus Borg and Paula Fredriksen there is "No Historic Reason for the Christian Christmas Season".

There was no Virgin birth. See, http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/026_Jesus_Virginally_Conceived

And there was no Star of Bethlem. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/369_Star_of_Revelation

"Professor Gerd Lüdemann"
Commenting on the infancy narratives overall, Luedemann [Jesus, 124-29] concludes that Luke and Matthew represent "two equally unhistorical narratives." He cites the occurrence of a miraculous heavenly sign at key points in the life of Mithridates VI in a history written by Justinus (active in the reign of Augustus, 2 BCE to 14 CE). "

Professor/Father John P. Meier of Notre Dame

"Meier [Marginal Jew I,211ff and 376] considers these traditions to be "largely products of early Christian reflection on the salvific meaning of Jesus in the light of OT prophecies" and concludes that their historicity is "highly questionable."

Of course any Congressional resolution about the Jewish faith would be amended as follows:

Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. See the simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah website.

Of course any Congressional resolution about Islam would be amended as follows:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

And Merry Reality to all!!!!!!

Dear Susan,

"I suppose that Congress will now be obliged to waste its time considering resolutions expressing respect for Jews, Hindus, Muslims (oh no, that would create a problem because we don't respect all forms of Islam), Pagans, Buddhists...."

You forgot Sikhs and Jains. See the following:

House Resolution 245

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 245

Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 14, 2007

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. MCDERMOTT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

RESOLUTION
Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali.

Whereas Diwali, a festival of great significance to Indian Americans and South Asian Americans, is celebrated annually by Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains throughout the United States;

Whereas there are nearly 2,000,000 Hindus in the United States, of which approximately 1,250,000 are of Indian and South Asian origin;

Whereas the word `Diwali' is a shortened version of the Sanskrit term `Deepavali', which means `a row of lamps';

Whereas Diwali is a festival of lights, during which celebrants light small oil lamps, place them around the home, and pray for health, knowledge, and peace;

Whereas celebrants of Diwali believe that the rows of lamps symbolize the light within the individual that rids the soul of the darkness of ignorance;

Whereas Diwali, falling on the last day of the last month in the lunar calendar, is celebrated as a day of thanksgiving and the beginning of the new year for many Hindus;

Whereas for Hindus, Diwali is a celebration of the victory of good over evil;

Whereas for Sikhs, Diwali is feted as the day that the sixth founding Sikh Guru, or revered teacher, Guru Hargobind, was released from captivity by the Mughal Emperor Jehangir; and

Whereas for Jains, Diwali marks the anniversary of the attainment of moksha or liberation by Mahavira, the last of the Tirthankaras, who were the great teachers of Jain dharma, at the end of his life in 527 B.C.: Now, therefore, be it

(1) recognizes the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali; and

(2) requests the President to issue a proclamation recognizing Diwali.

I think it is grand that we can take a moment and recognize our neighbors and their contributions to civilization at the urging of Congress. Be they Christians, Moslems, Sikhs, Jains, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Pagans, and Atheists.

As to many here, take a breath in this holiday season. Pause, for a moment, and reflect on it that your Christian neighbors, for the most part, do not hate you. And that Congress Honors Sikhs and Jains as well as Christians. I am sure there are more resolutions like this already passed for others, and I look forward to more. Go Congress!

More tolerance, understanding and acceptance are the right answer, not less.

Happy Winter.

E Favorite,

I caught that too about the resolution. Said HR is not unconstitutional in fact, but in spirit.

Mr Mark,

Shame on you! Can't you offer a better reward than fruitcake? YUCK!!! I am now making Toll House cookies, which would do much better. I'll eat a couple more than I should since I answered your question correctly.

At this point in time, one feels the need to ask: are the Christian Rightists Americans first, or Christians first?

A big slice of fruit cake for those who answered the latter.

"HR" stands for "House Resolution."

This item is not a law, it's a non-binding resolution defined in wiki like this:

Non-binding resolutions are usually specific simple or concurrent resolutions that are not passed on to the president to be signed in to law.[2] These resolutions differ from pure concurrent resolutions (that are used for various procedural requests such as adjourning sessions) in that they are designed to formally express and document opinions, not initiate a process.

These resolutions offer a means for elected officials to publicly air the concerns of their constituents[3] and are closely followed by major media outlets. Additionally, these resolutions can be used to state the position of congress, showing a preview of how they will vote on future legislation and budget allocations."

In other words, silly, but not a law.

i guess i can't say it any better than you, J. :)

Ms. Jacoby: Many thanks for this essay. Voices like yours are needed, especially these days. It really does give me hope that many of the other panelists on here also do express concerns about this bill in particular.

Have a great new year!

Susan,

Right on! Your take on 'The Night Before Christmas' says it all. I happen to be Christian, but am seriously puzzled by the current crop of American Politicians' inability to comprehend the Gospels.

Jihadist,

If you are not a professional writer already, you should be one. Your Sufi comment is beautiful.

Oh why not and go all the way on types of Muslims before my fellow Muslims noted I left out two at least in the first post:

Secular Muslim : All my best friends are infidels and I deliver eulogies at their funerals when they die.

Cultural Muslim : How dare you call me an infidel and call for my death when my bloodline goes all the way back to Fatimah, the Prophet's daughter just because I don't believe in God and ask that Islam be crushed!

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

Thanks for the clarification.

So, it is a sort of neo pork barrel politics with Congress being Santa Claus to constituencies. We now know Santa do exist for the lucky constituencies.

So, when Congress stated "international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith", this a preamble paragraph in attesting, affirming and rationalising for "support for Christians in the United States and worldwide" - an operating paragraph and formal acknowledgement on what they are going to do and in fact have been doing.

There was a Condi Rice speech to the Southern Baptist Church a while ago where assurances were given by a member of the current US Administration along this line.

Some seemingly innocous and non-binding resolutions passed by US Congress, other countries' legislative bodies and international organisations are not quite so. They are obviously and openly always the result of pressure by certain groups.

As in the resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly, they do have moral weight, and are able to move the United Nations into directions desired by the groups that initiated them to focus on specific programmes and activities and the required political, administrative and funding support.

Of course, the groups that initiated the resolutions in the United Nations or Congress never let up and keep strenghtening the language year after year after year for more "bite" and support.

A long battle ahead in seperating church from state, or more precisely, church driven vested interests, in domestic and international policies and programmes. Not just in the US, but in other countries and international organisations as well.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

In its historical political usage, a "Christmas tree bill" had nothing to do with Christmas. It was just a bill that, as I said, had all sorts of amendments aimed at all sorts of political targets. My point is that this targeted resolution praising Christianity is the OPPOSITE of an old-fashioned Christmas tree bill. The old-fashioned Christmas tree bills were often passed near the end of the year, though, when people weren't paying attention to all of the various forms of payoffs that were being handed out to different constituencies.

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

Have to come back. Pardon my first post. Just can't resist a fun categorisation of my fellow Muslims. They'd laugh, but I'm not too sure about others. Never mind.

Back to your essay, I have never heard of such "Christmas tree bill" passed by Congress until this essay by you. Did it say anything about the Christmas tree must be black or green, natural or plastic and to specify maximum heights allowable for domestic and public displays?

It made my eyes roll up when some of my fellow co-religionists talks about wanting and trying for an Islamic state, which they mean governance by the ulema, or the ulema as principle advisers on state affairs. I don't doubt their sincerity and good intentions, but they are naive and ignorant on Islam, Islamic history and jurisprudence. And some Americans seen to want to move the other way on American domestic and foreign policy.

I don't know the full text of the said "Christmas tree bill", but what you quoted here from it:

"international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith"

Not a problem, for Christmas is important to Christians, and Christianity too for Christians. And who, who is neither Christian nor western, would not know of the adventures of Christians in their respective countries? Most would rather forget and move on, but continued presence and interference made it difficult for some countries and people.

"support for Christians in the United States and worldwide."

This is problematic, do cause problems worldwide and will continue to do so. One only has to read essays by Dr. Willis E Elliot and his exchanges with posters to see a sampling of of evangelical churches and leaders making points that:

- the US is founded by Christian Founding Fathers even if some are 'philosophically deists" (I always thought these deists are just like the Mutazilite Muslims:)

- the US is a preponderantly or predominantly Christian, if not a Christian nation, and American values and interests are Christian values and interests.

Thus, implying the majority belief and culture will continue to prevail in spite of significant demographic changes in the US in the last 100 years from being WASP to an increasingly rainbow coloured people and beliefs.

They acknowledge pluralism, which is not the same as multiculturalism. The former implying that while there are many ethnic and religious groups, only one predominates for "unity". Of course. When pluralism is spoken of, it really means political pluralism - different people, one language, one culture.

Nothing about unity in diversity being possible in a multicultural society where there is acknowledgement, acceptance, accomodation and tolerance of various ethnic and religious expression - many languages, many religions accepted by the state and people.

It would seem to be a desperate "revisionist" and not an "originalist" view of the US Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers by some churches and their leaders.

Unless one has not been reading the international section of one's local newspaper at all, one would know that "Support for Christians worldwide" is really support by US government for the proselytising/evangelical groups to seek adherents in other countries.

In foreign policy and international relations, the US church groups do have a genius for making their interests and activities abroad as that of the United States itself - being an American is being Christian. Being a Christian is being a true American. Attacking church proselytising activities is attacking America, American people and values.

One then hear and read of human rights being deprived, of no freedom of beliefs, or freedom of religion being curtailed being bandied around by the churches. Which, amusingly enough, means freedom for the churches to proselytise and gain adherents for their churches, and freedom for people to be only Christians.

So, when some churches and church leaders say Islam and Muslims are the greatest threat to America and Americans, to western civilisation, to Judeo-Christian heritage and what not, it seems to me the churches are having more internal problems that I ever thought of.

With church attendence low and membership decreasing, with the stress of competing denominations and theologies in the United States, the need for a common "external enemy", a common "external threat" to unify and mobilise Americans to their cause and self-interest is so urgent.

Perhaps that will distract everyone from what they are actually doing in undermining the the US Constitution on seperation of church and state and why. And for everyone to forget "we have met the enemy, and it is us".

Regards

"J"

Ms Jacoby wrote : "I suppose that Congress will now be obliged to waste its time considering resolutions expressing respect for Jews, Hindus, Muslims (oh no, that would create a problem because we don't respect all forms of Islam), Pagans, Buddhists...."

That's really funny. Especially the bit on Islam and Muslims that I can't resist getting into.

All forms of Islam? Or certain types of Muslims?

Which types? Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Taliban, Salafist/Wahhabis, Muslim terrorists, Muslim extremists, Muslim moderates, Muslim fundamentalists, mainstream Muslims, progressive Muslims, liberal Muslims, conservative Muslims, traditional Muslims?

All of them? Or some of them?

A fundamentalist Shiite Muslim can be a much better person than a liberal Sunni Muslim in his personal and public life.

He could be devout, contemplative and modest in the way he live his life and by his manners and generous consideration towards others by his acts.

A liberal Sunni Muslim could be writing pieces in the media on American foreign policy, imperialism and hypocricy that would make the US Administration and Congress flinch.

You wrote before in another essay, that it is personal behavior that matters most, regardless of one's belief and adherent to specific denominations, sects or school of thoughts in one own faith or non-belief.

But never mind, as I noticed many Americans are still murky on Islam and Muslims, including not knowing Allah is just the Arabic word for God, I will give a simply shallow 101 on Muslim types to the point of cliches:

Muslim fundamentalist: "The infidel will also die even if they don't believe in the One and Only God, and they will all go to hell."

Conservative Muslim: "The infidel also deserve a proper burial when he died according to his customs, but God will decide on whether he will go to heaven or hell on Judgement Day by his own merits."

Muslim extremist : "Death to the infidel!"

Muslim terrorist : "Death to the infidel by my suicide bombing!"

Muslim moderate : "Of course a natural death to the infidel in his bed without his shoes on, and of a ripe old age after a long and fruitful life surrounded by his loved ones."

Muslim liberal : "No one should be told they are going to die, even infidels, but we should never take it in our hands to help anyone die one way or another."

Progressive Muslim : "Death comes to all of us, even infidels. Let us focus on life and making it better for everyone."

Traditional Muslim: "How do infidels perform their burial rites when they die?"

Sufi Muslim : "Are there infidels?"

Mainstream Muslim: "I wonder if I should tell my family and friends now where I want to be buried when I die?"

Thanks and regards

"J"