Don't Know Much About Theology, Don't Know Much Philosophy...

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS :
“MAGICAL”

IRT:
“Perhaps we should begin to be more concerned about having 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court?

I hope they're able to separate the magical from the mundane - for all of our sakes.”

ANS:
First, the Word of God is not magical, magical is sorcerous and portends witchcraft. God’s Word is mystical and orphic; His Natural Laws and Natural Moral Laws are exigent, and their mystery is in their Creator.

Second, how about the sakes of the over 48 million unborn that have already been legally murdered because of an amoral callous and insensitive Court? How about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalyptic Court, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, with Kennedy riding on their backs? In their decision of “Lawrence v. Texas,” these Injustices, led by Stevens, said that traditional moral values served no legitimate purpose to the State.

In addition, the Apocalyptic Justices have little if any sense of tradition. Not only did they trespass on the Right to Life, but also trampled on our “Freedom of Political Speech,” on “Eminent Domain,” the “Freedom of Religion,” and they infringed on the “Separation of Powers. We came within one unelected Justice from abolishing our inalienable “Right of Self Defense.” Worry about that.

The only real Catholics on the Court are Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Kennedy is a pseudo Catholic in name only. You cannot be pro-abortion and remain in good standing as a member of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, you cannot elevate the authority of the Supreme Court over the authority of God’s Natural and Moral Laws, as has the impervious Justice Kennedy, and then represent one’s self as Catholic.

No one remains Catholic who embraces Roe v. Wade as a “Right of Privacy.” That includes the so-called Catholics in Congress viz. House Speaker, Pelosi and Senators. Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin and Kerry. They, as Kerry, elevated civil authority over God’s authority that is embedded in the Natural and Moral Law.

In Roe v. Wade, the Apocalypse Justices redefined human nature, usurping the authority of God, and infringed on the Separation of Powers of the Congress by writing law instead of interpreting it.

They trespassed on the inalienable rights of man’s Right to Life guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights that every citizen has a right “to be secure in their own person.”

They circumscribed the Amendment Process to amend the Constitution. They quelled the voice of the people and wrote their own law.

During the last of three attempts to proscribe Partial Birth Abortion, where the child’s arms are flailing, his gasping for his first breath is heard by all, and then his body falls limp and silent, four Justices closed their eyes.

Justice Souter, Breyer, and Stevens were engaged with the ACLU plaintiffs. They were inquiring as to how far out of the birth canal was the baby before the abortionist plunged a surgical scissors into the back of this little child's skull and sucked out his brains.

The soulless Three Blind Mice, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, were more concerned about the position of the child in the birth canal, than about the child. They were so blinded by their arrogant dispositions immersed in the law that they lost all meaning of the law.

Consequently, they ignored the Bill of Rights prefaced by the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, endowed by God with the inviolable Right to Life. In addition, they failed to see a child that was not only human, but was being murdered before their very eyes.

The Catholic Church is the conduit through which God speaks to all men. All other churches are man's attempt to speak to God, but his voice must inevitably pass through His Church for man to be heard because not all religions are equal, except in their goals and purpose.

Yes, we should be worried, not that a Justice is Catholic, but whether as a Catholic, he will part from being Catholic and fail to embrace the Natural Moral Laws, and the Inalienable Rights of man that the Church so ardently defends and that the Founding Fathers recognized and guaranteed.
“or "We believe.” Before expounding the Church's faith, as confessed in the Creed, celebrated in the liturgy and lived in observance of God's commandments and in prayer, we must first ask what "to believe" means. Faith is man's response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS
JULY 11, 2008 1:13 PM
“IDOL WORSHIP”

IRT:
“I was referring to all the idol worship that crept into Catholicism down the centuries. Mary being raised to the status of a Goddess and worshipped as a Goddess etc.”

ANS:
Sorry my friend, there is no worshiping of idols in the Catholic Church. Mary is not raised to the status of a God. She is the Mother of God, not God. She is the greatest creature created by God because she is God’s Mother; she is the new Eve.

Exodus 20: 2cf
You might try reading the First Commandment, "YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND HIM ONLY SHALL YOU SERVE. "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him. . . . You shall not go after other gods." God's first call and just demand is that man accepts Him and worship Him.”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm#I

“The ONE and true God first, reveals His glory to Israel. The revelation of the vocation and truth of man is linked to the revelation of God. Man's vocation is to make God manifest by acting in conformity with His creation "in the image and likeness of God":

“There will NEVER be another God, (Lk1:45), and there has been NO OTHER since the world began than he who made and ordered the universe. We do not think that our God is different from yours. He is the same who brought your fathers out of Egypt 'by his powerful hand and his outstretched arm.' We do not place our hope in some other god, for THERE IS NONE, but in the same God as you do: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.7

2086 "The first commandment embraces faith, hope, and charity. When we say 'God’, we confess a constant, unchangeable being, always the same, faithful and just, without any evil. It follows that we must necessarily accept His words and have complete faith in Him and acknowledge His authority.

He is almighty, merciful, and infinitely beneficent. Who could not place all hope in Him? Who could not love him when contemplating the treasures of goodness and love He has poured out on us?

Hence the formula God employs in the Scripture at the beginning and end of His commandments: 'I am the LORD.'”—Catechism of the Catholic Church

26 We begin our profession of faith by saying: "I believe ONE God the Father Almighty...

To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, Who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith, Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that "with God nothing will be impossible" and so giving her assent: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."

Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed." (Ibid) Hence, she is Blessed and venerated, not worshiped as a God, but the Mother of God.

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal, when Jesus her Son died on the cross, Mary's faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God's word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

"The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the… the Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Hence, the prophecy promises a woman, Our Blessed Lady, who will be the enemy of the serpent …She will be victorious over the Devil, at least through her offspring. The completeness of Mary’s victory is emphasized by the contextual phrase "earth shall thou eat,"…a common old-oriental expression denoting the deepest humiliation [5].

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary 'in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." (Ibid)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

II. "'I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED'

'To believe in God alone.'

150. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, CHRISTIAN FAITH DIFFERS FROM OUR FAITH IN ANY HUMAN PERSON. It is right and just TO ENTRUST ONESELF WHOLLY TO GOD and to believe absolutely what He says. IT WOULD BE FUTILE AND FALSE TO PLACE SUCH FAITH IN A CREATURE."

In the Catholic Profession of Faith the Creed:
“We believe in ONE GOD, the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and all that is seen and unseen.”

Hi Mr/Ms Maria Janna ---

Anon: Mohammad never lived in Israel.

Maria Janna: Wrong. According to Muhammad's biography, he went to Jerusalem at least once. Would you please stop spreading your obscurantist lies?!
----

Anonymous Response: It is well known that according to the Quran Mohammad had a dream/vision that he went to heaven on a winged horse from Jerusalem. He never went to Jerusalem in person. So you should stop spreading "pragmatic" fairy tale.

-----

Anon: Remember the pagans in Europe had/have no Scripture.

Maria Janna: Aha? What about the Libri Pontificales of the Romans? They are just one of the many examples of religious books that they had. Stop spreading lies.

-----

Anonymous Response: There is nothing of the pagan scripture either in the OT or NT. All the settings are in Israel, all the social and religious customs mentioned are Jewish.

While I might have erred about the presence of pagan scripture (I have not verified your references), I'm right about Christianity not having borrowed from it. Since this was mentioned with reference to Islam, it is a well known fact that modified Jewish and Christian Scripture, along with a sprinkling of pagan Arabs myths forms the bulk of the Quran.

---------
Anon: Mohammad was faced with a problem when he wanted to reform Arab polytheistic paganism to monotheism.

Manna Janna: I have a hunch that he wanted to reform Christianity, not polytheistic paganism. The idols that stood as statues around the pre-Islamic Kaabah in Mecca were of the same number as the Christian Saints in those times. Other sources state that he wanted to change the Christian religion and that he himself was probably a Christian… a *heretic* Christian, like most of the people in that region.

-----
Anonymous Response: You are free to have any number of hunches you like. But it happens that Arab polytheist paganism was being abandoned by quite a few Arabs in Mohammad's day. Allah with three daughters are Arab pagan gods and has nothing to with Christianity. You might as well save yourself the trouble of reinventing Arab paganism. Don't reinvent Mohammad as a Christian either. Unless of course you are about writing fiction. Arabs know their Quran and religions well enough.

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

Anon: Pagans had no scripture.

Maria Janna: See above on the Roman "pagans". I don't know about the Arab pagans. But since Muhammad's actions seem to have been all about reforming Christianity, any pagan traditions and/or scriptures would probably not have been very important. Although there are elements of "pagan" worship in the Quran: Allah himself swears an oath to the stars, which were regarded as gods in those times. (But that could already have been part of heretic Christianity in that region, who knows?!)

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

Anonymous Response: Don't let your imagination run away with you. There was no Arab pagan scripture to borrow. A couple of myths prevalent have been incorporated. But for the most part the Quran is borrowed from OT because Mohammad had most contact
with Jews. At least three main tribes lived in Mecca/Medina.

-----
Anon: and not to rewrite it to suit his political ambitions.

Maria Janna: But nevertheless, that's what he did. Otherwise Islam would be regarded as a Christian denomination today.

----------
Anonymous Response: Considering Islam looks upon Jesus as just one more prophet among other Jewish prophets, I don't see how Islam could ever be regarded as a Christian denomination today. A heretic form of Judaism perhaps, but not Christianity. The Sharia Law is modeled after Jewish Law even if the laws themselves differ somewhat. Islam was founded as a theocracy modeled after the kind of Judaism in its very earliest stages, say Moses. It has nothing in common with Christianity. Read the OT, NT and Quran carefully and compare them for verification.

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

Maria Janna: But if you went about and got rid of the "incubo-paganism" in Christianity, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have much left. The Protestants have tried to do exactly that: they got rid of a lot of traditions. They are Christianity without fundament.

Anonymous Response: There is nothing pagan in the OT or NT. The early Christian communities were simple as the religion was just beginning and it is fundament enough. It is in the nature of religions to evolve in their practice. It is not the fundament that is changed but the upper stories of the building. Religions accumulate and adopt practices with time. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it doesn't go contrary to the fundament. The Catholic e reads the same Bible as every other Christian denomination and share the same fundamental beliefs about Jesus Christ. The belief about Jesus is the unchanging fundament.

---
End of discussion. Happy holidays!

Maria Janna:

3. And what about the crozier? Ah, no… it's got to go, because it's based on the staff of the Roman augur.

5. What about the dove as the symbol for the Holy Spirit? That's Venus too. Should we get rid of the Holy Spirit?

7. What about the office itself? "Pontifex maximus" was originally a "pagan" Roman religious office, held by all Caesars. Should we get rid of the Pope? I know I know… the Protestants would love this part.

8. What about St. Peter in Rome? Right in the center is the mausoleum M, the tomb of the pagan (later Christian) family of the Julians, with a lovely "pagan" image of Christus as sun god. Shall we now tear parts of the basilica down?

9. What about faith itself? Fides? The "pagan" Roman goddess? She's still running around as a personification in Christian rituals like the Semana Santa in Spain. So yeah, let's get rid of faith as well, Ms. Anon!!

July 10, 2008 6:23 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi Mr/Ms Maria Janna!

Crozier - Do give the two thousand year Christian tradition for coming with some symbols of its own based on Christianity. Crozier is one of them. The crozier is shaped like a shepherd's crook. A bishop bears this staff as "shepherd of the flock of God." Read Psalm 23 to find out where the term
Shepherd first mentioned. Read the NT for the reference Jesus made to shepherd. Plenty of biblical reasoning for the symbol.

Dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit is similarly taken from the NT. Read about the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.

The Basilica in Rome is built over the tomb of Apostle Peter. Sorry, your enthusiasm to attribute everything to non-Christian history is carrying you away into a world of fantasy. Don't forget too that an Emperor accepted Christianity and declared it the state religion of his Empire. So he could mobilise some resources that was not available to Christians for the first three centuries.

The Pope is considered the successor of Apostle Peter, the disciple to whom Jesus said that He would build His Church. Even after Resurrection, Jesus reminded Peter of his duties towards all of Jesus' followers. The political power the Popes later got in the course of European history made for the pomp and grandeur of the office. One can look upon it as even Emperors worship Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. All the pomp used in the ceremony can be seen as kings worshiping God.

Mother Mary is not venerated as Fides. The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary. Read the book of Revelation to find out that Mother Mary does have a special place in heaven on account of her having been chosen to bear Jesus in the flesh.

Hi Jed,

As for my other comments to your post, I am being censored/blocked for some reason, although I am not sure of the reason why for my comments are not intended to be malicious in any way. Or maybe it is your comments they are censoring, although I would have looked forward to a response?

Best wishes!

Peter

Hi Jed,

JED: "A merciful god would not give a fig whether we believe in Him or not, so long as we do good."

Why do you want to be "good."

Define "good?" What is your standard? What is your ultimate reference point? I have yet to have an atheist make sense of "good" or any ethical value. Their value system is relative and always changing.

You do not understand justice? How can God, who is just, avoid punishing wrongful actions and rebellion against what is good and still be just? Thank goodness that God is merciful and sent His Son to this earth to fulfill His justice and live a perfect life of obedience, then pay the penalty of God's wrath against all those who have broken His laws and done what is wrong in His sight, by substituting Himself in our place, that those who have faith in His Son shall not perish and be judged by God's wrath, but have everlasting life.

Who has the right to call something good or evil? Right and good imply a standard that is objective, just, absolute, ultimate. Only our Creator can properly define such things for it is He who is good and just and right. That is His essence, His nature, a part of His character, of who He is.

You guys are funny. You are trying to get people to believe you (atheists) have the only sensible worldview, all the time unable to make sense of the why and how of life. To do that you would have to borrow capital from the Christian worldview, which you do in everyday life but either don't realize it or try and hide it.

Hi Jed,

JED: "Has it ever crossed your mind that these words might have been written by an ordinary person who wanted to frighten you into joining his religion in order to exploit you, and mentally enslave you? There is no beauty in this doctrine. No wisdom. It is power politics: intimidation & fear mongering."

Has it ever occurred to you that they are the true words of God? Has it ever occurred to you that in doubting the Scriptures you are putting yourself as a higher authority than God Himself, which is definitely living in a fools paradise?

If I doubted His word I would be in effect calling God untrue. The either/or scenario is either what God says is the highest authority or someone else is, in your case you.

Hi Jed,

JED: "This doctrine was written by an ancient person to intimidate people into joining his sect, or stay in it. Fortunately, modern people are not so easily intimidated by assertions of supernatural power or claims that the author has special knowledge of God’s will."

That is the atheist's own little power play. By asserting that God's word is untrue he will try to intimidate people and pull them from their faith in order to believe in the athiests' "certainty", that what he say is true. I have yet to meet an atheist who knows anything for certain. The best they can do is 99.99999% of which I am 100% certain that they are uncertain of that. There is always that room for doubt in the atheist worldview. That is the nature of skepticism. You are welcome to your falsehood.

JED: "A few generations ago you would have insulted people by telling them they do not know their own minds, or they are pretentious and self-deceptive. You probably upset people who believe in other sects, such as Islam."

All that I can do is point to the errors of believing something that is untrue and hope that God, in His mercy, will have mercy on them as He has graciously had on me. God's word is offensive to those who are perishing because of their suppression of the truth.

In standing against the values and wisdom of this world I do open myself to ridicule and hatred. But I do so in order to be faithful to His commands knowing that if God uses my words to touch even one life the effort is worth every ounce of persecution and ridicule!

There is only one true and living God and those who come to Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). To do otherwise is to create an idol in your mind.

In navigating a boat across the Atlantic to a specific destination being one degree off course without correction will result in missing the destination. To believe God is other than who He has revealed Himself to be is also to miss the destination because you have just made yourself a false god and are acting as god. The focus has shifted from God to you as the final judge and reference point.

Hi (? Ms/Mr) MARIA JANNA!

There have been very well informed ex-Muslims from faithfreedom.org on this blog. Being raised in Muslim cultures as Muslims they are very familiar with the Quran, Hadiths and Sharia Law. They took great pains to explain the suras and Hadiths that caused non-Muslims confusion. Your knowledge of the Quran and Islam is extremely poor compared to that. The version of Islam you are trying to present is your own fiction. It may count as academic work for you, but it doesn't convince anyone who are familiar with the religion better than you are. Sorry to have to tell you that.

The fact you try to portray Mohammad as trying to reform Christianity is somewhat ridiculous. To say the least.

As to Catholicism: the Papacy should be protected by all means. A two thousand year tradition cannot be recreated in a day. The dresses and rituals of the Roman Emperor are not relevant as far as the religion goes, but it adds a bit of pomp and glamour.

The Bible does NOT contain any Scripture from the pagans of Europe. All the rituals and historical details mentioned refer to Israel and customs and religious practices of the Jews.

I was referring to all the idol worship that crept into Catholicism down the centuries. Mary being raised to the status of a Goddess and worshipped as a Goddess etc.

Maria Janna-

Are you in the US. I think you are not, but may be confusing you with Mary Cunningham.

Are you following Barack Obama's campaign for president? He is from Chicago and I remember reading about a former Mayor who was a controversial lifelong Catholic and had beliefs very similar to yours.

Do you agree with Obama? Do you think he is influenced by Chicago politicians?

Stupid believers. They say they have faith, but they don't even know what faith really is.

I'll really enjoy my vacation.

MS. ANON wrote: "Accumulating mountains of paganism and using the ways of Roman Caesar is not good."

Well then… just a few quick examples, of what it would mean to get rid of all the "pagan stuff" and the "Caesar ways". Let's go right at the heart of the Church, the Pope:

1. the Popes used to be carried in a litter, a custom which they adopted from the Caesars.

2. Pope Benedict loves his red shoes… not because he's a fashion addict, but because the popes used to wear them long ago. Well, they took them from the Caesars, who had it from the first Caesar, who in turn had adopted the red shoes from the ancient kings of Rome like Romulus.

3. And what about the crozier? Ah, no… it's got to go, because it's based on the staff of the Roman augur.

4. What about the sea shell, the symbol of the mother of God, which he sometimes wears on his garment? Discard it! It's a pagan symbol, the symbol of Venus, the mother of the Romans and especially of the first dynasty, the Julio-Claudians.

5. What about the dove as the symbol for the Holy Spirit? That's Venus too. Should we get rid of the Holy Spirit?

6. What about the Pope's pallium? Throw it away, because… that's Roman too.

7. What about the office itself? "Pontifex maximus" was originally a "pagan" Roman religious office, held by all Caesars. Should we get rid of the Pope? I know I know… the Protestants would love this part.

8. What about St. Peter in Rome? Right in the center is the mausoleum M, the tomb of the pagan (later Christian) family of the Julians, with a lovely "pagan" image of Christus as sun god. Shall we now tear parts of the basilica down?

9. What about faith itself? Fides? The "pagan" Roman goddess? She's still running around as a personification in Christian rituals like the Semana Santa in Spain. So yeah, let's get rid of faith as well, Ms. Anon!!

Hi Ms. Anon :)

Anon: "Jesus Christ is a historical figure."

MJ: I hate mythers who say he's just an amalgam of previous myths and legends. That's BS. So yes, definitely: Jesus Christ is a historical figure, but still we have no piece of evidence that he was "Jesus of Nazareth" / "Yeshua" etc. As I said earlier: there's a difference between God Jesus Christ and the so-called "historical Jesus".

Anon: "Don't build your castle of cards rewriting Roman history for it can be easily refuted from non-Roman sources."

MJ: I'd like to hear these sources.

Anon: "It is fun to watch you build your "scientific" castle from an Islamic perspective."

MJ: Well, one thing you might not have understood—maybe also because I wasn't too clear about it: I would NEVER take the Quran and say: look here, it says in the Quran it was like this and this etc., because as for the gospels the same applies for the Quran: it's not a work of history, it's a hagiography, a religious book, written long after the fact. So of course I can only point at the Quran if it can be backed up with *solid* historical sources… actually you need to find them FIRST before looking into the Quran. (But in any case the Quran is only a sidelining scripture, and not a valid historical source.)

Anon: "The Jews may not accept Jesus as Messiah, but they do not deny His existence."

MJ: Oh, they did deny his existence. Why should Jewish scholars be more stupid than non-Jewish scholars? Historiographically and in a religios context they only wrote about him very late, e.g. in the Talmud, in a rather derisive way, obviously as a polemical replica to Christian writings. On the level of faith (not science) the Jews have always denied his existence, at least his existence as a Jew. Only in the 20th century, a few of them changed their opinion, but it's not a majority development.

Anon: "But early Christians who refused to worship the Roman Emperor as god had to pay with their lives for the disobedience."

MJ: That's total BS. I guess, like most Christians and religious people, you're very keen on telling us the usual fairy tales. In his letter Pliny asks the emperor if he should have the Christians executed, and the emperor explicitly prohibits the death penalty.

Anon: "For someone who is concerned with historical accuracy, you pay absolutely no attention to the complete lack of base for the Islamic interpretation of Jewish and Christian Scripture."

MJ: I wrote before (and above in this post again) how I use the Quran (if I use it at all, which I do very seldomly).

Anon: Mohammad never lived in Israel.

MJ: Wrong. According to Muhammad's biography, he went to Jerusalem at least once. Would you please stop spreading your obscurantist lies?!

Anon: Remember the pagans in Europe had/have no Scripture.

MJ: Aha? What about the Libri Pontificales of the Romans? They are just one of the many examples of religious books that they had. Stop spreading lies.

Anon: Christianity in Rome later integrated some pagan celebrations

MJ: Technically, the Church placed their festivals on all the pre-existing "pagan" festival days. They changed "pagan" rituals into Christian rituals: they didn't "integrate" them. It was the other way around.

Anon: but there was no Scripture to borrow from.

MJ: Just go to a public library. The Romans were masters in historical, poetic and religious writing. Lots and lots of stuff to "borrow" from.

Anon: Mohammad was faced with a problem when he wanted to reform Arab polytheistic paganism to monotheism.

MJ: I have a hunch that he wanted to reform Christianity, not polytheistic paganism. The idols that stood as statues around the pre-Islamic Kaabah in Mecca were of the same number as the Christian Saints in those times. Other sources state that he wanted to change the Christian religion and that he himself was probably a Christian… a *heretic* Christian, like most of the people in that region.

Anon: Pagans had no scripture.

MJ: See above on the Roman "pagans". I don't know about the Arab pagans. But since Muhammad's actions seem to have been all about reforming Christianity, any pagan traditions and/or scriptures would probably not have been very important. Although there are elements of "pagan" worship in the Quran: Allah himself swears an oath to the stars, which were regarded as gods in those times. (But that could already have been part of heretic Christianity in that region, who knows?!)

Anon: and not to rewrite it to suit his political ambitions.

MJ: But nevertheless, that's what he did. Otherwise Islam would be regarded as a Christian denomination today.

Anon: So what do we have in the Quran? Compiled and distorted Jewish and Christian Scripture, pagan customs and a global imperial-totalitarian political system.

MJ: That about sums it up quite neatly. :) Although there would surely be some discussion about which of these elements has more or less importance etc.

Anon: The Roman Catholic Church needs to shed many of its Roman pagan and Roman Caesar's stuff to regain its full might and credibility as a Christian Church. Accumulating mountains of paganism and using the ways of Roman Caesar is not good.

MJ: The Church has already done that. As I've written earlier, they changed the rituals, festivals, traditions, scripture etc.. From a religious standpoint, Christianity is "Christian" alright. It has always been. But that doesn't mean that pagan origins of a religion are not observable anymore. They definitely are. But if you went about and got rid of the "incubo-paganism" in Christianity, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have much left. The Protestants have tried to do exactly that: they got rid of a lot of traditions. They are Christianity without fundament.

PAM: "This alone tells me that you haven’t done the sort of reading that I mentioned above. If you had, and you have any reading comprehension skills at all, you couldn’t seriously ask these questions. Of course rocks don’t think – don’t be an ass."

First of all I'm using irony to make a point. The point is that this is part of the crux of an argument against evolution, that rocks or inorganic material objects don't give way to thinking, living, organic beings. Maybe you don't understand what your worldview is actually saying.

Your worldview states that life came from non-life. How is that possible? As I continue to maintain, you cannot make sense of it, only the Christian worldview can make sense of how we came to be.

PAM: "Brains think, and brains evolved. Do you have any concept of the amount of time that has passed since life arose?"

So what, in your view, is a mind? Is it just a physical, electro-magnetic chemical reaction to its environment? Is what you do the result of the way your atoms collide and react? In that case why is something good or bad? Is good or bad just a chemical reaction?

If my mind reacts in a different way than yours that you consider to be bad and my reaction considers to be good what does it matter. Since you are the science major please tell!

If that is the case how do you arrive at logic?

PAM: "And no, before you ask, we don’t know *exactly* how it arose, although there are promising lines of inquiry, as you know."

So you assert. What is your evidence of these promising lines of inquiry?

PAM: "Clearly, it wasn’t easy to get exactly the right elements together, because it ONLY HAPPENED ONCE. At least on this planet."

Pretty well impossible.

PAM: "NO – natural selection is not a conscious force, making choices. The mechanism is this, in a nutshell: the one who passes on the most genes, has more offspring in the next generation carrying his same traits."

If it is not conscious then why did it deem it necessary to pass on the most genes. Does that not imply a choice and a mind? It just did it for no reason or because it "felt" it needed to survive? It just happened? Why did it need to survive (with no meaning or purpose to life)? Is that how we got our intelligence - it just happened? We are just a box of biological matter banging around?

PAM: "It’s just that simple. Whatever TINY reproductive advantage a trait confers, assures that it will be there in succeeding generations."

What you are saying is that random chance is how this happened, something you deem in part at least.

PAM: "A cattle breeder might be looking for a cow that produces more milk. Any cow that out-produces the average for her breed by a significant margin will have all her offspring kept by the farmer. The semen from her bull calves will be highly desirable and widely used. After a few years her genes will be spread throughout the breed, and the average output will be higher. This is artificial selection, but it is precisely how natural selection works, except that the natural version is often slower and is not deliberate. It is, however, decidedly NOT mere random chance."

The difference is that the cattle breeder is a living thinking human being created in God's image and likeness, who can reason and plan out what is beneficial, whereas natural selection, as you have said, does not think, has no conscience, cannot reason, so how is natural selection not mere random chance?

With natural selection, nothing is planned in advance for it does not say this trait is more beneficial than that trait, therefore I will choose this trait. It just happens because some environmental factor determines this trait will survive and this one will not. But what determines the environment? A random chance mixture of chemicals? Do they have a plan that they will come together because of their molecular structure? What decides in the first place that certain elements will bond together in a certain order. A random, chance, chaotic Big Bang decided to select it that way?

PAM: "You don’t know the meaning of the word “logic”, if you think that what you’re saying is logical."

Again an assertion. The Law of Identity states, A is A. In other words something that is true cannot at the same time be false. Anything that exists in reality has a particular identity and is not something else.

Likewise, The Law of Contradiction states, two statements that are contradictory cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner. A cannot both be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. You cannot be both living in Texas and not living in Texas at the same time and in the same way.

The Law of Excluded Middles states that "A is either A or not-A. You cannot say that something is both true and false. It is either one or the other. Either this object I am holding in my hand is a pen or it is not a pen. It cannot be neither a pen nor not a pen.

PAM: "And what “deep questions” am I avoiding? Oh, don’t tell, let me guess – the “meaning” and “purpose” of life?"

For instance the question of why are you here instead of not being here (existing)? How can life come from the non-living? Where do you ever see something that is non-living giving birth to something living? How can intelligence come from a non-intelligence process? Why did something decide to pass on the most genes to survive? Did the process have a mind that told it this was beneficial or that it needed to survive or why did it try to protect itself? How does a non-living material process start to feel pain? How does something physical, such as a stone or rock give way in the progression of things to abstract ideas and mind over the course of time?

PAM: "But, of course, humans can have as much meaning and purpose to their lives as they choose to have."

So meaning and purpose are invented and are a preference. Nobody sets the standard, so therefore no standards have meaning and purpose other than what you deem meaning and purpose to be, therefore nothing is wrong other than what you make to be wrong. If Hitler's meaning and purpose is to create the Arian Race by exterminating 11 million people, that is not wrong, it's just what he decided to do?

PAM: "The goals are entirely theirs, set by them and no other."

PAM: "Religion’s utility, by contrast, is limited to the “afterlife” – a totally unproven concept that seems very likely rooted in Man’s fear of the end of his existence..."

I contend it is both the present and the afterlife, and I don't speak for religion in general, just the Christian worldview.

As for predictions, everything that is done in the "name of Christianity" is not Biblical. As for the other religions, I only support the Christian worldview.

ME "Why is your evidence so ‘good?’ Because you say it is? Because you can get someone else of limited knowledge to agree with you?"

PAM: "No, because it IS evidence. Real evidence – tried, tested, observable."

Evidence is interpreted. A fossil does not come stamped, 100 million years old.

PAM: "Where is yours? I can’t see God or hear him. He performs no magic in front of me. And everything that is supposed to indicate his being is easily explained in other ways, as far as I can see."

The evidence is the creation or what you call nature and God's special revelation to mankind, His Word, the Bible. That is the tangible evidence. How you interpret that evidence depends on your worldview, on how you see the world. But to make sense of the world you need to see things as God sees them. "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." You have to hold to God's teaching to truly know anything for certain. (John 8:31-32)

No you can't see God for God is Spirit, just as the part of you that makes you you is not tangible and I cannot see it. But you presence and what you reveal about yourself by your conversation reveals your inner spirit, your essence.

As for performing miracles, God has chosen to reveal Himself more fully by His Word which contain some of the miracles He has done. You can't hear Him because you fail to listen to His word spoken in Scripture and take it for what it is.

Peter: “How much of the evidence do you comprehend? If you are like me, not much.”

PAM: "I’m not like you."

That is right, we are unique, but your knowledge is limited, just like mine. The difference is your standard is subjective, mine is outside myself and is objective and absolute. I have been trying to get you to make sense of this world without it and you have not been able.

PAM: "How has “He” explained it to you? Whispered it in your ear?"

No, by His Word, the Bible and through His Spirit who leads me into the truth by the Word of God.

Hi again Pam,

PAM: "Right. Then why are there so many stupid errors of fact in the Bible?"

Such as?

PAM: "I don’t have “faith”, Peter."

Yes you do Pam. You believe in events that happened when no humans lived, such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life. You have to presuppose certain assumptions to be true based on the way you interpret the evidence. That requires faith. Those assumptions do not happen in a vacuum. You build on a worldview with core beliefs that cannot be proved.

PAM: "I trust (different thing) the scientific method and the peer review of scientific findings. Not because science has never been wrong about anything, but perhaps more so because it has – and when it is, there is effort to set things right."

Right in whose eyes? How do you know that they are not wrong now because you have not been exposed to all the evidence, especially the evidence that refutes your current position?

PAM: "Science, after all, has proven utility – I’m typing on a result of it right now. I can look in any direction and see its fruits. It has proven predictive ability - it can tell me what time sunrise will occur on my birthday in the year 2042. It can tell me when Halley’s Comet will return and what part of the Earth will have the best view."

Where does it tell you on what day the universe was formed or how life can come from non-life? Where does it tell you how it happened? The prediction on the age of the universe constantly changes as "new" knowledge is "learned." From whose mind are you leaning it and why do they hold all the answers? There are lots of things that the scientific method cannot do.

The political genius and uniqueness lies in the way he taught Arabs to conquer lands in the name of Allah. When sufficient number of locals converted to Islam, they became part of the Mohammadan Empire.

Nothing wrong in living under God's law. But God's law as interpreted by Mohammad unfortunately has some glaring weaknesses which affects non-Muslims, ex-Muslims and women.

It has been written a million times that the British, Spanish, Danish, Portugese...were European colonialists. None of them conquered in the name of Jesus. The whole world would be Christian if they did. Check out the history of each of these countries and their colonies.

If one referred to Arabic colonies or Mohammadan Empire (which in fact the Islamic empire really was) instead of Islamic empire there would be no confusion.

Hi Pam,

You accuse me of never reading literature on evolution. I've read the Origin of Species and been taught about evolution during my school years. That admittedly was a long time ago. When I became a believer I found some people teaching a young earth and refuting macro-evolution. I found this hard to accept until I started looking into how these ideas emerged and became part of the culture and checked into some of the claims of the theory and its inability to explain objections to it.

One thing that stuck in my mind during my earlier years as a Christian was that if you want to find out something about the beliefs of a particular individual, find out who influenced them. These men were not unbiased scientists. There is no such thing. Their minds were molded by their interests and their rejection of God in many cases. Here is what Darwin said of his friend, Sir Charles Lyell on Chapter 9 of Origin,

"But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge."

Now that is influenced. One great authority!

Why don't you try reading "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils" by Marvin L. Lubenow or "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong" by Johnathan Wells or "In the Minds of Men" by Ian T Taylor for a different perspective? You have probably been shoveled this evolutionary stuff since childhood.

Darwin found the lack of transition links a problem that he believed would sort itself out as more specimens became available. Well we have millions of specimens and still no conclusive evidence. Here is what He says in chapter 9 of Origins,

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate 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. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

I'll say, because it never happened.

He says also in chapter 9,

"By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth."

Inconceivably great? Where are they?

He confuses adaption of animals of the same kind to their environment as proof of macro-evolution and he does this on a number of occasions, such as with the Galápagos Finches and here again in Ch. 9 with the pigeon,

"To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons have both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas."

A bird is still a bird. Where is the transition between kinds?

The problem is that he is showing differences within a kind, not a change of kinds. For the transitional link he had no evidence, just speculation. The same is true today.

Darwin says,

"..Sir Charles Lyell's grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science"

Well Lyell's ideas in Principles of Geology of Uniformatarianism in which "the present is the key to the past" and in which geologic changes are slow, tiny changes over extremely long periods of time has long been discredited by Stephen Gould whose theory of punctuated equilibrium suggests that everything happened in quick, rapid periods. So whose is right? Neither.

The view of catastrophism is slowly gaining acceptance again as the view that million of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth could have only happened by catastrophic events or an event, as in the case of Noah's Flood, rather than by slow gradual building up of layers of sediment.

But the problem with evidence is that it needs to be interpreted correctly. But who becomes the ultimate judge? You?

Anon says-

"all over the world some Muslim scholars are busy rewriting the history of Islam."

When will the western world wake up?

Check this out--

-Tracing the Impact of Latin Translations of Arabic Texts on European Society

-Muslim Printing Before Gutenberg

-Muslim Discovery of America before Columbus

and much much more:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/

The Roman Catholic Church needs to shed many of its Roman pagan and Roman Caesar's stuff to regain its full might and credibility as a Christian Church.

Accumulating mountains of paganism and using the ways of Roman Caesar is not good.

It might interest ALL non-Muslims, especially Christians to know, that all over the world some Muslim scholars are busy rewriting the history of Islam. They want to portray it as a religion of peace spread by missionaries, to counter the non-Muslims claims of peoples who came under Islamic vrule by force. Not only that they project the real history of Islam spread by invading political conquerers on Christianity. The Blue Mosque in Turkey which was known for fourteen centuries as a Byzantine church conquered by Muslims and converted into a mosque because even the Muslims could not bring themselves to destroy such a magnificant piece of architectural beauty, is now suddenly being rewritten as an original mosque.

With the help of political pre-Islam histories of countries are being erased systematically.

Is our resident Islamic-Catholic scholar on a similar mission I wonder, trying to portray Jesus and Christianity as a myth that grew.

If that is the case, non-Roman Churches have a duty to defend Christianity.

It might interest ALL non-Muslims, especially Christians to know, that all over the world some Muslim scholars are busy rewriting the history of Islam. They want to portray it as a religion of peace spread by missionaries, to counter the non-Muslims claims of peoples who came under Islamic vrule by force. Not only that they project the real history of Islam spread by invading political conquerers on Christianity. The Blue Mosque in Turkey which was known for fourteen centuries as a Byzantine church conquered by Muslims and converted into a mosque because even the Muslims could not bring themselves to destroy such a magnificant piece of architectural beauty, is now suddenly being rewritten as an original mosque.

With the help of political pre-Islam histories of countries are being erased systematically.

Is our resident Islamic-Catholic scholar on a similar mission I wonder, trying to portray Jesus and Christianity as a myth that grew.

If that i

MARIA JANNA ---

(Aside: I'm female. Not relevant to the discussion but the clarification because you continue to address me as Mr Anon.)

Jesus Christ is a historical figure. Don't build your castle of cards rewriting Roman history for it can be easily refuted from non-Roman sources. It is fun to watch you build your "scientific" castle from an Islamic perspective.

The Jews may not accept Jesus as Messiah, but they do not deny His existence. Mohammad borrowed the Jewish idea because he had more contact with Jews and their Scripture.

To the Roman Empire Jesus was a minor irritation but no more. But early Christians who refused to worship the Roman Emperor as god had to pay with their lives for the disobedience. (Just in case you care to verify Jews in Mecca/Medina who refused to accept Mohammad as prophet suffered the same fate.)

For someone who is concerned with historical accuracy, you pay absolutely no attention to the complete lack of base for the Islamic interpretation of Jewish and Christian Scripture. Mohammad never lived in Israel. How could he, nearly seven centuries later, have known better than the Jews and Christians themselves what happened there?

You seem to be employing the technique Mohammad used in creating a new religion with borrowed Scripture.

Remember the pagans in Europe had/have no Scripture. Christianity in Rome later integrated some pagan celebrations but there was no Scripture to borrow from. Mohammad was faced with a problem when he wanted to reform Arab polytheistic paganism to monotheism. Pagans had no scripture. So he borrowed from and Christianity. Gabriel, if the vision was real (there are Hadiths to suggest that Mohammad considered it a visitation from the devil but his businesswoman wife encouraged him to interpret it as visit from an angel; God alone knows the truth) only asked Mohammad to "confirm" the Scripture of the Jews and Christians (Read: bring Jewish and Christian Scripture to the Arabs) and not to rewrite it to suit his political ambitions.

So what do we have in the Quran? Compiled and distorted Jewish and Christian Scripture, pagan customs and a global imperial-totalitarian political system.

Peter Huff writes:
"As for the Bible being written by men, that is true, as they were moved (inspired) by God to reveal Himself, His essence, His nature, His Being and His plan to His creatures. As for Him being ignorant, how can an all knowing, and comprehending, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal Being be ignorant of anything? It is impossible."

Right. Then why are there so many stupid errors of fact in the Bible?

Peter writes (about reading books on evolution, geology, and the like):
“Been there, done that”.

Sorry, Peter, but I don’t believe you. If you have, you certainly did it with no comprehension of what you were reading. Did you read “The Origin of Species” (Darwin)? The Ancestor’s Tale” (Dawkins)? “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” (Gould)? “From Lucy to Language” (Johanson)? “Your Inner Fish” (Shubin)? “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea” (Zimmer)? “Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo” (Carroll)? Didn't think so.

When asked about testing his faith, he writes:
“Are you afraid to test yours? Who holds up your actual knowledge Pamela and how limited is it? The God of the universe who created every fact and who sees and understands every facet of every minutest thing because He made it is the One I point to. Because you want to suppress the truth of Him does not make Him any less real. It just denies you a true basis for any fact you interpret.”

I don’t have “faith”, Peter. And I have, as stated before, exposed myself to a great deal of the writings and teachings on your side of the argument. I find them severely lacking.
I trust (different thing) the scientific method and the peer review of scientific findings. Not because science has never been wrong about anything, but perhaps more so because it has – and when it is, there is effort to set things right. Science, after all, has proven utility – I’m typing on a result of it right now. I can look in any direction and see its fruits. It has proven predictive ability - it can tell me what time sunrise will occur on my birthday in the year 2042. It can tell me when Halley’s Comet will return and what part of the Earth will have the best view.

Religion’s utility, by contrast, is limited to the “afterlife” – a totally unproven concept that seems very likely rooted in Man’s fear of the end of his existence. Its predictions are laughable. Just Google the “Great Disappointment.” End-of-the-world predictions have been failing for millennia. The latest buzz is about December 21, 2012. Unless, of course, you listen to Spidey, who predicts nuclear war with the Chinese in 2010 (killing all the atheists). Yeah, well, we’ll see…

Peter writes:
“Why is your evidence so ‘good?’ Because you say it is? Because you can get someone else of limited knowledge to agree with you?”

No, because it IS evidence. Real evidence – tried, tested, observable. Where is yours? I can’t see God or hear him. He performs no magic in front of me. And everything that is supposed to indicate his being is easily explained in other ways, as far as I can see.

Peter: “How much of the evidence do you comprehend? If you are like me, not much.”

I’m not like you.

“But I know the One who does comprehend it all and He has explained some of it in part and what you say contradicts it completely. Logic tells me you are wrong. What is your highest authority for knowledge? I seem to detect, as with most atheists I chat with an avoidance of the deep questions of life.”

How has “He” explained it to you? Whispered it in your ear? You don’t know the meaning of the word “logic”, if you think that what you’re saying is logical. And what “deep questions” am I avoiding? Oh, don’t tell, let me guess – the “meaning” and “purpose” of life? I don’t avoid those at all. From a strictly natural point of view, they don’t exist, beyond the goal of passing on your genes before you die, in greater quantity than your competitors. But, of course, humans can have as much meaning and purpose to their lives as they choose to have. The goals are entirely theirs, set by them and no other.

Peter asked Jed:
“But here is the question. How does logic which is an immaterial, non-physical, intangible concept come from a physical material inorganic substance and how does one, as an atheist, connect logic with the facts? I mean rocks don't think, do they? (Supposedly matter produced logic, since in the beginning, all that existed was supposedly matter) Now if this all came about by random, chance happenings (i.e. there was no plan, no intelligence, hence mind involved) then why does this something we call logic that is immaterial, non-physical, operate in a consistent manner? You magic ingredient is always natural selection, but why should anything select anything else in the first place? Selection implies choice. Show me something that is not conscious or living that makes a choice. Explain to me how it happens and how it came about?”

This alone tells me that you haven’t done the sort of reading that I mentioned above. If you had, and you have any reading comprehension skills at all, you couldn’t seriously ask these questions. Of course rocks don’t think – don’t be an ass. Brains think, and brains evolved. Do you have any concept of the amount of time that has passed since life arose? And no, before you ask, we don’t know *exactly* how it arose, although there are promising lines of inquiry, as you know. Clearly, it wasn’t easy to get exactly the right elements together, because it ONLY HAPPENED ONCE. At least on this planet.

However it came about, natural selection worked on it from that time forward. NO – natural selection is not a conscious force, making choices. The mechanism is this, in a nutshell: the one who passes on the most genes, has more offspring in the next generation carrying his same traits. It’s just that simple. Whatever TINY reproductive advantage a trait confers, assures that it will be there in succeeding generations.

A cattle breeder might be looking for a cow that produces more milk. Any cow that out-produces the average for her breed by a significant margin will have all her offspring kept by the farmer. The semen from her bull calves will be highly desirable and widely used. After a few years her genes will be spread throughout the breed, and the average output will be higher. This is artificial selection, but it is precisely how natural selection works, except that the natural version is often slower and is not deliberate. It is, however, decidedly NOT mere random chance. That same cow would not likely have been so successful in the natural version. While all that milk and the long lactation period would produce big, healthy, fast-growing calves (an advantage to them), it would also produce a huge udder that would make it tough for her to escape predators – so maybe no calves would ever live. Natural selection. You don't find big-uddered bovids outside of the barnyard.

Peter wrote:
“Now if all our brains/minds are is a collision of atoms in responds/reaction to stimuli in our environment then what difference does it make what one human does to another or how one human is used by his/her mind? (My atoms collide differently from your atoms to produce different reactions). If it makes no difference, you have no basis for logic or morals. Everything in an atheist universe seems to materialize out of thin air without an explanation that makes sense.”

I do get so tired of this argument. If you’ve ever known an atheist, you probably haven’t seen him living a life much different than your own. Except he has his Sundays free.
I’ve explained in other threads that we evolved as a social species and we are programmed to cooperate with one another. It’s how we work best.

Sadly, the norms of our modern existence have made families and communities less important – we live lives of more isolation – and this can subvert the instincts. But you won’t find the resulting crimes to be committed more frequently by atheists – rather the reverse. As others have pointed out, the percentage of atheists in the prison populations is lower than in the general population. Go figure.

HEBREW TABLET STONE: see below

First…

CCNL doesn't get it. He's been refuted — not by me, I'd have to say: I just posted here what many scholars have written years, sometimes more than 100 years ago — but he still repeats the same nonsense over again. He seems to miss the point that Biblical exegesis is a hermeneutical undertaking, a method which especially the "Jesus Seminar" has proven time and time again to be rather esoteric.

MR. ANON: You are probably right about your assessment of the Quran, but that doesn't mean that *everything* in the Quran is inadmissable for a pragmatic approach, for a comparison with Christian scriptures.

SAJIDAH ALI:

The tablet stone *at the moment* doesn't say anything related to Christianity. The official transcript doesn't mention any resurrection after three days. Of the specific sentence "in three days [you shall live]", the last three words "you shall live", which would possibly imply a resurrection, are illegible on the stone, and are a reconstruction made by one single scholar. For 10 years his interpretation has been ignored. I presume that he is a scholar who is keen on "proving" the Jewish origins of Christian thought.

Apart from the fact that "you shall live" is not legible on the stone, the scholar seems to have missed the fact that divine characters from ancient mythology and "messianic" figures, i.e. saviors of people, who died (sometimes with suffering) and/or resurrected (i.e. became deified), were a common concept in antiquity… Dionysos, Alexander-Amun, Marsyas etc. pp.

Hi Jed,

I will reply to your other post, the Lord willing, tomorrow.

Hi Pam,

PAM: "God doesn't say *anything*, That's precisely why we don't believe he exists. The Bible was patently written by men - either that, or God is as ignorant as men of two millennia ago. Do you know anything of textual criticism? Have you read any of the history of the Bible? Crossan? Bart Ehrman?"

Well you discount His Word, but that does not stop Him from existing. As for the Bible being written by men, that is true, as they were moved (inspired) by God to reveal Himself, His essence, His nature, His Being and His plan to His creatures. As for Him being ignorant, how can an all knowing, and comprehending, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal Being be ignorant of anything? It is impossible.

Yes I know something of textural criticism and also of people such as Crossan and Ehrman. They both hold a liberal view of the Scriptures. Why would I put any credence on what they say when they oppose what God has revealed? You seem to hold them as all knowing rather than God.

ME: "Evolution is the myth created in the minds of men. It is a subjective opinion..."

PAM: "No, not a myth, and not subjective at all."

So shall I consult you as the ultimate reference point and final standard of authority? No chance of that, for even though I respect you as a person made in God's image and likeness and have no malice or ill will, I hold the way you look at the creation to be false.

PAM: "And everything that has furthered knowledge (even in other fields, such as geology) has only served to confirm it. But how would you know, since you haven't read any of it and won't?"

Been there, done that.

PAM: "Are you afraid to test your faith? Is it so weak and wobbly that you don't trust it to hold up to actual knowledge? It must be tough to have to cling so tightly to the party line while still trying to cover your eyes and ears."

Ibid. Are you afraid to test yours? Who holds up your actual knowledge Pamela and how limited is it? The God of the universe who created every fact and who sees and understands every facet of every minutest thing because He made it is the One I point to. Because you want to suppress the truth of Him does not make Him any less real. It just denies you a true basis for any fact you interpret.

Why is your evidence so "good?" Because you say it is? Because you can get someone else of limited knowledge to agree with you? How much of the evidence do you comprehend? If you are like me, not much. But I know the One who does comprehend it all and He has explained some of it in part and what you say contradicts it completely. Logic tells me you are wrong. What is your highest authority for knowledge? I seem to detect, as with most atheists I chat with an avoidance of the deep questions of life.

Hi Jed,

Comments on your post from July 7, 2008 @ 6:47 PM.

JED: "As a long time atheist I have the same problem. I believe so strongly that God is fiction that I can't help feeling that believers...deep in their hearts, KNOW there is no God, but refuse to acknowledge it to themselves."

I got a little confused in that exchange. I wasn't sure who was quoting whom, but I will presume for now that you, Jed, made both of these comments above. If not, sorry.

1) Being on these forums for over a year now I do not remember a time when I have seen an atheist use the word God with a capital G. That makes you a rarity!

2) The second observation is that you are basing you opinion on feelings - "you can't help feeling." To cut to the truth of the matter you are the one who is refusing to acknowledge God, not I. The argument works both ways. It also shows that you are basing this opinion on feelings rather than reason. It is your preference, but your worldview is devoid of answering ultimate, deep, meaningful questions and still make sense of them.

Let me give you one for instance for tonight.

As humans we use logic to compare and contrast ideas and expose contradictions. Truth could not be known without reason and logic because two people could state opposites and both believe them to be true with the facts, with what is real. But how does one know anything ultimately when they are relying on their own subjective reference point?

Without logic and reason there would be no universals such as gravity; one person could believe it is true and another as not true and both be equally right and confident of there opinion as relating to truth and the facts. (Try living in a world like this - we're getting there)

But here is the question. How does logic which is an immaterial, non-physical, intangible concept come from a physical material inorganic substance and how does one, as an atheist, connect logic with the facts? I mean rocks don't think, do they? (Supposedly matter produced logic, since in the beginning, all that existed was supposedly matter) Now if this all came about by random, chance happenings (i.e. there was no plan, no intelligence, hence mind involved) then why does this something we call logic that is immaterial, non-physical, operate in a consistent manner? You magic ingredient is always natural selection, but why should anything select anything else in the first place? Selection implies choice. Show me something that is not conscious or living that makes a choice. Explain to me how it happens and how it came about?

Now if all our brains/minds are is a collision of atoms in responds/reaction to stimuli in our environment then what difference does it make what one human does to another or how one human is used by his/her mind? (My atoms collide differently from your atoms to produce different reactions). If it makes no difference, you have no basis for logic or morals. Everything in an atheist universe seems to materialize out of thin air without an explanation that makes sense.

Farnaz:

Anon,

Listen to the weather reports and keep looking out the windows....Remember, whom you're dealing with

WHooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Best wishes from the Prince..................

PS. Did I mention lightning?

July 8, 2008 9:48 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Farnaz, of course I know whom I am communicating with - someone who didn't take the time to read the book on Nettiquette; someone who is, in her school teacher fantasy, is communicating with her unruly kids in school.

Your best wishes are appreciated Prince.

Yes, yes, you mentioned lightening. You are the lightening who needs a lightning rod.

Best wishes from an Anonymous with no army of helpers....

Farnaz:

Anon,

Listen to the weather reports and keep looking out the windows....Remember, whom you're dealing with

WHooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Best wishes from the Prince..................

PS. Did I mention lightning?

July 8, 2008 9:48 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Farnaz, of course whom I am dealing with. Someone who didn't take the time to read the Nettiquette book before she started blogging on an international forum and in her world of fantasy is communicating with her kids in school.

Anon,

For Moses, I must switch from my Zeusian to my Jewish half. In Judaism, Moses is the prophet to whom HaShem chose to give the Torah. As well, Moses is the prophet who, according to Judaism, was exposed to more of the godhead than any other. This is what Jews mean when they say that Moses saw God to his "face." Since HaShem, is not a man, "face" is meant to serve as the vehicle in a metaphor.

Have you checked your lightning rod................
I'm switching back to my Zeusian half..........
Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

It's been fun, but must make rain elsewhere......

Hope you stay dry................................

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Anon,

Listen to the weather reports and keep looking out the windows....Remember, whom you're dealing with

WHooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Best wishes from the Prince..................

PS. Did I mention lightning?

Farnaz:

"Judaism has many - Kings and prophets - who are equally important and Moses is merely one of them"

This is absolutely not the case. Moses is not merely one of anything. He is unique in Judaism.

July 8, 2008 9:40 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A Jew would beg to differ. It is better to refer to real well known Jewish Rabbis on this matter and not FARNAZ. Only to a Muslim who relies on the Quran for Judaism Farnaz's claim might be true, for Moses is mentioned several times in the Quran. None of the important prophets of Judaism get so much mention. The only reference to David is that he was given the Psalms.

FARNAZ, you don't need to be Anonymous for Pseudo, Starbucks trio, Amro, Josh, ?Sobia, Catholic bashing Christian fundamentalists etc etc all come to your rescue with seconds when you need them... Not all of us have an army of such helpers. None of us are here tearing our hearts out with obsessive rants as you are...

(BTW - Maria Janna never claimed to be a female, although I continue to believe she is female. S/he didn't write about pig's lips either. I did.)

July 8, 2008 9:07 PM

I mean I came to the defense of Maria Janna against the one who accused her/him of applying lipstick to a pig or whatever the reference to pigs and lipstick was.

Ah, Anon, you are far off the mark about Farnaz.
Actually, I live in Saudi Arabia. I am the only half Jewish, half Zeusian permitted to live there. My family goes back to the time of Homer, so, as you can imagine, it's a long story.

Anyway, if I were you, my chief concern would be the weather. Check your Robert Graves for details. Forewarned is forearmed, we part Zeusians always say.

Why FARNAZ, the self proclaimed Atheist Jew from Iran gets all worked up about any mention of Islam in a way that differs from her own unique perspective is a mystery, at least to me. The mystery disappears only when I think of her as having strong Pakistani Muslim loyalties, having lived there...

We have had enough ex-Muslims from faithfreedom.org who explained the real meaning of 'huris.' (the anatomy of huris as explained in the Quran doesn't resemble a grape at all) Muslims are embarrassed after 9/11 when it became known Muslims males are inspired to blow themselves up for the sake of 72 virgins in heaven (chaste virgins being extremely short on this side of eternity).

There is only one problem with MARIA JANNA's "science" of Christianity. S/he is coming at it from the Quran and building a wonderful castle of "scientific" cards. Mohammad who was born in far away Arabia nearly seven centuries after the events of Jesus in Israel took place, wrote his own version of Jewish and Christian Scripture which even the simple Jews and Christians he came in contact with in Mecca and on his travels to Syria did not agree with. The Quran itself records what happened to the Jewish tribes who didn't agree with him. What is remarkable about Maria Hanna's version of Christianity from an Islamic perspective is that s/he never questions the validity of Mohammad's rendering of Jewish and Christianity.

(BTW - Maria Janna never claimed to be a female, although I continue to believe she is female. S/he didn't write about pig's lips either. I did.)

FARNAZ, if there are standards of decent behavior and respect on a blog, you seem not to be aware of it. Issuing threats like a schoolyard bully to those who disagree, I didn't find in any nettiquette book. So brush up your manners. Everyone blogging here left school long ago and are not looking for cyberspace school teachers. Just saying.

Sajidah Ali

I dont think anyone is "a'buzz;" it is just "more of the same" for the past 2,000 years.

MESSIANIC MESSAGE STIRS DEBATE

Scriptural scholars are abuzz over a stone tablet that is said to bear previously unknown prophecies about a Jewish messiah who would rise from the dead in three days. But there are far more questions than answers about the tablet, which some have suggested could represent "a new Dead Sea Scroll in stone."

Do the tablet and the inked text really date back to the first century B.C., as claimed? Where did the artifact come from? Can the gaps in the text be filled in to make sense? Is the seeming reference to a coming resurrection correct, and to whom does that passage refer? Finally, what impact would a pre-Christian reference to suffering, death and resurrection have on Christian scholarship?

Such questions are being addressed this week in Jerusalem, at an international conference marking the 60th anniversary of the Dead Sea Scrolls' discovery. They're also being addressed in reports about the "Vision of Gabriel" tablet that have trickled out over the past few months.

That trickle flooded onto the front page of The New York Times on Sunday, in a story that quoted one professor as saying some Christians would "find it shocking" that Jewish scriptures prefigured Christian theology.

(more here)

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1184950.aspx

Once again, what is known about the existence of the simple preacher man named Jesus:

From Professor JD Crossan, an NT and historic Jesus exegete and On Faith panelist (cannot seem to find Dr. Know or Marla Janna on said lists):

From his 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 also 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 books.google.com/books.

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.

Then there are these scriptural references:

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.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

Were these scriptural stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the constant event.

Added suggested readings:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

Need to correct an unclear statement, which might be misunderstood:

The judaization by Paul came later, BECAUSE he mentions similar wantonness of early Christians in Corinth and other places… of Christians who were there before him.

RYAN HABER wrote: "True, but not particularly relevant. They were also used in the Jewish passover (a fact that is much more relevant) and in the daily life of most people in the ancient Mediterranean world (also more relevant)."

MJ: The parallels to Jewish passover are only relevant, if one supposes the origins of Christianity from Judaism. But there is no proof of that. The 15th of Nisan, i.e. the 15th of the third month of the year, is supposed to be the day of Christ's death. He resurrected on the third day, i.e. the 17th. The 17th is the day of the Liberalia. (And Rome was everywhere, I have to add.) So why do Christian women bake small loaves of bread in public ovens in some regions in Greece? Why are the same small loaves of bread part of Spanish Easter rituals, where they are handed out to the believers and participants? Maybe because in the religio Romana, women baked small loaves of bread in public ovens at the day of the Liberalia, and handed them out to the participants? Why not? That's what they did on the Liberalia. Can you name the same four components (small loaves of bread, public ovens, women, handing out) for the Jewish Passover ritual? Is there any reason to suppose a Jewish priority?

RH: "Outsiders couldn't tell the difference between orthodox Christians and others who called themselves Christian but weren't."

MJ: So you're saying that the people described by Pliny, who was a highpriest himself (i.e. an authority in religious affairs), were not Christians, although they called themselves Christians, although they worshipped Christ? Isn't that a bit obscurantist? The letter by Pliny is regarded by scholars as the first rock-solid piece of evidence of the early Christians. Those "Orthodox Christians" you're talking about, where's their evidence? Or could it be that the Christians mentioned by Pliny were actually the orthodox Christians? The judaization by Paul came later, and he mentions similar wantonness of early Christians in Corinth and other places… of Christians who were there before him.

RH: "Upon what criteria do you determine which sources to include in the "fundament""

MJ: All sources need to be considered. All! I had a considerable disagreement with Mr. Anon, because I'm also willing to look into the Qur'an. And I consider Christian writings as sources too. However, there is no indication that they can be applied as historical sources, such as e.g. the writings of Flavius Josephus.

RH: "How are the sources to be interpreted? That is, using what method?"

MJ: Comparison with other non-Christian sources. In the same vein Christian rituals and traditions are to be compared to non-Christian rituals. One should compare them to Jewish, Greek, Roman sources and traditions etc.

RH: Who has the authority to interpret the sources definitively?

MJ: Anyone who has the ability. An example: if an uneducated person reads in De Bello Gallico that Caesar built a bridge over the Rhine, that's (in all probability) a historical fact. No interpretation necessary. But when you take into consideration that Caesar was also the pontifex maximus of Rome, one of whose sacred duties it was to maintain an ancient Roman bridge across the Tiber, the bridge over the Rhine receives a much deeper meaning.

Maria Janna,

I was wondering if you could provide some references for your posts. I think you have some interesting viewpoints here, but a number of your posts are a quite a bit outside the mainstream. I've studied early Christian history myself, and there are multiple, independent (and often hostile) attestations to the life and death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. I'm confused about why you discount those sources but believe a report of Christian orgy rituals.

Nic Brady:

"Where the religious see God, atheists see infinity, and mystery."

Lol, you've got it backwards, friend. Where most people see Mystery and Infinity, atheists are quite certain that there is only stuff, raw matter, and more stuff. Nothing mysterious about that.

"Most scientists are on the side of the atheist, and deny any supernatural dimension in existence."

Actually, I am fairly certain that is not true.

"I see religion being marginalized eventually, as science goes on its logical way of figuring things out, and discovering new paradigms of knowledge and perception, making religion look increasingly absurd and irrelevant."

That's hardly a brave new vision you've got. I hope you don't congratulate yourself on it too thoroughly. It was first put forth by Pierre-Simon LaPlace (1749-1827 or so), and then systematized (a bit more) by Auguste Comte (1795-1857, I wanna say). They were as certain as you that religion would fade to a triviality, founded on myths and superstitions debunked by science.

My suspicion is that they have misunderstood either (1) science; (2) human nature; (3) religion; or (4) some combination thereof. I so suspect because after 150 years, they have still proven wrong, and neither religion nor the particular religion of their opprobrium (the Catholic religion) have fallen back even an inch.

"Backward cultures are being overwhelmed by the world-wide spread of knowledge through the internet, TV, and newspapers etc. Myth will not survive forever in this climate."

The John Gray lecture that Mary Cunningham posted noted that the early positivists thought that canals (right, artificial waterways) would have the same effect.

As for myth not surviving in the internet world, haven't you ever gotten those silly emails about viruses that everyone goes ballistic over? Come on, now. Let's be serious, brother.

nic brady wrote:

"Religious folk believe in their God so strongly it seems,that many cannot imagine that there are those who genuinely do not believe God exists.

As a long time atheist I have the same problem. I believe so strongly that God is fiction that I can't help feeling that believers...deep in their hearts, KNOW there is no God, but refuse to acknowledge it to themselves."

I for one have never felt that way. I know many devout believers, including some of the smartest people I have ever met. I am sure are fully honest. Let me add that I wouldn’t think of trying to persuade them that God does not exist! I would hate to see them lose their faith.

"Atheists are just as strong in their disbelief as religious folk are in their belief. Most scientists are on the side of the atheist, and deny any supernatural dimension in existence."

That is not true at all. Many prominent scientists such as Einstein have expressed mystical ideas that are akin to religion. Dawkins took Einstein to task for this, but I think Einstein had a genuine mystical streak. It sure looks like religion to me. I think your assertion is wrong for other reasons:

Scientists are used to living with ambiguity, and with unanswered questions.

They are used to thinking seriously about hypotheses posed for the sake of argument.

They are supposedly open-minded, although I have not seen much evidence for this.

I know several religious scientists, including some rather famous physicists. (Dawkins says that physicists and biologists are the least likely to believe.) As far as I know they reject superstitious notions such as a virgin giving birth, people arising from the dead, or evolution being driven by anything other than natural selection. They do not reject the notion of God, but compared to the typical believer their version is rarefied and not much comfort. Einstein emphatically rejected the notion of a personal God who read people's minds, answers prayer, punishes evil and so on.

“I see religion being marginalized eventually, as science goes on its logical way of figuring things out, and discovering new paradigms of knowledge and perception, making religion look increasingly absurd and irrelevant.”

I doubt it. Science has already done that to such a large extent, it is hard to see how much more damage it could do. Since there are still scientifically minded people who are devout believers, I suppose there will always be. That’s fine with me. Their beliefs do no harm, and some good.

Also, there are many intellectual sects who doctrines do not rest on any claim of miracles or superstition. It is difficult to imagine that progress will call into question the beliefs of Unitarians or Zen Buddhists, for example. By the standards of fundamentalist religion, Unitarianism is hardly distinguishable from atheism.

- Jed

Maria Janna,

I don't believe that Mary Cunningham was saying that the scandal of particularity (let's call it SoP for shorthand) is the cause or basis of the sacraments.

"Bread and wine in liturgy was already a Roman custom before Christianity"

True, but not particularly relevant. They were also used in the Jewish passover (a fact that is much more relevant) and in the daily life of most people in the ancient Mediterranean world (also more relevant).

"olive oil and anointing as well (e.g. during the Lupercalia)"

See my previous comment above.

"Furthermore the priests and highpriests of the Roman religion (flamines) were all male."

Actually, in pretty much every culture ever, sacrificial priesthoods have always been all-male, to the best of my knowledge. There were groups like the Vestal Virgins, but they weren't priests. There were groups typically referred to as priestesses, but none of them participated in sacrificial worship, unless I am mistaken (and would like to know whether I am or not).

"Pliny's letter to the emperor explicitly mentions Christian orgy rituals under the liturgical supervision of two priestesses."

Right. Absolutely. Outsiders couldn't tell the difference between orthodox Christians and others who called themselves Christian but weren't. That fact doesn't negate either (1) the difference between the two; or (2) the right of the original followers of Jesus to use that name exclusively.

"try to reveal errors in Christian perception and also the changes to the Catholic religion due to the religion's evolution through the centuries, especially from "paganism" and the Graeco-Roman sphere. I see it as my Catholic duty to not remain quiet when the authority of the Church is based on errors and mistaken interpretations of Scripture."

Maria Janna, I have for you a very important set of questions at the heart of all this:

(A) Upon what criteria do you determine which sources to include in the "fundament" (I like the term, by the way)?

(B) How are the sources to be interpreted? That is, using what method?

(C) Who has the authority to interpret the sources definitively?

MARY CUNNINGHAM

I totally agree with you on the "scandal of particularity". But is this really connected to Christian sacramental life? How? Bread and wine in liturgy was already a Roman custom before Christianity (e.g. during the Liberalia), olive oil and anointing as well (e.g. during the Lupercalia), using clean water as well (e.g. during the armilustrium). Furthermore the priests and highpriests of the Roman religion (flamines) were all male. And it's not that it was the exact same in early Christianity: there were Christian denominations, who opposed the use of wine during the Eucharist, e.g. the Marcionites. And many scholars have shown that Christianity knew female priests in the early Church. (But so did the Romans: flaminicae, the wives of the flamines.) Pliny's letter to the emperor explicitly mentions Christian orgy rituals under the liturgical supervision of two priestesses.

My view of Catholicism only (and only in part) upends modern interpretations of the original worldview, and this logically can include the Pope and his writings, because after all: he also is only human, especially when he willfully writes as a fallible theologian. I see myself as a strictly "fundamental" Catholic, because I look at the fundament, into the old sources and traditions, and try to reveal errors in Christian perception and also the changes to the Catholic religion due to the religion's evolution through the centuries, especially from "paganism" and the Graeco-Roman sphere. I see it as my Catholic duty to not remain quiet when the authority of the Church is based on errors and mistaken interpretations of Scripture.

Religious folk believe in their God so strongly it seems,that many cannot imagine that there are those who genuinely do not believe God exists.

As a long time atheist I have the same problem. I believe so strongly that God is fiction that I can't help feeling that believers...deep in their hearts, KNOW there is no God, but refuse to acknowledge it to themselves.

To religious people God's existence is obvious, where to atheist people his non-existence is obvious. Where the religious see God, atheists see infinity, and mystery.

Atheists are just as strong in their disbelief as religious folk are in their belief. Most scientists are on the side of the atheist, and deny any supernatural dimension in existence.

I see religion being marginalized eventually, as science goes on its logical way of figuring things out, and discovering new paradigms of knowledge and perception, making religion look increasingly absurd and irrelevant.

Ancient superstitions thrive better in backward cultures where ignorance is bliss. Backward cultures are being overwhelmed by the world-wide spread of knowledge through the internet, TV, and newspapers etc. Myth will not survive forever in this climate.

Actually our new resident religion scholar, one Maria Janna, has effectively debunked and expunged all of the usual CCNL 'proofs' of the historical existence of the person that was alleged to be Jesus of Nazareth...there are no credible proofs or evidence that said person actually existed.

And furthermore, why anyone would continue to follow a religion that has been thoroughly de-mystified and de-sacralized e.g. the Christianity of CCNL, is quite a mystery.

One may as well simply join the ranks of atheists and secular humanists, rather than being afflicted with a compulsive need to launch continuous broadsides against the 'superstition' all religions - to no avail.

Who really cares what a sanitized, earth-bound and re-born secular Catholic thinks anyway? If you happen to be religious, that is. All the more so, as an atheist.....

Religion without the religious content is - no religion....merely a society of churchgoers.

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

Since when have I been "defensive about Judaism"?
Do not confuse a commitment to accuracy with defensiveness.

Unlike you, I do not wave the equivalent of the flag of the Q Gospel in the sky, insist on the reality of such as Jesus for which there is no independent evidence outside of the highly dubious Josephus. But I anticipate that E FAVORITE, who has more at stake in debunking NT myths and fictions than I do will be posting on them shortly.

Farnaz

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz (might as well be Anon, Anon, Anon),

We thought you were an atheist. So why be so defensive about the myths of Judaism??

A brief summary of the flaws and errors of said religion:

Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Other errors:

Belief that that the Jews are god's chosen people.

That there was a Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve residing with said residents talking to vocalizing snakes.

That the human time line goes back 6000 years whereas archeology and DNA analyses takes us back at least 60,000 years.

Belief in "pretty, wingie thingies" aka the angels of death.

That the OT prophets could actually prophesy. Today they would be called fortune tellers and charlatans.

Georgiason:

Attacks on Christians by Muslims are a fact of life in the Middle East and in Pakistan. While hatred for Jews is much stronger, has a longer history, since antisemitic propaganda has been flowing in via
the Christians since the Crusades, anti-Christianity is alive and well, quite well, among extremists, who associate it with the West. There is also persecution of other religious minorities, notably, in Iran, the Bahai.

"Judaism has many - Kings and prophets - who are equally important and Moses is merely one of them"

This is absolutely not the case. Moses is not merely one of anything. He is unique in Judaism.

Anon:

I never said that Jihadist couldn't take care of herself. Nor did I say I couldn't take criticism. what I am saying is that when a frightened and troubled soul begins slandering other bloggers, she creates a sick climate. As well, there are standards of decent behavior both in virtual and actual behavior. In Judaism, we do not blame the victim. That is the same in Islam, btw., is it not AMRO?

As well, Jihadist, unlike you has the guts to publish with a moniker. If I were you, I'd stop worrying about the "failings" of other bloggers and start worrying about my own.

This is the last "Anon" I will reply to. Have an ounce of courage. It never killed anyone, nor did an ounce of courtesy or respect.

Farnaz, Jihadist has been posting non-stop for twenty months on this forum and has taken the worst criticism of Islam coming from well informed ex-Muslims of faithfreedom.org and others with utmost grace. You can be sure nobody can stop her from posting if she really wanted to. You should be worrying about your own overreactions and inability to take criticism without issuing threats. Jihadist can take care of herself just fine. If anything she has an overabundance of confidence. You could even learn from her.

Maria Janna:

God came to earth at a particular time, in a particular way. This 'scandal of particularity' is continued in his choice of men to make up the College of Apostles. This is also reflected in the sacramental life: only clean water for Baptism; bread and wine for the Sacrament of Eucharist; olive oil for anointing; male for the priesthood and episcopacy.

Your view of Catholicism upends that entire worldview, hence my assertion that you cannot have ever been Catholic (Roman Catholic, if you wish, but Catholics who submit to the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope call themselves "Catholics"...another tell that you are not what you say you are).

However, placing the ancient Christians in the context of their time and place can yield many, many insights and I hope to continue this discussion at another time. May I say I am impressed by your knowledge--if not by your posting name!

Dear Gerry, since you have left the discussion I wish to leave you with the thought that I meant "zum Kotzen" only about the way you lumped all monotheistic religions together without taking the trouble to compare Scriptures, biographies of founders (Judaism has many - Kings and prophets - who are equally important and Moses is merely one of them) early history of the religion in accordance with the original teachings etc. You interpreted it falsely as my reaction to you as a person based on your atheism. This blog is merely a stage where people come, stay for a while and then go. Take it easy. Bis dann!

Anonymous:

Whoever said that Catholics don't tithe had better tell St. Joseph's which has recently let me know that I haven't sent in "the required amount." This is the third time we've been through this and will be the last. We can live without St. Joseph's.

July 8, 2008 2:59 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tithe refers to one tenth of one's income in Jewish law. In early Jewish law it meant one tenth of every kind of income.

Catholic churches in countries which do not collect church tax, ask the parishioners for a donation in accordance with their free will. Every parishioner agrees to pay a certain amount of money to his parish every week/month. It is usually much smaller than a tithe. The church then reminds the parishioner to pay the sum they have agreed to pay. Is that wrong?

When a Catholic comes along and posts stuff that is meant to undermine the Catholic church without any real reason, I'm wondering if the Catholic somehow hopes to get brownie points for letting down his/her own church. Presenting facts is one thing, but presenting distorted facts is another.

When did you ever pay one tenth of your family income to the Catholic Church? When did the Catholic Church demand it of you? Could you provide data of Catholic churches which demand ten percent of every parishioners income? Many Protestant mega churches have introduced such a routine, but it taken out of the Old Testament.

Please clarify this matter on a blog where there is plenty of anti-Catholic bashing afoot.

Before we are subjected to more comments from Muslims giving us their objective opinion that Islam is a touch-feely religion that embodies love and respect for all mankind, please do a few mouse clicks to the NEWS section of the POST and read this article in full:

"Egypt's Coptic Christians Are Choosing Isolation - Violent Clashes With Majority Muslims and an Increase in Separate Institutions Help Sever Centuries-Old Ties

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 7, 2008; A08

CAIRO -- Under pressure from fundamentalist forms of Islam and bursts of sectarian violence, the most populous Christian community in the Middle East is seeking safety by turning inward, cutting day-to-day social ties that have bound Muslim to Christian in Egypt for centuries, members of both communities say.
Attacks this summer on monks and shopkeepers belonging to Egypt's Coptic Christian minority, and scattered clashes between Muslims and Christians, have compelled many of Egypt's estimated 6 million to 8 million Copts to isolate themselves in a nation with more than 70 million Muslims..."

I am one of those Americans who has pointed out the monumental hypocrisy at work when Muslims harp on the alleged ignorance of Americans about Islam, while ignoring the fact that Muslim countries refuse to grant Christians in their midst the freedoms enjoyed every day by Muslims in America. I rest my case.

July 7, 2008 6:18 AM

Whoever said that Catholics don't tithe had better tell St. Joseph's which has recently let me know that I haven't sent in "the required amount." This is the third time we've been through this and will be the last. We can live without St. Joseph's.

Anon/JAC:

It is almost half an hour since my last post. Anyone with a knowledge of the Babylonian Talmud, should be able to post from there on Rashi in five minutes.

Even more imporatant, any Jew who knows Judaism knows that the Babylonian Talmud is definitive on Hagar and Ismael. Having established that you are not Jewish as you implied on R. Steinsaltz's thread, that you have no basis for the accusations you have made against me, I understand that they will cease; as well, you should apologize.

If you continue to slander me, you leave me no choice with respect to how to proceed, although, again, I do understand that you are troubled and frightened. So, are we all, Anon/JAC, but we restrain ourselves. Keep that in mind.

Goodnight, and I wish you peace of mind.

Farnaz

MARY CUNNINGHAM

Benedict doesn't always write as himself. The interesting thing about the current Pope is that he seems to choose when he's infallible and when not. Many scholars and reviewers have noted that he wrote his book on "Jesus of Nazareth" not as "the Pope" (i.e. the infallible person), but explicitly as a theologian, which means he allows himself the freedom to err. So I guess I would not pick Benedict in every matter. ;)

Kolakowski sounds interesting. Thx.

On your incidentals:

1) MC: "Catholics do not tithe, never have".

MJ: I'm not a native speaker, so I may not have correctly understood the meaning of "tithe". I understood it to mean a church tax… and I *do* pay church taxes. Definitely! I should know! There are still a few countries that have it: Denmark, Spain, Italy, Germany Sweden, Finland… maybe more.

2) MJ: On "father", "pastor", "priest" etc.. As I said, I'm not a native speaker, and my dictionary states that "pastor" can also refer to a Catholic "parish priest", especially in North America. Since this is a North American blog I chose to use that word.

3) MC: Confession was not in the Bible. Never said it was. It was instituted about the time of Augustine of Hippo as a response to the Donatist heresy and has been with us ever since. I always feel enormously lightened after I've been to confession.

MJ: I fully respect that. However, I prefer to have conversations with my priest, at his home, at meetings etc. That's our special form of confession. :)

4) MC: Many facets of the Church are not in the Bible but in Church teaching. We do not believe in *sola scriptura*. Catholics believe in progress in religion. Hopefully you do too!

MJ: When I wrote about being a "scripture kid" I was not saying that I'm into sola scriptura. Since scripture is very much subject to rewriting, that would never be a good thing to base a religion on. But anyway, that's for the Protestants, remember? I meant that rather as a scientific remark. Besides scripture, Catholics have their traditions, which are in my view even more important than the Gospel, because they are most probably older. But I can't accept every piece of later Church dogma and ideology. (The Church's condemnation of homosexuality is e.g. a very ambivalent issue.) And yes, I believe that religion needs to progress, otherwise it'll die off. That's what I've been talking about some of the time on this blog. But "progress" can also mean the "Benedict way", i.e. returning to earlier forms of the religion, maybe even the earliest, supporting the fundament. And to find out what the fundament is, one needs to study scripture, history books, the old writings. And that's scientific work. You can't do that in mass or on church congresses. :)

Anon/JAC:

As I mentioned on R. Steinsaltz's thread haSatan equals the accuser.

("ha" equals "the" as in haShem, the name, the appropriate way fo referring to the deity when speaking of Judaism)

Rashi on Hagar and Ismael?

Anon/JAC:

I left out a few words in my last post: I should have written, "No Jew on the planet would refer to himself/herself as a Jewish believer." Again, Judaism is not a confessional religion. It is a way of life. But, Rashi, please.

Anon/JAC

This is my last warning, following my post on R. Steinsaltz thread. Jews are not Christians. We do not see ourselves as you see us. Why don't you give us some of the Talmudic commentary (Rashi will do fine here) on Hagar and Ismael?

I have no "connection" to Islam, and I don't know what you're talking about. I've taught English in Pakistan, and my closest friend is Pakistani. She is also an internationally known scholar. Contrary to what you may believe, not all Muslims are antisemitic, and if I can accept that, given my history, there may be a lesson in this for you.

But since you are the expert in Judaism, although no Jew on the planet refers to himself/herself, do give us the Babylonian Talmud (Rashi will do) on Hagar and Ismael. It would be helpful if you provided us with commentary from the Jerusalem Talmud as well, but we'll let that go for now.

I await Rashi on Ismael and Hagar. Also, I'm fluent in Aramaic and Hebrew, would prefer the Aramaic, but will accept R. Steinsaltz's Hebrew if you can find it on the web. English, if worst comes to worst.

PS. You have yet to explain your Islamophobia and targeting of me. You also have yet to apologize, but that can wait until you cite Rashi.

Farnaz, strictly speaking Islam is reformed Arab paganism and not an Abrahamic faith at all.

Farnaz, I suggest you read the Book of Genesis to trace the Muslim connection with Abram.

Abram was remained Abraham after Ishmael was born.

Ishmael was the son of Hagar, an Egyptian slave.

The Covenant God made with Abraham was to involve only the children of Sarah, Abraham's wife, *not* Ishmael, the son of Hagar, who was not Abraham's lawful wife. In other words Judaism did not involve Ishmael at all. God promised to bless Ishmael but the special Covenant on which Judaism is based does not involve Ishmael's descendants.

Ishmael and Hagar were sent away by Sarah.

Ishmael married an Egyptian chosen by Hagar.

Where exactly does a Jewish connection exist for the descendants of Ishmael is his mother, not a wife of Abram, and wife were Egyptians?

Judaism is a religion, it is not merely a way of life. It may be a way of life for you as an atheist, but to a Jewish believer it is a religion.

You have refused to explain your connection to Islam and Pakistan.

Anon,

Jews do not refer to "Jewish Law." This is a Christian construction. There are "principles" "ways," "commandments" that observant Jews follow.

Further, except for the Kairites and Sadducees, who most Jews do not see as Jews (I'm uncommitted on the former), the Torah is heavily mediated through the Talmud. Then, of course, we have the writings of sages throughout the centuries. Take, for example, Maimonides with his Thirteen Articles of Faith. Given that we are talking about Rambam, these articles had to be taken seriously, except that Judaism is not a confessional religion, but a way of life, so what to do?

The elegantly simple answer: Say them if you wish to. MOst don't.

Farnaz, whether or not Jews follow all the laws in the Torah was not the issue. All Christians don't live according to the Sermon on the Mount either although Jesus taught it.

I was only referring to the fact that there is such a thing as Jewish Law and there is such a thing as tithing. Whether it is followed by Jews or not is a completely different discussion.

Anon:

The closest adherents to the Tanakh, although they do not follow it exactly since that would be impossible in 2008, are the Sadducees, the population the NT writers had in mind when they wrote of the Pharisees (E Favorite: NB). Sadly, the Sadducees now number in the tens. They are no longer a protected minority of the Palestinians which makes their future even more doubtful, but not a great deal more, since, at least at this point, they have not been targeted.

FARNAZ, you give yourself away. If you have not heard of the word Jewish Law and tithing in Judaism, don't expect me to believe you are a Jew. You seem to have done a lot of studies on the Holocaust. But the Old Testament referred to the Tanakh you don't seem to have read, for otherwise the word Jewish Law and tithing would not be foreign to you.

Anon,

No living person, not even the Kairites follow the Tanakh exactly as it is.

Christians follow the Jewish Scripture *exactly* as it is even if they interpret in light of Jesus as Messiah. Muslims have their own distorted version of Jewish and Christian Scripture incorporated into the Quran.

Monica:

Here I've reposted the link which will lead you to articles on tithing in Catholic parishes in the US.

See the New Advent web site on "pastor." I can also post on that if you'd like. I haven't the foggiest about what Anon means by "Jewish Law," which means Anon doesn't either. However, speaking as a J person with an advanced degree in Jewish Studies, I can tell you we do not tithe. There may be some synagogue in some part of the world that does--anything is possible, but I've never heard of it.

Re: Catholics and tithing in the US

In 1962, Time reported that 300 parishes were tithing in the US. Since then, the number has grown exponentially. Look at the search results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=tithing+parishes+US+catholic&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GG

Anyone who followed the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the US would have heard it mentioned several times that he was on a PASTORAL visit to his flock in the US, not as the official head of the Vatican state. He was however received officially by President George Bush as the official head of the Vatican State, not in his pastoral role.

The role of a Catholic priest is considered pastoral even if he may not be called a pastor.

Tithing is a Jewish law. Catholics are expected to give as they can, freely, not in strict accordance with the Jewish law. Christians are bound by the Law of Love which goes BEYOND the Jewish law, for that is what Jesus taught and lived. The teachings of Jesus included the Jewish law and went beyond it.

Hi Monica,

I cannot claim to be knowledgeable about Catholicism. I was merely curious about the chat between Maria Janna and Mary Cunningham, both of whom appear to me to be quite learned.

I was a bit disconcerted by MC's claims about tithing since I'd heard quite a number of Catholics complaining about it (!) so I did a quick search and posted the results. Similarly, I've frequently heard Catholics talk about conversations they'd had with their "pastors," and I confess I was confused about the nomenclature.

I should have asked them if they meant their priests, but for some reason, I didn't. Right now, I'm not in contact with anyone I could ask. Hence, I again did a quick search. I could have posted the search results and still can, but do see the link.

As for ot/nt, these are not part of Judaism, which only has the Tanakh. I can say that PRotestants have tithed for centuries.

That is the best I can do, except to say that Jews do not tithe, not in the US, not anywhere. If you click on the link for the search results, you will see articles explaining the decisions by various Catholic parishes to tithe.

Farnaz, Islam is called an Abrahamic faith because the father if Ishmael was Abram (later to be known as Abraham). Christianity on the other hand was known as a Jewish sect in its early days. Jewish Christians still worshiped at the Synagogues as Jesus had always done. They worshiped on two days, on the Jewish Sabbath in the Synagogues and on the first day of the week, Sunday, to mark the day of Resurrection among themselves. Some early pious Christians even met everyday to pray and preach the Good News. Jews who had not converted to Christianity did not want Jewish Christians to worship in the synagogues as more and more Gentiles were added to the group of Christians and Christianity followed less and less rules of Jewish religious law.

Farnaz for credibility of your claim that Jews do not consider Jesus of Jewish origin, you must quote well known Jewish scholars. A Muslim interpretation of Jesus won't do. Quote also well known Jewish scholars as to where they stand in relation to Mohammad and Islam. Ismael was born of a non-Jewish mother and to Abram (before he was called Abraham). So the break of Ishmael with the family of Abraham took place nearly two *thousand* years before the birth of Jewish Jesus. Judaism had not really begun when Ishmael was born and Ishmael cannot be a Jew because he had an Egyptian slave for a mother, and Judaism requires the mother to be a Jew. The mother of Jesus was a Jewess.

Peter Huff wrote:
"As a Christian it is my contention that you are the one who is brainwashed by evolutionary dogma. Books on evolution do exactly that, they argue against God by implication and contradiction of His Word. You are ignorant of what God says if you believe that evolution does not argue against God."

God doesn't say *anything*, That's precisely why we don't believe he exists. The Bible was patently written by men - either that, or God is as ignorant as men of two millennia ago. Do you know anything of textual criticism? Have you read any of the history of the Bible? Crossan? Bart Ehrman?

"Evolution is the myth created in the minds of men. It is a subjective opinion in that it is formed by minds that do not know everything and therefore are not objective in analysing the data, which is constantly changing as man supposedly learns more."

No, not a myth, and not subjective at all. And everything that has furthered knowledge (even in other fields, such as geology) has only served to confirm it. But how would you know, since you haven't read any of it and won't? Why not? Are you afraid to test your faith? Is it so weak and wobbly that you don't trust it to hold up to actual knowledge? It must be tough to have to cling so tightly to the party line while still trying to cover your eyes and ears.

Farnaz/Maria Janna-

If Jesus was not Jewish, why are Catholics making an old testament tithe?

And as Pastor implies Shepherd- why are the jewless Catholics continuing the Jewish image of the Good Shepherd- both as a leader and a companion to his sheep.

I appreciate your answers.

FARNAZ, a self designated Iranian Jew atheist who has students and a dear sister in Pakistan; one who has lived in Pakistan and read all the letters and writings of Ali Jinna, one who visits Pakistan; one who writes almost like a Pakistani Muslim and has expressed too many anti-Christian and anti-Catholic sentiments on this forum ---

Mary Cunningham as a Catholic happens to know more about Catholicism than you do.

Catholics refer to their priests as "Father." Pastor is a term commonly attributed to Protestant clergy. Referring to pastoral duty of a Catholic priest is not the same as calling a Catholic priest a pastor.

Maria Janna has not mentioned that s/he lives in the US. If *some* Catholic parishes in the US has adopted a Protestant term it does not make it common Catholic practice. It would not be reported in the media as news. There are considerably more than 300 parishes in the US for a population of 70 *million* Catholics. Catholicism is considerably older than the US itself. Catholicism is not a US Church but a universal one. So any exception being practiced in the US does not make it a Catholic norm.

Tithing is from the Jewish tradition. Jesus abolished it by praising the old widow by praising her for giving her all. One gives in accordance with one's love. Christianity is not bound by Jewish law. One gives more or less than a tithe freely. There is no rule. Many early Christians gave all of their wealth to their Christian communities and it was used according to the needs of all its members. Yes they practiced "Christian communism."

If *some* Americans are reviving the Jewish tradition of tithing, it is not what the Catholic church teaches or practices. Maria Janna could be living in Germany and paying part of his/her income as religion tax. Germany is an exception to the Catholic rule because of its unique history; the Protestant pastors/Catholic priests are paid by the government from the money the believers willingly pay as taxes. It ensures the money is distributed evenly to all parishes and what is left over from salaries can be used for other Christian purposes. Priests/pastors cannot hoard money for themselves. There is no obligation to declare oneself as belonging to a particular religious group if one wants to escape paying the tax.

Jews and Christianity - Farnaz you must belong to a strange Jewish sect that denies the Jewishness of Jesus and His followers. No real Jew would ever claim that Mohammad and not Jesus was a real Jew. Mohammad is an Arab pagan. Jesus was a Jew. Jesus was born of the Jewish line of Sarah. What makes a Jew a Jew is the worship of YHWH. Allah is the name of an Arab pagan god who had three daughters and was worshiped in Mecca long before Islam, and Mohammad reformed Arab paganism to monotheism by getting rid of Allah's daughters.

FARNAZ, a self designated Iranian Jew atheist who has students and a dear sister in Pakistan; one who has lived in Pakistan and read all the letters and writings of Ali Jinna, one who visits Pakistan; one who writes almost like a Pakistani Muslim and has expressed too many anti-Christian and anti-Catholic sentiments on this forum ---

Mary Cunningham as a Catholic happens to know more about Catholicism than you do.

Catholics refer to their priests as "Father." Pastor is a term commonly attributed to Protestant clergy. Referring to Pastoral duty of a Catholic priest is not the same as calling a Catholic priest a

Re: Catholic pastors

US Catholics do use the word "pastor"; indeed, I have heard it used often by Catholics both here and in the Canada. It is also used in the media, as a simple search will show. For more on the subject, here is a link to TTWSY's favorite source:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11537b.htm

Re: Catholics and tithing in the US

In 1962, Time reported that 300 parishes were tithing in the US. Since then, the number has grown exponentially. Look at the search results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=tithing+parishes+US+catholic&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GG

Gee, Red Katie, you said,

Speaking of words, my current pet peeve is people using "oxymoron" to mean "contradiction." Drives me nuts."

Strange. Webster defines 'oxymoron' as
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly
: something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

What say?

ancient ambitious political preacher wrote:

"JED ROTHWELL! YOU HAVE BLASPHEMED AGAINST THE CREATOR! YOU ARE HEREBY DAMNED TO ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE LAKE OF FIRE! LET THIS BE A LESSON TO YOU ALL!"

Copy that, mission control.

Glad to be of service. I am always ready to set an example to y'all.

I think Peter Huff is kind of charming in a way, with his unabashed old fashioned ultra-confident faith. I genuinely admire someone who doesn't give a hoot about the politically correct multicultural standard. He is preserving cultural diversity. I would hate to live in a world with only dull, rationalistic people like me.

The religious people out of the mainstream that I do admire -- seriously -- are the Pennsylvania Amish. I do not share their religion, but I admire their attitudes toward modernity, technology and community. For example, in the 1920s they used automobiles. They still use them when they need to, for ambulances and buses and so on. They allow young people to drive if they like. But in the 1930s they decided not to let cars dominate their communities and tear apart their social structure. I read their debates from back then, and their present community policy. These are carefully thought-out, wise decisions, not some kind of phobia or anti-modernity head-in-the sand attitude, as some people portray it (some people including Dawkins). It wasn't a religious decision.

They go overboard in some ways, I will grant, but who doesn't?

- Jed

Speaking of words, my current pet peeve is people using "oxymoron" to mean "contradiction." Drives me nuts.

JED ROTHWELL! YOU HAVE BLASPHEMED AGAINST THE CREATOR! YOU ARE HEREBY DAMNED TO ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE LAKE OF FIRE! LET THIS BE A LESSON TO YOU ALL! DO NOT DEFY YOUR MAKER!

Peter Huff wrote:

"JED: "I believe his assertion here is that people who say they do not believe in God are only “pretending” and in their heart of hearts, they secretly agree with him that God exists.

Call it pretension, deception, self-delusion, it's all covered in God's word. Check out Roman's 1:18-25, esp. verse 21)

You know God exists. It is just more comfortable and convenient for your lifestyle in your rebellion to pretend otherwise so that your are the one who is the final authority . . ."

This argument is so comically unpersuasive that I am sure you are in earnest. You have no guile or compromise! You are not trying to win me over with flattery.

This doctrine was written by an ancient person to intimidate people into joining his sect, or stay in it. Fortunately, modern people are not so easily intimidated by assertions of supernatural power or claims that the author has special knowledge of God’s will. A few generations ago you would have insulted people by telling them they do not know their own minds, or they are pretentious and self-deceptive. You probably upset people who believe in other sects, such as Islam. I suppose Christians who believe in evolution are not happy with you. (You would probably deny that they are Christians. You make your circle of believers smaller and smaller.)

You do not upset me. Frankly, I pity you. I do find you pretentious, self-deceptive, and deluded. It is all covered in your words, which are not God’s, although I am sure you honestly believe they are. (Unlike you, I have no doubt you mean what you say.) Has it ever crossed your mind that these words might have been written by an ordinary person who wanted to frighten you into joining his religion in order to exploit you, and mentally enslave you? There is no beauty in this doctrine. No wisdom. It is power politics: intimidation & fear mongering. A merciful god would not give a fig whether we believe in Him or not, so long as we do good.

Have you even once questioned whether this doctrine is genuinely the word of God, and not merely the words of some ancient ambitious political preacher?

- Jed

Maria Juanna,

Benedict said *both* evil and The Evil One. So if you don't mind, I'll stick with B16. After all, he writes as himself and you write as a weed. Who would you pick?

Anyway, have been reading Kolakowski as late--now *there's* a philosopher--which I would recommend. He is probably the greatest philosopher living, better even than John Gray, and his works talk about the Evil One: evil as a presence.

Kolakowski was been damned by Marxist atheists when he reaffirmed his Catholicism and damned by the Catholics for being too Marxist. That sounds right to me!

Incidentally:

1) Catholics do not tithe, never have
2) They call the holy men in their church: "Father"; they refer to them as priests, *not* pastors. Monks are referred to as "brother"; the head of the monastery is "Abbot". Pastor does not signify, ever, even in Holland. It's Protestant.
3) Confession was not in the Bible. Never said it was. It was instituted about the time of Augustine of Hippo as a response to the Donatist heresy and has been with us ever since. I always feel enormously lightened after I've been to confession.
4) Many facets of the Church are not in the Bible but in Church teaching. We do not believe in *sola scriptura*. Catholics believe in progress in religion. Hopefully you do too!

Best,
Mary C.

MARY CUNNINGHAM has found MARY JANE. Way to go! ;D

On the book by Benedict XVI: you're absolutely right that "vom Bösen" or "von dem Bösen" can refer to either "Evil" or "the Evil One". As far as I know it has however been interpreted as meaning "Evil". The alternative translation (taken from some exemplars of the Gospel of Luke) is "von dem Übel", simply meaning "Evil". With "Übel" there is no second possible definition.

But as I've written earlier, translations are misleading, and it's better to look at the original sources. In Matthew 6:13 it's pretty clear: the Evangelist applied the word πονηρός, which in classical times only meant the following:

πονηρός, ά, όν, (πονέω) toilsome, painful, grievous, Theogn., Ar.
II. in bad case, in sorry plight, useless, good-for-nothing, Ar., Plat., etc.:—Adv., πονηρῶς ἔχειν to be in bad case, Thuc.
III. in moral sense, bad, worthless, knavish, Lat. pravus, improbus, Aesch., Eur.; πονηρὸς κἀκ πονηρῶν rogue and son of rogues, Ar.; πόνῳ πονηρός laboriously wicked,
2. base, cowardly, Soph.; π. χρώματα the cowards hue, Xen.

The Christian reading as "The Evil One" is a later interpretation, originating from the fact that πονηρός at some points in the Gospel refers to the Devil, which induced the personification. Philologians however have made clear that from the scriptural context of the Pater noster in Mt 6:13 a personification must not be implied.

In the majority version of the Gospel of Luke (Lk 11:4, Nestle-Aland etc.) the reference to πονηρός is missing altogether. Only some manuscripts (like the Textus Receptus) have added the "deliver us from evil".

Translations and rewritings can transform the faith of the people. Suddenly they read "Devil", whereas the original sources do not imply any such thing. You could as well translate Mt. 6:13 as "deliver us from plight", which would make A LOT more sense, because the Pater noster is specifically a prayer for (a) daily bread, i.e. food and survival, and (b) in the original Greek reading of Matthew the remission of financial debts, not "sins" or trespasses", as modern translations say. The pater noster is a "welfare prayer", and "plight" is in all probability the original meaning of πονηρός, not "evil" or even "The Evil One".

So in all probability, Mr. Pope Benedict XVI is Mr. BS here. That's where modern "faith" can lead a religion. A total distortion of the original meaning of the words.

MONICA wrote: "Farnez/Maria Janna—I'm enjoying your posts. You are both so learned and knowledgable of your respective religions. Please share more of your thoughts. We will all gain understanding from your wisdom on such matters."

MJ: Do you mean this in all seriousness or is that an ironical statement? Because from the way the discussion in this thread has progressed, I can't always be sure… if you know what I mean. ;) But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: thank you, you're welcome. :)

Maria Janna

My use of the Vom Bosen was taken from the last public work of B16: "Jesus of Nazareth": "The new German translation of the Our Father says 'vom Bosen' thus leaving it open whether "evil" of "the Evil One" is meant." (p.165)

Of course he is Pope, and maybe you wouldn't accept his authority. OTOH he is also German and skilled at exegesis, so I'm inclined to listen to him.

Is Mariajanna, a play on marijuana? As in all believers in the Jewish origins of Christ are smoking dope? Maria Janna is a Dutch name (female), maybe you're Dutch.

Farnez/Maria Janna-

I'm enjoying your posts. You are both so learned and knowledgable of your respective religions. Please share more of your thoughts. We will all gain understanding from your wisdom on such matters.

AMRO:

I am sorry I missed your posts; I have not been blogging here much the last several days. I will keep checking this site for you.

Farnaz

Maria Janna: And the "Judaeo-Christian tradition" is BS. It's a modern invention, a modern term that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian religion. There was and has only been the Christian tradition and the Jewish tradition.

Farnaz: I cannot imagine any Jew arguing in opposition. There is no such "tradition" as "Judeo-Christian." Judaism and Christianity in all its forms could not be farther apart.

As well, this Vatican business of "the Abrahamic Faiths" is nonsense. ONe can leave neither Hagar nor Ismael out of the Abrahamic mix; that is as far as it goes.

ANONYMOUS:

On the name: still not close.

1.a On the joke: it was apparent. I wrote to Sobia: "See how stupid that is?"

1.b I was not talking about those who DECIDED on the war, but I simply made a "stupid" calculation on the religions of the invading forces, based on demographics of their motherlands.

2. When talking about modern affairs, I say of course "Israel". When talking about ancient affairs, I say "Palestine", because that was the name of the whole region 2000 years ago. And the "Judaeo-Christian tradition" is BS. It's a modern invention, a modern term that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian religion. There was and has only been the Christian tradition and the Jewish tradition.

3. I explained, in what way I use the Quran. If Muhammad reinvented Christian scripture, there are logically parallels between both scriptures. Since I'm a person who examines religions pragmatically, why should I not look into the Quran? Is the Quran a book that's forbidden to read? Mind: read with a scientific, pragmatic approach!

4. I refuted all of CCNL's claims concerning Josephus and Tacitus etc.. "Christian sources" are only hagiographical testimonies, no valid historical sources. There was no persecution of Christians under Nero. I could go into more detail, but why should I? I'm talking to a truly ignorant person. Do you believe in anything that Hollywood tells you?

5. I do NOT claim that "Jesus" never existed. On the contrary, I claimed that there must be some historicity to the story. Don't you ever actually READ my posts? What I DID claim however is that there is no valid and independent proof of the existence of the so-called "historical Jesus", namely the figure we have come to know as "Jesus of Nazareth" or lately "Yeshua". No evidence. And you don't seem to get it: the one side is about the historical person, the other side is about the God Jesus Christ in Christian faith. There's a huge difference. The one side is about science, the other about religion.

6. ANON wrote: "But you didn't type Palaestina- you typed Palestine. Different words."

MJ: Open any English book on ancient history, and you'll see that the authors write "Palestine" or "ancient Palestine", if they don't specify the smaller regions. Fact. Period. But since you're an ignorant nitpicker, you would have to call modern Palestine "West Bank and Gaza Strip", or maybe "Palestinian territories", because there is NO state of Palestine. You don't even seem to be educated in modern politics, man. Terrifying.

7. ANON wrote: "Your version of Christianity is even a bit extreme from a Muslim point of view because even they believe Jesus existed and He was a Jew."

MJ: I explained below and above (and quite often now) that there is a DIFFERENCE between Jesus Christ as a God (or in this specific case: Jesus as Isa, the prophet for the Muslims), and the HISTORICAL Jesus of Nazareth. Don't you ever get the slightest basics of religious sciences?

8. ANON wrote: "Muslims falsely believe that catholics so "idolize" Mary that their men are named after her. Janna refers to the "garden of paradise" where Muslims who kill themselves for allah think they get the gratification of their flesh they denied themselves on earth (wine, huris (virgins), and ham sandwiches)."

MJ: STILL NOT CLOSE. :) By the way, the "huris" are actually "grapes", not "virgins". Read Luxenberg's book. Great read.)

MARY CUNNINGHAM:

MC: "You are playing with us, Maria Janna."

MJ: No. Not even with ignorant people like Mr. Anon.

MC: "could the Jesus movement have Greco-Roman rather than Hebrew origins?—which might have yielded some interesting insights to whether you are (Roman) Catholic or not, which IMHO is not very thought-provoking."

MJ: It should be: "whether you are a ROMAN Catholic or not". I like to emphasize the Roman aspect of Christianity.

MC: "This is because the definition of a Catholic is fairly simple:"

MJ: Yes. It means "universal". Nothing more, nothing less.

MC: "and going to confession, now termed Reconciliation"

MJ: I have nothing against talking and arguing with my pastor, but I strongly oppose the "reconciliation". It's perfectly clear from the Gospel that there is only one unforgivable sin, namely mocking or speaking badly of the Holy Spirit. All my other "sins" are irrelevant to God, and therefore should be irrelevant to my Church and my pastor. You see, that's a prime example of the many deceptions that the Church executes. Simply referring to James 5:16 is not enough. The Christ himself never uttered anything about the obligation to confess one's sins regularly.

MC: "Incidentally, FWIW I found ‘Janna’ is a rarely used ancient Hebrew name meaning “son of Joseph” so we have “Maria, son of Joseph”, very nice"

MJ: That's a nice find… but… still not close. ;)

MC: Hence, for the life of me I cannot imagine you sitting through a Mass once a week listening to Biblical passages you ‘know’ are false, and, at least in the UK, sometimes a sermon that leaves a *lot* to be desired.

MJ: Nothing in the Bible is "false". It's only twisted, warped, transformed, transposed history, almost unrecognizable. But that doesn't make it false, especially not on the level of faith. But I often have to smile or grin, when I'm in mass… yes.

MC: "BTW did you know,in the most up-to-date translation of the ‘Our Father’ in German, the phrase “deliver us from evil” has been re-translated to ‘von Boesen’, either ‘from evil’ of ‘from The Evil One’ , better, don’t you think? Evil is more than the absence of good, wouldn’t you say? A real presence."

MJ: I know German well, and the current official wording is "von dem Bösen", which (if I'm not wrong) is the same as "vom Bösen". ("Vom" is just a standard contraction of "von dem": VOndeM.) So both stem from "das Böse", which is "the Evil" or simply "Evil" in English. It's meant as being the accusative of the neuter "DAS Böse", not of the male personification "DER Böse".

But in general, for a lot of people evil can be much more than the absence of good, and can be a real presence. However, I myself haven't had that kind of experience yet, and I'm pretty skeptical that I ever will. I'm only saying that the Devil (whether it is/was an "evil" entity or not) must have had some kind of historical existence.

MC: I hope to see you again and continue some interesting points

MJ: Yeah… I'll see you around. :) But a vacation is coming up soon. Mr. Anon will probably be delighted reading this. LOL.

It has been said about Muslims that they feel an intense PRIDE about the *superiority* of their religion. Such pride is a characteristic trait in Muslims. In the Quran the Christians are called liars for claiming Jesus is God. Read the Quran to understand why. Muslims are taught to feel superior to others. No sign of spiritual humility there. Theirs is an imperial religion. So over the top support for Muslims is like taking coals to Newcastle, for they already feel a sense of superiority over others and a sense of entitlement to special treatment.

Look at how non-Muslims are treated in countries where there is a Muslim majority, how non-Muslim rights are ignored. Compare that to how they fight for their rights where they are a minority and feel slighted for nothing. One clear example is the Muslim anger about the Pope baptizing an ex-Muslim in public. They felt it was their right to dictate to the Pope whom he could baptize in public.

Narrow minded political Sunni Muslims who ought to be preaching plurality among their own but will not, will not support non-Sunni Muslims in their interfaith work, support separation along Sunni - Shia - Kurd lines in Iraq, support separate countries for Muslims where ever possible, talking of universality to atheists and Christians? Give me a break! It is hypocrisy 101.

The shadow is always at hand
To bury the dead
To let their bodies rest in peace
Send their souls on with good cheer
Over the lands and over the sea
To a land the atheists don't believe
Nobody could ever see.

Maybe someday we may meet
On another thread
Or never, as the case may be
But for now it is all peace
But for now it is all peace.

---The Shadow

Correction ---

"2. I supplied information of the term "useful idiot" because you accused me of name calling. "Useful idiot" is a political expression with a specific meaning, not a "name calling." If you had used your synapses instead of your bile you would have realized that."

I did not mean "useful idiot" as an insult but as derision. It applies only if you came to atheism through Christianity. I should have mentioned 'used your synapses instead of your knee (not bile since you mentioned you don't have any and you always feel LOL as a result).

You are playing with us, Maria Janna.

The dynamics of the thread have shifted from your intellectual challenge—could the Jesus movement have Greco-Roman rather than Hebrew origins?—which might have yielded some interesting insights to whether you are (Roman) Catholic or not, which IMHO is not very thought-provoking. This is because the definition of a Catholic is fairly simple: in addition to the partaking of the early sacraments, Catholics are obliged to_ continue_ receiving the Eucharist, attending Mass and going to confession, now termed Reconciliation but— who knows?—probably will go back to confession any day now, at least once a year.

You’re a smart man. (Incidentally, FWIW I found ‘Janna’ is a rarely used ancient Hebrew name meaning “son of Joseph” so we have “Maria, son of Joseph”, very nice). Hence, for the life of me I cannot imagine you sitting through a Mass once a week listening to Biblical passages you ‘know’ are false, and, at least in the UK, sometimes a sermon that leaves a *lot* to be desired. I try to go to the Brompton Oratory every other week or so to regain my faith in intelligent exegesis, because the priest at my local parish, a former teacher of 10-yr-olds, pitches many of his sermons to that level. Ugh! Thank God at least they are brief, during them I tend to read a few psalms.

Anyway, this thread is almost over, so this will be it from me. I hope to see you again and continue some interesting points, not least of them on ‘evil’. BTW did you know,in the most up-to-date translation of the ‘Our Father’ in German, the phrase “deliver us from evil” has been re-translated to ‘von Boesen’, either ‘from evil’ of ‘from The Evil One’ , better, don’t you think? Evil is more than the absence of good, wouldn’t you say? A real presence.

Regards,
MC

In this context I wanted to share an experience with a Russian-German atheist. I had no idea he was an atheist. He was a wonderful person. In the context of a casual discussion about politics I happened to mention the worldwide fear about the rise of Islamic extremism. He explained then that he was an atheist who had no use for religions himself but had nothing against people to whom it brought more meaning in life. As to Muslim extremists, he said he had no fears in Germany because he was paying taxes to have the intelligence agencies and law enforcement to protect the Germans and he trusted their efficiency. He added, Muslims or anybody else were free to believe in anything that is written in their Holy Books, but as soon as they broke the German law, the German law enforcement would act in accordance with the law of the land and not in accordance with what is written in any holy book.

I thought it was a very good way of being an atheist. He didn't ridicule any religion or the need of believers for religions.

So my friendly advice to you from my synapses: maybe you could adopt such an attitude as an atheist?

BTW, Sir Salman Rushdie, Dr Wafa Sultan, Ms H Ali etc arrived at atheism through Islam. They quote the Quran to justify their atheism.

If you arrived at atheism through Christianity you would be quoting the New Testament and life of Jesus Christ. You would not ignore the history of Christianity in the first three hundred years, how the religion was spread by the Apostles, early Christians and missionaries and how Christians willingly endured persecution. There was no empire created in the name of Christianity. When an emperor converted to Christianity by his own free will, he declared Christianity the religion of his empire. If you came to atheism from Christianity, you would not focus entirely on the political misuse of power in Europe by some Christians in violation of what Jesus Christ taught and how He lived.

End of knee jerk reaction...

1. The *wrong* meaning of "zum Kotzen" was supplied by AUTONOMOUS, not me. I thanked him/her for the correct use of 'K' instead of 'k' in 'Kotzen' and said "NO thank you" for the wrong meaning provided.

2. I supplied information of the term "useful idiot" because you accused me of name calling. "Useful idiot" is a political expression with a specific meaning, not a "name calling." If you had used your synapses instead of your bile you would have realized that.

3. To say all believers, according to you all the pious ones, react to atheists with a *zum Kotzen* reaction, is not only deliberately misinterpreting
the context in which I used the term and throwing me into a group to which I do not belong, but it is also simply one more "Atheism Fairy Tales 101."

4. Your understanding of Christianity as a political religion "invented" by Emperor Theodosius (You: Jesus didn't invent Christianity!)imposed by force has me thinking...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

autonomous:

Zum Kotzen = unpleasant or useless. Very self-reflective.

That about sums up your posts, Anonymous.

July 3, 2008 7:07 AM

Gerry:

Dear "Zum Kotzen" Anonymous,

why don't you read what I wrote before you "vomit" (kotzen) your nonsense? When I wrote -

"All monotheistic religions were IMPOSED by FORCE of some dominant figures or small power groups. (Moses, Emperor Theodosius (Jesus didn't invent Christianity!), MOHAMED). They are never a result of free use of original brain power of an individual."

- it takes an incredible amount of illogic (aka as stupidity) to arrive at the conclusion that this statement represents the idea of a "useful idiot" (I am well aware of Lenin's quotation), appeasing or favoring Islam. You forgot: Islam was founded by Mohamed, who'd have thunk!

My post was intended to explain some arguments in favor of my arriving at atheism. Oh, well...

People use their (available) brain power to corroborate their prejudices - q.e.d.

July 6, 2008 4:29 AM

Gerry:

Dear "zum Kotzen" Anonymous,

thanks for proving my point: Atheists are always "zum Kotzen" (literally: to induce vomit) for the pious crowd (your correct translation: "unpleasant or useless"). But that is YOUR feeling, not mine, I feel fine, lol!

Logically, I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion that I defend political Islamists, after I, of course, included Islam in the idea that all religions have been introduced by power, a historical platitude. I agree with you there.

But then, believers defy logic: Faith is enough for mental wellness. And obviously, you have read only part of my post. Well, that is enough for a specific religious (Catholic? Born-again? Mormon? Other?) knee jerk reaction, I must admit.

(Friendly advice: Name calling never proves anything, so you achieve more if you use your synapses instead of your bile!)

July 5, 2008 6:39 AM

Pam,
I had noticed your comment to me, responding to my comment to E Favorite. I've been busy, but have a moment now.

I did what I talked about as to detecting the presence or absence of a loved one through "feeling" their presence in close proximity, enjoying the experience with two of my boys, successfully. (One of them tried it also, successfully. But the ingredients of love and spiritual sensitivity would need to be present in the person doing the detecting, so don't bother. Sorry.)

'Speaking of which, your reversion to typical response modes of "appealing to the intellectual group" to give yourself an air of authority, and reverting to typical atheist language put-down mode, was not surprising. I'm still interested in your detailed and thorough step-by-step explanation (including the physics of the necessary environment and the biochemistry) of how a cell forms and replicates in the start of your imaginary "how life began" world.

'Brings to mind an interesting experiment that you might be able to enjoy when you're resurrected--be sent to a "world" in the cosmos where you could tend your cyanic acid/ice experiment for a thousand or a million years and wait for the magic to happen. This would be a nice application of the principal of getting what you wanted, really deep down in your innermost person. Shoot! Why not start now! (Good luck.)

Pam, all I'm trying to do by the above paragraph is get your attention. We see different worlds. You may scratch your head over how others look at the world you think you see from your vantage point, but I have a totally different vantage point, and as you might guess I would never in a million years want to have your perspective with all of its constraints. (Obviously, you would say the same thing about me.) Enjoy your life, though. Even your world is a good one.

The Anonymous who posted this is not Maria Janna.

BTW, I have very beautifully shaped lips, not a pig's lips at all. Even my elder sister who otherwise hates me because she is jealous reluctantly said that. My partner (who was a German by the way) thought my lips were absolutely fantastic. My lips didn't remind him of a pig at all. See, the problem with cyberspace? Just because I don't feel the need to use sexualised language to titillate strange males in cyberspace doesn't mean I look like a pig. :-)

July 6, 2008 11:51 PM

Someone mentioned how the "brothers" would agree with their "Catholic" views.

Someone posted the video link of Nazi Germany association with Muslims...

"The Nazis and the Muslim extremists (not all Muslim people by any means) have very common ideologies and common enemies. They both hate Jews, they are both staunchly against communism, and they both wanted the British out of "Palestine". The Grand Mufti of Palestine was a very influential Muslim leader at the time, almost equivilent to the Pope for catholics. The Grand Mufti was one of Hitler's strongest allies and actively recruited Arabs and Muslims across the world for the S.S. So "Palestine" and the Arabs were not innocent for the many atrocities of world war 2."

"Maria Janna"

Pigs are pigs. That's you. Now quit applying the lipstick.

Anonymous:

"No Catholic would call the "Holy Land" Palestine? I told you why I do. It was the offical name of the region in ancient times ("Palaestina")."

But you didn't type Palaestina- you typed Palestine. Different words.

You screwed up. Get another argument or give up- because everytime you try to pass Palaestina off for Palestine you are just re-applying lipstick to your pig's lips. No one is fooled but you. A pig is a pig.

July 6, 2008 11:34 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As to the metaphor, 'putting lipstick on a pig,' the bloggers on this thread should vote on the winner who fooled bloggers the most. The competition is rather stiff on that score.

"Maria Janna"

Muslims falsely believe that catholics so "idolize" Mary that their men are named after her.

Janna refers to the "garden of paradise" where Muslims who kill themselves for allah think they get the gratification of their flesh they denied themselves on earth (wine, huris (virgins), and ham sandwiches).

You are too young and inexperienced. But please keep posting- we learn from you.

Anonymous:

"No Catholic would call the "Holy Land" Palestine? I told you why I do. It was the offical name of the region in ancient times ("Palaestina")."

But you didn't type Palaestina- you typed Palestine. Different words.

You screwed up. Get another argument or give up- because everytime you try to pass Palaestina off for Palestine you are just re-applying lipstick to your pig's lips. No one is fooled but you. A pig is a pig.

July 6, 2008 11:34 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just in case you were referring to pigs in my house, I don't keep pigs as pets. I prefer to eat them. The quality of pork I can buy in the supermarket is extremely high, so no need to breed pigs myself.

Anonymous:

"No Catholic would call the "Holy Land" Palestine? I told you why I do. It was the offical name of the region in ancient times ("Palaestina")."

But you didn't type Palaestina- you typed Palestine. Different words.

You screwed up. Get another argument or give up- because everytime you try to pass Palaestina off for Palestine you are just re-applying lipstick to your pig's lips. No one is fooled but you. A pig is a pig.

July 6, 2008 11:34 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just in case you are using names of lands as they were in 33 AD, just remember the rest of us wouldn't know which countries you are referring to.

Anonymous:

"No Catholic would call the "Holy Land" Palestine? I told you why I do. It was the offical name of the region in ancient times ("Palaestina")."

But you didn't type Palaestina- you typed Palestine. Different words.

You screwed up. Get another argument or give up- because everytime you try to pass Palaestina off for Palestine you are just re-applying lipstick to your pig's lips. No one is fooled but you. A pig is a pig.

July 6, 2008 11:34 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BTW, I have very beautifully shaped lips, not a pig's lips at all. Even my elder sister who otherwise hates me because she is jealous reluctantly said that. My partner (who was a German by the way) thought my lips were absolutely fantastic. My lips didn't remind him of a pig at all. See, the problem with cyberspace? Just because I don't feel the need to use sexualised language to titillate strange males in cyberspace doesn't mean I look like a pig. :-)

MARIA JANNA, what you write about your Catholicism has nothing to do with the Christian Catholic church. You may refer to the Vatican website for the official teachings. Your version of Christianity is even a bit extreme from a Muslim point of view because even they believe Jesus existed and He was a Jew. It was in acknowledgment of the Jewish origin that Mohammad first asked Muslims to face in the direction of Jerusalem (quibla). It was only later that he changed to direction of the Quibla to Mecca, the pilgrimage place of Arab pagans where Allah the Arab pagan god was worshiped long before the birth of Mohammad.

Mohammad reformed polytheistic Arab paganism by borrowing from Judaism and Christianity. He converted it into a fully political religion in his day. All Arab tribes had to submit to his political rule and to Allah. The political submission was required first, the religious conversion went hand in hand until political rule was established. After that non-Muslims were no longer required to convert, they were treated as second class by being forced to pay extra taxes (which served as an incentive to conversion), and the tolerance of non-Muslims depended on the whim of the Muslim ruler.

"No Catholic would call the "Holy Land" Palestine? I told you why I do. It was the offical name of the region in ancient times ("Palaestina")."

But you didn't type Palaestina- you typed Palestine. Different words.

You screwed up. Get another argument or give up- because everytime you try to pass Palaestina off for Palestine you are just re-applying lipstick to your pig's lips. No one is fooled but you. A pig is a pig.

Jihadist:

“How a Muslim interprets Christian Scripture does not concern a Christian.”

Uhhhh! So, Muslims should take that observation and ignore posts by non-Muslims on Islam, the Qur’an, Muslims etc that littered this thread.

Confucius did not say but should have said:

He who explodes on other faiths is imploding on his own faith.

Cheers
“J”

July 6, 2008 7:52 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Unfortunately the Quran is full of "corrected" Scripture of Jews and Christians. That gives Jews and Christians the right to comment on the distortions of their Scripture in the Quran.

History of Islam and comparison of other religions from a historical perspective is a secular topic. Comparison of biographies of founders, Scripture vs historical misdeeds either in accordance with Scripture or in violation of it is a secular discussion.

Confusion could not have said what you did because he was not so confused and biased as you. Besides he was more wise than he was intelligent. You are more intelligent than you are wise. Considerable and important difference when discussing religions.

Maria Janna:

ANONYMOUS,

you're truly an ignorant, unintelligent person.

(1) On the figures:

(a) From the beginning it was meant as a joke to ridicule Sobia, because she spoke of "Christian countries" and propagated that the conflicts were essentially religious wars.

(b) Why did Catholics come in at 21.7%? Easy, because in the US and UK there are also large numbers of Catholics. At least you're very clear on your anonymous stupidity.

(2) On Palestine:

No Catholic would call the "Holy Land" Palestine? I told you why I do. It was the offical name of the region in ancient times ("Palaestina"). Get educated and stop spreading this modern, deranged Judaeo-Christian BS.

(3) Islam:

I don't "view" Christianity from the angle of a Muslim. I scrutinize Christian writings, and for that I also sometimes look into the Qur'an, not for spiritual answers, but for cross-reference, as part of a very pragmatic approach.

(4) Existence of Jesus:

I don't "believe" Jesus didn't exist. There must be historicity to the story and this literary character, otherwise Christianity wouldn't have been so successful, now would it? Your intellectual meekness shows even in this context: I was not talking about "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ", I was talking about "Jesus [or Yeshua] of Nazareth", the propagated historical person behind the Son of Man. And in this case it's not about believing, it's only about looking at the facts: to this day there is not a single piece of evidence that this person called "Jesus [or Yeshua] of Nazareth" ever existed. "Jesus Christ" however, who is the Christian God, surely exists. At this very moment.

(5) I'm a "Muslim who chooses to remain a member of the Catholic church for an undisclosed reason"?

Yeah, you've displayed a similar lack of intelligence before. If a Christian person doesn't accord to your idea of being "Christian", he's got to be a Muslim. LOL. You know what they call people like you? Radical. Anti-liberal. Anti-Christian (or Anti-Catholic). Narrowminded. Misguided. ETC.

So I would definitely second the other poster: Stop blogging. See a therapist. Get a life.

July 6, 2008 9:47 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. a. Sorry the joke wasn't so apparent. You announced your scientific leanings all the time.

1. b. Church of England is the official Christian church in the UK. There are two British houses of Parliaments which decide matters about war. In the House of Lords there are Anglican clergy not Catholic priests. The number of Catholics in both houses of Parliament is not the majority. PM Tony Blair was an Anglican until he left public office. He does not get to make independent decisions in government. He needs a non-Catholic majority. Tony Blair was punished for his folly regarding Iraq.

The public , including the Catholics, does not vote on matters of war, UK or anywhere else. Just in case you missed it, millions of people in all of the countries of the "Coalition of the Willing" took to the streets and protested against the invasion of Iraq. It was the greatest anti-war protest in history. In the US President GWB had to twist some things to get last minute approval from Congress to invade Iraq. Colin Powell who presents "facts" in the UN to justify the war resigned. GWB's unpopularity in the US and in the rest of the world is due to the invasion of Iraq.

There is no such thing as 21.7% Catholics making the decision to invade Iraq. The Vatican sent an official delegation to the White House protesting against the invasion of Iraq. Pope John Paul II make public appeals against the war. That is the official stand of the Catholic Church.

Many heads of Protestant denominations similarly made official protests.

All the governments of the "Coalition of the Willing" are secular. GWB is Methodist, Tony Blair (was) Anglican. None of them were acting on the instruction of their pastors or forging foreign policies from the New Testament.

Afghanistan: Even Muslim nations approved of getting to terrorists hidden there.

2. Roman Catholics and Palestine as Holy Land - The 1.3 billion Catholics and all other Christian denominations refer to present day Israel (Jerusalem and other places mentioned in NT situated in current Israel) as Holy Land. Similarly 2.3 billion Christians, including Jews, believe Jesus was a historical figure, confirmed by Jewish and secular Roman sources. You cannot be a Christian Catholic if you call the Judeo-Christian tradition BS.

3. Islam: Looking to the Quran to confirm Christianity is like looking to Greek fables to confirm the history of ancient China. Mohammad was born nearly seven centuries later in far away Arabia. He became familiar with Jewish and Christian Scripture because of the contact he had with those who lived locally and those he met during his business travels to Syria. The Jews and Christians of his day opposed his reinvented version of their own Scripture.

4. Historical Jesus is confirmed by Jews (Josephus) and secular Roman historian (Tacitus), besides many Christian sources. In the time of Nero there was great persecution of Christians. CCNL has provided sources.

5. No Christian, leave alone Catholics, among the 2.3 billion would claim that Jesus didn't exist, and if He did, He could not have been a Jew etc. The official beliefs of the Catholic Church is publicly available. You have a version of Catholicism that is your own "pragmatic" fantasy.

You may blog away as long as you like. Just remember to add a footnote that everything you write is your pragmatic fantasy.

Hi Jed,

I will have to respond to your last post on Tuesday. Thanks!

Hi Pam,

I have to respond to your last post in which you said,

"You are utterly brainwashed and appallingly ignorant. You can fix this. A trip to the library is in order. Bear in mind that books on evolution do *not* argue against God. They don't even mention God."

As a Christian it is my contention that you are the one who is brainwashed by evolutionary dogma. Books on evolution do exactly that, they argue against God by implication and contradiction of His Word. You are ignorant of what God says if you believe that evolution does not argue against God.

Evolution is the myth created in the minds of men. It is a subjective opinion in that it is formed by minds that do not know everything and therefore are not objective in analysing the data, which is constantly changing as man supposedly learns more.

Hi Jed,

JED: "I believe his assertion here is that people who say they do not believe in God are only “pretending” and in their heart of hearts, they secretly agree with him that God exists.

Call it pretension, deception, self-delusion, it's all covered in God's word. Check out Roman's 1:18-25, esp. verse 21)

You know God exists. It is just more comfortable and convenient for your lifestyle in your rebellion to pretend otherwise so that your are the one who is the final authority, in control of your destiny, which for the atheist in his delusion is ceaseless non-existence at death.

JED: "Perhaps he would extend this to say that people who do not believe in his particular version of God, such as Buddhists, Shinto believers, Jews, Muslims and others are also “pretending” and they really know that he is right, but they don’t want to admit it (perhaps even to themselves)."

It is not my particular version of God but what God Himself reveals in His Word. There is only one true God and "true worshipers will worship Him in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is Spirit, and His worshipers MUST worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

If you want to worship God in truth you have to worship Him how He has revealed Himself rather than by making an idol in your mind or physically to represent God. If you don't worship God as He is you worship an idol, something you have made up. One thing is certain, all religions do not lead to God for they are contradictory and state different things. God does not speak out of both sides of His mouth saying one thing to a Buddhist and another to a Muslim and then another to a Christian. Christianity is a progression of God's revelation to humanity that started with Adam, was made known to the Jews and had it's culmination in the Lord Jesus Christ. All of the Jewish Scriptures speak and reveal the Lord Jesus Christ as God's plan of redemption unfolds.

All world religions including your religion of atheism are exclusive in that they claim/believe, that their particular brand is the truth. Only in the Judeo-Christian faith can sense be made of reality, because only in God is the real made known.

JED: "This is an extraordinary argument, and not one that I have heard before. It presupposes that Huff and his fellow Christians are the only intellectually honest people on earth, and everyone else is lying."

It is not on my testimony that I said, but on the word of God. If you believe I misrepresent what He says point to chapter and verse so we can discuss it. That is where I point you to.

God has said it is impossible for Him to lie (Hebrews 6:18; Numbers 23:19) because He is the knower of all things. His integrity, His character, His Being does not change for He is perfect (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17, etc)

JED: "It is possible that Huff and his group are right, but it is NOT possible that they are only the only honest people on earth, and the rest of us are only “pretending” we believe what we say, or we are crazy, or deluded. If the majority of people could be so dysfunctional, our species would not have survived."

It survives by the grace of God. If man was left to himself without the influence of God in this world it would be pure hell, someday what all unbelievers will face. I do not claim for myself infallibility or inerrancy, for that is only found in God, but I can know with certainty truth because what God reveals is truth.

JED: "In any case, his argument could never convince me, because it is tantamount to telling me that I do not know my own mind, and I don’t really think what I think I think. The same argument works just as well against him, or against anyone making any assertion. “You don’t actually believe what you just said” is unanswerable. It is a universal solvent, or “get out of jail card.” It is also impossible to prove or falsify and therefore invalid."

No, that is true, I can't convince you for the mind without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14). Only God can convince you and make you alive spiritually to Him (Romans 10:17; John 6:44, etc)

All I can do is point out the foolishness of your wisdom, for you as the creature are puffed and exulted by your knowledge; a knowledge that cannot make sense of how or why you are here. Are you just an accident, caused by a random chance happening? Why should a random, chance explosion plan or organize anything? Why from such a beginning should anything have intelligence? Why from a material beginning do we have intangibles that are immaterial?

You as an atheist want to talk about what is and is not possible or believable to you by using your own foundation from the building blocks that the Creator has supplied to construct a house built on sand. All I am doing is reminding you that it is not wise to build on such an unstable foundation because sooner or later it is going to collapse with you inside.

JED: "Huff should perhaps learn a little more logic and less theology."

Logic tells me that every effect has a cause and God is that cause. The Big Bang is an effect that leaves you trying to make sense of the senseless. Can you tell me what caused the supposed Big Bang and how and why it happened? No, you cannot make sense of it.

You start with the wrong presupposition, from a foundation built in mid-air (i.e. it does not have a foundation), and from that you draw conclusions that are false and continue to draw on your false assumptions using your imaginary foundation as your base, ever ascending imaginarily upwards from molecules to man.

The is no neutrality; either we are created or all this happened by chance. Where do you see things happening by chance in this universe?

Maria Janna:

I missed this earlier remark by ANONYMOUS:

"Even your chosen name of "Maria" speaks of how ill-informed you are about real Catholics."

MJ: I guess you didn't get the pun that is implied in the name "Maria Janna". The name "Maria" was not important, only the combination of "Maria" and "Janna". Now I suggest you pick up some encyclopedia on etymology or names… and then put two and two together.

July 6, 2008 8:20 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Janna may be both male and female names; Janna not common as male first name; used as first female name

Janna in German pronounced as Yanne

Maria + Janna = Marianna = Female

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ,

Please stop referring me to Catholic Web sites and quotes from Catholic theologians. Is it not yet clear to you that they make not the least impression on me? I *know* what your side thinks. I know the arguments. I was raised by religious parents, and I was dragged to church. I've read your Bible. I don't find any of it in the least compelling. Quite the reverse, actually.

By contrast, you know nothing of the scientific side except what has been passed through a strong theological filter. You are utterly brainwashed and appallingly ignorant. You can fix this. A trip to the library is in order. Bear in mind that books on evolution do *not* argue against God. They don't even mention God.

There is not one thing that you wrote in your last post that stands up to any kind of scrutiny. Even point 1 is not unequivocally true.

Educate yourself.

Peter, if you intend to offer the same sort of evidence as TTW, don't bother.

I missed this earlier remark by ANONYMOUS:

"Even your chosen name of "Maria" speaks of how ill-informed you are about real Catholics."

MJ: I guess you didn't get the pun that is implied in the name "Maria Janna". The name "Maria" was not important, only the combination of "Maria" and "Janna". Now I suggest you pick up some encyclopedia on etymology or names… and then put two and two together.

Peter Huff wrote:

“Well I asked you "How do you make sense of the world" and you said "I don't." If you can't make sense of it what can you make sense of?”

I can make sense of things which are ordered. The world is chaotic, and has no meaning, sense or purpose, except for that which we ourselves invent. (See: existentialism)

“You live in it and are a part of it. If you can't make sense of it . . .”

You seem to be implying that a rational mind cannot perceive chaos. If I cannot make sense of something, that may be because there is no sense to be made.

“. . . you prove my point that the atheist may complain about the Christian being able to know with certainty because God has revealed truth about the world while all the time the atheist has no answers of his own.

That is not my assertion. Yes, I have no answers, but neither do you. You only imagine that you do. You long for answers so much that you have invented them out of whole cloth. You also imagine that I agree secretly with you, or that I am jealous.

JED: "99.99999%. Not sure how to calibrate but..."
How sure are you that you are 99.99999% sure?

Could you be remotely wrong on the numbers?"

I made up the numbers. That’s a joke. Yes, of course there is remote possibility that I am wrong. Anyone anywhere can always be wrong, including you. You do not recognize that fact, because you believe your knowledge comes from God, but you could be wrong about that, too. I think it is more likely that your knowledge of God comes from a book written by some ordinary person ages ago. That person was wrong, and you are wrong, too.

"ME: “How do you know the evolutionary scientists are right?”
JED: 'The evidence is strongly in their favor.'
No it is not. That is the way you believe it to be.”

Yes, I believe it based on evidence and careful study of the data, but as Darwin himself readily admitted -- and as every scientist will always readily admit -- I might be wrong. It is as much a part of our creed to admit we are imperfect as it is part of your creed to insist that you are certain and your knowledge is perfect. This is a clash of cultures. You should realize that when Darwin admitted he might be mistaken, he was not weakening his argument but bolstering it. I imagine you find that a tough concept to wrap your head around!

"It is the evolutionary scientist who has misinterpreted the evidence . . .

They and I don't think so, but you could be right!

". . . and this is just one of the myriad of differences we have in our worldviews."

Worldviews have nothing to do with it. Science in not subjective. Anyone, from any culture can understand it, and with proper logic will arrive at the same conclusions Darwin did. I know many Japanese people whose culture is as different from Darwin’s as can be in the modern world, but they have no difficulty understanding and accepting his arguments.

"Charles Darwin admitted there were many difficulties with his theory of which he listed some in Chapter 9 of Origins of Species. From his writings you can also see doubts and uncertainty in what he said by his use of words. Such words as 'the facts SEEMED to me' 'no doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone.'"

Exactly right! You think that admission weakens his argument, but from his point of view, and mine, it strengthens it. Knowing the extent of uncertainty is essential. When you admit no uncertainty, that makes your argument null and void. No conclusion is airtight. An argument that cannot be falsified (disproved) is invalid by definition. If you cannot show me several ways show that your assertion might be tested and found wrong, then you do not know how it could be right.

"No doubt errors will have crept in" is the bedrock basis of all science. If you don't admit you might be wrong, and you do not, cannot or will not point out the weaknesses of your own argument, you are not to be believed.

“What this is all about is that you want to be the one in control, you want to be in authority, the one who decides what is good and what is not, but in doing so you deceive yourself because you are a subjective being with limited knowledge and if you want to know the truth you need to humble yourself and look to Him who is the knower of all things.”

You have it backward. I am somewhat objective because I can depend upon instruments and observations of nature to test my knowledge. You are a subjective being. You have no standards, no proof and no way to test or falsify your beliefs. You do NOT want to be in control. You want to cede that power to God. But God does not exist, and whether you like it or not, you are the only authority, and you must choose for yourself what is right and wrong. You can, of course, deny your own freedom and borrow your choices from someone else, or from an ancient or modern document written by some other person. You deceive yourself into thinking that your choices come from the almighty, but they come from some other ordinary mortal person.

“JED: "No doubt you are honestly convinced of that, but the fact that you are honest and certain proves nothing to me. People are often certain yet incorrect."
That is right, and without God how do you arrive at truth. Do you decide what truth is? Is truth your subjective opinion?”

No, it is based on objective, based on instrument readings, observations, logic and other methods that transcend culture and time. It is the same in all countries, unlike religion. Logic and science are not perfect, but they are not subjective, either, and not culture-bound.

“JED: "As far as I can tell, your creator is a figment of your imagination."
Yes, that is as far as you can tell because you discount my testimony and even greater the testimony of God Himself, so you are left with skepticism.”

Not skepticism. This is a misunderstanding. Read Bacon.

ME: "How do you establish objective events? You see the world through your eyes."
JED: "You use instruments, not your eyes."
So the instrument tells you "this is the truth?"

Yes, more reliably than any book ever written, or any religion.

“JED: " . . . Weight scales and mass spectrometers are perfectly objective. People are not."
You said it, people are not. If they are not then how do you know they are correctly interpreting the data?”

By doing more experiments, and by having other people replicate. By building upon the foundation, and always, always going back to nature to check the result.

"We are not only talking weights and measures here, we are talking of events that happened in the past that none one (except God) was here to witness."

Any event that happened in the past and left traces, such as the big bang, can be studied with objective instruments. (Not weights and measures in the case of the big bang, but radiotelescopes.)

“JED: "Experiments fail because they are done by people, who are imperfect. But you can be reasonably sure they work on average more often than not.
Reasonably sure doesn't sound too sure to me.”

You misinterpret the phrase. This is how people like me say: “very sure; close to certain.” You might call it the "false diffidence."

“It sounds doubtful, like everything is up in the air. Are you going to believe it or not? Let's toss a coin.”

Let’s toss a thousand coins instead. How much do you want to bet that 900 of them will come up heads? You probably realize that is unlikely. Not absolutely impossible, but extremely unlikely. The likelihood that hundreds of experiments are all wrong is far smaller than the likelihood of your coming up with 900 heads. The possibility that Darwin was wrong and the life did not evolve based on the principles of natural selection is, I suppose, roughly as likely as coming up with 1 million heads in a row.

ME: "How many times do evolutionary scientist change their mind?"
JED: "As often as needed. Whenever they discover they are wrong."
So how do you know they are right in what they state?"

You know because the latest version of their theory fits the facts better than the previous versions. The theory is more right than it was before. But there are always unanswered questions and loose ends. The longer it lasts, the more problems arise and the weaker it seems.

You might think of the revisions as new versions of Microsoft Windows. Each version is an improvement over the previous one: easier to use, safer, less likely to crash. Although, in some ways, the improved version may be less satisfactory. The new version may have new mistakes, or it may reveal weaknesses and contradictions that were there all along. Even if we continue making Windows computers for another 100 years, the operating system will never approach perfection. There will always be countless problems and complaints about it, and ways to improve it. Anyone who works with a Windows computer can think of a dozen ways to make it work better. Any scientific theory is like that! It is always a work in progress. Always progressing, but never perfect or finished.

“Well you can live in your untruth and uncertainty, but by the grace of God I strive to live in His light for "In [God's] light we see light."

You also live in untruth and uncertainty. You believe otherwise, but this is wishful thinking.

“The proof is all around you. . . . To think that personality can come from anything other than a personal Being, that ethics, thinking, intelligence and logic can come from non-living, unthinking, unintelligent, illogical matter, rather than a Being, that complexity can come from chaotic, chance beginnings and without any trace of evidence for your conclusions? Where are the examples of these things happening or having ever happened?”

The proof is all around you. It happened, it is happening now, and will for as long as life survives. As Darwin said, “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

"Without God there is no certainty; it is all subjective speculation. That is what I am driving at."

Not subjective. Science is objective speculation, based on instrument readings. You are quite right that there is no certainty without God. We agree completely on that point.

“Actually, God has revealed in His word your enmity and hatred towards Him . . .”

I do not hate imaginary beings. I no more hate God than you hate Santa Claus or Winnie the Pooh.

You did not respond to my comment. You should reconsider the notion that anyone who disagrees with you actually agrees but will not admit it. This is a peculiar argument.

- Jed

test

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

IN REPLY TO (IRT )
PAM
EVOLUTION When It Comes to Predicating the Origins of Man is a failure:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

EVOLUTION:
HISTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES OF EVOLUTION:

“The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:–

1. "The origin of life is unknown to science.

2. "The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.

3. "There is no evidence in favor of an ascending evolution of organic forms.

4. "There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favor of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens, as we know him today.

5. "Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or salutatory evolution. Changes, which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.

6. "There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only.

"The molding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present, we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation.”

In our opinion, the principle of "Mendelian segregation,” together with Darwin's natural selection and the molding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

The attempts of Evolution to determine the origins of man are unequivocally a failure. Moreover, Evolution’s formal object is material being, and its methods are not methods of determining the origin of the Universe much less determining the origin of man.

Facts Relating to the Evolution Of Species, the Palæontological Argument The Morphological Argument, the Ontogenetic Argument; and the

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

Thus, anyone who wishes to denigrate his self-worth and open themselves up to the treatment to no more than that of a dog is welcomed to adhere to the theory of Darwin's theory of Evolution.

The Communist and Fascist have adopted such godless social depravity proffered by the atheists and agnostics.

The consequences of their denial of a Compassionate Creator and the clinging to a decadent ideology of Communism and all forms of materialism are tragically personified by the former regimes as Nazi Germany, the USSR, and East Germany, while in contemporary times they are portrayed in China, the Sudan, the Congo, Cambodia, and North Korea.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ quoted this:

"The spiritual soul of man, by contrast, cannot be a product of evolution. It is also not "brought forth" from the parents"

MJ: This was even true in Pre-Christian times. The spirit itself comes from "spiritus", and it means nothing but breath, air, life etc.. So the spirit is per definition not produced by evolution. At the most, it's a product of the product of evolution. The same goes for the term "anima", which is the correct Roman word for the "soul": it also means "wind", "breeze", "air" etc. (Corresponds to Greek "pneuma", which was later also the word for the Holy Spirit.)

Atheists often don't know that when they call man "just an animal", it is specifically implied that the "animal" has a soul ("anima"). Or the other way round, it could also mean that the soul (different from the spirit) is inseparably connected to the body. Who knows?!

The interesting thing in this context is that the other Greek word for soul, namely "psuchê" (psyche) has exactly taken this other road, away from the religious realm: today we mostly connect it to bodily phenomena only, the brain, neurons, PSYCHology etc.

Here we are in 2008 still playing out the Scopes Monkey Trail of 1925 - creationism vs evolution.

If there was ever stronger evidence for the vast power of religious brain-washing vs the sanity of science and rational thought, I'd like to know what it is.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the obvious truth of the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection. It should be part of everyone's education - and there's plenty of popular literature available to round out one's perspective on the subject. It's established beyond doubt, but the creationists are still living in 1925!

On this thread we find them composing tracts that dispute evolution, and with great enthusiasm and certainty. I tip my hat to those posters that have again tried to educate the biblists, but until they have their own epiphany with the real truth - forget it.

Living in the South, and working in a hospital environment, I see large crowds of folks in waiting areas - many are reading. What are they reading? Their bibles, of course - an extension of the bible study groups that many attend. One can't imagine how pervasive this complete devotion to the literal word of the bible actually is, until you witness it first hand in a largely Protestant environment.....needless to say, this is a universal phenomenon deeply embedded in Southern culture, and without regard for race or gender.

I actually have to listen to prayers being said in group meetings, when it is patently in violation of federal law.

And you begin to realize why half of our population in the USA prefers creationism over evolution - the social reinforcement and simple repetition of religious 'truth' to be found in church culture simply can't be matched by a conventional education system - which naturally is quite sympathetic to the overwhelmingly religious orientation of the general student/parent population. Churches on every street corner is no exaggeration.

It's no wonder that religion as a political reality is still very much a part of our current election environment - and deeply unfortunate. With mere months left, we really don't have any idea where the candidates actually stand on many issues, or what their plans may be for addressing the monumental mess left behind by the Bush administration - all thanks to another man of the book.

IN REPLY TO (IRT )
PAM
EVOLUTION
MATTER IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO. THE SPIRITUAL SOUL OF MAN

ANS:
It is written, “But you are not in the flesh, but the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin: but the spirit liveth, because of justification.

And if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; He that raised up Jesus Christ, from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live—Romans 9:9 cf.”

“As Michelangelo finished working on his statue of Moses, he is said to have thrown his chisel at it and cried out: 'speak!' No work of art, not even the most perfect one, can exhaustively express all that the artist envisions." Nor, will it ever speak, because it has no human soul.

"But there is something that is unmistakably proper to human natures. Namely, it is their own power of acting that has been implanted in them by the Creator.

It enables them to grow and to act on their own so that they can reach their end without being coerced from without but by way of acting from the impulse of their own nature. Every being in nature seems to know what it has to do.

St. Thomas says that 'nature' is an 'inner principle' on the basis of which each thing does what corresponds to its nature. He traces this inner principle back to the “ars divina,” the art of the Creator, who has 'implanted' in creatures their self-development and self-organization. (Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, In physicorum, lib. 2, lec. 14, n. 8)

It does not contradict faith to hold that the human body originated in some already existing living matter. The spiritual soul of man, by contrast, cannot be a product of evolution.

The soul is immortal, as philosophers since Socrates have understood. Some of them in fact thought that the soul must therefore be eternal.

Against this view the Church teaches that 'souls are immediately created by God.'" They cannot be created by matter; matter is the antithesis of the spiritual.

"Man’s soul is immediately created by God. This is the firm and clear doctrine of the Church, a doctrine that just applies concretely in the biblical teaching about man being created in a special way, that is, as the only living being created 'in the image and likeness of God' (cf. Genesis 1:26).

This statement is found in the famous passage of the 1950 encyclical, 'Humani Generis,' where Pius XII says that it does not contradict faith to hold that the human body originated in some already existing living matter." Hence, Evolution can only go as far as the origin of the body, but not man, who is body and soul.

The spiritual soul of man, by contrast, cannot be a product of evolution. It is also not "brought forth" from the parents (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #366). It is immediately created by God.

It is true that, according to the second creation account in Genesis, man is taken from the earth and formed by God from the earth; but he became a living being and a man only through the 'breath of life' that God breathed into him (Genesis 2:7).

Man is united with all living beings through his earthly origin, but he is man only through the soul that God breathed into him. This confers on him an un-substitutable dignity, but also a very special responsibility; thus he is raised above all other living beings and at the same time, he is ordained to be their shepherd."

Man is raised above all creatures in dignity, sanctity, and intelligence by the presence of his ability to reason, and because he is a creature made to the image and likeness of God.

Moreover he is exalted above all other creatures in the Universe because he has been endowed by his creator with a freewill that enables him to choose his destiny.

Those who believe they are no different than the animals deprecate their dignity, sanctity, and their self-worth. In doing so they open themselves to be treated as we do to any animal. Hence animals are bred, when they become useless or aged and infirm they can be eliminated or euthanized.

In general those who hold we are all animals, support Abortion, and euthanasia. Both of these iniquities deprecate of the sanctity and dignity of human life.

ANONYMOUS,

you're truly an ignorant, unintelligent person.

(1) On the figures:

(a) From the beginning it was meant as a joke to ridicule Sobia, because she spoke of "Christian countries" and propagated that the conflicts were essentially religious wars.

(b) Why did Catholics come in at 21.7%? Easy, because in the US and UK there are also large numbers of Catholics. At least you're very clear on your anonymous stupidity.

(2) On Palestine:

No Catholic would call the "Holy Land" Palestine? I told you why I do. It was the offical name of the region in ancient times ("Palaestina"). Get educated and stop spreading this modern, deranged Judaeo-Christian BS.

(3) Islam:

I don't "view" Christianity from the angle of a Muslim. I scrutinize Christian writings, and for that I also sometimes look into the Qur'an, not for spiritual answers, but for cross-reference, as part of a very pragmatic approach.

(4) Existence of Jesus:

I don't "believe" Jesus didn't exist. There must be historicity to the story and this literary character, otherwise Christianity wouldn't have been so successful, now would it? Your intellectual meekness shows even in this context: I was not talking about "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ", I was talking about "Jesus [or Yeshua] of Nazareth", the propagated historical person behind the Son of Man. And in this case it's not about believing, it's only about looking at the facts: to this day there is not a single piece of evidence that this person called "Jesus [or Yeshua] of Nazareth" ever existed. "Jesus Christ" however, who is the Christian God, surely exists. At this very moment.

(5) I'm a "Muslim who chooses to remain a member of the Catholic church for an undisclosed reason"?

Yeah, you've displayed a similar lack of intelligence before. If a Christian person doesn't accord to your idea of being "Christian", he's got to be a Muslim. LOL. You know what they call people like you? Radical. Anti-liberal. Anti-Christian (or Anti-Catholic). Narrowminded. Misguided. ETC.

So I would definitely second the other poster: Stop blogging. See a therapist. Get a life.

And still there is one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! Maybe there is a reading comprehension problem amongst the Islamic commentators on this blog. Once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were viewing which resulted in the very odd statistics.

Anonymous : "Unable to view comments on this thread and unable to post comments. Anyone else with the same problem?"

No problem. Just not posting and being a spectator here going by this gem of a post from an Anonymous addressed to HL on July 5, 2008 12:25 AM

“How a Muslim interprets Christian Scripture does not concern a Christian.”

Uhhhh! So, Muslims should take that observation and ignore posts by non-Muslims on Islam, the Qur’an, Muslims etc that littered this thread.

Some paranoia among some posters too, accusing one another of being, or not being Jewish or Muslim or Catholic.

Confucius did not say but should have said:

He who explodes on other faiths is imploding on his own faith.

Very entertaining blog brawl actually, going on here.

Cheers
“J”

I can't understand how this is occuring but three of my post have had ANONOMOUS's ID in place of mine. The last two just happened yesterday.

This thread seems to be blocked. Unable to view even comments leave alone post any.

Unable to view comments on this thread and unable to post comments. Anyone else with the same problem?

Dear "Zum Kotzen" Anonymous,

why don't you read what I wrote before you "vomit" (kotzen) your nonsense? When I wrote -

"All monotheistic religions were IMPOSED by FORCE of some dominant figures or small power groups. (Moses, Emperor Theodosius (Jesus didn't invent Christianity!), MOHAMED). They are never a result of free use of original brain power of an individual."

- it takes an incredible amount of illogic (aka as stupidity) to arrive at the conclusion that this statement represents the idea of a "useful idiot" (I am well aware of Lenin's quotation), appeasing or favoring Islam. You forgot: Islam was founded by Mohamed, who'd have thunk!

My post was intended to explain some arguments in favor of my arriving at atheism. Oh, well...

People use their (available) brain power to corroborate their prejudices - q.e.d.

Still unable to view the comments @530 now. Anyone else having the same problem?

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the term "useful idiot" has also been used by some commentators to describe individuals said to take a softer line against Islamism and terrorism. For example, Anthony Browne wrote in the United Kingdom newspaper, The Times:

“ Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots."

Similarly, Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno wrote:

“ Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam."

Unable to view comments on this thread alone. Anyone else having the same problem?

Hi Jed,

I just read your last post. I will try to get back to you tomorrow. Thanks!

Hi Pam,

I have not forgotten about you, but TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ is doing fine in his rebuttal of evolution. I will add if I get time. Please see my comment to Jed.

testing

Hi Jed,

"ME: “How do you make sense of the world you live in?”
JED: "I don’t. The world does not make sense . . .
So you are not making sense then. I'll agree with that."

JED: "I said the world does not make sense. That’s not the same as asserting that I am not making sense."

Well I asked you "How do you make sense of the world" and you said "I don't." If you can't make sense of it what can you make sense of? You live in it and are a part of it. If you can't make sense of it you prove my point that the atheist may complain about the Christian being able to know with certainty because God has revealed truth about the world while all the time the atheist has no answers of his own. He just doesn't know. All he can do is use the intellect God has graciously given him to deny and suppress God's existence.

"JED: 'You can never be absolutely sure of the truth you discover.'

ME: "So you have a situation here where Jed is sure but not absolutely sure, so how sure is he?"

JED: "99.99999%. Not sure how to calibrate but..."

How sure are you that you are 99.99999% sure? Could you be remotely wrong on the numbers?
There is always the big but with you guys. I've had this same conversation before with Timmy, another atheist.

"ME: “How do you know the evolutionary scientists are right?”
JED: 'The evidence is strongly in their favor.'

No it is not. That is the way you believe it to be.

ME: "It depends on how you look at the evidence. Facts do not interpret themselves, they are interpreted in the context of a greater worldview."

JED: "This is correct, and important. Many people, such as creationists, have misinterpreted the facts. So I should have said: the evolutionary scientists have both the evidence AND logic in their favor."

It is the evolutionary scientist who has misinterpreted the evidence and this is just one of the myriad of differences we have in our worldviews. Since it is getting late and I have an early day planned tomorrow I will try and make this quick. Charles Darwin admitted there were many difficulties with his theory of which he listed some in Chapter 9 of Origins of Species. From his writings you can also see doubts and uncertainty in what he said by his use of words. Such words as "the facts SEEMED to me" "no doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone." And the list of doubts and uncertainties goes on and on. I listened to a PBS program on Evolution a few years back (I actually recorded it) and on playing it back I was able to count a large number of times in which the narrator said, "We believe" "we think" "it's uncertain" "it's possible" and a host of other words of doubt while trying to convince the general public of the truth of evolution. As Darwin said in his preface to Origins, he hoped he was trusting good authorities. That is just my point. Man is trying to interpret the universe and everything in it using his own subjective reference points, his own logical powers to describe his existence and the facts of creation as though these facts existed apart from God. You in your limited knowledge, certainty (or lack of) and logic are doing exactly what Satan did in the Garden by suggesting "Did God really say?" The entrance of sin allowed a false interpretation of reality where man took the place of God in interpreting God's universe.

"When the woman saw the fruit of the tree was good for food [She made the decision that it was good independently of God, hence evil, even though God had told Adam and Eve not to eat of it] and pleasant to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it." (Genesis 3:6a)

What this is all about is that you want to be the one in control, you want to be in authority, the one who decides what is good and what is not, but in doing so you deceive yourself because you are a subjective being with limited knowledge and if you want to know the truth you need to humble yourself and look to Him who is the knower of all things.

"You or I are not unbiased, but I know of One who is because He created the facts and things unfold the way He designed them to work."

JED: "No doubt you are honestly convinced of that, but the fact that you are honest and certain proves nothing to me. People are often certain yet incorrect."

That is right, and without God how do you arrive at truth. Do you decide what truth is? Is truth your subjective opinion?

JED: "As far as I can tell, your creator is a figment of your imagination."

Yes, that is as far as you can tell because you discount my testimony and even greater the testimony of God Himself, so you are left with skepticism.

"JED: . . .The only way to establish the truth is with objective events -- experiments and observations of nature. You can never be absolutely sure of the truth you discover."

ME: "How do you establish objective events? You see the world through your eyes."

JED: "You use instruments, not your eyes."

So the instrument tells you "this is the truth?"

ME: "Are you the objective seer?"

JED: "Nope. Weight scales and mass spectrometers are perfectly objective. People are not."

You said it, people are not. If they are not then how do you know they are correctly interpreting the data? We are not only talking weights and measures here, we are talking of events that happened in the past that none one (except God) was here to witness.

JED: "Experiments fail because they are done by people, who are imperfect. But you can be reasonably sure they work on average more often than not.

Reasonably sure doesn't sound too sure to me. It sounds doubtful, like everything is up in the air. Are you going to believe it or not? Let's toss a coin.

ME: "How many times do evolutionary scientist change their mind?"

JED: "As often as needed. Whenever they discover they are wrong."

So how do you know they are right in what they state?

ME: "The Big Bang time-line is constantly changing as we supposedly learn more about science."

JED: "That’s right. There is no certainty in science, and no end point. It never reaches perfection. That bothers people like you who crave certainty, but it never bothers people like me."

Well you can live in your untruth and uncertainty, but by the grace of God I strive to live in His light for "In [God's] light we see light."

JED: We don’t mind being a little unsure. As Ashley Montague put it: “Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.”

The proof is all around you. You live in God's creation and are a part of it. The detail, complexity, microscopic, magnitude, and grandeur! To think that you can just materialize with a Big Bang is certainly gullible thinking. To think that personality can come from anything other than a personal Being, that ethics, thinking, intelligence and logic can come from non-living, unthinking, unintelligent, illogical matter, rather than a Being, that complexity can come from chaotic, chance beginnings and without any trace of evidence for your conclusions? Where are the examples of these things happening or having ever happened?

"ME: “Without an absolute, ultimate, objective truth and Being it is all uncertain and subject to change, therefore what can be known for certain?”
JED: "Nothing can be known for certain."
Are you absolutely certain of that?"

JED: "Nope. Fairly certain, but not absolutely."

Ah yes the skeptic. Never certain.

ME: "You state a certainty that nothing can be known for certain at the same time denying it."

JED: "I state with high confidence, not perfect certainty."

Only with God is it possible to know something as it really is, although not to the same detail for He knows every facet of everything, but we are limited. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

"So what am I to believe other than the fact that you are very confused?"

JED: "YOU are perfectly certain of your religious beliefs, but being certain is no guarantee of being right. I am sure you know that people who believe in Islam or Buddhism and various other religions are as certain as you are, and yet you think they are wrong."

Without God there is no certainty; it is all subjective speculation. That is what I am driving at.

Buddhism is illogical, Islam came after God revealed Himself in Scripture and Islam contradicts Christianity. God has promised in His word that it will remain perfect forever and He is able to do so. You do not believe Him so you are going to be led by your presuppositions, "Did God really say?"

"Frankly, people who pretend there is no God . . . "

JED: "I am not pretending. You should learn that other people mean what they say. I am sure that you mean what you say, and sincerely do believe in God. You should realize that I mean what I say, too. You weaken your own argument, and make believers look bad. Your imagination and sympathy are apparently so stunted that you cannot even imagine that other people sincerely disagree with you. Other people are profoundly different from you. I sense that you lack wisdom and maturity when you fail to see this."

Actually, God has revealed in His word your enmity and hatred towards Him, so I expect nothing less unless God has mercy on you and opens your eyes, ears, heart to the truth of who He is and what He has done. Unless that happens you will continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (Romans 1:18; 7:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, etc.)

TTWS writes:
"HERE ARE THE SOURCES USED TO DEBUNK YOU DARWIN THEORIES:"

Then follows a list of books the most recent of which was written in 1908 (!!!)

Let me clue you in, TTW - it's now *2008* - the twenty-first century. The sciences of biology and evolution have not been standing around with their thumbs...well, you know...in all that time.

And again, reading things that attempt to debunk something, without having read that which is being debunked, and forming your opinions based on that, is simply stupid. It does not incline anyone of intelligence to give any weight to your opinions.

It's a bit difficult for me to tell where you're quoting and where you're speaking for yourself, since you don't always close your quotes, but I'm guessing that the following is you:

"The image of God is a spiritual immortal being, and so is man.

You have proven it yourself by your post Show me one animal that can think and make judgments. Show me an animal that writes, that has ideas. Show me an animal that can compose opera’s, concertos, and musicals. Show me an animal that can build cities roads, design houses."

I said that we were brainier. So what? How does this equate to being either spiritual or immortal? Everything in the list above is thoroughly material and worldly.

Bear in mind, too, that Cro magnon man had exactly as much brain power as we do, yet he did few, if any, of those things. It wasn't until man invented (yes, we did it, not God) language, that we were able to accumulate knowledge and thus compound it. You might be surprised how brainy some other animals would be if they only had larynxes capable of speech.

"Do you have ideas? If you do, tell me how much they weigh. Where do you store them. How much space do they take up. Do you think if a surgeon did brain surgery on you, he could find them? Answer, no he couldn’t because they are not material, they are spiritual."

They are not "spiritual." That word has no meaning to me. They have no substance in and of themselves, but they are the product of your cerebral cortex and the space that that takes up is precisely the space necessary to produce your ideas. Consciousness is just what comes of having a cerebral cortex. The cortex has weight, the chemicals used to connect the synapses have weight. If a surgeon removes your frontal lobes, you will have *no more ideas*.

"Since you are a materialist what caused you? Did you cause yourself. Who designed your human nature? Do you believe you are a descendant from a monkey? Try telling a Black person he came from a monkey."

My parents caused me. Their genes gave me my human nature. Oh, you mean ultimately...? So sorry. We don't yet know how *exactly*, life began, but we're getting close to knowing. Watch this space.

Natural selection caused human nature. If you would try reading something besides the Catholic catechism, you might understand how. No, I didn't descend from a monkey. We (you, too) descended from an ancestor that we had in common with the apes - most recently with chimps and bonobos. The common ancestor was likely very chimp-like. Educated people of all ethnic derivations know this.

"Maybe you came from the big bang? Are you a by-product of molten rock? Did the big bang create itself? I don’t think so. And how come rocks can’t think and you can? Where did the matter for the big bang come from. Did it create itself? Do you believe a rock will ever think in the future? Hint, don't wait till it does."

Yes, everything we know of came from the Big Bang, probably. I say "probably" because the BB is not quite yet settled science, but seems more likely than any other explanation right now. No, I don't think it created itself, but neither do I think it was the product of some supernatural being.

Your questions about rock are just stupid, so I won't waste time answering them. They sound like something that would come from Spiderman2. Again, educate yourself. Try books written after 1950 and not by clerics.

"Here’s another hint something that doesn’t exist can’t create itself."

Not so. Many things self-organize from raw materials. Look at crystals.

"In addition, anything that changes is a composite, and if a thing is a composite, it must depend on that which makes it a deposit."

Yes. All life is composite. Without raw materials, people can't make babies. So?

"Therefore, something had to cause it."

No doubt. But that cause can be perfectly natural.

"That cause is what we call God. Have you got a better explanation?"

Yes. You're welcome to *call* it anything you like. Personally, I like the name "Clyde". What you call it doesn't change the fact of it, however.

"Where did the Natural Law come from."

You're conflating the word "law" in this sentence with man-made laws, which require someone to write them. Actually, science doesn't use that term - that's the pop version. Scientists speak of theories. Natural "laws" are simply the way things work in relation to one another in this universe. No one had to make them up.

"How can a dead peace of rock from the big bang think, and if it did why isn’t it thinking now?"

Again, too stupid to merit a reply.

"How did matter create love, the Natural Law, the Natural Moral Law?"

Love those caps. It did it by natural selection. Love, male/female, mother/offspring, is a prerequisite to successful reproduction. Educate yourself. I explained morals to you before. Please pay attention. *Empathy*.

"Why is man drawn to a belief in God. Why do some 94 percent of Americans believe in some kind of Creator."

Sheer stupidity, as far as I can see.

Sorry, that's too flip an answer, I know, but it requires more time than I'm willing to give it right now. The short version is that early man didn't understand anything about how the world worked and why things happened, and he knew (unlike other animals) that he would die; so he made up reassuring stories about supernatural beings and afterlives. Soon, some humans learned to exploit this, by convincing others that they were the conduit to the gods. Belief and sacrifice were emphasized over all - thus they kept their power and obtained wealth. Their subjects cooperated by brainwashing their intellectually vulnerable offspring...and so it goes.

"Why did the Founding Fathers believe in a God. And, were they right to define man with his inalienable rights and proclaim they were given to man by a God."

They were Deists, mostly, and the wording was just the way people commonly wrote then. They were men of their times. Nevertheless, they were careful to separate church and state, and you should be glad of it, because Catholicism was not the favored religion then.

I'm sure that Mr Mark and Arminius are completely right about you - you seem like someone who has drunk the Kool-Aid until it's coming out his ears, so I'm going to make this the last tit-for-tat rejoinder - too much energy for too little reward. Just please read some actual science. You might be surprised how interesting it is.

Anonymous:

To Anonymous:

you are correct that 4 different people would report an accident differently (referring to the differrent accounts of the crucifixion in the 4 gospels). However, the differences in account would be explained in human terms, e.g., differences in memory.

Christians maintain that the Bible is the word of God, not the word of man. so how are differences explained then? did God's memory change each time He dictated the gospel to each apostle?

July 5, 2008 11:28 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Gospels are accounts of eye witnesses each one from their own perspective. What should be carefully noted is the common theme running through all the four Gospels. Direct revelations from God such as the Ten Commandments to Moses is different from human eye witness accounts of the life Jesus. The different perspectives running on the same theme is proof of its validity rather than the other way around. If the four eye witnesses were writing lies it is impossible to explain why the perspectives although different run along the same theme.

God's memory does not change. Men recorded their experience of an event they had witnessed.

Only literalists have problems but not Christians who believe they are made in the image and likeness of God, with reason and intellect, and in a Jesus Christ who promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach them the truth about him.

From the Gospel of John

John 21:15-25 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Reinstates Peter

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"

"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"

He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?")

21 When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22 Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

I would like to return to an interesting argument made by Peter Huff:

"Frankly, people who pretend there is no God . . . "

I believe his assertion here is that people who say they do not believe in God are only “pretending” and in their heart of hearts, they secretly agree with him that God exists. Perhaps he would extend this to say that people who do not believe in his particular version of God, such as Buddhists, Shinto believers, Jews, Muslims and others are also “pretending” and they really know that he is right, but they don’t want to admit it (perhaps even to themselves).

This is an extraordinary argument, and not one that I have heard before. It presupposes that Huff and his fellow Christians are the only intellectually honest people on earth, and everyone else is lying.

There are times when a minority group (such as Christians) are correct about something, and all other groups are wrong. There have even been times when a single individual was right, and everyone else in the world was wrong. For a while, Copernicus was the only person who understood how the solar system worked. For several weeks only Watson and Crick understood how DNA works, and all other experts were in the dark.

It is possible that Huff and his group are right, but it is NOT possible that they are only the only honest people on earth, and the rest of us are only “pretending” we believe what we say, or we are crazy, or deluded. If the majority of people could be so dysfunctional, our species would not have survived.

In any case, his argument could never convince me, because it is tantamount to telling me that I do not know my own mind, and I don’t really think what I think I think. The same argument works just as well against him, or against anyone making any assertion. “You don’t actually believe what you just said” is unanswerable. It is a universal solvent, or “get out of jail card.” It is also impossible to prove or falsify and therefore invalid.

Huff should perhaps learn a little more logic and less theology.

- Jed

Maria Janna the Catholic provides statistics. Google census data on the countries mentioned to get the exact break up of religions. The official results published by those countries would be quite different. Even according to the statistics provided here, the simple math is quite wrong. If 250,000 troops were provided by a majority Protestant country, 45,000 troops by a majority atheist and Anglican country, 2,000 troops by a majority atheist and Catholic country and merely 194 troops by a largely Catholic country, how did the final percentages work out to 21.7% Catholics, considering only 2194 troops came out of two countries which were listed with Catholic majorities (not true either).

Why does a Catholic Maria Janna provide such false data about Catholics?

Go figure...

Here a look at the figures provided for the calculations ---

Maria Janna:

Concerning the attack force alone that went into Iraq, it looked like this:

United States (250,000 troops), majority Protestant
United Kingdom (45,000), majority atheist & Anglican
Australia (2,000), majority atheist & Catholic
Poland (194), largely Catholic

Based on the religious demographics of those countries, and since you trivializing the topic to the countries as "religious countries", it can be stated that the attack force on Iraq was roughly made up of:

Protestants 45,8%
Catholics 21,7%
Atheists 20,8%
Anglicans 3,4%
Mormons 1,2%
Other Christians 1,4%
Jews 1,5%
Muslims 1%
Buddhists 0,9%
Other religions (mostly Hinduists): 2,3%

Or you could do it like this: the main warmongers were Bush and Blair, a Protestant and an Anglican.

See how stupid that is? In the west there are defacto secular nations with segregation of church and state, but with a vivid religious life.

Bush definitely used pseudo-religious propaganda for his modern crusade, but that doesn't make the conflict a "religious war" between "religious countries". Just because your Muslim brothers interpret it this way, doesn't make it reality.

July 5, 2008 4:34 PM

"MJ: "Palaestina" was the official name of the region in the times of the Roman empire. Nothing wrong with calling it "Palestine", when talking about that era."

bawahahaha-

You gave yourself away with your earnest and familiar use of PALESTINE- You might as well have pulled your pants down and paraded through these threads. You can reappear and say you are modest- but everyone reading here already got an eyeful. It was the mistake of a novice. No Catholic calls the Holy Land- Palestine. Everyone knows who uses Palestine to speak of the Holy Land. You're putting lipstick on a pig and that's NOT your best colour.

Beside- whenever you start with your talking points you reveal yourself to be a part of a well-known school of thought. You tell exactly where you come from. Even your chosen name of "Maria" speaks of how ill-informed you are about real Catholics. But please keep posting. We gain in reading your carelessly written posts.

Maria Janna, there are many many anti-theists out on a mission to destroy all religions who were batpized and confirmed as Catholics or other Christians. Some atheists go to Church for social reasons. You could have any number of motives for retaining your membership in the Catholic Church and paying taxes to the government as an official Catholic.

You don't seem to know what a real Christian means, and you seem to know more about Islam for you choose to view Christianity from the angle of a Muslim. If you believe Jesus was neither existed and if He did He could not have been a Jew, then it is absolute proof you have no idea of what Christianity means. I hold on to my view that you are some kind of Muslim who chooses to remain a member of the Catholic church for an undisclosed reason.

Muslim propagandists, those exploiting the memory of the Holocaust to stir up hatred between Jews and Christians, those blaming everything wrong in Muslim countries on the West are advised to stop blogging to recruit useful idiots from among anti-theists in the West.

Here is why ---

Anonymous:

Paranoid Anon:

Best advice: Stop blogging. See a therapist. Get a life.

July 5, 2008 11:03 PM

blahblah

Maria Janna is not Catholic.
—wrong

Child Baptism is not binding for life.
—for me it is, especially after Confirmation

Christianity is not a political religion.
—of course it's a political religion; there are still countries where Christian denominations are the state religion

Islam was established as a political religion by Mohammad
—every religion is political

MJ's interpretations are more Muslim than Christian
—that's only because you don't know what "Christian" means

Since Islam was founded as a theocracy by Mohammad himself, Muslims find it impossible to understand how it is possible for secular governments of Western countries can be headed by Christians and how they do not refer to the New Testament in forging foreign policies. The Quran, the Hadiths and Sharia Law derived from them on the other hand is a handbook for this worldly political conquers in the name of Allah. There are instructions on how to divide up booty and how to rule a state. There is no such instruction in the New Testament and Jesus clearly taught that His kingdom was not of this world. Mohammad's kingdom was on the other hand of this world. He conquered all of Arabia in only twelve years and his followers continued to conquer and establish kingdoms in this world as long as they could. Muslims see political rule as natural to their religion because that is how Mohammad did it in his lifetime.

Paranoid Anon:

Best advice: Stop blogging. See a therapist. Get a life.

Sobia is not influenced by Muslim propaganda. She is Muslim with strange Jewish loyalties.

Maria Janna is not Catholic. Child Baptism is not binding for life. There are other Sacraments one believes in and practices as a real Catholic. Christianity is not a political religion. MJ is careful to say "Arab" not Muslim, although Islam was established as a political religion by Mohammad himself in the Arabia of his time and his followers continued the practice as long as they could right up to the division of India demanding a separate country for religious reasons. MJ's interpretations are more Muslim than Christian.

Here folks a Pakistani Muslim in familiar extremist lingo (useful idiots for political Islamists take careful note) ---

Sobia:

Unlike Benazir Bhutto, the Christians had it coming. It came and it's still coming. Neither Muslims nor Buddhists nor Jews invaded Iraq or raped Afghanistan nor created holocaust after holocaust after holocaust. 9/11, 7/7 are merely beginnings. Watch your oil and watch your back.

July 5, 2008 1:40 PM

Here folks a Pakistani Muslim in familiar extremist lingo (useful idiots for political Islamists take careful note) ---

Sobia:

Unlike Benazir Bhutto, the Christians had it coming. It came and it's still coming. Neither Muslims nor Buddhists nor Jews invaded Iraq or raped Afghanistan nor created holocaust after holocaust after holocaust. 9/11, 7/7 are merely beginnings. Watch your oil and watch your back.

July 5, 2008 1:40 PM

ANONYMOUS

Comments please- "The Secret of Armageddon" - An Iranian TV "Documentary" Claims That "a Jewish Plan for the Genocide of Humanity," Includes a Conspiracy for the Takeover of Iran by Local Jewish and Bahai Communities: memritv.org/clip/en/1802.htm

MJ: Comments? Really? That's not a documentary but a vulgar piece of propaganda. Those "experts" quote from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"!! We've seen similar things in Nazi Germany. This is actually pretty sick.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PAM
DARWINISM:
MAN IS DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE CREATURES OF THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE HE HAS A SPIRITUAL NATURE:

ANS:

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PAM
DARWINISM:
“MAN IS DIFFERENT FROM ALL CREATURES IN THAT HE IS A SPIRITUAL ENTITY:

ANS:
The Difference Between Animal and Man

"Man can investigate his genome and that of the chimpanzees as well. He can take an interest in his kinship with chimpanzees and can study it. He even has the freedom to deny the difference between himself and the chimpanzee.

But he can only do this because he is endowed with a spiritual principle. Only a human being can hit on the idea of writing books to deny that he is different from the animals. This too takes spirit, reason, will.

Evolutionism of the ideological kind is based on this freedom. Thanks to his spiritual principle he can spin out theories that reduce precisely this spiritual principle to matter.

This is what evolutionary cognitive theory does: it wants to derive the human capacity for knowledge from what promotes evolutionary adaptation and survival.

And this is what evolutionary ethics does: it explains moral behavior in terms of evolutionary usefulness. It Has Often Enough Been Demonstrated That All Of These Attempts Are Condemned To Failure.

Spirit cannot be derived from matter, even if our spiritual activities have material conditions. Thinking requires the brain, but the brain does not produce thinking, just as a piano does not produce Mozart's piano concertos. Without a piano they cannot be heard, but the piano is only the necessary instrument, it is neither the composer nor the piano concert.

We stand here at the great divide between a materialistic view and a view that leaves room for the spirit. This is not primarily the divide between faith and science, but between an irrational and a rational view.

Materialism is intellectually untenable, it is in fact self-contradictory. One can as a matter of scientific method bracket out the question of spirit and reason and look only for material causes and connections.

But this methodological restriction is the decision of a spiritual being. It is only possible for free personal subjects; only human beings can use their reason to bracket out the spirit, but they cannot do this without using their reason. Only reason can deny reason — and in this way show itself to be unreasonable!

The choice between reason and unreason

This sounds somewhat complicated, but it is in reality completely clear and intelligible. Let me clarify this refutation of materialism (it is a classic refutation) by bringing in the beautiful example used by the Jewish philosopher Hans Jonas.

In writing his great work, The Ethics of Responsibility, he realized that all talk of ethics and responsibility makes no sense if there is no spirit, no soul, no reason, no free will. Genes do not accept responsibility. They are not arraigned in court when they produce cancer cells. Neither are animals held accountable. Only human beings have responsibility because they can (normally) be held accountable for their deeds.

Every form of economic activity gives a direct refutation of materialism. For I am responsible when I hold some job, unlike the ants and the bees, which have no responsibility for their mistakes. They cannot make mistakes, since their behavior is directed by instinct.

Only free beings can make mistakes. Everyday life refutes the materialistic conception of man. And yet very clever people fall into the error of materialistic interpretations of man."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PAM
DARWINISM:
“IS MAN ABOVE ALL CREATURES IN THE UNIVERSE?

Man nature is spiritual, but that does not deny man has a material body. Nature is the fundamental principles that make a thing what it is. The body is part of man’s nature as a philosophical property. It is not essential for man’s essence and existence.

Immersed in the stream of becoming

This state of being immersed in the stream of becoming is entirely compatible with the biblical view of man. It is a wonderful thing about our earthly existence that we human beings are really related to other creatures. We share with them the same laws of matter, the same basic elements of life. We occupy the same environment as all other living beings. We are together with them in the Noah's Ark that is our planet.

Just how deeply our bodily existence is woven into the history of the universe has been shown very vividly by Arnold Benz, professor of astrophysics in Zurich. The material elements that form our body emerged in mighty nuclear fusions in the stars:

The carbon and oxygen in our bodies come from helium burning in some old star. Two silicon nuclei fused right before and during a supernova and became the iron in our blood.

The calcium of our teeth formed during a supernova from oxygen and silicon. The fluoride with which we brush our teeth was produced in a rare neutrino interaction with neon.

The iodine in our glands came about when neutrons were trapped in the collapse before a supernova. We are directly connected with the development of the stars and are ourselves a part of the history of the cosmos. (Benz, Die Zukunft der Universums. Zufall, Chaos, Gott? Muenchen, 2001, p. 35.)

The astrophysicist Marco Bersanelli of the University of Milan adds: "We are literally 'children of the stars.'"

There is no shame in acknowledging this. There is no shame in being a part of the universe. The ancients liked to speak of man as a microcosm. This means that in him the whole of the universe is present and that he is present in it. It is fascinating to explore the links connecting man with what is smallest and what is greatest, with the infinitely small world of atoms and with the immeasurably vast world of galaxies.

Thus we need not be humiliated when it is shown that the emergence of man on earth had a long history. The long path towards "hominization" is the object of intense research.

The reconstruction of the exact ancestry of man becomes, of course, less certain as our knowledge expands. Is there only one line of development common to all men, or are there several? But the biggest question is: when can we speak of man? Is there only a gradual transition from animal to man? How did it happen that man (homo sapiens) developed from hominids, or man-like species?

Anthropologists speak of anatomical and cultural signs that reveal the special place of man: the size of the brain, the upright posture, the use of fire, the forming of traditions, the production and use of tools, and finally language. How did all of this come about? What made man to be man? Is it just a matter of genes? But if chimpanzees have almost the same genetic code as men, where is the difference?

The small difference

But do we have to acknowledge a difference? Many people nowadays simply do not want to see it or accept it. Like the ancient philosopher Celsus they point to the so striking similarities between man and animal that sometimes go so far as to make the animals even seem superior to us.”

Man is a Spiritual Being:
“There is an essential difference between animal and man. We do not know just when this difference emerged in the course of the development towards man. But we know with the full evidence of reason that this difference exists. What is the difference?

Consciousness? Even animals have a kind of self-perception. Having relations? Even animals have relations of some kind among themselves and also relations with us human beings, and often very touching relations. Personhood? Certainly, but what makes for a person?

I do not just feel, I can also examine my feelings, approach them "objectively," interpret them. I am not completely immersed in my world, I can look at it, can change it, compare it with other things, and can stand over against it in a critical spirit. I can think about it as well as about myself.

This power cannot derive from animated matter, which cannot consider itself and stand over against itself.”

It is certainly true that chimpanzees and human beings have largely the same genome. But no chimpanzee will ever take an interest in its genome, to say nothing of decoding it. His world stops with his banana, with reproduction, with his environment and his needs.”

And, that’s the problem with the atheists and materialists because a monkey doesn’t have an intelligence or a conscience to take in interest in genome and never know he has one.

PAM
DARWINISM:
“IS MAN ABOVE ALL CREATURES IN THE UNIVERSE?

ANS:
The Argument by the Atheists:

“At the time when Judaism and Christianity appeared in the ancient world certain pagan philosophers of the time strongly opposed them saying: the idea that God made the world for man is absurd.

The anti-Christian philosopher, Celsus, said in the 2nd century: "The world came into being just as much for the animals as for man." (Cf. Origen, Against Celsus, IV.)

He means that man is wrong to boast of some special position in nature: 'it costs us human beings much effort and suffering to feed ourselves, whereas the animals do this without sowing and planting.' (Ibid.).

We are almost reminded here of the words of Jesus: 'Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.' (Mt. 6:26.)

And of the 'lilies of the field' he says 'that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.' (Mt. 6:28.)

Does Jesus Himself here not deflate a little the excessive self-estimation of man? Did He not again and again point out the wonderful providence of God for all creatures, even the sparrows?

This is very similar to the question of the pagan philosopher Celsus: "Does nourishment grow only for man and not rather for all living beings." (Ibid.)

As for the argument that we are the lords of creation only because the animals are subject to us, Celsus offers a very impressive refutation when he says that not only do men eat animals but animals also eat men.

Our fear of the bird flu reminds us that we are very much tied into nature. And we have no reason to look down on other creatures just because we can plan and build splendid cities, says Celsus,
"because after all the bees and the ants make amazing cities and structures."

In a word: "It is not for man's sake that everything has been made, just as little as it is for the lion's sake or the eagle's sake or the dolphin's sake."

The core of Celsus' argument is based on the whole. God created the whole and He cares for the whole. Everything in this whole has it role and its place, and this is no more true of man than it is of the ape or the rat.

What this ancient philosopher opposes to the Judeo-Christian view is often put forth today: man is a part of the whole, that is the heart of the argument that has been used from ancient times until today.

Immersed in the stream of life man is not different from the other creatures; there is in man no spiritual principle, no power, no special calling that sets him apart. He should be satisfied with this and should finally have the humility to give up his aspiration to be something more, says the materialist.

There is something fascinating about this view that dissolves man into the whole; again and again people adhere to it with enthusiasm or even with fanaticism.

Some of the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century recognized as the primary reality the whole of some state or of some party or of some race or class [Communism, Hinduism].

They thought of the individual not as a subject but merely as a member of the whole, as a part, and as a result they subjected human dignity and human rights to the whole.

Ideological evolutionism (which I always clearly distinguish from the scientific theory of evolution) is very akin to the view of Celsus.

However, the difference is only that in his time the whole was understood in a static way whereas today it is understood dynamically.

Everything is one great process, the stream of evolution. This is what the microbiologist Reinhard W. Kaplan says at the end of his book, The Origin of Life.

Hence, in the course of drawing some philosophical consequences he writes, ‘Today we see the power of life no longer as something incomprehensible but rather as an understandable level of the self-development of matter and as thus embedded in the gigantic evolution of the cosmos as a whole.’ (P. 252.)" Something you can subscribe to.

"I do not say that this statement is false, but I think that it is one-sided, at least when said of man, and that an essential aspect of the human phenomenon remains here unexpressed.

It is true that everything on earth, matter and life and even man, is embedded in this gigantic event of the becoming of the cosmos as a whole. Whether we should call this process of becoming by the name of evolution, is another issue.

But this much is certain: we owe our bodily existence to the becoming of the world, beginning with the elements that emerged in the process of the unfolding of the universe and extending to those conditions that have made life possible on our 'gentle planet.'"

INREPLY TO PAM
PROVE THAT MAN IS MADE TO THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD.

[Man is a spiritual creation made to the image and likeness of God, immortal.]

IRT:
Prove it.

ANS:
“God has used evolution to create all these things.”

The image of God is a spiritual immortal being, and so is man.

You have proven it yourself by your post Show me one animal that can think and make judgments. Show me an animal that writes, that has ideas. Show me an animal that can compose opera’s, concertos, and musicals. Show me an animal that can build cities roads, design houses.

Do you have ideas? If you do, tell me how much they weigh. Where do you store them. How much space do they take up. Do you think if a surgeon did brain surgery on you, he could find them? Answer, no he couldn’t because they are not material, they are spiritual.

Since you are a materialist what caused you? Did you cause yourself. Who designed your human nature? Do you believe you are a descendant from a monkey? Try telling a Black person he came from a monkey.

Maybe you came from the big bang? Are you a by-product of molten rock? Did the big bang create itself? I don’t think so. And how come rocks can’t think and you can? Where did the matter for the big bang come from. Did it create itself? Do you believe a rock will ever think in the future? Hint, don't wait till it does.

Here’s another hint something that doesn’t exist can’t create itself. In addition, anything that changes is a composite, and if a thing is a composite, it must depend on that which makes it a deposit. Therefore, something had to cause it. That cause is what we call God. Have you got a better explanation?

Where did the Natural Law come from. How can a dead peace of rock from the big bang think, and if it did why isn’t it thinking now? How did matter create love, the Natural Law, the Natural Moral Law? Why is man drawn to a belief in God. Why do some 94 percent of Americans believe in some kind of Creator.

Why did the Founding Fathers believe in a God. And, were they right to define man with his inalienable rights and proclaim they were given to man by a God.

“Why do parasites with their unimaginably cruel activity exist in a good creation? Is it only our imagination that makes us shudder, or is nature perhaps really without pity, without sympathy, "rotating hells," as Schneider says (p. 171)? Let us hear him again. "You have to pray, even if you cannot. I can certainly pray for others, for priests, scientists, statesmen, the people, creatures, the earth; for the sick first of all, it goes without saying, and for the dead, which is the silent confirmation of a mysterious connection.”

“Let us begin with one of the most common objections to the Creator and His plan, His guidance, and His providence: "Why did God not create a world so perfect that it could contain nothing evil?" (Catechism, 310)

I notice again and again how widespread a certain deep-rooted misunderstanding is: if God has created this world, He can only have created it as perfect.

Any defect that is noticed seems to speak against an "intelligent creator" and His intelligent plan. The chaos in the genetic code is an example of this. One likes to say that no reasonable engineer would construct a machine in this way.

A classic example of this argumentation is the human eye. Naive believer in creation that I am, I would say that it is an incomprehensible wonder which makes us marvel at the Creator.

It may be that the human eye could be put together better. But it is thanks to this construction that we can become oculists, engineers, and the like, indeed that we can all experience the marvel of seeing (unless the defect of blindness hinders us).

And further: in spite of all our splendid technical prowess, no one is capable of constructing a functioning, living human eye.

But let us come to the heart of the matter: must God, when He creates, create a perfect world free of any defect? Do we face this alterative: either there is a perfect creation or else there is a world that is the product of sheer chance?

When God creates does He have to create a world that is already completely finished, a world in which everything possesses from the beginning its perfect form, its unchangeable state of actuality?”

If God created a perfect world, there would be no need of a “freewill,” and you would be just like the animals you claim you are, programmed and operating on instinct. Then, you would have no moral responsibility because your acts would not be free. Now that would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it? So smile, be thankful that there is a God, and give your face a holiday.

Peter Huff wrote:

"ME: “How do you make sense of the world you live in?”
JED: "I don’t. The world does not make sense . . .
So you are not making sense then. I'll agree with that."

I said the world does not make sense. That’s not the same as asserting that I am not making sense.

"JED: 'You can never be absolutely sure of the truth you discover.'

So you have a situation here where Jed is sure but not absolutely sure, so how sure is he?"

99.99999%. Not sure how to calibrate but . . .

"ME: “How do you know the evolutionary scientists are right?”
JED: 'The evidence is strongly in their favor.'

It depends on how you look at the evidence. Facts do not interpret themselves, they are interpreted in the context of a greater worldview."

This is correct, and important. Many people, such as creationists, have misinterpreted the facts. So I should have said: the evolutionary scientists have both the evidence AND logic in their favor.

"You or I are not unbiased, but I know of One who is because He created the facts and things unfold the way He designed them to work."

No doubt you are honestly convinced of that, but the fact that you are honest and certain proves nothing to me. People are often certain yet incorrect. As far as I can tell, your creator is a figment of your imagination.

"JED: . . .The only way to establish the truth is with objective events -- experiments and observations of nature. You can never be absolutely sure of the truth you discover."

How do you establish objective events? You see the world through your eyes."

You use instruments, not your eyes.

"Are you the objective seer?"

Nope. Weight scales and mass spectrometers are perfectly objective. People are not. Experiments fail because they are done by people, who are imperfect. But you can be reasonably sure they work on average more often than not.

"How many times do evolutionary scientist change their mind."

As often as needed. Whenever they discover they are wrong.

"The Big Bang time-line is constantly changing as we supposedly learn more about science."

That’s right. There is no certainty in science, and no end point. It never reaches perfection. That bothers people like you who crave certainty, but it never bothers people like me. We don’t mind being a little unsure. As Ashley Montague put it: “Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.”

"ME: “Without an absolute, ultimate, objective truth and Being it is all uncertain and subject to change, therefore what can be known for certain?”
JED: "Nothing can be known for certain."
Are you absolutely certain of that?"

Nope. Fairly certain, but not absolutely.

"You state a certainty that nothing can be known for certain at the same time denying it."

I state with high confidence, not perfect certainty.

"So what am I to believe other than the fact that you are very confused?"

Being uncertain is not the same as being confused. Surely you have many beliefs outside of religion which are not absolute. I trust that you are fairly sure your car will start up tomorrow morning. You know that the battery might go bad, or a wire might pull loose. The car might not start. But if you maintain the car properly you can be reasonably confident it will work. You are not confused about the state of your car engine, just a little uncertain.

You seem to think I am admitting a weakness or a fault in my argument when I say I am less than certain. A person with scientific training sees this as strength, not a weakness. To put it in science jargon, error bars enhance credibility.

YOU are perfectly certain of your religious beliefs, but being certain is no guarantee of being right. I am sure you know that people who believe in Islam or Buddhism and various other religions are as certain as you are, and yet you think they are wrong.

"Frankly, people who pretend there is no God . . . "

I am not pretending. You should learn that other people mean what they say. I am sure that you mean what you say, and sincerely do believe in God. You should realize that I mean what I say, too. You weaken your own argument, and make believers look bad. Your imagination and sympathy are apparently so stunted that you cannot even imagine that other people sincerely disagree with you. Other people are profoundly different from you. I sense that you lack wisdom and maturity when you fail to see this.

- Jed

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PAM:
“THE DEBUNKING OF DARWINISM"

In the conclusion, Darwinism is a dead end because it is an empirical science that has no authority in the science of or Natural Theology (Metaphysics) and Divine Theology.

The link below traces the whole history of Evolution and its references are listed below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

“The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS UNKNOWN TO SCIENCE.

The Origin Of The Main Organic Types And Their Principal Subdivisions Are Likewise Unknown To Science.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF AN ASCENDING EVOLUTION OF ORGANIC FORMS.

THERE IS NO TRACE OF EVEN A MERELY PROBABLE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ANIMAL ORIGIN OF MAN.

The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.

Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution.

Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.

There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process.

Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend.

Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation".

In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories

HERE ARE THE SOURCES USED TO DEBUNK YOU DARWIN THEORIES:

Bibliography
General.–GERARD, The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer (London, 1908);

GUTBERLET, Der Mensch, sein Ursprung und seine Entwicklung (Paderborn, 1896);

KERNER VON MARILAUN, Pflanzenleben (Leipzig and Vienna, 1890-91),

II; MIVART, On the Genesis of Species (London, 1871);

WASMANN, Die moderne Biologie und die Entwicklungstheorie (Freiburg, 1906); ID., Der Kampf und das Entwicklungsproblem in Berlin (Freiburg, 1907);

QUATREFAGES, L'espèce humaine (Paris, 1880);

ZAPLETAL, Der Schöpfungsbericht (Freiburg, 1902);

MORGAN, Evolution and Adaptation (New York, 1903); LOTSY, Vorlesungen über Descendenztheorien (Jena, 1908);

KOHLBRUGGER, Der Morphologische Abstammung des Menschen (Stuttgart, 1908); Die Deszendenztheorie (Leipzig, 1901);

OSBURG, From the Greeks to Darwin (New York, 1905);

HARTMANN, Das Problem des Lebens (Bad Sachsa, 1906);

BROOKS, The Foundation of Zoology (New York, 1899); WILSON, The Cell (New York, 1906);

HERTWIG, Allgemeine Biologie (Jena, 1906); ID., Die Elemente der Entwicklungslehre der Wirbelosen Tiere (Jena, 1902-03)

REINKE, Einleitung in theoretische Biologie (Berlin, 1901);

F. DARWIN, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (London, 1887); ID. and SEWARD, More Letters of Charles Darwin (London, 1908);

WEISMANN, Vorträge über Deszendenztheorie (Jena, 1904);

FLEISCHMANN, Die Darwinische Theorie (Leipzig, 1903); PLATE, Selectionsprinzip und Probleme der Artbildung (Leipzig, 1908).
Experimental Evidence.–

LOCK, Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity, and Evolution (London, 1907);

MUCKERMANN, Variabilität und Artbildung in Natur und Offenb. (Münster, Jan., 1909);

DE VRIES, Die Mutationstheorie (Leipzig, 1901003);

JOHANNSEN, Ueber Erblichkeit in Populationen und in reinen Linien (Jena, 1903); WASSMANN, Gibt es tatsächlich Arten, etc., in Biol. Zentralbl. (1901);

GALTON, Natural Inheritence (London, 1889);

MENDEL, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden, in Ostwolds Klassiker, No. 121;

BATESON, Mendel's Principles of Heredity (Cambridge, 1902); ID., The Progress of Genetics since the Rediscovery of Mendel's Papers, in Progressus Rei Botanicæ (Jena, 1907), I, 386;

CORRENS, Ueber Vererbungsgesetze (Berlin, 1906);

PADTBERG AND MUCKERMANN, Mendel und Mendelismus Munich, 1909);

GROSS, Ueber eineige Beziehungen zwischen Vererbung und Variation, in Biol. Zentralbl. (1906);

STRASSBURGER, Die stofflichen Grundlagen der Vererbung (Jena, 1905);

ZIEGLER, Die Vererbungslehre in der Biologie (Jena, 1905). Historical Evidence

MUCKERMANN, Paläontologische Urkunden und das Problem der Artbildung, in Stimm. aus Maria Laach, Jan, 1909);

STEINMANN, Die geologischen Grundlagen der Abstammungslehre (Leipzig, 1908);

LAURENT, Les progrés de la paléobotanique angiospermique dans la dernière décade, in Progr. R. Bot. (Jena, 1907),

I; KOKEN, Die Vorwelt und ihre Entwichlungsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1893); ID., Paläontologie und Deszendenzlehre (Jena, 1902);

ZITTEL, Paläozoologie (Munich and Leipzig, 1876-93);

SCHIMPER AND SCHENK, Paläophytologie (Munich and Leipzig, 1890);

DE LAPPARENT, Traité de géologie (Paris, 1900);

DANA, Manual of Geology (New York, –);

GEIKIE, Text-book of Geology (London, 1893);

COPE, the Primary Factors of Organic Evolution (Chicago, 1895);

STEINMANN, Einführung in die Paläontologie (Leipzig, 1907);

CREDNER, Elemente der Geologie (Leipzig);

KAYSER, Geologische Formationskunde (Stuttgart, 1908);

NEUMAYR, Erdgeschichte (Leipzig, 1887);

SCHARFF, European Animals: their Geological History and Geographical Distribution (London, 1907);

WARD, Sketch of Paleobotany (Washington, 1885);

HANDLIRSCH, Die fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der rezenten Formen (Leipzig, 1908);

HOERNES, Der diluviale Mensch (Brunswick, 1903);

SCHIMPFER, Pflanzengeographie (Jena, 1908);

LYDEKKER, A Geographical History of Mammals (London, 1896).

Maria Janna,

If that is the best you can do, I suspect I've made my case and will log off.

I wasn't trying to lure you into making an anti-Israel remark. You seem to have very hideous thoughts. Shame on you.

Maria Janna,

I see even more than before the substance of my argument. The great world imperialists of the last 600 years (one could go farther back) have been guided by Christian ideology. Protestantism is far from exempt in this. These would be world-dominating nations began their escapades before captialism but do see Weber who has implications for "prosperity theology." Israel is a pawn, a tool of the US. Do you know what happens when Israelis attempt to demonstrate agains US intervention?

Yes, I am a Muslim, Pakistani. That does not mean that when you wave the anti-Israel flag I will come charging. We are not all idiots, Maria Janna.

Tony Blair and his wife are practicing Catholics.

Please Sobia- use your ability to reason. World history is subject to interpretation and cultural bias. To gain the truth you must search for the truth by hearing what is said from all sides and then weighing the issues. View the Iranian "documentary" which is brimming with "historians" and tell us your thoughts- if you dare. As I've said- you seem susceptible to Islamic propaganda.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PAM:
“DARWINISM”

ANS:
“As to the human species, Darwin was, as early as 1837 or 1838, of the opinion that it was likewise no special creation, but a product of evolutionary processes.”

That was Darwin’s big mistake, namely he couldn’t prove it because it wasn’t true. Matter cannot explain the spiritual operations that man performs viz. making judgments, thinking, the process of knowledge, species, universals, concepts. Matter has no countenance to spiritual properties.

“Darwin published, in 1868, "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication", which contains many valuable facts and theoretical discussions concerning variation and heredity.” (Ibid)

Again, the Church has no arguments with Evolution when it does not predicate the origin of man. It must stand on its own scientific facts. However, when it ventures into a field of which it has no authority, and predicates the nature of man it fails badly and reverts into materialism and denies the nature of man, God, and undermines the justification of all human rights..
“
“the experimental evidence of the post-Darwinian period has failed to substantiate Darwin's claim. It is, however, well to note that Darwin did not wish to ascribe the origin and survival of useful variations to chance.

That word, he declares, is a wholly incorrect expression which merely serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.

Later on, it is true, he seems to have abandoned the idea of design."The old argument", he says in his "Autobiography" (1876) …"fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered."

Similarly, his belief in the existence of God, which was strong in him when he wrote the "Origin," seems to have vanished from his mind in the course of years. In 1874 he confessed: "I for one must be content to remain Agnostic."

The biological idea of species has nothing whatever in common with the Scriptural conception or with that of Scholastic philosophy. The Mosaic story of Creation signifies nothing more than this, that ultimately all organisms owe their existence to the Creator of the world.

The concrete how has nothing to do with the proposition of faith regarding creation. The enumeration of certain popular groups of organisms, such as fruit-trees, draft-animals, and the like, could have no other design than to manifest to the simplest as well as to the most cultivated mind the action of the Creator of all things.

At least, there can be no question of a scientific conception of genera and species. The biological concept of species is likewise removed from the philosophical concept, which designates either the metaphysical or the physical species.”

The former is identical with the integra essentia (Urraburú)–"integral essence"–of a being. The latter is founded on the essence (fundatur in essentiâ—T. Pesch), and is to be recognized by some attribute (gradus alicujus perfectionis) which remains constant and unchangeable in every individual of every generation.

So it appears to be necessarily connected with the most intimate essence of the organism (necessario cum rei naturâ connecti–Haan). The concept, therefore, of species according to Holy Scripture, Philosophy, and Science, is by no means a synonymous one for the natural units of the organic world. And particularly, the first chapter of Genesis should not be brought into connection with Linnæus's "Systema naturæ.”

If evolution took place, it involved a change which did not imply attainment to a higher stage of organization. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that we know of no intermediate forms capable of justifying even as much as a hypothesis that angiosperms were evolved from lower plants. If the origin of the angiosperms is for the present an insoluble problem, the genesis of the vertebrates is no less so.

However, in order not to pass entirely over the post-Cambran history of the invertebrates, we must at least make mention of the significant fact that this fauna seems to be constantly changing, but without ascending to higher forms of organization.

Palæontology, therefore, can assert nothing whatever of a development of the body of man from the animal. It may be added that Haeckel's curious "Progonotaxis", or genealogy of man, is a pure fiction. It consists of thirty stages, beginning with the "moners" and ending with homo loquax.

The first fifteen stages have no fossil representatives. As to the rest, we may concede that many of these groups actually exist, but we do not see a single argument of any probability for Haeckel's assertion that these groups are genetically related.

As to the age of the human species, no assertion can be made with any degree of certainty; thus far there are no indications whatever that would justify an estimate of more than 10,000 years. Still, less are we enabled to say anything definite as to the probable age of life. the "moners" and ending with homo loquax.

SOBIA,

first of all I would like to say that I more or less agree with the choice of words ("invasion of Iraq", "rape of Afghanistan". Although it has to be said that Afghanistan is part of the "Coalition of the Willing".) I myself opposed both wars, and I'm actually appalled of the politics of the West, not only concerning these two wars, but the politics in the decades before, especially US and Israeli politics. (I'm not American, but US politics affect me too.) This all doesn't mean of course that Arab societies and politics—please mind that I say "Arab", not "Muslim"—are not exactly brilliant.

You're also correct that Christianity has an *imperial theology*. Definitely. One would have to add: Catholicism is imperial. Protestantism not so much. But keep in mind that Islam—since it's a later derivative of Christianity—logically also has an imperial philosophy (cp. the concept of the Caliphate).

But all this doesn't have any relevance when looking at the "clash of cultures". It is true that Western secularism is not only "specious" but marginal. We've actually seen a return of religions in the past few decades. But different from many Muslim countries, there is a separation of Church and state in the west. So it's an absolute fact that the Christian religions are not *responsible* for the situation in the Middle East and elsewhere. And the US is not an "empire of God", but simply an empire.

But since you're so keen on attributing the violence to Christianity, let me tell you one more thing. The so-called "Coalition of the Willing" that leads the occupation in Iraq, consists of all kinds of nations: Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, Buddhist, Shintoist, Nature religions etc. from all around the world, including a lot of Muslim countries. So much for your lie about the Western Christian nations. It's however correct that the US and the UK have the largest occupation force, i.e. largely Protestant, Atheist and Anglican.

It is telling that the two major supporting "Catholic countries" are now out of the game: Italy withdrew early, and Spain originally only participated because they have had their own history of terrorism.

Concerning the attack force alone that went into Iraq, it looked like this:

United States (250,000 troops), majority Protestant
United Kingdom (45,000), majority atheist & Anglican
Australia (2,000), majority atheist & Catholic
Poland (194), largely Catholic

Based on the religious demographics of those countries, and since you trivializing the topic to the countries as "religious countries", it can be stated that the attack force on Iraq was roughly made up of:

Protestants 45,8%
Catholics 21,7%
Atheists 20,8%
Anglicans 3,4%
Mormons 1,2%
Other Christians 1,4%
Jews 1,5%
Muslims 1%
Buddhists 0,9%
Other religions (mostly Hinduists): 2,3%

Or you could do it like this: the main warmongers were Bush and Blair, a Protestant and an Anglican.

See how stupid that is? In the west there are defacto secular nations with segregation of church and state, but with a vivid religious life.

Bush definitely used pseudo-religious propaganda for his modern crusade, but that doesn't make the conflict a "religious war" between "religious countries". Just because your Muslim brothers interpret it this way, doesn't make it reality.

Anon:

The last six hundred years of world history, which you would do well to study, are "verification" enough.

Final comments on this.

Sobia-

You need to learn to think independently. Start by questioning what you are told by others. Try to verify before you accept anything as truth.

Anon/JAC:

Your comments are incomprehensible to me.

Sobia-

You are posting on a public board that originates in a free country. You are known by the contents of your posts. If you are ill-equipped to answer a question- simply don't answer it.

We have many more readers at "On Faith" than posters- and they are educated and informed by reading and watching links.

Best wishes.

Anon:

"You seem to be susceptible to Islamic propaganda. I want to see if it is regional or global."

If you wish me to be a subject in your "investigation," you will have to elaborate -at length. This would entail specifying the ways in which I am "susceptible to Islamic propaganda," regional forms vs. global forms of that propaganda, how it differs from Christian propaganda, regional and global, etc.

Sobia-

You seem to be susceptible to Islamic propaganda. I want to see if it is regional or global.

Anon:

"The Secret of Armageddon" - An Iranian TV "Documentary" Claims That "a Jewish Plan for the Genocide of Humanity," Includes a Conspiracy for the Takeover of Iran by Local Jewish and Bahai Communities:"

What possible relevance does this have to my post to Maria Janna?

Sobia and Maria-

Comments please-

"The Secret of Armageddon" - An Iranian TV "Documentary" Claims That "a Jewish Plan for the Genocide of Humanity," Includes a Conspiracy for the Takeover of Iran by Local Jewish and Bahai Communities:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1802.htm

Pam,

Really impressive reply to TTWSetc. Mr Mark is right, though, he/she is no more reachable than Spidey or CCNL. Mind like a steel trap - rusted shut.

Dear Pam -

Great answers to TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ, but you're wasting your time. Some people aren't reachable and, therefore, aren't teachable.

When challenged about the idiocies of the Bible, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ likes to reply by posting more idiocies from the Bible. It's the equivalent of having a kid whose only reply is, "poopy, poopy underwear!"

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ wrote:

"Man is not an animal, if you can’t see that then you have a serious problem living in reality."

If you can't see that man IS an animal, then YOU have a serious problem living in reality! We have to eat to live, we urinate, defecate, and breathe. Our bone structure is exactly analogous to all the other mammals. So are all of our organs. Our bodies are covered with skin and hair just like theirs. We have sex to produce young out of our bodies, and we then produce milk to suckle them - just like all the other mammals. Our DNA matches that of all other animals to the exact degree expected by the relatedness inferred from taxonomy. Why do *you* think this is? God's little joke?

Yes, we are brainier than the others (although posts like yours sometimes make me doubt the utility of that), but that is just how we compete in this world. There's hardly any other animal that we can outrun; we can't fly; we can't see as well as most birds, fish and insects - not only in terms of resolution, but also in the range of visible colors; we have no built-in weaponry - no sharp teeth and claws, no stingers, or poison glands; we have no protective devices like the turtle's shell, or the great size and thick skin of the elephant. The only way we could possibly survive was to develop our brains to overcome our shortages.

"Animals are programmed to act according to their nature and act on instinct. Man does not act on instinct; man has an intellect and a free will to choose his fate, if you haven’t noticed yet."

B.S.

Tell me, TTW, do you ever jump when someone who you didn't know was there speaks suddenly? What do you think this startle reaction is, if not the instinct to avoid danger? Do babies rationalize the need to suck when they first encounter the breast? Or is that instinct? I could go on for pages here, but I'll spare you.

"An animal cannot choose to commit something against his nature, man can. Man can choose to smoke when he knows it’s detrimental to his health."

Well gee whiz, what an admirable trait. And that's nonsense - animals *can* choose to harm themselves, they just seldom do. Captured dolphins have deliberately battered themselves to death; sick animals often refuse food until they starve; mothers sometimes die in defense of their young...

"Therefore, man is not an animal, though he sometimes is described as a Rational Animal. “Rational” is a distinction that places man above every creatures of the Universe."

Are you sure? The universe is a mighty big place. Have you examined it all? Sorry, but you're not sounding too rational here yourself, TTW.

And I would challenge your assertion that man is "above" all other creatures even here on earth. I think he's just a legend in his own mind. Bacterial life is found in every single environment on Earth, from the depths of the sea, to the tops of mountains, in scaldingly hot and freezing cold places. You wouldn't live another week without the ones in your gut that help you digest your food. And without antibiotics (which are becoming less and less effective as bacteria evolve), others might have killed you long ago. Just for fun, check the child mortality rates in this country for pre-antibiotic years.

"Man is a spiritual creation made to the image and likeness of God, immortal."

Prove it.

"Matter is a material entity that cannot give a spiritual essence because it has none to give. However, Empirical Science’s formal object is matter, and not the spiritual."

Perhaps because there is no spiritual? Prove that there is.

"Here are some links of some who have read Darwin and they haven't misinterpreted it."

??? The first link goes to page about the Pope (oh, yeah, *there's an unbiased source!) speaking on Muslims. The second is to the quote you posted in full from a Cardinal, and not too convincing.

When the Pope and cardinals want to engage in dialogue here, I'll do so, but right now I'm talking to *you*. You haven't read any of my side. I *have* read yours. Hardly a level playing field. Read, and then we'll talk.

Reading the words of people (Catholic heirarchy) who have a vested interest in keeping you faithful (their very cushy lifestyles require your money) is hardly an objective basis for argument.

Maria Janna,

The invasion of Iraq, the rape of Afghanistan were carried out by Christian nations whose specious secularism is informed by their imperialist theology.

The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.
-Nietzche

"The Gospels, Christians believe were written by eye witnesses, each from a different perspective, just as a traffic accident would be reported in different ways by different people."

So how did these eye witnesses differ on a basic historic fact like that. For all we know they could be talking about different events. And how can you trust these eye witnesses and what they write about Jesus when they disagree on a most basic thing like the day of 'crucifiction.' How can you even trust any thing else they recounted about what Jesus said which is even a harder task to do. Their memory is faulty and if they were in a court of law their testemony would be rejected out of hand all at once.

"Mark is the oldest gospel, so it has to be assumed that his account is the correct one. John wrote decades later."

You have opnened a pandora's box here. If that's the case then why stop there, let's see what happens if we take it a little further and see what your apologetics take you. The 'I am' sayings found in John, referred to by some as the spiritual gosple, should be discarted and thrown out because none of them are found in the other three gospels. They could be a fabrication, an intrepolation that John added given his docetic environment. Man from heaven description of Jesus is only a Jonannine concoction. None of it is found in the other three gospels. Remember also we can't trust this eye witness John anymore because of his faulty memory and he wrote seven decades after Jesus' departure which makes his testemony even more fanciful. You can use the same reasoning to discount the whole Christian 'scripture' that way.

"From your Muslim point of view, Jesus in the Quran in not crucified. How Mohammad who was born in Mecca nearly seven centuries later could have known better is a question that doesn't seem to concern you because you are a Muslim."

Well, here is a better question for you. How did Moses know about Lot, Noah and even the creation of the universe to name but a few events. He was not there as an eye witness to write about these events that took place hundreds of years if not billions of years before he was born. Why is it ok for Moses to have such knowledge revealed to him but not for anyone else. You seem to limit God's will and impose on him your human prejudices. He is not bound by your limitations of revealing his will to people of your choosing. And to think in this way is not reality but wishful thinking on your part.

Which brings us to the issue of Jesus' cruciftion. The Quran tells us:

"And because of their bosating: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, God's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain: nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise."

The Quran tells us that Jesus for certainty did not suffer death at the hands of his detractors. In fact his accusers, our Jewish cousings, were exonerated from this crime. In my opinion if the result of crucifiction is death then it's only reasonable to argue that Jesus was not crucified. Maybe we should refer to his crucifixion as crucifiction.

The Four gospels themselves have different narrations about that event. And full of illogical fallacies. In Luke the writer says:

"Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit."

Why terrified. Those whom you call witnesses were not present at the crucifixion because according to the gospel narrations they all "deserted him and fled." They were not eye wintnesses but heard about Jesus' death through second hand tales.

Later on Luke recounts what happened afterwards:

"And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence."

We all know mortals need food and drink to survive. And when I read that Jesus was eating fish and honeycomb the first thing that comes to mind is why would he need fish and honeycomb if he was mortal no more. What's the difference between his state of being before and after his crucifixion. It seems nothing have changed at all; yesterday he was mortal and needed food and drink to live and so is he today. A living human being today as he was yestrerday. Maybe they thought he was dead but incredibly he was still alive. That could be as reasonable and valid a reading as any other interpretation. It is an impossible task to construct a decent narration for a church passion play if someone wanted to include all the four gosples without leaving out any detail. They are so conflicting about the crucifixion story and what happened afterwards that someone on the internet offered a reward of ten thousand dollars for anyone capable of doing such a task. Maybe you can take the challenge and come up with such a story.

On a side note about the issue of borrowing let's investigate the usage of the titles "King" and "Pharaoh" during the time of Abraham, Joseph and Moses as used in both the Bible and the Qur'an.

We read in genesis:

"But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his house hold because of Abram's wife Sarai."

and,

"So Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was quickly brought from the dungeon. When he had shaved and changed his clothes, he came before Pharaoh."

And also in Exodus:

"When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian..."

From different historic readings we can approximate that:

Abraham's entry into Egypt is dated ca 1850.

The entry of Joseph into Egypt was dated ca 1674-1553 BCE.

Moses was in Egypt ca 1250 BCE.

It is evident from the above that the title Pharaoh was used for the ruler of Egypt as early as the time of Abraham which was circa 1850 BCE.

But from reading the Egyptian hieroglyphs and other available materials, the title Pharaoh for the ruler of Egypt was used during the New Kingdom onward ca 1550-1070 BCE.

Let's see what the experts have to say about the subject:

The Thames & Hudson Dictionary Of Ancient Egypt that:

"Pharaoh: The term used for the ancient Egyptian king. The word is derived via Greek from the ancient Egyptian word per-aa ('the great house', palace). Originally applied to the royal residence, it was used from the 18th Dynasty to refer to the king himself. Hence, the use of 'pharaoh' for Egyptian rulers before the New Kingdom is strictly anachronistic and best avoided."

The Encyclopedia Of The Bible says concerning the name "Pharaoh":

"Pharaoh. Ruler over Egypt also known as "the King of Upper and Lower Egypt." He lived in a palace known as the "great house," which was symbol of his authority. The Egyptian word for the palace was applied to the kings of the New Kingdom (c. 1550-1070 BC).... The use of the title pharaoh in Genesis may be anachronistic in that Moses in covering the events of the patriarchs in relation to Egypt used the commonly accepted term "pharaoh" even though the title was not in use at the time of the patriarchs."

The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible explains the reasons of such discrepancies with modern knowledge:

"The frank attitude toward the stories about Egypt in Genesis and Exodus is that folk memory had retained the essentials of great Hebrew experience but had later clothed that memory with some details imperfectly recollected and some circumstantial details borrowed from later times and conditions."

Let us now see what the Quran have to say about this issue:

With regard to the Egyptian king who was a contemporary of Joseph, the Qur'an uses the title "King"; he is never once addressed as Pharaoh. As for the king who ruled during the time of Moses, the Qur'an repeatedly calls him Pharaoh.

In the narration about Joseph we read:

The king (of Egypt) said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat cows, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered. O ye chiefs! expound to me my vision, if it be that ye can interpret visions." [Qur'an 12:43]

They said: "We miss the great beaker of the king; for him who produces it, is (the reward of) a camel-load; I will be bound by it." [Qur'an 12:72]

When Moses confronted the ruler of Egypt the Quran tells us:

Moses said: "O Pharaoh! I am a messenger from the Lord of the Worlds." [Qur'an 7:104]

One related document says:

"The situation is entirely different in the Qur'an. As is the case with the Bible, reference to the sovereign of ancient Egypt is found throughout various chapters of the Qur'an. A careful study of the minutiae of each narrative reveals some compelling differences. With regard to the Egyptian king who was a contemporary of Joseph, the Qur'an uses the title "King"; he is never once addressed as Pharaoh. As for the king who ruled during the time of Moses, the Qur'an repeatedly calls him Pharaoh.

These facts that we have mentioned were unknown at the time of the Qur'anic Revelation. The only source of knowledge of the religious past were the Bible-based stories in circulation. From the time of the Old Testament to the Qur'an, the only document mankind possessed on these ancient stories was the Bible itself. Furthermore, the knowledge of the old Egyptian hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten until they were finally deciphered in the 19th century CE.

The historicity of the Pharaonic title provides yet another sharp reminder to those that adhere to the precarious theory that parts of the Qur'an were allegedly copied from the Bible. If Egyptian hieroglyphs were long dead and the biblical account an inaccurate work of folk memory, then from where did the Prophet Muhammad obtain his information? The Qur'an answers:

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by one mighty in Power. [Qur'an 53:2-5]

It is interesting to note that the meaning of the word ayah, usually translated as 'verse' in the Qur'an, also means a sign and a proof. The reference to Pharaoh and other facts concerning ancient Egypt in the Qur'an suggests a special reflection."

SOBIA wrote: Neither Muslims nor Buddhists nor Jews invaded Iraq or raped Afghanistan nor created holocaust after holocaust after holocaust.

MJ: And neither did Christianity. This was done by secular organizations and entities. Be reminded that the Catholic Church opposed the war in Iraq.

Sobia: 9/11, 7/7 are merely beginnings.

MJ: Possible, yes.

AUTONOMOUS

Auton.: but then my abiding interest in religion pertains to mystical traditions anyway, rather than dogma, ritual and exoteric hierophanies.

MJ: This is probably where we differ. I'm not into the mystical traditions, although I do find it interesting from the perspective of the *history of religion*. I'm a "Scripture kid", so to speak. (^_^) However, I think the *ritual* and the *exoteric* stuff is where religions are the most enjoyable, namely witnessing the old rituals, the religion of the common man. It's really captivating, even if I don't believe like they do. Ever been to Damascus or Andalusia for the Easter week? Damn thrilling, if you ask me. That's for example why I don't acquire a taste for Protestant beliefs: they have broken with so many traditions, and it's often hard for me to even regard them as Christian.

Concerning dogma: well… a lot of the Church's dogma is not from the Gospel, was created later, so I don't always find it of much use.

Auton.: You were perhaps baptized by choice?

No, I was baptized as an infant. But my relatives spoke the vow on my behalf. For the Church there is no difference.

Auton.: it looks as though you could be either a religious historican, comparative religionist, or even a lapsed Jesuit.

MJ: The latter: no! But I'm definitely into the history of religion. Fascinating topic. Much easier than talking about faith.

Unlike Benazir Bhutto, the Christians had it coming. It came and it's still coming. Neither Muslims nor Buddhists nor Jews invaded Iraq or raped Afghanistan nor created holocaust after holocaust after holocaust. 9/11, 7/7 are merely beginnings. Watch your oil and watch your back.

@JAC: yes, calculating which religion killed how many, is to my mind preposterous. The only thing I don't like is believers of a certain religion always pointing at another religion, calling them criminals, while at the same time obscuring their own religion's violence and warfare. (This probably goes for any modern religion.)

Maria Janna - thanks for your rather interesting ideas about your fidelity to Catholicism...I was also baptized a Catholic, but didn't really have a choice in the matter. I don't entertain the notion that this created any such basis for a social contract, but then my abiding interest in religion pertains to mystical traditions anyway, rather than dogma, ritual and exoteric hierophanies.

You were perhaps baptized by choice? Anyway, with your expertise it looks as though you could be either a religious historican, comparative religionist, or even a lapsed Jesuit....do you know Elaine Pagels by chance? I like her work on the Gnostics.....

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PAM:
“DARWINISM

IRS
“…misinterpret Darwin - a common failing in those who have never read "On the Origin of Species", and know what little they know of it from people who are seeking to discredit it for ideological reasons

ANS:

http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search2.asp

What is man? Psalm 8 prays:

‘When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou has ordained: what is man that thou are mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him?’

Is man a piece of nature or the crown of creation? Or is he both? Does he come from the animals, or is he a special creation of God, or is he both? Who is man?

"A gypsy on the edge of the universe," as man has been called by Jacques Monod, a Nobel prize winner in biology, in his famous book, Chance and Necessity?

At about the same time that Monod wrote his book Vatican II solemnly affirmed once again the lofty place of man: "Man is the only creature whom God willed for its own sake."

Modern science has pushed him to the edge of the universe, reducing him to a tiny point on a tiny planet. Is he, on the contrary, the most essential goal of the gigantic event of the coming to be of our world? Or is he both?

Is he humiliated as a result of realizing that he is lost in the universe, or is he exalted as a result of being the point in the universe, tiny as the point is, where the universe can become aware of itself and reflect on itself? The psalmist continues in his prayer of praise:

‘For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of they hands: thou has put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowls of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

The world is created for the sake of man

What the Bible says about man has been richly elaborated by the Christian tradition and before that by the Jewish tradition. Thus we read in the "Letter to Diognetus" from the early second century: "God loved men. For their sake He made the cosmos and subjected everything on earth to them.

To them alone He gave understanding and speech, them alone He allowed to look up to heaven, them alone He formed in His image, to them alone He sent His Son. He promised them the kingdom of heaven and He will give it to those who love Him."

And because he gave man an intellect made to the image and likeness of God and subsequently it ensues that man has “understanding and speech,” unlike any creature in the whole of the Universe. Therefore man did not evolve from matter, but from the creation of God, as even our Founding Fathers submitted to explicitly in the Declaration of Independence, and implicitly in the Bill of Rights.

“We have here a very man-centered view of the world and a very God-centered view of man. Man is the center and summit of creation. Everything is made for his sake.

Evidence of this is the observable bodily and spiritual superiority of man (language, reason, upright posture) as well as his special supernatural gifts (existing as God's image, as the goal of the incarnation of God, as called to eternal beatitude).

Christianity shares this conviction with Judaism. In the Talmud we find the beautiful simile: the world is created by God like a wedding chamber prepared by a father for his son. Having prepared everything, he led his son into the chamber. But beautiful as the simile is, is this glorification of man really tenable?"

If it is not tenable, then what has man to live for if not himself. If not tenable, then all the idealisms of chairity, compassion, and love one another as God loves you is for naught, and that would be ridiculous.

Sorry, it shoud be Maria Hanna. Apologize,

JAC

Hello María Hanna,

Your comment about Christian crimes "against the world" and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists etc. not being peaceful angels, remind me about a similar discussion I found weeks ago in another thread.

Two posters -do not remember their names- were arguing about what religion have killed less people in the history of humanity.

My comment to them was something like it will be funny if it were not so violently tragic, to find two believers with calculator on hand discussing which religion, Christians or Muslims, killed less millions of people in the world history.

For me that was like to see the reverse China 2008 Olympics: second place gets the gold!

Peace to all (it appears we really need a lot),

JAC

ANSWERING CCNL (partially quoting others):

CCNL: That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

MJ: There is no historical proof of the crucifixion, only the statements of believers throughout history. The creed is exactly that: a *creed*, not a historical source. And the earliest Nicene Creed does NOT mention the crucifixion, as I've stated earlier.

CCNL: The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea.

MJ: 1. Josephus: The Testimonium Flavianum is a later interpolation to the original text, although there is a possibility (due to stylistical) similarities that Josephus himself or his scribes added this passage to the text. The Test.Flav. is at best the first evidence for the beginning of Christian *historiography*, but it's not a valid historical source.

2. Tacitus: it has been shown that the mention of Pilate etc. is (like the Test. Flav.) part of an interpolation to the original text. Furthermore it was proven by philologians that the "Christians" in Tacitus account are *chrestiani* in the oldest sources, which is probably a Graecism from "chrestai", meaning "speculators". (The word is still common in the Italian language, especially in Rome: "far la cresta".) The term "Christiani" was established in manuscripts by correction. Furthermore the "nailed to the cross or destined for death in the flames" has been shown to be a foreign body in the text, added however quite early, before the 4th century. There are no "Christians" in Tacitus' account, only "speculators", which (a) is explained by Tacitus himself in the text, and (b) by the way would also correspond to Sueton's "chresto" in his Claudius-biography. So in any case: no mention of the Christ, therefore: no valid source for historicity.

CCNL: While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain

MJ: There is not a single piece of evidence for the crucifixion.

CCNL: My best historical reconstruction would be something like this.

On what do Crossan and Watts base their "historical construction"? Esoterics? Hermeneutics? Conjecture? Or did they find any independent sources that nobody knows about?

Then Crossan and Watts continue and use the words "presume", "would have", "might be" etc.. Not very convincing in a "historical reconstruction".

Then they write: "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."

They don't seem to get it. The Gospel of Mark has been shown to closely follow the genre of the Roman vita, which is a genre of history. It's very much communis opinio that the evangelists saw themselves as historians. And the fact that especially the Passion narrative contains such a lot of "details", is an indicator that there's much more behind it than just "prophecy".

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

LOL!!! Sorry, but Wikipedia? Nerd patrol. Do you know where the word "-pedia" comes from? From "paidos", meaning "child". An encyclopedia is a "generalized work" meant for the use of "children", in this case the "fast children". You seriously don't suggest looking into Wikiwikipedia for such a specialized topic.

Then you mention all of those many "sources" on the crucifixion, most of it from the Bible itself, which is not a historically and scientifically valid source by itself. The minority of other sources in the list are testimonials connected not to history but to the hagiographical (i.e. non-historical) accounts in the Bible. At the most they are a form of historiography, in the same vein as the interpolated Testimonium Flavianum.

Furthermore the gospels do not speak explicitly of the crucifixion, which I have already written about earlier.

So to round things up, here's the "findings" of the Jesus Seminar:

Jesus was crucified
MJ: there is no evidence to support this. (No independent source.)

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate
MJ: there is no evidence. (While Pilate was a historical person, no valid historical source on him mentions the crucifixion in any way. On Tacitus, Test.Flav. etc., see above.)

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities
MJ: there is no evidence. (No Jewish sources and records, e.g. Sanhedrin documents, mention the crucifixion.)

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem
MJ: there is no evidence. (Most of the time, Jerusalem is even only called "The City" in the oldest codices.)

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha
MJ: there is no evidence. (There isn't even evidence that Golgotha exists or existed. Besides, the synoptic evangelists are perfectly clear that the name of the hill was "Kraniou Topos", in english: "Place of Skull". For them "Golgotha" was only the Graecized rendition of the Aramaic *translation* of the original name.)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PAM:
“DARWINISM & Evolution

IRT:
“Does it make any difference what one animal does to another in the big Darwinian picture? Does a lion have to explain his actions in killing another lion? If man is supposedly an animal why should it? The strong survive in Darwinian evolution."

ANS:
Man is not an animal, if you can’t see that then you have a serious problem living in reality.

IRT:
“Does it make a difference what one animal does to another in the big Darwinian picture?”

Animals are programmed to act according to their nature and act on instinct. Man does not act on instinct; man has an intellect and a free will to choose his fate, if you haven’t noticed yet.

An animal cannot choose to commit something against his nature, man can. Man can choose to smoke when he knows it’s detrimental to his health.

Man can choose to do things that he knows will harm him, an animal cannot. If man is hungry, he can fast, or not eat. If an animal is hungry, he must eat. An animal cannot do anything his instincts perceive will harm him. Man can commit suicide.

Therefore, man is not an animal, though he sometimes is described as a Rational Animal. “Rational” is a distinction that places man above every creatures of the Universe.

ANS:
Catholics do not have a problem with Evolution, it must stand on its own. However, when Evolution crosses into the field of Metaphysics and predicates the nature of man it is out of its field of inquiry, and has lost its authority to postulate on the origins of man. To do so would be like a tree surgeon with his equipment doing brain surgery.

The fundamental principles of the origin of man rest in Divine and Natural Theology, and not in any Empirical Science.

Man is a spiritual creation made to the image and likeness of God, immortal. Matter is a material entity that cannot give a spiritual essence because it has none to give. However, Empirical Science’s formal object is matter, and not the spiritual.

Here are some links of some who have read Darwin and they haven't misinterpreted it.

http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search2.asp

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/schonevo6.HTM

What is Man that Thou are Mindful of Him?
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

“To call man the crown of creation sounds for many like an arrogant excess of self-esteem. Today we read and hear that while faith raised man high above all other living beings, science has cast him down from his lofty pedestal.

It has become standard to speak of the three main ways in which science has given offense to man's sense of his worth. On this subject, the well-known investigator of human behavior, Anton Festetics, has written:

The first offense came from Copernicus in Cracow (the earth is not the center of the universe), the second came from Darwin in London (we come from the animals) and the third came from Freud in Vienna (the analysis of our psyche). We were offended most of all by Darwin's blasphemy about our kinship with the primates, a fact which embarrasses us and angers us, since precisely the apes look so similar to us as to mimic us. (Die Presse, January 1, 2006, p. 30.)

Just one more example that serves to strengthen man's sense of being offended by scientific progress: A few months ago, scientists succeeded in decoding the genome of the chimpanzee; it is supposedly over 98% identical with the human genome. "The crown of creation" has been shaken. It has strong competition. Is it not better to say with the English evolutionary biologist, Olivia Judson,

Some people want to think of humans as the product of a special creation, separate from other living things. I am not among them; I am glad it is not so. I am proud to be part of the riot of nature, to know that the same forces that produced me also produced bees, giant ferns, and microbes that live at the bottom of the sea. (Herald Tribune, Jan. 3, 2006.)

Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.

Man as crown of creation has been challenged in three ways:

1. The earth has lost its central position in the world, it now exists somewhere on the edge of a galaxy of over a hundred billion stars and this galaxy exists on the edge of over one hundred billion galaxies in the universe.

2. Man comes from the animals. This need not be a problem for faith nor even for reason, as we shall see. What stirs up controversy is the supposition that man emerged in a gradual way from nature, that there is, as a result, no fundamental discontinuity between animal and man, no metaphysical difference between them. Man as a being endowed with spirit is thought to be nothing radically new in the vast world of life.

3. The soul of man has been cast down from its spiritual height and been debunked as the mask of unconscious drives. Man is determined not by spirit but by libido. Being thus dethroned in these three ways, the crown of creation is now rolling, as it were, in the dirt. If man remains here in the dirt, then science has definitively dethroned man. Is man a king or a slave?"

If man is dirt as the atheists want you to believe, then murder and its relative abortion can be justified, and has been by our Court, by Communism and all radicalism.

To Anonymous:

you are correct that 4 different people would report an accident differently (referring to the differrent accounts of the crucifixion in the 4 gospels). However, the differences in account would be explained in human terms, e.g., differences in memory.

Christians maintain that the Bible is the word of God, not the word of man. so how are differences explained then? did God's memory change each time He dictated the gospel to each apostle?

Maria Janna-

" Of course I know perfectly well that the Jews have "the Book", the Jewish Bible, their Book, the oldest of the modern monotheist scriptures. But it was *written* on scrolls, not in books."

No doubt, R. Steinsaltz, one of the great biblical scholars of the twentieth century, who has worked tirelessly on the Dead Sea Scrolls, whose greatly condensed biography is posted below, will be indebted to the sage, Maria Janna, for his edification.

SOBIA:

The matter of "statues" is an ongoing source of discussion among Catholic theologians as is the whole business of saints. For reasons to lengthy to go into here, this Catholic has long considered converting to Protestantism, and, at one, point, Judaism, in part due to the "statues," i.e., excessively Greek components of Catholicism. At this point, I'm still a Catholic, again, for reasons that would take me too long to explain.

Indeed, too much beauty, too much equation of truth with beauty, too narrow a moral compass iinheres in Christianity. This confusion produces the obsession with "forgiveness" giving us the likes of Mathew Scmaltz, obsessed with Susan Atkins, the murderer of Sharon Tate and her unborn child. Did you read Scmaltz's essay on this blog?

Tate, who was 81/2 months pregnant begged Atkins for mercy for her unborn child. Atkins reply, "No mercy." Yet here we have this Catholic divinity school graduate, Schmaltz, corresponding for two years with the murderer, arguing for her compassionate release, while ignoring the plight of Roman Polanski, Tate's husband, the father of the murdered child.

Yes, Christianity, Catholicism have a long way to go.

Sobia, in your case I can only answer with Antisthenes: It's useless to contradict the contradictor.

I could add: …even if he/she spreads the usual smattering about Christian crimes "against the world". We Christians (and especially the Catholics) have heard that kinda stuff for ages. But it doesn't bother me at all.

And the Muslims and Jews and Buddhists etc. have always been peaceful angels, right?!

Hi AUTONOMOUS,

I'm not an atheist, but a Euhemerist. I don't regularly go to Church, but I do go sometimes. And yes, religion for me is not a "faith" thing, which is frankly impossible, since I'm scientifically educated and oriented. But as I've written elsewhere my religion is based on *fides*, in the original meaning of the word: loyalty, honesty etc. Nothing supernatural to my *fides*. I see my religion only as a form of social obligation, of loyalty by oath and of ritual and traditions.

So yes, by my own admission I'm factually not a "believer". "Believing" would contradict everything I am, everything I've learned and experienced. But I'm neither an atheist, because for me the gods are a reality, as a social, (theo)political and mental construct. Historically, for me as a Euhemerist the gods are all humans, who were deified a very long time ago. (This includes "God" by the way… and the Christ in any event: He's the Euhemerist's god par excellence!!)

I've had a few problems with what CCNL wrote, but I'll go through his posts again.

Auton: "Here's the question - why do you persist with your involvement in the Catholic Church? You are free of all of its beliefs"

MJ: I am baptized, which means I pledged allegiance to the Church and the Christ. And it's not just some kind of oath, it's an oath before God, and even if I don't believe in all that supernatural mumbo jumbo, I could never leave the Church, because it would be a sign of utmost disrespect. You don't just break an oath that you made before your god, even if you're not a "believer" in a common sense. And I'm perfectly fine with that arrangement. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Since Mr. Anonymous quoted some of my other posts here, and since that spawned the same responses—"Jews are the people of the book, not Christians"—I get the feeling that nobody here really understood my remark on Christians being the people of the book.

There is a general term called "book religions", which basically includes all modern religions that use writings as one of the pillars of faith. So in this very general context, Muslims, Christians and Jews alike are "people of the book". But I was talking about this on a *liturgical* and *technical* level: the Jews have always throughout history and to this day written their holy scriptures on *scrolls*. Christians however (from day one!) wrote in parchment codices, in other words: *books*. They even had a sacral "fear of the scroll", and only when book material was scarce, they used scrolls, but even only wrote on the backside. (For further info I suggest Roberts and Skeat, "The Birth of the Codex", OUP 2004.) In Christian iconography the Saints have always been displayed as people holding the *book*, e.g. Stephanos. There was a short early phase in Rome, where Christian iconography was very popular in the mainstream, e.g. on Roman s a r c o p h a g i, where after canon formation you see a mixture of scenes from the NT and the OT, e.g. Christ plus Jonah etc. On these depictions a transferral of the Jewish scroll-iconography to Christian iconography is sometimes observed. But that was a transient phenomenon. In general and in the majority, Christians were, are and have always been described and depicted as the "people of the book", whereas the Jews are clearly (to this day) the "people of the scroll".

Again: this is meant as a technical and liturgical (and iconographical) statement. Of course I know perfectly well that the Jews have "the Book", the Jewish Bible, their Book, the oldest of the modern monotheist scriptures. But it was *written* on scrolls, not in books. So, I hope to have cleared up what I was saying before.

Maria Janna - you obviously are well grounded in historical Christianity and with considerably more familiarity to Islam than most Christians. While Catholic, you are apparently not a believer in the supernaturally based doctrines and dogma of the Church - so in a very real sense, you are not a believer, by your own admission. You don't seem to have much use for Islam, as a weak sister of Christianity.

You in fact share a good many features and characteristics with another famous poster here - CCNL, who bombards us with rather similar convictions in a much more compulsively organized format. Surely you have seen his many lists?!

Here's the question - why do you persist with your involvement in the Catholic Church? You are free of all of its beliefs, and yet you continue to be a regular participant in church services, much like CCNL. Is this a mere social outlet then? I gather you are an atheist but this is unclear.

The two of you seem to have a niche all of your own among the many church congregants that visit these threads!

Maria Janna,

Clearly, you know nothing about Benazir Bhutto or your answer would not have been so generalized. The rest of your post is nonsense. The failure of Christians to maintain the Judaic is what has raped the world. Muslims did not make this error. The Christians indeed have devastated the world. What they did to my part of the world is unspeakable.

Yet we do not say that you have it coming. But it has been coming has it not? And however you try, it is doubtful that you will protect yourselves from it.

And by the way (this is an honest question): what's wrong with "Mr. Steinsaltz"? Isn't Susan Jacoby "Ms. Jacoby"? Isn't Howard Fineman "Mr. Fineman"?

If it's offensive calling Rabbi Steinsaltz "Mr. Steinsaltz", I sincerely apologize. But it's his name, isn't it? (I'm used to calling my pastor even by his first name.)

REPOST wrote: "How often do real Catholics call the Holy Land "Palestine"?"

MJ: "Palaestina" was the official name of the region in the times of the Roman empire. Nothing wrong with calling it "Palestine", when talking about that era.

S: Why do you say Benazir had it coming?

MJ: Because in the history of mankind oppressive political forces have often been disposed of by means of assassination and violence.

S: No, you are no Catholic, a Christian of sorts, one Christ wouldn't recognize, but no Catholic.

MJ: Funny, because being "no Catholic", only "a Christian of sorts", one "Christ wouldn't recognize", but "no Catholic"… all that is what *I* think of many of my fellow Catholics.

S: Afraid, you'll never tease the Jewish out of Christ. That he was.

MJ: In the New Testament he is described as Jewish. Yes. I don't argue that. But that's only hagiography, religious writing, not a history book. I argue from a scientific point of view.

S: Paul on the other hand, not a chance. A messed up Greek from Tarsus that's all.

MJ: (1) Where's the evidence that "Paul" ever existed? (2) In any case, the Paul of Christian tradition was a distortionist of the faith.

S: Truth is beauty, beauty truth, no morality, lots of statues. That's your religion. Jesus weeps.

MJ: Well, what's the use of arguing about Christian morals? I guess it's pretty clear that Christianity has again and again shown to have double standards, double morality etc. As for the statues (or the iconography): well, they are very telling. Nothing Jewish there.

Maria Janna,

WHY DO YOU SAY BENAZIR HAD IT COMING?

How nice to witness the return of your cultish self.
No, you are no Catholic, a Christian of sorts, one Christ wouldn't recognize, but no Catholic.

Afraid, you'll never tease the Jewish out of Christ. That he was. Paul on the other hand, not a chance. A messed up Greek from Tarsus that's all. Truth is beauty, beauty truth, no morality, lots of statues. That's your religion. Jesus weeps.

Mary Cunningham

MC: Well, you’ve certainly got them all going!

MJ: Hehe… yeah, funny, isn't it?!

MC: It doesn’t really matter, but why do you say you’re Catholic? (Or is it catholic with a small ‘c’?)

MJ: Simple answer. I was baptized, and therefore I am a Catholic.

MC: Because Catholics don’t tithe

MJ: In some countries they do.

MC: and they believe in Jesus Christ: his divinity and his Judaism form the basic tenets of Catholicism.

MJ: Yeah, that's what Catholics believe. But I'm also a person who's very much scientifically oriented. So I can't help but say: 1. There's no proof of the historical existence of "Jesus of Nazareth"; 2. There is no proof that he was a Jew.

Point 2 is actually laughable because that's what a lot of atheists say: "Jesus never existed, but he was surely a Jew!". LOL.

MC: Its Judaic origins and aspirations to Greek philosophy form a tension within Catholicism which continues to this day

MJ: Why not the other way round? "Its origins from the hellenized Graeco-Roman sphere and its aspirations to Jewish scripture form a tension within Catholicism which continues to this day." Because that's what the Jews have been saying for centuries. Some even say that today. But people don't wanna hear Catholics saying that the Jewish part is only makeup. I can already hear the screams: "Anti-Semitism!"

MC: The early Church tried to incorporate Greek philosophy

MJ: Yes. From the original Epicureanism via Judaist overlays (mostly from hellenized Jewry by the way) to the Stoa.

MC: The Church actually existed before the gospels

MJ: And usually traditions form even before the foundation of a Church.

MC: Anyway, you’re not Catholic, that’s clear,

MJ: Oh, I am Catholic… and I'll stay Catholic until the Church kicks me out. Lucky for me they don't burn people at the stake anymore.

Thanks for your additional info on Bhutto.

Good point also about the "accidental germ warfare".

Hitler was Catholic, sure. But the Nazi system was strongly secular and anti-religion, not only against Jews but also against Christians. I also suggest reading stuff on the reception history of Hitler's "Table Talk", which was willfully rewritten by translators et al. in order to present Hitler as an atheist. As if they didn't like the fact that he was Catholic, as if they thought that his religion doesn't match the Nazi philosophy.

Hello Pam,

Excellent your post about humans as social animals and Darwin theories.

Anybody can see in the Discovery channel that sometimes animals respect each other more than humans do. You also see groups of animals making war against other groups, just as when humans go to war among clans, gangs, nations or religions.

Humans are privileged with a more advanced intelligence, hence we should be more responsible for not abusing other humans, animals or nature.

Many christians claim that without christian moral we are going to kill each other: as our friend Peter says “BANG! R.I.P.” (no kidding).

But then you can ask how humans and animals could survive and not kill each other before christianism started. In fact today there may be humans living in the Amazon jungle that never have read or hear about the chirstian God, and still they thrive as humans without televangelists.

Peace and best wishes to all,

JAC

I think that the key sentence in your piece is this: "Why shouldn't some American atheists be as ignorant about the meaning of atheism as many religious Americans are about religion?"

That is ridiculous.

IF a person says that he is an 'atheist' AND that he "believes in god", THEN that person is NOT an atheist... that person is a dumbass.

The proper way to cast such a result is NOT to say that x% of atheists believe in god... it is to say that y% of god-believers are such dumbasses that they think they are atheists.

Dear "zum Kotzen" Anonymous,

thanks for proving my point: Atheists are always "zum Kotzen" (literally: to induce vomit) for the pious crowd (your correct translation: "unpleasant or useless"). But that is YOUR feeling, not mine, I feel fine, lol!

Logically, I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion that I defend political Islamists, after I, of course, included Islam in the idea that all religions have been introduced by power, a historical platitude. I agree with you there.

But then, believers defy logic: Faith is enough for mental wellness. And obviously, you have read only part of my post. Well, that is enough for a specific religious (Catholic? Born-again? Mormon? Other?) knee jerk reaction, I must admit.

(Friendly advice: Name calling never proves anything, so you achieve more if you use your synapses instead of your bile!)

And Peter Huff:

If there were a proof that God exists, there would not be a single atheist!

2+2=4, which is proved. Nobody, atheists or believer, doubts it.

Peter Huff wrote:
"But when an unbeliever acts morally he does so in spite of his worldview. He is living on borrowed capital by borrowing from the Christian worldview.

Does it make any difference what one animal does to another in the big Darwinian picture? Does a lion have to explain his actions in killing another lion? If man is supposedly an animal why should it? The strong survive in Darwinian evolution."

Peter, you misinterpret Darwin - a common failing in those who have never read "On the Origin of Species", and know what little they know of it from people who are seeking to discredit it for ideological reasons.

Darwin's book is still brilliant, even today, although there are many more now that expand on his knowledge in light of new discoveries.

What you're missing is that humans are social animals, and that makes all the difference.

Solitary animals are in direct competition with others of their species for resources - food, sexual partners, etc. They keep from wiping each other out by establishing territories. They mark and patrol them and they respect each other's boundaries. Sure, sometimes, particularly if times are tough, they will challenge each other, but frequently they are able to settle their disputes without a fight to the death, because they have a set of signals whereby the overmatched animal gives up and the victor allows his retreat.

Social animals, however, live in cooperative groups and share resources. Such are we and our nearest relatives, the great apes; and our best friends, the dogs.

Social animals live by rules that promote the welfare of the group, sometimes at the expense of the individual. Think of the baboon that screams to alert the group of the presence of a leopard, thus making itself conspicuous and more liable to be the victim of that leopard. There are sound evolutionary reasons why this altruism works, and is *not* against the best interests of the one sacrificing for the good of the troupe, when seen as a function of getting the maximum number of one's genes into the next generation (what evolution is all about).

Social animals also feel empathy. They are able to project their own feelings onto others, and recognize that what is harmful, painful , and unpleasant to them, is also for others of their kind. Likewise, what is pleasing to them is also to others.

This (empathy) is *entirely* the basis of the "golden rule." Did you think that was invented by Jesus? Hardly. It was around way before that time. Before we were even human.

I bred dogs for years. I always dreaded having singleton litters because the puppy would play too rough with humans. When puppies have littermates, they learn that biting too hard makes their siblings cry out, and that being bitten too hard hurts. They learn to inhibit their bites when the object is play. Empathy.

Frans de Waal tells a story in one of his books about a chimp at the Yerkes Primate Center that found a bird that had been stunned by flying into something. She picked up the bird and stroked its feathers. Then she tossed it into the air. It came back down. She then picked up, cradled it gently in one arm, and climbed to the top of the highest tree in the compound.

Once there, she held the bird up, spreading its wings with her hands, and sailed it into the air. The bird flew.

She not only was empathetic within her group and species, she understood that the bird was in trouble, and that it's needs and proper behavior were different from her own.

He tells another story of a chimp that had recently given birth. New mothers are very protective of their offspring, and hold them so tightly wrapped in their arms that it's difficult for anyone to get a look at them.

Because he had a good rapport with this particular chimp, he felt safe in getting close to her. He pointed to the baby, and to his eyes. The mother chimp responded by crossing her arms across her chest to take the baby by its hands and lift it for Dr. De Waal to see. This had the effect of turning the baby to face him. The mother understood that the baby's face would be of more interest than its back. Empathy.

The point of all this is that atheists don't go out and live lives of depravity and debauchery (at least not at any greater rate than Christians) because evolution has selected against that sort of behavior - it doesn't stand a social animal in good stead.

We don't need a big daddy in the sky holding out sticks and carrots - we have empathy.

Hi Jed,

ME: “How do you make sense of the world you live in?”

JED: "I don’t. The world does not make sense. As Macbeth put it, life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

So you are not making sense then. I'll agree with that.

ME: “If everything is in a constant state of change how do you know that what has happened in the past will happen so in the future?”

JED: "Well, things repeat more or less because the laws of physics do seem immutable, but you never know."

If you never know you never know.

ME: “You base it on what has happened in the past. How do you know it is not going to evolve into something different?”

JED: "I am sure “it” will. Everything alive evolves, constantly."

JED: "You can never be absolutely sure of the truth you discover."

So you have a situation here where Jed is sure but not absolutely sure, so how sure is he?

ME: “How do you know the evolutionary scientists are right?”

JED: "The evidence is strongly in their favor."

It depends on how you look at the evidence. Facts do not interpret themselves, they are interpreted in the context of a greater worldview. You or I are not unbiased, but I know of One who is because He created the facts and things unfold the way He designed them to work.

ME: “Your worldview holds nothing as certain except for the fact that nothing is certain. It holds that there are no absolute truths except for the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, that truth is relative to the individual holding it.”

JED: "That’s incorrect. Individuals are often wrong. The only way to establish the truth is with objective events -- experiments and observations of nature. You can never be absolutely sure of the truth you discover."

How do you establish objective events? You see the world through your eyes. Are you the objective seer? How many times do evolutionary scientist change their mind. The Big Bang time-line is constantly changing as we supposedly learn more about science.

ME: “Without an absolute, ultimate, objective truth and Being it is all uncertain and subject to change, therefore what can be known for certain?”

JED: "Nothing can be known for certain."

Are you absolutely certain of that? You state a certainty that nothing can be known for certain at the same time denying it. So what am I to believe other than the fact that you are very confused?

JED: "Frankly, people who want an ultimate, absolute truth and Being remind me of small children trying to count to infinity. “If I just count fast enough, maybe I’ll make it!”

Frankly, people who pretend there is no God remind me of small children who have done something wrong and want to hide it from their father so pretending that daddy is not real, for the time being excuses them for the time being of having to answer for their wrong doing.

JED: "Why would you even want things to be that way? I prefer living in a world where things are “uncertain and subject to change.”

Then you prefer being deceived.

HL: Mark is the oldest gospel, so it has to be assumed that his account is the correct one. John wrote decades later. Communis opinio has the crucifixion (which may or may not have been a real one) on the 15th of Nisan.

Since you, Anonymous, are the most lively and direct, I'll answer you right away. (All the rest has got to wait… lots of work atm.)

What do you think of the Quran as Scripture?

Copied and transposed from Christian scriptures, e.g. a Syro-Aramaic queryana, early Christian hymnals etc. Islam & the Qur'an is a transformation of heretic Christianity and of Christian writings in the then underdeveloped periphery of Europe. Muslims worship Christ as Allah. No wonder they rather follow Muhammad, their prophet. No wonder they hate being called "Muhammadans", because it indirectly reminds them that their god is actually the Christian god. In reality they only have their "prophet", which is nothing actually. (I mean… they even copied the Christian Advent including the Holy Night, called it Ramadan with their own Holy Night at the end, the vigil at the Laylat al-Qadr.)

What relevance does it have to Christians?

If the Quran is based on Christian writings (which is the most probable solution atm), it has a lot of relevance. Since Islam is a bastardized version of heretic Christianity from the peripheral regions of the Christian world, its Scriptures (i.e. the Quran etc.) were not subject to Christian rule, Christian rewriting etc.. It's very probable that the Qur'an has retained things that were erased, toned down or rewritten in Christian Scripture. Especially the "effigy crucifixion" of Christ is a prime example: from day one Islam was formed by conflict and competition with the Byzantine empire. We criticize Islam for being such a brutal and vicious religion, but that was absolutely necessary, because otherwise Islam would not have withstood the superior power of the Byzantium in the first two centuries of its existence. So naturally they would have retained those things in the Quran that would be the most profitable for opposing Christianity, e.g. the "effigy crucifixion" of Christ. But this also means that these things could actually be true. (Who knows?!) I'm scientifically interested in the Quran, not from a standpoint of faith. I'm Christian, and Christianity is the original religion.

What do you think of Mohammad, his life, his claims to have received revelations from God?

Muhammad was a criminal, a warmonger, a rapist and whatnot. The claims that scripture was "revealed" to him from God… well… that needs a little explaining: in reality Muhammad was not an illiterate. Besides being a criminal and warmonger etc. he was most probably a true genius, who followed the tradition of his family and predecessors and transformed Christian writings into the Quran, by translating, adapting, redacting, rewriting, commenting etc.. He was the founder of a huge and powerful religion. I seriously think that he wanted to take Christianity back to its original fundament. It's clear that he failed, but he must have felt inspired by and infused with God, so those legends about him receiving the Quran from God via an angel as a revelation, are perfectly okay from a faith-perspective. From a historical point of view it's of course total BS.

What do I think of his life? We actually don't know much about his life. His biography has been substantially altered after his death. But it's possible that he was more Christian than we think. Why else would later Muslims change the books?

Do you believe he was the last prophet as he claimed?

I try not to believe, not even when I attend church.

Was he the last prophet? In a purely historical sense: no. Martin Luther came later. Luther didn't do anything different: he translated Christian scripture and was the founder of a new religion. Was Mumu the most superior prophet, the "Propheta Novissima", the revealer of the last, final, ultimate truth? No. Surely not. Christianity, even in its current whitewashed state, is still far superior to Islam.

What did he prophesy?

In essence, the return to the original religion. Obviously he didn't like where Christianity was going. So he was kinda like an Arabic Marcion.

HL, in all the FOUR Gospels the crucifixion of Jesus is mentioned. The Gospels, Christians believe were written by eye witnesses, each from a different perspective, just as a traffic accident would be reported in different ways by different people.

Hi JAC,

JAC: "What I perceive from your continuous questioning and self answers is that in your worldview is better to believe in an unproved God than accept the reality that you will not go anywhere after you die. Your worldview should not be anybody business, but you have exposed it to show that the worldview of the rest of the humankind has been borrowed from yours. For me that serves to no clear purpose, other than set a line between you and others."

A few points on your commentary,
1)If my worldview was of my very own there would be nothing to boast of, nothing but subjective opinion. Atheists are always trying to point out the absurdity of believing in God. I'm just putting the spotlight back on your worldview to show you which is the really absurd one. And I appeal to an Authority that is higher than me, and therefore not my own. Because of Him I can make sense of this world.

There is no such thing as neutrality, we are all biased and prejudice. The Lord Jesus said that if we were not for Him we were against Him (Matthew 10; Mark 8:38; Luke 12:8 and esp. Luke 11:23)

2) In calling your worldview foolish I am just reiterating the words of Scripture of which God has already pointed it out (Romans 1:18-23 along with 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; Psalm 14:1; Proverbs 1:20-2:15). I do not expect you to look up these Scriptures but I put them there as a witness against you and that what I say is Biblical.

3) God is not unproven. Without Him nothing is certain as Jed has pointed out among other things that I hope to get to next. Basically what Jed did was contradict himself.

4) The reality is that you do not know what happens to you when you die if all you have is your subjective opinion. My opinion rests on Someone who sees the whole picture, who does not lie and is greater than I am, who is all knowing, the Creator and Sustainer of life.

JAC: "In your religious fervor, otherwise commendable, you are becoming intolerant to people that don't share your worldview."

It is funny you should mention intolerance in pointing out my faults showing that the shoe fits on your foot too.

JAC: "Not only that, you only half accept that people with a different worldview can arrive to a productive and civilized conduct similar to yours, which obviously is not true. You even question the reasons and thought process that use those people to behave as good persons."

You can arrive at civilized conduct, but when you do you share in the Christian worldview (Romans 12:9-21; Matthew 5:3-7:28), the very one that you try so hard to deny and are intolerant of.

JAC: "What is worst, you may be getting close to openly say that because atheists don't believe in the rewards and punishment of the afterlife, for non believers should not be any reason to restrain of doing whatever evil is necessary to fully enjoy the present. This imply that non believers are kind of silly not behaving like violent animals to get what they want."

Your worldview teaches that we are highly evolved animals. Mine does not. God reveals that we are made distinct from the animals with a sense of morality and we do know what evil is. Evil is suppressing the knowledge of God because when you do so you set yourself up as the ultimate authority with the ability to decide good and bad, right and wrong independently of God. What you are doing is what Eve did in the garden, you are questioning the authority of God and replacing it with your own. In that way you can do as you please without being answerable, at least for now. You have bought into the lie, "Did God really say?" (Genesis 3:1) Yes He did!

And I do not say anything that God, in His Word, has already said about afterlife and judgment. If I did not take Him at His word, but you or myself instead, then I would place you or myself as an authority higher than God. Why would I want to do that when I know that neither you or I or anyone else is an authority higher than God? You and I unaided by God's revelation are just subjective opinions that are not based in truth. The character of God is truth whereas I know both you and I have lied and practiced falsehood. You are doing it now in your false worldview in that you are believing the lie, believing that you can arrive at truth independent of God.

JAC: "Still much worse: you wrote a sketch that ended with an ominous "BANG! R.I.P." I hope you were kidding."

As a Christian I hold life precious because each human is created in the image and likeness of God and deserves respect and dignity, I was just showing the absurdity of your worldview and trying to shake you out of your complacency in it by showing and emphasizing the consequences of where it leads - independent thinking apart from God in which we do things that are wrong.

HL, your interpretation misses one important point and that is both the accounts mention the crucifixion. CCNL provided Jewish and secular mention of the crucifixion.

From your Muslim point of view, Jesus in the Quran in not crucified. How Mohammad who was born in Mecca nearly seven centuries later could have known better is a question that doesn't seem to concern you because you are a Muslim.

How a Muslim interprets Christian Scripture does not concern a Christian.

The issue is not about reecriture but more fundamental than that. Take for exmaple Jesus' "crucifiction". We read in John that Jesus was crucified the day before the Pesach, which is preparation day:

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.

But in Mark we read that Jesus was crucified on the day of Pesach:

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?... And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

So the question is which day was Jesus crucified on; was it the day of preperation or was it the day of passover itself. It is evident then that there is a problem of contadiction even at the most basic level of something as historic as the day of crucifixion. There is no way to harmonize the two narrations unless days two thousand years ago lasted forty eight hours.

Maria Janna posted on Pamela Taylor blog:

Hello, "anonymous"… thank you for a constructive post. Others should maybe follow your example.

A: the standard method used by Muslims approaching a Christian with the intention of converting them to Islam is tell the Christian that their own Scripture is wrong. Unfortunately it is mostly Catholics who have not read the Bible for themselves who buy into this.

MJ: This depends on how you interpret the "wrongness" of Scripture. Can Scripture even be "wrong" at all? The written religions are characterized by constant rewriting, redefinition, reinterpretation, transformation, errors in copying and translation processes, alterations due to new secular and theological developments etc.. This is the case for the the Christian Bible, the Jewish books and also the Quran. If one thinks that réécriture makes a Scripture "wrong", then he has missed the central point and characteristic of all religions that use Scripture as a fundament. You need rewriting to retain theopolitical power.

A: The Muslims harp on the Council of Nicea as a way of discounting the New Testament. However one important fact is ignored, the Council consisted of a group of the most religious people who were keen to preserve the Scripture exactly as it was and used the most original sources they could find.

MJ: Canon formation was more or less finished at that time. Nicaea and other councils were about finetuning and the correct *interpretation* of Scripture. There were still some major stumbling blocks, e.g. like the Apocalypse of John, which has remained a stumbling block to this day, but in general canon had specifically formed generations before, especially through the disputes with the propagators of alternate teachings and theologies, like Marcion. It doesn't mean that there were no disputes at the council. One major discrepancy shows if you compare the original with the final Creed. The original Nicene Creed doesn't mention the crucifixion for example, which is also contested in the Quran, where it's clearly a mock crucifixion, the presentation of a simulacrum. The gospels themselves also don't speak of a crucifixion, if you read the original Greek text. The words used are all about wood, wooden planks etc., so you could as well translate it as a cremation, which would accord with Augustine, who declared the Christ's apotheosis by fire and explicitly wrote that the Latin "cremo" (to cremate) is connected to the Greek word "krêmo" (to crucify) in the original sources. The Christians at Nicaea changed the Creed only many years later, and by doing so turned the "wooden planks" into a crucifixion once and for all. But still it took many more centuries for the Crucified Christ to enter mainstream Christian iconography, and even more for the patiens-type to emerge. There are many more examples, so to me it's quite logical that Muslims try to use Nicaea as one fulcrum for proselytization. If we ourself don't study the original Greek sources and read only modern-day translations, we shouldn't blame the Muslims for doing so. We're asking for it. I mean, of course most Muslims in the world don't know any Arabic, but at least there are SOME, who read the Quran in its original language. (Apart from the Syro-Aramaic language of the Ur-Quran, but that one is lost and can only be deduced.) This should be an example for all Christians.

A: People who copy Scripture do not invent it.

MJ: No, but apart from the many possible errors happening in the copying process, they also occupy Scripture with their mindset. They often change it, sometimes unwillingly, sometimes on purpose. Religions need to adapt, otherwise they will vanish. And often they adapt by themselves, because it's inherent to the process.

A: The words of Mohammad were written down by many people simultaneously. Different versions of Mohammad's teaching was taught as a result. But since Islam was a theocracy one leader could use his political power to decide on the official version and have all other versions destroyed.

MJ: Yes, that's exactly what happened, and it's communis opinio. Later rulers didn't approve of all of Muhammad's teachings and writings. The interesting thing is that after Muhammad's death, there is a strange near-silence in the sources for 100 to 150 years. These times were used by the theocracy to rewrite and change the Quran and even alter Muhammad's own biography. But the Quran itself was not only based on Muhammad's teachings. His grandfather had already worked on the Quran, A'isha explicitly called some of Muhammad's writings "commentaries" (mufassal), so it doesn't only mean that Muhammad could read and write, but also that there were pre-existing writings that he adapted in the Quran. Another genre is the mutasabih, which means that it's similar to other texts, i.e. also inspired by earlier writings. Two categories of the original sources were early Christian hymnals and the Syro-Aramaic Christian queryana. So Islam is already the result of a process of rewriting and adaptation/transformation of Scripture. Muhammad was only in charge of an intermediate redaction stage. But that doesn't make it false, you know? As I said above, rewriting is necessary for religions to stay alive.

A: One always hears from a Muslim that there are different versions of the New Testament.

MJ: Of course. There are four canonical and many apocryphal gospels and related writings. But that's only logical, because Christianity spread like wildfire all around the Roman empire, which resulted in different writings, different accounts of the same story, with different sources that the various authors, editorial offices and denominations worked with etc. But there's one Gospel, which is said to be the oldest and original one, namely the Gospel of Mark. There must have also been an even older Ur-Gospel, which Mark used, which could probably have been a Latin manuscript, as the early Church has always maintained (cf. Couchoud 1930 et al.). It doesn't mean that all the things that are e.g. written in John, but which are not found in Mark, are wrong. It only means that in case of different and/or diverging accounts in two discrete gospels, Christians should then rely on the oldest source, which would be Mark. That's a pretty secure form of Scripture, if you ask me.

A: The truth is that there were different versions of Mohammad's teachings as written down by his followers in his lifetime.

MJ: Sure. But in my view this is not an admissable argument to use against Islam or any other religion for that matter.

July 1, 2008 10:32 AM

Mary Cunningham, the political monarchy of Benazir Bhutto's family in Pakistan is comparable to the political monarchy of the Nehru family in India(which goes by the name Gandhi due to marriage not because of any blood relationship with Mahatma Gandhi). Corruption charges have not been made about the Nehru-Gandhis. Nepotism is however the order of the day. No political party offering real opposition worth its name to the political monarchy in India has emerged. If a fundamentalist Hindu party is the only alternative, then it is like being between a rock and a hard place. A healthy democracy needs healthy opposition.

To Peter Huff,

Thanks for your comments, I read them carefully. Also I read bits of your exchange with Steven and Jed.

What I perceive from your continuous questioning and self answers is that in your worldview is better to believe in an unproved God than accept the reality that you will not go anywhere after you die. Your worldview should not be anybody business, but you have exposed it to show that the worldview of the rest of the humankind has been borrowed from yours. For me that serves to no clear purpose, other than set a line between you and others.

In your religious fervor, otherwise commendable, you are becoming intolerant to people that don't share your worldview. Not only that, you only half accept that people with a different worldview can arrive to a productive and civilized conduct similar to yours, which obviously is not true. You even question the reasons and thought process that use those people to behave as good persons.

What is worst, you may be getting close to openly say that because atheists don't believe in the rewards and punishment of the afterlife, for non believers should not be any reason to restrain of doing whatever evil is necessary to fully enjoy the present. This imply that non believers are kind of silly not behaving like violent animals to get what they want.

Still much worse: you wrote a sketch that ended with an ominous "BANG! R.I.P." I hope you were kidding.

Peace and best wishes to all,

JAC

BB if it is you, you make me wildly happy.

Maria Janna's version of Catholicism is more Muslim than Christian. Jesus has been reinvented as a mythical non-Jew. Christians are the people of the sword etc. Confusing. Confusing.

MARIA JANNA please clear up the confusion.

What do you think of the Quran as Scripture?

What relevance does it have to Christians?

What do you think of Mohammad, his life, his claims to have received revelations from God?

Do you believe he was the last prophet as he claimed?

What did he prophesy?

Mary Cunningham dare I suggest Sobia somehow reflects another blogger's tone Farnaz whose pride and vanity is easily offended. Any disagreement or presentation of a different perspective is interpreted as an insult.

There is a blogger whose thoughts reflect that of a narrow minded Pakistani Muslim yet claims to be a Jew from Iran and atheist all in one. Confusing, confusing. Now this new development of Catholic bashing seeking the the help/using of fundamentalist Christians. Confusing, confusing.

Islam is a political religion. So any criticism of any Muslim in Pakistan or anywhere is perceived as insult to Islam. At least that is the narrow minded extremist version of Islam.

Macbeth was having a bad day:

Wherefore was that cry?

SEYTON
The queen, my lord, is dead.

MACBETH
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Peter Huff asks:

“How do you make sense of the world you live in?”

I don’t. The world does not make sense. As Macbeth put it, life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

“If everything is in a constant state of change how do you know that what has happened in the past will happen so in the future?”

Well, things repeat more or less because the laws of physics do seem immutable, but you never know.

“You base it on what has happened in the past. How do you know it is not going to evolve into something different?”

I am sure “it” will. Everything alive evolves, constantly.

“How do you know the evolutionary scientists are right?”

The evidence is strongly in their favor.

“Your worldview holds nothing as certain except for the fact that nothing is certain. It holds that there are no absolute truths except for the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, that truth is relative to the individual holding it.”

That’s incorrect. Individuals are often wrong. The only way to establish the truth is with objective events -- experiments and observations of nature. You can never be absolutely sure of the truth you discover.

“Without an absolute, ultimate, objective truth and Being it is all uncertain and subject to change, therefore what can be known for certain?”

Nothing can be known for certain. If that bothers you, you need to grow up. Francis Bacon’s realization that there is no certainty and that no observation can be free of bias (what he called “idols of the mind”) was the key to science and the first step in mankind’s march toward rationality, freedom, peace of mind, and power over nature.

Frankly, people who want an ultimate, absolute truth and Being remind me of small children trying to count to infinity. “If I just count fast enough, maybe I’ll make it!” Why would you even want things to be that way? I prefer living in a world where things are “uncertain and subject to change.” It is good that we never know what will happen, especially at the subatomic level where the uncertainty principle rules. It is liberating. You should study Buddhist philosophy and learn to appreciate uncertainty, change, and chaos.

- Jed

Mary Cunningham:

"Madam" is spelled correctly. "Beluchi(?)" can find remedy on the web. Benazir Bhutto, Robert Mugabe, and Romania have naught to do with one another. For corruption, Madam, you need not go beyond the borders of your land.

With this,Madam, I conclude our chat.

Hi Steven,

STEVEN: "I would like to preface though, (where I think you might be going in light of the comments preceeding) that the anchor of morality is much more than an individual preference, or some spectrum of behaviors that are only--to a non-believer--a reflection of the mood-of-the-day."

Well to the unbeliever they are the mood of the day. How can they be otherwise unless there is an ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging reference point - God?

STEVEN: "Morals are cultural, societal, familial, tribal. Morality doesn't involve an individual only, it's in relation to how we live among each other, what we collectively accept and label--and that does and should change, it is indeed "relative," and hopefully evolves in improving ways each and every year, with greater and more expansive knowledge and human experience."

Well without an ultimate, objective, absolute, unchanging standard what does one base improvement on? What does one place "greater" on? Whose standard are you willing to accept as the greater or an improvement? Some will accept a Hitler, some a Stalin, some a Mao. So was Hitler's Germany good? It all depends on who welds the mightiest sword. Anything can become good in such a situation. And for a society that at one time condemned gay marriage and thought it was wrong, why is it now right and acceptable? Which society was in the right, the one three or four decades ago or our on today. What happens if this moral dilemma keeps seesawing back and forth, one decade it is right and the next it is wrong? Can you really base your ethics on personal or cultural preference? It all become non-sense. God is the condition in order to make sense of anything.

STEVEN: "I can think of no greater example of "moral relativity" than when I think of the Holy Bible, the Old Testament God, the absence of addressing of pertinent moral issues in the New Testament, and perhaps above all, the "revelations" that come to us from clergy, from those who speak for God(s), and who are so often desperately wrong with their proclamations, and even harmful. There are too many examples to mention here."

There again you have to look at the context and situation. Who is being spoken to and is the condition spoken of specific or general, applying to Israel or to all peoples, to a time frame or forever, etc?

STEVEN: "There have been several excellent writings, upsetting statistics as well, that lay waste to the idea that a lack-of-religious-belief equates to some moral deficiency, or represents some threat to the "moral fiber" of our society. They are also too many to mention, but they are there for the discovery."

But when an unbeliever acts morally he does so in spite of his worldview. He is living on borrowed capital by borrowing from the Christian worldview.

Does it make any difference what one animal does to another in the big Darwinian picture? Does a lion have to explain his actions in killing another lion? If man is supposedly an animal why should it? The strong survive in Darwinian evolution.

STEVEN: "I would hypothesize that you and I have a very similar sense of morality, justice, maybe even ethics (aside from possibly some "wedge" issues,) but that we could even agree on the basis on which we have those opinions, or at the very least understand and sympathize with each other. But I also hypothesize that the discussion could take place without mentioning the gods in any form or fashion."

Yes, we may very well have many things in common, and I can empathize with you. But you have a worldview that cannot make sense of any of them, I do, not because of my own ability or intelligence but because of God's grace and who He is. What you do by your actions and morals may very well contradict your worldview. I was where you were once, but I thank God who rescued me from my disillusion.

Sobia,

Madame (please note the 'e' at the end of Madame, a French word, please spell it appropriately),

All those insults from one statement about (undisputed) corruption...Mugabe is also corrupt, can one thus not say so? Much of Romania is also--how can one put this delicately?--on the take. As well, there are a few ehmmm gendarmes in America and France not adverse to the gift of a few football tickets.

And your response to all of these is a charge of--Racism! Imperialism!

Such stupidity and lack of knowledge.

Tsk...tsk.

Hello Steven,

STEVEN: "Do you really think that is the 'starting point' for a worldview?"

Yes I do. If you believe there is no God you would have to have that as a fundamental core belief to build upon. You don't build a worldview on a vacuum. Your faith in atheism is not built on nothing. It is a web of connecting beliefs that have a foundation - no God. Otherwise you would be undecided or possibly a believer. You interpret the evidence that you receive in light of your belief and the way you look at the facts is influenced by this choice/belief. The facts do not speak for themselves, they have to be interpreted. A fossil does not come stamped "Died 2 million years ago." You assume certain things to be true based upon your slant. And as an atheist you slant is in denying God. In this way you are your own standard, however relative that is, and you have as your accountability yourself as your ultimate standard and judge. You are your own god, deciding good and bad, right and wrong.

STEVEN: "Do you imagine that those of us who are not "believers" start our every day, our every thought, base our every decision, consciously or subconsciously, on "there is no God."

It is all connected. The Lord Jesus said that you either build your house on the sand or on the rock. As a Christian He is my foundation and I must be careful how I build (2 Peter 2:4-8 or 1 Corinthians 3:10-11). Only in Christ Jesus are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colssians 2:3) so to build on anything else is to build in error and foolishness. You as an atheist are building on subjective reasoning, whereas a Christian builds on the absolute truth of God.

STEVEN: "Do I drive my child to school and think, "There is no God, so I hope my precious child isn't exposed to anyone's worldview that might suggest such."

I don't know, but as an atheist you influence and mold your children by your wordview.

STEVEN: "How do we 'make sense' of the world we live in? We are no different fundamentally I would guess--we do the best we can with the situation in which we find ourselves. Optimistic people do so with optimism, pessimistic people with pessimism."

How do you make sense of the world you live in? If everything is in a constant state of change how do you know that what has happened in the past will happen so in the future? You base it on what has happened in the past. How do you know it is not going to evolve into something different? How do you know the evolutionary scientists are right? Your worldview holds nothing as certain except for the fact that nothing is certain. It holds that there are no absolute truths except for the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, that truth is relative to the individual holding it. Without an absolute, ultimate, objective truth and Being it is all uncertain and subject to change, therefore what can be known for certain?

Mary Cunningham:

Madam, your remarks are and were imperialist, racist, and appallingly ignorant. Such a combination, Madam, does not merit courtesy.

Benazir Bhutto was corrupt. Her family is the ruling family in the Sind province of Pakistan. That does not mean she deserved to be assassinated. It also does not mean someone who says she was corrupt and knows about the corruption--which is actually pretty well known--is racist. My friend comes from Islamabad, but I think he said his family is Beluchi(?) and has scant love for the Sindhis or the Bhuttos. However, he is unfailingly polite when enumerating their defects.

You, madame, however, are neither knowledgeable nor courteous.

Which is why this won't go any further.

MARY CUNNINGHAM:

"Especially the crack about Benazir Bhutto, married to Mr 10%, the two of them setting a standard of corruption difficult to surpass, even for that part of the world. A Pakistani friend of mine (not a Sindhi) shook his head after the new ‘elections’ for the head of her “People’s Party”: “Ah yes,” he said, “the great champion of democracy and her party elects her 19-yr-old son! And he’s not even going to be in the country for the next three years!” What a democracy, he said. Of course, in the Sind province of Pakistan democracy has a special definition: it means rule by the Bhutto family, he added."

So just like Maria Janna, you know a Pakistani, and even better, you know about Mr. 10%. You know all about Bhutto family and Benazir, sum it all up for us in a single imperial paragraph that includes the word "Sindh." Quite the colonialist expert, aren't you? Brimming over with knowledge eager to inform us of "corruption difficult to surpass, even for that part of the world." Quite the racists, you and your bloody friend Maria Janna, aren't you?

Maria Janna,

Well, you’ve certainly got them all going! It doesn’t really matter, but why do you say you’re Catholic? (Or is it catholic with a small ‘c’?)

Because Catholics don’t tithe, and they believe in Jesus Christ: his divinity and his Judaism form the basic tenets of Catholicism. Its Judaic origins and aspirations to Greek philosophy form a tension within Catholicism which continues to this day. It’s a truism-- but still true, or at least not largely false--that if for the ancient Jew the main question was “What shall we do?” the question for the Greek was “What am I?” The Jew was obsessed with morality, the Greek with Truth. The early Church tried to incorporate Greek philosophy, which in some cases had argued itself into the ground, into its theology. But it had to be true to its Jewish origins. No wonder it needed the Holy Spirit!

The Church actually existed before the gospels, and a few generations, decades really, after the death of Jesus, the main architecture of Christian belief had formed. Anyway, you’re not Catholic, that’s clear, but still, the rest of your stuff is good reading.

Especially the crack about Benazir Bhutto, married to Mr 10%, the two of them setting a standard of corruption difficult to surpass, even for that part of the world. A Pakistani friend of mine (not a Sindhi) shook his head after the new ‘elections’ for the head of her “People’s Party”: “Ah yes,” he said, “the great champion of democracy and her party elects her 19-yr-old son! And he’s not even going to be in the country for the next three years!” What a democracy, he said. Of course, in the Sind province of Pakistan democracy has a special definition: it means rule by the Bhutto family, he added.

A few caveats:

1) In the 13th century in addition to fabulous silks and spices the Europeans also brought back a few ignominious fleas and later about half the population of Europe died in the plague.. Similarly the European exploration of the Americas resulted in death, but this time the Amerindians died from exposure to the Europeans: epidemics of measles, smallpox, and a virulent form of gastroenteritis swept through the native population. Yes there were massacres, but what killed the natives of America was, well, germ warfare. Yet many of the natives of the Spanish Empire survived. Why? Probably because the Spaniards intermarried with the Amerindians rather than importing their ‘own’ women. Close proximity gave the children immunity. Additionally, after a ruling from the Pope, the Spanish considered the Amerindians as citizens of their Empire, whilst the English considered them savages. Missionary activity towards the Indian tribes from English Protestants was negligible in colonial times.

2) On Hitler’s Catholicism, well, Hitler was Austrian. In that period 9/10 Austrians were Catholic, 1/10 Jewish. Since_all_Austrians (except Jews) were Catholic, the statement is tautological. If Hitler was Austrian (he was) and not Jewish (he was not), then he was Catholic. Josh’s statement is meaningless, not that he won’t repeat it_ad nauseam_.

To "Just A Comment", henceforth JAC,

JAC: "An atheistic universe does not exists, please don't invent it."

I'm not inventing it, I'm just using equivocal language for what is termed a worldview and all of us have one of those. You as an atheist look at the universe as existing without a Creator. Evolution is the name of your game.

As a believer I look upon people in two distinct ways; as either believers or unbelievers of the only true and living God. The believer knows God exists and the unbeliever claims he does not, although he is living in and is part of the creation that God has made and all the facts point to the Creator, but the unbeliever has pokes himself in both eyes and is now putting his fingers in his ears so that he may not hear as well.

Unbelievers fall into the category of religion (a system of belief and faith in something, whether that be evolution, himself, or some god he made up). Believers fall into the category of those called Christians, whom God has saved by His mercy and grace and trust in the Almighty and His Word.

JAC: "And yes, for those non believers in God what one man does to another man is of great significance."

Well you make it significant because you borrow from the Christian worldview where there is meaning and purpose not only in this life but the one to come. When you are dead, in your worldview, all the injustice as well as all your perceived good means diddly. It's as worthless as dust in the wind. When you're dead, by the standards of your worldview there is no more meaning, no joy, no nothing - it all ceases to exist - so you may create some meaning and purpose for this short period of time called life, but in the end it makes no difference whatsoever in the long term of things. So it does not really matter what kind of life you live or how long you are here; no one to answer to and that is the way you want it.

BTW, when your life ceases to exist does that mean existence ceases for everyone else also?

Not so for the Christian where everything has meaning and purpose and worth and value and where death brings joy for the believer and justice and payment for the wrongs of the unbeliever.

JAC: "Let me tell you a secret that maybe you didn't know: they are as normal or abnormal as the rest of the population. Some are productive citizens and exemplar parents, others are criminals, some others just eat, drink and are merry for tomorrow they die. ..."

What does it matter how one behaves for in your worldview when you are dead nothing matters? Why "should" or "ought" a person seek to do the "right" thing, to act as if there is meaning when he knows that there is no ultimate purpose, no answering for the many injustices he has done, and no existence after death? Kind of bleak isn't it? Why not instead just eat and drink and have a hoot instead of trying to look "good" in the eyes of your peers in order to puff yourself up and say "What a good little boy am I!" Is it your selfish gene that is looking out for its own good in the battle for survival is it not?

You see, your worldview has no accountability for why something "should" or "ought" to be a certain way. It does not even account for existence. Why is there something instead of nothing?

You are constantly borrowing from the Christian worldview when you appeal to ethics or the way things "ought" to be, because only in the Christian system of things can the "ought" be made sense of. Good is only good if there is an ultimate, absolute, objective reference point for what good is. If good constantly changes then whose reference point is going to be your standard and why "should" or "ought" it be mine also? Because you threaten me and you have the more powerful weapon? As Marie said, Hitler's Germany was defined as good to some as long as you were not one of those in the concentration camp. Whose subjective standard are you going to make yours or are you going to be a trailblazer and make your own where truth and good is just relative to you?

JAC: "Knowing this secret about the people that don't believe in God, the answer to your question "So why does she and you live your life like it does matter?" is simple: because they are humans as you and for most humans life does matter, with or without afterlife."

There is no secret to it; they borrow from the Christian worldview when they look upon life as having meaning and purpose, they just look to the wrong source - themselves in defining what that meaning and purpose "should" be.

JAC: "Peace to all and best wishes,"

Again, you are borrowing from the Christian worldview.

Again, why? In an evolutionary worldview peace and "best" wishes (what is your standard for best?) is not necessarily going to accomplish your survival in a dog eat dog world. "I need some money so hand over your wallet. Well no, actually I will just take it since there are no witnesses - BANG!" R.I.P.

ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS

Sam Harris has posted an essay and it's obvious he's read the Pew Survey. How about we move from lightweight Jacoby middleweight Harris?

The Blogosphere is a dangerous place
Or just a circus free
Nobody knows who is who
What is what
There is no face
There is no voice
There is only an ever changing scene
Today this
Tomorrow that
Saying what seems best to attract
Words are cheap
Virtue is rare
There is a power game or two
Many personalities grace the stage
A masked one here
A courtesan there
Cowards too
Some are fun
Some are bores
Some are pains
You know where
All in all
Just human beings
Who have nothing better to do.

---The Shadow

Viejita del oeste:

How often do real Catholics call the Holy Land "Palestine"?

Please re-read this thread. MJ is not Catholic. There are several posters spreading their propagada of anti-semitism and anti-catholicism by pretending to be disgruntled jews and catholics.

Please carefully read their posts. They are inexperienced and are leaving loads of clues as to their identities.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/adin_steinsaltz/2008/06/the_people_of_many_books/all_comments.html

"it's clearly not antisemitism, but anti-Catholicism that worries you."

"Melissa contributed a utube of"

"a House floor debate on H Res 1127, a resolution condemning the endemic restrictions on freedom of the press and media and public expression in the Middle East and the concurrent and widespread presence of anti-Semitic incitement to violence and Holocaust denial in the Arab media and press"

There is an obviously clumsy propaganda war on your thread involving several colluding "posters".

The new wave of anti-semitism is also obvious and deeply concerning to anyone with Jewish blood- regardless of their faith.

Susan Jacoby- A rise in anti-semitism is timely. It should not be ignored. It will not just go away. Please comment."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd0wQFPYmCU

There is a wave of anti-semitism and anti-catholicism propaganda. It originates to divide Jews and Christians, to deny Yeshua's Jewish heritage, and to weaken Israel. This will never happen as G-d's covenant cannot be broken.

Reading over the utter stupidity of these vitriolic exchanges between Catholics and born-again fundamentalists is great fun for atheists everywhere!

The 4th of July is a great day indeed to be free of the control of religious superstition. Ironically, this great nation is still overly preoccupied with all things religious, right up to our current election. Western Europe, including the UK, is much further ahead in consigning religion to its proper place. In many ways, we're still a fledgling nation......

And do try to remember - atheists by definition don't believe in god, gods, the devil, or other assorted supernatural beings with divine powers. They are - non-theists in other words.

Anti-theist is a misnomer and a pejoritive used by devout theists...a verbal sleight-of-hand used in much the same way that those opposing the pro-choice position in reproductive matters refer to themselves as 'pro-life'.

Beyond that, atheists are quite a diverse lot as regards their beliefs. Many are 'spiritual' and many are not....most tend to give science the credit it deserves in solving the anomalies of the material world - and that includes being comfortable with the inevitable solutions coming in the future. The only life we know for sure is the one we're living....how hard is that?

Arguing about religion is just a monumental waste of time.

potential Maelstrom ahead:

Please. Melissa's post was obviously not antisemitic and it's clearly not antisemitism, but anti-Catholicism that worries you.

Deal with it.

Susan Jacoby-

You are an atheist on the panel at ON FAITH. There is a anti-catholic spam war being waged on your thread.

I know you like to hold your nose and slum read here. Read these posts and tell us where truth lies.

"Eugene Gates" has repeatedly posted a list of anti-catholic books and states all anti-semitism originates at the vatican.

Other posters have countered with utubes of islamic holocaust deniers. Melissa contributed a utube of"

"a House floor debate on H Res 1127, a resolution condemning the endemic restrictions on freedom of the press and media and public expression in the Middle East and the concurrent and widespread presence of anti-Semitic incitement to violence and Holocaust denial in the Arab media and press"

There is an obviously clumsy propaganda war on your thread involving several colluding "posters".

The new wave of anti-semitism is also obvious and deeply concerning to anyone with Jewish blood- regardless of their faith.

Susan Jacoby- A rise in anti-semitism is timely. It should not be ignored. It will not just go away. Please comment.

Mat:

I don't think the blogger who posted to you just now is the same one who posted originally. I think the second blogger is Victoria. No one else could write anything so stupid.

MAT, please go on your way in less than a minute. We are wasting time here.

Logging off...

"MAT, it is a ridiculous discussion. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion of their own and disagree with anyone. People refer to President Bush as simply Bush or Mr Bush. Is referring to the president as Mr Bush an insult to him? You are making a big issue of a non-issue. Maybe you haven't been reading the way bloggers have been addressing other panelists on this forum."

Like I said, I gave this one more minute than it deserved.

MAT, it is a ridiculous discussion. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion of their own and disagree with anyone. People refer to President Bush as simply Bush or Mr Bush. Is referring to the president as Mr Bush an insult to him? You are making a big issue of a non-issue. Maybe you haven't been reading the way bloggers have been addressing other panelists on this forum.

Anon:

I'm waiting another minute for your reply. That's one more minute than you deserve.

Anon:

"People of the Book" is a term of reference found only in the Quran. It refers to both Christians and Jews. There is no reason why Jews or Christians should get into a dispute about how Muslim refer to them in their Holy Book."

The Jews, not the Christians, are the People of the Book.

FARNAZ: I am not checking back anymore on this idiot thread. I will look back here in in the early afternoon.

THE JEWS ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK.

"People of the Book" is a term of reference found only in the Quran. It refers to both Christians and Jews. There is no reason why Jews or Christians should get into a dispute about how Muslim refer to them in their Holy Book.

Anon:

"MAT, you claim to have studied at Yale and yet are completely unaware of the academic tradition. Rabbis disagree with each other all the time. That is not a sign of lack of humility. What does anyone's title have to do with expressing one's opinion about any matter?"

1. Give me the names of rabbis in disagreement with Rabbi Steinsaltz and tell me what they disagree with him about.

2. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of ignorance and disrespect. Whom do you think the authors of the various websites on Judaism go to? One of the first stops is Rabbi Steinsaltz

Maria Janna isn't a rabbi. I doubt he's even a Catholic.

3. Rabbi Steinsaltz has worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has translated the Babylonian Talmud.
I could go on for hours listing his accomplishments. This is a ridiculous discussion.

4. "Mr. Steinsaltz"?

MAT, you claim to have studied at Yale and yet are completely unaware of the academic tradition. Rabbis disagree with each other all the time. That is not a sign of lack of humility. What does anyone's title have to do with expressing one's opinion about any matter?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
Pam:
"Everything that TTWSY posts is pasted verbatim from this site.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/"

IRT
“Not only that, but they are old and tired arguments that have been handily dealt with by such as John Allen Paulos, Richard Dawkins, many others.”

ANS:
To the contrary, Richard Dawkins tries to explain Love, Compassion, and all the spiritual entities of mankind in the context of materialism, in the context of the unreality that all materialist exist in. Hence, they try to define a superior science that their subordinate science rely on.

For example, empirical science of Physics assumes the principles of the higher science of mathematics. Materialist try to define the higher science of natural theology whose principles they must draw from or assume.

You see this occurence happening in the entire amalgamation of materialist theories, viz. they use empirical science in an attempt to explain the theories of natural theology when the formal objects of the two sciences are different.

Empiricists are in the wrong world to define man. They use the tools of their trade to exact something that their tools were never made to do. An analogy is to akin a plumber to a brain surgeon, a plumber who use the tools of his trade to do brain surgery.

Their failures of materialists are manifested in the fruits of their conclusions, Communism, Fascism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Finally, they converge into the pessimism that befalls all materialist, despair because they deny the spiritual nature of man.

No matter how the atheists tries, he cannot explain the "concept," "judgment," and the "idea" as a material being when none have a material dimension or attribute.

Dawkins as all materialists encapsulate themselves in a world of mechanism and end in the ridiculousness of predestination where all man’s actions are controlled by the physical laws of the Universe. This makes man an autonomon irresponsible for his actions.

Materialism relieves man of his conscience and his moral responsibility, and inadvertently conclude the concomitances a hopeless and merciless society of despotism that is plagued by the coming of the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, famine, pestilence, war and death.

All these injustices are personified in those who have accepted the many variances of materialism throughout the ages. Such injustices to man are proffered by the multitude of Dawkins who have beset the world with their infectious theories.

The Dawkins of the world have plagued mankind with their theories that man is a material being, when it is unequivocally clear that man has a destination of immortality that is exacted by his inherent desire for that which is beyond matter.

Human nature is manifested by man’s thirst for knowledge, and a desire for perfection that can only be realized in the achievement of eternal happiness, as Aristotle describes in his treaties on Ethics and Politics.

Materialism can’t begin to explain these ideas and the innate desire of man’s search for the good, because materialism does not lend itself to such things by its very nature.

Moreover, as Dawkins and the multitude of others before him, the Kants, the Hegels, the Spinozas, the Gnostics, the Hindus, and the Buddhists end up denying reality.

Is not the hypothesis that 1+1=2, an old and tired theory? Yet all mathematics is built on this beginning self-evident supposition. Tired and tried have nothing to do with reality and truth.

Truth is independent of thought. Truth is that which exist and is not dependent on what one thinks. Truth is reality. Dawkins and all the other atheists who try to explain man’s existence and purpose in terms of empirical sciences have been added to the dust heap of failures because their theories lack any semblance to truth or reality.

We only have to look to the fruits of what materialists have wrought, death, destruction, and suffering of the human race, and contrast that to Christianity. The contrast is stark. Only the foolish would consider taking the path of the atheists. Atheism is a path to depression and despair, and the disembodiment of human nature from its reality.

I don't want to be a part of this discussion of this idiot Janna. I am merely looking for Farnaz who usually posts here.

THE JEWS ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. IT IS WRITTEN.

Here is what Maria Janna wrote:

Maria Janna:

The Jews are the "people of the scroll". The *Christians* are the "people of the book", Mr. Steinsaltz.

June 28, 2008 8:14 PM |

"Mr. Steinsaltz," no less. Good God, indeed. I cannot believe this Janna is Catholic

An atheist does not believe in God because the existence of God cannot be proven.

A honest believer would not believe in God because his existence cannot be proven.

There are therefore no honest believers.

Anon:

The Scripture the Jews use in their services are written on parchment scrolls. That is what Maria Janna was referring to. Mentioning that in the comment to Rabbi Steinsalz was not meant to be an insult as is being construed.

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Suggest you read the biography of Rabbi Steinsaltz that was posted below. From it, you should be able to see that Dr. Steinsaltz does not need explanations from the likes of Maria Janna. It was, indeed, the utmost arrogance for him to have gone on that thread and corrected one of the most erudite religious scholars of our time. With the death of Josua Heschel, Dr. Steinsaltz may well be the leading scholar of Judaic history. He is aware of how the Bible was compiled.

As a Catholic who had the good fortune to study with Dr. Steinsaltz, I am glad I did not go to that thread when Maria Janna was posting. I don't think I would have been able to control myself.

Anon: Have some respect and humility.

The Scripture the Jews use in their services are written on parchment scrolls. That is what Maria Janna was referring to. Mentioning that in the comment to Rabbi Steinsalz was not meant to be an insult as is being construed.

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Christian Anon:

Maria Janna is a Catholic. The Catholics slaughtered the indigenous peoples of South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The Catholics had to import Africans into the Caribbean since they had wiped out the indigenous peoples often through torture.

July 4, 2008 5:59 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And what happened to the Native Americans in North America? How did the black slaves get to North America?

If Maria Janna is Catholic he is a member of some fringe group. Catholics do not go around correcting eminent men like Rabbi Steinsaltz nor do they say that Benazir Bhutto deserved to be murdered.

Decent Catholics respect the Jewish people.

I am Egyptian, Muslim. I don't know who this idiot Janna is but the Jews are the People of the Book. It is written.

FARNAZ: Now I see your posts everywhere but here. I told you I would post to you here in a couple of days, and now I see your name all over this blog, but not here. I don't know where to post to you. Please, if you come to this thread, leave a message for me.

Amro

Excuse the intrusion of a miserable Catholic who took a course with R. Steinsaltz, a great man, at Yale.

In no way should Maria Janna be considered representative of Catholics. His telling the Rabbi that the Jews are not the people of the book is deplorable. Kudos to Josh for not continuing with this idiot Janna.

I should like to point out the comment of another Catholic on the same thread.

Viejita del oeste:

Please, MJ, you probably mean well but you are making all of us Catholic Christians look rigid and judgmental. For Christ's sake, really, tone it down. There is absolutely no reason to be so disrespectful to representatives of the patriarchal roots of our faith.

In my experience when someone is this rigid and unpleasant toward other religious traditions it has been indicative of a weak faith. Are you so afraid that our beliefs and traditions can not stand up to honest scrutiny?

If there are any Jews reading this thread please believe me that I know no Catholic who ever would have said what this idiot Janna did if Janna even is a Catholic which I am beginning to doubt.

Just in case the Catholic bashers here missed it, President Bush welcomed the Pope with the greatest respect, many evangelicals met with him, he was invited to celebrate in a Synagogue with the Jews.

The exchange between Josh and Maria Janna may be read here ---

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/adin_steinsaltz/2008/06/the_people_of_many_books/all_comments.html

Good God! Who is this idiot Janna?

Anon:

I wrote "Mr." Steinsaltz because that is what Catholic Janna called Rabbi Steinsaltz.

Anon:

Why do you write "Mr." Steinsaltz?

Anon:

Catholic went to Rabbi Steinsaltz's thread to correct him not to answer Josh's questions because he asked him none. Catholic told "Mr." Steinsaltz that the Jews were not the people of the book.

Here is a biography of the man Catholic was correctin.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Born in 1937 to a secular family, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz is internationally regarded as one of the leading scholars and rabbis of this century. According to Newsweek:

Jewish lore is filled with tales of formidable rabbis. Probably none living today can compare in genius and influence to Adin Steinsaltz, whose extraordinary gifts as scholar, teacher, scientist, writer, mystic and social critic have attracted disciples from all factions of Israeli society.

Rabbi Steinsaltz's formal education includes a degree in mathematics from the Hebrew University, in addition to his rabbinic studies. At the age of 23, he became Israel's youngest high school principal.
Rabbi Steinsaltz then went on to found the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications. Under its aegis, he has published to date 58 books on the Talmud, Jewish mysticism, religious thought, sociology, historical biography, and philosophy. These books have been translated into Russian, English, French, Portuguese, Swedish, Japanese, and Dutch.
His commentary on Pirkei Avot, the Chapters of the Fathers, was translated into Chinese and published in 1996.
Deeply involved in the future of the Jews in the former Soviet Union, Rabbi Steinsaltz serves as the region's Duchovny Ravin, an historic Russian title which indicates that he is the spiritual mentor of Russian Jewry. In this capacity, Rabbi Steinsaltz travels to Russia and the Republics once each month from his home in Jerusalem.
Rabbi Steinsaltz is best known for his interpretation, commentaries, and translations of the Babylonian Talmud, a monumental task which he began some 25 years ago. Thirty volumes of Rabbi Steinsaltz's Hebrew edition of the Talmud have been published; two million books are in print. The Rabbi expects to complete the project over the next decade, with a total of 42 volumes in Hebrew.Fifteen volumes of the Rabbi's Talmudic translation and commentaries have been translated into English and published by Random House, to great critical acclaim. Two volumes will appear in Fall, 1997, with additional volumes to be published yearly until the initial set of 21 volumes is completed.
The first two volumes of a new edition of the Talmud have also been published in Russian, under the sponsorship of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This is an historic event: the first Russian Talmud ever produced. In addition, the first four volumes of the French translation have also been published.
Rabbi Steinsaltz's other pioneering efforts in Russia include the founding of the Jewish University of Moscow and the Jewish University of St. Petersburg. These educational centers provide Hebrew language instruction and classes on Jewish life, history, and philosophy to thousands of Russian Jews each year. The Jewish University is the first degree-granting institution of Jewish studies ever established in the former Soviet Union. He has also established a publishing house in Moscow and Lamed, the national Jewish teachers' organization of the former Soviet Union.
In Israel, Rabbi Steinsaltz is the Dean of the Mekor Chaim of Jerusalem network of schools, which encompasses kindergarten through high school. In 1988, Rabbi Steinsaltz received the Israel Prize, the country's highest honor. He has been a resident scholar at major academic institutions in Europe and the United States, among them Yale University and the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey. In 1991, Rabbi Steinsaltz served as Senior Scholar at a Xerox Dialogue at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC. Last year, he received the French Order of Arts and Letters; he has also been nominated to become a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Maria Janna was responding to questions from Jew Joshua/Josh.

What was the Catholic Maria Janna doing on Rabbi Steinsaltz's thread teaching him about Catholicism?

Another Anonymous ---

Catholic priests are trained over nine years for their ministry. The Church has two thousand years of scholarship in Christian matters. Don't forget you read the Bible Catholics compiled and preserved for centuries. You don't question the Bible they complied, but you doubt their Christianity. Catholics don't need your approval.

Anon-What was the Catholic Maria Janna doing on Rabbi Steinsaltz's thread teaching him about Catholicism?

Good question. Disgusting.

Another Anonymous ---

Your hatred for the Catholic Church and ignorance about it is a disease with no cure. Catholics can survive it.

As to sexual abuse of minors collect data from all Christian Churches, other religious and non-religious organizations and be surprised learn there are sexual predators everywhere. The highest number lurk in families. Most of the poor children who are trapped in such situations have no one to help them. The vast majority of cases go unreported. If you are really a born-again Christian who cares for children then do something to protect children in families.

What was the Catholic Maria Janna doing on Rabbi Steinsaltz's thread teaching him about Catholicism?

"Since when did calling Catholics non-Christians and anti-semites and hating them constitute the mark of a born-again Christian. You must have a Bible you wrote yourself."

No one hates Catholics. We want the Vatican to stop controlling the government and to leave the Jews alone. The Jews are the people of God and must be preserved.

I don't know what planet you're on but Christian fundamentalists are in Israel all the time. Jews help us learn Hebrew. They don't worship statues. They don't protect child molesting priests and they don't accept payoffs from the Vatican for raped children.

Jack Chick may be news to some bloggers, but he's not news to millions of Christians.

Maria Janna is a Catholic. The Catholics slaughtered the indigenous peoples of South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The Catholics had to import Africans into the Caribbean since they had wiped out the indigenous peoples often through torture.

Since when did calling Catholics non-Christians and anti-semites and hating them constitute the mark of a born-again Christian. You must have a Bible you wrote yourself.

To Anonymous/Eugene who blame the Catholics for everything ---

MARIA JANNA on the blog of Rabbi Steinsalz ---

...if you look at the advances for Christian proselytization in the Americas, it's highly conspicuous that the indigenous population in Middle and South America, which was in the majority visited by missionaries from Catholic states, is still there in large numbers, albeit at the bottom of society, inferior even to the people of African descent. In North America, which was largely Protestant territory, almost all native Americans were simply massacred, not converted.

Christian Anon II:

I uploaded it, and I'm going to start reading it in an hour. Btw., it's Gene Gates, Eugene Gates. Hopefully, he'll give us his website.

Christian Anon,

Have you uploaded Avro Manhattan's first book yet? I can't stop reading it. It's all documented just like Gene Graves said.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Avro%20Manhattan%22

Jesus is the living God. Many Protestant ministers regardless of what they say in public view Catholicism with disgust. Born again Christians number in the tens of millions and the population is growing worldwide. Jack Chick is read worldwide. Christians do not like Catholicism to put it mildly.

Some Christians are anti-Semitic like the Catholics. Many are. Many are not and recognize the special provenance of the Jews. If I were Catholic, I'd realize that this is a good time to shut my mouth. Eugene Gates is a blessing to you. It's quite simple. He's giving you notice. He's right here in your face telling you what you've been closing your eyes to.

Jews have never been your problem but you make problems for them. So have many Christians. On the other hand, many Christians now recognize the Jews' special provenance and the number of these Christians is growing and growing. Jewish people must be preserved. Christians don't recognize the Catholics as anything but Romanizers, worshipers of statues, metaphysicians, and child rapers.

This is a good time for Catholics to shut their mouths and start showing some respect. If you're not altogether stupid you'll get it.

Every Christian starting with the Catholics know that Jesus and all disciples were Jews. The New Testament was written by Jewish Christians. Jesus came as Messiah for all of mankind, first for the Jews and then for all the Gentiles. As Son of God He is no longer bound in His Jewishness after His Resurrection.

Most of the Christians worldwide accept the Catholic Church as an Apostolic Church and many non-Roman Churches are in communion with it. Small Christian denominations which consider the Catholic Church as not Christian don't really matter. They read the Bible the Catholic Church compiled and preserved for centuries.

Christians are children of God. The New Testament is the New Covenant with God which came through Jesus Christ. What does it matter if a few fundamentalists don't accept Catholics as Christians? There are 1.3 billion Catholics who don't care.

Susan Jacoby:

"Don't Know Much About Theology, Don't Know Much Philosophy."

This is correct. You don't. Add history and culture to your list, Susan Jacoby.

Anon:

"Christian fundamentalists hate Catholics. Don't feed into this newest trend."

Christians fundamentalists don't hate Catholics. We
just don't want them near us or our children. We don't want them controlling the Supreme Court and the Senate. The Jews are God's people. We know this. It's not a "trend."

Anon:

Jesus was Jewish. He is the living God. Many mainstream Protestant ministers consider Catholicism
idolatry and with good reason.

Jews are offended and with good reason by the words "Old Testament."

Show some respect. Eugene Gates is not the only Christian out there who has awakened to anti-Semitism and disrespect for Jewish people. Most Jews I know are smart and well educated. Gates is no dummy. Look at the sites he recommends and think about why he suggests the strategies he does.

Don't be a fool. Christian fundamentalists hate Catholics. Don't feed into this newest trend.

Very poorly informed on US foreign policy to come up with the term international Catholic-Muslim oil cartel.

Anonymous:

THe Catholics genocided the native Americans and the Jews gave us our book, moron.

The US was a British colony and there was less than 1% Catholics at the time of the Revolution.

The Jews gave all the Christians only the Old Testament.

As to the New Testament do you think the Church in Rome had anything to do with compiling the writings of the Apostles, and preserving it for centuries?

With Christian friends like you, Christians don't need any enemies, not just Catholics (who are considered Christians by mainstream Christian churches by the way).

Happy 4th of July!

Anonymous: "Eugene Gates the Christian is afraid to mention Jesus to the Jews for fear of offending them. Wow!"

Wow! Eugene Gates respects Jewish people. Hard for Catholics to understand that he doesn't want to convert them. Hard for your simple mind to understand that he simply wants to keep them safe from your international Catholic-Muslim oil cartel.

Wow! Hard for you to understand that Christians are secure enough in there own faith to respect the people of God.

Wow!

Anonymous: "What happened to the Native Americans while Christians were making the country that belonged to the Natives. Where did the Christians get their Bible from?"

THe Catholics genocided the native Americans and the Jews gave us our book, moron.

Gene,

I'm logging off. I'll do what you said. I'm going to read Avro Manhattan straight through the weekend.
I clicked on Jack Chick's web site. I wish I knew about it earlier.

God bless you.

Eugene Gates the Christian is afraid to mention Jesus to the Jews for fear of offending them. Wow!

What happened to the Native Americans while Christians were making the country that belonged to the Natives. Where did the Christians get their Bible from?

Christian Anonymous:

"Gene is correct. The Vatican conspiracy is well documented. Christians don't spread hatred against Jews or deny their ongoing persecution and the bigotry against them. We don't rape our children and we didn't bomb the WTC. Christians made this country and Jews are the people of God.

Muslims, Romanizers, and other idolators should go to Rome or to hell."

Please don't waste your breath here. In Jesus name, we will prevail. Do as I asked. Spread the word. Christians should have been reaching out to the Jews from the beginning.

Do not try to convert the Jews. Do not even mention Jesus to them. Only ask them if they've read Avro Manhattan. I will explain as I go on.

There is a lot of work to be done and you can help.

God bless.

Gene

Gene is correct. The Vatican conspiracy is well documented. Christians don't spread hatred against Jews or deny their ongoing persecution and the bigotry against them. We don't rape our children and we didn't bomb the WTC. Christians made this country and Jews are the people of God.

Muslims, Romanizers, and other idolators should go to Rome or to hell.

Eugene Gates please don't forget that all the Muslims are looking to your help to go and live in the land of their prophet. Please help them first. Christians are willing to wait.

No exclusion for anyone. Then only the Native Americans will remain. Jews to Israel, all "real" Christians other than Catholics and Episcopaleans, to the land of their ancesstors. The atheists and anti-theists to the North Pole where God doesn't exist.

"if Catholics to Rome, then Episcopalians to England"

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Let them all get the hell out of here and take the Muslims with them. Leave the Christians and let the Jews alone.

Anonymous:

"Eugene Gates you are not going to get any support for your crazy ideas from Christians of any stripe. So better concentrate all your energies on exiling all Muslims to Saudi Arabia. You are a Christian who should be happy to see all Muslims safely in one place."

Really? Wow! I'd be happy to see the Catholics in Rome. I'd like to see the Muslims someplace else too. No mutual exclusion there.

Great work, Gene! Uploaded first book on list at link."

Anon, thank you and God bless you. Please also go to Jack T. Chick's web site

http://www.chick.com/default.asp

Please spread the word to every Jew you know. Begin with Avro Manhattan. The Jews are cautious about anything they see as propaganda even though Jack Chick doesn't write propaganda. That's why it's best to direct them to Avro Manhattan first.
His tone and his biography speak for themselves.

Gene

If Catholics to Rome, then Episcopalians to England, each man to the land of his ancestors, and leave America free to its native Americans. Capital idea.

Eugene Gates Muslims are dying to live under Sharia Law in the land of their prophet. So please concentrate all your efforts on exiling all Muslims to Saudi Arabia where they will feel perfectly safe and at home.

Anonymous:

"Eugene Gates you are not going to get any support for your crazy ideas from Christians of any stripe. So better concentrate all your energies on exiling all Muslims to Saudi Arabia. You are a Christian who should be happy to see all Muslims safely in one place."

Really? Wow! I'd be happy to see the Catholics in Rome. I'd like to see the Muslims someplace else too. No mutual exclusion there.

Great work, Gene! Uploaded first book on list at link.

Jewish Bloggers:

There are millions maybe tens of millions of opponents to the W*ore of Babylon. That was not Avro Manhattan's calling. He was not a Christian. He was a Catholic. He documented everything he claimed. Go to the link I gave and upload his books. Also, read his biography. He was a decorated World War II hero. No one has discredited him.

Let us send the blaspheming idolaters to Rome and let Rome pay the bill.

Together we will prevail in Jesus name. You will survive.

God bless.

Gene

Eugene Gates you are not going to get any support for your crazy ideas from Christians of any stripe. So better concentrate all your energies on exiling all Muslims to Saudi Arabia. You are a Christian who should be happy to see all Muslims safely in one place.

The hate machine posting under the name of Eugene Gates needs to know that any decent human being could recognize the unholy intent. It is a Muslim propagandist at work.

Jewish Bloggers:

" Anonymous:

There is no need for a single Jew to be in exile anywhere in the world against their will. Israel provides transportation and support to every genuine Jew wanting to live in Israel."

ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS READ. READ a couple of cowardly Catholic anonymous bloggers. Then, with the help of God, we will exile all of them to Rome. Let the vatican pay for transportation.

Read Avro Manhattan, and read my posts. In Jesus name we Christians will prevail and you will survive.

Gene

Anonymous:

There are over two billion Christians and only one Eugene Gates with a hate propaganda against Catholics. Every Christian would recognize the hate machine posting the list is not Eugene Gates but a Muslim wanting to deflect attention from the Jews fleeing Muslim countries in ME.

You are very ignorant. There are millions maybe tens of millions of opponents to the W*ore of Babylon. That was not Avro Manhattan's calling. He was not a Christian. He was a Catholic. He documented everything he claimed.

JEWISH BLOGGERS:

Ignore these cowardly anonymous bloggers and read my posts, please. Please do this. I must go now.
God bless you.

Gene

There is no need for a single Jew to be in exile anywhere in the world against their will. Israel provides transportation and support to every genuine Jew wanting to live in Israel.

There are over two billion Christians and only one Eugene Gates with a hate propaganda against Catholics. Every Christian would recognize the hate machine posting the list is not Eugene Gates but a Muslim wanting to deflect attention from the Jews fleeing Muslim countries in ME.

Anonymous:

"Whoever is posting on behalf of Eugene Gates here has an obsessive hate propaganda afoot. The hate machine has posted here in order to recruit useful idiots from the anti-theist camp."

I am Eugene Gates posting on my own behalf and on behalf of those who abhor antisemitism. You are an anonymous Catholic blogger, with neither the guts nor integrity to give his or her name. I have provided impeccable documentation for my claims.

You have provided nothing. Which of us is more convincing? Why are Catholics always so anonymous?

The three million Jews in exile from the ME has fled Muslim countries. So the hate machine has a good reason to deflect that reality and invent the anti-Catholic propaganda.

Whoever is posting on behalf of Eugene Gates here has an obsessive hate propaganda afoot. The hate machine has posted here in order to recruit useful idiots from the anti-theist camp.

Jewish Bloggers:

READ: Anonymous:

In the recent past only one blogger has shown an obsessive interest in keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive using it to foment all sorts of hatreds. It was a Pakistani Muslim!

July 4, 2008 2:31 AM

THIS IS A CATHOLIC BLOGGER who thinks you need Muslims to remind you about the Holocaust! This blogger thinks you need a Muslim to keep the "the memory of the Holocaust alive." DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

The Catholics want to the memory destroyed so that they can go on trying to destroy you. You are the PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. Read. Please read before it is too late.

Gene

Jewish Bloggers:

Read Avro Manhattan and learn about the Catholics and the Holocaust. They are the Prime Movers of antisemitism in the world. Wikepedia gives a bio of Avro Manhattan, in case you haven't heard of him. However, he was not half Jewish as Wikepedia says. He was 100% Catholic from an aristocratic family. His books are all heavily documented, and he wrote about other subjects. No one has discredited what he says and you will find his works at many major universities.

If you want to know who is responsible for the hatred in the world, I recommend Jack T. Chick, but start with Avro Manhattan. He has a couple of silly paragraphs, but aside from them, everything else is documented. No one has been able to discredit him. He was a hero, and he was dedicated to the truth, as you will see.

I am a Christian and I don't deny that we inherited antisemitic filth from the Catholics. However, the Christians with whom I serve are not antisemitic and have no wish to convert you. We wish you to remain alive and proud of your own heritage. We wish you to be fruitful and multiply.

Read, please. It begins with the Catholics. They spread it and they fund it. Read this blog. They distract the Muslims from their real enemies. Read this blog. Read different threads. Read carefully. Then we can look to Muslim nations.

Also, give your own names. Don't use "Anonymous." SPEAK OUT. SPEAK UP FOR YOURSELVES.

The Rumbling of the Apocalypse (1934)
Towards the new Italy (Preface by H.G. Wells) (1943)
Latin America and the Vatican (1946)
The Catholic Church Against the Twentieth Century (1947; 2nd edition 1950)
The Vatican in Asia (1948)
Religion in Russia (1949)
Vatican in World Politics (1949)
Catholic Imperialism and World Freedom (1952; 2nd edition 1959)
Terror Over Yugoslavia, the Threat to Europe (1953)
The Dollar and the Vatican (1956)
Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century (1965)
Vatican Moscow Alliance (1982)
The Vatican Billions (1983)
Catholic Terror in Ireland (1988)
Murder in the Vatican, American Russian and Papal Plots (1985)
The Vatican’s Holocaust (1986)

Several of his books can be uploaded at

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Avro%20Manhattan%22

Gene

In the recent past only one blogger has shown an obsessive interest in keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive using it to foment all sorts of hatreds. It was a Pakistani Muslim!

Jewish Bloggers:

Here is the link for some of Avro Manhattan's books.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Avro%20Manhattan%22

Gene

Jewish Bloggers:

Read Avro Manhattan and learn about the Catholics and the Holocaust. They are the Prime Movers of antisemitism in the world. Wikepedia gives a bio of Avro Manhattan, in case you haven't heard of him. However, he was not half Jewish as Wikepedia says. He was 100% Catholic from an aristocratic family. His books are all heavily documented, and he wrote about other subjects. No one has discredited what he says and you will find his works at many major universities.

If you want to know who is responsible for the hatred in the world, I recommend Jack T. Chick, but start with Avro Manhattan. He has a couple of silly paragraphs, but aside from them, everything else is documented. No one has been able to discredit him. He was a hero, and he was dedicated to the truth, as you will see.

I am a Christian and I don't deny that we inherited antisemitic filth from the Catholics. However, the Christians with whom I serve are not antisemitic and have no wish to convert you. We wish you to remain alive and proud of your own heritage. We wish you to be fruitful and multiply.

Read, please. It begins with the Catholics. They spread it and they fund it. Read this blog. They distract the Muslims from their real enemies. Read this blog. Read different threads. Read carefully. Then we can look to Muslim nations.

Also, give your own names. Don't use "Anonymous." SPEAK OUT. SPEAK UP FOR YOURSELVES.

The Rumbling of the Apocalypse (1934)
Towards the new Italy (Preface by H.G. Wells) (1943)
Latin America and the Vatican (1946)
The Catholic Church Against the Twentieth Century (1947; 2nd edition 1950)
The Vatican in Asia (1948)
Religion in Russia (1949)
Vatican in World Politics (1949)
Catholic Imperialism and World Freedom (1952; 2nd edition 1959)
Terror Over Yugoslavia, the Threat to Europe (1953)
The Dollar and the Vatican (1956)
Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century (1965)
Vatican Moscow Alliance (1982)
The Vatican Billions (1983)
Catholic Terror in Ireland (1988)
Murder in the Vatican, American Russian and Papal Plots (1985)
The Vatican’s Holocaust (1986)

Several of his books can be uploaded at

Muslims thrive on the war between Christians, war of anti-theists against all religions, but the smarter among the anti-theists conveniently leave out Islam to protect their own back and earn some brownie points from Muslims. Welcome to the jungle.

Muslim propaganda in top gear here. Thanks to all anti-theists here is where Muslims with their propaganda against Christians feel most at home.

Sobia:

That last Anonymous was mine

Sobia:

I checked out Avro Manhattan and he appears to be legit. Read the article in Wikepedia and it reads just like Gene said it did. IMHO Maria Janna is a Catholic Jew hater just like Gene said.

Gene strikes me as a fundie, but that doesn't mean he has nothing to say.

What Janna said about Benazir Bhutto should cost him his audience here.

Truth be told the Catholics did spread and are spreading antisemitism to Muslim countries and so are other Christians. But as you say you have your "own homegrown varieties."

No offense, but Muslim countries are also anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. It's not as bad as your antisemitism but then you don't have the Catholics helping to spread it.

RE: Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem

The Catholic Hitler had a good friend in the Mufti and with Islamic politicians.

Anon:

"Maria Janna pretends to be Catholic. His/her interpretation of the Bible and call to Catholics to look to the Quran for the correct interpretation of their Scripture points to a typical Muslim."

I am Muslim. Maria Janna is not Muslim. If you wish I will address whatever points you wish to make that claim she is Muslim.

There are Catholics all over the world. There are Catholics in India and even in my country. There are Catholics in Middle East and in other parts of Asia. Many of them are anti-West.

He says nothing but the most superficial things about O'ran. Anyone can do that.

I believe Mr. Gates is correct. Also, Mr. Gates gives his name. So do I. You do not.

The poster of informative you-tubes on the new anti-Semitism is NOT named Maria and is NOT Catholic.

Hitler and the Mufti Of Jerusalem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZHWhsc7wvg

A Muslim who however is anti-West and anti-Benazir Bhutto.

Maria Janna pretends to be Catholic. His/her interpretation of the Bible and call to Catholics to look to the Quran for the correct interpretation of their Scripture points to a typical Muslim.

Anon:

RE: Listen and learn

I BELIEVE YOU ARE MARIA JANNA and you are a Catholic trying to distract Jewish bloggers. You have not answered my question about Benazir Bhutto. It is true that Catholics brought hatred of Jewish people to the Middle East during the Crusades and the Catholics kept spreading it. Now we have our own homegrown varieties in Muslim countries.

MR. GATES: I will go and read about Avro Manhattan. Maria Janna may hate Jews but he hates Muslims too. I don't know anything about Judaism or Catholicism. I hope I will understand what Mr. Manhattan wrote.

Listen and Learn:

Holocaust Denial on Egyptian Nile TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebp-31SshfM

Anon:

RE: IMHO Maria Janna unless proved otherwise is a Muslim. No Christian would ever say that Christians ought to look to Muslims for spiritual clarification. She/he throws in a couple of criticism about Islam to confuse Christians.

July 3, 2008 10:51 PM

He is no Muslim. Maybe Mr. Eugene Gates is right about her.

MARIA JANNA WHY DO YOU SAY BENAZIR BHUTO "HAD IT COMING"?

Anon:

RE: IMHO Maria Janna unless proved otherwise is a Muslim. No Christian would ever say that Christians ought to look to Muslims for spiritual clarification. She/he throws in a couple of criticism about Islam to confuse Christians.

July 3, 2008 10:51 PM

He is no Muslim. Maybe Mr. Eugene Gates is right about her.

MARIA JANNA WHY DO YOU SAY BENAZIR BHUTO "HAD IT COMING"?

Anon:

Re: Your post July 4, 2008 12:21 AM

Please give your name. I have read your posts and I thank you. I want to know why MARIA JANNA
said that Benazir Bhutto "had it coming." This is a simple request of mine.

Maybe Maria Janna is the other Anonymous and is trying to avoid answering my question. That is unfortunate since I will keep asking it.

Maybe Mr. Eugene Gates is right about her.

IMHO Maria Janna unless proved otherwise is a Muslim. No Christian would ever say that Christians ought to look to Muslims for spiritual clarification. She/he throws in a couple of criticism about Islam to confuse Christians.

July 3, 2008 10:51 PM

Sobia, anyone who claims Benazir Bhutto had it coming is an anti-West Muslim extremist. They hate Benazir for what was her pro-West pluralist stand. Many anti-West anti-Benazir types happen to live in the West enjoying all its freedoms. They find it perfectly natural to use the West for their own extremist ends. They recruit useful idiots from among anti-theists who are not smart enough to look through their complex games.

July 3, 2008 11:07 PM

Anon:

The "Jewish Blood Libel" was developed by the Catholics in the Middle Ages and sent to the Middle East by the Catholics.

Gene

Must see:

Jewish Blood Libel - Islamic Television

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7kqpY8KtKI

Welcome to Muslim Fantasyland:
"...becoming masters of the world..."
"...our Arabic language, which once upon a time ruled this world."
"...Muslims are the basis of civilization."
A Mickey Mouse Character on Hamas TV Teaches Children about Islamic Rule of the World.

Following are excerpts from a children's TV show, which aired on AlAqsa TV on April 6-13, 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upbq9bwBxkA

MARIA JANNA:

So you are there, Maria Janna. Why do you say Benazir Bhutto "had it coming"?

Are you going to answer? Shall we give any credibility to anything you say? If you cannot answer such a simple question, why should anyone listen to you?

Jewish Bloggers:

Avro Manhattan was an anti-fascist who stood up to Mussolini in Italy. Maria Janna is the worst kind of anti-Jewish racist. Read Janna's posts carefully. Janna is the best example of what Avro Manhattan claims about Catholic racism.

Also, go to YouTube as Melissa advises. Find out everything you can. I will post more reading matter for you from time to time and tell you how you can fight back against the Catholic racists.

Gene

Ms. Janna,

See Karen Armstrong's books regarding the illiteracy of the warmongering, womanizing and hallucinating Mohammed. Karen Armstrong as with the other NT exegetes, Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and Wright, are On Faith panel members. I believe Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen are or have been members of the Jesus Seminar. I see Ms. Janna is not a member of either group.

With respect to the simple preacher man i.e. Jesus:

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.

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."

Besides the Josephus reference(http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html)and the Tacitus reference, 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 "Seminarians" 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

So you are there, Maria Janna. Why do you say Benazir Bhutto "had it coming"?

Are you going to answer? Shall we give any credibility to anything you say? If you cannot answer such a simple question, why should anyone listen to you?

Eugene Gates, before you further spread any of this common racist Anti-Catholic propaganda about Catholics being the "prime movers of anti-semitism in the world", I suggest you first listen to the lecture by Gray on "New Atheism", especially the part where he also has some very interesting things to say about the origins of anti-semitism from *secular* mindsets introduced by Enlightenment and scientific progress.

(The Link to Gray's lecture has been provided by Mary Cunningham. Just do a search.)

But thanks for the list. I'll check it out.

Oh, Parker, you make me want to cry - what has happened to the US educational system?? Or were you home schooled?

You wrote:

"1) communication--current technology versus primitive technology suggest to my mind that thought waves or thought energy could be plausible though they aren't measurable/detectable through current scientific instruments. My mind is boggled by cell phone communication around the world, instantaneously."

The reason they aren't detectable is that they aren't there. Brains don't emit waves of energy. They work by cells sending electrochemical signals to each other across synapses, not by radio waves.

Cell phones, however, are radios - just like CB radios or walkie-talkies - but they use far more frequencies and they work within cells, using towers and satellites to bounce signals around. It isn't instantaneous, but it's fast.

"2) travel--could matter and energy including physical corporeal bodies be interchangeable and travel at super-high speeds? I don't understand the physics of this question, but I think it is plausible."

It's not. You would have to disintegrate. Not biologically possible, and that's a good thing - it would be very painful.

"3) organizing matter and energy--can matter and energy respond to directed energized thought? I think it is plausible."

See the answer to # 1. The only energy we emit is heat. Thought is not energy (although the brain consumes energy to make it happen), and it can't be radiated or directed outward.

"4) resurrection--do stem cells and DNA provide a plausible basis for belief in the possibility of knowledge that would include re-energizing a DNA remnant to a renewed life? I think it is plausible."

Re-energizing DNA to a new life??? Are you serious? It's done every day, in spades. It's the very raison d' etre for DNA. And stem cells can be, and have been cloned. But sorry to disappoint you, even a clone of you, would not *be* *you*. It would have its own autonomy and its own consciousness (produced by its own brain). If it read less science fiction and new-age nonsense, it would probably not even think like you.

"5) spirit element--imagine a group of close loved ones in a small room, each with their eyes closed. Everyone leaves except for one person, without making a sound. Could the person left in the room "feel" that other presences in the room had left? Having "felt" the presence of others who have been standing behind me when I didn't know of it through the five senses, I would have to say "yes". I think Eastern medicine is rooted in spirit energy that Western medicine generally doesn't recognize."

Oh, horse-puckey. If brains don't emit "energy", then spirits *certainly* don't. Particularly since you can't even show me evidence that such a thing as a "spirit" even exists.

Go ahead and try your experiment, why don't you? It's easy enough to set up. One caveat, though, the person designated to be "last" must not know what is being tested for. And the others must be able to leave completely silently. The subject should also be well blindfolded and must understand that conversation isn't permitted.

Usually when you "sense" someone behind you, it's because someone in front of you looks at them. You notice the shift in their gaze. Unless, of course, they get close enough for you to feel their breath or body heat. You can test this one, too.

Jewish Bloggers:

Please read Avro Manhattan to learn where antisemitism came from and is coming from. Of course, you should find out as much as you can. But you must learn the facts about the Catholics. They are your true enemies.

Gene

Anon,

I'm right here. The "Machiavelli" phrase was a quote.

I would like an answer to the question I raised about Benazir Bhutto. If you are going to give it to me I will read it. Otherwise I will wait for Maria Jana.

Sobia the Pakistani Muslim had done the disappearing Machiavelli act.

Jewish Bloggers and everyone interested in exposing the new anti-Semitism:

PLEASE LISTEN

Speaking Out Against anti-Semitism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd0wQFPYmCU

Jewish Bloggers:

Read Avro Manhattan and learn about the Catholics and the Holocaust. They are the Prime Movers of antisemitism in the world. Wikepedia gives a bio of Avro Manhattan, in case you haven't heard of him. However, he was not half Jewish as Wikepedia says. He was 100% Catholic from an aristocratic family. His books are all heavily documented, and he wrote about other subjects. No one has discredited what he says and you will find his works at many major univerisities.

If you want to know who is responsible for the hatred in the world, I recommend Jack T. Chick, but start with Avro Manhattan. He has a couple of silly paragraphs, but aside from them, everything else is documented. No one has been able to discredit him. He was a hero, and he was dedicated to the truth, as you will see.

The Rumbling of the Apocalypse (1934)
Towards the new Italy (Preface by H.G. Wells) (1943)
Latin America and the Vatican (1946)
The Catholic Church Against the Twentieth Century (1947; 2nd edition 1950)
The Vatican in Asia (1948)
Religion in Russia (1949)
Vatican in World Politics (1949)
Catholic Imperialism and World Freedom (1952; 2nd edition 1959)
Terror Over Yugoslavia, the Threat to Europe (1953)
The Dollar and the Vatican (1956)
Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century (1965)
Vatican Moscow Alliance (1982)
The Vatican Billions (1983)
Catholic Terror in Ireland (1988)
Murder in the Vatican, American Russian and Papal Plots (1985)
The Vatican’s Holocaust (1986)

Several of his books can be uploaded at

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Avro%20Manhattan%22

Said Sobia: "sniff sniff -I smell a Machiavellian."

Islam is the only religion in the world that was founded as a theocracy. The Muslim empire of Mohammad should have been rightly called Mohammaden Empire and Islam its state religion. Mohammadan Empire should be compared with the Persian Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire etc, not with other religions. The good religion of Islam is reformed Arab paganism and all its good parts are taken directly out of Jewish and Christian Scripture. Its not so good parts are original to Islam.

Maybe the methods used for creation of the Mohammadan Empire first in Arabia and then its expansion as far as possible could be compared to the Viking conquests or exploits of Alexander the Great, Napolen Bonaparte etc.

Does expansion of political empires need Machiavellian tactics in the modern age when it is no longer possible to go out on land conquering expeditions in the name of Allah as the Arabs of yester years did? Your Machiavellian genius should have the answer.

Jewish Bloggers:

Read Avro Manhattan and learn about the Catholics and the Holocaust. They are the Prime Movers of antisemitism in the world. Wikepedia gives a bio of Avro Manhattan, in case you haven't heard of him. However, he was not half Jewish as Wikepedia says. He was 100% Catholic from an aristocratic family. His books are all heavily documented, and he wrote about other subjects. No one has discredited what he says and you will find his works at many major univerisities.

If you want to know who is responsible for the hatred in the world, I recommend Jack T. Chick, but start with Avro Manhattan. He has a couple of silly paragraphs, but aside from them, everything else is documented. No one has been able to discredit him. He was a hero, and he was dedicated to the truth, as you will see.

The Rumbling of the Apocalypse (1934)
Towards the new Italy (Preface by H.G. Wells) (1943)
Latin America and the Vatican (1946)
The Catholic Church Against the Twentieth Century (1947; 2nd edition 1950)
The Vatican in Asia (1948)
Religion in Russia (1949)
Vatican in World Politics (1949)
Catholic Imperialism and World Freedom (1952; 2nd edition 1959)
Terror Over Yugoslavia, the Threat to Europe (1953)
The Dollar and the Vatican (1956)
Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century (1965)
Vatican Moscow Alliance (1982)
The Vatican Billions (1983)
Catholic Terror in Ireland (1988)
Murder in the Vatican, American Russian and Papal Plots (1985)
The Vatican’s Holocaust (1986)

Several of his books can be uploaded at

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Avro%20Manhattan%22

Said Sobia: "sniff sniff -I smell a Machiavellian."

Islam is the only religion in the world that was founded as a theocracy. The Muslim empire of Mohammad should have been rightly called Mohammaden Empire and Islam its state religion. Mohammadan Empire should be compared with the Persian Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire etc, not with other religions. The good religion of Islam is reformed Arab paganism and all its good parts are taken directly out of Jewish and Christian Scripture. Its not so good parts are original to Islam.

Anonymous--

Consciousness comes from brain activity. Otherwise, people in comas would still have consciousness since they'd presumably still have their souls after being conked on the head. Or does the soul take a vacation every time someone has a concussion? A fetus doesn't have consciousness. Does that mean it doesn't have a soul? How about Terri Schiavo? When did her soul leave her? When she lost consciousness or at the "death" of the body that was left after her brain had been reduced to a pool of goo with a functioning repitilian brainstem

Your post is an example of the kind of false dichotomy that buttresses Christian theology: If the human mind is different from a rock, then it must have a soul. Aren't there more than two possibilities for every Christian question? Go back to your catechism and use your imagination. Stop parroting the fallacious arguments of your religious leaders and think for yourself.

Sobia, a Muslim may pretend to be an infidel, pretend to be interested in interfaith dialogue and world cultures all the while trapped in their narrow world of political Islamic superiority, secretly laughing at those who can't see through them.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
THERE IS NO PROOF OF GOD:

ANS:
Which every way you look at it, there is an abundance of the proof of God from reason alone. And these rational conclusions not only verify Gods existence, they confirm the veracity of Scripture and Christianity and the bankruptcy of Atheism.

PROOF OF GOD
“The Argument of GOD’S EXISTENCE
FROM SCRIPTURE:

THE ARGUMENT
"Wis. xiii, 1-9; Rom., i, 18,20 -- the argument is presented in a philosophical way, and men who reason rightly are held to be inexcusable for failing to recognize and worship the one true God, the Author and Ruler of the universe. two latter texts merit more than passing attention. Wis., xiii, 1-9 reads:

But all men are vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God. And those who by these good things that are seen, could not understand Him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman. However they have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.

With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things.

Or if they admired their power and effects, let them understand by them that he that made them, is mightier than they. For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.

But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen.

But Then Again They Are Not To Be Pardoned. For If They Were Able To Know So Much As To Make A Judgment Of The World: How Did They Not More Easily Find Out The Lord Thereof?

Here it is clearly taught that the phenomenal or contingent world -- the things that are seen -- requires a cause distinct from and greater than itself or any of its elements.

That this cause who is God is not unknowable, but is known with certainty not only to exist but to possess in Himself, in a higher degree, whatever beauty, strength, or other perfections are realized in His works.

That this conclusion is attainable by the right exercise of human reason, Without Reference To Supernatural Revelation, and that philosophers, therefore, Who Are Able To Interpret The World Philosophically, Are Inexcusable For Their Ignorance Of The True God, Their Failure, It Is Implied, Being Due Rather To Lack Of Good Will Than To The Incapacity Of The Human Mind.

Substantially the same doctrine is laid down more briefly by St. Paul in Romans 1:18-20:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: because that which is known of God is manifest in them.

For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

It is to be observed that the pagans of whom St. Paul is speaking are not blamed for their ignorance of supernatural revelation and the Mosaic law, but for failing to preserve or for corrupting that knowledge of God and of man's duty towards Him WHICH NATURE ITSELF OUGHT TO HAVE TAUGHT THEM.

Indeed It Is Not Pure Ignorance As Such They Are Blamed For, But That Wilful Shirking Of Truth which Renders Ignorance Culpable. Even under the corruptions of paganism St. Paul recognized the indestructible permanency of germinal religious truth (cf. Romans 2:14-15).

It Is Clear From These Passages That Agnosticism And Pantheism Are Condemned By Revelation, While The Validity Of The General Proof Of God's Existence Given Above Is Confirmed

IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE EXTREME FORM OF TRADITIONALISM, WHICH WOULD HOLD THAT NO CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE OR NATURE IS ATTAINABLE BY HUMAN REASON WITHOUT THE AID OF SUPERNATURAL REVELATION, IS CONDEMNED."

"Everything that TTWSY posts is pasted verbatim from this site.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/"

Not only that, but they are old and tired arguments that have been handily dealt with by such as John Allen Paulos, Richard Dawkins, many others.

Sobia, anyone who claims Benazir Bhutto had it coming is an anti-West Muslim extremist. They hate Benazir for what was her pro-West pluralist stand. Many anti-West anti-Benazir types happen to live in the West enjoying all its freedoms. They find it perfectly natural to use the West for their own extremist ends. They recruit useful idiots from among anti-theists who are not smart enough to look through their complex games.

Anonmous:

"There are more than a couple of bloggers on this forum who are Pakistani Muslims.."

One poster in particular gives a history out of sync with her voice and writing style.

sniff sniff -I smell a Machiavellian.

I think you are smelling yourself. Can you say something about Benazir or is your only contribution to weed out infidels? If so, I am an infidel so you can stop weeding. Are you Maria Jana? Is this your way of avoiding my question?

"There are more than a couple of bloggers on this forum who are Pakistani Muslims.."

One poster in particular gives a history out of sync with her voice and writing style.

sniff sniff -I smell a Machiavellian.

Nnonymous- There are more than a couple of bloggers on this forum who are Pakistani Muslims with connections to Iran, are in some way associated with Jews and have an interest in Judaism, claim to be atheist etc. One thing is certain they live in Western Christian democracies and enjoy all its benefits and freedoms.

I am a Pakistani Muslim. I would like to know why Benazir Bhuto "had it coming" as MJ said. Perhaps, you wish to contribute to the discussion on Bhutto's murder. I admit to knowing almost nothing about Judaism or Christianity.

IMHO Maria Janna unless proved otherwise is a Muslim. No Christian would ever say that Christians ought to look to Muslims for spiritual clarification. She/he throws in a couple of criticism about Islam to confuse Christians.

to anonymoose:

thanks for letting me know about the site. I guess our friend is not doing any thinking of his own on the matter.

There are more than a couple of bloggers on this forum who are Pakistani Muslims with connections to Iran, are in some way associated with Jews and have an interest in Judaism, claim to be atheist etc. One thing is certain they live in Western Christian democracies and enjoy all its benefits and freedoms.

To TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

You claim that man has always and everywhere believed in God. How do you know? have you lived everywhere and at all times?

Up until 500 years ago, man "everywhere and at all times" believed the earth was flat. 500 years is just a fraction of man's existence. so someone could have said 500 years ago, "man at all times and in all places has believed the earth to be flat so it must be true"

believing something to be true, even if the majority does so, does not make something true.

we generally believe that people who disagree with us are wrong. we have done so probably for all times and in all places. does that mean that everyone who disagrees with us is wrong?

if our scientific history has taught us one thing, it is that generally speaking, the things that we believe for all times and in all places is often proved wrong. therefore, belief in something cannot be cited as prove of the existence of what we believe in.

To TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

You claim that man has always and everywhere believed in God. How do you know? have you lived everywhere and at all times?

Up until 500 years ago, man "everywhere and at all times" believed the earth was flat. 500 years is just a fraction of man's existence. so someone could have said 500 years ago, "man at all times and in all places has believed the earth to be flat so it must be true"

believing something to be true, even if the majority does so, does not make something true.

we generally believe that people who disagree with us are wrong. we have done so probably for all times and in all places. does that mean that everyone who disagrees with us is wrong?

if our scientific history has taught us one thing, it is that generally speaking, the things that we believe for all times and in all places is often proved wrong. therefore, belief in something cannot be cited as prove of the existence of what we believe in.

Susan Jacoby on Book TV

-Wow. Jacoby is incredibly 'elitist'. Her claim that the 'Friday the 13th' movies are "crap" and that there are other "good movies" out there to study is sad. Even if these movies appeal to complete morons they are worthy of study just to understand the culture of morons (who will always be in society).

-I thought the same thing while watching this. "It's crap", that's your reasoned argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXophz5Fk-g

Anon:

Everything that TTWSY posts is pasted verbatim from this site.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/

You can go there to ask your questions!
.................................................

Maria Jana,

Why did Benazir Bhutto "have it coming"?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
PROOF OF GOD
“The Argument of GOD’S EXISTENCE
FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENT

THE ARGUMENT

“The confirmatory argument based on the consent of mankind may be stated briefly as follows: mankind as a whole has at all times and everywhere believed and continues to believe in the existence of some superior being or beings on whom the material world and man himself are dependent.

This fact cannot be accounted for except by admitting that this belief is true or at least contains a germ of truth. It is admitted of course that Polytheism, Dualism, Pantheism, and other forms of error and superstition have mingled with and disfigured this universal belief of mankind, but this does not destroy the force of the argument we are considering.

For at least the germinal truth which consists in the recognition of some kind of deity is common to every form of religion and can therefore claim in its support the universal consent of mankind.

And how can this consent be explained except as a result of the perception by the minds of men of the evidence for the existence of deity?

It is too large a subject to be entered upon here -- the discussion of the various theories that have been advanced to account in some other way for the origin and universality of religion. However, it may safely be said that, abstracting from revelation, which need not be discussed at this stage, no other theory will stand the test of criticism.

And, assuming that this is the best explanation philosophy has to offer, it may further be maintained that this consent of mankind tells ultimately in favor of Theism. For it is clear from history that religion is liable to degenerate, and has in many instances degenerated instead of progressing

However, even if it be impossible to prove conclusively that Monotheism was the primitive historical religion, there is nevertheless a good deal of positive evidence adducible in support of this contention.

If this be the true reading of history, it is permissible to interpret the universality of religion as witnessing implicitly to the original truth which, however much obscured it may have become, in many cases could never be entirely obliterated.

But even if the history of religion is to read as a record of progressive development, one ought in all fairness, in accordance with a well-recognized principle, to seek its true meaning and significance not at the lowest but at the highest point of development. It cannot be denied that Theism in the strict sense is the ultimate form which religion naturally tends to assume.

If there have been and are today atheistic philosophers who oppose the common belief of mankind, these are comparatively few and their dissent only serves to emhasize more strongly the consent of normal humanity.

Their existence is an abnormality to be accounted for as such things usually are. Could it be claimed on their behalf, individually or collectively, that in ability, education, character, or life they excel the infinitely larger number of cultured men who adhere on conviction to what the race at large has believed, then indeed it might be admitted that their opposition would be somewhat formidable.

But no such claim can be made; on the contrary, if a comparison were called for it would be easy to make out an overwhelming case for the other side. Or again, if it were true that the progress of knowledge had brought to light any new and serious difficulties against religion, there would, especially, in view of the modern vogue of Agnosticism, be some reason for alarm, as to the soundness of the traditional belief.

But so far is this from being the case that in the words of Professor Huxley -- an unsuspected witness -- "not a solitary problem presents itself to the philosophical Theist to this present day. That has not existed from the time that philosophers began to think out the logical grounds and the logical consequences of Theism" (Life and Letters of Ch. Darwin by F. Darwin, II, p. 203).

Substantially the same arguments as are used today were employed by old-time sceptical Atheists in the effort to overthrow man's belief in the existence of the Divine.

The fact that this belief has withstood repeated assaults during so many ages in the past is the best guarantee of its permanency in the future. It is too firmly implanted in the depths of man's soul for little surface storms to uproot it."

to TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

It may be that at the human level order implies some sort of conscious design, but philosophers have long argued that this does not imply that at the cosmic level, order implies design.

You refer to the idea of the eye as an example of something with specific adaptations as evidence of the design behind it. However, scientists have also determined that we humans have lots of junk DNA which shows no adaptive purpose. This is consistent with an evolutionary model that argues that our DNA is the product of reproductive combinations that go through some weeding out process to eliminate those that harm survival and favor those that bolster survival. DNA which does neither would be neither favored nor disfavored. However, it is tough to explain why an intelligent designer would pack us with useless DNA any more than an intelligent engineer would create a car with useless gadgets that serve no purpose.

It is true that the odds of creating our exact universe are infinitesimally small, but so are the odds of creating any universe. You can always work backwards from what you see and say, "well the odds of this happening are so small that someone must have intended it this way". That argument is fallacious. If you flip a coin 1000 times, the odds of getting the precise sequence that you do is 2^1000 which is miniscule. Yet you will get a sequence that has that probability since SOME sequence will have occurred. You can always look at that sequence and say that it could not have arisen by chance since the odds of chance producing that sequence was 1 in 2 to the power of 1000. Yet, that argument can be applied to any sequence that arose. if we lived in a universe where pigs flew and we were the only planet, you could still say, "the odds that we'd live in such a universe are infinitely small, so there must be a God"

The trouble with trying to prove that God does or does not exist is that you have to start with a set of assumptions (like order implies design or rare events must be planned) and reason from those. However, like Spiderman2's problem, you can't prove the truth or falsehood of the initial premises.

A non-believer can't prove that the big bang wasn't caused by God, nor can a believer prove that it all started with a God that had no creator Himself. Therefore, one can either choose to believe only what can be seen, in which case God is not part of the equation or one can assume that there must be a God. In either case, we make a choice and then we fit the data we get to the framework we choose. Neither side can prove that he or she is right.

s

Maria Janna:

Oh, and then of course Bhutto!!! Man, that woman had it coming! A friend and former colleague of mine is a Pakistani teaching in Teheran. She told me she tries to stay out of Pakistan as much as she can, because greedy and corrupt tyrants like Mrs. Bhutto have ruined her country, resulting in all that violence.
------------
Did Benazir have it coming? Speaking as a Pakistani, I find your remark quite enlightening. Please elaborate.

Jihadist - I understand you may not like to be called a prosuper, but in terms of definition, that's what you are, right? You believe in the supernatural.

I am a superfree, a bright, an atheist, a humanist, a baptised Catholic and a recent episcopalian. I still sing church music, but in a secular choir.

thanks for the independence day greetings.

I will be attending an atheist picnic and watching the fireworks. I will be decked out in a red, white and blue atheist tee-shirt featuring the stars and stripes with the US capitol dome in the background. Wish you were there.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
PROOF OF GOD
“The Argument of GOD’S EXISTENCE
FROM CONSCIENCE

“To Newman and others the argument from conscience, or the sense of moral responsibility, has seemed the most intimately persuasive of all the arguments for God's existence, while to it alone Kant allowed an absolute value.

But this is not an independent argument, although, properly understood, it serves to emphasize a point in the general a posteriori proof which is calculated to appeal with particular force to many minds. It is not that conscience, as such, contains a direct revelation or intuition of God as the author of the moral law.

But that, taking man's sense of moral responsibility as a phenomenon to be explained, no ultimate explanation can be given except by supposing the existence of a Superior Being and Lawgiver whom man is bound to obey.

And just as the argument from design brings out prominently the attribute of intelligence, so the argument from science brings out the attribute of holiness in the First Cause and self-existent Personal Being with whom we must ultimately identify the Designer and the Lawgiver."

Parker - You're the same Parker from before, right? the Mormon?

I appreciated your thoughts on the supernatural and thought you'd also mention your Mormon supernatural beliefs - the golden sheaves from heaven and the other christian miracles.

What about those things?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
PROOF OF GOD
“THE Argument of GOD'S EXISTENCE FROM DESIGN”

The Special Argument Based On The Existence Of Order Or Design In The Universe (Also Called The Teleological Argument) Proves Immediately The Existence Of A Supramundane Mind Of Vast Intelligence, And Ultimately The Existence Of God.

"This argument is capable of being developed at great length, but it must be stated here very briefly. It has always been a favourite argument both with philosophers and with popular apologists of Theism.

Though, during the earlier excesses of enthusiasm for or against Darwinianism, it was often asserted or admitted that the evolutionary hypothesis had overthrown the teleological argument

It is now recognized that the very opposite is true, and that the evidences of design which the universe exhibits are not less but more impressive when viewed from the evolutionary standpoint.

To begin with particular examples of adaptation which may be appealed to in countless number -- the eye, for instance, as an organ of sight is a conspicuous embodiment of intelligent purpose -- and not less but more so when viewed as the product of an evolutionary process rather than the immediate handiwork of the Creator.

There is no option in such cases between the hypothesis of a directing intelligence and that of blind chance, and the absurdity of supposing that the eye originated suddenly by a single blind chance is augmented a thousand-fold by suggesting that it may be the product of a progressive series of such chances.

"Natural selection", "survival of the fittest", and similar terms merely describe certain phases in the supposed process of evolution without helping the least to explain it; and as opposed to teleology they mean nothing more than blind chance.

The eye is only one of the countless examples of adaptation to particular ends discernible in every part of the universe, inorganic as well as organic; for the atom as well as the cell contributes to the evidence available.

Nor is the argument weakened by our inability in many cases to explain the particular purpose of certain structures or organisms. Our knowledge of nature is too limited to be made the measure of nature's entire design.

While as against our ignorance of some particular purposes, we are entitled to maintain the presumption that if intelligence is anywhere apparent it is dominant everywhere.

Moreover, in our search for particular instances of design we must not overlook the evidence supplied by the harmonious unity of nature as a whole. The universe as we know it is a cosmos, a vastly complex system of correlated and interdependent parts.

Each is subject to particular laws and all together subject to a common law or a combination of laws as the result of which the pursuit of particular ends is made. These particular ends are made to contribute in a marvellous way to the attainment of a common purpose.

It is simply inconceivable that this cosmic unity should be the product of chance or accident. If it be objected that there is another side to the picture, that the universe abounds in imperfections -- maladjustments, failures, seemingly purposeless waste -- the reply is not far to seek.

For it is not maintained that the existing world is the best possible, and it is only on the supposition of its being so that the imperfections referred to would be excluded.

Admitting without exaggerating their reality -- admitting, that is, the existence of physical evil -- there still remains a large balance on the side of order and harmony.

To account for this there is required not only an intelligent mind but one that is good and benevolent, though so far as this special argument goes this mind might conceivably be finite.

To prove the infinity of the world's Designer it is necessary to fall back on the general argument already explained and on the deductive argument to be explained below by which infinity is inferred from self-existence.

Finally, by way of direct reply to the problem suggested by the objection. It is to be observed that, to appreciate fully the evidence for design, we must, in addition to particular instances of adaptation and to the cosmic unity observable in the world of today.

Consider the historical continuity of nature throughout indefinite ages in the past and indefinite ages to come. We do not and cannot comprehend the full scope of nature's design, for it is not a static universe we have to study but a universe that is progressively unfolding itself and moving towards the fulfillment of an ultimate purpose under the guidance of a mastermind.

And towards that purpose the imperfect as well as the perfect -- apparent evil and discord as well as obvious good order -- may contribute in ways which we can but dimly discern.

The well-balanced philosopher, who realizes his own limitations in the presence of nature's Designer, so far from claiming that every detail of that Designer's purpose should at present be plain to his inferior intelligence, will be content to await the final solution of enigmas which the hereafter promises to furnish."

We've all seen Spidey's creationist rants for months now, with no change and no improvement in his condition. He gets a kick out of bashing smarter people with religion - that's just his thing.

He knows full well that his position is indefensible, and defies common sense - but that's beside the point. Contrary and contentious, he likes to mix it up with one and all....believers and non-believers alike.

A couple more posts, and we'll be getting the anti-evolution rant. Obnoxious is as obnoxious does....no point in engaging him further.

It takes only a grain of common sense to figure out why political Islamists like Jihadist looks to recruit useful idiots among anti-theists who condemn all religions equally. She smartly manages to conceal the fact she is a Sunni Muslim whose notions of political Islam being powerful and the superiority of her Sunni sect goes so far as to recommend division of Iraq along ethnic lines because the minority Sunni sect which once held power under Saddam Hussein no longer enjoy the absolute power under the now majority Shia government of Iraq. She is not supporting the efforts of a fellow Muslim panelist on this forum for he is not a Sunni and he seeks plurality where Islam does not reign supreme.

Mary Cunningham:

On Gray's other book: I only read the back cover, but there's already a goodie. It says: "[the book] shows us how a misplaced faith in our ability to improve the world has actually made it far worse".

The "misplaced" in "misplaced faith" thing is very important. One could add: misguided, misled etc. There's nothing wrong with religious faith, although I myself have no "faith", only fides and religio. But there's a good example for that sentence on the back cover, and that's George Bush's religious polemics when Washington was gearing up for war after 9/11. According to the gospels the Christ said two things about his opponents, two sentences that contradict themselves, one very much Christian, the other one not so much. One sentence was: "He who is not against us is for us." The other was: "He who is not with me is against me." Bush chose the second sentence: "Those who are not with us, are with the terrorists." He could have used the other one, a much more peaceful and diplomatic sentence: "Those who are not against the US, are really on our side." With this sentence Bush would have left open the possibility for other countries to stay neutral. But he wanted to polarize, he wanted things to heat up, so he chose the rather Un-Christian sentence from the Gospel. To my mind that's a perfect example of misplaced (or misguided) faith.

About Maria as a male name: yes, you're absolutely right. But I don't care… let them think that I'm a woman. That's not a bad thing. (Some dimwits here even think I'm a Muslim.)

On being Catholic and (not) attacking the Church: Well, I do attack the Church. But at the same time I know that concerning their religion they don't know any better. So it should be more about trying to educate.

"We are quite communist here": Christ was a communist. Well… something like a proto-communist. (^_~)

On the existence of evil: "Evil" and the "Devil" are two different things. For me, "evil" does not exist as an unshakable and concrete entity. One day something is evil, the other day it's not. The "devil" however exists as a solid Christian concept and character in scripture, so I can't disclaim that idea altogether. I only object the metaphysical notion of the "Devil", as I reject everything metaphysical and supernatural. But since the "Devil" (or rather: "Satan") is in the Scriptures, he must have some sort of historicity. In general terms he was probably nothing more than Christ's antagonist, one of his opponents, probably his major opponent, perfectly human. That Christians now interpret that as the "Devil", as a fallen angel and whatnot, is not important for me. Important is that "Satan" is pivotal to the story, to the dramatic construct in the Gospel and to the Christ's vita.

FINALLY TO MR. ANONYMOUS:

your interpretations are really funny. I criticize Christian religion, while not being afraid to look for clues in the Quran, and you immediately shove me into the Islamic camp. It says a lot about your view of Islam: for you Muslims only seem to be those who *criticize* and *oppose* Christianity. Well, some of them do. But has it ever occured to you that there might be something to their criticism? That we should take some of their criticism to heart, and start questioning our own religion, and not only criticize *them*? How can we expect Islam to change and reform itself, when we ourselves are unwilling to be self-critical?

And my remark on fundamentalism was absolutely serious. Religion without a fundament is not a real religion. That should even be clear for atheists to realize.

And CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

The pathetic misguidedness of your post actually shows in that you later refer to it as "noting history, reality and common sense". That's preposterous:

1. Show me one piece of evidence, one independent piece of evidence outside of the Bible, that "Jesus" was an "illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher". While we're at it: show me one piece of evidence that his name was "Jesus". You CAN'T, because the oldest parts of the codices use the nomen sacrum IC. There's no "Jesus" in the oldest sources. And while we're at it: show me one single independent piece of evidence that he ever existed!

But nooooo… you go for some weird drug theories (where's the proof?) or those lunatics from the "Jesus Seminar" (Paul Verhoeven anyone?).

2. Show me one piece of evidence that Muhammad was illiterate? Sure, he was a womanizer, a lust- and greed-driven warmonger. But was he illiterate? Show me please, because Aisha (his wife) implied that he was able to read and write, created commentaries etc. and whatnot. Aren't you simply preaching to us the same things that Muslims preach to the world?

3. Oh, and then of course Bhutto!!! Man, that woman had it coming! A friend and former colleague of mine is a Pakistani teaching in Teheran. She told me she tries to stay out of Pakistan as much as she can, because greedy and corrupt tyrants like Mrs. Bhutto have ruined her country, resulting in all that violence. Every day there are bombings. And that friend of mine is ANYTHING but a radical Muslim! (On the contrary.) I've seen a documentary on Bhutto in exile, sitting there in her shiny palace, payed for by all that money she and her family stole from the Pakistani people. And then you continue with all the other examples, e.g. 9/11… and you know what? There are people who even say that the US had it coming! *American* people say that, not some Islamic terrorists. And what's wrong with Iran? It's not because of Islam that the situation is the way it is. It's US politics that has driven the region to the state it's in right now. And since this is a blog on "faith", I should maybe add: it's Protestant/Judaeo-Christian/Jewish politics that have ignited the region.

4. I could go on and on and on, e.g. asking for rock-solid evidence for the "undoubted historical character" of "Budhha" 500 years BC, when all the temples that are doubtlessly Buddhist are from the centuries AD, when all written sources are from the centuries AD. ETC ETC ETC

Still, you call all of your nonsense "noting history, reality and common sense". Bravo. Applause.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
PROOF OF GOD
"THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT OF GOD'S EXISTENCE"

“This argument assumes the validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason and, stated in its most comprehensive form.

It amounts to this: that it is impossible according to the laws of human thought to give any ultimate rational explanation of the phenomena of external experience and of internal consciousness.

In other words to synthesize the data which the actual universe as a whole supplies (and this is the recognized aim of philosophy) -- Unless By Admitting The Existence Of A Self-Sufficient And Self-Explanatory Cause Or Ground Of Being And Activity, To Which All These Phenomena May Be Ultimately Referred.

It is, therefore, mainly a question of method and expediency what particular points one may select from the multitude available to illustrate and enforce the general a posteriori argument. For our purpose it will suffice to state as briefly as possible

The cogency of this argument becomes more apparent if account be taken of the fact that the human species had its origin at a comparatively late period in the history of the actual universe.

There was a time when neither man nor any other living thing inhabited this globe of ours. Without pressing the point regarding the origin of life itself from inanimate matter or the evolution of man's body from lower organic types, it may be maintained with absolute confidence that no explanation of the origin of man's soul can be made out on evolutionary lines.

Further, that recourse must be had to the creative power of a spiritual or personal First Cause. It might also be urged, as an inference from the physical theories commonly accepted by present-day scientists, that the actual organization of the material universe had a definite beginning in time.

If it be true that the goal towards which physical evolution is tending is the uniform distribution of heat and other forms of energy, it would follow clearly that the existing process has not been going on from eternity; else the goal would have been reached long ago.

And if the process had a beginning, how did it originate? If the primal mass was inert and uniform, it is impossible to conceive how motion and differentiation were introduced except from without, while if these are held to be coeval with matter, the cosmic process, which is ex hypothesi is temporal, would be eternal, unless it be granted that matter itself had a definite beginning in time.

But the argument, strictly speaking, is conclusive even if it be granted that the world may have existed from eternity, in the sense, that is, that, no matter how far back one may go, no point of time can be reached at which created being was not already in existence. In this sense Aristotle held matter to be eternal and St. Thomas, while denying the fact, admitted the possibility of its being so.

But such relative eternity is nothing more in reality than infinite or indefinite temporal duration and is altogether different from the eternity we attribute to God.

Hence to admit that the world might possibly be eternal in this sense implies no denial of the essentially finite and contingent character of its existence.

On the contrary it helps to emphasize this truth, for the same relation of dependence upon a self-existing cause which is implied in the contingency of any single being is implied a fortiori in the existence of an infinite series of such beings, supposing such a series to be possible.

Nor can it be maintained with Pantheists that the world, whether of matter or of mind or of both, contains within itself the sufficient reason of its own existence.

A self-existing world would exist of absolute necessity and would be infinite in every kind of perfection; but of nothing are we more certain than that the world as we know it, in its totality as well as in its parts, realizes only finite degrees of perfection.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PANTHEIST:
It is a mere contradiction in terms, however much one may try to cover up and conceal the contradiction by an ambiguous and confusing use of language, to predicate infinity of matter or of the human mind, and one or the other or both must be held by the Pantheist to be infinite. In other words the distinction between the finite and the infinite must be abolished and the principle of contradiction denied.

This criticism applies to every variety of Pantheism strictly so called, while crude, materialistic Pantheism involves so many additional and more obvious absurdities that hardly any philosopher deserving of the name will be found to maintain it in our day.

On the other hand, as regards idealistic Pantheism, which enjoys a considerable vogue in our day, it is to be observed in the first place that in many cases this is a tendency rather than a formal doctrine.

That it is in fact nothing more than a confused and perverted form of Theism, based especially upon an exaggerated and one-sided view of Divine immanence (see below, iii). And this confusion works to the advantage of Pantheism by enabling it to make a specious appeal to the very arguments which justify Theism.

Indeed the whole strength of the pantheistic position as against Atheism lies in what it holds in common with Theism; while, on the other hand, its weakness as a world theory becomes evident as soon as it diverges from or contradicts Theism.

Whereas Theism, for example, safeguards such primary truths as the reality of human personality, freedom, and moral responsibility. Pantheism is obliged to sacrifice all these, to deny the existence of evil, whether physical or moral, to destroy the rational basis of religion, and, under pretence of making man his own God, to rob him of nearly all his plain, common sense convictions and of all his highest incentives to good conduct.

The philosophy which leads to such results cannot but be radically unsound."

"As I said already, in just a few years we’ll be seeing designer organisms built from scratch. The technology is progressing so rapidly it’s hard to keep up with…"

Anomolouse- you are practicing blind faith. You don't know and can't say what we'll be doing in a few weeks.

And you’re radical and fundamental in your chosen belief system.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
PROOF OF GOD

Theistic proofs

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#I

"The arguments for God's existence are variously classified and entitled by different writers, but all agree in recognizing the distinction between a priori, or deductive, and a posteriori, or inductive reasoning in this connection.

And while all admit the validity and sufficiency of the latter method, opinion is divided in regard to the former.

Some maintain that a valid a priori proof (usually called the ontological) is available; others deny this completely; while some others maintain an attitude of compromise or neutrality.

This difference, it should be observed, applies only to the question of proving God's actual existence. for, His self-existence being admitted, it is necessary to employ a priori or deductive inference in order to arrive at a knowledge of His nature and attributes, and as it is impossible to develop the arguments for

His existence without some working notion of His nature, it is necessary to some extent to anticipate the deductive stage and combine the a priori with the a posteriori method. But No Strictly A Priori Conclusion Need Be More Than Hypothetically Assumed At This Stage.

A posteriori argument
St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:

PROOF OF GOD FROM MOTION: i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD FROM EFFICIENT CAUSE: For the same reason Efficient Causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD FROM CONTINGENT BEING: The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD FROM Graduated Perfections Of Being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.

EXISTENCE OF GOD FROM ORDER:The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

To these many Theists add other arguments:
the common consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument),
from the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument.

GOD’S EXISTENCE FROM The Existence And Perception Of Beauty In the universe (THE AESTHETICAL ARGUMENT).

One might go on, indeed, almost indefinitely multiplying and distinguishing arguments; but to do so would only lead to confusion.

The various arguments mentioned -- and the same is true of others that might be added -- are not in reality distinct and independent arguments, but only so many partial statements of one and the same general argument, which is perhaps best described as THE COSMOLOGICAL."

Anomalous wrote "The process is found in modern genetics"

Processes show results. What result can you show me? Where is the rose petal. Why would it take 50 years if there is already a process?

You should concentrate on the process of how you became insane instead. Insane minds concoct processes that never produce results. It's all in their minds.

go see a doctor.

To Spiderman2

why does the rose petal have to be made by man?

we can show you millions of rose petals made by nature. there is no evidence that there was a God involved. we can show you billions of people who were made from mothers and fathers. there is no evidence that there was a God involved. So why do you insist that there was a God?

you say that every object has a maker, but you are willing to admit that there can be an original item such as God that has no maker or makes Himself. So using YOUR own premise that it is possible to have an original of something that made itself without further explanation, here is the process you speak of in your last email:

1) the big bang (which made itself just as God did) created the universe of matter and energy

2) the matter and energy expanded in all directions

3) the matter, which was made up of simple hydrogen atoms, combined to form other types of matter (spontaneous combinations are evident in the sun which turns hydrogen to helium). this was done through random collisions of atoms with each other over a period of billions of years, involving collisions too numerous to calculate

4) matter eventually formed planets and stars

5) on the planets, matter eventually formed single cell organisms

6) single cell organisms reproduced and mutated into multicell organisms

7) multicell organisms reproduced and mutated into the complex set of species we know today

8) one such mutation was a rose, which has petals, another was man

A process has been described that does not invoke God but allows for an original unexplained event (which is consistent with your point of view that the origination of God as an unexplained event is allowed)

Now if you can prove me wrong, go ahead. But if your "proof" is that the big bang must have been caused by something other than itself, then the contention that God must have been caused by something other than Himself has to be thrown out as well, because you can't argue that it is OK for you to invoke a primary cause of the universe without a separate creator, but no one else can using a different creator.

I challenge you to prove me wrong within the logical constraints that you yourself set up. Are you up for the challenge or is calling people idiots the only mechanism you have for peope who raise points you can't disprove?

As mentioned by others, statistics can be read to say different things. The Pew poll had some curious results:

While Pew concludes that 92% of Americans believe in God, the numbers could also say that 30% of Americans are shaky in their belief or don’t believe at all.

Of those affiliated with a specific religion, 35% say religious beliefs should be adjusted to new circumstances, and 12% say religions should adopt modern beliefs and practices. Add in the 8% who are atheists, and at least 55% of Americans advocate some degree of secularization (i.e. rejecting at least some aspect of their religion based on non-religious reasons).

The poll found that 31% of Americans report that their “prayers result in definite and specific answer from God at least once a month.” Why were people not asked how often God did NOT answer their prayers? I would have been curious to see some correlative data on other superstitious beliefs, such as ghosts, spirit mediums, psychic activity, alien abductions, etc.

Perhaps the most stunning statistic for me is that 68% of Americans believe that Angels and Demons are active in the world. WOW!

I don’t know what else to say but…wow…

Spidey:

The process is found in modern genetics. As I said already, in just a few years we’ll be seeing designer organisms built from scratch. The technology is progressing so rapidly it’s hard to keep up with…

And you’re stupid.

(that was just to keep things light-hearted) :)

Ms. Jacoby is right on the money. This article is not about atheism so much as it is about the /meaning/ of the word atheism, which is the lack of belief in a deity, and the lack of comprehension in so many people. People can show some astounding ignorance, and this poll only points that out. If you still pray, you're an agnostic, you are not an atheist, get it right.

Once again, this is not about beliefs, this is about the very meaning of the word "atheist." Read a book, people.

I need a rose petal made entirely by man. Unless you folks can show me one, you should define the "processes" you guys are talking about.

Let's make this simple. Just fill in the blanks :

Question : How to make a rose petal ?

Answer :

Process number 1 :
Process number 2 :
Process number 1000 :

Just give me one single process.

You guys are insane if you can't give me just one. And yet you know how this universe existed?

go see a doctor.

Spiderman2 - you have a PhD in simpleton science? I believe you.

Every natural phenomenon (including yourself) exists without an independent maker, but is instead the emergent (and relatively momentary) result of a myriad of processes - please produce a 'maker of phenomena' if you will. Your parents were likewise the dependent result of emergent processes. There are no independent 'makers' in Mother Nature's world.

Of course in another sense, my Ford truck has a maker....and it's not God. Although they say Henry Ford did have a big ego. Even so, what is a Ford truck but an assemblage of countless parts, both big and small - down to the smallest sub-atomic particles? Where is the real maker in this complex interactive process?

If anything, 'maker' appears to be a convenient, but often misleading concept....that helps determine who gets paid.

You appear to have a highly mechanistic view of reality - with God being the primary, although invisible mechanic. This is simpleton science.

Hey Spidy:

I saw you make that rose comment earlier. In the next 50 years, probably sooner, geneticists will be able to make new organisms that don’t even have names yet. From scratch. Count on it.

As far as the “maker” goes, you either ignore are unaware of David Hume's critique of the Design Argument. You're making an argument from (poor) analogy: we are familiar with things that are known to be designed, such as watches, and therefore infer that all watches have designers. Quite reasonable. However, categories of things such as worlds and universes are not known to have designers. This has never been observed, nor do we have the first inkling as to how this could come about. Therefore, no inference is possible. There is no basis to infer a designer.

"I prefer that good old word “believer” in common usage, and theist and monotheist for those inclined towards more academic or scholarly terms. And of course, Muslim as a specific identification on religion if and when asked."

To those who read ON FAITH you will always be a JIHADIST..

To Spiderman2

you say that you can't produce the rose petal without the rose. by that reasoning, you can't produce a human without a parent human. that totally rules out any involvement by God. you've proved your own argument wrong.

the only way to reconcile your argument of a God and that an item reproduces its own kind is to say that people are part of God so that God is merely reproducing Himself in making us. That point of view is consistent with Eastern Religious thinking but runs counter to Western religious thinking that holds God and man separate.

Are you willing to concede that people are part of God? if so, then we can't be born into original sin since that means God contains original sin (just as if a rose petal is diseased so is the rose the petal is part of). And if we need to be saved, that means God needs to be saved (just as curing a diseased rose petal is the same as curing a rose that has the petal).

If you agree that God can make Himself, why can't the universe make itself without God. So if all things are created by something, but things can make themselves, then why not say the universe just made itself.

Finally, just because people disagree with you or suggest flaws in your arguments (which, by the way, have been pointed out by philosophers for centuries since yours are not original arguments) does not make them insane. People can have honest disagreements and even make faulty points. Calling people names because they argue that you are wrong is not the way for you to grow and develop as a person.

You'll notice that when I disagree with you, I say things like "if you are right, then your argument implies" rather than saying "you are insane and an idiot for having the beliefs you do". does your God tell you to be rude to others?

Believers only "know" that there is a God (or gods) by faith. But that's not so bad since all beliefs, even Ms. Jacoby's, are grounded on unprovable faith commitments. Truly, as Augustine and Anselm said, we believe (something) so that we may understand.

The question is thus not "Do I exercise faith?" but rather "In what (or whom) do I exercise faith?"

See Lesslie Newbigin's essay "Proper Confidence" for a readable and wise treatment of the subject from a Christian perspective. He dismantles both the Enlightenment (and it's logical off-shoot, postmodernism) and Christian Fundamentalism as two sides of the same coin, and shows the reader whence proper confidence comes.

The rose petal. Has anybody there already produced a rose petal without getting help from the rose plant itself?

For every product, there is a maker. And if you want to define God as the "maker of himself", so be it. Is it possible? Yes coz all the roses we see now are just a product of itself reproducing itself repeatingly.

It's impossible for a product to exist without a maker. That is simple science.

Just stop the stupidity. The only conclusion is that atheists are either liars or insane. 21 % said they are not liars. The remaining 79% of atheists are therefore INSANE.

Fate, you top the list. So far in this blog,you are the MOST INSANE.

Go see a doctor. You are insane but don't know it. That's the harder part -- the not knowing it, much more dangerous than the insanity itself.

"Atheists are people who don't believe in God. They do not claim (as some believers mistakenly think) to "know" that there is no God. What an honest atheist says is, "Given all the available evidence, I don't believe in a divine creator." An atheist can no more prove that there is no God than a believer can prove that there is one--but only believers claim to "know" that their religious convictions are true."

I am afraid your quote does not have a good argument. For instance, given all the evidence, I can only believe in atoms/evolution, but I don't "know" if atoms exist/TOevolution is true. But, certainly we know about them. I think you have conflated or are rather ambiguating between different senses of 'know'.

Hello Marilyn,

eloquentatheist.com? Never heard of this one before.

Thanks for sharing on:

- questions that "measures belief in “God” OR a “Universal Spirit.”"

- such critters existed — God or a Universal Spirit....God/Universal Spirit (hereafter GUS).

Now I know God is called Gus too.

Teasings aside, I agree with you that surveys are most suspect due to how questions are posed to "measure" (I prefer the word assess) how people think and feel about anything. Thoughts and feelings can never be measured accurately, but they are indicators.

Statistics are more "reliable", but one has to make for + and - too in "accuracy".

You : "If that number is added to the 8% without belief or interest in GUS, it would mean that 29% of those surveyed profess some or a great deal of religious doubt, let alone atheism.

* We can say that those with a great deal of doubt are the most religious fellows (from a believer's standpoint) and sceptics bordering on atheism (from a non-believer's standpoint).

Either way, both believers and non-believers seem to be using this survey to make points for the number of believers and non-believers and not to really acknowledge the shades of beliefs that do exist.

And there is no site yet called eloquentbeliever.com that I know of.

Regards and happy 4th July to you.

"J"

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
PROOF OF GOD THE PRELUDE:

“I believe in God, yet your arguments "proving God" are fallacious. You cannot prove that God exists.”

ANS:
“Had the Theist merely to face a blank Atheistic denial of God's existence, his task would he comparatively a light one. Formal dogmatic Atheism is self-refuting. It has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men.

Nor can Polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher. But there are several varieties of what may be described as virtual Atheism which cannot be dismissed so summarily.

There is the Agnosticism, for instance, of Herbert Spencer, which, while admitting the rational necessity of postulating the Absolute or Unconditioned behind the relative and conditioned objects of our knowledge declares that Absolute to be altogether unknowable. In fact, to be the Unknowable, about which without being guilty of contradiction we can predicate nothing at all, except perhaps that It exists; and there are other types of Agnosticism.

Then again, there is Pantheism in an almost endless variety of forms, all of which, however, may be logically reduced to the three following types:

One is the purely materialistic, which, making matter the only reality, would explain life by mechanics and chemistry. It reduces abstract thought to the level of an organic process and denies any higher ultimate moral value to the Ten Commandments than to Newton's law of gravitation, and, finally, identifies God Himself with the universe thus interpreted (see MATERIALISM; MONISM).

Second is the purely idealistic, which, choosing the contrary alternative, would make mind the only reality, convert the material universe into an idea, and identify God with this all-embracing mind or idea, conceived as eternally evolving itself into passing phases or expressions of being and attaining self-consciousness in the souls of men.

The third is a combined materialistic-idealistic, which tries to steer a middle course and without sacrificing mind to matter or matter to mind, would conceive the existing universe, with which God is identified, as some sort of "double-faced" single entity.

Thus to accomplish even the beginning of his task the Theist has to show, against Agnostics, that the knowledge of God attainable by rational inference -- however inadequate and imperfect it may be -- is as true and valid. That is, as far as it goes, as any other piece of knowledge we possess.

Against Pantheists that the God of reason is a supra-mundane personal God distinct both from matter and from the finite human mind -- that neither we ourselves nor the earth we tread upon enter into the constitution of His being.

Agnosticism, is best refuted by a simple statement of the theistic Proofs. It is not the proofs that are found to be fallacious but the criticism which rejects them. It is true of course -- and no Theist denies it -- that for the proper intellectual appreciation of theistic proofs moral dispositions are required, and that moral consciousness, the æsthetic faculty, and whatever other powers or capacities belong to man's spiritual nature, constitute or supply so many data on which to base inferential proofs.

But this is very different from holding that we possess any faculty or power which assures us of God's existence and which is independent of, and superior to, the intellectual laws that regulate our assent to truth in general -- that in the religious sphere we can transcend those laws without confessing our belief in God to be irrational.

It is also true that a mere barren intellectual assent to the truth of God's existence -- and such an assent is conceivable -- falls very far short of what religious assent ought to be; that what is taught in revealed religion about the worthlessness of faith uninformed by charity has its counterpart in natural religion; and that practical Theism. If it pretends to be adequate, must appeal not merely to the intellect but to the heart and conscience of mankind and be capable of winning the total allegiance of rational creatures.

But here again we meet with exaggeration and confusion on the part of those Theists who would substitute for intellectual assent something that does not exclude but presupposes it and is only required to complement it. The truth and pertinency of these observations will be made clear by the following summary of the classical arguments for God's existence, to follow."

Science says that one can not know what was so before the big bang. Afterwards, we have a good idea of what has happened. When we see what the natural world has done to people, when we see what people have done to other people, I can not imagine why you would want a personal god, that is, one who will pay attention to you. If such a god were to be coming to Baltimore, MD (were I am), I would want to be in Australia. The only position that can stand up to science and morality is a creator who set it all moving and then went on to something more interesting.
Also, as to the question of identity: A good way to look at that is to think of it as memory of memory. You could also add a certain amount of sloppyness in the system.

One has to love the word warriors in this thread :).

Anonymous : “I hate God”.

Is that from a bumper sticker? A pithy to counter bumper stickers such as “Gove is Love”?

I am the cyber invisible, intractable and inscrutable
I am the unknowable, the all possible and the all probable
I am the source of distress, duress and digress
I cause confusions, irritations, ruminations, speculations, meditations
just like God
Who says there is no God?

**************************************************

Hello E Favorite,

You : "Jihadist - so you're a pro-super, right?"

“Pro-super” sounds like someone into “size is everything”, including buildings, cars, houses, TV sets, and men. Allmighty God and God is Great is not the same as God is big,huge,elephantine, gigantic, massive, bulky, etc.

“Super-pro” sounds like an exceptionally good professional football player or football team. But if you mean faith groups are like teams, then they are part of a league with many teams competing with one another and with other leagues.

So, no all the same.

I prefer that good old word “believer” in common usage, and theist and monotheist for those inclined towards more academic or scholarly terms. And of course, Muslim as a specific identification on religion if and when asked.

Do you prefer call yourself Super-free, Free, Secular Humanist within the wider atheist umbrella of varying shades of atheism and shady shades of atheism? Or just an atheist?

Happy July 4th to you.

“J”

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:
"Now Jesus is self-evident in His self because He is God."

Circular reasoning...

"Jesus essence is His existence because if it were anything else, He could not be the First Mover who is God."

...and begging the question.

That's amazing, two basic logical fallacies in two sentences.

MRBRADWII
THE THING IN ITSELF
POSTED AT 7/2/2008 8:45 AM EDT
[This is not argumentative; it is self-evident]
QUESTIONABLE. CLAIMS
IRT
“It is neither self-evident, nor reasonable, nor even intuitive to conclude that Jesus was the Son of Man, or the Son of God, King of kings, Lord of Hosts, or anything but the son of his parents. And even that is questionable."

ANS:
“To the contrary, a proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man.” Now God’s predicate is contained in His essence because His essence is His existence. Therefore, God is self=evident in his existence, in himself, but not to man.

All things are questionable to a skeptic. If one walks out the door and every thing is drenched, streets, trees, walks, gutters flowing with water, a skeptic still might argue it didn’t rain.

Yet it would be reasonable to say it rained, and more than likely self-evident because the existence of truth in general is self-evident. However, the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us but is self-evident in itself.

Now Jesus is self-evident in His self because He is God. Jesus essence is His existence because if it were anything else, He could not be the First Mover who is God. However, that Jesus is God is not self-evident to man because some men do not believe Jesus is God.

Is it rational to believe Jesus is God? Absolutely, it is intuitive and probable as well, because man's sense of God is intuitive.

Man, by nature, has an innate desire for the Good who is God, and all men act for the good or an apparent good. But God is All-Good, therefore, man innately or intuitively seeks God, as a good, though God is intuitively known in a primordial sense.

Now anyone who has power over life and death, the seas, the heavens, and all that occupy them, who performs the miracles that Jesus did, and even when crucified rose from the dead has the credentials of a supernatural being with the powers we ascribe to God.

Moreover, God appeared at Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist and confirmed Jesus is the "Son of God," and therefore is "God." Further, God appears at the Transfiguration and again confirms Jesus is God’s Son. Moreover, Jesus says He is God several times in Scripture.

In addition, three hundred years before the birth of Jesus his whole life was predicated in Scripture by the prophets. No one in history has such a resume.

Third, it is rational to believe that Jesus is God from His works. The fruits of the agent defines the agent who bears them.

As to the questionability of Jesus’ parents, the certitude of Jesus' parents are more confirmable than are the certitudes of any parents on earth. The Father of Jesus is God; the Mother of God is Mary. Her apparitions to man are documented at Fatima, and at Lourdes and throughout the centuries.

In addition, Tradition and Scripture, the inspired word of God, foretells her coming when Adam is banished from the Garden of Eden, and the New Testament tells of Mary from the Birth of Jesus at His conception to her sorrow at the foot of His cross.

Moreover, Mary and God as parents are certified as dogmas by the Church’s Councils that are guaranteed infallibility in its universal teachings of faith and morals.

Notwithstanding, if the stories of Jesus had no foundation, and were fiction, then one would have a hard time explaining why every Apostle but John went to their death defending something they knew was a lie, when they could have simply denounced Jesus as a charlatan. They had nothing to gain if Jesus was a fraud.

The betrayal didn’t happen. Even the Jews, who followed a strict practice of the Jewish faith for centuries, joined the Apostles in the forming of God’s Church. The Church grew because it was from God and it had the truth of God as its banner.

Subsequently, the Jews remained a nominal minority, and still do, but the Church, in all its persecution from within, from without grew, and is still growing.

False religions, as Greek Mythology die, as all false beliefs do when they lack substance. The false expositions of truth do not take root; they die for they have no rationale to sustain them in the truth that all men seek.

Hence, Jesus is rational because of the fruits He bears.

M:
"For Christov: It's not that atheists don't believe in god. It's that atheists believe there is no god. It's not an absence of belief but a belief in and of itself. Agnostics, on the other hand, have no belief one way or the other."

I hate to get into the semantic argument, but this isn't quite right. "Agnostic" means you believe the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable. "Gnostic" means you think God's existence *can* be known one way or the other, even if you don't know right now.

If you are an "atheist" that means you disbelieve in God. A "theist" does believe.

So for example, it's possible to be an agnostic theist; meaning that you believe in God, but you don't think the truth can ever be known for sure.

Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist. I usually add "apathetic" to that too, because I don't really care. :)

I hate God!

Peter Huff said @ July 3, 2008 10:15 AM

"...in an atheistic universe what one man does to another man is of no significance. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. It doesn't matter. So why does she and you live your life like it does matter?"

An atheistic universe does not exists, please don't invent it. If for atheistic universe you mean a group of regular people that unlike you don't believe in God, then this world may be close to your neighborhood. (To avoid confusion, in this context by atheist I mean people that don’t find plausible the proof presented for an extremely extraordinary claim about the existence of supernatural entity or entities that snoop every move of the humans and the universe).

And yes, for those non believers in God what one man does to another man is of great significance. Let me tell you a secret that maybe you didn't know: they are as normal or abnormal as the rest of the population. Some are productive citizens and exemplar parents, others are criminals, some others just eat, drink and are merry for tomorrow they die. But you can find those kind of characters in the rest of the population, whether they are more or less religious, even among priests, imams, rabbis etc.

Knowing this secret about the people that don't believe in God, the answer to your question "So why does she and you live your life like it does matter?" is simple: because they are humans as you and for most humans life does matter, with or without afterlife.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

For M:
Yes, these are the current definitions of these words, but logically it is backward. "Atheist" literally means without (a) God (theist), while "agnostic" means without (a) belief (gnostic). The accepted definitions, as you say, are really that an antheist is someone without all belief, while an agnostic is someone who may have some belief but also has doubts or isn't sure. "Agnostic" should really be the stronger and more sweeping term, while "atheist" should be the term for someone who rejects specific God gods.

For Christov: It's not that atheists don't believe in god. It's that atheists believe there is no god. It's not an absence of belief but a belief in and of itself. Agnostics, on the other hand, have no belief one way or the other.

I've always thought that the language really has things backward. Literally, "atheists" don't believe in a god or gods, while "agnostics" are "without belief." It seems to me that people could have belief in a supernatural force or order to the universe but not believe in an individual god and that these people should be called atheists. On the other hand, people who reject all gods and supernatural forces, who are completely without belief in anything other than what reason can prove, should be called agnostics.
But we are stuck with the confusing terms we have.

E Favorite,
In responding to your question about whether I believe in supernatural occurrences, I'll answer in subcomponents:

1) communication--current technology versus primitive technology suggest to my mind that thought waves or thought energy could be plausible though they aren't measurable/detectable through current scientific instruments. My mind is boggled by cell phone communication around the world, instantaneously.

2) travel--could matter and energy including physical corporeal bodies be interchangeable and travel at super-high speeds? I don't understand the physics of this question, but I think it is plausible.

3) organizing matter and energy--can matter and energy respond to directed energized thought? I think it is plausible.

4) resurrection--do stem cells and DNA provide a plausible basis for belief in the possibility of knowledge that would include re-energizing a DNA remnant to a renewed life? I think it is plausible.

5) spirit element--imagine a group of close loved ones in a small room, each with their eyes closed. Everyone leaves except for one person, without making a sound. Could the person left in the room "feel" that other presences in the room had left? Having "felt" the presence of others who have been standing behind me when I didn't know of it through the five senses, I would have to say "yes". I think Eastern medicine is rooted in spirit energy that Western medicine generally doesn't recognize.

All of the above is, of course, IMO.

Quite frankly, if people call themselves atheists and pray who cares? Susan and her rigid little definitions makes her sound just like a priest. People's beliefs, behavior, language and attitudes are often as messy as they are. Many people, especially young people, adopt the term "atheist" as a response to a religious upbringing or in reaction to a distaste for America's religiosity as a whole. However they may still yearn for certain aspects of religion to supplement their daily lives.

Personally, I went from Catholic to Unitarian. I attend church and pray even though I don't necessarily believe in "God" (at least not an anthropocentric one). It's comforting, calming and makes me feel better by reminding me of man's place in this overwhelming universe of ours. However, I won't submit to one or another definition of beliefs or behavior that I'm not comfortable with.

Quite frankly, if people call themselves atheists and pray who cares? Susan and her rigid little definitions makes her sound just like a priest. People's beliefs, behavior, language and attitudes are often as messy as they are. Many people, especially young people, adopt the term "atheist" as a response to a religious upbringing or in reaction to a distaste for America's religiosity as a whole. However they may still yearn for certain aspects of religion to supplement their daily lives.

Personally, I went from Catholic to Unitarian. I attend church and pray even though I don't necessarily believe in "God" (at least not an anthropocentric one). It's comforting, calming and makes me feel better by reminding me of man's place in this overwhelming universe of ours. However, I won't submit to one or another definition of beliefs or behavior that I'm not comfortable with.

Susan Jacoby said,

"That one out of five Americans who identify themselves as atheists also say that they believe in God or a "universal spirit" and that one out of ten pray at least once a week can lead to only one conclusion. These people don't know that an atheist is, by definition, someone who does not believe in God or in the supernatural. To say that you're an atheist who believes in God and prays is the equivalent of saying that you're a vegetarian who loves to scarf down barbecued ribs and T-bone steak. Or a Christian who rejects the teachings of the New Testament. Or a religiously observant Jew who also believes that Jesus was the Messiah. Or a Muslim who believes that Jesus was God.

"I happened to be speaking before a group of rather militant atheists on the day that the Pew Forum announced these bizarre findings. One conspiracy theorist suggested the the Pew pollsters might have rigged the results so as to prove that there really aren't very many true atheists. Somehow, I doubt this. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is staffed by people who are honorable to a fault, and their polls are the best source about American religious attitudes that have ever been available to the public. No, if the Pew poll found that 21 percent of self-identified atheists also say that they believe in God, I believe that is what these putative atheists told the pollsters.

"I think that the explanation for these seemingly contradictory findings lies in a phenomenon I discuss at length in my recent book, The Age of American Unreason . Americans as a people have become supremely ignorant about and indifferent to the specific meanings of words, and they are equally confused about important historical distinctions.This is a serious cultural disease throughout our nation. A majority of Americans, in what is supposedly the most religious nation in the developed world, cannot name the four Gospels or identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible. Why shouldn't some American atheists be as ignorant about the meaning of atheism as many religious Americans are about religion?

"In my book, I mention one of the sentences most commonly abused by television commentators--the old expression, "I couldn't care less." This sentence is repeatedly transformed, by people who are paid millions of dollars for reading the news on TV, into, "I could care less." When I pointed out to a class of magazine writing students that "I could care less" means the precise opposite of "I couldn't care less," one student replied, "What does it matter as long as everyone knows what you mean?" Of course it matters. There's a wonderful passage in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland--a dialogue among Alice, the March Hare, and the Mad Hatter. "You should say what you mean," the March Hare tells Alice. Alice replies, "I do. At least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know." The Hatter chimes in, "Not the same thing a bit! Why, you might as well say that, `I see what I eat,' is the same thing as `I eat what I see.'"

"I suppose it's possible that some of the atheists who said they believed in God were operating under the misapprehension that atheism means something like deism--belief not in a personal God but in an overarching providence, or spirit, that gave rise to the universe but plays no direct role in the affairs of humans. I suppose it is also possible that some of those polled, aware that atheism is greatly stigmatized in American culture, wanted to make nice by saying that they did believe in God in the same spirit that some women say, "I am a feminist but...." The "but" is always followed by some silly, ingratiating statement like, "I don't want to burn my bra" or "I like men."

"But atheism is not a flexible word. That is, in fact, the reason why so many nonbelievers prefer to call themselves agnostics. Indeed, the word "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, the great popularizer of Darwin's theory of evolution, as an alternative to the much older, harsher-sounding word "atheist." Atheists are people who don't believe in God. They do not claim (as some believers mistakenly think) to "know" that there is no God. What an honest atheist says is, "Given all the available evidence, I don't believe in a divine creator." An atheist can no more prove that there is no God than a believer can prove that there is one--but only believers claim to "know" that their religious convictions are true.

"But too many Americans are convinced, and have been convinced by the sloppy speech around them, that words mean anything you want them to mean. They really do believe that "I see what I eat" means the same thing as "I eat what I see." And that mistaken idea probably lies at the heart of what I will call the Pew Paradox."

Susan Jacoby has said:

"The idea that atheists are really believers who are angry at God is a mistaken view held by many religious people. In my experience, personal tragedy is more likely to make people turn to faith, in a desperate search for meaning in the meaningless.

I also saw a number of comments to the effect that many atheists hold their views because of a personal tragedy that made them "reject" God. This is utter nonsense."

Yet Susan speaks often of her trauma at age 7 over a childhood friend's diagnosis of polio and how that experience shaped her rejection of God:

--"I date the origins of my atheism from a visit to the hospital, at age seven, to see a playmate in an iron lung. The early fifties were the last era in which hundreds of thousands of children were killed or crippled by polio each year. The iron lung was a fear-inspiring apparatus, and seeing a boy who had, only a few months earlier, been running and playing ball with the rest of us made a permanent impression on me. I began questioning all of the nonsense I had already been taught about the existence of a loving God. I asked my mother why God would allow a boy to be held prisoner in an iron lung and and my mother, to her credit, replied, "I don't know."

--"When I was 7, my parents said I must reserve a portion of my weekly allowance for the collection plate at Sunday Mass. But the amount was to remain a secret between God and me. The tabernacles and chalices were made of gold and silver, I reasoned, so God didn’t need more than five cents on the dollar. Lest anyone think I was a stingy, selfish child, I want to make one thing clear: I gave lots of money to the March of Dimes because my best friend in second grade had a brother in an iron lung. Every time I saw a canister I would put in a dime or a quarter, not the measly nickel, (or penny, if I had incurred heavy expenses that week) I customarily gave in church."

--"The theodicy problem! At age seven! I told Alex (her niece) that not everyone believes in God, that children born sick have been hurt by a cruel accident of nature, and that doctors are working very hard to figure out how to make these children better. The "doctors working hard" statement seemed to reassure her, but she circled back to God and asked, "Do you believe in God, Aunt Susan?"

I told her that I didn't believe in God, that I believed in good people working together to make life better. My mother tells me that I asked the same question when the older brother of a childhood friend was stricken with polio, and we visited him in his terrifying iron lung. My mom, who was a practicing Catholic, simply replied "I don't know" when I asked why God would put a child in an iron lung. She was honest--and more power to her. When children are old enough to ask a question, they deserve an honest answer. The priests and nuns of my childhood would certainly not have agreed, but I believe that doubt is one of the greatest gifts a parent can give a child. Thanks, Mom."

I believe the idea that atheism is a rejection of God, rather than a denial of his existence, is being attributed to me. Allow me to clarify myself in that case. I did not mean that such a position is atheism. At one point in the post in question I enclosed the term within blocks to imply it's so-called name.

Of course people aren't authentically atheist who describe themselves as atheists and then, in the same conversation, say that they stopped believing in God because he didn't answer a prayer. I wasn't trying to imply that they were. I was only trying to say that this situation is the case with many who describe themselves as atheists. And it is the case with many who so describe themselves - they are not, in fact, atheists, but are misusing or misunderstanding the term, as Ms. Jacoby pointed out in her article.

Of course there are atheists who are really atheists, who actually deny the actual existence of God, and of the supernatural generally. Such people have come to their conclusions in whatever way.

I was only speaking to the discrepancy of shown in the Pew study about the number of self-describing atheists who believe in a transcendent reality, whatever they settle on naming it for themselves.

As an aside, I will quote Ms. Jacoby:

"The idea that atheists are really believers who are angry at God is a mistaken view held by many religious people. In my experience, personal tragedy is more likely to make people turn to faith, in a desperate search for meaning in the meaningless."

That's not entirely true in my experience. In my experience, personal tragedy tests faith - in some people it is strengthened, and in others weakened - for what reasons, I am not sure I could even guess. Ms. Jacoby wrote as much in a recent post when she wrote that she began to doubt God's existence seeing a schoolmate confined to an iron lung, by polio I believe.

I for one don't believe that all atheists are subconsciously angry at God, though many may be. I don't believe all atheists eat blueberry waffles, though I imagine some do so. The term atheist describes one who doesn't believe in the existence of God, or more generally of deity or transcendent reality; in ancient times it would also be applied to one who refused the worship of God. Those two things aren't so different.

This last point gets at the heart of Sunday-only Christians, as well. They are what might be termed practical atheists. They say they believe in an infinite God who is the organizing principle of reality, and the worship of whom consists in conforming their life to his will in all its details. They then proceed to organize their lives, six days each week, around comfort, money, sex, or whatever. They, practically speaking, do not believe in the God they say they do, but in some other god, or in themselves alone.

An out-and-out atheist is in a much better position in my book because they have integrity with respect to their beliefs and lifestyle, and that is a good start and necessary requirement for genuine progress toward truth.

Some have suggested throwing the baby out with the bath water and calling atheists "free thinkers". Problem is, not all atheists are more liberated in their thinking than all religious people. The suggestion, anyway, misses Ms. Jacoby's point, which is that the fault isn't language, but rather our failure to attend to its common sense meaning.

Maybe just as many so called religious people do not believe in God, but still go to Church and maintain the pretense of religion for cultural/community reasons so too might so called atheists identify culturally with atheism but still believe in some sort of divine spirit. Also I am sure there are many more "religious" people who in reality are agnostic or atheist than vice versa....

"anonymous" early in the thread asked for an explanation of the phenomenon of feminists who act seductively, thereby illustrating Ms. Jacoby's thesis by showing himself to be ignorant of the meaning of feminism. It doesn't mean artless much less sexless. In fact, it isn't defined by behavior at all.

Just Folks: “but maybe she will reconsider the ironlung that so frightened her as a child.”

And maybe you’ll reconsider that she may be better able to interpret her own thoughts and feelings than you are.

Parker: “What if I believe everything done in the universe is done by application of natural laws, some of which we may not now understand? Does that make me a supranaturalist?”

Not in my book – I feel the same way. But perhaps this doesn’t completely express your position. In my case I think that which we do not yet understand will have an answer within the natural laws. Of course I don’t know that, but that’s the established pattern. Everything we now understand, that we once didn’t and thought was from supernatural sources (e.g., thunder from God) we now understand through advanced scientific knowledge – not a visit from a supernatural being.

Is that along the lines of what you think, or do you think there’s likely to be a supernatural explanation for it?

Also, do you accept the supernatural in other aspects of your life? (I think you do, as I recall).

Regarding a tone of bitterness from atheists about the current administration and 9/11 – keep in mind, that that’s political bitterness and a lot of people have felt it, not just atheists.

"Why wouldn't some American atheists be as ignorant about the meaning of atheism, as many religious Americans are about the meaning of religion?"

This is clearly wrong. True atheists aren't ignorant to call themselves atheists, only the religious people who call themselves atheists are ignorant. If some self-described religious people are actually atheists, they'd count as ignorant, too, but do far, nobody's making that claim. Let's give the atheists a wee bit of credit here, since they get so little from the MSM.

spiderman2 wrote: "The computer and the man. The computer is the product and man is the maker. Can the computer define man? Nope. The same logic applies to God. The question of God's origin is outside the scope of man's comprehension."

Not only God's origin, but God's form, God's whereabouts, God's abilities, even God's existance. Your logic proves that man cannot know God or even know he exists, therefore all those who believe in God do so without any evidence. Since Man cannot be known by a computer, God cannot be known by man.

But you claim to know Him quite well spidey. How is that so? Does your computer know you that well? Is your computer aware you can shut it off when you want? Is your computer aware you can toss it into the junk pile if it starts acting up and angers you? I doubt it. So where does your knowlege of God's wants and needs come from and how could they have been obtained, say through visions? Does you computer have visions of you?

Your logic is, as usual, very flawed. And let me ask you ... if your computer really made you mad, maybe lost some of your files, would you toss it into the fireplace for being bad? If it worked smoothly all its life and pleased you, would you put go to the effort to put it in the closet with enough power for eternity?

"outside the scope of man's comprehension"

The evidence is that "man" can comprehend any darn thing he wants to comprehend. The question is whether that understanding considers all the evidence we can agree upon as relevant. It is the dialog between completeness and comprehension that results in the evolution of the meaning of "facts." What most organized religions try to do is halt this evolution. This is impossible, even under the threat of violence, which most organized religions ultimately have to resort to.

To spiderman2

you say that the question of God's origin is outside the scope of man's comprehension. the same argument can be invoked for the creation of the universe. We can say that it was created but the question of its origin is outside the scope of man's comprehension. Therefore, the universe was created without God. There is no teeth to the argument that God created the universe but God cannot be explained or understood. One could just as easily say that a giant worm created the universe, but you can't see or understand that worm. However, thousands of years ago, the worm told people to write a book about it and since the book is the word of the worm, it must be true. As proof of the existence of the worm, look at the order in the universe. As proof that man doesn't follow the laws of the worm, look at the suffering in the world. You see how you can substitute "worm" for "God" in every argument without any loss of proof. One can even say that the worm makes the Bible more clear as the reason why Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat the apple was that the worm lived in the apple as worms do, and it would be sacreligious to eat the home of the worm who created us. You will undoubtedly think my argument is nonsense. But look at your argument. 6000 years ago (even though the science you refer to shows than man has been around much longer), a talking snake told Eve to eat an apple and as a result, anyone who is not a Christian burns in hell forever and anyone who is a Christian lives in paradise forever. Does that really make sense? Have you ever seen a talking snake? Have you ever seen bad things happen from apples? Would a loving God really make up rules like that?

SLP

Re: Catholics and the Bible

Catholics, worldwide, have read out to them the same sections from the Bible at every Sunday Mass, indeed, at every weekday Mass. Usually one reading is from the OT, one is from the Acts, one from one of the synoptic Gospels. The third reading is from the same synpotic Gospel--this year it is Matthew--every Sunday. If the priest is any good, the homily should revolve around the last gospel reading.

I simply don't see how you can say that Catholics don't know the Bible when at least half of every Mass is taken up with it. What Catholics don't do is read a specific book of the Bible from start to finish. Rather Catholics each year read and meditate upon the earthly life, ministry and finally, all teachings of Jesus Christ. The Catholic year starts the first week of December with Advent, the preparation for the feast of Christmas, progresses through Easter, and ends the last week of November.

And we are getting better at reading *all* the Bible, although, as you said, we don't take every word literally--esp. the Hebrew Bible.

E Favorite,
Your comment, "I wouldn’t generally characterize the atheists here as having the bitterness, hero worship, shallowness and callousness that you mention. (I do see the skepticism, though!) I must say, I do sometimes see those very characteristics in some of the Christians. Have you noticed that?"
-----------------------------
I agree about shallowness and callousness in several of the "believer" comments. (I don't really have the stomach to call them Christians, since to my way of thinking, to be Christian is to act the part rather than a "get into this lifeboat (by bludgeon if necessary) or you perish" rescue mission. No ranting, no name-calling, no judging.

I do find a general tone of bitterness in some of what I've read in the On Faith comments by atheists--mostly seeming to be a reaction to 9/11 and the current badly run administration, and perhaps trying to parrot Dawkins and CH. But some are not, and when that happens it is refreshing because readers can feel more of the heart of the person writing, their genuine "persona". Sharing that is what can make life very pleasant despite all our differences of opinion.

What if I believe everything done in the universe is done by application of natural laws, some of which we may not now understand? Does that make me a supranaturalist? (:

Have a good day.

Efavorite types-

"you seem to think that Susan rejected God because she was “angry with God” over the trauma of seeing a playmate in an iron lung. Please consider that her response was one based on logic, not anger -- that seeing an innocent child so incapacitated, she logically determined that no omnipotent loving being would do such a thing, therefore determined that such a being did not exist."

A seven year old child's decisions are most often based on emotions. Fear and anger (phobias and grudges) are prime motivators for girls and anyone raising a daughter can attest to this. Logic (like maturity) is not found at this stage of life. Listen to the words Susan uses as an adult to describe her childhood experience-

-iron lung was a fear-inspiring apparatus

-a boy to be held prisoner in an iron lung

-friend was stricken with polio, and we visited him in his terrifying iron lung

She is still seeing her experience through a child's eyes. The ironlung is only fear-inspiring, terrifying, and a prison to a small child.

In truth- the ironlung was livesaver. Children with polio were able to continue breathing as paralyses of the chest muscles set in. This was not lost on the child in the ironlung:

“There was a tremendous psychological element at work in all of us in our relationship to the lung. The metal respirator assumed an almost animate personality and became a symbol of protection and security…. We were incomplete embryos in a metal womb.”

—Larry Alexander, 1954

"I’d say, she wasn’t rejecting God, she was rejecting the notion of such a powerful being acting in such a heartless way."

What? A seven year old wasn't rejecting God- only what she perceived at her age to be God's character? Too bad her mother didn't tell her questioning child the benefits of the ironlung instead of leaving her to sort through a complex world alone.

"Maybe Susan will come back on to express her own feelings."

My heart goes out to Susan. I don't expect her to comment- but maybe she will reconsider the ironlung that so frightened her as a child.

Excellent column by Susan Jacoby regarding the "Pew Paradox." I can still remember the astonished response I received when, during one lunch break with a group of call-center colleagues, I explained that I was an agnostic. Immediately, somebody proclaimed that that meant I did not believe in God; others were so perplexed that anyone might doubt the existence of God that they assumed that agnosticism was a strange new religious cult.
Of course, I compounded matters by trying to introduce the concept of memes into the discussion. Afterwards, I found that I was eating lunch alone most of the time or that conversation was limited to talking about the weather or sports.

I like this argument the best. Having learned English as a foreign language, I stumble on such inconsistencies all the time!

First, please remember that God is the proper name for the Judeo-Christian deity, ever since they became afraid to use his real name, Yahweh. God is not the name of the gods of other world religions.

Science today is struggling with the problem of "where it all came from", and as a result, some of us believe that maybe the universe was created, perhaps as a bet between several graduate school, engineering deities as to what you might cause to happen by creating a universe which atomic particles. One of them accepted the challenge and so here we are.

This is the "fill the gaps" view of religion, but the problem is that when the gaps are filled, dogmatic religionists cannot seem to give them up. Galileo was punished for filling in the gaps of planetary orbits.

Here is the key to this apparent anomaly: Any belief that fills the gaps must also be compliant with atheism.

"Don't Know Much About Theology, Don't Know Much Philosophy"? Then what you are offering up is just another uninformed opinion. Your "opinion" is the intellectual, and your case I use the word very loosly, equivalent of littering.

"A majority of Americans, in what is supposedly the most religious nation in the developed world, cannot name the four Gospels or identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible."

Please note that most Catholics do not study the Bible. The Bible is certainly used by priests and is used to teach, but Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible. Perhaps it's because Catholics do take the words in the Bible literally, we interpret the words in the Bible.

Should that be idiot, idiot , idiot? No atheist is a genius. They are always idiot.

Genius, Genius, Genius!

You never fail to set the argument straight Susan. I'm going out and getting your new book ASAP.

The computer and the man. The computer is the product and man is the maker. Can the computer define man? Nope. The same logic applies to God. The question of God's origin is outside the scope of man's comprehension.

I always thought that "I could care less," was meant ironically, with an unstated "as if" in front of it, so that the statement does mean "I couldn't care less"--said with a cynical curl to the lip, so to speak.

To Amy:

I respect that you believe that religions based on the idea of souls are fairy tales. but your position leaves a very powerful unanswered question: where does consciousness and the sense of identity come from?

Most scientists would not believe that atoms are conscious and have a sense of identity. They certainly would not believe that rocks are conscious. Even if atoms have consciousness and a sense of identity, we as people do not see ourselves as a collection of trillions of miniature selves bound together by electrical forces holding our atoms together. We see ourselves as a single identity.

Where does that awareness and consciousness come from if not from a soul and not from individual atoms that make us up?

To Spiderman2,

suppose you are right that there is a maker to every product. Why is the maker of the universe God? Why not the big bang?

As Amy points out, if your argument is correct, then God has a maker as well. Who made God? Who made the thing that made God? Who made that thing? you can take that argument to infinity in which case God is nothing but a middleman in a long chain of creation that has no end.

Just Folks – you seem to think that Susan rejected God because she was “angry with God” over the trauma of seeing a playmate in an iron lung. Please consider that her response was one based on logic, not anger -- that seeing an innocent child so incapacitated, she logically determined that no omnipotent loving being would do such a thing, therefore determined that such a being did not exist. I’d say, she wasn’t rejecting God, she was rejecting the notion of such a powerful being acting in such a heartless way. Putting myself in Susan’s shoes, I’d feel relief, not anger. Maybe Susan will come back on to express her own feelings.

Hi, Parker – thanks for the favorable mention. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t generally characterize the atheists here as having the bitterness, hero worship, shallowness and callousness that you mention. (I do see the skepticism, though!) I must say, I do sometimes see those very characteristics in some of the Christians. Have you noticed that?

I think Jonny is an outlier among atheists. He certainly comes across as quite cynical and seems to enjoy put downs, especially of believers. But I don’t think he’s worse than some of the Christians here who love telling the atheists how stupid and misguided we are for not believing in supernatural beings and events and how we will burn in hell for eternity.

Spiderman2 wrote "According to a recent poll, 8 percent of Americans are atheists but 21 percent of that 8% believe in God.

That could mean 6.3 % of Americans are either liars or INSANE or both."

Or it could mean that the study was flawed because they combined the answers from those who self-identified as atheists and those who declared themselves unaffiliated with a particular religion.

And by the way, 21% of 8% is not 6.3%. It's 1.68%.

Spiderman, you said "Anon, in every product, there is a maker. That is simple science."

So who made the maker?

Lou, I've commented on Christianity because this thread is about a poll of American beliefs, and Christianity is the majority belief in America. It's also the frame of reference for the majority of the believers posting to this thread. If it would make you feel better, here is a list of the religions I think are silly fairy tales:

Christianity
Judaism
Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism
Wicca
Zoroastrianism
Greek mythology (well, *we* call them myths)
African religions
Voudou
Bahai
Scientology
Mormonism
Animism

I probably forgot a few, but whatever they are, they're fairy tales too if they're rooted in the concept of an immortal soul or any supernatural entity.

Anon, in every product, there is a maker. That is simple science.

Mike, that's easy to correct. Now let's deal with the situation you're in. Do you know? Fool?

**

America is the most powerful nation because many of its citizens are intelligent. One criteria for being intelligent is that he/she should be a believer of God. A person who doesn't believe in God is either a liar or insane.

According to a recent poll, 8 percent of Americans are atheists but 21 percent of that 8% believe in God.

That could mean 6.3 % of Americans are either liars or INSANE or both.

Relatively, I think that is a small number and it's a good reason to celebrate.

***

Just one of the million proofs that there is a God is the fact that no person, inspite of his intelligence, can recreate a rose petal without getting help from a rose plant. How about a Daisy flower? Nope. Magnolia? Nope. What can these people produce? Nothing!!

Foolish? Yes and dangerous coz they don't know the situation they're in.

To Spiderman2

the fact that you get a rose petal from a rose doesn't prove that God exists, only that roses exist. The fact that there are people doesn't prove that God exists, only that mommies and daddies exist.

If people come from God, then where did God come from? who created God? if your answer is that God didn't come from anywhere, He just exists, then why can't that argument by applied to the universe? Why can't we just say, it was created from a big bang and we don't know what caused the big bang any more than we don't know what caused God to start existing.

Spiderman2 wrote "America is the most powerful nation because many of it's citizens are intelligent."

Many are intelligent, and some even know the difference between "it's" and "its".

To TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

I believe in God, yet your arguments "proving God" are fallacious. You cannot prove that God exists.

Just because there are laws of nature do not mean that God made them. These laws could be inherent properties of matter and energy. By analogy, we say that things happen because God wills them. Why is it true that whatever God wills happens? is it because that's what God wants? so God wills that whatever He wills happens and that's why God's will becomes reality? that's a circular argument. You could say that it is an inherent property of God that whatever He wills is what happens. if so, then why can't the laws of physics be inherent to the universe? Why do the laws of physics have to be created by someone outside the universe, but the laws of God not created by someone other than God and given to God?

You also cite the religious heritage of the founding fathers and how that heritage is built into our Constitution. Just because the founding fathers had religion and based the Constitution off that religion doesn't mean that religion is true. Muslim nations are based on Islamic religious principles. Communism in China is based on no religious principles whatsoever. Right now we are dependent upon Muslim nations for oil and Communist China to finance our deficit. China is growing faster than we are economically and will soon replace us as the dominant world power (300 million Americans can't outproduce 1.3 billion Chinese forever). Does this mean that atheism is proved when this happens? of course not! A nation's success is not determined by its religion or lack thereof. The role between religion and Government is the values the religion brings to the society, not whether God is believed in.

Finally, you cherry pick countries to cite as evidence of how "wrong" religions lead to bad countries. Thailand is largely Buddhist and that country is far more peaceful than the US and is certainly doing less to destroy the earth environmentally than we are. Is that proof that Buddhism is superior to theism and in particular, Christianity?

Susan says:
Atheists are people who don't believe in God. They do not claim (as some believers mistakenly think) to "know" that there is no God. What an honest atheist says is, "Given all the available evidence, I don't believe in a divine creator."

Good point - Susan - an atheist isn't making a claim about the existence of God just about the state of their own mind which in denial and there own will that want to stay in that state. The arguments for the existence of God - the Big Bang Theory for example are too compelling to be denied by the atheist. But due to free will - an agent, a human being, can chose to believe whatever it wants as long as that belief does not impact the agent's own survival.

America is the most powerful nation because many of it's citizens are intelligent. One criteria for being intelligent is that he/she should be a believer of God. A person who doesn't believe in God is either a liar or insane.

According to a recent poll, 8 percent of Americans are atheists but 21 percent of that 8% believe in God.

That could mean 6.3 % of Americans are either liars or INSANE or both.

Relatively, I think that is a small number and it's a good reason to celebrate.

***

Just one of the million proofs that there is a God is the fact that no person, inspite of his intelligence, can recreate a rose petal without getting help from a rose plant. How about a Daisy flower? Nope. Magnolia? Nope. What can these people produce? Nothing!!

Foolish? Yes and dangerous coz they don't know the situation they're in.

I appreciate your torpedoing of Sally Quinn's horribly insipid post.

To Anonymous,

ANONYMOUS: "Hegemony and brain-washing are what you describe. Just because a particular cult has a majority doesn't mean that any of its beliefs is actually right."

1) You assume that the Christian is the one brainwashed.
2) There is no "right" without God. What you are talking about is preference. Without an ultimate reference point it is mere opinion, just like Marie said about evil. And in an atheistic universe what one man does to another man is of no significance. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. It doesn't matter. So why does she and you live your life like it does matter? Why do you get annoyed when someone barges in line in front of you? Because you cannot escape the fact that you are made in the image and likeness of God and know, even though you suppress this truth that there is an ultimate standard of good. Every time you identify that murder is wrong you borrow from the Christian worldview and God's ultimate standard.

ANONYMOUS: "As for the supposed arrogance of "putting yourself in the center" I would suggest you look into the mirror."

Likewise, since you are the final subjective arbitrator in deciding the standard of truth and fairness. It is the height of arrogance to breathe the very breath God has given you in using it to deny Him. You are making a moral judgment without justifying where morals come from. So why is your opinion of value dear sir?

ANONYMOUS: "Believers who think they have a lock on the truth are arrogant because they think they somehow are better judges of what's correct and what's not than everybody else."

So are unbelievers who have no idea what truth is and yet make judgments on what is correct based on personal preference. Your highest standard is yourself and your changing opinion, since you make judgments based on your subjective opinion. The Christian has a standard that is not only outside himself, but that is the true standard, the ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging standard - God Himself as He has chosen to reveal Himself to His creation.

ANONYMOUS: "Buttressing their belief with the fact that millions of others have been brainwashed with the same fairy tales cements this, but the root is an arrogant belief in one's infallible ability to discern "The Truth."

More mere assertions based on a myriad of subjective opinion and reasoning with no higher authority or validation other than speculation. It is funny how deception works.

Since no one was around when the universe began you make assumptions based on your worldview. Facts do not interpret themselves, they need to be interpreted. What better interpreter than the One who created it all, who holds all knowledge and power. Your fairy tale is once upon a time, billions and billions of years ago a random chance explosion produced everything in the universe resulting in life from non-life, personality from the impersonal, uniformity from chaos and chance, mind from matter, thinking and logic from a material process, morality from a stone.

ANONYMOUS: "And how convenient that the religion of your culture and community happens to be the correct one! Imagine if Hindus were actually right and you've been deluded all this time. Horrors!"

That would be just that, imagining. Two contradictory worldviews cannot both be right/true because they state opposites. You can live like they are but the Hindu who believes life is but an illusion betrays his worldview very time he crosses the street by making sure he looks both ways so he does not become the hood ornament of the speeding bus. When he does this he takes on the worldview of the Christian before going back into his irrationality.

ANONYMOUS: "How many Christians have really given every religion a chance? I'd like to see a catechism that requires all pre-communicants to spend a few months going to non-Western religious education. You can't choose your religion freely if you're the victim of hegemony."

All religions, including yours - atheism - are exclusive in that they hold their view as the one that counts, the ultimate, but only Christianity can make sense of the why, the how, the purpose, the meaning of life, why things are the way they are. Why would I hold to something that is untrue? By the grace of God He has opened my eyes to who He is and "In [His] light we see light." (Psalm 36:9)

Sorry, I have run out of time today.

Daniel itld – I notice you refer to superfrees as nonbelievers, rather than people free of supernatural belief. Just an observation. I do think it’s socially ingrained – with belief in invisible forces being the status quo.

I also thought of the words rationalist, realist and naturalist – which are sufficiently descriptive, I think, but are also descriptive of many people with supernatural beliefs (prosupers) who most of the time guide their lives and make their decisions in the natural, tangible and reason-based world.

What I’ve noticed in on the “On faith” forum is that prosupers can get very upset with the notion that superfrees see them as illogical, stupid, gullible, immature, irrational, deluded, uninformed etc. just because they believe in the supernatural and think certain ancient stories (bible, Koran) are factual. I empathize with them, knowing full well that when I was a prosuper, I was just as logical, smart, skeptical, mature, rational, aware and informed as I am now – at least in matters unrelated to religion. Then, of course, there are prosupers who are convinced that superfrees are also free of morals, hope and compassion and lead sad, depraved, materialistic, meaningless lives just because they’re free of supernatural beliefs.

Daniel, I also think that most people, whether prosuper or superfree, haven’t given the huge amount of thought that you have to religion and your personal religious philosophy. I barely thought about religion at all until the last few years, during which I’ve been on a huge learning curve. It’s unreasonable to expect the majority of people to be that immersed in religion. But I think it’s reasonable and important in our society to have a basic understanding of what one’s own beliefs are, and how people with different beliefs and ways of thinking operate.

There – I’ve pontificated under guise of response to you. I like your definition of theology: “the speculation of others, equal to my own, but set down in a legal way, that I am expected to conform to” and would love to hear theologians’ response to that.

I also envy your musical talent. Having a little myself, I know what a joy it is.

First, note that the poll’s initial question measures belief in “God” OR a “Universal Spirit.” Of the nearly 36,000 respondents surveyed, 71% said they were “absolutely certain” that such critters existed—God or a Universal Spirit. However, do those professing absolute belief in a Universal Spirit ALSO believe in God? Who knows? Readers are left to create a chimera, God/Universal Spirit (hereafter GUS).

More upsetting, actually, is [The Washington Post's reporter] Salmon’s interpretation of the poll results, inflating the 71% of those professing certainty in GUS to the ninetieth percentile by adding the “fairly certain” (17%, nationally) and the “not too certain” (4%, nationally) to those who are “absolutely certain.” That is how Salmon arrives at the questionable conclusion that 92% of the American public believes in GUS.

What of nontheists and naturalists? Nationally, those respondents without belief in GUS came in at 5%, while those who “don’t know” or refused to answer the Pew questions were the smallest group of respondents, at 3%. Obviously, 8% of 36,000 people didn’t see the need to admit that GUS is central to their lives.

Salmon’s emphasizing the “deep and broad religiosity” of Americans occludes the facts. The Pew Poll numbers can be interpreted as showing that at least one-fifth of Americans are somewhat or strongly agnostic, up to 21% of those surveyed. If that number is added to the 8% without belief or interest in GUS, it would mean that 29% of those surveyed profess some or a great deal of religious doubt, let alone atheism.

http://www.eloquentatheist.com/

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
ATHEISTS AREN’T ATHEIST BUT AGNOSTICS.

IRT:
JULY 1, 2008
“I think that the explanation for these seemingly contradictory findings lies in…. Americans as a people have become supremely ignorant about and indifferent to the specific meanings of words, and they are equally confused about important historical distinctions. This is a serious cultural disease throughout our nation.”

ANS:
Atheism is a serious cultural disease, but its symptoms are not based on ignorance, per se, but on irrationality. Atheism denies the existence of God when the whole created Universe is a manifestation of the effects of God’s creation and knowledge.

To deny there is a God, is to deny one’s own reason. Reason tells us that order demands an intelligent orderer, and we call that orderer God. The atheists deny that rational proposition, and thus are irrational.

The world is ordered by the Natural Law. Laws govern things; they order things. Hence, there must be one who governs, one who is the Law Giver. A Law Giver requires intelligence. That intelligence we call God. Unwittingly, the atheist must irrationally claim that the ordering of the Universe comes from chaos including their own existence.

Moreover, the atheists must deny the history of the Scriptures witnessed even by those perverse to Scripture’s encapsulating magnetic forces, namely, the Jews, Romans, and pagans.

In addition, the atheists ignore the causes of the contrasted differences between a government that is theocentric and a government that is anthropocentric.

Even though those who live in America enjoy and participate in one of the greatest experiments in governing history, a Constitution based on the fruits of its Judeo-Christian heritage, the atheists deny there is a God but incongruously acknowledge the fruits of God's wisdom.

Although the atheists savor the fruits of our heritage, they deny the very basis for the existence of these fruits, viz. the right to life, freedom of speech, religion, freedom to assemble, to own property etc. They are all based on the dignity of man, and God's Natural Moral Law (NML).

The Declaration of Independence declared that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain alienable rights. The Bill of Rights ensures those rights given to man by a God. The atheist denies both the basis for Declaration and Bill of Rights.

Amazingly, the atheist, by denying there is a God, undermines his own fundamental principles of human nature, leaves us with no choice but a government without the basis for the NML and a government that is inevitably anthropocentric, and based on the precarious peccable nuances of human fallibility.

This parlous indiscretion by the atheists, that there is no God, has produced the injudicious and aimless peccadilloes of materialism.

Subsequently, the consequences of their anthropocentric ideological governances have bred the tragic results of Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the baggage that these paganism clings to. Such incongruous and devastating itineraries of human bondage are the fruits of nations who believe there is no God.

Moreover, these irrational beliefs all portend an invitation to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypses, historically marked by war, death, pestilence, and starvation.

Hence, they have generated such contemporary social depravities as the former East Germany, the USSR, today’s China, and North Korea, Cambodia, the Congo, and the Sudan.

Such pseudo barbarian governments are manifestations of social malfunctions of the atheist’s unintended ignominious ideology and beliefs. When such beliefs are pushed to their final conclusions, devastation ensues.

So it’s not surprising that anyone who could believe in such stark irrationality and impudent injudiciousness, as atheists do.

Consequently, it is not surprising that atheists make contradictive statements; they are what they have always been, viz. they are oxymorons. Hence, they deny the first principle of contradiction, viz. "a thing 'cannot be' and 'be' at the same time under the same condition and circumstances."

Therefore, since an atheist denies what the world is witness to, viz. that there is a God, and deny that society can only thrive in the context of a God, (a God who loved man so much that He sent His only Son down to redeem man), to be an atheist is to be out of touch with reality. Consequently, contradictions by atheists are nothing new but have been in vogue throughout history.

Susan Jacoby has said:

"The idea that atheists are really believers who are angry at God is a mistaken view held by many religious people. In my experience, personal tragedy is more likely to make people turn to faith, in a desperate search for meaning in the meaningless.

I also saw a number of comments to the effect that many atheists hold their views because of a personal tragedy that made them "reject" God. This is utter nonsense."

Yet Susan speaks often of her trauma at age 7 over a childhood friend's diagnosis of polio and how that experience shaped her rejection of God:

"I date the origins of my atheism from a visit to the hospital, at age seven, to see a playmate in an iron lung. The early fifties were the last era in which hundreds of thousands of children were killed or crippled by polio each year. The iron lung was a fear-inspiring apparatus, and seeing a boy who had, only a few months earlier, been running and playing ball with the rest of us made a permanent impression on me. I began questioning all of the nonsense I had already been taught about the existence of a loving God. I asked my mother why God would allow a boy to be held prisoner in an iron lung and and my mother, to her credit, replied, "I don't know."

"When I was 7, my parents said I must reserve a portion of my weekly allowance for the collection plate at Sunday Mass. But the amount was to remain a secret between God and me. The tabernacles and chalices were made of gold and silver, I reasoned, so God didn’t need more than five cents on the dollar. Lest anyone think I was a stingy, selfish child, I want to make one thing clear: I gave lots of money to the March of Dimes because my best friend in second grade had a brother in an iron lung. Every time I saw a canister I would put in a dime or a quarter, not the measly nickel, (or penny, if I had incurred heavy expenses that week) I customarily gave in church."

"The theodicy problem! At age seven! I told Alex (her niece) that not everyone believes in God, that children born sick have been hurt by a cruel accident of nature, and that doctors are working very hard to figure out how to make these children better. The "doctors working hard" statement seemed to reassure her, but she circled back to God and asked, "Do you believe in God, Aunt Susan?"

I told her that I didn't believe in God, that I believed in good people working together to make life better. My mother tells me that I asked the same question when the older brother of a childhood friend was stricken with polio, and we visited him in his terrifying iron lung. My mom, who was a practicing Catholic, simply replied "I don't know" when I asked why God would put a child in an iron lung. She was honest--and more power to her. When children are old enough to ask a question, they deserve an honest answer. The priests and nuns of my childhood would certainly not have agreed, but I believe that doubt is one of the greatest gifts a parent can give a child. Thanks, Mom."

Sang my song
Said my piece
Yet again
For the zillionth time
Gotta go
To find my peace
In a million years
It will all be here
Just where it all began
Round and round
The merry go round
Back and forth
The same old words
The same old song...

Islam alone was founded as a theocracy.

Islam alone punishes apostacy with death.

Islamic other worldly beliefs do not concern anyone.

Some of the things some Muslims DO in accordance with the Quran and Sharia Law *in this world* is a matter of concern, ask Sir Salman Rushdie, Ms Ali, Wafa Sultan etc.

Gerry:

We could keep in mind:

All monotheistic religions were IMPOSED by FORCE of some dominant figures or small power groups. (Moses, Emperor Theodosius (Jesus didn't invent Christianity!), Mohamed). They are never a result of free use of original brain power of an individual.

Their books are based on the most horrible threats, both in this life and worse in an illusionary afterlife to keep their "flocks" subservient (original sin; Tertullian stating that the greatest joy of the pious are the screams of anguish from downstairs). As soon as somebody wanted to think for himself, even producing similar superstitions (e.g the Albigensians, Luther, Hus, Zwingli), or, worse, trying to get away from the whole flock of sheep, they were called "heretics", and if possible, killed.

After the 30 years' war, NOBODY in major parts of Europe was permitted to "believe" anything that differed from the haphazard belief of their particular prince ("Cuius regio, eius religio", enforceable law: The Inquisition is the same "Gesinnungspolizei" (thought police) the Nazis had, which we also find in some Islamic systems: The "crime" starts already in thinking!). Again, instead of free thinking, the flock uses their brain power to rationalize the particular IMPOSED belief system, some out of complacency, most out of fear.

There are quite a few impressive psychological experiments proving that people use there mental capacity to a large degree to corroborate their prejudices.

Once brain-washed, even intelligent people (Jihadist comes to mind, as is shown by her huge output) use their brain power for nothing else than to rationalize their pre-established (by others, by force through the ages) prejudices, to avoid the term superstitions. It may be said in her favor that she never asserted a literal belief of the fairy tale part of her religion (Mohamed riding (where?) on a Pegasus (Greek myth) etc.)

And yet, all the "believers" argue naively as if their ideas were an original part of their individual spiritual evolution, while in reality it is nothing but a rumination of atavistic ideas handed down over the generations.

Thus, what rests as the "scaffold" of religions, is the social, in reality the tribal quality of a particular belief. It could be made up by some guy with a special set of fantasy (Joseph Smith for instance) but there are others sprouting up all the time, creating the warm "tribal" feeling of belonging to a "chosen" group (my own father belonged to such a group). Group life may have an evolutionary advantage, as we see in bee hives and anthills.

As a believer in evolution, I think the human mind can do better than that.

Actually it shows clearly that the dumbing down of the American school system is working.We are and have been producing high school graduates that can't find So.America on a world map.Most people cannot explain what or why they believe in certain ideas or philosophies.

autonomous:

Zum Kotzen = unpleasant or useless. Very self-reflective.

That about sums up your posts, Anonymous.

Kotzen NOT kotzen. Thanks for the correction. But no thanks for the meaning supplied which is wrong.

Many of us happen to live in countries whose governments are spending literally millions of dollars to provide its citizens with a feeling of safety. The intelligence agencies are working round the clock for the same reason. We have the over zealous political Islamists to thank for it.

Some of us are genuinely concerned about the mindless killing in the name of Islam (Read: Shia vs Sunni killing in Iraq, leave alone other examples). Can't two sects/three ethnic groups of the followers of the religion of peace get along to build a peaceful democracy? Is division along Shia- Sunni - Kurdish lines the only solution as Jihadist suggested? Is Sharia law the best form of government? Not even all Muslims are agreed that it is.

Anti-theists who lump all religions together and condemn them all are offering a great selfless service? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Zum Kotzen = unpleasant or useless. Very self-reflective.

That about sums up your posts, Anonymous.

Maria Janna and Mary Cunningham ---

The most Christians converting to Islam are Catholics because they know the Bible least. Could you add some discussion points from here on the Catholic blog too for the benefit of Catholics visiting it? Thanks.

Maria Janna

I'm glad you like the Gray, I've attended a few of his public lectures at the LSE, although unfortunately when I was there he was teaching at Oxford. So I missed sitting any of his courses, a shame (for me not for him.)

His last book might interest you:

(add www)tinyurl.com/5j3pxe

I have a few caveats:

Re: Maria as a man's name

Devout German Catholics in the 19th c. often gave their sons Maria as _middle_name, not a first. This is not common today. The French still occasionally add Marie as in Pierre Marie, but again it's not common. In Spain today it is still common, but the practice is to name Catholic sons Josemaria (one word)or Jose Maria (two). Hence, unless you have purposely omitted your first name I would say you're a woman. (Nothing wrong with that!)

Re: are you Catholic?

I am not so sure. Many say they're Catholic, better to attack the Church. You don't do that, but then you say you tithe, and Catholics do not tithe. We are quite communist here: from each according to her resources to each according to her needs.

Finally--the existence of evil

Rather than allowing it, you seem to deny it exists at all! There was a French priest, forget his name, who in 1955 (or so)said that he could understand how people could not believe in God, but how they could not believe in the devil was beyond his comprehension.

Anyway, no time here on this today but hope in later posts we can go further.

Only Islam and "Church" of Scientology does not tolerate criticism.

Gerry you are a useful idiot to the political Islamists. Keep up the great work. Zum kotzen.

We could keep in mind:

All monotheistic religions were IMPOSED by FORCE of some dominant figures or small power groups. (Moses, Emperor Theodosius (Jesus didn't invent Christianity!), Mohamed). They are never a result of free use of original brain power of an individual.

Their books are based on the most horrible threats, both in this life and worse in an illusionary afterlife to keep their "flocks" subservient (original sin; Tertullian stating that the greatest joy of the pious are the screams of anguish from downstairs). As soon as somebody wanted to think for himself, even producing similar superstitions (e.g the Albigensians, Luther, Hus, Zwingli), or, worse, trying to get away from the whole flock of sheep, they were called "heretics", and if possible, killed.

After the 30 years' war, NOBODY in major parts of Europe was permitted to "believe" anything that differed from the haphazard belief of their particular prince ("Cuius regio, eius religio", enforceable law: The Inquisition is the same "Gesinnungspolizei" (thought police) the Nazis had, which we also find in some Islamic systems: The "crime" starts already in thinking!). Again, instead of free thinking, the flock uses their brain power to rationalize the particular IMPOSED belief system, some out of complacency, most out of fear.

There are quite a few impressive psychological experiments proving that people use there mental capacity to a large degree to corroborate their prejudices.

Once brain-washed, even intelligent people (Jihadist comes to mind, as is shown by her huge output) use their brain power for nothing else than to rationalize their pre-established (by others, by force through the ages) prejudices, to avoid the term superstitions. It may be said in her favor that she never asserted a literal belief of the fairy tale part of her religion (Mohamed riding (where?) on a Pegasus (Greek myth) etc.)

And yet, all the "believers" argue naively as if their ideas were an original part of their individual spiritual evolution, while in reality it is nothing but a rumination of atavistic ideas handed down over the generations.

Thus, what rests as the "scaffold" of religions, is the social, in reality the tribal quality of a particular belief. It could be made up by some guy with a special set of fantasy (Joseph Smith for instance) but there are others sprouting up all the time, creating the warm "tribal" feeling of belonging to a "chosen" group (my own father belonged to such a group). Group life may have an evolutionary advantage, as we see in bee hives and anthills.

As a believer in evolution, I think the human mind can do better than that.

Jed Rothwell wrote:

"If you read novels, or watch period movies, you will note that 200 years ago married women often preached morality, how awful the present age is, all the while flirting furiously with the men. Or in some cases, with the women. And having affairs."

JR: "It happens I have read several books about UK social and sexual history, but not many about the U.S. I don't know how widespread contraceptives were in the U.S. in the 19th century."

Petite: The extent of sexual hypocrisy in UK in the past is well known. The greater the demand for sexual morality in the society the greater the hypocrisy. Virtue and vice remains the same although policing by the family and society keeps some check on activities. Ditto in Asian societies.

JD: "Morality does vary but I don't know about the U.S. but there is good evidence that in the UK, sexual morality was looser in 1808 than in 1908. The Victorian era was backlash against the excesses of the early 1800s. But flirting has never gone out of fashion."

Petite: It is generally assumed that left to themselves people *always* tend toward excess. The society then begins to clamp down on the excess when it crosses the threshold of public tolerance. Only men and women who really love each other remain faithful to each other and feel no need to experience a sense of extra fun or exercise power by flirting. Harmless fun type of flirting with no intention of having a relationship or getting any emotions involved is different from sexually overt suggestions which functions like verbal foreplay.

JR: "It is mistake to think that our era is unique, or extreme, or unprecedented. Of course it is in some ways, just as every era has been. History never repeats itself exactly. For example, we have better contraception than people did in any previous time, and foolproof DNA testing to establish paternity. These have had an enormous impact on sexual morality. But technology and events had an impact in the past. In the UK, contraception was effective and widely used starting in mid-19th century, and it had a profound effect on people's attitudes, although they did not talk about it as openly as we do nowadays. All the talk about "free love" in the late 19th century would have had quite a different meaning without that subtext."

Petite: Availability of contraceptives, easy abortion, freedom of movement and anonymity, financial independence of working women, easy divorce and remarriage all has brought about a quantum shift in female promiscuous sexual behaviour. There is no historical precedent in human history. Promiscuous sex with contraception and abortion is a different kettle of fish. No need for fear of DNA testing. The only difference today in some societies is the honesty of women to admit their sexual promiscuity. But even in the most open societies there are plenty of hypocrites.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

For all we know, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist could be a male, Sunni/Saudi operative working out of Brooklyn, NY.

And Maria J, noting history, reality and common sense is not terroristic i.e. The Truth Hurts Sometimes!!!!! Deal with it!!!!!

***********************************

CCNL get help for your paranoia urgently! Jihadist is a woman. No male could use her style of communication. It is quite possible she lives in the US and not in Malaysia. Many little giveaways in the way she communicates suggests that.

Maria Janna is not a Crossanised Christian. Her search for truth in the Quran and her suggestion that Scripture needs to be updated points in the direction of Islam. Read her views on fundamental religion and wonder why you draw the conclusion you did.

As I've tried to understand the minds of atheists, I've been saddened by what many of them seem to be missing in life, but heartened by Susan Jacoby's exception to these qualities:

--a deep underlying bitterness that comes out when they write.

--a deep skepticism about the world around them.

--often, a hero worship that elevates people like Carlin who use language hideously.

--a poignant lack, it seems from observation, of satisfying shared intimate relationships, hence continual shallowness and callousness.

Johnny has been a pretty typical example. You folks ought to learn from Susan Jacoby or E Favorite, and let them lead you along a different path. Elevate the language! Find something good in the world around you, besides atheism or science! (Classical music is a good start.)

By the way, I honestly think you can change from the qualities I described and retain the "atheism". This world is a good place to be. Enjoy the present. You can find the good in most people you meet.

For all we know, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist could be a male, Sunni/Saudi operative working out of Brooklyn, NY.

And Maria J, noting history, reality and common sense is not terroristic i.e. The Truth Hurts Sometimes!!!!! Deal with it!!!!!

Jihadist is an ULTRA liberated Sunni Muslim married woman using a language no ordinary Asian woman would feel comfortable about using.

Thanks, Anon. Your posts help. Is the equating of Muslim terrorists with feminists an appeal to atheists/feminists (ie: Susan Jacoby)?

Islam does not embrace atheists or feminists. Check out Pakistan and Afghanistan. Women who speak out are killed in their sleep often with their children laying beside them.

When ex-Muslims from faithfreedom.org flooded Pamela Taylor and Eboo Patel blogs in the baby days of On Faith forum, Jihadist offered no more than run-of-the-mill ideas about Islam, praising the power of political Islam and merits of Islamic banking. Mysteriously Jihadist does not blog on Eboo Patel's blog, a fellow Muslim who is working very hard for interfaith dialogue and plurality. Sunni Muslim Jihadist suggested a division of Iraq along Sunni - Shi - Kurd lines.

The REAL Jihadist IS a BIG mystery.

When ex-Muslims from freedomfaith.org flooded Pamela Taylor and Eboo Patel blogs in the baby days of On Faith forum, Jihadist offered run-of-the-mill ideas about Islam, praising the power of political Islam and merits of Islamic banking.

The REAL Jihadist IS a mystery.

The REAL Jihadist IS a mystery.

The REAL Jihadist IS a mystery.

Would someone explain Jihadist's post at July 2, 2008 8:54 PM:

Muslim terrorists are equated with feminists? And the post ends with-

"I am one of those who don't think Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Hussein or Irshad Manji or Dawkins or Hitchens is going to make any differences in Muslim thinking and how they see the world as much as by the acts of radical Muslims, militant Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists. These are the ones going against and demanding from their governments and societies on their version of Islam. FOR BETTER OR WORSE IS YET TO BE SEEN."

Say what?

jonny:

Anonymous:

Wiccan, JONNY is a *real* name. You recognize his face and address immediately.
______

You make me tired. You make me glad I'm old & close to death.

You make me glad I'll get to spit in your God's eye. Good for you.

Don't do it JONNY, the *real* name, pleeese don't do it. Spit in my God's eye I mean. My God is in the wind. The spit will land in your face. NOT good for you.

"Concerned the Christian now liberated", I really feel sorry for you. Obviously you're as radical as any Muslim terrorist, as hardcore as any member of Opus Dei, as misguided as any honest believer.

(You forgot Shintoism by the way.)

Susan Jacoby wrote:

"I also saw a number of comments to the effect that many atheists hold their views because of a personal tragedy that made them "reject" God. This is utter nonsense."

I disagree. I know people who rejected God because of personal tragedies (unanswered prayers and the like). I know many more who became atheists because of national tragedies, especially WWII. The anthropologist Robert Smith described how the loss of war knocked the stuffing out of Japanese religion. "They prayed for victory and survival, and got B29 bombing raids instead." I have known many veterans on both sides of the Pacific War who were hard-and-fast atheists because of what they went through.

I think the rise of European atheism and especially the decline of old-line, organized religion there is a direct result of the war. In the UK social history I have read, many people were angry at the C. of E.'s response to bombed out families and tragedy. The Church did little or nothing for most bombing victims, and they never forgave it, or came back.

I read an interview with an Iraqi man who was falsely accused of attacking U.S. troops. He was held for months in Abu Ghraib prison, tortured, humiliated, beaten, etc, (much worse than the Pentagon photos showed, he said). One of his comments was, "I went in a devout Muslim, but I am an atheist now." He prayed, God did not deliver, and he realized that's because God doesn't exist. Perhaps he is angry at God in some sense, but I my guess is that he realized that magic incantations don't stop people from torturing you.

War probably makes more atheists than believers.

The saying about "no atheists in foxholes" is nonsense, according to the Atheists in Foxholes Association: http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

- Jed

Oops.

That was for E Favorite. (It should make more sense now).

“I think I am a superfree.”

At first, I did not like your words for a believer in the supernatural and a nonbeliever.

But now, I like that word, Superfree; that is a good word.

I grew up a Methodist. In a Baptist dominated culture, we always knew we, as a sect, were out of step. So, I have always felt out of step, in my religious belief. Later on, I did feel pretty unsure, for a long time. But maygbe I was afraid to say that I was an atheist. But more lately, I have a feeling about God that is less uncertain, so I seem to be swinging the other way. So, unlike the respondents in the Pew Poll, I think I believe too much to be an atheist. But I do, definitely, understand the atheist point of view.

I have a natural aversion to theology, which I think. is the speculation of others, equal to my own, but set down in a legal way, that I am expected to conform to. It more natural for me to follow the meditations of my own heart. Yet, I can see that there is a paradox, that I would not be meditating and thinking on the things of my religious heritage, without the previous theological codification of former established religions, like the Catholic Church for example. But, I don't worry about that; here I am, my head full of things it is full of, instead of somewhere else, with a head full of different stuff. What point can there be to speculate about any of that?

Yes, I have a musical ear and can play musical instruments by ear. I have written about 70 songs, on the computer, which alot of them, I think, are not too bad. Some of them are quite complex, and much too difficult for me to play by site, but I can play those by ear, as well.

But alas, none of them have words, or even titles. But I can see yout point with the phrase, lack of knowing how to know...

Anonymous:

Wiccan, JONNY is a *real* name. You recognize his face and address immediately.
______

You make me tired. You make me glad I'm old & close to death.

You make me glad I'll get to spit in your God's eye. Good for you.

The Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist does not believe that Sir Salman Rushdie and Hirsi Ali have any effect on Islam. Au Contraire!! Their books and speeches are the beginning of the end of Islam as the misled and brainwashed "bowers" slowly begin to come to grips with the flaws and errors of said religion. In ten years, Islam along with orthodox Christianity will be theological and political toast.

For the newbies, a synopsis of the flaws and errors of the major contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who 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. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin are signficant issues that are eating away the foundations of Catholicism.

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

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology are issues that are eating away the foundations of non-Catholic Christianity.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie 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 assassination of 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 bombers of the trains 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 this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering , womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder are the issues eating away the foundations of Islam.

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/reverence 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. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

7. Pagan religions and cults are too numerous and have too many flaws and errors in their foundations to list here. See Wikipedia for a good review of the large number of said groups.

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

Anon wrote:

"Then there are the married women who preach religious morality as if they lived in the society of two hundred years ago and how bad the present age of immorality is, how bad the atheists are etc., all the while flirting outrageously with men."

If you read novels, or watch period movies, you will note that 200 years ago married women often preached morality, how awful the present age is, all the while flirting furiously with the men. Or in some cases, with the women. And having affairs.

Morality does vary. I don't know about the U.S. but there is good evidence that in the UK, sexual morality was looser in 1808 than in 1908. The Victorian era was backlash against the excesses of the early 1800s. But flirting has never gone out of fashion.

It is mistake to think that our era is unique, or extreme, or unprecedented. Of course it is in some ways, just as every era has been. History never repeats itself exactly. For example, we have better contraception than people did in any previous time, and foolproof DNA testing to establish paternity. These have had an enormous impact on sexual morality. But technology and events had an impact in the past. In the UK, contraception was effective and widely used starting in mid-19th century, and it had a profound effect on people's attitudes, although they did not talk about it as openly as we do nowadays. All the talk about "free love" in the late 19th century would have had quite a different meaning without that subtext.

(It happens I have read several books about UK social and sexual history, but not many about the U.S. I don't know how widespread contraceptives were in the U.S. in the 19th century.)

- Jed

Wiccan – I like your mother’s prankster God. We certainly live in a tricky world.

Arminius -- so, from a prveious thread -- how does questioning strengthen your faith?

If you don't want to answer, just say so. I won't press.

Anonymous said:

"...Muslims who pass off wisdom borrowed from other religions, ideas borrowed from others as their own."

I'm pretty sure all religions around today borrow wisdom and ideas from other religions and philosophies. I mean, the idea of Jesus Christ was taken from the Greek god Dionysus who also turned water into wine, was tempted by the horned and goat-footed, Satan-equivalent Pan, and whose followers ate his 'body' and drank his 'blood'.

"...Muslims who have been among the most vicious attackers of Christianity on this forum."

I actually think many Christians have been some of the most vicious attackers of Christianity on this forum. Look up Spiderman2's posts and that 'holy-nebula-spaceship-earth' guy. They live to make Christians look silly.

"Atheists who condemn all religions equally are the ones doing a great disservice. Their comments sound trite at best."

I'll condemn the beliefs of all religions equally because they all believe the same thing: 'every religion is wrong other than my own which is right because a supernatural being said so'. In that sense they are all the same. However, when it comes to actions, all religious people are not the same. I'd never treat a Christian working at a soup kitchen the way I'd treat a fundamentalist threatening me by trying to overrun the Constitution.

“I think I am a superfree.”

Thank you, Daniel itld – That’s what I guessed you’d say, right down to the “I think…”

I also guess you wouldn’t call yourself an atheist. Is that right or not?

You mentioned earlier that you had an ear for music. I know that’s not the same as being a composer, but I wonder if you could put Chris E’s “"lack of knowing how to know..." to music. It sounds like something that needs a melody.

Jihadist - so you're a pro-super, right?

Wiccan, JONNY is a *real* name. You recognize his face and address immediately.

S. J. wrote:

"Americans as a people have become supremely ignorant about and indifferent to the specific meanings of words, and they are equally confused about important historical distinctions."

As far as I know, Americans have ALWAYS been ignorant and indifferent to the meanings of words, and to knowledge in general. British people, too. Jacoby quoted "Alice and Wonderland," a book which makes fun of our ignorance. That book was written a long time ago (1865), at a time when Americans in particular were just recovering from the worst bout of irrationality in our history.

My late mother, who grew up in New York City in the 1920s, said that ordinary people were so ignorant of history and geography that not only did they have no idea where Europe is, or whether it is a country or city; they had no idea where the Statue of Liberty was. I have read books from ancient and modern Japan making similar claims, and also a translation of an ancient Summarian clay tablet that said 'the younger generation is going to hell in a handbasket; people know nothing these days' and so on.

My impression is that people have always been pretty much as as they are now: smart or stupid, educated or ignorant. Perhaps, however, in the complex modern world, knowledge and clear thinking are more important than they used to be. We have more power over nature and our mistakes have larger consequences.

As for self-proclaimed atheists who believe in God, I suppose they are confused. I wouldn't worry about their numbers skewing the statistics. There are surprisingly large number of devout church-going people will blithely say they do not believe in God, and see no contradiction. 'We go for the fellowship' they say, meaning the food (for one couple I know). And why not? Probably a much larger number of churchgoers don't believe in God but are ashamed or unwilling to admit it.

I wouldn't trust those statistics in any case. They will change quickly once it becomes less fashionable to wear your religion on your sleeve. Religious revivals burn themselves out after 10 or 20 years. We have had several in U.S. history, and no doubt we will have them again in the future. They cause little harm.

There are many theologically muddled definitions, and distinctions without a difference. Dawkins cited the parents of a young woman who were upset because, they said, 'we don't mind if you don't believe in God, but to become an atheist! That's terrible!'

- Jed

Hell, wiccan, I'M too wily fer you -- and I'M an idjit. ;)

I WILL say that Nameless Chickensh!t AIN'T no idjit. A yellow invertebrate, of course -- but even chickens got a spine.

wiccan:

Well, Anonymous, I just can't compete intellectually with your reposting of others' posts, so I'll cede defeat. You're just too wily for me.

From Me2U ---

Just keep repeating "I'm getting better and better every day."

Anonymous:

Never ever consult Wiccan if you have real problems. Her insight into the human mind is ZERO.
_____

WTF would you know about the human mind?

So far, all you know about is supernaturalist horsesh!t.

Which means, of course, you don't know d!ck (aside from personally.)

Well, Anonymous, I just can't compete intellectually with your reposting of others' posts, so I'll cede defeat. You're just too wily for me.

Never ever consult Wiccan if you have real problems. Her insight into the human mind is ZERO.

Here is why ---

wiccan:

Ya know, Anonymous, that persecution complex of yours is never going to heal if you don't stop picking at it.

Just keep repeating, "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better".

Blow me. Suck it. :)

Cheers
"J"
______

You got NOTHIN' to defend supernaturalism/mysticism/magical thought, I'll be happy to.

Cheers, yer sphincter.

This from a liberated married Sunni Muslim woman in Malaysia ---

Jihadist:

Oops sorry!

Almost missed the very eloquent rational, reasoned, logical and reasonable thoughts and articulation of Jonny :

"But -- theism blows. And sucks. And plays silly
buggers. So does ALL supernaturalism/mysticism/magical thought. Not just YOURS, poor dear."

Thanks. I needed that for reality checks on sexism too.

Blow me. Suck it. :)

Cheers
"J"

Ya know, Anonymous, that persecution complex of yours is never going to heal if you don't stop picking at it.

Just keep repeating, "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better".

jonny, the ?Muslim writes ---

Jihadist:
_____

Be not afraid. Islam blows, too.

It's just that there are many more Christian nitwits in this country.

But -- theism blows. And sucks. And plays silly buggers.

So does ALL supernaturalism/mysticism/magical thought. Not just YOURS, poor dear.

Maria Janna, the "Catholic" ---

Anonymous wrote: Maria Janna, the Catholic church would consider you a false teacher of Christianity. Period.

MJ: Yeah, maybe I'm a heretic in your view. My brotherhood however thinks differently. But in general: I'm not a teacher of Christianity. If anything I'm a teacher of the truth behind Christianity.

Susan Jacoby wrote: "And there are many Muslims who don't agree with radical Islamism, just as there are many Christians who don't agree with Christian fundamentalists."

MJ: Should they disagree? That would be a pseudo-liberal attitude, because the main question in this context is: what is religion without fundamentalism? Meaning: what is religion without a fundament?

Religion without a fundament is nothing, and fundamentalists are there to ensure that the fundament (and therefore the religion) stays intact.

People who oppose fundamentalism, oppose religion in general, even if they're believers themselves. It's as simple as that.

Oops sorry!

Almost missed the very eloquent rational, reasoned, logical and reasonable thoughts and articulation of Jonny :

"But -- theism blows. And sucks. And plays silly
buggers. So does ALL supernaturalism/mysticism/magical thought. Not just YOURS, poor dear."

Thanks. I needed that for reality checks on sexism too.

Blow me. Suck it. :)

Cheers
"J"

Anonymous wrote: "Islam needs reform, Christians need to go back to their original teachings."

You sound like the Pope. (^_^)

Islam needs reform, Christians need to go back to their original teachings.

Gold medals to some Muslims who pass off wisdom borrowed from other religions, ideas borrowed from others as their own.

Gold medals to some Muslims who have been among the most vicious attackers of Christianity on this forum.

Gold medal also for presenting a honest comparison of religions, some real life situations today, while praising peace loving Muslims, as attack on Islam and Muslims.

Non-Muslims are learning on this forum as much as Muslims are. Atheists who condemn all religions equally are the ones doing a great disservice. Their comments sound trite at best.

Jacoby : "But this opposition is motivated by the horrible effects of radical Islam in the social and political arena, not by the idea that the Muslim religion per se is more irrational than any other faith. Six hundred years ago, Christianity was where radical Islam is today. And there are many Muslims who don't agree with radical Islamism, just as there are many Christians who don't agree with Christian fundamentalists."

Perhaps we should consider another perspective on the effect and impact of radical Muslims and militant Muslims, including Muslim terrorists on Muslims in Muslim societies and countries in much the same way radical and militant suffragists/suffragettes/feminists have on the rights of women in their countries.

They do shake up Muslims on the state of their society, what Islam means for them and where they want to go. Radical Muslims, militant Muslims and Muslim terrorists demands, and not accept the status quo on religion on politics. They are not quite an undeducated lot.

Extremism has no place to go but over the edge. And like the British suffagettes in some ways, radical Muslims, militant Muslims and Muslim terrorists are willing to die for their cause. Like it or not, these fellows are the ones who are changing Islam and Muslims in ways that has yet to be seen in Muslim societies where they operates. In areas of conflicts, it don't abate their activities, but heightened them.

In times of conflicts and wars, unfortunately it is women who must subsume their interests and rights and be marginalised of their issues in the larger cause of community identification.

I am one of those who don't think Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Hussein or Irshad Manji or Dawkins or Hitchens is going to make any differences in Muslim thinking and how they see the world as much as by the acts of radical Muslims, militant Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists. These are the ones going against and demanding from their governments and societies on their version of Islam. For better or worse is yet to be seen.

Cheers and out of here.
"J"

Susan Jacoby wrote: "And there are many Muslims who don't agree with radical Islamism, just as there are many Christians who don't agree with Christian fundamentalists."

MJ: Should they disagree? That would be a pseudo-liberal attitude, because the main question in this context is: what is religion without fundamentalism? Meaning: what is religion without a fundament?

Religion without a fundament is nothing, and fundamentalists are there to ensure that the fundament (and therefore the religion) stays intact.

People who oppose fundamentalism, oppose religion in general, even if they're believers themselves. It's as simple as that.

"But, I must say that, some others of other faith groups are more colourful in their English usage and more virulent in describing and characterising Islam and Muslims then atheists who are equally consistent on all faiths, especially the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths which they are a bit more familiar than Hinduism or Buddhism. They have my respect for that in being consistent and not hyprocritical about it."

Really Jihadist?

Show me because I don't believe you. Go to Jacoby's archives and check her topics. There are only three. Pretty narrow for an atheist who claims nonbelievers hate all religions.

Jihadist:
_____

Be not afraid. Islam blows, too.

It's just that there are many more Christian nitwits in this country.

But -- theism blows. And sucks. And plays silly buggers.

So does ALL supernaturalism/mysticism/magical thought. Not just YOURS, poor dear.

Anonymous wrote: Maria Janna, since when did Jews look for their religion in the New Testament, the Hindus look for their truth in Buddhist, Jain and Sikh Scripture?

MJ: I never talked about Hindus, Buddhists, Jain or Sikh. Concerning the Jews, only some of those weird Messianic denominations look into the NT. But the other way round is more irritating: lots of Jews object the Christian seizure of the "Old Testament", which I can totally understand. It's their book, and we're messing around with it.

Anon: Yet you say that Christians should look for their religion in the Quran.

MJ: No, I didn't say that. I only said that when we have a problem in Christian scripture, like the crucifixion not being explicitly mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, a sura like the one stating that the crucifixion was the presentation of an effigy suddenly gains a lot of weight and must not be ignored, no matter what faith tells us.

Anon: It would do much good for Muslims to read the original Jewish and Christian Scripture on which their religion is based and cross reference the Quran correctly.

MJ: That I absolutely support.

Karen wrote: I get the feeling it was largely supercilious.

MJ: Yep. I tend to get supercilious at times. Can't help it. I'm a bit allergic to BS.

K: In the mean time -- educate yourself: msnbc.msn.com/id/9950210/

MJ: Ah yes, the old church thing. LOL. Old hat. That church has been known for a few years now, and even if the 3rd century dating is correct, that would actually be nothing special, because already at the beginning of the 2nd century Plinius Secundus mentioned Christians and Christian rituals. What's rather strange is that there in Israel—you know, the region where Christianity allegedly originated—, the oldest Church they could find to this day is from the 3rd century.

But if someone knows just a little bit about archaeology, it can be easily explained why not many *old* church ruins are found. Because churches very often stand on places that are holy and that had already been holy before Christianity came. So Christ was either theos synnaos in ancient temples, or the churches were rebuilt, which happened a lot in antiquity. Large and important buildings like the Hagia Sophia were simply altered, smaller churches often rebuilt completely, after collapse, from ruins of older temples etc.

Anonymous wrote: Maria Janna, the Catholic church would consider you a false teacher of Christianity. Period.

MJ: Yeah, maybe I'm a heretic in your view. My brotherhood however thinks differently. But in general: I'm not a teacher of Christianity. If anything I'm a teacher of the truth behind Christianity.

Anonymous: "If Susan Jacoby was as outspoken about her criticism of Islam as she is about Christianity, she'd receive death threats and need body guards as the most outspoken critics of Islam do."

We are down to that again, are we?

In Pamela Taylor's thread on On Faith's previous question re book/s that change one's life, Just A Comment (JAG) made a very wise observation. To the effect that some believers resort to tabulating which faith is more vicious, more barbaric, more uncivilised, killed more people, commit more atrocities and the faith that did less wins the gold medal as a reverse of Olympics.

Of course, it is no secret here in On Faith threads too that some non-Muslims posters of other faith groups quite happily and with relish join atheists in being outspoken on Islam and Muslims. And do use different handles from one they normally use too.

But, I must say that, some others of other faith groups are more colourful in their English usage and more virulent in describing and characterising Islam and Muslims then atheists who are equally consistent on all faiths, especially the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths which they are a bit more familiar than Hinduism or Buddhism. They have my respect for that in being consistent and not hyprocritical about it.

And or course, these same adherents of other faiths always complained when atheists go on about their faiths, but almost never and quite rare to see Muslim posters join in to be questioning other faiths. On politics, quite passionate, especially on the Middle East.

So, it would seem that while some non-Muslims like to point out that Muslims like to say they are "hurt" (correct observation) by rude personal and impersonal attacks on their faith and for them being Muslims, it does seem that some of other faiths do in fact feel "hurt" too. And come back saying in effect, "Why don't you attack or question them? You did to us?"

And I await for those of other faiths to come back to say, while they are "hurt" by those who questioned their faith, they would not kill anyone who are outspoken on their faith, unlike Islam and Muslims.

A gold medal to you.

Cheers

"J"

"Maria Janna: Just take a look at how the Quran talks about non-Muslims, and it'll give you the creeps."

ALL supernaturalism is thoroughly creepy.

"This has been going on until today: no tolerance, not even on the atheist side,"

Why should there be any tolerance for idiocy. no matter what stripe? Does it do any GOOD?

"entrenched ideological systems..."

Oh. Begone, irony ... you do not exist.

Maria Janna: Just take a look at how the Quran talks about non-Muslims, and it'll give you the creeps. This has been going on until today: no tolerance, not even on the atheist side, entrenched ideological systems...

Anonymous:

If Susan Jacoby was as outspoken about her criticism of Islam as she is about Christianity, she'd receive death threats and need body guards as the most outspoken critics of Islam do.
_____

Snore. She's posting in the USA, where the predominant supernatural idiocy is Christian.

You'd LOVE to threaten her life, wouldn't ya? C'mon, admit it.

At least threaten her AFTERlife. ;)

Thank you, dear Arminius. It was the best I could do without being snarky.

Lou, you should meet Mr. Thomas Baum, a gentleman in every sense of the word. He is as firm in his convictions as he is gracious, and you would do well to emulate him.

Jihadist:

The question was on atheist self-identity and self-designation and what their belief are on the supernatural,
_____

Such "beliefs" are for suckers. Chumps. Halfwits. Seriously.

If Susan Jacoby was as outspoken about her criticism of Islam as she is about Christianity, she'd receive death threats and need body guards as the most outspoken critics of Islam do.

Anonymous:

Maria Janna, the Catholic church would consider you a false teacher of Christianity. Period.
______

There AIN'T any other kind. Period.

Oh, and Catherlicks got their OWN probs, nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

The question was on atheist self-identity and self-designation and what their belief are on the supernatural, not what to define believers. Believers of all ilks are, of course, now quite familiar with umbrella terms used by atheists to define believers, the most popular usage in On Faith threads being religionists.

There are also suggestions that all believers, specifically, those who adhere to one of the Abrahamic faiths, be defined as theists as per what Chris Everett stated. This, of course, is technically and linguistically correct, This of course, is already known and accepted by believers who believe in deity/deities. This, of course, does not encompass faiths without deity/deities, including Buddhism. This, of course, would counter the other umbrella designation used by atheists to describe members of organised religions, i.e. “religionists”.

There is a lot of thought and discussion expanded here on how to define believers, and still coming to terms with the realisation that there are those who called themselves atheists but still believe in the supernatural. Believers of any faith groups are long familiar with their co-adherents who call themselves Christians or Jews or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists and yet do not live by the tenets or to accept fully the tenets of their respective faiths. And they are accepted as such unless they made formal renouncements of their respective faith.

The reactions of some atheists who found out there are those who called themselves atheists but are not quite pure in their atheism is akin to the reactions of some believers in reactions to their co-adherents for stating certain views that runs contrary to the accepted dogma of atheism – non-belief in the supernatural.
One may have to wonder whether there are now fundamentalist atheists on a rampage to excommunicate those self-designated and self-identified atheists whose atheism are deem not linguistically and technically correct at all. Can’t have the sorts who sullied the purity of atheism with notions of belief in the spiritual or supernatural.

Ms. Susan Jacoby submitted “freethinker” to categorise and define people more broadly by their personal belief on God/s, the spiritual and organised religion. It is inclusive, it is accepting, it does project a more positive note on those who are fundamentally sceptics, have a more relaxed and less rigid stance to the point of rejecting any possibilities, or any arguments for or against deity/deities, organised religion and spirituality.

And yet, there is still no consensus on terms such as “brights”, atheists, deists, etc among those who assert themselves to be supernatural-free. Very clearly, there is no clarity here among atheists as yet. Of course, finding new terms for believers, including those more common as academic usage rather than in general public usage such as theists, monotheists and religionists, a pop usage popularised by Dawkins, is not a sign of human progress and thinking from the good old days when people are simply divided into believers and non-believers of deity/deities and organised religions. Or believers and non-believers of a particular faith.

As I said before, old wine in a new bottle which does not necessarily is a new or a different flavour. Except of course, to give a glimpse on the thinking and reasoning of those who used such terms. Almost similar to terms used for African-Americans – from the “N” word to Coloureds to Blacks to African-Americans. At least, there was a progression from reprehensible terms to more polite terms as preferred by those termed as such, regardless the feeling, thinking and regard on them and for them which do remain among some.

Perhaps we should consider the term “Venerationists” as the inclusive term for all – both theists and non-theists. “Venerationists” would cover all who venerated something or someone be it God, gods, Buddha, Einstein, Dawkins and Hitchens - whoever a “Venerationist” venerated as bringing truth to him or her, is believed in, quoted often as a source of inspiration or benchmark etc. in their belief and reason in seeing themselves, others and the world.

Of course, atheists are free to continue to find terms to categorise and to characterise believers, especially the constant exercise to define and redefine those who believe in deity/deities, and why they should not believe in such, and characterisations of believers who persisted to believe. This is, perhaps, pertinent as distinguishing marks in coming up with appropriate terms and labelings as well as clear symbolisms. I should, perhaps, put out to Muslims that all Muslim men must have beards, all Muslim women to wear hijabs to clearly identify themselves as Muslims, and all Muslims to carry the Qur’an prominently and publicly as mascots.

I am a believer. I am a theist. I am a monotheist. I am a Muslim. I have my own Right Path.

Who are you? Agnostic? Deist? Atheist? Anti-theist? Apatheist? Freethinker? Secular Humanist? Humanist? Militant atheist?

What is your Right Path for yourself and others in life?

What are your own labelings, your own symbols, your own distinguishing marks and mascots?

Cheers
“J”

Maria Janna, the Catholic church would consider you a false teacher of Christianity. Period.

I posted:

"And the atheists here are almost defiant in their support of Islam. Why? --because Christians speak against it."

Susan responded:

"Of all the idiotic posts I have seen on this thread, the statement by "Lou"--"atheists are almost defiant in their support of Islam"--is the stupidest. Some of the most outspoken opponents of Islamism have been atheists. They include Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins."

Sorry Susan- I missed Rushdie, Hitchens, and, Dawkins posting to your thread. Please take time to read what is posted here and do not confuse what I've said by making a partial quote. You discredit yourself.

Anonymous:

Susan Jacoby, please read the Quran and reread the New Testament before making your comparisons about the two religions. ...
____

Pfui. A supposedly human Ooga-Booga spouts off about a Great Supernatural Ooga-Booga.

It's the goddamned same, regardless of the lice & nits.

PSSSSST -- YOUR Ooga-Booga sucks just as hard as ANY Ooga-Booga in the history of human stupidity.

Maria Janna, since when did Jews look for their religion in the New Testament, the Hindus look for their truth in Buddhist, Jain and Sikh Scripture?

Yet you say that Christians should look for their religion in the Quran. It would do much good for Muslims to read the original Jewish and Christian Scripture on which their religion is based and cross reference the Quran correctly.

Hi Jonny, I think there are differences. Before the big monotheisms surfaced in mid and late antiquity, there was actually a lot of tolerance and curiosity toward other people's religions and gods. The ancient polytheisms of Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt, Celtic lands etc. were closely linked through syncretisms and common history and cross-fertilized continuously: Jupiter, Zeus, Yahweh were often regarded as one and the same. Lots of gods were a so-called "theos synnaos" in other religions' temples, even in the Roman-Jewish temple in Jerusalem. It was often just a big religious laissez-faire.

Then it was slowly but vigorously condensed into monotheism. And everyone, who knows just a little bit about ecology, also knows what monoculture does to the environment. So everything got bigger, more powerful, but much too homogenous. In turn the religious warfare began, anything from polemical conflicts of cold wars to all-out violence in hot wars, even "religious civil wars" like Catholics vs. Protestants, Shia vs. Sunni etc.. Just take a look at how the Quran talks about non-Muslims, and it'll give you the creeps. This has been going on until today: no tolerance, not even on the atheist side, entrenched ideological systems. And this hostile undercurrent has even rubbed off from the big monotheism on the smaller -theisms and -isms of today that you mentioned (pan-, poly- and whatnot).

So polytheism itself is quite a good thing, a source of religious tolerance, but in a monotheistic world that's absolutely impossible.

Wiccan, you said,
"Of course the atheists don't hate the Pagans. We're just too damn cute!"

I AM a believer! You folks are way cool.

Susan Jacoby:
, Christians have stopped killing other people in the name of fatih. ...
_____

Pfui. Faith is just as much responsible for jet-airplane bombs as it is for Toyota bombs.

The EVIL is faith -- not which brand it is ... or how subtly it's peddled.

Supernaturalism/magical thinking/mysticism is STILL the ugly scourge of the earth -- as a TOOL these days, but we oughta know better by now.

Susan Jacoby, please read the Quran and reread the New Testament before making your comparisons about the two religions. Take the time to view some videos of Wafa Sultan and read the book by Ms Ali.

Lumping Christianity and Islam together without comparing the teachings makes for interesting politically correct statements. But no more.

"Karen wrote: "The Ichthys (fish) was first used by early Christians at the end of the 1st century AD. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ) is Greek for fish and is an acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour"."

LMAO!!!'

Gee Maria- sorry about your missing @ss but its not my fault and to tell you the truth- having read your posts- I get the feeling it was largely supercilious and you're probably better off without it.

In the mean time- educate yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9950210/

E Favorite:

Superfree = lack of belief in the supernatural

Prosuper = belief in the supernatural

This is a little eaiser for me to grasp.

I think I am a superfree.

While I do believe there is possibly something "weird" going on behind the scenes, I am not sure I would call it supernatural, because supernatural has many cultural details that go along with it, which I do not seek to know or to visualize.

I do think of our lives unfolding in this setting of the world, in a way like Shakespeare said, as being actors saying their lines on a stage, in some prefigured way, although I do not necessasrily think all is is predistined, as this kind of belief might suggest.

Even more, I like the words of John Denver that "life ain't nothing but a funny funny riddle..." Because that is what it is; and many Christians would agree with that.

Chris Everett said a phrase that I liked in a previous post, which I would like to scoop up, and put in my quiver of knowledge; he said the words, "...lack of knowing how to know."

Yes, this is a deficiency in some people, a "lack of knowing how to know..."

And also, along these lines, I think of people as being "religious" following a prescribed theology, or "philosophical" striking out on their own, where ever it may lead.

Maria Janna, the "Catholic" posted July 2, 2008 8:00 AM on Pamela Taylor's blog:

"anonymous"… no, I'm Catholic alright. But we should never reject a scripture right away, and that includes the Quran, especially if the scholars, who say that it's based on older Christian sources, are right. If we can disclose errors, like Luxenberg has done with the hijab, that's fine. And we should definitely not reject the Quran if it says something so pivotal and so important like the Christ, who was not really crucified—something which also the Christian-Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter mentions, where it's also make-believe—, because a remark like this aims at the core of Christian religion. From the standpoint of faith we can of course ignore it: we Christians believe that the Christ was crucified, fine. But from a scientific standpoint, our faith is not relevant. And I go for facts, and in science we have to look at *all* the sources. In this specific case, the original Greek sources of e.g. the Gospel of Mark do not explicitly mention the crucifixion. We may continue to believe what we believe, but we should switch off our beliefs, when looking for *historical* truth.

Lou-

Of course the atheists don't hate the Pagans. We're just too damn cute! :p

Of all the idiotic posts I have seen on this thread, the statement by "Lou"--"atheists are almost defiant in their support of Islam"--is the stupidest. Some of the most outspoken opponents of Islamism have been atheists. They include Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. But this opposition is motivated by the horrible effects of radical Islam in the social and political arena, not by the idea that the Muslim religion per se is more irrational than any other faith. Six hundred years ago, Christianity was where radical Islam is today. And there are many Muslims who don't agree with radical Islamism, just as there are many Christians who don't agree with Christian fundamentalists. For the most part (except for the Christian fundamentalists who have shot and killed doctors who perform abortione), Christians have stopped killing other people in the name of fatih. Radical Islamists have not.

lou:

"Most of the posters to your thread only hate Christianity."

You, pal, have not been paying attention.

"How many atheist posters have spoken openly of their hatred of Buddhism, Judaism, or Pagans? Not one so far."

Once again, like many of your compadres, you confuse hatred with contempt. I have equal contempt for all the supernaturalist magical-thinking twaddle you have named, and have said as much.

"And the atheists here are almost defiant in their support of Islam. Why? --because Christians speak against it."

P1ss on'em both -- there's no damned difference. Get it??

"stop telling your childhood memory of seeing a friend in an ironlung and from that moment on being convinced there is no God."

Haven't heard about "iron-lungs" since 50s sick jokes on campus. Pull THAT one outta yer hinder?

Your initial premise, like that of ALL theists, is thoroughly flawed. WHY ARE YOU CONVINCED THAT THERE IS NO GOD?? -- sorry. THIS is how it goes: Why should I believe in some supernatural Ooga-Booga? THAT's the premise, Jack. You got it all bassackwards, which is no surprise.

Maria Janna:
simply because I criticize (or "re-invent" as you call it) Christianity and question Biblical sources—and while doing that also cite Islamic writings—, doesn't make me a Muslim.
_____

Hear, hear, Maria.

The major worldwide monotheisms are equally ridiculous. As are the worldwide polytheisms and pantheisms.

As are the localized theisms, pan-, poly-, OR mono-.

Supernaturalists and magical thinkers are just silly -- at least their arguments are.

'Scuse me, I gotta go get my palm read -- and is my FACE red.

Susan said-

"There are some atheists who hate all religion"

Most of the posters to your thread only hate Christianity. How many atheist posters have spoken openly of their hatred of Buddhism, Judaism, or Pagans? Not one so far. And the atheists here are almost defiant in their support of Islam. Why? --because Christians speak against it.

Why not be "antichrists" and tell it like it is?

And if you want to convince your readers atheism isn't a response to personal tragedy- stop telling your childhood memory of seeing a friend in an ironlung and from that moment on being convinced there is no God.

And by the way, Mr. Anon, who says I'm a woman? "Maria" is not only a female name.

Mary Cunningham, thanks a lot for that link to the Theos lecture. Great stuff.

Anonymous wrote: "Maria Janna is a Muslim. She presents Islam in anti extremely complicated way and has reinvented both Islam and Christianity."

Yeah, right. So how come I pay taxes to the *Catholic* Church? Listen Mr. Anon, simply because I criticize (or "re-invent" as you call it) Christianity and question Biblical sources—and while doing that also cite Islamic writings—, doesn't make me a Muslim. Are Christians not allowed to criticize and scrutinize their religion? You seem to be one of those deranged, anti-liberal believers who only have their twisted faith that's keeping their slim existence alive. And as soon as someone comes with some facts and scientific knowledge, he's "re-inventing" your religion. What a pathetic, poor spirit your are.

But thanks for calling me a Muslim. I appreciate that. If you had called me a Protestant (or Evangelical) I'd actually be offended. (^o^)

Chris Everett,
Your last post seemed to imply that religion was imposed on mankind by an outside entity--or are you saying that humankind was its own worst enemy by inventing religion?

The historical fact that power hungry predatory people have used religion as an excuse, a tool, and a fear-based institution to gain more power or money or fame doesn't differentiate it from any other human-based us/them institutional social construct: to wit, tribalism, nationalism, totalinarianism, etc. Perhaps it gains a greater foothold because it plays on the emotions, but so does Hollywood. I disagree with your generalizations, and suspect that others do also.

Maria Janna is a Muslim. She presents Islam in anti extremely complicated way and has reinvented both Islam and Christianity.

Jihadist:

Right answers on what Muslims believe
______________________________________

The very, very, very simple six question survey for all Concerned the Crossanized Christians of Reality Now Liberated out there on their knowledge of Muslims' belief on God:

Do Muslims believe:

1. That man is made in the image of God?

- No.

2. That God is as Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

- No.

3. That there is the Original Sin and are all born in sin?

- No

4. That one’s sins can be redeemed by confession and atonement through an imam or kadi or mufti?

- No.

5. That there is a Resurrection?

- For all mankind on Day of Reckoning (a.k.a.Judgement Day) but not the Resurrection of Christ.

6. That one requires baptism to be freed from sin and thus be saved?

- No.

Come now CCNL, admit it, your Jesus Seminarians' take is really counter to mainstream Christian beliefs. That makes you a heretical, blasphemous Christian?

No worries about burning in hell. After all, all non-Christians will go to hell for not accepting salvation through Christ. Or those having heretical and blasphemous views. Including me.

Your Homeland Security friend still looking for me? Or is it the Vatican?

Cheers
"J"

July 2, 2008 10:30 AM

***********************************

Islam is a this worldly religion with the focus on the law courts in this world.

As long as a Muslim believes in Allah and Mohammad all their sins will be forgiven by an all merciful and compassionate Allah. All non-Muslims are headed for hell.

It is a modified plagiarised version of the Christian belief that belief in Jesus will get all Christians to heaven. However Christians are granted forgiveness based on the atoning sacrifice of Christ on their behalf and Jesus commanded His followers to love all, even enemies. The parable of the good Samaritan illustrates who one's neighbour really is. Jesus commanded His followers to be more righteous than the Pharisees.

Arminius:
______

Centuries ago, David Hume explained the rise of human morality sans supernatural intervention.

MILLENNIA ago, Aristotle did the same.

We are, it seems, condemned to repeat the lessons of the past -- 'cuz the present is SO DAMNED DUMB.

E Fav-

Your consideration of the noble platypus as a mascot brought back a welcome memory of my mother. She was raised Episcopalian and mellowed into a gentle agnostic. She told us if there was a God, the surest sign He had a sense of humor was the platypus. "Ha!", He'd say, "Let them try to figure THIS out!". That was her type of god, a prankster.

Hi, Chris,

Morality is indeed a fascinating topic. As you might remember, although I am a believer, I do not hold that any religious group has a lock on morality. It is innate. It can also be damn confusing.... even C S Lewis believes that morality is inborn, but he then goes beyond that - I'm still wrestling with 'Mere Christianity'.

I would like to add that the innate morality that we all have tends, sadly, to be tribal. 'Thou shalt not kill' might, in the context of the original, apply only to the tribe (megatribe of 12 tribes, actually), and it's ok to kill outsiders. We are now trying to move beyond that, but it is still all too present. The core of Christianity, to me, lies in the two Great Commandments. As you know, Jesus took the old 10 commandments and morphed them into two, with positives instead of negatives. That is how I try to live, not by the old 10. (Note to fundies: f*** off.)

Needless to say, I don't have a scholarly grasp of the subject. But it's fun and instructive to try to discuss it.

Arminius

Chris Everett:
They rest on the mass of individual moral sensibility, and are as stable as that mass, but they also progress and are not absolute.
_____

Most Americans USED to believe that unprovoked wars of aggression were immoral.

That's what the Nuremberg trials were all about.

Now, it seems, we can commit any old kind of violence in the name of pre-emption:

"They COULD be bad. They CAN be bad. Let's kill'em."

Morality is a facinating topic. It can be understood from an evolutionary perspective as a kind of instinctive moral sense that guides the behavior of social animals. From what I've read, there is a clear and compelling correspondence between altruism among individuals and selfishness among genes.

Another perspective is that morality is the fusion of our own direct pain/pleasure experiences with the knowledge that others are just like us. Thus, while not absolute in a totally static sense, morality is objective to the extent that we are all similar beings with similar opinions about what experiences we want and don't want in our lives. And as we learn to recognize the same (or similar) pain/pleasure experiences in more and more groups (e.g. animals), we become more and more moral, resulting in a dynamic of moral progress that is absent in religion (Buddhism being a notable exception). I would submit that the aspect of morality with the most variation is not the pain/pleasure part but the us/them part, and that religion, by being intrinsically divisive, is the largest exacerbator of the us/them dichotomy and therefore the largest impediment to a universal morality.

A big problem with western culture is that we tend to think that morals are rules, such as the ten commandments (which, but the way, is a truly hideous and barbaric set of rules). I see moral rules as consensus standards of conduct that are needed in order to provide social cohesion. They rest on the mass of individual moral sensibility, and are as stable as that mass, but they also progress and are not absolute.

Societies with religious power structures, who believe as Peter Huff does about the nature of morality, produce things like the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the 100 years war, the Salem witch trials and the Taliban.

Jonny wrote: If it weren't for Great Supernatural Ooga-Boogas, believers'd be raping & killing babies willy-nilly… or so they'd have us BELIEVE.

LOL… yeah, that's the thing with religion. Religions are always born and formed through real-life conflicts, sometimes even violence and murder. Later they encipher violence on a theological and metaphysical level, tone down their scriptures, but only so much. An example is the Christian exorcism, which the Church regards as the purest and highest form of warfare. But if necessary, religions will go snap, and suddenly their transcendental violence becomes hands-on… back to real life, like in the good old days, remember? And they'll sure as hell find the right passage in their scripture to justify the violence.

Maria Janna:
_____

If it weren't for Great Supernatural Ooga-Boogas, believers'd be raping & killing babies willy-nilly.

Or so they'd have us BELIEVE.

Peter Huff wrote: So brutalizing a child or shooting someone to death for the joy of it is just something we do? So you have no objection to someone robbing or burglarizing your house? It is just something we do.

MJ: Yes, it is "just something we do". Some think it's "evil", some think it's savage, some think it's sad, some think it's just illegal, some even think it's okay. You said it yourself: shooting someone to death for the JOY of it. In your example there's obviously one individual who doesn't think it's "evil", namely the killer, who enJOYs the violence. Some people even think that "evil" itself is a great thing.

PH: If morals constantly are changing then how can something be "good" or "bad?" If your reference point is in flux good and bad become meaningless. It just become a matter of opinion and preference. And since my preference is different from your preference I'm right and you are wrong. No, you need an ultimate, absolute, objective reference to make sense of anything.

MJ: Large-scale ethical structures do NOT constantly change. That's not how it works. Society probably wouldn't work at all, if morals were changing too quickly. But there are different morals existing side by side at the same time: some people think the Holocaust was "evil", some think it was not "evil", but still barbaric, some think it's yet another example for the greatness of the German nation. And an individual's moral coordinate system can change rapidly, even if he's a religious person, e.g. a Christian: because of the Lord's teachings that person would be against the death penalty, and on the next morning, after his family has been brutally slain, his moral system could have changed. He just needs to look up the relevant passage in the "Old Testament". So even in religion there is at the most only an *approximation* of morality, and it can change in the fleet of a moment.

Mike K. wrote: Something is either good or bad dependent upon whether it's functional or disfunctional to a society. As aspects of societies and cultures differ, so does morality.

MJ: Exactly.

Peter:
thanks for the note.
I'll look forward to your response.

I would like to preface though, (where I think you might be going in light of the comments preceeding) that the anchor of morality is much more than an individual preference, or some spectrum of behaviors that are only--to a non-believer--a reflection of the mood-of-the-day.

Morals are cultural, societal, familial, tribal. Morality doesn't involve an individual only, it's in relation to how we live among each other, what we collectively accept and label--and that does and should change, it is indeed "relative," and hopefully evolves in improving ways each and every year, with greater and more expansive knowledge and human experience.

I can think of no greater example of "moral relativity" than when I think of the Holy Bible, the Old Testament God, the absence of addressing of pertinent moral issues in the New Testament, and perhaps above all, the "revelations" that come to us from clergy, from those who speak for God(s), and who are so often desperately wrong with their proclamations, and even harmful. There are too many examples to mention here.

There have been several excellent writings, upsetting statistics as well, that lay waste to the idea that a lack-of-religious-belief equates to some moral deficiency, or represents some threat to the "moral fiber" of our society. They are also too many to mention, but they are there for the discovery.

I would hypothesize that you and I have a very similar sense of morality, justice, maybe even ethics (aside from possibly some "wedge" issues,) but that we could even agree on the basis on which we have those opinions, or at the very least understand and sympathize with each other. But I also hypothesize that the discussion could take place without mentioning the gods in any form or fashion.

Peter Huff:

"If morals constantly are changing then how can something be "good" or "bad?" "

Something is either good or bad dependent upon whether it's functional or disfunctional to a society. As aspects of societies and cultures differ, so does morality.

Your "shooting someone to death for the fun of it" example is one where it's hard to imagine that being functional for a society, therefore it's wrong across societies.

"The problem with your worldview is that you cannot offer meaning or reason as to why there is evil in this world..."

There is evil in the world due to human free will and natural disasters, the latter of which can be dropped if your definition of "evil" implies agency.

For any who have the time, this Theos lecture on "The New Atheism" is interesting. John Gray is probably the most talented philosopher/historian writing and lecturing today and always worthwhile. The sound is not great, skip the first 6 minutes or so which is just Theos puff.

(add www)timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4205068.ece

EF --

I ain't kidding.

Scarecrow: "There's no such thing as spooks!"

Cowardly Lion: "I DO believe in spooks, I DO believe in spooks, I DO, I DO, I DO, ...."

The screenplay, of course, was stacked against the brainy one ....

Jonny: "How 'bout Cowardly Lion & Scarecrow? ;)"

Sure - let's throw them into the brainstorming mix. You may be kidding, but these suggestions could spark ideas for someone else.

And the mascot possibilities are no joke.

Peter Huff:
... No, you need an ultimate, absolute, objective reference to make sense of anything....
_____

Such as reality. That which IS (Maria Janna's comments aside)?

Here's a clue for you --

Reality, n. -- That which, when you cease BELIEVING in it, does NOT go away.

I know of two possible definitions for "evil" - all suffering regardless of cause, or only suffering inflicted through malice or neglect. The existence of suffering itself does not depend on any supernatural or metaphysical beliefs. What other definitions are there for "evil"?

Hi Maria Janna:

MARIE: "In principle there is no evil in the world. It's just the world."

So brutalizing a child or shooting someone to death for the joy of it is just something we do? So you have no objection to someone robbing or burglarizing your house? It is just something we do.

MARIE: ""Evil" is only there as a construct, based on moral judgment etc. And morals can change."

If morals constantly are changing then how can something be "good" or "bad?" If your reference point is in flux good and bad become meaningless. It just become a matter of opinion and preference. And since my preference is different from your preference I'm right and you are wrong. No, you need an ultimate, absolute, objective reference to make sense of anything.

Unlike the many atheists out there who do not ,know how to read properly, i.e. the skewed Pew study, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist can read whatever, whenever and wherever with one exception, a survey about Islam. Ditto for all Muslims in the On Faith blog arena except Victoria who uses anti-Muslim literature to show the qualities of Islam (very strange). Once again for the Jihadist's perusal and answers:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed?

Peter Huff:

... In order to understand evil you have to borrow from the Christian worldview, just as you have to do to make sense of anything.
______

Uh, shizzle. Just been trumped. PRE-Christian, POST-Christian, and NON-Christian societies -- all clueless. Can't unnerstan' nothin'.

Gots NO idea what's evil human behavior & what ain't.

Sorry. My bad.

Hi Steve and Anonymous,

I have run out of time and am working the next couple of days, but I would like to respond to your comments.

@Peter Huff

In principle there is no evil in the world. It's just the world. "Evil" is only there as a construct, based on moral judgment etc. And morals can change.

E Favorite:

.... I also think we need words that immediately distinguish between people who believe in the supernatural and those who don't.
______

I gotcha now, EF. How 'bout Cowardly Lion & Scarecrow? ;)

Hi Susan,

SUSAN: "I also saw a number of comments to the effect that many atheists hold their views because of a personal tragedy that made them "reject" God. This is utter nonsense. The irrationality of belief in a benevolent God who allows evil is, however, a major element in most atheists' non-belief in the existence of a deity."

First of all, what authority do you have for making these value judgments?

The problem with your worldview is that you cannot offer meaning or reason as to why there is evil in this world and yet claim it is logical and intelligent to believe as you do. In order to understand evil you have to borrow from the Christian worldview, just as you have to do to make sense of anything. The atheist or "freethinker" in his/her suppression of God does not realize this in his/her grand illusion.

You have no answers for why we are here, how intelligence could possibly come from matter, how there could be truth, let along ultimate truth, from a universe that supposedly started by random chance (a Big Bang), how random chance can order anything, and the list goes on.

Your worldview boils down to a subjective opinion.

What is your ultimate reference point for "evil" or "good" - yourself? Why is one "animal" (or "highly evolved primate") killing another animal bad or evil? Why was Hitler's Germany evil or was it? I wish you atheists would finally shoot yourselves in the foot by answering some of these questions instead of evading them so that we can see how illogical your belief system really is. Thank you dear!

CE: Wasn't Mark Twain a Euhemerist, too?

MJ: According to the wikipedia, he wasn't. They write that he was critical of organized religion, which doesn't fit Euhemerist views. Euhemerism was (among other things) meant as the groundwork for the deifications of ancient rulers, and to my mind that's "organized religion", closely connected to the political sphere.

Chris E says, people might say, upon being called a theist: "Goodness gracious, I never thought of it that way!"

Or "What's a Theist?"

then upon learning what it is, saying "Oh sure, I believe in God. What's with the fancy word?"

BTW, I think we should keep atheist too and all the existing words. I also think we need words that immediately distinguish between people who believe in the supernatural and those who don't.

I think there may be "super-frees" who do not consider themselves atheists - pagans maybe or self-defined christians who like christian teachings and traditions but don't believe in the miracles or the afterlife (I know some), or maybe even Michael Novak, whose god seems to be totally within.

Tonio,

A world view that is damaged by a lack of knowing HOW to know. It's probably a poor term. I won't defend it and I'm willing to scrap it immediately. Epistemological deficiency might be closer. I won't belabor the point.

Chris, would you define "existential deficiency"?

E Favorite,
Good day to you. Thanks for the light-hearted comments. How about:

"Darwinist"--belief that humankind came up with beliefs in God, but the positive benefits outweigh the negatives, so let them be and let such beliefs evolve, including the belief that humankind will continue to progress in compassion and enlightenment.

"Einsteinist"--belief that there is so much to explore in the known universe that spending time thinking about whether or not to "believe in God" is a waste of time, which is to say, a waste of resources, but live and let live.

"Dawkinist"--belief that, contrary to Darwin (see above), the negatives outweigh the positives, so bear down hard and be unrelenting.

Maria Juanna,

Wasn't Mhark Tuhwain a Euhemerist, too?

@Christ Everett

I'm neither atheist nor theist nor deist nor whatever. I'm a radical Euhemerist. Is that one on anyone's list?

E Favorite:
...
You never heard of it because I just made it up.
_____

Okey-doke.

Tonio:...
Many people in our culture assume that all religions involve God or at least a single personal god, ignoring polytheism and deism and animism and numerous other non-theistic religions.
_____

Bingo.

The evidence for, and the arguments in favor of, the whole shebang are identical.

Which is why, of course, they all require faith -- i.e., magical thinking.

I like the term "atheist", and I think it's appropriate to use a term that is the negation of something, rather than a term that is the affirmation of something. Why? Because THERE IS NO GOD!!! The idea of God only exists because of delusion on the part of believers. Without them the whole issue would be moot. There are those WITH an existential deficiency, namely theists, and those without an existential deficiency (well, without THAT particular deficiency anyway), namely atheists. A lack of deficiency is not an independent attribute.

My recommendation is to keep "atheist", proclaiming it with the full sense of good sense that it represents. For believers in supernatural overlords I recommend "theist". That is the compainion term to "atheist" and it is uncommon enough that it triggers none of the reflexive deference of "Christian", "Muslim", "believer", "religious", etc. It appropriately places all theists in a single category, that of believers in supernatural overlordship, rather than pretending there is any meaningful distinction to be made between Christians, Muslims, etc, as compared to the theist/atheist distinction. And, since it is an ACCURATE term, it just might make people think about what they actually believe. Maybe there are people out there to whom we might say, "Oh. So I guess you must be a theist," to which they might say, "Goodness gracious, I never thought of it that way!"

Jonny: "why would I?" only if it interests you

"Why should I?" If it doesn't interest you, then you shouldn't.

You never heard of it because I just made it up.

"most dictionaries get it wrong. They refer to atheism as'disbelief in God' as in the Christian or Jewish version."

It's really a problem with our language and culture. Both of these treat the Abrahamic god as the default religious position. Many people in our culture assume that all religions involve God or at least a single personal god, ignoring polytheism and deism and animism and numerous other non-theistic religions.

DZ:

Jonny:
... Perhaps, we atheists simply need to be more focused on educating people.
_____

Call me an old cynic, but THAT's never worked.

It's why I think proactive atheism is an oxymoron.

Which may make me, like the late great George Carlin, an old cynic.

I just wish I were that funny.

Susan Jacoby wrote: "I also saw a number of comments to the effect that many atheists hold their views because of a personal tragedy that made them "reject" God. This is utter nonsense."

MJ: In the classical reading of the word ἄθεος your argument is wrong. "Atheos" can of course mean "without God" in a strict sense, but also "denying the gods", as introduced by Plato, which is equal to acknowledging the existence of gods but *rejecting* them. Some believers even feel "abandoned" by God, e.g. when they feel their life is miserable. "Abandoned by the gods" is another meaning of the word "atheos", as coined by Sophokles. As an adverb it can also mean "impiously" etc..

Modern views are just one page in the book of "atheism".

Hi Jihadist,

It is always a pleasure to chat with you although our worldviews are miles apart.

Jihadist: "From the previous question in On Faith, there’s quite a number of books by other posters who said are their favourite books and which perked my interest to list out and get."

God's word, the Bible, tops my list, for it is the highest reference point and an appeal to anything else would be to make something else a higher reference point, but in understanding why people look at things the way they do, from a Christian perspective "Van Til's Apologetic, Reading and Analysis" by Greg Bahnsen is at the top of the heap. It shows more about why there are only two basic worldviews which are made up of believers and unbelievers (as simple as that - 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16). It is deep but understandable and makes analyzing truth claims clear because it probes into the philosophical reason behind the belief and why only in God can we make sense of this world and have a correct although limited understanding of it. To get a true understanding of facts, laws, truth, etc., we cannot rely on our personal, limited and subjective interpretation but on the One who created the world in order to get a correct interpretation of these things and facts. Since this is God's creation He controls every event and how everything functions, therefore facts are always related to the mind and plan of God, for He created them. I'm sure someone as smart as you could gleam more from this work than I was able to do. I highly recommend it although it is not cheap (about $50)

Blessings!

Jonny:

Not only do those phrases have no 'linguistic shorthand appeal', they are more self-congratulatory than descriptive. A number of my atheist friends don't match any of the phrases. The word 'atheist' does have a specific denotative meaning - disbelief in anything supernatural - but most dictionaries get it wrong. They refer to atheism as'disbelief in God' as in the Christian or Jewish version. It's an accurate definition as far as it goes, but it is woefully incomplete. Perhaps, we atheists simply need to be more focused on educating people.

Susan Jacoby:

"The irrationality of belief in a benevolent God who allows evil is, however, a major element in most atheists' non-belief in the existence of a deity."
_____

May be -- but not mine.

My major element has always been: why WOULD I believe in a Great Supernatural Ooga-Booga?

'Cuz somebody SEZ SO????

E Favorite:
_____

Why would I? Why should I?

Never heard of that stuff.

No, really -- no matter what you propose or refute, no matter what your commentary -- why would I? Why should I?

Atheism does not mean "hatred of God." How can you hate someone whom you believe to be nonexistent? There are some atheists who hate all religion, but that's a different matter.

It's really quite simple. People who believe in God are not atheists. The word "freethinker" is a great one; I used it in the title of my 2004 book, "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism." In the eighteenth century, the word "freethinker" was often mistakenly considered synoymous with atheist. In fact, as I point out in my book, freethinkers ran the gamut from true atheists (almost nonexistent at the time) through deists (who believe in a supreme being who set the universe in motion but afterward took no part in the affairs of men) to men of liberal and unothodox religion. A great many of the founders were deists.

Freethinker has made something of a comeback today, but it is no more a synonym for atheist than it was 200 years ago.

I can't imagine why anyone who does believe in God would call himself or herself an atheist.

The idea that atheists are really believers who are angry at God is a mistaken view held by many religious people. In my experience, personal tragedy is more likely to make people turn to faith, in a desperate search for meaning in the meaningless.

I also saw a number of comments to the effect that many atheists hold their views because of a personal tragedy that made them "reject" God. This is utter nonsense. The irrationality of belief in a benevolent God who allows evil is, however, a major element in most atheists' non-belief in the existence of a deity.

Karen wrote: "The Ichthys (fish) was first used by early Christians at the end of the 1st century AD. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ) is Greek for fish and is an acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour"."

LMAO!!!

The fish as a symbol was already used in ancient Rome in the first century BC. And guess what: it was coupled with the anchor and other symbols that would later pop up as "Christian", like the crosier (originally the staff of the augur) etc. All of them are e.g. found on the frieze from the Porticus Octaviae from the early principate of Augustus. They were sacral and holy images, also connected to the rostra of the Julian family on the forum, later adopted from the Romans by the Church like everything else in Christian iconography. The acronym was then introduced later as a retrofitting explanation. The fish as a symbol was already there.

Get educated.

Jacoby writes that the stigmatization of feminism leads some women say they are feminists but then follow it up with ingratiating statements. The stigma also leads other women to voice feminist positions while denying that they're feminists, because they mistakenly believe feminism to be about hating men. Similarly, I suspect there are many people who subscribe to the honest atheist stance but don't consider themselves atheists, because they mistakenly believe atheism to be about hating religion.

Jacoby is on the right track with her definition of honest atheism. I have some revisions. I would include not just a divine creator, but all claims about supernatural/metaphysical/mystical objects or phenomena. Jacoby probably doesn't intend this, but her use of "divine creator" suggest that religions that claim the existence of such have more plausibility than religions that claim the existence of other beings. "Given all the available evidence" rightly implies a willingness to consider the possibility of the supernatural if supporting evidence surfaced, but my personal preference would be to make that explicit. Using the word "belief" may be misinterpreted as a rejection of the scientific method.

Parker and Johnny -- regarding new names relating to religious beliefs or lack thereof - search this thread for "super-pro" or "pro-super" and "Super-free" and please add your ideas to the list.

Peter Huff --

Hegemony and brain-washing are what you describe. Just because a particular cult has a majority doesn't mean that any of its beliefs is actually right.

As for the supposed arrogance of "putting yourself in the center" I would suggest you look into the mirror. Believers who think they have a lock on the truth are arrogant because they think they somehow are better judges of what's correct and what's not than everybody else. Buttressing their belief with the fact that millions of others have been brainwashed with the same fairy tales cements this, but the root is an arrogant belief in one's infallible ability to discern "The Truth." And how convenient that the religion of your culture and community happens to be the correct one! Imagine if Hindus were actually right and you've been deluded all this time. Horrors!

How many Christians have really given every religion a chance? I'd like to see a catechism that requires all pre-communicants to spend a few months going to non-Western religious education. You can't choose your religion freely if you're the victim of hegemony.

Parker:
... My take is that someone needs to invent more words to differentiate between the wide range of connotations for what the general public may infer to be meant by the use of the word "atheist".
_____

Amen (to coin a phrase.)

A lot of us who don't believe ANY claims of the supernatural/magical have tried to introduce the terms "rational thinker" or "skeptical thinker" or "rational freethinker" -- but those have no linguistic shorthand appeal, do they?

Susan and others,
For those who may not have noticed, there are two insightful comments about the details of the Pew report as relates to atheists, one by Jeff P and one by Angela (at 11:30am), in the general comments by readers section of On Faith.

My take is that someone needs to invent more words to differentiate between the wide range of connotations for what the general public may infer to be meant by the use of the word "atheist".

Metricsu: "some people think they are atheists if they don't believe in the god of Abraham. There are precedents. For example, Thomas Paine, who was a deist, was called a "filthy little atheist" by Theodore Roosevelt. Early Christians were themselves viewed as atheists by Greeks because Christians did not worship the Greek gods."

And atheist/science writer Richard Dawkins likes to remind believers that they are atheists when it comes to all other gods (thor, Zeus, Mars, etc) except for their own and that Dawkins just denies one God further.

MY illustration of atheism, in a nutshell:

Theist: "The supernatural IS!"

Atheist: "I don't believe you, Jack."

As an atheist, I don't think that Jack is "lying." I'm just not required to believe his assertion.

If he thinks it's important that I should, it's up to him to support his own assertion. But he doesn't get to define the criteria for such support -- not if he wishes to impress its importance on ME.

That, I think, generates all the ill will.

I have to wonder if a certain percentage of Americans who call themselves "atheists" could more accurately call themselves "alienated theists." Perhaps they misunderstand what "atheism" means because christians keep defining it wrongly as "hatred of god," or words to that effect, when the real definition of "atheism" would go along the lines of "the criticism of theism."

I know the dictionary doesn't define "atheism" in the way I propose. But look at how people on the street understand the term. When you ask them to provide examples of "atheists," they'll likely name critics of theism like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or the late George Carlin. If ordinary people spontaneously understand "atheist" to mean "a critic of theism," then "atheism" as really understood means "criticism of theism."

Jihadist:
Well said.

I'd add an addenda for the response to Peter Huff: I also don't carry in my day's thoughts the fact that I'll be going to eternal hell (I'm included in Jihadist's list) after life in this otherwise 'fallen world'--that's also not a 'starting point' to my worldview.

As much as Peter may be disappointed to hear it, and maybe need to hear differently to confirm *his* worldview, I find abundant 'meaning' in day to day living, I baske in the love of deep relationships and see days filled with wonder and awe, from life in the smallest puddle to the unfathomable depths of the night sky--all without wondering whether or not the Christian God exists and whether or not I should "believe" in him.

It's fun to think about as an exercise in philosophy, but it doesn't drive my worldview.

As Susan's post mentions, I wonder how many of us as *atheists* would fit more categorically into a "don't know, but even more-so don't care, as long as it doesn't become mandatory public policy" definition of atheism?

Right answers on what Muslims believe
______________________________________

The very, very, very simple six question survey for all Concerned the Crossanized Christians of Reality Now Liberated out there on their knowledge of Muslims' belief on God:

Do Muslims believe:

1. That man is made in the image of God?

- No.

2. That God is as Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

- No.

3. That there is the Original Sin and are all born in sin?

- No

4. That one’s sins can be redeemed by confession and atonement through an imam or kadi or mufti?

- No.

5. That there is a Resurrection?

- For all mankind on Day of Reckoning (a.k.a.Judgement Day) but not the Resurrection of Christ.

6. That one requires baptism to be freed from sin and thus be saved?

- No.

Come now CCNL, admit it, your Jesus Seminarians' take is really counter to mainstream Christian beliefs. That makes you a heretical, blasphemous Christian?

No worries about burning in hell. After all, all non-Christians will go to hell for not accepting salvation through Christ. Or those having heretical and blasphemous views. Including me.

Your Homeland Security friend still looking for me? Or is it the Vatican?

Cheers
"J"

I think Mary Cunningham is on to something: some people think they are atheists if they don't believe in the god of Abraham. There are precedents. For example, Thomas Paine, who was a deist, was called a "filthy little atheist" by Theodore Roosevelt. Early Christians were themselves viewed as atheists by Greeks because Christians did not worship the Greek gods.

Nevertheless, one cannot discount Susan Jacoby's point that most Americans don't think it is important, and certainly not worth their time, to understand the meaning of words.

By the way, I can strongly recommend Susan's two books that I'm currently reading, "Freethinkers" and "Unreason."

The truth is simple but hard to understand.

1.I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the FAther but by Me. (John 14:6)

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way but it's not that simple to FIND the Way or to FIND HIM.

2. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD. (John 1:13)

It's is Jesus Himself who "appoints" us and not just us choosing him. It's a two-way process. You seek for him and it's HIM who finds you. False religions (like catholicism) are those with a "step by step" process how to be saved. The Bible is a good "Map" how to seek for Him.

3. "and NOT that of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God... For we are HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Once you understand this verse, you are on the right tract.

Keep this and read it over and over. Good luck with your search. Continue with that humble and searching heart and the Lord will reward you.

Peter Huff:

"Your fundamental starting point is there is no God, and you shape your worldview accordingly..."

Do you really think that is the 'starting point' for a worldview?

Do you imagine that those of us who are not "believers" start our every day, our every thought, base our every decision, consciously or subconsciously, on "there is no God."

Do I drive my child to school and think, "There is no God, so I hope my precious child isn't exposed to anyone's worldview that might suggest such."

Do I work though a busy workday and think "There is no God. I will reflect that 'fact' in all the ways that I portray people, interpret conversation, and make my decisions."

How do we 'make sense' of the world we live in? We are no different fundamentally I would guess--we do the best we can with the situation in which we find ourselves. Optimistic people do so with optimism, pessimistic people with pessimism.

I don't find your proposal about a 'starting point' a reality for most people in their day-to-day lives. Perhaps it would come to more of a head if I had to stop at a traffic light and say a public prayer, or to pay a 'prayer fee' while going through a toll road pay booth, or if my neighbors had a say in how publicly I displayed a religious symbol in my yard for the sake of meeting a 'covenants' requirement for our city block. Then, I might be more included to have a 'starting point' for my days.

Fate,

Alas, I fear you are correct. I am, as many know or have guessed, a Catholic. My father is an Evangelical, and he and I have often discussed the state of religion in the United States. He believes that ours is one of the more religious and devout nations on earth. As a Catholic, I am always looking for outward, objective signs of some putative interior reality. I should be from the "Show Me" State, maybe. But I am in good company: St James wrote, "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith," (Jas 2:16-17).

My pops says that 80% (or whatever) of Americans attend church services regularly.

I point out that in America 1/4 of pregnancies end in abortion, 1/2 of marriages end in divorce, and virtually all marriages make use of artificial contraception - all things universally held to be incompatible with Christianity until the mid-1900s. One might try to get statistics on the use of pornography, cheating on (admittedly outrageously high) income taxes, harshness toward social inferiors, uncharity toward the destitute and despondent, and so on. I am not here judging people who have done or who do those things - that's a separate question. I am only pointing out to my father, and to Christians in general, that we Christians do a great deal of abandoning our "faith" at the church threshold Sunday mornings on our way out. This abandonment of faith six days a week makes our religion into a sham: "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves... But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing... If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain... Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world," (Jas 1:22-27).

In the Catholic Church, we have the sacrament of confession as a guard against Sunday-only Christianity. It's not foolproof because it requires (1) use, and (2) sincerity, but it's purpose is to help us to live integral lives, where we hear the Word of God, believe what we have heard, and live in accordance with what we believe, twenty-four hours, seven days a week.

Of course, we in the Catholic Church have our own problems, some of which are more embarrassing and public than others. I am thinking now specifically of the fact that of the 60 million Americans who call ourselves Catholic, only 30 million attend Mass weekly. That fact means that at MOST, 30 million (half) are living a life that is even visibly only vaguely like our ideal for the ordinary Christian. Fewer take all of the Church's teachings seriously enough to incorporate them into our lives.

True faith is absolutely captivating when it is encountered - anyone who will risk everything for an ideal becomes heroic thereby. Because the Christian faith demands so much, the risk is all the greater, and the temptation to hold back is all the more present. So many Catholics say, "I am Catholic but..." like the feminists that Ms. Jacoby chides. Faith that holds back ANYTHING isn't merely defective, it is crippled; if enough is held back, then it is reduced to a bunch of self-serving beliefs intended only to make the "faithful" feel good about themselves through some variation of self-righteousness. And that sort of faith, the sort of faith of perhaps the bulk of American Christians, is really, really repulsive. How many American Christians worship God on Sunday, but Money on days Monday through Friday? This sort of "faith" cannot be handed on or transmitted, let alone inspire. It is no wonder that with each generation for fifty years at least fewer and fewer of the children of American Christianity retain the faith of their fathers.

Christian brothers and sisters, we are called to call our nation to repentence, but we must first begin by repenting ourselves: "For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God," (1 Pt 4:17). That means a sincere, humble, public, and complete confession of the times we have hated, abused, cheated, gossipped, adultered, fornicated, perjured, rationalized, and so on against our neighbors, and worse, against even our brothers and sisters in Christ. St Paul wrote, "The saying is true and worthy of every acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first," (1 Tim 1:15). Pray God we get our acts together soon.

Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist,

I am not the Anon you mentioned. He/she did answer your survey quite well.

And maybe it would be a good idea to report you to Homeland Security since you definitely are over the Islamic edge.

A very insightful article, Ms. Jacoby. The meaning of words is of key importance. It strikes me that, when asked which of his rules for the reform of society he would implement if he could implement only one, Confucius responded: "The purification of language." My high school history teacher used to say to us over and over again, "Words MEAN things!" and I did not understand it at the time, but think I do better now.

Mr. Mark's comment and anecdote are also to point. The anecdote shows how the abuse of words is usually intended to avoid responsibility or to make illicit gains. Your licensor's plea is a case in point. To add to your insight about a "healthy and precise vocabulary," I'd like to note that people with healthy and precise vocabularies are often seen as pretentious.

My own thought about the cause of the findings of the Pew study might not be especially well received. A number of atheists I have met and dealt with began with religious faith to some degree, but after a very serious tragedy abandoned their faith. There was never an intellectual probing of available evidence, study of philosophical arguments, or whatever. Rather, they've said, "God did this; God did not prevent this; to hell with God." Note well that this interior movement is not the same as an intellectual doubt or denial of the existence of God. Rather it is a visceral rejection of God. It is more like a child (no perjorative intended) saying, "Little Tommy doesn't play fair, so I won't play with him ever again; I won't even speak to him," than it is like saying, "There is no Tommy living down the street from me; there never was."

That such people pray periodically only shows their reluctance in their decision.

Note, I don't suspect all "atheists" fall into this category, but as I wrote, I've known several who seem to.

Daniel itld: …”problem with superpro and superfree; I keep forgetting which one is which, even though, when I think it through, then I can remember.”

Daniel – delighted to hear from you on this. I was thinking it would be interesting to hear your musings about these choices based on relationship to the supernatural.

Regarding the dyslexia issue – would it help to reverse order? E.g., pro-super and free-super, or maybe reverse the oder of one, but not the other, e.g., pro-super and super-free. [Also, irrespective of the final words chosen, maybe they could be shortened to “pros” and “frees.”]

Regarding the actual meaning – which would you say describes you – pro supernatural or supernatural free?

Pam – good point about current mascots – fish and fish with legs. I would just comment (without judging) that the fish is christian-specific and could be a barrier for super-pros (or pro-supers) who don’t identify much with Christianity. But of course, we’d need input from this group.

I also hadn't envisioned banning any mascots/symbols currently in use.

Peter Huff,

Hello, hello! It’s been quite a while. Good to see you again.

Thanks for your suggestion on "The Truth About Islam - The Noble Qur'an's Teachings in Light of the Holy Bible" by Anees Zaka & Diane Coleman. Never heard of this one before. I’ll look it up. From the previous question in On Faith, there’s quite a number of books by other posters who said are their favourite books and which perked my interest to list out and get.

An early Happy July 4th to you.

God bless and best regards

"J"

**************************************************

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,
a.k.a. Crossanized Christian
a.k.a. Catholic of Reality
a.k.a. Christian of Reality

Whew! That’s a lot of self-designation and self-identification and self-reinvention over these months in these On Faith threads.

It seems that my little very simple pop quiz on Islam 101 for you was taken up by Anonymous/Anonymi/Anonymouses.

God knows whether they are three posts from one or three different people, or just you throwing a tantrum, and in livid excitement, forgot to put the identifying CCNL’s handle when you post.

If not you, one or some infuriate People of the Book who can’t get pass a yes/no answer on Religion/Islam 101 on basic belief.

Never mind. You, and/or Anonymous/Anonymi/Anonymouse/Anonymice can send me to hell, flunk me, or send your friend from Homeland Security after me for ignoring and not answering your freelance survey.

Cheers pussycat. You're my kind of Danish woman/Rochester man etc.

“J” the Hijabist

KAren, mass-scouts?

virtual reality is about virtues, it is not psuedo. what we know is real and it is virtual.

"Mascots already exist - the fish, and the fish with legs."

Pam- I agree..

The Ichthys (fish) was first used by early Christians at the end of the 1st century AD. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ) is Greek for fish and is an acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour"