posted November 05, 2001 02:36 PM         

The reason I bring this up is because it was influential in my taking of a leap of faith.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

Josephus's second work, the "Jewish Antiquities" (Ioudaike Archaiologia), contains in twenty books the whole history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the revolt in A.D. 66. Books I-XI are based on the text of the Septuagint, though at times he also repeats traditional explanations current among the Jews in later times. He also quotes numerous passages from Greek authors whose writings are now lost. On the other hand he made allowance for the tastes of his Gentile contemporaries by arbitrary omissions as well as by the free embellishment of certain scenes. Books XII-XX, in which he speaks of the times preceding the coming of Christ and the foundation of Christianity, are our only sources for many historical events. In these the value of the statements is enhanced by the insertion of dates which are otherwise wanting, and by the citation of authentic documents which confirm and supplement the Biblical narrative. The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:

posted November 05, 2001 03:14 PM            

Speaking about Josephus and his "Antiquities", Paul Johnson, author of "A History of Chrisitianity" (Norwich, UK: Penguin. 1976. pp. 21-22.) has this point to make:

"The manuscript chain coming down to us inevitably passed through Christian control. Since Josephus was strongly opposed to Jewish irredentism, or any other sectarian movement which gave trouble to the authorities, he clearly adopted an anti-Christian posture. But this has been tampered with...But what has actually come down to us is a passage which describes Jesus as a wise man, a lover of truth, much beloved by his followers; it accepts his miracles and resurrection and hints strongly at his divinity. The passage is plainly a non-too-ingenious Christian invention and what Josephus actually wrote has gone. Attempts to reconstruct it have not so far won general acceptance."

The historical existence of Jesus as a person who actually existed and made messianic claims is unquestioned. Next to Josephus' clearly marred account, there exists Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Seutonious. All non-Christian contemporary or near contemporary sources which validate the historical existence of Christ, a Jew from Palestine, who made Messianic claims.

So Christ's existence is rather unquestioned as an historical fact today. The real question is: What was his message, what or who did He think he was?

posted November 07, 2001 10:42 PM            

As far as extra-biblical sources are concerned, most only record Christ's existence -- again the point is that one should have no problem accepting the fact that Christ actually existed. Those who do not, seem to be utterly ignorant and arguing only from a narrow ideological perspective.

What is a matter of massive contention of course is whether Christ was resurrected. The synoptic gospels seem to be the best authority for this proposition. There are many good arguments for accepting them as authority. There are also many good arguments against accepting them as authority.

The fact that Christ's followers clearly believed Christ was raised from the dead is also not at issue. They did. Recorded documents (the gospels, the non-canonical works, extra-biblical sources) all accept that they thought he had.

The question then really becomes: Why did they believe that he did? Some arguments you may hear (the famous Karen Armstrong argument) argue that his followers wanted to keep the movement alive and made the story up (for political reasons). Others argue that they actually believed Christ was resurrected but were victims of massive group hysteria/hallucination. Others argue that they believed that Christ was resurrected because they saw him after he had died (the Thomas argument). My favourite argument is the one that speculates that Christ didn't really die, but actually emerged from a comatose state after a period of time (patently ridiculous, but an interesting notion).

I guess the point for faith really is whether the authors of the Gospel are being truthful or not. For me the most convincing argument of their veracity is the fact that all except John died for their belief that they had witnessed the resurrected Messiah. It must have been a pretty powerful hallucination for being to give their lives for their belief (apologies for the ironic tone).

Just to reveal my bias, I too believe that Christ was raised from the dead. From a legal perspective (being a student of the law) the documentary and circumstantial proof certainly meets the criminal test (beyond a reasonable doubt) and definitely the civil (on a balance of probabilities) that Christ was resurrected from the dead. But, because Christianity portends to represent absolute truth. The TRUTH period. The legal test can never be enough. Christ either was raised from the dead or he wasn't. If it is a fabrication, we've been duped and that changes the game considerably. If it is true, our entire body of knowledge, of understanding, must consequently change with the knowledge of that truth.

The reality is that the acceptance of the belief in this (true or not true) comes down to individual choice. You believe or you don't. The wonderful thing is, the fact that Christ promised that he would remain with believers (in the form of the Holy Spirit) means we can have access to Christ in the spirit, even though his physical existence does not remain with us. Thus, it's possible to know God, to know Christ, and through this relationship with the Spirit, we can come to know whether the Gospels are true, or untrue.

"Christ be with you. And he with you." This statement is made to end the liturgy of many Christian services. It encapsulates the heart of what many Christians believe. That Christ not only rose again, but that he remains with us in the form of the Holy Spirit and is accessible daily through prayer, the scripture, and through the sacraments.

Also, Christianity argues that someday Christ will again return. If he indeed does, that will no doubt settle the argument for good.

posted November 07, 2001 11:47 PM            

quote:

---

I guess the point for faith really is whether the authors of the Gospel are being truthful or not. For me the most convincing argument of their veracity is the fact that all except John died for their belief that they had witnessed the resurrected Messiah. It must have been a pretty powerful hallucination for being to give their lives for their belief (apologies for the ironic tone).

---

Excuse me, this is a bad argument. One of the worst. Fourteen followers of bin Laden just died for their beliefs. Think of all the religions, cults and political beliefs people have been willing to die for - hundreds of them, thousands of them. Sorry, Willingness to die for a belief does not lend credence to that belief.
http://aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Martyrs_and_Mothers.asp

A Shahid has a high rank and value in Islam, in both this world and the afterlife. The strive for martyrdom is a desired virtue in Islam, but not every soul is capable of it, because someone who strives for martyrdom must have a high degree of faith, religious
determination, devotion, and loyalty to supreme religious and national causes.

What a powerful hallucination indeed!

posted November 08, 2001 01:44 PM         

You're right in the sense that lots of people have died and will continue to die for beliefs that hold not even the smallest shred of truth. I suspect though that the circumstances surrounding the examples you would be able to offer would be substantially different from those of the disciples of Christ.

When Christ was crucified, pronounced dead, and burried, his small group of followers became terribly afraid and literally went into hiding. All the time and energy that they had devoted to their leader over the past several years appeared to have been in vain. Their despair was evident. They were not men of resources or political clout, their leader was dead, and their very association with Jesus put their lives in considerable danger.

Does it make sense that they should go on from that point to ultimately give their lives for someone who said he was the Son of God, but allowed himself to be crucified by the Romans? I won't argue with you that it's certainly possible that they could have carried on in the absence of a resurrection, but I don't think anyone would argue that it would have been pretty foolish of them to do so, and what I think Robert was getting at is that it's pretty unlikely.

posted November 08, 2001 03:21 PM            

Apparently there was a huge communal halucination induced in hundreds of people at different times and different places.

posted November 08, 2001 05:57 PM            

I should be more clear: the disciples of Christ (sans Judas) went from denial of being followers of Christ to being EXECUTED at the hands of the political authorities of the day. The went from unbelief to being so convinced that they died horrible deaths (such as St.Peter who tradition has it was crucified upside down) on the strength of that belief. The point is that some event intervened between the time of Christ's crucifiction and the later missionary work undertaken in his name by the apostles.

It is recorded in the Gospels that this event was the resurrection of Christ. Brian is also correct to point out that the Gospels tell us that hundreds saw Christ between the time of his crucifiction and his ascension into heaven.

posted November 08, 2001 09:50 PM            

Christians being thrown to the lions like in the movie Ben Hur, "remained an exceptional occasion" according to Michael Grant - History of Rome 403-404. Between Nero's cruel campaign in AD 64-68 and Diocletian AD 303-304, there were long periods of toleration. Regarding the Diocletian Great Persecution, leading Catholic historian Duchesne found only a score of proved cases of martyrdom in the entire empire. Origen, during the third century admits that those who had died for their faith were few and easily numbered. Over and above their clash with Pagan authorities, Christ believers waged uncompromising fratricidal war, often over doctrinal esoterics that seem frivolous. (like reincarnation - nature of heaven - etc) These Christians inflicted far greater casualties than ever was visited upon them by the infidels. The number of Christians executed by other Christians in a single province during the reigh of Charles V far exceeded that of all the martyrs who perished at the hands of pagans throughout the entire Roman Empire in the space of three centuries. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire chapter 16, 238. So I am not very impressed with this approach at proof of truth by martyrdom. Contrary to your view, my view is that Christianity prospered and triumphed because it aligned itself with the rich and the powerful. The blood of martyrs measured less than the commanding collaboration of poltical control, the threat of the sword, the fires of the stake, and the wordly puissance of the bishops.

In attempting to investigate pagan critiques of early Christianity one discovers that virtually no such literature exists. It was systematically destroyed by church authorites after Christianity achieved enough political power to control government in the fourth century as I have pointed out elsewhere. The fragments that do survive, survive because they are quoted by Christians bent on refuting them. From Against the Christians by Porphyry -
"1. Why would God select such a backwater as Galilee. And why such a laborious and haphazard method of propagating the faith across the enitre world?
2.Why would and omnipotent, omniscient God need to descend to earth in human form to bring about a moral reformation?
3. Why would God so heartlessly deny an oportunity for salvation to the countless generations born before the advent of Jesus? Was it only than, after such a long period, that he remembered to judge the human race?
4.How does it happen that Christians take their origins fro Judaism yet desprise some of the very things that Jewish Scriptures teach? Why did God give contradictory laws to Moses and Jesus?
5. If the Gospels are eyewitness reports, why do thay all give such widely conflicting accounts of Christ's suffering and crucifixtion?
6. Why do the miraculous events described in the Gospel seem so fraught with deceit and trickery, as when the tiny placid sea of Galilee is described as a tumultuous sea that Jesus calmly walks upon?
7. Why did Peter (Acts 5.1-12) preside over the deaths of two devote believers who handed over all their land and possessions to the Christ sect but committed the sin of keeping a little for themselves?
8. Why would Jesus reappear after his death only to an obscure few rather than to the multitude or to his enemies who never believed he was the Messiah? What evidence do we have that the dead can be resurrected?"
Porphyry's Against the Christians; The Literary Remains by R. J. Hoffman and The Christians as the Romans Saw Them - R. L. Wilken

All of Porphyry's work was condemned to flames. Christians burned the greatest libraries of the world to supress criticism. Some of the Christian texts that incorporated sections of Porphyry's work simply for the purposes of rebuttal were burned as well in an effort to supress questionling. A hugh body of of critical literature, one whole side of a monumental debate lasting over two centuries is mostly lost to history because Christians chose to silence opponents by force when it could not by reason. "The melancholy experiances of the war ages by Christianity against the old culture and its sanctuarires :which meant against the libraries...The burning of books was part of the advent on imposition of Christianity." Canfora, The Vanishing Library, 91, 192.

Christian converts in Ephesus responded to Paul's preaching "and the name of the Lord Jesus" by destroying a large store of book worth 50,000 pieces of silver. In 435 all heretical Nestorian books went to the bonfire. In 391 a Christian mob destroyed the major portion of antiquity's greatest library and killed Hypatia. In Pagan times the Roman library had up to 500,000 books. By the end of the fifth century the six largest monastic libraries contained a paltry 200 to 600 volumes, mostly religious in context and most people were forbidden to read the Bible.
The only valid point you make is that you believe because you believe. The only way anyone can believe in the virgin birth or a risen Christ is because they believe. From my view this is magical thinking. I am not asking you, or telling you, or insisting that you not believe. Clearly the only thing you can do is believe because there is no proof and insisting that because there were martyrs is riduculous in light of the many martyrs to so many other religions and I would include economic belief systems of capitolism and communism and all isms in this catagory as well.

Let's ignore bin Laden becuase it is too close and too emotional. What about the martyrdom of 11 year old children throwing rock against armed Isreali soldiers. They die for their homeland and for their God. How is that different from Joan of Arc or David and Goliath? Or the monks that immoliated themselves in protest of the Vietnam War or the thousands of Sikh martyrs vs the thousands of Moslem martyrs. Or the Hindu martyrs? Or the American Indian martyrs who danced the Ghost dances and went bravely to their death to free their people with Father on their side. Or the Chinese student who stood in front of a tank? Are you saying that Christian martyrs are the only holy martyrs? and that none other can compare? How is your truth greater than their truth?

To Press: Numbers believing does not make truth, either direction - more does not make right, minority belief does not make right. I've heard both "reasons." 100s saw Christ, 1000s see other apparitions, 2 see aliens.

Even when it is possible to prove falsehood people believe. I can't believe the number of people that believe Mormanism. You can absolutely prove that the golden tablets were fakes and yet LDS is one of the fastest growing religions on earth. http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/
Let's see Joseph Morman had 11 witness - early followers. Most of whom recanted the truth of the golden tablets. But do you see it in print? No - the church suppresses information any way it can including harassing anti-morman web sites and threatening members who question. If the LDS church growth continues, in another 200 or 300 years it probably can supress any information that the plates were fakes and perhaps will have mutated to the point where they won't even acknowledge that there were any claims by Joseph Smith being given golden tablet by God. Everyone forgets what they don't know. Then everything is true.

I can accept you believe because you believe.

But I can't accept as reason that a belief is true because 200 other people are reported to see something 2000 years ago filtered by 2000 years of repression. That is ridiculous.

posted November 08, 2001 10:56 PM            

You've got lots of excuses--all trying to justify your decision not to believe. All the "evils" that the church has seen over the centuries are a result of men. Man is sinful, man can do wrong. One's convictions (or faked convictions) does not make one perfect. I bet the history of every major religion have simmilar scars--as do the pagan and atheistic communities. You think evolutionists don't mess evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution? See the disinfo book...

Frankly, its all irrelevant, and as martyrs don't prove the truth of religions (which we never said--its just compelling evidence), idiots acting in the name of said religions do not necessarily prove it wrong.

posted November 09, 2001 12:14 AM            

As I have said many times belief requires no proof and is therefor inarguable. Saints acting in the name of religion do not prove it right either.You've got lots of excuses--all trying to justify your decision to believe.

[This message has been edited by Mary (edited November 09, 2001).]

posted November 09, 2001 01:50 AM            

However.

The actions, good or bad, of the church are not what my faith is built on. The wrong (and right) doings of competing belief systems are not why I believe the way I do. Its all in my heart/soul, and is a personal connection to this "God." History books and trivia snippets don't change that--its still there. Contradicting scientific theories don't change that--its still there. Televangelists raping my beliefs for profit do not change this--its still there. Disciples dying, martyrs crying, and preachers lying do not change this.

It is independent of this world and the works of other men. There aren't any bricks needed to defend it, for it defies logic. Heck, it doesn't even make sense. But regardless, I'm convinced.

By the world's standards I'm a lunatic--but its still there.

posted November 09, 2001 02:08 PM            

There are a number of holes in the argument you've made; however, that clearly question some of the premises that your ultimate conclusion rests upon (that belief in Christianity is somehow magical as there exists no logical proof for its teachings).
As all good rhetoriticians know, false premises lead to faulty conclusions.

First, you argue that martyrdom alone is not proof of the truth of the ultimate cause the martyr dies for. I think we can both concede that martyrdom clearly shows proof of strongly held belief. That a person who martyrs herself for belief, believes strongly in the merits of that belief. So much so, that they are willing to die for it. I think it's important to point out once again that the martyrdom of the apostles is an important event to establish two basic premises:

1) That they went from unbelief (which is recorded in the gospels) to belief (which the gospels tell us was because of the resurrection), evidence of the strength of that belief is their ultimate deaths for this belief. You've been unsuccessfully attempting to argue that I believe in Christianity because I believe that the martyrdom of the apostles proves the belief was true.

To make this point very clear, I believe that the martyrdom of the apostles is important in that it shows a journey from unbelief to the ultimate sacrifice of their lives for that belief (and please find a contemporary example that is less rhetorical -- stone throwing children in Palestine and bin-Laden's cronies are clearly not analogous -- Christ's apostles were painfully executed. Stress this point again, EXECUTED, and did not bring violence in a political or religious uprising against the authorities.).

Why is it so important to establish this crucial journey from unbelief to belief? Because it shows me at least, that the record of what they saw -- the synoptic gospels -- is based on reason. They had a clear motivation to record what was recorded in the gospels (and please let's hold back on arguments about authorship etc. I know all of the arguments for or against who wrote what and when. The clear point that emerges from such a debate is that within at the earliest 30 years and latest 60 years after Christ's death and resurrection exact copies of the books that make up our current gospels [these are clear and undisputable copies] began to circulate and have come down to us through history).

2) We have a clear account (penned either by the apostles, or their amanuenses, or close followers of the apostles, but undisputably primary sources any which way you cut it) of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Further, this account was published by persons who clearly were willing to show their own struggle to believe in Christ as the Messiah (they witnessed the miracles, the strange events or Christ's ministry, the radical teachings, lived closely with him for years and clearly rejected him after his execution only to return to close belief after witnessing something? [the resurrection?] that placed the matter beyond debate).

Thus, this is an argument for the veracity of the primary source documents which record the birth of Christ, his teachings, his death and resurrection. They were penned by people who counter-intuitively record their own miserable failings at belief and their ultimate conversion and death for those beliefs. So what I admire is clearly not just their martyrdom, but rather the very human struggle for belief that even those who actually saw Christ, lived with him, had utter proof of his existence, his death and resurrection, how difficult it was for them to actually believe. Thomas had to actually place his finger in the holes of Christ's hands in order to believe. This makes me feel better about my own shaky conviction from time to time. For goodness sake, these guys had no reason not to believe but still they didn't -- clearly because everything about Christ's life was counter-intuitive, illogical, irrational (as pious Jews they believed that the Messiah lit. "annointed" the same word Samuel used to to annoint David King of Israel, would be a political leader who would throw off Roman rule. Instead they get a guy born in a barn. Who wandered around healing people. Who taught pacifism. Who was executed as a treasonous rebel on the cross. I mean, this guy is telling them that he was God. Literally the one. Co-eternal. Yeah right!). After this journey, the book of Luke tells us, they were able to put it all together and goes on to tell us in Acts that they were ultimately martyred for their faith. But it took a long time to get there.

So, the martyrdom of the apostles appeals to me as the final step in their long journey from total unbelief to belief. But I don't want to create the impression that I believe just because they died for their belief, or that martyrdom is the evidence of the truth of their belief.

What I'm attempting to establish is that the martyrdom of the apostles clearly helps to establish the motivation of the gospels. Which is to tell the early Christian church (a church that is now a generation removed from Christ's resurrection, a church that didn't have the benefit of seeing his resurrection for themselves) about the life of Christ, his death and his resurrection.

This documentary account (being an historian, primary sources hold special evidentiary precedent for me) is a logical, and rational foundation for everything that comes afterward.

This documentary account clearly shows that the key point in the transition of the group that would come to be called "Christians" was the resurrection of Christ from the dead. They record this change. They are so convinced that they go on to die for this belief. When Christ was executed in the first place, they didn't even have the courage to stick around when he was dying on the cross.

This is the crucial point. The death of the apostles by execution is evidence of the strength they held in their belief that Christ was resurrected. It doesn't mean that Christ was resurrected (for our purposes) it means that they believed that he had. And they recorded it as the major primary source that comes down to us as evidence for the truth of the matter under debate. Was Christ resurrected from the dead?

Second, having established that 1) martyrdom is evidence of strongly held belief; and 2) that the gospels which they or their close associates penned reveals how this belief wasn't always strongly held, but solidified only after the resurrection of Christ we can go on to argue your later points.

1) You argue that the martyrdom of the apostles and the later martyrdom of Christians during the pre-Constantinian church had less influence on the success of the church than its alignment with the Roman political superstructure after Constantine. This claim is baseless. First, the movement existed for 300 years. Three centuries! In the cosmopolitan Roman Empire. Not only survived but flourished, prior to the fusion of the Roman state with the Christian religion after Constantine. The church didn't need the Romans. Some Christians (there is this small movement known as Protestantism that argues that this fusion of the Church with State ultimately ended the ministry of Christ. That the state resulted in the death of the church until it was resurrected by Luther -- clearly an extreme view, but widely held -- and none of these Protestants whose forefathers participated in the bloodshed that was to become the Thirty Years War have clean hands anyways).

The point is that Christianity, on clear documentary evidence (both Christian, especially Origen and Eusebius amongst other early Christian apologists and historians and non-Christian, including Celsus, Galen, Peregrinus, and Porphyry) thrived in the Roman period. It thrived without the state. When the state began to persecute Christians as seditious (because they didn't acknowledge the emperor cult) their movement responded with even greater strength of belief. These short periods of persecution are punctuated with long periods of tolerance, but in both the religion grew and prospered. And I would challenge the historicity of claims that the pre-Constantinian church brought much in the way of violence to the state (or against other Christian heresies such as the Gnostics). Much of this abuse of power began after the fusion of the Church and State in the 4th century. But for three hundred years we have a period of remarkable growth in the church, and it doesn't in any way rely on the state for this growth. Whether or tolerated or persecuted the church flourished. (See Christianity: A Social and Cultural History. Howard Clark Kee et al. Macmillan, 1991).

You argue that Porphyry and other "pagan" writers (Porphyry was a Roman philosopher, hardly a pagan) and their criticisms of Christianity haven't survived directly as the result of Christian attempts to destroy such works. One can answer this charge with the fact that while certainly the post-Constantinian church persecuted non-Christians and destroyed writings they considered subversive (an interesting turn, but I won't elaborate in this post on that one) the most famous library of antiquity, that of Alexandria, was destroyed first, by the Roman emperor Aurelian, in the late 3rd century (during a time of civil war). Christians destroyed the surviving "daughter library" in 391 a.d. Aurelian completed the first and most wanton destruction and it had no religious undertone whatsoever. He also happened to persecute Christians during his reign (who refused to follow his Sol Invictus, or cult of the Unconquered Sun). The point is that attacks upon learning occurred throughout this period of instability and later devolution of the Roman State.

2) Your basic argument is that Christianity grew because of its political relationship to Rome and it suffered no criticism (and persecuted or destroyed those people or those writings that did). Further, you make the point (however tacitly) that Christianity is a belief that is inherently anti-intellectual (maybe where you live in Texas it is...but I'd argue you need to look beyond your immediate cultural context) due to its destruction of classical writings. This argument is patently absurd. It was the same Christian monks whom you denigrate, who preserved classical Latin and Greek (though the Arabs did more to preserve the learning of classical antiquity, that's right, Arab Muslims) throughout the middle ages. Under Charlemagne we see a revival in interest in literacy and a growth in the translation of classical learnings of antiquity. The high middle ages were a period of intense scholarship and led to the founding of the first universities (all theological at first), and history brings us the record of the Renaissance and the birth of Science, all of which was nurtured and grew in Christian civilization.

I would argue that your viewpoint, and I say this with respect, smacks of if nothing else, arrogance, in that you clearly allow your bias (that belief in the resurrection of Christ not only isn't, but can't be founded in reason) to overcome and dismiss the historical record.

Finally, to summarize then:

1) My belief in the Resurrection of Christ clearly is based on a rational foundation that includes the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence for the deeply held nature of their belief. Especially because this martyrdom was counter to their earlier behaviour which shows up as very much less than faith in Christ's claim to messiahship until after his resurrection.

2) This belief resulted in the creation of the synoptic gospels which are our most important primary source material to help us sort out the mystery of the claim of the above apostles that Christ rose from the dead. This belief also led to the missionary work of the early church which rapidly began to spread the gospel (the "good news") throughout the Roman Empire. Not only were they convinced that Christ's resurrection was true, they believed that a universalist Messiah had come to save the world, not from political overlordship, but spiritual darkness (this is contemporary with the mystery cults, the ascetic Greek philosophies and the Jewish non-conformists such as the Essenes which began to see religion as an individual journey or struggle for belief, in context of spiritual darkness, including the violence of the Roman civilization).

3) The result of this early missionary work was the growth of the church. The church was alternately tolerated and persecuted during the pre-Constantinian period, but the result was the same. Growth that was sustained independently of the support of the state.

4) Post-Constantine Christianity changed. It would set the stage for the political struggles for the next 1200 years (prior to Luther) which was a battle between the authority of the universalist Church and the emperors, tribes, princes and ultimately Kings who would challenge the temporal claims of authority the church made. Clearly this period resulted in much bloodshed, as the church took the sword to persecute not only non-believers, but challenges to its authority.

Contemporary to this struggle is another development and that is first the preservation of classical learning (because the Vikings and other barbarians burned Medieval monasteries does that mean they are anti-intellectuals as well?) in the monasteries, and then the growth of the university, and finally the Renaissance, and the birth of Science. All happening as a subtext to this Christian political struggle.

The Result:

Just because some people die for their beliefs doesn't mean the beliefs they hold are true. However, the willingness to take the final step of death shows a strong conviction (and we are removing all psychotics from this debate herewith). This conviction in the case of the apostles was fundamentally rational. They claimed to have seen with their own eyes (something any empiricist can respect) the resurrection of a man from the dead. A man who claimed to be the Messiah (but not the Messiah they were expecting). This fundamentally rational belief then, was what caused them to go out and tell others what they had seen. We carry a record of this faith journey in the form of the gospels. This is primary source, documentary, historical evidence of the truth of the claims the apostles made.

To turn to these gospels then: "While they were still talking about this [the appearance of the resurrected Christ on the Road to Emmaus], Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you".

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them. "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see: a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence." (Luke 36:42)

This is why Christianity tells us, these men went out and successfully spread the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. The historical records show that the new religion flourished, so much so that within a scant 300 years a Roman Emperor converted to the same faith.

Afterwards, the tempting power that this conversion brought with it resulted in the beginnings of a travesty against the gospel. The desecration of the message of the man who claimed to be the Son of God (we've still yet to get to the heart of the matter -- the teachings of Christ). Yet, out of this injustice, true Christian faith continued to thrive and human advances such as the University and Science can draw a direct line of descendency from the civilization that Christianity spawned with its political power. But political power and the gospel of Christ cannot co-exist (an argument for later) and thus, it is with a heavy heart I remain an apologist for the Church, as its position is almost indefensible at times. I have the utmost confidence as an apologist for Christ and his teachings; however, in that as I have attempted to show, rational arguments for belief in his resurrection are solid. And any historical or other argument that reason can muster to shake this conviction, can be equally matched. It's clearly not, in my opinion, at issue whether faith in Christ is a rational proposition. However, reason (as legions of philosophers will tell you) will take you only so far.

As we've been debating on another page, there are distinct limits of knowledge. A debate for another day.

posted November 11, 2001 08:35 AM            

Your post is immensely informative and entertaining and I simply do not have the ammunition or learning to respond to it and its scope, but I believe in my reading of it, your outline of the 'evidence' i.e. eye witness reports etc. is enough to be considered a primary source, but you do not question in any detail the veracity of that primary source. I think you admit that you are powerfully swayed by the way these people's convictions changed dramatically, and that there were many witnesses to the life of christ, but whether they really saw him die, if they saw him 'rise again' is possibly the single most important point, as the Resurrection is key to a Christian's belief, and key to the belief system as a whole. I cannot see why a rational person even an eye witness would not question what they saw if what they saw was a truly unique event. I suppose also, as a final minor point, even in this information age, an analysis of someone's life written 30 years after their death is going to have flaws. I wonder whether the gap between the recorded life of Christ and his life, flaws in the accounts crept in. My point is that, of all biographies, the nature of his life and who he claimed to be is possibly the most important of all, and clearly has the most at stake, for an atheist or a Christian. Why else is such serious skepticism placed on the records of his life.

posted November 12, 2001 01:35 PM         

I'm not sure whether you are questioning whether it was Jesus on the cross or someone who looked like Jesus, or if you're admitting that he was on the cross, but just questioning whether or not he really died. If you'll concede that it was really Jesus on the cross, consider this:

Interestingly, Jesus was crucified at the same place and time as two other men. After they had been hanging on their respective crosses for hours (I think even days), the two thieves on either side of Jesus had their legs broken by the soldiers who were overseeing the crucifixion. This was done so that they could no longer support themselves (apart from pulling themselves up by the nails that had pierced their wrists) making breathing next to impossible. Death would quickly follow.

Jesus, however, did not have his legs broken (a fulfillment of prophecy) and instead had a spear thrust into his side that of course created a massive abrasion out of which water flowed. This flow of water (as opposed to blood) was their biological indicator that he was dead and that they could proceed to take him down and bury him.

So we have the Roman soldiers believing that he is dead and giving the ok for him to be taken down and buried. As you may already know, he was wrapped in burial clothes buried in a tomb, which is like a cave, and a huge stone was rolled in front of the entrance.

Just for fun, let's pretend that the Roman soldiers messed up and that after the all the beatings and whippings he took en route to his own crucifixion, and the hours of bleeding on the cross, and the spear thrust into his abdomen, he was still alive. How long do you think that someone in that kind of condition can survive in a dark cave without any nourishment or medical attention?

If you're questioning whether or not it was Jesus or someone else who was crucified, go back and read what Robert wrote about other sources recording the event.

I cannot see why a rational person even an eye witness would not question what they saw if what they saw was a truly unique event.

posted November 13, 2001 02:18 AM            

The study of collective delusions most commonly falls within the domain of sociologists working in the sub-field of collective behavior, and psychologists specializing in social psychology. Collective
delusions are typified as the spontaneous, rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population at large, temporarily affecting a particular region, culture, or country. Episodes typically affect small, tightly knit groups in enclosed settings such as schools, factories, convents and orphanages (Calmeil 1845; Hirsch 1883; Sirois 1974).

The term mass hysteria is often used inappropriately to describe collective delusions, as the overwhelming majority of participants are not exhibiting hysteria, except in extremely rare cases. In short, all mass hysterias are collective delusions as they involve false or exaggerated beliefs, but only rarely do collective delusions involve mass hysteria as to do so, they must report illness symptoms.

Many factors contribute to the formation and spread of collective delusions and hysterical illness: the mass media; rumors; extraordinary anxiety or excitement; cultural beliefs and stereotypes; the social and political context; and reinforcing actions by authorities such as politicians, or institutions of social control such as the police or military. Episodes are also distinguishable by the redefinition of mundan objects, events, and circumstances and reflect a rapidly spreading folk belief which contributes to an emerging definition of the situation.

Middle Ages, France

During the Middle Ages, dozens of outbreaks of hysterical fits and imitative behaviors were reported among repressed nuns in cloistered European Christian convents. "Volunteers" were often forced by their parents into joining religious orders against their will and to lead celibate lives that included vows of poverty and demanding physical labor (Madden 1857). During this time it was widely believed that humans could be possessed by certain animals, such as wolves. In France, cats were particularly despised as they were considered familiar with the Devil (Darnton 1984). It was perhaps this context that triggered an unusual episode of collective behavior, described in the passage below.

I have read in a good medical work that a nun, in a very large convent in France, began to meow like a cat; shortly afterwards other nuns also meowed. At last all the nuns meowed together every day at a certain time for several hours together. The whole surrounding Christian neighborhood heard, with equal chagrin and astonishment, this daily cat-concert, which did not cease until all the nuns were informed that a company of soldiers were placed by the police before the entrance of the convent, and that they were provided with rods, and would continue whipping them until they promised not to meow
any more. (Zimmermann cited in Hecker 1844, 127)

Fifteenth Century Germany

A nun in a German nunnery fell to biting all her companions. In the course of a short time all the nuns of this convent began biting each other. The news of this infection among the nuns soon spread, and it now passed from convent to convent throughout a great part of Germany, principally Saxony and Brandenburg. It afterwards visited the nunneries of Holland, and at last the nuns had the biting mania even as far as Rome. (Zimmermann cited in Hecker 1844, 127)

Milan, Italy, 1630

British journalist Charles Mackay(1852,261-265) described a poisoning scare that terrorized Milan, Italy, in 1630, coinciding with pestilence, plague, and a prediction that the Devil would poison the city's water supply. On one April morning people awoke, and became fearful upon finding "that all the doors in the principal streets of the city were marked with a curious daub, or spot." Soon there was alarm that the sign of the awaited poisoning was at hand, and the belief spread that corn and fruit had also been poisoned. Many people were executed.One elderly man was spotted wiping a stool before sitting on it, when he was accused of smearing poison on the seat. He was seized by an angry mob of women and pulled by the hair to a judge, but died on the way. In another incident, a pharmacist and barber named Mora was found with several preparations containing unknown potions and accused of being in cahoots with the Devil to poison the city. Protesting his innocence, he eventually confessed after prolonged torture on the rack, admitting to cooperating with the Devil and foreigners to poisoning the city and anointing the doors. Under duress he named several accomplices who were eventually arrested and tortured. They were all pronounced guilty and executed. Mackay states that "The number of persons who confessed that they were employed by the Devil to distribute poison is almost incredible," noting that "day after day persons came voluntarily forward to accuse themselves" (264).

Lille, France, 1639

Mackay (1852, 539-540) reports that in 1639 at an all-girls' school in Lille, France, fifty pupils were convinced by their overzealous teacher that they were under Satanic influence. Antoinette Bourgignon had the children believing that "little black angels" were flying about their heads, and that the Devil's imps were everywhere. Soon, each of the students confessed to witchcraft, flying on broomsticks and even eating baby flesh. The students came close to being burned at the stake but were spared when blame shifted to the headmistress, who escaped at the last minute. The episode occurred near the end of the Continental European witch mania of 1400 to 1650, when at least 200,000 people were executed following allegations of witchcraft.

Salem, Massachusetts, 1691-1693

In 1692, Salem Village (now Danvers, Massachusetts) was the scene of a moral panic that spread throughout the region and involved witchcraft accusations which led to trials, torture, imprisonment, and executions. Others died in jail or during torture. At least twenty residents lost their lives. Social paranoia was such that two dogs were even accused and executed! All convictions were based on ambiguous evidence.
The witch mania began in December 1691, when eight girls living in the vicinity of Salem exhibited strange behaviors including ordered speech, convulsive movements, and bizarre conduct. Explanations for the "fits" range from outright fakery to hysteria to ergot poisoning of the food supply. By February 1692, the affected girls had accused two elderly women and a servant from Barbados named Tibula of being witches, and they were arrested. Soon hundreds of residents were
accused of witchcraft, and trials were held. In May 1693, the episode ended when Governor Phips ordered that all suspects be released (Nevins 1916; Caporael 1976; Karlsen 1989).

London, England, 1761

On February 8, 1761, a minor earthquake struck London, damaging several chimneys. When another tremor occurred on the following month on the exact day as the first (March 8), the coincidence became the subject of widespread discussion. According to Mackay (1852), a lifeguard named Bell then predicted
that London would be destroyed in a third quake on April 5. "As the awful day approached, the excitement became intense, and great numbers of credulous people resorted to all the villages within a circuit of twenty miles, awaiting the doom of London" (259). People paid exorbitant fees to temporarily board with households in such places as Highgate, Hampstead, Islington, Blackheath, and Harrow. The poor stayed in London until two or three days before the predicted event before leaving to camp in fields in the countryside. When the designated time arrived, nothing happened.

Leeds, England, 1806

In 1806, a panic spread through Leeds and the surrounding communities that the end of the world was at hand. The "panic terror" began when a hen from a nearby village was said to begin laying eggs inscribed with the message, "Christ is coming." Large numbers flocked to the site to examine the eggs and see the "miracle" first-hand. Many were convinced that the end was near and suddenly became
devoutly religious. Mackay (1852, 261) states that excitement then quickly turned to disappointment when a man "caught the poor hen in the act of laying one of her miraculous eggs" and soon determined "that the egg had been inscribed with some corrosive ink, and cruelly forced up again into the bird's body."

Worldwide, 1835

During the summer of 1835, a series of six newspaper reports appearing in the New York Sun caused a worldwide sensation. Created by journalist Richard A. Locke, the paper claimed that astronomer Sir John Herschel had perfected the world's strongest telescope in a South African observatory, andhad discovered various life forms on the Moon: a two-legged beaver, a horned bear, miniature zebras, and colorful birds among them. His most astonishing observation was that he could see human-like forms on the Moon flying about with bat-like wings. The
creatures were given the scientific name of "Vespertilio-homo" meaning bat-man. These beings were described with angelic innocence, peacefully coexisting with its fellow creatures in an environment apparently absent of carnivores. The delusion began on Friday, August 21, with an ambiguous story about new astronomical discoveries. Great excitement prevailed in New York City and spread around the world; most newspapers had been hoodwinked, including the New York Times.
Locke published the articles in a pamphlet and sold sixty thousand copies within a
month. The New York-based Journal of Commerce newspaper eventually unmasked the hoax (summarized from Griggs 1852; Bulgatz 1993).

British South Africa, 1914

In the war scare setting of British South Africa in 1914, local newspaper erroneously reported that hostile monoplanes from adjacent German South West Africa were making reconnaissance flights as a prelude to an imminent attack. The episode coincided with the start of World War I. Despite the technological impossibility of such missions (the maneuvers reported by witnesses were beyond those of airplanes of the period and their capability of staying aloft for long
periods), thousands of residents misperceived ambiguous, nocturnal aerial stimuli (stars and planets) as representing enemy monoplanes (Bartholomew 1989).

Island of Banda, Indonesia, 1937

During March 1937, the first Indonesian Prime Minister, Soetan Sjahrir, was living on the Moluccan island of Banda, where he described a head-hunting rumor-panic which swept through his village. The episode coincided with rumors that a tjoelik (someone who engages in head-hunting for the government) was operating in the area and searching for a head to be placed near a local jetty that was being rebuilt. According to tradition, government construction projects will soon crumble without such an offering. Sjahrir (1949) said that "people have been living in fear" and were "talking and whispering about it everywhere" (162), and after 7 p.m. the streets were nearly deserted. There were many reports of strange noises and sightings.
Sjahrir stated: "Every morning there are new stories, generally about footsteps or voices, or a house that was bombarded with stones, or an attack on somebody by a tjoelik with a noose, or a cowboy lasso. Naturally, the person who was attacked got away from the tjoelik in a nick of time!" (164). Sjahrir described the scare as an example of "mass psychosis."

USA, 1938

On Halloween Eve 1938, a live fictional radio drama produced by Orson Welles was broadcast across much of the United States by the CBS Mercury Theatre. It depicted an invasion by Martians who had landed in Grovers Mill, New Jersey, and soon began attacking with heat rays and poison gas. Princeton University
psychologist Hadley Cantril (1940) concluded that an estimated 1.2 million listeners became excited, frightened, or disturbed. However, subsequent reviews of Cantril's
findings by sociologists David Miller (1985), William Sims Bainbridge (1987), and others, concluded that there was scant evidence of substantial or widespread panic. For instance, Miller found little evidence of mobilization, an essential ingredient in a panic. Hence, it was a collective delusion and not a true panic. Cantril also exaggerated the extent of the mobilization, attributing much of the typical activity at the time to the "panic." In short, many listeners may have expressed concern but did not do anything in response, like try to flee, grab a gun for protection, or barricade themselves inside a house. Either way one looks at this episode, it qualifies as a collective delusion. If, as Cantril originally asserted, many listeners were frightened and panicked, it is a mass delusion. Conversely, if we are to accept the more recent and likely assessments that the "panic" was primarily a media creation inadvertently fueled by Cantril's flawed study, then erroneous depictions of a mass panic that have been recounted in numerous books and articles for over six decades constitute an equally remarkable social delusion.

Mad Gasser of Mattoon, 1944

During the first two weeks of September 1944, residents of Mattoon, Illinois, were thrust into the world media spotlight after a series of imaginary gas attacks by a "phantom anesthetist." On Friday night, September 1, Mattoon police received a phone call that a woman and her daughter had been left nauseated and dizzy after being sprayed with a sweet-smelling gas by a mysterious figure lurking near their bedroom window. The woman also said she experienced slight, temporary
difficulty in walking. Despite the ambiguous circumstances and lack of evidence, the
following evening the incident was afforded sensational coverage in the Mattoon Daily Journal-Gazette ("Anesthetic Prowler on Loose"). After seeing the story, two other Mattoon families recounted for police similar "gas attacks" in their homes just prior to the incident. Before the reports ceased (after September 12), police logged over two dozen separate calls involving at least twenty-nine victims, most of whom were females. University of Illinois researcher Donald Johnson (1945) investigated the episode, concluding that it was a case of mass hysteria. Their transient symptoms included nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, palpitations, difficulty walking, and in one
instance, a burning sensation in the mouth. Given the influential role of the Mattoon news media, it may be that victims were redefining mundane symptoms such as a panic attack, chemical smell, one's leg "falling asleep," and the consequences of anxiety such as nausea, insomnia, shortness of breath,
shakiness, dry mouth, dizziness, etc. as gasser-related.

"Miracle" in Puerto Rico, 1953

At 11 a.m. on May 25, 1953, an estimated 150,000 people converged on a well at Rincorn, Puerto Rico, to await the appearance of the Virgin Mary as predicted by seven local children. Over the next six hours, a team of sociologists led by Melvin Tumin and Arnold Feldman (1955) mingled in the crowd conducting interviews. During this period, some people reported seeing colored rings encircling the Sun, and a silhouette of the Virgin in the clouds, while others experienced healings, and a general sense of well-being. Others neither saw nor experienced anything extraordinary. A media frenzy preceded the event, and a local mayor
enthusiastically organized the visionaries to lead throngs of pilgrims in mass prayers and processions. Tumin and Feldman found that the majority of pilgrims believed in the authenticity of the children's claim, and were seeking cures for conditions that
physicians had deemed incurable. Various ambiguous objects in the immediate surroundings (clouds, trees, etc.) mirrored the hopeful and expectant religious state of mind of many participants.

Phantom Slasher of Taiwan, 1956

For a two-week period in 1956, residents in the vicinity of Taipei, Taiwan, lived in
fear that they would be the next victim of a crazed villain who was prowling the city
and slashing people at random with a razor or similar type weapon. At least twenty-one slashing victims were reported during this period, mostly women and children of low income and education. Norman Jacobs was teaching in Taipei at the time, and conducted a survey of local press coverage of the slasher. Jacobs concluded that those affected had erroneously attributed mundane slash marks to a dastardly slasher (Jacobs 1965).

Nigerian Genitalia Vanishing Epidemic of 1990

During 1990, an episode of "vanishing" genitalia caused widespread fear across Nigeria. ( I must say I think they deserved it - see spamm thread) Native psychiatrist Sunny Ilechukwu (1992) said that most reports of attacks involved male victims. Accusations were usually triggered by incidental body contact with a stranger in a public place, after which the "victim" would feel strange scrotum sensations and grab their genitals to confirm that they were still there. Then they would confront the
person as a crowd would gather, accusing them of being a genital thief, before stripping naked to convince bystanders that their penis was really missing. Many "victims" claimed that the penis had been returned once the alarm had been raised or that, although the penis was now back, "it was shrunken and so probably a 'wrong' one or just the ghost of a penis" (95). The accused was often threatened or beaten until the penis had been "fully restored," and in some instances, the accused was beaten to death. Ilechukwu (1992, 96) described the scene in one city: Men could be seen in the streets of Lagos holding on to their genitalia either openly or discreetly with their hands in their pockets. Women
were also seen holding on to their breasts directly or discreetly by crossing the hands across the chest. It was thought that inattention and a weak will facilitated the "taking" of the penis or breasts. (In my opinion it is wise to hold onto everything or it will be stolen in Nigeria) Vigilance
and anticipatory aggression were thought to be good prophylaxis. Social and cultural traditions contributed to the outbreak as many Nigerian ethnic groups "ascribe high
potency to the external genitalia as ritual and magical objects to promote fecundity or material prosperity to the unscrupulous" (Ilechukwu 1988, 313). The belief in vanishing genitalia was not only plausible but institutionalized; many influential Nigerians expressed outrage when police released suspected genital thieves. A Christian priest even claimed that a Bible passage where Jesus asked "Who touched me?"
because the "power had gone out of him," referred to genital stealing (101-102).

The next one thousand years will yield a new batch of social delusions and hysterical outbreaks that will reflect the hopes and fears of future generations. While it is not possible to know the exact nature of these episodes, we can confidently predict one of the first delusions of this period. For at the start of the second Christian millennium, we should be mindful that the millennial notion is itself a social delusion. The concept does not exist in nature but is a human creation-a product of history and circumstance. It has no significance beyond the meaning that humans attach to it. Yet, students of history know well that the consequences of beliefs can enormously influence the course of history.

posted November 13, 2001 02:54 AM            

quote:

---

First, you argue that martyrdom alone is not proof of the truth of the ultimate cause the martyr dies for. I think we can both concede that martyrdom clearly shows proof of strongly held belief. That a person who martyrs herself for belief, believes strongly in the merits of that belief. So much so, that they are willing to die for it. I think it's important to point out once again that the martyrdom of the
apostles is an important event to establish two basic premises:

1. That they went from unbelief (which is recorded in the gospels) to belief (which the gospels tell us was because of the resurrection), evidence of the strength of that belief is their ultimate deaths for
this belief. You've been unsuccessfully attempting to argue that I believe in Christianity because I believe that the martyrdom of the apostles proves the belief was true.

---

Martyrdom does show intense belief - no question!! Still That does not make the belief true. Note example above where people in Milan turned themselves in for poisoning for the devil when they had done no such thing. Because they believed they endangered themselves.

I still do not see a distinction between being willing to kill oneself for a belief (crashing into tall buildings, going on a crusade, or being killed by someone else because you put yourself into a dangerous situation whether it was in the Congo in 1968 or Rome 68, particularly those cases where it was possible to save oneself by a temporary recanting of faith. It is the same a killing oneself. I guess that depends on how one defines self-defense.

I did not try to prove that you believed because of the martyrs. I said I could accept that you believe merely because you believe but that I can not accept the argument that because someone is willing to die for a belief that therefore it must be true. People have been willing for all sort of awful things. The premise of the argument is false. Believeing because one believes is INARGUABLE.

posted November 13, 2001 03:07 AM            

Two versions of the murder of Hypatia:
THERE WAS a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, dauugter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles.* After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This
happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius.

And then the Christian Version: AND IN THOSE DAYS there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through (her) Satanic wiles. And the governor of the city honored her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic. And he ceased attending church as had been his custom. But he went once under circumstances of danger. And he not only did this, but he drew many believers to her, and he himself received the unbelievers at his house. And on a certain day when they were making merry over a theatrical exhibition connected with dancers, the governor of the city published (an edict) regarding the public exhibitions in the city of Alexandria: and all the inhabitants of the city had assembled there (in the theater). Now Cyril, who had been appointed patriarch after Theophilus, was eager to gain exact intelligence regarding this edict. And there was a man named Hierax, a Christian possessing understanding and intelligence who
used to mock the pagans but was a devoted adherent of the illustrious Father the patriarch and was obedient to his monitions. He was also well versed in the Christian faith. (Now this man attended the theater to learn the nature of this edict.) But when the Jews saw him in the theater they cried out and said: "This man has not come with any good purpose, but only to provoke an uproar." And Orestes the prefect was displeased with the children of the holy church, and Hierax was seized and subjected to punishment publicly in the theater, although he was wholly guiltless. And Cyril was wroth with the governor of the city for so doing, and likewise for his putting to death an illustrious monk of the convent of Pernodj [1] named Ammonius, and other monks (also). And when the chief magistrate [2] of the city heard this, he sent word to the Jews as follows: "Cease your hostilities against the
Christians." But they refused to hearken to what they heard; for they gloried in the support of the prefect who was with them, and so they added outrage to outrage and plotted a massacre through a treacherous device. And they posted beside them at night in all the streets of the city certain men, while others cried out and said: "The church of the apostolic Athanasius is on fire: come to its succour, all ye Christians." And the Christians on hearing their cry came fourth quite ignorant of the treachery of the Jews. And when the Christians came forth, the Jews arose and wickedly massacred the Christians and shed the blood of many, guiltless though they were. And in the morning, when the surviving Christians heard of the wicked deed which the Jews had wrought, they betook themselves to the patriarch. And the Christians mustered all together and went and marched in wrath to thesynagogues of the Jews and took possession of them, and purified them and converted them into churches. And one of them they named after the name of St. George. And as for the Jewish assassins they expelled them from the city, and pillaged all their possessions and drove them forth wholly
despoiled, and Orestes the prefect was unable to render them any help. And thereafter a multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate -- now this Peter was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ -- and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her
and found her seated on a (lofty) chair; and having made her descend they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesarion. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her [till they brought her] through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire. And all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him "the new Theophilus"; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city.

quote:

---

All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final.

Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.

To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing.
Hypatia

---

posted November 13, 2001 04:17 AM            

Did they pull the stone back and he walked out? Did they pull the stone back and he wasn't there?

Regardless of this, your outline is so simple I cannot understand where my lack of faith comes from, guy dies, guy goes into tomb, guy wakes up, guy goes to heaven.

Don't you see a problem here. Is it really that easy?

Are the circumstances so very clearly documented regarding who saw him being taken down and then afterwards, and who saw him that didn't have a seriously vested interest in wanting to see him, perhaps after treating him so shambolically as you allude to. I don't know, are they all interested parties, those that saw him subsequently. And I suppose its possible that he was only severely wounded, but in the cave found insects and water to live on. Was the cave inspected after, to check whether this could have been the case? Perhaps someone begged that he be taken down, when he was merely very nearly dead but in fact only unconscious, I don't know, I just don't think its that easy, and if I sound like I'm clutching at straws, well, as I said, when everyone else dies and doesn't come back that is a human being, isn't it understandable that any accounts of this event aren't going to get an easy ride.

There's also a logical problem in there somewhere that only pure faith has an answer to. I include only for another talking point.

If you're dead, you are by definition dead. If you are dead, you cannot become alive. If you do show signs of life after being 'dead' then you couldn't have been truly dead. Because to be dead is to be dead you have to assume that Jesus was the Son of God before you dispute this.

Heck, maybe my logic's flawed, I never said I believed in this position, but strange things happen, and its conceivable that Jesus was not quite dead, and did survive in a cave, on a diet of insects and whatever else, how deeply was his side pierced, could they have missed major organs? I don't see why these aren't legitimate questions even a layman like me could ask, when what we're talking about is the historicity of Christ's resurrection.

The danger for a Christian has always been that if one could comprehensively (somehow) disprove the Resurrection really was a miracle, the whole faith would fall. Should Christianity live or die by facts? is it only safe because we never had cameras and scientists at the scene with measuring devices and CNN? Is that kind of thing enough even now to let us get at the truth of what people say they see? Taliban soldiers tell us of hundreds dead in bombed buildings, chemical weapons being used, and with all our technology we don't know whether they're telling the truth. Indeed, we strongly doubt they are, and we take everything we hear from eye witnesses these days with a pinch of salt if we so choose. Were someone now to die and come to life again, would we believe they were dead in the first place, wouldn't we discredit those that claimed they were truly dead. Perhaps its harder now because of camera trickery to believe anything we're shown, was it not harder still to believe what someone says when there isn't even an alternative source of evidence? Isn't it important to a Christian that followed Christ around listening to him that when asked to recount his experience of Christ, he fulfils his own faith in front of that person, thus spreading a myth? Is it true or is it possible, because while its possible, we have to question the primary sources here, even if we can't categorically say it was true.

Personally I think we're missing the point. I don't think Jesus really coming back alive affects one jot the value of his teachings, but when we look for veracity in miracles, we have to be brave enough to accept conclusions which may change one's whole belief system. Either way. I wonder whether my skepticism is a reluctance on my part in equal measure to the enthusiasm which the so called primary evidence is called on when trying to prove the opposite.

posted November 13, 2001 05:20 AM            

when everyone else dies and doesn't come back that is a human being, isn't it understandable that any accounts of this event aren't going to get an easy ride.

And when people mistake another person for dead but that person later proves to be alive it is quite rare to hail that particular person as a... well, as Jesus. Then again not everyone who has not been dead after all has preached things that have a bigger impact if they fool death.

If you're dead, you are by definition dead. If you are dead, you cannot become alive. If you do show signs of life after being 'dead' then you couldn't have been truly dead.

And mistakes have been made.

Although I'm not saying Jesus was miraculously cured or that his heart stopped for 30 minutes (which has been known to happen), since that sounds silly. Doesn't it?

posted November 13, 2001 01:13 PM            

Are we then God?

posted November 13, 2001 01:45 PM            

My comment looks somewhat accidental now so I'll continue my thought. Although I understand how important these details of Christ's birth and afterlife are significant and give weight to his teachings (and the whole 'he died for our sins' belief) I nonetheless feel that whether he really died or not doesn't need to be proven without question because the symbolic calue is enough for the faith. No?

posted November 13, 2001 02:25 PM         

Apart from that, the examples you provide do nothing to show us that the followers of Jesus were indeed under the spell of a collective delusion. I would like to point out that all of the examples you've cited are on the list precisely because they were proven to be delusions. The incident in question is not on your list. I grant that its absence doesn't exempt it from the scrutiny you're giving it.

I didn't ultimately decide to become a Christian because of the belief of Jesus' disciples; however, their conversions and the lives they lived as an extension of their faith are important to my own. Just as I'm choosing to be a Christian, I'm also choosing to believe that Jesus' followers weren't delusional, until someone can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt otherwise.

Adrian

quote:

---

Did they pull the stone back and he walked out? Did they pull the stone back and he wasn't there?

---

Mark 16
1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.
2
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
3
and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.
5
As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6
"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
7
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, `He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'"

quote:

---

I don't think Jesus really coming back alive affects one jot the value of his teachings

---

In my reading of the Bible, I have often come across sayings of Jesus, and tried to put myself in the shoes of the person to whom Jesus was speaking. Much of what he said was so radical (especially in the context in which he said it), I often think that I also would have figured Jesus to be crazy had he audibly spoken those things directly to my face. Check out the gospel of John for examples of what I'm talking about.

One of my favorite authors, Clive Staples Lewis, noted that Jesus is commonly thought of as merely a great teacher who advocated love and peace. He goes on to argue, however, that in light of what is known about Jesus' life and influence, this simply is not tennable view of who Jesus really was.
Lewis conveys to his reader that Jesus can be considered either a liar, a lunatic, or truly the Son of God. What he cannot, however, be considered is a merely a great teacher.

posted November 13, 2001 03:49 PM            

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

CHRISTIAN PRIEST AND UNBELIEVER
Part I
["National Reformer," August 31, 1884.]
CHRISTIAN PRIEST. -- At least, belief is the safe side. When you die, if your unbelief be right, there is an end of you and of all your heresy; and if it is wrong, there is eternal torment as your sad lot.
UNBELIEVER. -- Hardly so. If I am right, my un-belief will live after me, in its encouragement to others to honest protest against the superstitions which hinder progress.

C.P. -- But you, at any rate, may be wrong, and belief is, therefore, safest for you.

U. -- Which belief? Must I accept alike all creeds?

C.P. -- No; that is not possible. You are asked to accept the true Christian faith.

U. -- Why not the true Jewish faith?

C.P. -- A new dispensation was given through Jesus.

U. -- Why not the true Mahommedan faith?

C.P. -- Mahommed was an impostor.

U. -- About two hundred millions of human beings now believe that he was the prophet of God, and that the Koran is a divine revelation.

C.P. -- He was a false prophet. His pretense that the Koran was revelation was an imposture.

U. -- Then it would not be safe for me to believe in Mahommed?

C.P. -- Certainly not; you must believe in Christ and in the Gospels.

U. -- Would it not be enough to believe in Buddha, and the blessing of eternal repose in Nirvana?

C.P. -- Buddhism is the equivalent of Atheism. Nirvana is another word for annihilation.

U. -- But some four hundred millions are Buddhists, and the character of Buddha is placed very high.

C.P. -- The true faith is that in Jesus, and in him crucified.

U. -- Do you mean the man Jesus in whom the Unitarians believe?

C.P. -- Unitarians! Do you not know that there is a special canon of the law-established Church against the dammable and cursed heresie of Socialism"? It is belief in Jesus as God, the second person in the Holy Trinity.

U. -- In the Trinity as painted at Holyrood? or in the new Cathedral at Moscow?

C.P. -- It is the Trinity as taught in the New Testament you must believe. The paintings you refer to are profane, idolatrous, and blasphemous.

U. -- But have not the latest revisers omitted from the New Testament, as being a pious fraud, the strongest Trinitarian text?

C.P. -- The omission does not weeken the doctrine; the Trinity in Unity must be believed.

U. -- But not painted. May it be thought?

C.P. -- Of course.

U. -- But can I think man who is God, who is begotten yet eternal?

C.P. -- You must believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three in one.

U. -- Are there in the Trinity three persons, each God?

C.P. -- Yes; but there is only one God, who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to die for it.

U. -- Is Jesus the only begotten son of God?

C.P. -- Yes; begotten before all worlds.

U. -- Is Jesus God?

C.P. -- Yes; very God of very God

U. -- Had Jesus a mother?

C.P. -- Yes; the Virgin Mary.

U. -- When did she live?

C.P. -- About 1,900 years ago.

U. -- Was that before all worlds?

C.P. -- Your attempt to reason will lead you to heresy; Belief without reason is the safe side.

U. -- Did Jesus die?

C.P. -- Yes.

U. -- Was he quite dead?

C.P. -- Yes.

U. -- After he was quite dead did he eat and drink?

C.P. -- He first came to life again.

U. -- How long was he really dead before he came to life again?

C.P. -- He died on Friday, and rose from the dead before dawn on Sunday.

U. -- So that God, to show his love for the world, let his only son die for one whole day, part of another day, and not quite two nights?

C.P. -- That is indeed blasphemy as well as heresy; believe as the Church teaches, that in the grave Christ triumphed over death.

U. -- Which Church? The Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, the Free Church, the Established Church, the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist, the Roman Catholic, the Methodist -- which of these is the safest?

C.P. -- There is only one true Church, that as by law established.

U. -- But as interpreted by Colenso? by Mackonochie? by Convocation? or by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

C.P. -- Do not distress me with these doubts. At any rate believe in Christ as taught in the Gospel.

U. -- Which version of the Gospel, that of Rheims? or the authorized version of King James? or the revised version of the present day?

C.P. -- Do not raise these quibbles as to versions; have faith.

U. -- In what or whom?

C.P. -- In God our father in heaven.

U. -- The father of the English and the Soudanese? of the French and the Hovas? of the Boer and the Zulu?

C.P. -- The Father of all.

U. -- Who, having the power to prevent war, permits it? Who, being able to hinder disease, promotes it?

C.P. -- These are mysteries; be content to believe and trust.

U. -- In God who sent the earthquake in Java? the cholera in Marseilles and Toulon?

C.P. -- Doubt is dangerous, belief is safe, your puny intellect cannot measure the infinite.

U. -- Will all unbelievers in Jesus be tormented eternally?

C.P. -- Yes.

U. -- Is not that unfair to the millions who are unbelievers because they have never heard of Jesus except as I may hear of Obi?

C.P. -- God will be merciful to those who have not heard the gospel, and therefore cannot believe.

U. -- Is not that, then, very hard on the one who is an unbeliever because having heard the Gospel he cannot believe it?

C.P. -- You are now judging the rule of the omnipotent, measuring the plan of the all-wise; be content to believe.

U. -- Will those who have never heard the Gospel escape despite their unbelief?

C.P. -- I have said God is mercfful; he will punish those who, having heard, reject.

U. -- But do not your Church and many other Christian Churches send missionaries to preach the Gospel to those who have not heard it?

C.P. -- Yes, our missionaries to heathen lands are the glory of all our Churches.

U. -- But do they not thus take the possibility of damnation to those who would otherwise escape?

The Christian Priest here turned away despairingly.

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

CHRISTIAN PRIEST AND UNBELIEVER
Part II
["National Reformer," September 7th, 1884.]
C.P. -- Believe in Jesus and be saved.
U. -- Were the immediate disciples of Jesus saved?

C.P. -- Certainly, except perhaps Judas, but why the doubt?

U. -- Thomas would not believe (John xx. 25); was he damned?

C.P. -- Even he believed at last; believe and repent.

U. -- No, when he had evidence (v. 27) he knew; you ask me to believe upon grounds satisfactory to you; like Thomas I claim to examine for myself. Thomas said: "I will not believe," I say that I cannot believe. But those that were with Jesus (Mark xvi. ii) believed not, nor when two of the disciples told the residue that they had seen Jesus, "neither believed they" (v. I3); were these saved?

C.P. -- They all believed when they saw Jesus.

U. -- But is not actual seeing more than mere belief? If not, may I see? When the disciples actually saw Jesus they surely scarcely deserved eternal salvation because they saw? They could not help seeing.

C.P. -- But Jesus himself taught that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but that he that believeth not shall be damned.

U. -- Did Jesus certainly teach this? In my revised version, printed at the Oxford University Press, I read that "the two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities" omit these words.

C.P. -- Leave those critical questions to scholars; be humble in spirit, and have faith.

U. -- In what? or whom?

C.P. -- In Jesus.

U. -- But the disciples who knew him intimately had small faith in Jesus. When he was arrested "they all forsook him and fled" (Mark xiv. 50), and it is pretended that those very ones who so forsook him had seen Jesus feed the hungry, cure the sick, make the blind to seg, the lame to walk, and the dead rise again to life.

C.P. -- Do not say pretended; that is blasphemy.

U. -- But did Peter really see dead Lazarus raised again to life, and yet deny? Was John the son of Zebedee, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and did he run away at the first approach of danger? Would not this be the veriest hardihood and audacity of disbelief?

C.P. -- These things are mysteries; leave these and believe.

U. -- But these disciples who did not believe were all specially selected by Jesus himself; did he know that they would be unbelievers, and that their unbelief would hinder my faith?

C.P. -- You are now setting up the pride of your reason against the things of God; be as a little child; of such is the kingdom of heaven.

U. -- Was Jesus a young child, and did he grow through boyhood to manhood?

C.P. -- Yes, so the Gospel teaches.

U. -- And must I believe that he was a God whilst he was a young child?

C.P. -- He was God incarnate to suffer and redeem.

U. -- And whilst a child still God. Then are the legends I find in every ancient faith of God-born children who grew through childhood into manhood, and were Gods -- are these, too, to be believed?

C.P. -- No, they are false religious legends -- myths the infant Bacchus, or Hor, or Hercules, these are mostly sun-myths.

U. -- Mostly older, though, than the myth of Jesus; how do you make the modem copy truer than the ancient fable?

C.P. -- If you call Jesus myth, how do you account for Christianity?

U. -- Calling, as you do, Hor myth, how do you account for Osirianism? Calling Krishna myth, how do you account for Hinduism?

C.P. -- But think of the great men who have believed in Jesus.

U. -- And of the great men who have believed in Mahommed, Buddha, Ra, and Agni. It is in their creeds that great men are often very weakly.

C.P. -- But Christianity is spreading all over the world, other religions are dying away.

U. -- It would be more true to ssy that all religions are dying away. Christianity spreads where your cannon take it, and where your bayonet keeps it; see in Zululand, in Afghanistan; it exterminates where it has foothold, as amongst the Maories, the Fijians, the Hawaians, the Hovas. But does it so surely spread at home?

C.P. -- Certainly; what do you mean?

U. -- In England the majority of your population from cradle to grave, save for baptism, marriage or funeral, never enter Church or Chapel; in Ireland, Catholics, more devout, shoot landlords. and Ulster Protestants, more pious, shoot Nationalists. In Italy scarce a prominent man who is not avowedly indifferent or hostile to Christianity. In France the public men are most careless of religion or repudiate it. In Germany the educated are nearly all Freethinkers, the pious nearly all soldiers.

C.P. -- Do not talk of the Continent; its inhabitants are Sabbath-breakers.

U. -- Shall I limit Christianity to the few in these islands, and look at home, say in outcast London, Ratchff Highway, or the Mint, or Flower and Dean Street, or the old Sanctuary? amongst the very poor and miserable in the still undestroyed narrow courts of Drury Lane? or shall I take the outcast rich in the public streets about midnight, within half a mile of Westminster Abbey? are these the fruits of eighteen centuries of Christianity?

C.P. -- These are sins and shames against which our Church ever labours; look to our Christian-founded hospitals and libraries.

U. -- But these have grown since civilization has compelled them. The crime and your Church have dwelt together for centuries. In Rome, Paris, London, great piety, great riches, great crime, and your Church, always mighty for evil and mostly powerless for good.

C.P. -- I cannot listen: these things are not true; it is unjust to put on the Church the sins of great cities where infidelity is rampant.

U. -- But it is the pious in these cities who are fashionable and criminal; and there are terrors of crime which touch your Church even in its highest ranks. Heresy, or as you call it, infidelity, has during 300 years done something to purify -- the corruption is part of your history. But take, too, your agricultural districts where, even to-day, there would be scant mercy for an infidel preacher, and reach me your assize calendars and total for me the record of your ordinary and of your nameless crimes. Is this the result of 1800 years of your Church?

C.P. -- No, this is the natural wickedness of man; and if you destroy our faith what will you give us in its stead?

U. -- Where is your faith recorded? and is your natural inclination to wickedness God-given?

C.P. -- It is in the Bible, God's word, you will find our faith; with what will you replace it? Man has a free will; do not blasphemously put his sins on God.

U. -- But do you believe and practise the Bible? Do you imitate Abraham -- father Abraham? or Lot? or Jacob? or Saul? or David? or Solomon? or Ezekiel? or Hosea?

C.P. -- These were of the old dispensation; I preach Jesus.

U, -- Then you, too, do put away as it suits you a large part of the Bible but you keep to Jesus.

C.P. -- Yes; and what will you give me in his stead?

U. -- Do you keep to Jesus? The Jesus of the Gospels said, Blessed be ye poor; and your Church is rich. He said, take no thought for the morrow and your Ecclesiastical Commissioners, have stringent covenants for 99 years of to-morrows. He said, thou shalt not swear; you swear yourselves, and compel others, too, to swear. He said, judge not, and agree with thine adversary quickly; and you rely on Lord Penzance, monitions, sequestrations, capiases, and long-pending litigation. if Jesus came to-day to St, Paul's Cathedral or Westmitister Abbey, you would probably send him on the morrow to Holloway jail as a brawler.

C.P. -- Why harden your heart in unbelief? why not receive the Gospel prayerfully and humbly?

U. -- Does that mean that I should accept what you call the gospel without trying to find out whether such gospel is truth or error, or a mixture of both?

C.P. -- The gospel is God's word to humankind; to doubt it is to sin.

U. -- How am I to be satisfied of that?

C.P. -- The very desire for satisfaction is sin. The gospel is attested by miracle, and has been accepted by the wisest and best of mankind.

U. -- But the miracle itself has not been worked to me; if I may not examine it how can it attest? There are many millions who have not accepted the gospel you preach. What is the evidence to me of a miracle dating back nearly twenty centuries, and performed before a foreign people?

C.P. -- The whole testimony of the Church. Indeed God speaks.

U. -- But I do not hear; and is the testimony of the Church even to-day unanimous?

C.P. -- On the main points, yes; the doctrinal differences between the various Christian sects are trifling.

U. -- If that be really so, why do not the various religious bodies, say, in England, sink these trifling differences and unite in one Church?

C.P. -- For practical purposes there is that union.

U. -- Is that quite true? Are Roman Catholics united with Protestants? Do they freely preach from each other's pulpits? Do Church of England clergymen willingly bury unbaptized Nonconformists in consecrated ground? Is there perfect concord and unity between the Tablet, the Church Times, and the Rock? Did the Bishop of Capetown work in harmony with Dr. Colenso? Do even devout Low-Churchmen who promote law-suits against Ritualists give illustration of such union?

C.P. -- At least in all good work these bodies, prelates and writers, sink all minor differences and are united. Take hospitals, the promotion of temperance, the abolition of slavery, and other charitable undertakings.

U. -- But in a Catholic hospital would a Protestant Christian be allowed to die quietly in his heresy? And how long has the union existed? Your Christianity is claimed to be in its nineteenth century, and the union of the great Catholic and Protestant divisions of your Church is in this country not yet sixty years old even in possibility. The approach to toleration of each other has been compelled by educated public opinion; it is no natural outgrowth. Rack, faggot, and dungeon marked the differences, not the union. Nor did your churches unite for the abolition of slavery; if they united at all it was to oppose the abolition. It is not even quite certain that they are temperate, or that as a whole they have worked for temperance.

C.P. -- You are leaving untouched the entreaty I made to you that you should accept the gospel frayerfully and humbly. You are drifting into criticisms on the conduct of individuals, some of them unworthy of their priestly office.

U. -- Why may I not judge the tree by its fruit? Why may I not examine your gospel before I accept it?

C.P. -- It is God's gospel, the gospel of Jesus -- this should be enough for you.

U. -- Am I not entitled to test it by my reason?

C.P. -- Human reason is a dangerous and unsafe standard whereby to test heavenly things.

U. -- You present for my acceptance the gospel of Christ; well, I offer you the gospel of Krishna.

C.P. -- You have no authority for this; it is a false gospel.

U. -- What authority have you? Krishna was God incarnate.

C.P. -- The very suggestion is blasphemy; the story was borrowed from the Christian gospel.

U. -- But the Krishna story was current at least 1000 years before Christ is claimed to have existed. It is vouched by miracle.

C.P. -- The Hindu miracles are absurd and ridiculous.

U. -- So to me are those of your own bible; so to me are those of the Christian healer who is now in South Australia curing the sick by hundreds.

C.P. -- Many of the Hindu sacred writings are coarse, voluptuous, and even filthy.

U. -- So to me are many of the Hebrew sared writings.

C.P. -- The Krishna story is monstrous and unreasonable.

U. -- But you have taught me that human reason is a dangerous and unsafe guide in matters of religion. But I pass to the Koran offered to you by Mahommed, the prophet of the Lord.

C.P. -- Mahommed was a false prophet and impostor.

U. -- Is not that exactly what the Jews said of Jesus?

C.P. -- But Mahommedanism has for centuries been maintained and spread by the sword.

U. -- So was Christianity from the 4th to the 16th centuries; and even to-day a Christian bishop blesses an invading army, declaring that it may cut a road for the Christian missionary.

C.P. -- But Mahommedans are fatalists.

U. -- So were Luther, Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards.

C.P. -- Oh, do not harden your heart; repent of your unbelief and believe. God is merciful, and Will forgive you.

U. -- Do you mean that God, having blinded my eyes, will forgive me if I repent that I have not seen, and if I will believe that I see when I do not? Or do you mean that having given me sight and hearing he will punish me for having seen and listened unless I will repent and believe that I am blind and deaf?

C.P. -- These are quibbles, hardened man; dare you reject God's truth?

posted November 13, 2001 06:00 PM         

I can't blame them, it's certainly makes for enjoyable reading imagining the priest squirming uncomfortably in his seat.

I particularly liked this question at the end of part II:

U. -- Do you mean that God, having blinded my eyes, will forgive me if I repent that I have not seen, and if I will believe that I see when I do not? Or do you mean that having given me sight and hearing he will punish me for having seen and listened unless I will repent and believe that I am blind and deaf?

About two years ago I went through a period during which I was asking the same kind of questions. I thought of the metaphor of being on a ship in the arctic ocean and having someone who claimed to love me throw me overboard into the icy waters and certain death. Having thrown me in, he then jumps in to save me, but by the time he gets to me, I'm so stiff that I can do nothing but trust that he'll get me safely back on board the ship.

How am I to respond to this? My first inclination would be to ask, "why in the world did you throw me overboard into circumstances in which without help I would surely die?"

The Christian belief is that everyone exists in a hopeless, sinful, dead, condition, a condition from which we need to be redeemed and saved. If God is truly an omnipotent and omniscient creator, it isn't incorrect to say that we are in this condition as a result of his doing. The Christian way of living is not supposed to be a legalism or moralism, but rather an expression of the gratitude we should feel for having been saved.

As I struggled with this, I kept thinking "it's great to be saved, but why did you throw us over in the first place and why have you left so many out there to die?"

posted November 13, 2001 08:48 PM            

"You know son, sometimes if you want to learn to swim, you just gotta jump in the water..."

Churchill is right to point out that the "priest" in the fictional dialogue above is (likely) intentionally stupid and can only answer questions with "heretic--have faith or die" (or something to that effect...). There are good legitimate answers to most of those questions (admitedly didn't have time to read them all) and the writer completely ignored them for his purposes.

posted November 14, 2001 12:30 AM            

ANY persons will consider the question one to which the Gospels give a sufficient answer and that no further inquiry is necessary. But while the general Christian body affirm that Jesus was God incarnate on earth, the Unitarian Christians, less in numerical strength but numbering a large proportion of the more intelligent and humane, absolutely deny his divinity; the Jews, of whom he is alleged to have been one, do not believe in him at all; and the enormous majority of the inhabitants of the earth have never accepted the Gospels. Even in the earliest ages of the Christian Church heretics were found, amongst Christians themselves, who denied that Jesus had ever existed in the flesh. Under these circumstances the most pious should concede that it is well to prosecute the inquiry to the uttermost, that their faith may rest on sure foundations. The history of Jesus Christ is contained in four books or gospels; outside these it cannot be pretended that there is any reliable narrative of his life. We know not with any certainty, and have now no means of knowing, when, where, or by whom these Gospels were written. The name at the
head of each Gospel affords no clue to the real writer. Before A.D. 160 no author mentions any Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and there is no sufficient evidence to identify the Gospels we have with even the writings to which Irenaeus refers towards the close of the second century. The Church has provided us with an author for each Gospel, and some early Fathers have argued that there ought to be four Gospels, because there are four seasons, four principal points to
the compass, and four corners to the earth. Bolder speculators affirm twelve apostles because there are twelve signs of the Zodiac. With regard to the Gospel first in order, divines disagree as to the language written. Some allege that the original was in Hebrew, others deny that our Greek version has any of the characters of a translation.

We neither know the hour, nor day, nor month, nor year of Jesus's birth; divines generally agree that he was not born on Christmas Day, and yet on that day the anniversary of his birth is observed. The Oxford Chronology places the matter in no clearer light, and more than thirty learned authorities give a period of over seven years' difference in their reckoning. The place of his birth is also uncertain. The Jews, in the presence of Jesus, reproached him that he ought to have been born at Bethlehem, and he never replied "I was born there ", (John vii. 41, 42, 52).

Jesus was the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt. i.), from whom his descent is traced through Isaac -- born of Sarai (whom the writer of the epistle to Galatians [iv. 24] says was a covenant and not a woman) -- and ultimately through Joseph, who was not only not his father, but is not shown to have had any kind of relationship to him, and through whom therefore the genealogy should not be traced. There are two genealogies in the Gospels which contradict each other, and
these in part may be collated with the Old Testament genealogy, which differs from both. The genealogy of Matthew is self-contradictory, counts thirteen names as
fourteen, and omits the names of three kings. Matthew says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel (i. 13). Luke says Zorobabel's son was Rhesa (iii. 27). The Old Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith, their sister (1 Chron. iii. 19), as the names of Zorobabel's children. The reputed father of Jesus, Joseph, had two fathers, one named Jacob, the other Heli. The divines suggest that Heli was the father of Mary, by reading the word "Mary" in Luke
iii. 23, in lieu of "Joseph," and the word "daughter" in lieu of "son," thus correcting the evident blunder made by inspiration. The birth of Jesus was miraculously
announced to Mary and to Joseph by visits of an angel, but they so little regarded the miraculous annunciation that they marvelled soon after at much less wonderful things spoken by Simeon.

Jesus was the son of God, or God manifest in the flesh, and his birth was first discovered by some wise men or astrologers, a class described in the Bible as an abomination in God's sight. These men saw his star in the East, but it did not tell them much, for they were apparently obliged to ask information from Herod the King. Herod in turn inquired of the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right if he said, "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means," for these chief priests either misread the prophets or misquoted the Scripture, which is claimed to be a revelation from God, and invented a false prophecy (Matt. ii. 5, 6; cf. Micah v. 2) by omitting a few words from, and adding a few words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star -- after the wise men
knew where to go, and no longer required its aid -- led and went before them, until it came and stood over where the young child was. This story will be better understood if the reader will walk out some clear night, notice a star, and then try to fix the one house it will be exactly over. The writer of the Third Gospel, silent on the star story, speaks of an angel who tells some shepherds of the miraculous; but this does not appear to have happened in the reign of Herod.

After the wise men had left Jesus an angel warned Joseph to flee with Jesus and Mary into Egypt; and Joseph did fly, and remained there with the young child and his mother until the death of Herod; and this it is alleged was done to fulfil a prophecy. The words (Hos. xi. 1) are not prophetic and have no reference whatever to Jesus. The Jesus of the Third Gospel never went into Egypt at all in his childhood. When Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptized by John in the River Jordan. John, who knew him, according to the First Gospel, forbade him
directly he saw him; but, according to the Fourth Gospel, he knew him not, and had, therefore, no occasion to forbid him. God is an "invisible spirit," whom no man hath seen (John i. 18) or can see (Exod. xxxiii. 20); but the man John saw the spirit of God descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at that time was in heaven, from whence he said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Although John heard this from God's own mouth, he did not always act as if he believed it, but some time after sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really the Christ (Matt. xi. 2, 3).

Immediately after the baptism Jesus was led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. Jestis fasted forty days and forty nights, and in those days
he did eat nothing. Moses twice fasted that period. Such fasts are nearly miraculous. The modern fasting men, and the Hindoo fasters, only show that under very abnormal conditions long abstinence from food is possible. Absolutely miraculous events are events which never happened in the past, do not take place in the present, and never will occur in the future. Jesus, it is said, was God, and by his power as God fasted. On the hypothesis of his divinity it is difficult to understand
how he became hungry. When hungry the Devil tempted Jesus by offering him stones, and asking him to make them bread. Stones offered to a hungry man for bread-making hardly afford a probable temptation. Which temptation came next is a matter of doubt. Matthew and Luke relate the story in different order. According to one, the Devil next taketh Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tempts him to throw himself to the bottom, by quoting Scripture that angels should bear him in their arms. Jesus either disbelieved this Scripture or remembered that the Devil, like other pillars of the Church, grossly misquoted to suit his purpose, and
the temptation failed. The Devil then took Jesus to an exceeding high mountain, from whence he showeth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof, in a moment of time. It is urged that this did not include a view of the Antipodes, but only referred to the kingdoms then known; even then it must have been a long look from Judea to China. The mountain must have been very high -- much higher than the diameter of the earth, Origen, a learned and pious holy father, suggests that no man in his senses will believe this to have really happened. If Origen had to defend his language before a modern judge of the type of Mr. Justice North, the Christian Father would have sore risk of Holloway jail. The Devil offered Jesus -- who it is declared was one with God and therefore omnipotent -- all the kingdoms of the world if he, Jesus, the omnipotent God, would fall down and worship his own creature, the Devil. Some object that if God is the creator and omnipotent ruler of the
world, then the Devil would have no control over the kingdoms of the world, and that the offer could be no temptation as it was made to Jesus, who was God omnipotent and all-wise. Such objectors rely on natural reason. After the temptation Jesus worked many miracles, casting out devils and otherwise doing marvels amongst the inhabitants of Judea, who seem as a body to have been very unbelieving. If a second Jesus of Nazareth were in this heretical age to boast that he possessed the power of casting out devils, he would stand a fair chance of expiating his offence by a three months' imprisonment with hard labour. It is true that the 72nd Canon of the Church of England recognizes that ministers can cast out devils, but forbids them to do this unless licensed by the Bishop, "under pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage." Now, if sick men have a little wisdom the physician is resorted to that he may cure the disease. If men have much wisdom they study physiology while they have health, in order to prevent
sickness. In the time of the early Christians prayer and faith (James v. 14, I5) occupied the position since usurped by medicine and experience. Men who had lost their senses in the time of Christ were regarded as attacked not by disease but by the Devil. In the days of Jesus one spirit would make a man blind, or deaf, or dumb; occasionally a number of devils would get into a man and drive him mad. On one occasion Jesus met either one man (Mark V. 2) or two men (Matt. Viii. 28)
possessed with devils. The devils knew Jesus and addressed him by name. Jesus, not so familiar with the imp or imps, inquired the name of the particular devil he was addressing. The answer, given in Latin, would induce a belief, possibly corroborated by the writings of the monks, that devils communicated in that tongue. Jesus wanted to cast out the devils from the man; this they did not contest, but they expressed a decided objection to being cast out of the country. A compromise was agreed to, and at their own request the devils were transferred to a herd of swine. The swine ran into the sea and were drowned. There is no record of any compensation to the owner.

Jesus fed large multitudes of people under circumstances of a most ultra-thaumatirgic character. To the first book of Euclid is prefixed an axiom "that the whole is greater than its part." John Wesley was wise if it be true that he eschewed mathematics lest it should lead him to infidelity. If any man be irreligious enough to accept Euclid's axiom he will be compelled to reject the miraculous feeding of 5,000 people with five loaves and two small fishes. The original difficulty of the miracle, though not increased, is made hard to the common mind by the assertion that after the multitude had been fed twelve baskets full of fragments remained.

Jesus is related to have walked on the sea whan it was very stormy, and when "the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew." Walking on the water is a great feat even if the sea be calm, but when the waves run high it is still more wonderful. The miracle of turning water into wine at Cana, in Galilee, is worthy of attention when considering the question, Who was Jesus Christ? Jesus and his disciples had been called to a marriage feast, and when there the company fell short of wine. The mother of Jesus, to whom the Catholics offer worship, and to whom they pay
great adoration, informed Jesus of the deficiency and was answered, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." His mother seemed to have expected a miracle, yet in the Fourth Gospel the Cana wonder was the beginning of miracle-working by Jesus; the apocryphal gospels assert that Jesus practised miracle- working as a child. Jesus having obtained six water-pots full of water, turned them into wine. Teetotallers who cannot believe God would specially provide means of drunkenness urge that this wine was not of intoxicating quality, though there is nothing in the text to justify their hypothesis. The curious connexion between
the phrase "well drunk" and the time at which the miracle was performed would rather warrant the supposition that the guests were already in such a state as to render it difficult for them to critically appreciate the new vintage. The moral effects of this miracle are not easily appreciable.

Shortly after this Jesus went to the temple with a scourge of small cords, and drove thereout the cattle-dealers and money- changers who had assembled there in the
ordinary coarse of their business. The writer of the Fourth Gospel places this event very early in the public life of Jesus. The writer of the Third Gospel fixes the occurrence much later.

Jesus being hungry went to a fig-tree to gather figs, though the season of figs was not yet come. Of course there were no figs upon the tree, and Jesus then caused the tree to wither away. This is specially interesting as a problem for a true orthodox trinitarian who will believe, first, that Jesus was God, who made the tree, and prevented it from bearing figs; second, that God the all-wise, who is not subject to human passions, being hungry, went to the fig-tree, on which he knew there could be no figs, expecting to find some there; third, that God, the all-just, then punished the tree because it did not bear figs in opposition to God's eternal ordination.

Jesus had a disciple named Peter, who, having much Christian faith, was a great coward, and denied his leader in his hour of need. Jesus, though previously aware that Peter would be a traitor, yet gave him the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and told him that whatsoever he bound on earth should be bound in Heaven. Peter was to have denied jesus three times before the cock should crow (Matt. xxvi. 34). The cock crowed before Peter's second denial (Mark xiv. 68). Commentators urge that the words used do not refer to the crowing of any particular cock, but to a special hour of the morning called "cock-crow" But if the Gospel be true the explanation is false. Peter's denial becomes the more extraordinary when we remember that he had seen Moses, Jesus, and Ellas talking together, and had heard a
voice from a cloud say, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." As Peter could thus deny Jesus after having heard God vouch his divinity, and Peter not only escapes punishment but gets the office of gate-keeper to Heaven, how much more should those escape punishment and obtain reward who only deny because they cannot help it, and who have been left without any corroborative evidence of sight or hearing!

The Jesus of the First Gospel promised that, as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so he (Jesus) would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Yet he was buried on Friday evening and was out of the grave before Saturday night was over. Some say that the Jews reckoned part of a day as a whole one.

The translators have made Jesus perform a curious equestrian feat on his entry into Jerusalem. The text (Matt. xxi. 7) says they "brought the ass and the colt and put
on them their clothes and set him thereon." This does not mean that he rode on both at one time; it only says so. On the Cross the Jesus of the Four Gospels, who was God, cried out " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" God cannot forsake himself, Jesus was God himself. Yet God forsook Jesus, and the latter cried out to know why he was forsaken. Any able divine will explain that of course he knew, and that he was not forsaken. The explanation renders it difficult to believe the dying cry, and the passage becomes one of the mysteries of the holy Christian religion, which, unless a man rightly believe, "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." At the crucifixion of Jesus wonderful miracles took place. "The graves were opened, and many bodies of the samts which slept arose and came out of the grave after his resurrection and appeared unto many." Which saints were these? They "appeared unto many," but there is not the slightest evidence outside the
Bible that anyone ever saw them. Their "bodies came out of the graves. Do not the bodies of the saints decompose like those of ordinary human beings?

Jesus must have much changed in the grave, for his disciples did not know him when he stood on the shore (John xxi. 4), and Mary, most attached to him, knew him not, but supposed that he was the gardener. According to the First Gospel, Jesus appeared to two women after his resurrection, and afterwards met eleven of his disciples by appointment on a mountain in Galilee. When was this appointment made? The text on which divines rely is Matthew xxvi. 32; this makes no such
appointment. According to the Second Gospel he appeared first to one woman, and when she told the disciples they did not believe it. Yet, on pain of indictment now and damnation hereafter, we are bound to unhesitatingly accept that which the disciples of Jesus rejected. By the Second Gospel we learn that instead of the eleven going to Galilee after Jesus he came to them as they sat at meat. In the Third Gospel he first appeared to two of his disciples at Emmaus, and they did not
know him until they had been a long time in his company -- it was evening before they recognized him. Unfortunately, directly they knew him they did not see him, for as soon as they knew him he vanished out of their sight. He immediately afterwards appeared to the eleven at Jerusalem, and not at Galilee, as stated in the First Gospel. Jesus asked for some meat, and the disciples gave him a portion of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb, and he did eat. Jesus was afterwards taken up into Heaven, a cloud received him, and he was missed. God is everywhere, and Heaven no more above than below, but it is necessary we should believe that Jesus has ascended into Heaven to sit on the right hand of God, who is infinite and has no right hand.

Was Jesus Christ a man? If limited for our answer to the mere Gospel Jesus -- surely not. His whole career is, on any literal reading, simply a series of improbabilities or contradictions.

Who was Christ? born of a virgin, and of divine parentage? So too were many of the mythic Sungods and so was Krishna, whose story, similar in many respects with that of Jesus, was current long prior to the Christian era.

posted November 14, 2001 02:15 AM            

What is up for debate is the gospel account. Was he the triune God in anthropomorphic form? Part of, yet separate from and co-eternal with the Father? Did he really come to establish the Kingdom of Heaven?

If we can't even agree on the basic historical fact of Christ's existence -- if you are unable to concede this simple fact, it's quite impossible to get into the very difficult stuff -- the mystical and miraculous claims of the gospels.

posted November 14, 2001 05:17 AM            

One day, there won't be Christians, it just won't be in our lifetime. Until then your lengthy entreaties will fail to move the crowd, as mine have on other threads since I started coming here. We have a million things that show flaws and problems in the good book and the accounts of miracles and the metaphysics of Christianity. None of it has made a difference to anyone here or changed their opinion.

Lets just get the kettle on, and have a nice cup of tea

posted November 14, 2001 09:29 AM            

Some of the points Robert raises in his previous post are probably debatable between Christians - at least the details of the meanings. Isn't that an ongoing discussion point: what is symbolical and what is literal?

I believe you avid Bible-reader-experts might have a good sense of storytelling traditions around the era we're speaking of - how do you interpret the Bible in that context: more as symbolical, literal, a creative mixture of both or something completely different?

I was also wondering about our miraculous capabilities. Much of Jesus's abilities to perform miracles must arise from his Godliness, but doesn't the idea of him and God include the thought that we have more capabilities than we usually exhibit, abilities that could be referred to as supernatural (although God is absolutely natural, so replace super with something more appropriate).
People can heal themselves by mere willpower, although I'm not certain whether they can do so knowingly - nor am I sure whether that ability can be used to heal others. My main reference point in the self-healing would be people who are cured even though they’ve been taking placebos instead of medicine... But don't get stuck on the placebo-question, I'm mainly interested in your thoughts on people's miraculous capabilties in general...

Or is love our 'superpower'?

posted November 14, 2001 10:30 AM            

That slap, by the way, was one of her greatest errors. It awakened my curiosity to an extent that she never dreamed of. I do not begrudge her that slap. On a number of occassions I have benefitted from being slapped up side the head.

Robert I am perfectly willing to discuss any of the mysteries of the Bible. But it should be clear that I do not believe it. I am not only capable of, but enjoy arguing from the point of view of different sects of Christians. Indeed the scripture is very flexible. I don't just do it for sport, although I do find it entertaining. As I said earlier - religion as anthropology. What I search for is the common thread. What is the essence of all of man's beliefs? What is true is true for all. What is true for all is that it is enjoyable to share a drink with a friend. The choice of beverage is what varies widely and dependant upon availablity and the creativity of the chef.

Mander your points about imagery and symbolism are fabulous. I have a skeleton of a theory that Catholic art and architecture and literature is richer and better than American fundamentalist art, architecture and literature because fundamentalists are so damn literal - they have no imagination - completely two dimensional in their thinking. There is no other religious architecture as ugly as what passes for a fundamentalist church facade in America. This is a direct result from their inability to understand or if they understand, reject symbolism (not to mention their history of slapping and being slapped around by Catholics).

Judging "better" and meaning of symbols is, of course, a subjective exercise.

[This message has been edited by Mary (edited November 14, 2001).]

posted November 14, 2001 11:56 AM            

The elusive nature of time, mass hysteria and context (which is what others call history).

posted November 16, 2001 11:40 AM            

Lets just get the kettle on, and have a nice cup of tea

I won't even begin to tell you how pompous and arrogant this is. How you simply assume, based on NOTHING, that our worldview is wrong and yours is right.

It's the height of arrogance and it INFURIATES ME! So here's the result:

It amazes me how totally and completely you are in the thrall of modern technology - technology as a way of structuring the world around you, efficiency, gain, capital movement, the mythyic view of technological utopia...

Technology with no Telos, with no overarching project is a total nihilism, a deterministic view that can lead nowhere but the destuction of mankind itself. Read Ursula Franklin. Read George Grant. Horkeimer and Adorno. Heidegger.

WHO CARES IF THE FUCKING MIRACLES ARE TRUE. What the fuck does that matter at all? If they are, Jesus was God. If they aren't, THAT DOESN'T DISPROVE ANYTHING. It's the wonderful atheistic mind in action that believes that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

You keep on talking about the human mind originating solely in "neural nets" (whatever). First of all, OF COURSE THERE HAS TO BE A PHYSICAL SEAT FOR THE MIND! It's insane for there not to be a physical method for the mind's operations! But:

1) NO ONE KNOWS YET HOW THE MIND WORKS. ANd you can't tell me otherwise. All you have is ridiculous theories about "neural nets", with no proof whatsoever.

2) Even if the operation of the mind is completely analyzed, THAT DOESN'T DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN ANY WAY.

Both of these are common, everday logic, which is an art that specialized sciences seem to have driven into the underground of human experience.

You, Adrian, are prepetuating the demise of everything that is great about the human mind. Reducing and removing everything that philosophy and logic and science and spirituality have been trying to build over the past five throusand years of existence.

Congradulation. Kudos.

Christianity outlasted the Copernican shift, the Newtonian shift, the Einsteinian shift. Each of these a fundamental paradigm shift. We outlasted Darwin and Crich, the advent of modern biology and modern biochemistry.

posted November 17, 2001 12:50 AM         

Is this sort of medium conducive to religious conversions? Why or why not?

posted November 17, 2001 02:40 PM            

Just a personal note, in my view the path to the truth I believe is narrow and difficult (as Christ said) and *spark-online is about making it just that much more difficult (the Christian faith is only served by criticism, criticism makes it stronger, more true, I mean if it is "The Truth" as it purports to be, it can handle any criticism right? [agreeing with Jeremy above I guess, though I object to his tone]).

I like what Mary had to say above about hanging out with those who agree with me. But even moreso, I like those who don't. Have a wonderful friend whom I can't agree with about anything, but he makes my life richer for the (sometimes painful) experience.

Anyways, I don't think the purpose of this place is to convert anyone to a viewpoint. It's about airing one's own, with the expectation that it will be tested by criticism, and that criticism will in turn either defeat the stated viewpoint, or strengthen it.

I guess I put a lot of faith in reason. The Cartesian Method in particular.

posted November 18, 2001 07:37 PM            

I was expressing a point of view, one echoed by Churchill. I was responding to the thread that seems to have gone over so much ground, but has not changed anyone's opinions, and I was wondering out loud why that was.

It's a fact that in the UK the Christian faith is declining rapidly. I don't need a website link, I used to teach teenagers, for years, they aren't interested in it. I'm not saying it isn't popular, I'm just saying that like everything else (which is a point you mention in relation to things you think I think) it will fade away. Things do.

Now somehow you've got me down as someone who thinks technology solves all our problems and that's that.

How stupid.

When have I ever said that. I have been arguing all this time that science was providing a foundation for an alternative metaphysics. It won't destroy faith, but hey, heaven is no longer in the sky is it? Faith has had to adapt, interpretations of the good book have had to adapt. Not absolutely or unequivocally, but what do you do as a Christian in the face of Darwinism? Ignore it? Or believe we were created in a single day? Adaptation has had to occur regarding the Christian message. Scientific inquiry is changing the agenda yes, is it the be all and end all of society - no, because it provides no moral dimension, where have I ever said otherwise.

I'd advocate of course that moral non religious discourse will provide solutions to political and social structures, and believe that religious teachings are useful, but, well, when it comes to having to be a good person, I don't think I need God to tell me that, or any higher authority. It just makes sense in so many other ways. I think that this will simply grow, that the fabric of society will change and the church will either adapt completely or die.

So, the overarching project you speak of needn't be religious.

Read about neural nets Jeremy they're not just theories any more, and haven't been since the 60's, they are in fact the foundation of an inquiry that is proving to be startlingly successful in explaining human nature. I'm suggesting, at my most melodramatic, that explanations of human nature based on the ramifications and findings of scientific enquiry will inform psychology and all social sciences and offer a vocabulary that will simply replace the religious one, something that can be commonly witnessed in the way that calling someone truly evil sounds like a naive assessment, you know, "that Osama Bin Laden is plain evil"...when my first thought is always, is he? why does he do these things?

So I don't follow a crackpot science, like some cult, science isn't a cult, it is a form of inquiry into physical things, and its products define who we are as human beings, after all, we no longer hunt and gather, not in technologically advanced societies anyway, and (easy tiger) I'm not saying its a good thing, just that it's there.

The mind doesn't originate in neural nets, I've always said the mind is neural nets. There's a difference.

In fact, far from devaluing everything great about the human mind, I'd like to think that it was on the verge of being freed to be its own master, not in the thrall of some deity who commands the universe utterly like some uber parent. I see a species that is its own master and destiny, that forges its own meaning and has not yet been able to grasp the enormity of this, and has been producing explanations that till now have helped it to understand its environment. We are entering an age where we are beginning to think differently about it all, that in fact there is nothing beyond us, which actually would be the first time that a society would have broadly not relied on a deity for its meaning.

It's a while off, but I think its coming. I...think...its coming. The future eh, how can any of us know what that is.

posted November 19, 2001 09:25 PM            

. The Evolution of Christianity

The doctrine of Trinity, which is one of the fundamental constituents of Christian dogma, was absent from Christianity during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. The maximum one can grant is that this doctrine started taking shape after the Crucifixion. It took many centuries for it to reach its final well-defined but inexplicable form. so, I'm not the only one?It went through a long process of extremely bitter and controversial debates between Christian theologians and philosophers representing different religious, cultural and traditional backgrounds.

It was greatly influenced by the myths and the traditions of various lands which hosted Christianity in its early period. The main stem of Christianity, however, which took care of and nurtured the development of Christian beliefs and philosophy in its early formative part was of Jewish stock. Jewish influence remained predominant throughout the early part of Christian history. The disciples of Jesus who learnt and understood Christianity directly from Jesus and witnessed it in the form of his life, belonged to this stock. They were the primary custodians of Christianity with deeply embedded roots in the holy soil of Jesus' instructions and way of life. It was they who witnessed the Crucifixion and had seen Jesus survive from his attempted murder.

The First Followers of Jesus

Early Christians appear to have been fundamentally divided over both the nature of Jesus and whether to adhere to the Mosaic Law or not. In the second phase of Christian development, St. Paul acquired the most pivotal character in giving Christianity a new philosophy and ideology. There were fundamental differences of opinion between Paul and James the Righteous. if I were to believe, you'd find me on the side of James the Rightgeous and church on Saturday. While James looked after the Jerusalem Church, Paul was preaching in the West, particularly to the gentiles. The Western Church evolved along Pauline doctrinal lines, whereas the Church in Jerusalem developed along monotheistic teachings.

One offshoot of James' ministry were the Ebionites,I am facinated by these guys a sect whose name derives from the Hebrew ebionim meaning 'the meek' or 'the poor'. They were the Jewish Christians, for whom Jesus took on the mantle of Messiah and not that of the 'Son of God'. They followed the Mosaic law with great zeal, and had their
own Gospel known in various contexts as the 'Gospel of the Hebrews', 'Gospel of the Ebionites' or the 'Gospel of the Nazarenes'. Here is a description of the Ebionites drawn from various sources.

In his book The History of the Church written in the 4th century AD in Ceasaraea, Eusebius mentions the Ebionites in Book 3, Vespasian to Trajan. He mocks their views, saying that their name comes from their poor and mean opinion of Jesus. The Ebionites regarded Jesus as mortal and esteemed him as righteous
through the growth of his character. As Jews, they observed the Sabbath; every detail of the Law, and did not accept the Pauline idea of salvation through faith alone. He also talks of another group of Ebionites who accepted the virgin birth and the Holy Spirit, but refused to accept Jesus' pre-existence as `God the Word and Wisdom'. They followed a 'Gospel of the Hebrews' which could possibly have been St Matthew's Gospel. They observed the Sabbath and the Jewish system, but celebrated the resurrection.[1]

In his book describing the background of the Ebionites, R Eisenman in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered writes that James (the 'Zaddik' or 'Zadok', meaning Righteous) was the leader of the Jerusalem Church in the middle of the first century (40-60 AD approx.) The branch which was retrospectively called Jewish Christianity in Palestine. The Ebionites developed from this branch.[2]

The Community who followed James were known as 'the Poor', (Galatians 2:10, James 2:3-5) a designation mentioned both in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In many ways, Eisenman feels that the Ebionites were similar to the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They honoured James the Righteous, and believed Jesus to be their mortal Messiah, while Paul had become an Apostate for the Law. They observed the Law and the Sabbath with great zeal.

They held James in the highest regard, while Paul was considered 'The Enemy', (Matt 13:25-40).

According to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in The Messianic Legacy, the source of the original teachings of the Ebionites, Gnostics, Manicheans, Sabians, Mandeans, Nestorians and Elkasites has been described as the Nazarene philosophy. They refer to Nazarene thought as:

`An orientation towards Jesus and his teachings which derives ultimately from the original Nazarene position, as articulated by Jesus himself, then propagated by James, Jude or Judas Thomas and their immediate entourage.' Their beliefs were:

1.strict adherence to the Mosaic Law
2.recognition of Jesus as Messiah
3.belief in the normal human birth of Jesus
4.hostility towards Pauline views
There is a collection of Arabic manuscripts kept in a library in Istanbul which contains quotes from a 5th or 6th Century text ascribed to the `al-nasara', written in Syriac and found in a monastery in Khuzistan in south-west Iran near the Iraq border. It reflects the views of the Nazarene hierarchy escaping from Jerusalem after the destruction in 66 AD. It refers to Jesus as a human being and stresses the Judaic Law. Paul's followers
`abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards the religious doctrines of the Romans.'[4]

Of all the various doctrines which evolved during the formative stages of Christianity, only those who believed in the Nazarene philosophy can justifiably be given preference. These early Christians were taught the meaning of Christianity by Jesus himself. again, if I did believe - this would get me

The Role of St Paul

Evidently St Paul and his school do not belong there. In fact, from the time of St Paul onwards, as Christianity spread to alien lands and pagan faiths within the Roman Empire, it began to be powerfully influenced and bent by the cultures and mythologies prevalent in those lands and went further away from its nascent purity. St Paul did his bit in influencing the deterioration of the Christian thought by introducing his own brand of mysticism. He was neither of Jewish stock nor did he have any direct contact with Jesus, except through his claimed vision. He was already, it seems, under the powerful influence of the alien cultures. alien? ha ha ha - just kidding I know what he means

Apparently there were two options available to St Paul, either to fight the strenuous battles against a world of superstitions, myths and legends prevalent in the lands of the Roman Empire from times immemorial or to give in to them and let Christianity change to suit their requirements and ambitions. This gave them the message that Christianity was not essentially different from their legends and myths. He found the adoption of the second option far more profitable and convenient and let Christianity change to suit the ambitions and philosophies popular in the gentile world.

This strategy worked well in as much as it gained a great number of converts to the new faith which otherwise would not have been easily available. But at what cost. Unfortunately, it ended up only in an unholy competition between noble Christian values and pagan myths. What St Paul changed was only the names of the pagan gods and replaced them with Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost. It was not him in fact who invented the myth of Trinity and introduced it to the
pagan world in the name of Christianity, on the contrary he borrowed the myth of the Trinity from pagan mythology and bonded it to Christianity. From then on it was the same old paganism but with new names and new faces.

Pauline Christianity, therefore, did not succeed in changing the doctrines, myths and superstitions of the pagan world but only ended in changing Christianity in accordance with them. If the mountain did not respond to his call, he decided to go to the mountain.

The Reality Of Jesus

Of course it is anybody's prerogative to choose between Pauline Christianity and that of James the Righteous and other early leaders of Christianity who were the disciples of Jesus Christ himself. But here we want to establish the point that the main stock of Christianity continued to develop along unitarian lines and kept itself aloof from the later innovations which generated the rigmarole and complexities of Christian dogmas such as the godhead of Jesus as the Son, the Trinity, Inherited Sin, Redemption, physical revival of Jesus, etc. The views of the early leaders of the Church, among whom James the Righteous is prominent, were simple and honest and had no internal contradictions or paradoxes hiding behind a smoke screen of mystery. A study of the history of Unitarianism in Christianity establishes beyond question the fact that the Unity of God, uncomplicated by the slogan of Trinity, remained the official doctrine of the true Church of Christ in its pristine purity.

Please remember that this short treatise is not an attempt to convert Christians to any faith other than that of Christ. It is simply a genuine effort to invite the Christians back to the pure unadulterated faith and practice of Jesus himself. not to mention Islam It is a sincere attempt to revert the fiction back to the facts of Christianity. Facts that are certainly as beautiful as they are realistic and satisfy both the head and the heart.

For almost two thousand years, it is not the legends woven around the reality of Jesus Christ that has kept Christianity together and has helped it to survive the challenges of reason and ever growing enlightenment borne out of scientific progress, nor is its survival due to the mystic belief of Trinity. What has held the truth and essence of Christianity together is the beauty of the person and the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is the divine conduct and not the divine person of Jesus that has been so beautiful to adhere to. It was the suffering, patience and perseverance for the sake of noble ideals and his bold upright rejection of all despotic attempts to make him change his principles that is the real backbone of Christianity. It is still as beautiful and as loveable today as it was ever before. It has influenced so powerfully the Christian minds and hearts that they remain bonded to Jesus and would much rather shut their eyes to logical discrepancies than to break away from him.

His real greatness lies in the fact that he transcended and conquered the forces of darkness that had conspired to vanquish him despite being a frail human being and no more than a human being. That victory of Jesus is something to be shared with pride by the children of Adam. As we see it from the Muslim vantage point, he is one of the most noble progeny of Adam who taught humanity by his example of perseverance in the face of extreme suffering and pain. Not to surrender but to remain steadfast in the teeth of extreme trial was the noblest achievement of Jesus. It was his life of suffering and pain that redeemed humanity and made him conquer death. If he had accepted death voluntarily, it would have been tantamount to an attempt to escape his state of suffering. How can one
conceive this to be an act of bravery. Even the act of those who commit suicide, under extreme pressure, is taken to be a mere act of cowardice. To share suffering in life is far better than to escape suffering through death. Hence the concept of the supreme sacrifice of Jesus by accepting death for the sake of humanity is hollow sentimality with no substance in it.

The greatness of Jesus, we again insist, lay in his supreme sacrifice during his lifetime. All his life, he defied the temptations to give in and exchange a life of suffering with that of ease and comfort. Day in, day out he confronted death but refused to give in and lived for the sake of the sinful to bring them to life. He conquered death not by surrendering himself to death, but by refusing to bow down to it. He defeated it roundly and emerged from its clutches where a lesser man would have perished. Thus he proved his truth and the truth of his word beyond a shadow of doubt. That is how we see Jesus and that is why we love him so. His voice was the voice of God and not the voice of his own ambitions. He said what he was commissioned to say, neither more nor less than what God had told him to say. He worshipped God throughout his life and worshipped Him alone and never did he require any mortal to bow before himself or before his mother or the Holy Ghost. This is the reality of Jesus to which we invite the Christians of all denomination and faiths to return.

The Continuity of Religion

We believe in the continuity and universality of religions. That is why Islam lays such emphasis on the institution of Prophethood as a universal phenomenon. Which means that prophets have to be accepted in their totality. Rejection of one out of the community of prophets would be tantamount to rejection of all because, in fact, one bows to the prophets only in view of their hailing from the same source. In this context, the term `continuity' should be understood as
something that is similar but not exactly like the evolution of life. We believe in the progressiveness of the message, advancing in step with general human progress in all spheres of human activity. It appears that the earlier forms of revealed religions, though possessing the same fundamental teachings, covered relatively smaller areas of detailed instruction. That is to say, a smaller number of do's and don'ts. These then gradually grew into a larger number of imperatives and prohibitions covering a wider field of human activity. Also, it appears that religions belonging to the ancient civilizations addressed themselves to comparatively smaller audience belonging to particular tribes or clans or regions. Their messages were confined to the requirements of the time. They could be more aptly described as tribal, clannish or national religions. The case of the Children of Israel and Judaic teachings is a fitting illustration to prove the point.

The historic trend of development, therefore, can be summarised as two-fold:

1.a progressive elaboration and comparative perfection of the teachings.
2.a progressive shift from smaller to larger denominations.

Continuity does not mean that the same religion that was revealed to Adam continued to address mankind and underwent a gradual progressive change, widening its field of instruction and address. What is meant is that in different parts of the world, where different civilizations took root and flourished, Divine revelations gave birth to such religions with corresponding social developments of man in those parts of the world. All of these religions, however, were
developing in the same general direction.

The Apex of Religious Development

Of all such religious denominations, we believe the one in the middle east was being nurtured and cultured to give birth to such major religions as would serve the main stem of religious evolution in the world. This is quite evident from a study of religious history. Judaism followed by Christianity followed by Islam, clearly indicates the direction of the evolution of religious teachings. Among these religions, the progression of teachings can easily be traced back and forth and is found to be deeply interrelated. It is highly important, therefore, to understand this grand scheme of things which was to result and did result in the consummation of these teachings in the form of a universal religion, that is Islam.

In this context it is in the interest of the Jews to seriously and without prejudice try to understand the importance of Jesus Christ. Having failed to recognise him, the case of the Jews is like so many animal species buried deep in the history of evolution, no longer playing any vital role in the evolving tree of life nearing its summit. As such, it remains only as a remnant of history but still continuing to survive in its own narrow sphere of existence.

Again the case of the Christians is similar to that of the Jews, only they stand a step ahead of them, closer to Islam in the chronological order. Most importantly, however, those deviations from the path of Jesus Christ into a decadent course which was originally set for them by St Paul has virtually led them even farther away from Islam than the Jews. The Jews, after more than four thousand years of their existence, have at least learnt the lesson of Unity which is vital for the spiritual life of any religion. Yet despite this closeness to Islam in the basic doctrines, there are other factors which make the Jews even more adamant in refusing to accept Islam in large numbers.

This study leaves me to believe that unless the Jews develop that frame of mind and attitude which is a requisite for the understanding of Christ, despite their doctrinal similarities, they will remain farther apart from Islam than the Christians. They have missed a most vital link, that is Jesus Christ, between them and the advent of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. This denial of truth has hardened them to such a degree that they are not psychologically prepared to accept any new message. They continue to wait for Christ, while Christ has come and gone. Having failed to recognise him once, they are far less likely to recognise him again during his second advent. They are destined, it seems, to be waiting for the Christ of their dreams eternally.

It was Christ who was to prepare the pathway to the following higher order religion which is Islam. This statement should not be taken too rigidly. We are not suggesting that the Jews should first accept Christianity and then take the next step into Islam. It would be too naive a view of religious manifestations as they take place. What we are trying to point out is that a people who have rejected a prophet or a messenger, who was not just an ordinary prophet but was to play a very important role in the task of mental and spiritual training of that people, do so only when they are spiritually and psychologically ill. Unless this malady is
cured and that distorted attitude towards truth is rectified, they are less likely to follow a prophet who happens to be placed beyond the link they have already missed.

As far as the Christian attitude is concerned, they can only be led to the truth of Prophet Muhammad, if they return to the truth and reality of Jesus Christ. He was not only the way to God, but also like all the other prophets was the way to the prophet who was destined to follow him.

Jesus was only the middle link in the parable of vineyard. The last consummate representation of God was yet to come. Therefore, unless the Christians return from the false, imaginary and mythical image of Jesus Christ to the much loftier and nobler reality of their holy master, they cannot be directed on to the path that connected him with Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him.

Prophet Muhammad was a reality and not a fiction and it is only realities which lead to other realities. Jeremy, I bet you have something to say about this statement! Therefore, it would be the fact of Christ, rather than the fiction he has been turned into, which would bless Christians to recognise the truth of Prophet Muhammad.

posted November 19, 2001 10:54 PM            

Eastern Orthodox students appear to be the most over-represented on college campuses according to these data. The Kosmin NSRI of 1990 did show that Eastern
Orthodox are among the most educated groups in the U.S., but the extreme degree of over-representation among college students shown in the table above (904%)
is probably partially attributable to the relatively small size of the group calculated by the ARIS study (0.07%, or just 145,000 adults nationwide), which may be a
case of statistical under-sampling.

Episcopalians are also a relatively well-educated population group (NSRI), and the fact that they are NOT over-representated among college students can be
attributed to the fact that theirs is an aging population. The ARIS 2000 data shows that only 19% of adult Episcopalians were between the ages of 18 and 29, while
the national average is 26%.

The ARIS 2000 study also showed that the religious groups with the highest proportion of their adults between the ages of 18 and 29 were Muslims (53%) and
Buddhists (35%). This fact is reflected in the CIRP data, which shows that both of these groups have representation among college students more than double their
proportion of the general adult population.

Latter-day Saints comprise nearly 3% of U.S. college students (over-representation = 116%), reflecting a traditional emphasis on higher education. (ARIS indicates
that the proportion of Latter-day Saints aged 18 to 29 is 27% -- essentially at the national average.) The United Church of Christ is not at all young: only 8% are
aged 18 to 29, which means they have the smallest proportion of young adults among all religious groups measured by ARIS. Yet their over-representation (86%)
indicates that a large proportion of their members are attending college.

16.3% of adult Americans identify themselves as Baptists, yet only 10.7% of incoming college freshmen identify themselves as Baptists. The proportion of young
adults (aged 18 to 29) among Baptists is 25% -- at the national average. It should be noted that the proportion of college freshmen whose parents were Baptists is identical to the proportion who said they themselves are freshmen, so this under-representation can not be attributed simply to Baptist-raised young people choosing to disassociate themselves from that religious group or label.

posted November 20, 2001 10:21 AM            

But yes, it pretty much does come down to a Pauline vision of Christianity. And remember that ALL of the apostles accepted the divinity of Christ in the end.

Also, Rev. Mary, congratulations on your ordination. Since I've been happily married for almost 5 years now I won't be needing your services, but you would have been at the top of my list had we to do it all again. ;-)

posted November 20, 2001 03:49 PM         

quote:

---

The doctrine of Trinity, which is one of the fundamental constituents of Christian dogma, was absent from Christianity during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. The maximum one can grant is that this doctrine started taking shape after the Crucifixion.

---

In John 3, before the crucifixion, Jesus explicitly mentions the Father, Son, and Spirit. In Matthew (or as is conceded in your text, the Ebionites' "Gospel of the Hebrews") 12:32, (also before the crucifixion) Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit, and in 6:32 he refers to the Heavenly Father. Though not a direct mention, these certainly point in the direction of the Trinity.

quote:

---

Apparently there were two options available to St Paul, either to fight the strenuous battles against a world of superstitions, myths and legends prevalent in the lands of the Roman Empire from times immemorial or to give in to them and let Christianity change to suit their requirements and ambitions. This gave them the message that Christianity was not essentially different from their legends and myths. He found the adoption of the second option far more profitable and convenient and let Christianity change to suit the ambitions and philosophies popular in the gentile world.

---

This interpretation of Paul's strategy makes him sound like a real pushover - nothing at all like the person in the following passages:

To escape efforts to murder him, he was lowered in a basket through a hole in the wall (Acts (9:25).

He was stoned and dragged outside the city, left for dead. (Acts 14:19)

In Acts 16:20, Paul is brought before the magistrates and accused of "advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice. The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten. After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown in prison."

Call me crazy, but this seems like an awful lot to endure and certainly not consistent with the convictions of someone who is willing to "give in" and let Christianity change for his own "convenience".

quote:

---

In fact, from the time of St Paul onwards, as Christianity spread to alien lands and pagan faiths within the Roman Empire, it began to be powerfully influenced and bent by the cultures and mythologies prevalent in those lands

---

Cultures and mythologies such as ...?

posted November 29, 2001 03:38 PM            

It's the same pride a religious fundamentalist shows in scriptural knowledge. The absolute certainty that all things can and should be known by the scientific process, that all things fall under the rubric of "technology".

Well, the culture of "technology" isn't a naturally-occurring phenomenon. Technology is a way in which humans structure the world around them, as a system of processes and mechanisms, with inputs and outputs.

Sure, neural nets operate. Wow. But the fundamental logic is that becuase they operate, nothing except for them can exist. And no one has yet explained the exact operation of the mind. Just as people proclaim the eventual and complete knowledge of the universe, and yet quantum mechanics holds that there is a fundamental limit to all knowledge (Heisenberg's lovely uncertainty - want to know anything exactly? take infinite time... don't have it? too bad).

posted November 30, 2001 12:53 AM            

Anyway, I think God's given us a lot of cool toys to play with. The universe is like one big puzzle that can never be completely solved, and yet we're driven to try. And try we do, because we don't want to believe there's a God up there in control--we like to be in control instead. So we make "modern conveniences" to try and make us happy instead. But its habitual, and we constantly have to up the dose to maintain sedation.

Its unfortunate that so many people refuse to believe that there's an escape from the suffering of this world (and technology and its products are not an escape--only a temporary fix)--and its so easy. Wait--no its not, its hard--but still its worth it

posted November 30, 2001 07:45 PM            

quote:

---

Cultures and mythologies such as ...?

Churchill

---

posted December 04, 2001 08:41 PM            

quote:

---

The historian said about this: "No sooner were the apostles removed from the stage of action, no sooner was their watchful attentions gone and their apostolic authority removed, than this very thing appeared of which the apostle had spoken. Certain bishops, in order to make easier the conversion of the heathen, to multiply disciples, and by this increase their own influence and authority, began to adopt heathen customs and forms." The Great Empires of Prophecy, 377, by Alonzo T Jones.

How did this great apostasy begin? It started as a gigantic evangelistic campaign. It was in the interest of evangelism that apostasy began. "In order to make easier the conversion of the heathen, to multiply disciples," they lowered the standard for church fellowship. Within twenty years of the apostles’ death, the perversion of the truth of Christ had become widespread.

Moshiem writes concerning the developments in Christendom in the second century: "It is certain that to religious worship, both public and private, many rites were added, without necessity, and to the offense of sober and good men."

The reason for this is stated. "The Christians were pronounced atheists, because they were destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all that pomp in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to consist. For unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what meets their eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian doctors thought it necessary to introduce some external rights, which would strike the senses of the people, so that they could maintain themselves ready to possess those things of which Christians were charged with being destitute—though under different forms." Ecclesiastical History, century 2, part 2, chap. 4, par. 1, 3.

To do this, "was at once to accommodate the Christian worship and its forms to that of the heathen, and was almost at one step to heathenize Christianity. No heathen element or form can be connected with Christianity or its worship, and Christianity remain pure." The Great Empires of Prophecy, 378. In Old Testament times whenever God’s people attempted to combine any of the forms of idolatry or heathenism with the worship of the true God they were charged by the prophet with committing spiritual adultery. (See Ezekiel 16, 23; Hosea.)

The heathen religions, in the early part of the second century, were almost all centered around sun worship. They worshipped at the dawning of the day facing towards the east. And this was one of the first pagan customs that entered the Christian church. Christians began to meet at the rising of the sun, on what was later called Easter Sunday, and they would say, "This is the time when Christ was resurrected, and we will teach the people that we meet at the rising of the sun, not to worship the sun, but to worship the One who was raised at sunrise."

Mosheim again says "Before the coming of Christ, all the Eastern nations performed divine worship with their faces turned to that part of the heavens where the sun displays his rising beams…Nor is this custom abolished even in our times, but still prevails in a great number of Christian churches." Ecclesiastical History, century 2, part 2, chap. 4, par. 7.

The path of compromise, once you start down it, seems like it never ends. In addition to this, the day of the sun was adopted as a festival day, and the people were taught to fast on the Sabbath. Consider the effect this would have on little children growing up, if every Sabbath there was nothing to eat, but on Sunday, a child could have all he pleased. Which day would he learn to love and look forward to?

The forms of sun worship were practiced to such a degree in the "Christian" churches, that before the end of the second century the heathen themselves accused these apostate Christians with worshipping the sun. We know this because one of the Christian fathers, who wrote about AD 200, considered it necessary to make a defense of this practice. Here is what he said: "Others again, certainly with more information and greater or veri-similitude believe that the sun is our God … The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn toward the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also under pretense sometimes of worshipping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way if we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than sun worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury." Apology, chap. 16, by Tertullian. His argument is, in effect, you do the same thing, and you originated it too, so why are you blaming us?

As these customs spread and such half-pagan disciples were multiplied, so did the number of pagan practices introduced in the church. It was the custom of the Jewish Christians to remember the death and resurrection of Christ during the Passover season. Passover, which was on the fourteenth day of the first month of the Jewish year, would fall on different days of the week each year. Rome, however, and from her, all the Western Empire, adopted the day of the sun as the day of this celebration. Rome ruled that the celebration must always be on a Sunday. It was on this point that the bishop of Rome made one of the first claims at absolute power in his attempt to compel obedience.

---

and a refutation to the first by a non-denominational church http://www.bible.ca/7-Mithraism.htm

And then a word from someone who just wants to make nicehttp://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm

quote:

---

Origins of the name "Easter":
The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similar "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [were] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." 5 Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:

Aphrodite from Cyprus
Astarte, from Phoenicia
Demeter, from Mycenae
Hathor from Egypt
Ishtar from Assyria
Kali, from India
Ostara, a Norse Goddess of fertility.

An alternate explanation has been suggested. The name given by the Frankish church to Jesus' resurrection festival included the Latin word "alba" which means "white." (This was a reference to the white robes that were worn during the festival.) "Alba" also has a second meaning: "sunrise." When the name of the festival was translated into German, the "sunrise" meaning was selected in error. This became "ostern" in German. Ostern has been proposed as the origin of the word "Easter". 2

Sunday is named after a Pagan sun god, Solis.

---

So there you have it from people who believe but believe differently and from those who don't believe but want those who do to behave and be nice to each other.

quote:

---

Wherever Christian worship of Jesus and Pagan worship of Attis were active in the same geographical area in ancient times, Christians "used to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on the same date; and pagans and Christians used to quarrel bitterly about which of their gods was the true prototype and which the imitation."

Many religious historians believe that the death and resurrection legends were first associated with Attis, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. They were simply grafted onto stories of Jesus' life in order to make Christian theology more acceptable to Pagans. Ancient Christians had an alternate explanation; they claimed that Satan had created counterfeit deities in advance of the coming of Christ in order to confuse humanity. 11 Modern-day Christians generally regard the Attis legend as being a Pagan myth of little value. They regard Jesus' death and resurrection account as being true, and unrelated to the earlier tradition

---

posted December 04, 2001 09:48 PM            

And he said:

Have I spoken this day of aught else?

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,

And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?

Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?

Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"

All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self.

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked.

The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin.

And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.

The freest song comes not through bars and wires.

And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.

Your daily life is your temple and your religion.

Whenever you enter into it take with you your all.

Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute,

The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight.

For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.

And take with you all men:

For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair.

And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles.

Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.

And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain.

You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

"NATURE" = ALL existence, from leptons, muons and quarks to stars, pulsars, gas giants, other galaxies, black holes and the fabric of time itself = "GOD". The microscope and Hubble are two great places to visit the visual spectrum that outlines and reflects "GOD". Your fellow man and woman, all animals, a blade of grass, the sea, music, literature, art in every form, the full spectrum of energy etc., is another. No human has a monopoly on which of these uncountable aspects of existence is or isn't "GOD". To claim so the virtual height of human arrogance merged with ignorance. There's even a little "GOD" in that, because they exist!

posted December 04, 2001 10:49 PM            

Oh please.

Don't make me call ChrisJ in here to analyze the validity of your sources (which wasn't mentioned on this one) or to take this thing apart ("religious historians"--who??).

I'm a religious historian. Mohammed was a illigitimate bastard and pulled the whole prophet thing as a con. He had wanted to be a magician, but he wasn't very good at it, so he decided to jump on the religion bandwagon. People later refused to believe he was a fraud, so they wrote a bunch of book about him and made a church and told people they were going to hell if they didn't come bow to allah.

Blasphemy is so easy--how come nobody's quoting me?

posted December 05, 2001 12:31 AM            

(special note for Jeremy - the voice of Bart Simpson is a woman, nearly as old as I am and a devout Scientologist - I cried when I found that out. Noo...not Bart...so much for cartoon reality)

OR

You could learn to do healing magic tricks with chicken liver. That goes over big in certain circles.

I listed my sources. I didn't say they were true. I said there were a few differnt views. Point. is there's more than a few differnt views. Personally, I think nobody got it right. Oh Tannebaum. There's another adopted pagan tradition.

Ah....Hey Mary sez..(scarey background music).. I have a metaphysical feeling you should stick with what you know - computers. You don't have enough gile to make a profit being a prophet in a himmel und erde show.

posted December 05, 2001 04:14 AM            

First, I understand that the truth of Jesus is significant to Christians and I don't want to take it away from anyone.
I think it is wonderful that people still believe in the supernatural (in this case, in a sense, the extremely natural). I find it easy to view many of the Bible's stories as exactly that: well-crafted stories - just as in good fiction you're not always sure where the line between fiction and non-fiction goes. The difference is that when you're reading novels you can assume it is all fiction, in a sense, but in the Bible people are expected to read the writing as fact(?).

So in a way the Bible is an excellent story about values and Christanity, which gives a good base for a belief-system. In a sense I can see that the 'bad science fiction writer' Mary refers aimed to write something as fitting to make things snap together.

People talk and write in symbols, which are often narrated as stories. The Bible is of a storytelling tradition, which we probably miss a lot in our science- and concrete fact based modern living environment. When we recount a story of something that has happened to us or a friend we aim to emphasise points which make it easier to understand for the other person. An experience is always personal. So we make these adjustments to make others understand our experience. That does not take anything away from the Truth as long as the storyteller remains Truthful. Christians have to believe that the storyteller is truthful, not necessarily a historian researcher for whom things have meaning as such, but a storyteller for whom things have symbolic meaning and he thus has to emphasise that.

posted December 05, 2001 07:11 PM            

The last page of Utne Reader nov-dec had a great quote re: fiction. I'll try to find it. Here it is

quote:

---

"A NOVELIST'S BUSINESS is lying.... In fact, while we read a novel, we are insane -- bonkers. We believe in the existence of people who aren't there, we hear their voices, we watch the battle of Borodino with them, we may even become Napoleon. Sanity returns (in most cases) when the book is closed. Is it any wonder that no truly respectable society has ever trusted its artists?"

-Ursula K. Le Guin, author, The Left Hand of Darkness (Ace Books, 1987)

---

The thing about Scientology is that it is a horrendously bad story, and yet they claim about 700,000 members. Same with the Mormans. So religion doesn't necessarily require a good story.

posted December 06, 2001 02:04 AM            

"And I began to question everything around me: the houses, the shop signs, the clouds in the sky, and the engravings in the library, asking them to tell me not their superficial story but another, deeper story, which they surely were hiding--but finally would reveal thanks to the principle of mystic resemblances."

"The animal that coils in a circle is the serpent; that's why so many cults and myths of the serpent exist, because it's hard to represent the return of the sun by the coiling of a hippopotamus."

"...these are now people lost in a maze: some choose one path, some another; some shout for help, and there's no telling if the replies they hear are other [lost] voices or the echo of their own..."

"Taken literally, these texts were a pile of absurdities, riddles, contradictions."

"I have understood. And the certainty that there is nothing to understand should be my peace, my triumph."

"The narrative is a fundamental dimension of the human essence. The Bible, the Iliad, and the Odyssey are nothing more than narrations: the paintings in the tombs of the
pyramids, also, and Piero della Francesca equally so. From the beginning, verbal narrative and visual narrative were fused. This fusion attained its culminating point with the cinema and the bande dessine'e comic strip. In the meantime, from Mme. de Lafayette to Proust, there developed a
particular form of narrative: the bourgeois novel, in which a class described itself, explained itself to itself. Yet finally Proust chose other paths, then Joyce sounded the death-knell. The central chapter of Ulysses offers a species of perspective game by which the same event is observed from
different points of view: the written narrative seizes the techniques of the visual. From that moment the (bourgeois)
novel was dead. But works of narrative, a narration of a different type, continue to arise. I cannot see how they will stop, because people have such a hunger for narrative, and look for it everywhere, in journals, in televised scripts, in cinema... and in books."

--Umberto Eco, interview in _Le Nouvel
Observateur_ (no.1406, 17-23 Octobre, 1991).

posted December 06, 2001 04:27 PM            

So far, despite everything that's out there, Christianity still stands, and even grows. Surely we don't have an entire society brainwashed to automatically dismiss any and all criticisms that its belief system falls under. So why are people still standing, why are people still dying for their faith?

Every Christian who ever opened his mouth to defend his faith has been persecuted. Some choose to just keep their mouth shut to avoid such things. Some welcome the criticism.

What I find interesting is that unbelievers are typically very defensive, and at the hint of religious talk they'll cut you off with an "I don't want to talk about it." I see very few unbelievers who say "this is what I believe (or don't) and I challenge you to challenge me." Christians do this all the time though. Generally, the unblelievers sentence looks like "I'm not falling for all that crazy stuff, I mean, its all been distorted and look at what science is doing and all that. What? No, I'm not going to talk about it--I don't want to be questioned. By the way, you're a lunatic."

I guess where I'm going with this is that it seems unbalanced. Unbelievers feel this need to come up with things that can be interpreted as innacuracies, discrepancies, etc. There's a need to throw a shadow of doubt over a faith and dismiss it as lunacy. They're all about disproving it, never about exploring it (except with the intent of finding something wrong).

I think I've explored the unbelievers side enough for today. I'm sure Mary will have another quote tomorrow to further criticize christianity and its followers, and I'll read it, and I'll still believe.

So why am I not doing this? Why am I not cramming what I believe down everyone elses throat? Why am I constantly on the defensive? Maybe I just think its a courtesy thing to recognize when someone isn't interested in changing their lives. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think its a bit rude to approach someone who you know is not willing to change beliefs and continually try to show them wrong. Because indeed they are wrong. Especially when that person is respecting your decision to believe the way you do.

posted December 06, 2001 09:54 PM            

Criticism
In much everyday speech, "criticise" means pointing out failings and mistakes, but the word can also refer, especially in academic circles, to careful or analytical evaluation. Thus "literary criticism" (the careful or analytical study of literature) and "biblical criticism" (the careful or analytical study of the Bible) ought not to be seen as pejorative terms. A Christian who studies the Bible carefully and the scholar who analyses the style and words of a biblical passage are both undertaking biblical criticism, this implies nothing about the soundness or otherwise of their conclusions.

see:http://www.lib.umd.edu/MCK/GUIDES/bible.html#FEMCRI
Guides to Info. Resources > Literature, Language and Culture > Bible, Literature and Literacy Criticism

The Bible, Literature, and Literary Criticism
Scope: This guide is designed to support making connections between the work of biblical scholars and literary critics by supplementing the guide English and American Literature. Northrup Frye: "It [the Bible] should be taught so early and so thoroughly that it sinks straight to the bottom of the mind, where everything that comes along later can settle on it" (The Educated Imagination, p. 110). Email the subject area specialist at ph20@umail.umd.edu or call (301)405-9280 for more information.

Table of Contents
Books on the Bible in VICTOR
The Bible and Literature and the Bible as Literature
The Bible in Literature
Feminist Criticism
Hermeneutics
History of the Interpretation of the Bible
Literary Genres
Worlds of the Bible
Biblical Texts
Versions of the Bible
Texts Outside the Canon
Reference Sources
Atlases
Bibliographies
Commentaries
Concordances
Dictionaries
Encyclopedias
Guides to the Bible
Indexes, Abstracts, and Serial Bibliographies
Internet Resources

A good place for you to play

"Literature is a human apocalypse, man's revelation to man, and criticism is not a body of adjudications, but the awareness of that revelation . . ."

- Northrop Frye, The Educated Imagination

posted December 09, 2001 05:24 PM            

As one 'unbeliever' I have explored religions and know several 'unbelievers' who have. Nor do I have any intention to debase the foundations of your belief. But you were probably referring to Mary more here.

I have no intention to disprove Christianity, because religion is about faith not plain facts. Religion is a belief. I don't think Christianity makes anyone do horrid things so I don't need to try to them convince them that they're wrong. I don't even think that wrong and right can be applied to this question.

It's great that you aren't one of those believers who want to force their religion on others 'because they're right'. I don't enjoy that. Maybe they can't respect my beliefs because they feel so strongly about their own or something...

posted December 10, 2001 07:54 AM         

I've read your posts Brian, suffice to say, my respect for your posts has somewhat diminished. I understand you were trying to illustrate your point, but well, its quite sad how easily you show your willingness to insult a culture you've decided, because it's different, you'd rather not understand.

Saying that, however, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say about your belief in Christianity.

posted December 10, 2001 09:50 AM            

What exactly are you talking about?

posted December 11, 2001 08:00 AM         

Look about 14 posts up

the quote begins

"I'm a religious historian. Mohammed was a *********** ********** and pulled the whole prophet thing as a con. He had wanted to be a magician, but he wasn't very good at it, so he decided to jump on the religion bandwagon. People later refused to believe he was a fraud, so they wrote a bunch of book about him and made a church and told people they were going to hell if they didn't come bow to allah."

Remember? or is it pretty to easy to insult another religion and forget about it?

posted December 11, 2001 01:54 PM         

So its my fault for not being intuitive enough?

Granted, I am dopey yes. But I won't go around illustrating points by slagging off other people, their belief systems.

I've spent about a week or two on this bulletin board and I thought you guys would be open to learning about Islam.

If you feel secure enough with yourself and your beliefs why should you bridle at being asked to think about this religion we're always hearing bad things about but have never really known, but it seems to me that this isn't the place for trying to help you understand, this is more a combat zone.

Anyhow, time is getting on.

posted December 11, 2001 03:08 PM            

quote:

---

If you feel secure enough with yourself and your beliefs why should you bridle at being asked to think about this religion

---

Bravo! "this religion", or any religion, or no religion!

Some of these young men have never talked to an athiest or any person of different beliefs. They have an ego centric view of the world due to their youth and the circumstances of their birth or perhaps they are just incurious. Or maybe They are just getting their sea-legs and haven't learned how to walk on a rolling deck.

Teach patience.
Practise peace.
Break your own sword.

It's not easy.

posted December 11, 2001 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

So its my fault for not being intuitive enough?

---

quote:

---

Granted, I am dopey yes. But I won't go around illustrating points by slagging off other people, their belief systems.

---

quote:

---

I've spent about a week or two on this bulletin board and I thought you guys would be open to learning about Islam.

---

quote:

---

If you feel secure enough with yourself and your beliefs why should you bridle at being asked to think about this religion we're always hearing bad things about but have never really known, but it seems to me that this isn't the place for trying to help you understand, this is more a combat zone.

---

Please--how about we try to have a bit of respect for the way other people believe around here and adapt to the world of discourse that is this board. Try joining conversations that aren't all about Islam...

------------------
Brian
exit:analog.org

posted December 11, 2001 03:32 PM            

I see you read my biography...

?

posted December 11, 2001 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Some of these young men have never talked to an athiest or any person of different beliefs. They have an ego centric view of the world due to their youth and the circumstances of their birth or perhaps they are just incurious. Or maybe They are just getting their sea-legs and haven't learned how to walk on a rolling deck.

---

Now Why would you think I was talking about you? Now THAT is egocentric of you. (laughing)

BTW I did list the www. sources of all the quotes above. They are all there, I just interjected a paragraph of my own writing inbetween.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm
You will disregard this source because it doesn't fit with your belief. That's the nature of belief. As you point out Shadid isn't offeneded or concerned about my comments about Christianity because that isn't his belief. But the same comments from with slight variations apply to his belief as well. So I may well offend him.

posted December 12, 2001 03:35 PM            

What would you like us to learn of Islam? Is this the place? Don't worry, I don't know everything about the religion, nor do I think only bad things of it. Otherwise I'd have prejudices toward you, but I have no idea who you are or what you are like, since you've been around for such a little time.

posted December 13, 2001 09:27 AM            

The state of being agnostic has nothing to do with one's belief or lack of belief.

Agnostic means literally without knowledge. The term applies when a person admits there's no way to know or prove god's existence. Also, that it's impossible to disprove the existence of a god as well.
In truth we all are agnostic because none of us can prove or disprove the existence of any god.

Atheist and theism deals with one's belief and not one's position on the evidence. If you believe in a god or gods then you are a theist of some sort. If you don't have a god belief then you are atheist.

There are agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheists.

An agnostic theist is a person that believes in god(christian muslim catholic etc) but acknowledges that such a god cannot be proven or disproven.

An agnostic atheist (like me) doesn't have a belief in a god(s) and also acknoledges that one's existence cannot be proven or disproven.

One cannot be an agnostic rather than atheist. The two states are on different spectrums.

It is a common mistake for a person wishing not to choose sides to claim agnosticism. This person doesn't understand the word. Further, if a person doesn't make the positive claim of belief in god(s) then it's safe to assert atheism.

Atheism again simply means without belief in god, thus if one cannot say "YES I BELIEVE IN GOD" then one is atheist.

In one more attempt to be redundant, agnosticism deals with one's acknowledgment that god cannot be proven or disproven and atheist/theism deals with one's belief in god or lack of.

posted December 13, 2001 11:39 AM         

"Please--how about we try to have a bit of respect for the way other people believe around here and adapt to the world of discourse that is this board. Try joining conversations that aren't all about Islam"

I do and yes I do that too and I'm trying and I will okay.

But then I won't let it go, I am offended by posts insulting Jesus and Christianity but I find that there are none here which do that with your callousness merely to illustrate a point.

Anyhow, I'll drop that issue for now.

You've been here two years. Why?

Anyhow, just to say I have many very good friends who were atheists... no I'm joking.

I discuss Islam with them and it helps them to understand.

Hey, conversion ain't such a bad thing, all that happens is that your parents will disown you, you'll get fired from work, your friends won't want to know you and you'll get locked up every so often for being a terrorist.

Sorry, my humour went into overdrive there, you guys are so serious, I think you need it.

posted December 14, 2001 12:54 PM            

ALso LOL after having edtied it twise and still see mistkes.
[This message has been edited by Mary (edited December 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mary (edited December 14, 2001).]

Oh LOL, lord have mercy, LOL will you be my best friend?