Hi all, Im currently in Secondary School, and one of our major assesments in SOR (Studies Of Religion) is to provide an essay on the "Existence of Jesus." Historical, Political, Archaeological, Scientific and Gospel proof is needed. If anybody could recomend some sites or list some points about this "existence", it would be a great help.
Many thanks, Shahn

Must be a religious school as what you wrote points to the conclusion being a foregone conclusion.

Historical evidence as in the kind of evidence that would meet the criterion of non-religious history is essentially non-existence.

Political? This isn't evidence ... except for gross human stupidity.

Archaeological ... as with historical ... essentially non-existent.

Scientific ... absolutely does not exist.

Gospel proof? As much as you want. Just as there is a ton of evidence that Tide detergent makes whites whiter and brights brighter.

The reality Shahn is that there is a reasonable amount of evidence that a trouble maker, possibly one with ties to a Jewis royal family, caused a bit of trouble and the Roman's promptly dispatched him as they would any other trouble maker.

Then, it appears, the record essentially disappears for around 200-300 years until the story is merged with a substantial amount of 100% heathen nonsense to create someting that has morphed into the imbecility we read about today.

Was Jesus born in December of the year 1? No! Absolutely No! You'll find essentially as much truth in the story of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.

But if you really want to do a good job on the report, and I think you do, read the Quran, the holy book of Islam, and learn a bit of the truth.

DA - "Then, it appears, the record essentially disappears for around 200-300 years until the story is merged with a substantial amount of 100% heathen nonsense to create something that has morphed into the imbecility we read about today."

REP: St Paul wrote his first letter about 25 years after Christ's death - as far as historians are concerned, this is not a significant gap. What you ignore is the massive growth of the early church that was happening from Christ's death onwards. There was something at the root of this - most likely the existence of Jesus.

The Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke (probably) just over 60 years after Christ's death - this is also not a significant gap for historians.

You still think that Muhammad?s writings are an authoritative source of information about Christ?s life? The Christian Church was saying that Christ was God?s final manifestation in history, and He would have nothing more to say until the ?End Days?. 600 years later Muhammad wished to add to God?s revelation ? and you still maintain he is a trustworthy source of information about Christ. I can?t see it myself.

DA ? ?Political? This isn't evidence ... except for gross human stupidity.?

REP: Rome?s very apparent persecution of Christians cannot be ignored and counts for political evidence of a sort. Again we have to ask where this Christian movement came from. The existence of Christ is more likely to be the answer than the idea that it was devised by St Paul or someone else and then propagated by him. There must have been something of substance behind it. Early Christians were the enemy of Rome ? and were regularly put to death ? it is reported, for example, that Nero used Christians as living candles in his garden. I can?t believe a religious movement flourishes under these conditions if it is completely devoid of any substance.

?"Nero punished a race of men who were hated for their evil practices. These men were called Christians. He got a number of people to confess. On their evidence a number of Christians were convicted and put to death with dreadful cruelty. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and left to be eaten by dogs. Others were nailed to the cross. Many were burned alive and set on fire to serve as torches at night."
Tacitus
For me, Christ?s existence and crucifixion is a reasonable conclusion when faced with the evidence.


Regards,

Blacknad.

"It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of eyewitness testimony of Jesus that survived."

Blacknad.

Shahn,

These pages look at some of the secular historical evidence for Christ's existence.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

It is very important that you Google each point to get opposing views, as these are religious site. But it will start to point you towards an examination of the evidence.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"St Paul wrote his first letter about 25 years after Christ's death"

Can you point to any reputable link that this letter actually exists and has been dated? I've heard the story but I take it to be mythology.

Blacknad wrote:
"The Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke ... just over 60 years after Christ's death"

Your "just over 60" is highly questionable. It is easy to find reference to dates closer to 90AD and once again no actual document that can be dated exists. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/luke.html

Given that the lifespan back then was 1/2 of todays we are talking about a gap equal to more than two generations. The same as between you and the invention of the airplane.

Blacknad wrote:
"You still think that Muhammad?s writings are an authoritative source of information about Christ?s life?"

I think that they are all strongly supportive of Christianity given the very kind treatment of both Jesus and his mother and bear none of the more than adequate evidence of intentional tinkering that we all know exist in all Christian texts. In that sense, yes, I think they are far more likely to be accurate.

Blacknad wrote:
"Rome?s very apparent persecution of Christians cannot be ignored and counts for political evidence of a sort."

In the 1960s I was persecuted (not prosecuted) by the government of the United States. Trouble makers are always the subject of persecution. But other than that it has no meaning.

Blacknad wrote:
"For me, Christ?s existence and crucifixion is a reasonable conclusion when faced with the evidence."

I agree. I see no reason to doubt his existence. Whether he was crucified however is quite another matter as the Quran clearly states otherwise and the legends of the Knights Templar indicate he likely escaped to what is now Southern France.

Unfortunately for Christians evidence of being born and crucified is irrelevant as the entire religion is predicated on a virgin birth which is unprovable and I'd be more inclined to view it as rape and resurrection, equally unprovable, and more I'd be more inclined to view it as cheap stage magic. In short ... there is no evidence of any of the acts upon which the religion was founded. And a huge amount of evidence, the evidence of absence, to support the fact that it never happened.

Blacknad wrote:
"It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of eyewitness testimony of Jesus that survived."

This would make sense were it not for the fact that the Jews, themselves of which Jesus was one, have no lack of history from that period.

But if you are correct it only adds evidence to the fact that the religion was created at least a generations after all of the original players were dead from nothing of substance.

Your link:
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

is pure nonsense. Nonsense easily identified by the following quote:

"Typically when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with "outside of the Bible." We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus."

This obvious use of self-referential logic invalidates the entire site.

The so-called evidence from the second link is equally obvious nonsense. Look at this quote:
"Evidence from Pliny the Younger ... In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112...."

A letter written ~100 years later is evidence of what? Suppose someone today, say the Governor of Vermont wrote an event that took place in 1906. Would you have the nerve to call it evidence? I think not.

And yet another from the same web site:
"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."

This is evidence that there were people identified as Christians ... it is not evidence that there was a virgin birth or a resurrection without which Jesus Christ is as meaningful to history as any one of a billion others that have lived on this planet and died.

I think your zeal to establish a foundation for your belief system is blinding you to the quality of evidence that you would use to make a far more mundane decision such as who to vote for for mayor.

Dear DA

You say...Historical evidence as in the kind of evidence that would meet the criterion of non-religious history is essentially non-existence.

Political? This isn't evidence ... except for gross human stupidity.

Archaeological ... as with historical ... essentially non-existent.

Scientific ... absolutely does not exist.

Gospel proof? As much as you want. Just as there is a ton of evidence that Tide detergent makes whites whiter and brights brighter.

Read the works of the Jewdean Philosopher Josephus...
Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more ?favorable? portions of this text):

?Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.?

Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 5, paragraph 2:

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."

Josephus mentions Ananias, the High Priest, who was mentioned in Acts 23:2:

?Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money.?

Notice that authenticity is debated any time something unnerving is brought to light.

Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c.113 AD) was the Roman Governor of Bithynia (present-day northwestern Turkey). Around 111 or 112 AD, he wrote the following letter to Emperor Trajan of Rome asking for advice on how to deal with Christians.


It is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them. Whether any difference is to be allowed between the youngest and the adult; whether repentance admits to a pardon, or if a man has been once a Christian it avails him nothing to recant; whether the mere profession of Christianity, albeit without crimes, or only the crimes associated therewith are punishable -- in all these points I am greatly doubtful.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel not doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others also possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither.

These accusations spread (as is usually the case) from the mere fact of the matter being investigated and several forms of the mischief came to light. A placard was put up, without any signature, accusing a large number of persons by name. Those who denied they were, or had ever been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration, with wine and frankincense, to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose, together with those of the gods, and who finally cursed Christ -- none of which acts, it is into performing -- these I thought it proper to discharge. Others who were named by that informer at first confessed themselves Christians, and then denied it; true, they had been of that persuasion but they had quitted it, some three years, others many years, and a few as much as twenty-five years ago. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food -- but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.

I therefore adjourned the proceedings, and betook myself at once to your counsel. For the matter seemed to me well worth referring to you, especially considering the numbers endangered. Persons of all ranks and ages, and of both sexes are, and will be, involved in the prosecution. For this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts; it seems possible, however, to check and cure it. 1

Where did they come from DA? Nowhere?

Dear DA
When it comes right down to it, I dont care what is believed by others. I only have myself to account for.

You can probably find 20 or thirty sites saying Jesus didn't exist also, but why perpetuate an argument that is mute.

To seek God, or Not to seek God, either way we are all worm food in the end. Why be angry about it.
Why should how I believe make you angry? You can't make me angry, you can only hope to get an answer from me.

I think to much I think

Thanks rlb60123 (bit of a mouthful that),

Paul Winter argues that there are just three interpolations in the TF, and the rest is genuine. "He was the Messiah" and "if indeed he can be called a man" are considered most suspect, as is the latter section describing the resurrection and the prophecies. This identification of the interpolations becomes a popular view (reiterated by John Meier, 1991).

- This is now the consensus position on his particular Josephus passage. It is considered to be reliable evidence of Jesus' existence from a well respected non Christian historian close enough to the action to be as authoratitive. Certainly a lot closer than DA.

The title of the thread is 'Existence of Christ'

- I think we have now covered that.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Thanks rlb60123 (bit of a mouthful that),

Paul Winter argues that there are just three interpolations in the TF, and the rest is genuine. "He was the Messiah" and "if indeed he can be called a man" are considered most suspect, as is the latter section describing the resurrection and the prophecies. This identification of the interpolations becomes a popular view (reiterated by John Meier, 1991).

- This is now the consensus position on his particular Josephus passage. It is considered to be reliable evidence of Jesus' existence from a well respected non Christian historian close enough to the action to be as authoratitive as any modern day historian needs. Certainly a lot closer than DA.

The title of the thread is 'Existence of Christ'

- I think we have now covered that.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad,

Using the fact that the Romans persecuted Christians to prove that Christ did exist is a bit silly. Given that the Romans persecuted the Greeks, the Celts, the British and whoever else they picked that week to conquer. Using your train of thought that also proves the existence of the Greek gods, who the Romans stole, the existence of the Celtic Gods and any other deity from that time period.

As far as Christ being crucified, so were 1000s of others and I note the distinct lack of literature about them.

Just saying Blacknad that there is no real, verifiable proof of Christ's existence. Just as there is no proof of any other deity or Messiah (caveat, I know nothing of Islam so I could be wrong on that count.)

rlb wrote:
"Read the works of the Jewdean Philosopher Josephus..."

I've read more on the subject than is required to know the full breathe of what is out there. So lets examine this without the benefit of brainwashing.

1. Josephus's wrote in what language?
2. Josephus's original text is precisely where?
3. The translations were all made from the original?
4. By who? When?
5. Do all translations agree precisely?
6. If not how do you know which one is authoritative?

The original of every work you mention has never seen the light of day. Has been mistranslated numerous times and most often intentionally for political purposes. If you had evidence as strong as this you couldn't get out of a parking ticket.

And continues:
"Where did they come from DA? Nowhere?"

Where did the Epic of Gilgamesh come from? Same place!

and you, like Blacknad quote Pliny the Younger around 111 or 112 AD. Lets get some dose of reality here. Someone 100 years after the fact is writing about events that happened before his children were born. If the current governor of Vermont wrote a letter about something that happened in 1906 would you have the nerve to stand up in public and hail it as evidence?

The hypocrisy of religious zealots knows no bounds.

and continues:
"either way we are all worm food in the end. Why be angry about it."

Because those that do not oppose lies are collaborators. Those that sanction the brain washing of children are abusing the next generation. Any more such questions?

Blacknad: Piggybacking if I may be permitted on Lillith's comment. No reasonable person is claiming that Jesus Christ whose mother was named Mary wasn't born in the Middle East. So were a lot of other misfits and nut cases. There are only two statements that make or break the Chrisitan religion.

1. Virgin birth
2. Resurrection

Take those two elements away and you have Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mohammed, or Moses. Another decent guy with followers but not the son of a god.

Islam is very clear on Jesus. He was a prophet. He is reveared. But his birth was nothing special and his neither was his death. World shaking events do not lead to totally different interpretations. You won't find people who will claim Vesuvius didn't erupt. You won't find people that will claim there was not tsunami in Indonesia a few years back. You will not find anyone denying the reality of WWI or WWII.

So prove to me the virgin birth ... and the only source you have is an authorless book. And I have a book, with author, that says otherwise. Same for the other end of his life.

If you want to engage in a search for truth. Start by reading the Epic of Gilgamesh. Jesus Christ received his virgin birth from the same source that Christmas received Santa Claus. Christians, trying to gain credibility, snagged engaging parts of someone else's mythology.

Regarding Josephus:

You seem to bring issues to the party that don't concern real scholars and seem to thing others are problematic, which in fact have been settled.

I don't think any serious scholar doubts the veracity of the Josephus passage.

An introductory history of the scholarly controversy over Josephus' Jesus account, from 93 CE to the present.

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testhist.htm

Blacknad.

Chaoslillith wrote - "Using the fact that the Romans persecuted Christians to prove that Christ did exist is a bit silly."

- Tacitus' writings prove the existence of Christians and the fact that they were being tortured and killed by Nero in 67 AD.

Christ was probably crucified between 30 and 33 AD.

The gap? 30 or so years.

I cannot believe that a movement that was growing so quickly (large enough for Nero to feel he had to launch a persecution) was utterly without basis, and that the founder who had supposedly been around just 30 years previous had, in fact, not existed.

Why is this silly?

Chaoslillith wrote ? ?Given that the Romans persecuted the Greeks, the Celts, the British and whoever else they picked that week to conquer.?

- There is a difference between persecuting and conquering. However, the fact that there are records showing that Romans attacked the groups you mention would leave me to believe that those groups actually existed. The same for Christians. I then go from there to say it is reasonable therefore that Christ existed 30 years earlier.

Chaoslillith wrote ? ?Using your train of thought that also proves the existence of the Greek gods, who the Romans stole, the existence of the Celtic Gods and any other deity from that time period.?

- If I was using the persecution as evidence that Christ was God, then you would be right. But I am only showing that it is unreasonable to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus figure. That is what this thread is about ? ?Existence of Christ?.

Chaoslillith wrote ? ?As far as Christ being crucified, so were 1000s of others and I note the distinct lack of literature about them.?

- I don?t understand your point here, but you seem to contribute to my argument. The fact that there is literature about Christ makes him distinct from the 1000s.

Chaoslillith wrote ? ?Just saying Blacknad that there is no real, verifiable proof of Christ's existence. Just as there is no proof of any other deity or Messiah?

- You are conflating two things here. We are simply talking of a historical figure called Jesus and whether he actually existed. We are not debating here whether he is a deity. Sorry Chaos, but from my perspective the atheist desire to deny the existence of Christ is where the atheist steps from sincere doubt to dishonesty.

Regards,

Blacknad.

My apologies,

What I get for skimming threads at work. I will acknowledge the possibility that Christ as a person whose was a great storyteller and convinced some people that their prior system of belief was incorrect may have existed.

However, I continue to withold my belief in ONE GOD or ANY GOD. If nothing else, Scientology is proof that people can be made to believe anything as long as it makes them feel special. Ahh L.Ron Hubbard, Sci fi writer who as a joke created a religion and guess what, it got followers.

Blacknad wrote:
"You seem to bring issues to the party that don't concern real scholars"

They may not concern self-annointed Christian scholars but they concern a whole lot of other people.

Blacknad wrote:
"I don't think any serious scholar doubts the veracity of the Josephus passage."

No serious scholar would make a determination about the veracity of something without knowing that it exists. Can you point me to Josephus's original written text? Of course not. Is what he wrote plausible? Quite another story. But it is not evidence of a virgin birth nor of a resurrection. Without those two elements you have no religion.

Blacknad wrote:
"- Tacitus' writings prove the existence of Christians and the fact that they were being tortured and killed by Nero in 67 AD."

Which in what way proves that a virgin birth and resurrection took place?

Blacknad wrote:
"Christ was probably crucified between 30 and 33 AD.
"

Which in what way proves that a virgin birth and resurrection took place?

Blacknad wrote:
"I cannot believe that a movement that was growing so quickly (large enough for Nero to feel he had to launch a persecution) was utterly without basis,"

Then apparently you've never heard of Scientology. Does Islam ring a bell? Ever here of Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King? How about Moses or Mohammed? Your statement just impaled itself.

Blacknad wrote:
"Why is this silly?"

Now you have your answer.

Blacknad wrote:
"There is a difference between persecuting and conquering."

So the blacks in South Africa were persecuted or conquered? So the Moslems in Bosnia were persecuted or conquered? So the American Indians were persecuted or conquered? Shall I continue.

Blacknad wrote:
"But I am only showing that it is unreasonable to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus figure."

You are fighting the wrong battle. No one denies someone with that name existed at about the time in question. It is the question of "trouble maker" versus "son of god" that is the crux of the matter.

Blacknad wrote:
"We are not debating here whether he is a deity."

Why not? It is the only issue possible. Lets apply some Boolean logic. Which statements are impossible?

1. Jesus existed and was the son of god.
2. Jesus didn't exist and was the son of god.
3. Jesus existed and was a decent guy.
4. Jesus didn't exist and was a decent guy.

You are trying to argue against 2 and 4. Why? If you prove 1 then 3 is included by definition.

Would it make a difference in the Christian Religion if Christ was proven mythical? Do you think he would still be worshiped as a symbolic figure?

Those that "believe" don't let rational thinking ever interfere. Reminds me of the Roman Catholic church officially declaring a South American rodent to be a fish. The fact that it was an obvious lie never entered into it. After all, "god works in mysterious ways."

Dear DA

You are so retalitorial about the Existance of Christ. There is no "Proof" that he lived except affidavids from Testiments of men who should be considered "Unreliable" by atheists. Did the men who Wrote the "Gospel" actually exist? Did they tell outright lies? Did Buddha actually exist? Is there actual proof that Jesus Christ didn't Exist? Can you Prove he didn't? Is Josephus' writing accurate? Is it faulty?

You say...
Because those that do not oppose lies are collaborators. Those that sanction the brain washing of children are abusing the next generation. Any more such questions?

My answer is...
How is my beliefs or the beliefs of my children any of your concern? And "Collaborators" is some pretty accusatory language. There is no conspiracy here you know. "Abusing the next generation" how? I try to teach my children to look at all aspects of a problem, atheists ignore anything that might cause a problem to their view of reality. Closeminded attacks on any evidence that contradicts your view is NOT science, and has no place in science. You must be completely unbias in your quest to find truth, and atheists are some of the most bias people you can associate with. If Mathmaticians find that Genetic pathways couldn't be accidental, they are demonised as frauds by atheists who instantly look at the evidence as flawed. Is one Idea continually Right? In the Atheist world proof is in the Opinion, and not in facts.

Prove that there was never an individual in Jeudea between 10bc & 40ad who was Jesus Christ. I give a fairly wide window for 33 yrs of life, because there is no certainty when he was actually born, just like Cochise.

I have said this before, but I like saying it. If you are always correct in your own mind and never attempt to find whether you truly are correct, you are ignorant of the truth. Ony an openminded person, who allows for ANYTHING, can truly be objective. Show me an objective atheist and I will show you an agnostic.

One last thing. If every action has an opposite and equal reaction, what is the action that created intelligence, if evolution without guidance is correct? (Remember atheist, opposite and equal.)
Logic sux doesn't it.

I think to much I think.
rlb60123

Oops, should have said this before. Studying everything except for the Bible teaches you nothing about the Bible. Try reading it, whether you believe in "God" or not, the least you can say is that it is historic and some parts of it are actually quite beautiful. If my telling you to read and study the Bible is offensive, please give something offensive to me so that I might go through the same distaste as you. If you think it is just mythology, then Reading and studying the Bible is exactly like reading and studying the Iliad, or The Epic of Gilgamesh. If you just can't bring yourself to study the Bible, then you prove me right. And all atheists are nothing more than arrogantly closeminded half thinkers who waste hours every day hating what other people think.

p.s. You couldn't find anything to distasteful for me, so don't try. I keep an open mind, though I must admitt, at this minute, I am a stringent believer in GOD.

"those who are not against us are for us."

I think to much I think.
rlb60123

rlb wrote:
"You are so retalitorial about the Existance of Christ. There is no "Proof" that he lived except affidavids from Testiments of men who should be considered "Unreliable" by atheists."

So you would like the standard for pledging undying your life to someone to be lower than the standard accepted by your local municipal court for getting out of a parking ticket?

Maybe it is just me but before I swear an oath of allegiance to anything or any one I expect them to earn it and to meet certain burdens of proof that things are as advertised.

For you to claim that an atheist is someone that places a higher burden of proof on something than a Christian is equivalent to saying Christians are gulliable. Given the historical record perhaps you are correct. Either way I'll not drop my standards for the convenience of those hard of thinking.

rlb asks:
"How is my beliefs or the beliefs of my children any of your concern?"

Your beliefs are your own business. You can be as drunk, as moronic, or as intelligent as you wish. I don't worry about other people's vices until they intrude on my living my life.

What you do to children, however, is quite another matter. Having children does not give you the right to sexually abuse them. Having children does not give you the right to physically abuse them. Why should mental abuse (lying about hell and Satan) suffer a lower standard? Because it excuses you from responsibility? Tough!

rlb wrote:
"Prove that there was never an individual in Jeudea between 10bc & 40ad who was Jesus Christ."

Apparently you are hard of thinking. I have never disputed the birth and life of a normal mortal. That he did, or did not, live is irrelevant and no more important than John and Mary Doe who live down the street from you except that likely no one will start a war and kill millions disputing how best to worship them.

rlb asks:
"If every action has an opposite and equal reaction"

Are you serious? Did you learn science from a box of breakfast cereal? What is the equal and opposite reaction of a flower blooming or of two people falling in love?

rlb concludes:
"Logic sux doesn't it."

Perhaps some day you will experience it and have a different opinion.

rlb wrote:
"Studying everything except for the Bible teaches you nothing about the Bible. Try reading it, whether you believe in "God" or not, the least you can say is that it is historic and some parts of it are actually quite beautiful."

I have read it ... cover to cover ... multiple times. Who wrote it? When? In what language? You don't even know the original 10 commandments, 10 simple declarative sentences, and you think you can understand the rest of it? Good grief!

Ok lets take a look at this thing of beauty together.

Genesis 19

5. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7. And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly,

8. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

So handing over one's virgin daughters to a mob of men to do with as they please is a thing of beauty to you. Interesting.

No doubt you loudly applauded this passage too:

II Kings 2

23. And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Mocking an old man certainly should be a capitol offense. And tearing children apart for doing so certainly the proper act of a good and loving god.

But wait ... here's something of other-worldly beauty that should inspire the faithful.

Judges 11

11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon,
shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

11:32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

11:33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

11:34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

11:35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of
them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

11:36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

11:37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

11:38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

Yep. Murdering your child for god. What a noble thing to do. What a good thing. What a thing of beauty. What an enlightened way to thank god for letting you murder other people in his name. Makes me want to run out to a church right this second, throw myself on the floor in front of the alter. And cry for forgiveness for my multitude of sins.

ROFL.

Dan,

Genesis 19 - The Bible simply reports it. It does not condone it.

2 Kings 2 - I posted a long explananation of that passage for you. You probably didn't read it. I'll post it again so that you can not read it again ;-)

Judges 11 - Jephthah made a hasty and stupid vow and then stupidly carries it out, (although there is some debate about whether he killed her or set her apart for God and she remained unmarried - hence the bewailing virginity and 'she knew no man). Even so, the Bible reports it but does not condone the action.

Blacknad.

Just so you can ignore it a second time.

This is the story of the prophet Elisha calling down a curse upon some ?children?, forty-two of whom who were subsequently mauled by two she-bears. (The bears, Ursus Syriacus inhabited Palestine at the time). It is comfortably assumed that the passage is making the point that God sent the bears out, and that this was not just some bizarre coincidence.
In this instance it seems that God may not have torn children apart. The words used to describe the ?children?, (sometimes translated ?youths?), is translated from the Hebrew term ?neurim qetannim? which can best be understood in relation to how it is used elsewhere in the bible.

1. It was used to describe Isaac when he was in his twenties.
2. It was used to describe Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen.
3. It was used to describe soldiers in 1 Kings 20:14-15, who were up to the age of thirty.

The passage in 2 Kings 2:23-25 says forty-two males were mauled by two bears - it does not say whether there were any more present, but it is possible as it is likely that many ran away and escaped a mauling as the bears ravaged their way through the crowd.

So we have a crowd of over forty-two males, up to 30 years old, taunting a lone traveller who after performing a mercy mission in nearby Jericho was making his way through an area possibly very hostile to him as it was a centre of Baal worship. A religion that practiced child sacrifice, amongst other barbaric acts and was probably not entirely enamoured of the followers of Jehovah.

Now in my reading of the situation, Elisha was facing an angry mob and was possibly in serious danger.

There is also no way of knowing if the forty-two were actually killed, because the Hebrew word translated as mauled may easily indicate less serious injuries.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad ... thanks for coming out to play.

wrote:
"Genesis 19 - The Bible simply reports it. It does not condone it."

This is your testimony? Under oath? Are you sure you want to stick with it?

Lot and his family were saved? Why? That is the lesson of Genesis 19. God saved the good person and destroyed the evil people. Lot, by definition, is a good person. And the context is that just before that he gave his virgin daughters to be raped to save a man ... and we all know because a stranger, male, is more valuable than a female child. That is truly the meaning of the story when read in context.

Blacknad wrote:
"2 Kings 2 - I posted a long explananation of that passage for you. You probably didn't read it. I'll post it again so that you can not read it again"

I read it. And when I got done shaking my head in disbelief I went on about my life.

Blacknad wrote:
"Jephthah made a hasty and stupid vow and then stupidly carries it out"

And is equally stupidly rewarded by God for doing so. You are so heck-bent on defending the bible you forgot the point of my putting the text into my answer was the claim by rlb that it is beautiful. This, my friend, is bloody awful: It is not beautiful. And your explanation does not, can not, and will not, make it a thing of beauty: Ever!

The problem with your explanations, and each might be plausible if it stood in isolation, is that there are many hundreds of equally horrible goings on in the Bible. You can explain away one or two or ten ... but not all. The totality of the evidence is not a thing of beauty. Is the thing of which war crime tribunals in the Hague sit in judgement.

Dear DA,

You said and quoted...
"Genesis 19 - The Bible simply reports it. It does not condone it."

This is your testimony? Under oath? Are you sure you want to stick with it?

Lot and his family were saved? Why? That is the lesson of Genesis 19. God saved the good person and destroyed the evil people. Lot, by definition, is a good person. And the context is that just before that he gave his virgin daughters to be raped to save a man ... and we all know because a stranger, male, is more valuable than a female child. That is truly the meaning of the story when read in context."

You forgot that Abraham asked God to bring Lot out of the city. After Abraham asked that of God, he began debating about destroying the cities. Don't quote a small portion of the Bible and don't assume anything about my beliefs.

You also wrote: "What you do to children, however, is quite another matter. Having children does not give you the right to sexually abuse them. Having children does not give you the right to physically abuse them. Why should mental abuse (lying about hell and Satan) suffer a lower standard? Because it excuses you from responsibility? Tough!"
when I said: "How is my beliefs or the beliefs of my children any of your concern?"

So you are saying that my own children's beliefs are negligent? They believe their own thing I assure you.

I said: "One last thing. If every action has an opposite and equal reaction, what is the action that created intelligence, if evolution without guidance is correct? (Remember atheist, opposite and equal.)
Logic sux doesn't it."

If a unified theory is to be attained then Relativity must be taken into account when viewing Evolution. If you don't believe that then you muct not be looking for a theory of everything.

You say: "Why should mental abuse (lying about hell and Satan) suffer a lower standard?"

You know so much about the Bible, why don't you try finding hell in the Bible and define it...
Just because most "christians" don't take the time to find out that hell is just the grave doesn't mean that I haven't. In the Bible, when people are burned in Revelations in a lake of fire, that Lake comes from the throne of God. And if you read farther you find that the Throne of God is on earth. So the Fire that Consumes souls is on earth, and where God is. The Bible also says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. That tells me that no one goes to a place called hell. Hell=Grave, tumb,coffin.

You sure can find the ugly parts of the Bible, and you sure can get offended by me telling you to read the Bible. But I still don't see you studying anything.

you say: "I have read it ... cover to cover ... multiple times. Who wrote it? When? In what language? You don't even know the original 10 commandments, 10 simple declarative sentences, and you think you can understand the rest of it? Good grief!"

The first commandment is "You shall have no Gods before me." Even atheists have a god they worship. It is themself, they edify it by insisting one thing, There is no God. I let them think what they please, even if they are closeminded.
BTW Jesus abbreviated the 10 commandments into 2
THe first is to "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind soul ect." and the second is to "Love your neighbor as yourself." In that you will find the 10 commandments covered. But you knew that didn't you.

I think to much I think
rlb60123

And this lovely, lively and enlightened conversation points out THE HUGE PROBELM with religion. IT IS ALL UP TO INTERPRETATION folks.

This is incredible really, three intelligent people not being able to agree on the facts of what was stated in a book due to translation and interpretation issues. This is why religion is so harmful, all of you think you are right and you are all right and wrong at the same time but all of you will fight to the bitter end about it.

Take that feeling, multiply and magnify it by millions of people and times and you get wars, atrocites and a lot of pain.

Thank you all for providing excellent proof why religion and beliefs are inherently corruptable and therefore a danger to society.

This is simply not true. As I have stated (but will still not expect people to actually consider the implications) there are two billion Christians on this planet at the moment. That's TWO BILLION. If Christianity was inherently bloodthirsty, evil, warring, or fighting to the bitter end, then the planet would be in complete disarray.

Is this the case? No, the vast majority of Christians are simply going about their business trying to carry out Jesus message to do good in society.

Type the following into Google:

Christians help homeless

1,610,000 hits

The first page Google brings up has sentences like:

"I noticed that almost all homeless and non-profit help organisations, esp ones
that work with youth and drug abusers, are Christian based."

"Christians from all denominations and from all parts of England joined for a ...
A new campaign to help homeless people off the streets has been launched by"

"Students sleep out to help homeless. The students are focusing on the plight.
"As Christians, we feel that a vital part of our faith is to help those in ..."

"The movement to bring Christian recovery to the homeless is still very much in ..."

Now:

Christians help needy

1,410,000 hits

First page -

"Christians mobilise to help Nias quake victims indonesia"

"To encourage Christians to live out their faith by providing inspiring models
... I really want to help needy people in Africa and other places," she says."

"its 30th anniversary by partnering with Feed The Children to help needy in
Orlando ... ?The reason is as Christians we?re commanded to help the poor. ..."

"Yet those Christians are reaching out to bring help to their former persecutors.
... But help is now getting through to the needy. ..."

"American Christians help boost emergency funds of nearly 100 Israeli cities ...
clothing, basic household appliances and rent money for needy families, ..."


Now:

Christians help poor

13,400,000 Hits

First page includes -

"Christian politics that help poor children? Amen!"

"Helping Jewish poor in the former Soviet Union."

"This will directly help a poor family and the crafts make great gifts. ..."

"NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: 35 Christian traditions, 100000 congregations, ...
Love for the Poor To help the nation find consensus on fighting poverty, ..."

"Sponsor a child and help donate through charitable donations to World Vision.
Our child sponsorship programs need your support to help alleviate world ..."

"Practical ways Christians can help the poor in the US. view by date, view by topic"

"As an non-profit organization that seeks to help poor people improve their ...
Christians in North America are motivated by their faith to help poor people ..."

""Our focus is to help the poor and the grief-stricken victims, regardless of
their religion," he says. "Christians have shown 100 percent commitment. ..."


I could go on and on - try Christians help "aids victims".

The belief that Christianity in particular and religion in general is dangerous is utterly preposterous and without foundation.

We have our share of shame and embarrassment it is true, but the ongoing work of Christians amongst those needing to be served is absolutely immense.

It is only by a very ignorant and blinkered view of religion (and organized religion at that) that allows a person to consider that, on balance, religion is dangerous and deleterious to humanity.

I am usually cool headed and consider myself to be virtually unoffendable, but your statements and those of Dan's damning religion out of hand, really make me feel upset and a little angry (in the Ned Flanders tradition ).

You do an injustice to the many Christians I personally know who devote their lives to helping others, often at great personal cost.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Was there a point to requoting me?


I do love to see my words in bold print though.

Sorry your post appeared before it was completed.

My apologies.

Blacknad wrote:
"If Christianity was inherently bloodthirsty, evil, warring, or fighting to the bitter end, then the planet would be in complete disarray."

And you don't think it is? You don't look at Belfast and see a problem? You don't look at the "loans" Tony Blair used to to corrupt British politics as anything other than good old Christian normality? Perhaps the rioting in France has escaped your notice. Or that nasty little thing that happened in Germany just before I was born. A couple of decades and it never happened? Would you like me to go on? There's some really juicy stuff going on in the Middle East too that seemingly has escaped your notice.

What is really sad is that you post something like this:

"Christians help homeless / 1,610,000 hits"

Don't you get it? Why were these people homeless in the first place? I am not even slightly impressed that someone is rescued from drowning by the same people that previously pushed them into the water.

I've heard this nonsense so many times before I just want to wretch. Helping Jews in the former Soviet Union? If it wasn't for the antisemitism they wouldn't have been poor would they? Don't get me started ... please.

Too late you did.

If you 2,000,000,000 Christians actually spent 30 days acting on the beliefs you profess none of this would be necessary in 2006. Where were the lot of you in 2005? 1905? 1805? 1705? 1605? 1505? 1405? 1305? 1205? 1105? 1005? 905? 805? 705? 605? 505? 405? 305?

Oh yeah ... you were violating each and every one of the 10 Commandments with a bloody vengence.

EEEK!!

Ok gents, settle down.

I will provide a bit of neutrality here. Christians do provide many useful services to the poor and needy.

Christians also perpetrate a lot of evil in the world. I feel, however, that organized religion, not just Christianity, holds in it's power a great corrupting influence. I cannot say if the world would be different if there had never been religion as I am sure the bad people would still find ways to be bad but without the ability to say "God says we should do this" I think there would have been a lot less pain and suffering.

"The statement that wars have been fought in the name of God is a non squitur. As the theologian Walter Wink once pointed out, more people have died in the twentieth century?s secular wars than in the preceding fifty centuries of fighting combined?. No religious war in history, not all the religious wars of history added together, did as much damage as this century?s wars of nationalism and ideology. So if we are to ban religious sentiment from public life because it has been responsible for so much horror, let us not forget to ban advocacy of freedom or justice as well."

?Stephen L. Carter, Civility (1998), p. 252

Chaoslillith - "Sorry your post appeared before it was completed.

My apologies."

- No probs. I pushed Add Reply by mistake and then had to go back and edit it. I was hoping no one was online

Regards,

Blacknad.

Lillith wrote:
"Christians do provide many useful services to the poor and needy."

And I agreed. But a bit of intellectual integrity is required here. They wouldn't be needing to help the poor and needy if there were no poor and needy.

They've had 2,000 years to make a dent in the problem. Nowhere on the planet is there any evidence that they have succeeded.

And I agree, as I've stated before, that without religion things would be no better than they are now: But also no worse.

Blacknad quoted Stephen Carter. But Carter was wrong. 6,000,000 Jews did not die of sectarian violence. They were exterminated by Christians due to their religion. A for Carter to quote a theologian is the moral equivalent of a racist quoting the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. By definition the source of the quote is biased to a specific conclusion.

Dan wrote - "What is really sad is that you post something like this:

"Christians help homeless / 1,610,000 hits"

Don't you get it? Why were these people homeless in the first place? I am not even slightly impressed that someone is rescued from drowning by the same people that previously pushed them into the water.

I've heard this nonsense so many times before I just want to wretch. Helping Jews in the former Soviet Union? If it wasn't for the antisemitism they wouldn't have been poor would they? Don't get me started ... please."

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

- Can you expand upon these two points please?

Please explain how Christians are responsible for the homeless.

Please explain how Christians were responsible for anti-semitism in the atheistic former Soviet Union.

"Lenin initiated repressions against the Jewish Labor Bund in order to consolidate Bolshevik influence over all other left-wing and labor movements."

Anti-semitism in the Soviet Union was both a political affair and an anti-religious affair. Please explain how Christians were responsible for this.

Dan,

The fact that you are so incredibly biased against Christianity and can allow for no good to come from it is telling.

The fact that you want to wretch when presented by reasonable evidence that Christians actually today make a positive contribution to the world as well as a negative one is telling.

I have lost faith in your ability to present a reasonable argument against Christianity when you deny out of hand something that has been my constant experience of authentic Christianity.

Your view of Christianity is so blinkered I find it shocking. You seem to lay every evil at its door and allow for no good whatsoever.

This is an unbalanced argument and comes from someone who obviously has an emotional dislike of Christianity and does everything possible to intellectually rationalise that dislike.

Your unstoppable onslaught might be more reasonable and even persuasive if you took a slightly less one sided view.

Blacknad.

Dan wrote - "Blacknad quoted Stephen Carter. But Carter was wrong. 6,000,000 Jews did not die of sectarian violence. They were exterminated by Christians due to their religion. A for Carter to quote a theologian is the moral equivalent of a racist quoting the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. By definition the source of the quote is biased to a specific conclusion."


REP: First, are you actually talking about the Nazi Holocaust? I presume not because...

"The Nazis believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that there was a struggle for survival between themselves and "inferior races." Jews, Roma (Gypsies) and the handicapped were seen as a serious biological threat to the purity of the "German (Aryan) Race" and therefore had to be "exterminated." The Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I, for its economic problems and for the spread of Communist parties throughout Europe."

- Humanitas International.

And damning Stephen L Carter for quoting a theologian may be a useful way of getting out of dealing with the content, but I would much rather see you actually respond to the charge being made.


Regards,

Blacknad.

1. [Insert Name] claims to be a Christian.
2. [Inster Name] commits a terrible act in the name of Jesus Christ.
3. Therefore, Christianity is the root cause of [Insert Name]'s action.

What kind of twisted logic is that?

1. [Insert Name] claims to be a humanist.
2. [Insert Name] commits a terrible act in the name of humanism.
3. Therefore, humanism is the root cause of [Insert Name]'s action.

I don't get it. When Christians do good deeds in the name of God, skeptics question their motives. However, when Christians do bad deeds in the name of God, skeptics automatically attribute it to their faith. A double standard?

When I lived in Beirut I met many Christians and it was clear that their Christianity was a badge of identity, like a passport that shows what country you are a citizen of. It gave them an identity and was about what family you were born into and not what choice you made. It was as far away from authentic Christianity as you can get.

They paid lip service and just did as they pleased. I could discern no impact upon their lives. It was empty and without regard for Christ's teaching.

And yet any atrocity they committed during the war was chalked up as 'another Christian act of barbarism'. In fact the war was less to do with real Christianity as was about ethnicity, tribal feuds or any other kind of division. If they didn't have religion to justify what they were doing they would have found something else.

But of course the world sees it as the evil and bloodthirsty teachings of Christ manifested.

And a revision, Wombat:

What kind of twisted logic is that?

1. [Insert Name] has a humanistic ideology.
2. [Insert Name] commits a terrible act in the name of the humanistic ideology.
3. Humanism is the root cause of [Insert Name]'s action.


Blacknad.

The thing about Christianity is that it can be judged against the teachings of Jesus, and commandments such as 'Do not Murder', so we know when it is either Christianity by name only or when it is real Christianity that has become corrupted.

With Ideologies, what standard is there to judge it against? Give Uncle Al complete power for a decade and see what he is capable of with his unrestrained rationalism that leads to his utter disdain for mercy, compassion or indeed any kind of charity towards anyone with an IQ under 80.

In Al's world how long before the less intelligent become a despised underclass being used for experimentation by the drugs companies? How long before anyone who cannot contribute to society finds themselves out in the cold because they are using up valuable resources that should be better used for the 'more productive'?

The real problem is that with no god, he is right - the human race is squandering valuable resources on those who give nothing back. Abortion - we haven't even started with it yet - and euthanasia, well there's another societal tool that we're not making best use of. And anyone who pretends otherwise simply doesn't have the strength of their own convictions. And they certainly don't understand what evolution is about.

Even our very own Rob would force abortion on any fetus that he thought might possibly commit a crime.

Christianiy more dangerous than the alternative?

Just watch what happens when we completely reject any idea of the sanctity of life. When we are relegated to the status of mere animals some people will be treated like mere animals.

I fear the atheist that has the courage to tread where their beliefs lead them.

Blacknad.

If humanism was anywhere near as powerful a motivator as Christianity, Judaism or Islam I would have issues with it as much as I do the main three religions.

Christ's teachings are not evil or bloodthirsty, I do not think Dan or I ever claimed that. Let me repeat that CHRIST's TEACHINGS, not the Old Testament or any other of the eye for an eye, sacrifice someone because I told you so. Christ taught a PHILOSOPHY of tolerance, understanding, respect and peace. When his or Mohammed's or the Jewish philosophies were turned into a religion they were corrupted by many 1000s of people over the years. Hence my stance that zealots and high ranking members of most organized religions are twisted and corrupt.

How many times will the Catholic church have to hide a pedophile for people to understand that the Church has corrupted itself and it's teachings?

If I can separate the two, why can't you?

Dan.

You are so intent in knocking religion down. What are you going to replace it with?

Blacknad.

Ideas, not beliefs. I would replace all religions with ideas of how the world works. People tend not to get as worked up about ideas as they do beliefs.

It seems to me that Dan is not the only peace loving atheist that is intent on knocking Christianity down.

Christian martyrs: 70M
20th Century: 45.4M

At the hands of...

Atheists: 31,689,000
Muslims 9,121,000
Ethnoreligionists: 7,469,000
Christians: 5,538,000
Quasi-religionists 2,712,000
Mahayana Buddhists: 1,651,000
Hindus: 676,000
Zoroastrians: 384,000

- World Christian Encyclopedia (2001): This book is the standard reference work for religious statistics of all kinds, and both Britannica and the World Almanac cite from it.

Blacknad.

Hehe, you did notice the statistic of Christians killing Christians correct?

Ok, I guess I need not mention the slaughter of American Indians because they were savages who needed "saving", of women who were condemned as witches...etc. etc.

This is all very tiring as there is no end to the statistics I could find.

I just want one Christian to admit that organized religion in the wrong hands is evil and that the world would be better off if people did not feel the need to force their beliefs on others.

You want to have 11 kids, refuse that the world is round and that your God created the world fine. Just do not legislate that I have to lose control over my body, that my kids have to be taught your religious beliefs in school. This is all I am asking.

Blacknad ... I know you are not old enough to remember WWII. But I presume when you were in school they taught you something about it.

Funny thing about your statistics ... you missed.
1. The source so we could check out their accuracy
2. The fact that 6,000,000 people were intentionally murdered by self-professed Christians.

But for a good laugh I really enjoyed "Christian martyrs: 70M." Do you know the definition of the word martyr? Apparently not so here it is:

http://www.answers.com/topic/martyr
ne who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.

70M Christians voluntarily chose death over denouncing their faith? In a pigs eye!

Blacknad ... piggybacking a bit on what Lillith wrote here is one of the most famous of quotations:

"There are three kinds of liars in the world:
Liars, damned liars, and statisticians."
~ Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

You should be more careful. Lying is a sin. ;-)

The truth of the matter, the basic truth, is that it is completely irrelevant how many people are fool enough to die for an idea that isn't true. Here's a quote for that too:

"To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true."
~ H.L. Mencken - Prejudices (1919)

When all is said and done here's what you have:
1. A claim to a deity with no supporting evidence.
2. An authorless grossly mistranslated book.
3. A host of fatal diseases that afflict innocent children.
4. A world not improved on smidgen over the way it was before Jesus Christ died whenever, whereever and however he died.

In the end H.L. Mencken was correct when he wrote:
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." Get over it.

DA,

He did list the encyclopedia as the source but I am going to assume you mean the source for their statistics.

As I said, all I want really os for religions to keep to themselves and let us choose to live as we wish.

Dan. You did start the body-count game.

The worst blood lettings of the 20th century.

Rank Death Toll Event Dates

1 55,000,000 Second World War (Some overlap w/Stalin. Includes Sino-Japanese War and Holocaust. Doesn't incl. post-war German expulsions) 1937/39-1945

2 40,000,000 China: Mao Zedong's regime. (incl. famine) 1949-76

3 20,000,000 USSR: Stalin's regime (incl. WW2-era atrocities) 1924-53

4 15,000,000 First World War (incl. Armenian massacres) 1914-18

5 8,800,000 Russian Civil War 1918-21

6 4,000,000 China: Warlord & Nationalist Era 1917-37

7 3,000,000 Congo Free State [n.1] (1900)-08

All SECULAR

For a Grand Total of 145,000,000 dead bodies chalked up to the non-religious.

And I could go on.


This alone, in just under 80 years dwarfs anything religion has achieved, and I could continue to add to it.

Blacknad.

Dan wrote - "You should be more careful. Lying is a sin. ;-)"

Dan, if I've misrepresented anything I'm sorry. It is not my intention and I will retract anything that I come to realise is false.

I know that you are honest and have integrity and I don't want to be any different.

I feel the need to say that although the debate has been robust, I still have a high regard for you and don't want you to think otherwise.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Dan wrote - "The fact that 6,000,000 people were intentionally murdered by self-professed Christians."

- If it's true I won't deny it. Probably just my ignorance of history. Do you have a reference for me to check it out?

Blacknad.

Chaoslillith wrote - "I just want one Christian to admit that organized religion in the wrong hands is evil and that the world would be better off if people did not feel the need to force their beliefs on others."

- I couldn't agree more on both counts. Organized religion in any hands is dangerous and becomes about power and caters to the basest instincts of humanity. I would never defend it and would be entirely happy to see its demise.

As for anyone forcing their beliefs on anyone else - also an utter disgrace. You probably have the idea from my posts that I am a religious nutter who talks about nothing but my religion. If so, you couldn't be further from the truth. As scripture tells me 'when asked always be prepared to give an answer for the hope you have'. But I don't keep bringing the subject up and would certainly not try to badger someone into believing what I believe.

Organized religion is problematic because it is counter to the whole idea behind Christ's teachings - 'Lay down power, and take up love'. We are called to serve. Real Christianity is about an internal struggle for every believer to overcome their own natural selfishness and direct their time and energy and finances outwards towards others. This is about individuals being transformed and then trying to serve others as a way of life. It is nothing to do with giant organizations - (Christianity by committee - the worst kind of horror story).

There are millions of Christians not affiliated to Big Church who just quietly get on with life and are completely un-news worthy.

Of course you only ever get to hear about the corrupt church and the vocal nutters, like the right wing loonies, the white supremacists, the gay haters and the Creationists wanting to get rid of evolution in schools.

I am simply trying to defend my right to have my beliefs after seeing religion getting a good beating on this forum. I can see that eventually Christianity will come under a form of post-modern persecution and the good religion will be beat up along with the bad.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Chaoslillith wrote - "Hehe, you did notice the statistic of Christians killing Christians correct?"

- Yes I did. And as Dan is challenging my honesty (although in jest I think), you did notice that I wasn't sneaky enough to delete it.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"Dan. You did start the body-count game.

The worst blood lettings of the 20th century."

You are correct and for that I make no apology. My point which you have not and can not dispute is that the world has been an awful place. It follows from that directly that the death of Jesus Christ accomplished precisely what?

Had he not died? Had Christianity never existed Mao would have murdered 41,000,000 rather than just 40,000,000? Hitler would have found more Jews to round up and gas?

By putting these numbers here for everyone to see do you think anyone is looking at them and saying a silent prayer something like: "Thank you Jesus for making the world a better place"?

The Second World War, with the exception of Japan, was a war fought entirely between so-called Christian countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, UK, Ukraine, US). Do you think it would have turned out differently if the combatants where atheists? agnostics? deists? dentists?

And precisely what happened in the time of Noah that was cause to drown everyone that was so much worse than what happened in 1939 or 1941 or 1943?
Did the criteria change for starting over? Did god say well that ancient evil was really bad but burning 6,000,000 people to death in ovens is accptable?

Blacknad wrote:
"if I've misrepresented anything I'm sorry"

No need to apologize. The smily face, ;-), was there to tell you I was saying it in jest.

Blacknad wrote with respect to the holocaust:
"Do you have a reference for me to check it out?"

You live in the UK and you don't know the history of WW2? What has Tony Blair done to you blokes?
Start here: http://www.ushmm.org
http://www.yadvashem.org
http://holocaustcenter.org

Blacknad wrote:
"I am simply trying to defend my right to have my beliefs after seeing religion getting a good beating on this forum."

If you were one of those people who you describe as: "just quietly get on with life and are completely un-news worthy." you'd not feel the need to defend anything. What takes a beating in this forum is not Christianity but rather all belief systems based on denial of the scientific method. Let me give you an example.

If someone posted the following nonsense:
"My children are beautiful and intelligent" I would consider it to be total garbage. All parents think that of their children. If they didn't we'd have died out long ago. But the fact that a parent believes this does not make it objective reality.
The fact that people believe in a virgin birth that never happened and for which there is zero evidence. And the fact people believe in a resurrection that never happened and for which there is zero evidence is roughly the equivalent of a mother thinking her child is beautiful. The difference is that the mother doesn't start a war because her child is more beautiful than another mother's child. There are no maternal terrorism incidents. Relgious nonsense is a proven danger to society. Don't believe me? Ask the people that were riding the buses in London last year.

Dan wrote - "You live in the UK and you don't know the history of WW2? What has Tony Blair done to you blokes?"

- Dan, I said I was ignorant of the fact that 6,000,000 Jews were killed by self-professed Christians, not of the 2ndWW in general.

You wrote ? ?But Carter was wrong. 6,000,000 Jews did not die of sectarian violence. They were exterminated by Christians due to their religion.?

That was what I was responding to.

The pitiful record the church has with Jews cannot be denied, and it is truly sickening?

?The same was true of Protestant churches. The pamphlet ?On the Jews and their Lies,? written by German religious reformer Martin Luther in 1542, used extremely violent language. It called on Christians to set synagogues on fire, to destroy Jewish houses, and to put Jews in stables, and it advised rulers to banish Jews from their countries. Luther?s writings had a significant influence on German Protestant theologians and also contributed to a climate of opinion that condoned or approved persecution of Jews.?

- http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html


However, the reason the Jews were killed by the Germans had less to do with religion than you might think.

?Many Germans blamed the Jews for Germany?s defeat in World War I, some even claiming that German Jews had betrayed the nation during the war. In addition, at the end of the war a Communist group attempted to carry out a Bolshevik-type revolution in the German state of Bavaria. Most of the leaders of that failed attempt were Jews. As a result, some Germans associated Jews with Bolsheviks and regarded both groups as dangerous enemies of Germany. After the war, a republic known as the Weimar Republic was set up in Germany. Jewish politicians and intellectuals played an important role in German life during the Weimar Republic, and many non-Jews resented their influence.?

- http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html

The Jews were victims of their own success as entrepreneurs during and after the Industrial Revolution. Their success and power was resented.


Although Christians were not responsible for the holocaust, as you think, the writings of Luther clearly echo down the centuries and have influence.

Regarding Christianity?s treatment of the Jews, the established Church and organized religion once again demonstrates that it is a naturally corrupting phenomenon and is capable of perverting its very own congregation.

When it is held up against the teachings of the very individual they profess to follow, it is found wanting and clearly paying only lip-service to the faith:

?Love even your enemies?.

It cannot possibly get any clearer than that and takes a wilful act of ignorance or sheer defiance to ignore it.


However, once again, real Christianity is left to the individuals (The Remnant) who really know and follow Christ:

?The book lists the names of 3000 of the more than 50000 Christian Poles killed by the Germans for assisting Jews during the Holocaust. ...?

- www.holocaustforgotten.com/Lucaire.htm

So 50 thousand Christians were executed in Poland for helping Jews, despite clearly knowing that the penalty for helping them was death.


Jesus is quoted as saying of his followers, ?By their fruits they shall be known?.

Dan, you believe that anyone who professes to be a Christian is actually a Christian ? Christ knew better and so do I ? they are defined by the actions they produce.

I want the death of organized religion - the separation of church and state in all instances, and the end of the church inflicting its views upon the rest of society.

I want people to retain the freedom to choose whether they wish to know and follow Christ or not, and if so, to freely do so without the corrupting influence of organized religion.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Jumpin' Jehosophat!!! A Christian who gets it!!

YEE HAW! (that is actually serious sentiment by the way).

Thanks for being on the same side as me, now if we could remove the tax free standing for churches we would see what would really happen to religion if people had to pay to keep those buildings open.

Blacknad and all others:

You are providing DA with a platform to belittle your beliefs. It is wasteful because he is concrete in his attitude, dogmatic. When an idea has a focus of why male humans have niples you should get a sign that rational discussion is not available. We do not change history by talking about it. We should not invite immature thoughts to get serious consideration. In 77 years I learned it is possible to be clever and still ignorant and insecure. But Not me.
jjw

Dan wrote - "You are correct and for that I make no apology. My point which you have not and can not dispute is that the world has been an awful place. It follows from that directly that the death of Jesus Christ accomplished precisely what?"

- It is not a difficult relationship to understand. What Jesus has accomplished is in direct proportion to the amount of people who have really engaged and followed him. From my experience, far less of those professing faith than might at first be apparent.

I understand that you will reply that if Jesus was really divine he could ensure that people would follow him. This is a seperate argument. I am here only arguing for the sensible nature of his teachings.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Ok I'll bite.

You wrote:
"What Jesus has accomplished is in direct proportion to the amount of people who have really engaged and followed him."

So you can basically define all Christians that have ever run a red light or spit on the sidewalk or committed genocide as having "not really engaged and followed him." What a perfect solution of convenience. The ultimate waffle.

Rather than expecting Christ's teaching to have made a measurable difference on this planet you just define out of the realm of what matters 99.9% of the planet's inhabitants.

And yes if Jesus was truly anything more than a mortal trouble-maker he could have, should have, and would have done a far far better job. Poor ignorant slob didn't even know about penicillin. Had he known about it he could have had a real impact on people.

So based on actual lives saved and suffering alleviated I'll take my ex-sister-in-law over Jesus any day. She's real and the people she helps in her medical practice are not just stories in an authorless book. Plus, and it is a big plus, so far not one war has been fought over her.

Dan wrote - "So you can basically define all Christians that have ever run a red light or spit on the sidewalk or committed genocide as having "not really engaged and followed him." What a perfect solution of convenience. The ultimate waffle."

- On running red lights or spitting on sidewalks - Jesus did not legislate for the finer points of human behaviour, so we listen to the promptings of our conscience (it is believed that those who never heard of Christ will be held accountable by how they have responded to their conscience). We also extrapolate biblical principles to find answers.

There are two levels of wrong behaviour:

Standard sin - selfishness, stealing, pub brawling, running red lights etc.

Evil - genocide, rape etc.

All evil is legislated against in Christ's teachings and built upon in Paul's teachings. Also, much sinful behaviour is legislated against - the rest we figure out.

Christians sin, but when they step into the realm of committing evil they can be shown, by the objective measure of Christ's teachings, to be corrupt or erroneous. They can be held to account, and in the end they cannot argue their way out of it unless they are willing to abandon their faith.

If what they do is seen to conflict with:

"Turn the other cheek"
"Love your enemies"
"Forgive all who wrong you"
"Go the extra mile for people"
"Serve one another, as I have served you"
etc.

then they are clearly in the wrong or are simply not even real Christians.

Another point about this is that there are objective markers for the Christian that you can hold us to.

There are no objective markers that we can hold you to.

Christians cannot in good conscience commit genocide because it violates the basic principles of Christ.

Atheists surely can commit genocide and rationalise it, and if you don't agree, it is simply a matter of your opinion versus theirs. You have absolutely nothing concrete to point to. When an independent Nation State decides to kill its entire disabled populace (as the Germans attempted) because they are a non-productive drain upon valuable resources, what is your argument? What, you don't like the idea? You have an emotional dislike of what they are doing? Well, they are making a rational decision for the betterment of their society, and remember, you have no basis for appealing to the sanctity of life.

Give them one good reason why they should not do what they are doing. People are only animals after all and by your own admission, nothing special and without any inherent worth.

You can hold me to account.

I cannot hold you to account.

This is why I fear atheism more than religion.

This is why atheism has a far greater capacity to commit atrocities (see 20th century).

It is possible that atheism will become the overwhelming worldview in time. What will restrain it? Who will hold its actions accountable? Reason? Rational thought?

It is rational thought that leads us to a fundamental reduction in the value and worth of humanity and makes even greater evils possible.

If IQ is held in such high esteem (see Uncle Al), and stupid people are seen to stand in the way of progress (for example they might not see the wisdom of stem cell research or mass abortion or any number of things) then why not take away their right to reproduce, and prevent them from polluting the gene pool by partnering with the more intelligent.

In effect we would have intellectual apartheid, and it would make perfect sense.

Breed out the stupid people, breed out the irrational religious, breed out cripples and those with sub-standard genetic stock. Eliminate any who stand in the way of progress and the building of a 'better' world.

If you don't agree we should do this, be careful, you wouldn't want to be seen as standing in the way of sensible progress would you?

Aldous Huxley saw you coming.

But of course you are free to continue your crusade against irrational religion and save the minds of the ignorant.

Blacknad.

Dan wrote - "So based on actual lives saved and suffering alleviated I'll take my ex-sister-in-law over Jesus any day. She's real and the people she helps in her medical practice are not just stories in an authorless book. Plus, and it is a big plus, so far not one war has been fought over her."

- You can only state this with a flagrant disregard or ignorance of the actions of millions of people who have taken Jesus' words to heart and have served those around them and tried to alleviate suffering. He came to show us another way, and all those who have taken up his challenge have made a positive impact.

Feel free to continue ignoring this.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Dan,

Because you have philosophical objections to God's actions that you cannot overcome (some of which seem to be driven from an emotional position), it does not for one moment disprove the existence of God. It just shows that God has not ordered the Universe as Dan Morgan thinks he should.

Because you cannot accept the historical scriptural evidence and actually take a position different to that of a great deal of Christian and non-Christian scholars, does not invalidate the scriptures. Just because you can make no sense of how they were selected and brought together does not invalidate the choices that were made.

Just because you cannot work out that they are sufficient to inform the believer's life, and you cannot understand their coherence and the fact that they are 'fit for the purpose', does not invalidate them - it just shows that they are not sufficient for you, based upon the life choice you have made.

Just because you contemptuously disregard the place of personal religious experience as a supporting factor to the evidence of scripture and a reliable secondary proof does not invalidate it one bit - it is your opinion.

I believe you have rejected God at a personal level (for whatever reasons) and just rationalise it all away and confirm the choice you have made to disregard God and any claim He may have on your life.

Sincere seekers and those willing to accept God's claim to their lives have been rewarded with an experience that you cannot even come close to knowing about. Because you disregard it as psychological phenomena only defines it as such in your own head.

Your constant railing against everything religious and your inability to concede even one point, but remain absolutely assured of your own infallibity has certainly made me consider my beliefs, but has not presented a cogent argument that effectively challenges them.

As Jim Wood rightly says, all I am doing by defending my beliefs is giving you a platform to belittle them.

Well I think whether I engage with you or not, you will still find an outlet for your dislike of anything not centred in 'scientific rational thought'. Well you are surely welcome to your god, and your misplaced faith in your own ability to have this 'reality thing' all nicely packaged.

Regards,

Blacknad.

dvk wrote:
"There are two levels of wrong behaviour: Standard sin - selfishness, stealing, pub brawling, running red lights etc. Evil - genocide, rape etc."

Who decides where the line is drawn? You? Me? The voting majority? The king? The theologian? This is disingenuous. But lets just limit ourselves to genocide, torture, and rape to simplify it.

dvk then wrote:
"Christians sin, but when they step into the realm of committing evil they can be shown, by the objective measure of Christ's teachings, to be corrupt or erroneous."

Which differs from believers in every other religion or ethical or moral standard in what way?

dvk wrote:
"Christians cannot in good conscience commit genocide because it violates the basic principles of Christ."

Ah but they do. And you can not just paint the target after the arrow is shot and define them as non-Christians. To do so is essentially the same as saying "I am a good Christian right up until I rape my next door neighbor." Then alakazam I'm not a good Chrisitian. And my behavior just gets writen out of the books as though I never was one. Every Catholic priest that raped a young boy ... not really a Christian. Every member of the Nazi chain of command ... not really a Christian. The pastor's wife in Tennesse ... not really a Christian.

But all of the solves nothing but allow you to feel good about your choice. It does not stop the genocide. It does not stop the torture. It does not stop the rape. And those things continue because your lord Jesus Christ accomplished nothing in his life or death.

dvk wrote:
"You can hold me to account.
I cannot hold you to account.
This is why I fear atheism more than religion."

Your argument holds no water. There is no difference between being tortured by a Christian and tortured by a Hindu or tortured by a deist or tortured by an atheist. Your fear is irrational.

dvk asks:
"If IQ is held in such high esteem (see Uncle Al), and stupid people are seen to stand in the way of progress then why not take away their right to reproduce, and prevent them from polluting the gene pool by partnering with the more intelligent."

There are some among my friends who would be thrilled to make that happen. But I oppose it because I believe what Lord Acton said:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

And this is equally true for all including the self-annointed leaders of religions.

dvk wrote:
"You can only state this with a flagrant disregard or ignorance of the actions of millions of people who have taken Jesus' words to heart and have served those around them and tried to alleviate suffering."

Nonsense. Pure unadulterated 99% fat free nonsense. If millions of people had done what you suggest the world would be a different place. If that were true people like me would look out into the world and see the work of those millions and say "Wow I want to get me some of that stuff."

dvk wrote:
"Feel free to continue ignoring this."

I'm not ignoring it. It is just invisible unless, perhaps, you have an electron microscope.

dvk wrote:
"God has not ordered the Universe as Dan Morgan thinks he should."

No actually the universe is ordered exactly as it should be given quantum mechanics and relativity. There is nothing god can claim credit for except perhaps a genocidal flood, some genocidal plagues, and a lot of bloody warfare. If he doesn't exist then nothing has changed. But if he does he should be arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. Exhibit 1 for the prosecution: Smallpox.

dvk wrote:
"whether I engage with you or not, you will still find an outlet for your dislike of anything not centred in 'scientific rational thought'."

In this you are absolutely correct. I will never cease the fight against wilfull ignorance while I can still breathe air.

When your religion, or all religions, make as big an impact on life as the discovery of penicillin then you will have something to talk about. Right now all I see is justification for hatred and egotism blended with a heavy dose of hypocrisy.

Essentially we can distill it down to this:

Jesus Christ ... improved the lives of how many people?

Jonas Salk ... improved the lives of how many people?

Lets pray to Jonas.

DA, i was wondering if you could provide the title of this book. It honestly sounds very interesting... (finaly a person whose opinions i agree with!)also i dont mean to be offensive i just do not personally know of any one else who shares my same views.

What book did I reference? If you mean the "authorless book" it is commonly called The Bible.

It is a fascinating manuscript. No original copy. No evidence it was written by any known person or persons. Known to have been intentionally and repeatedly mistranslated.

I know many people that share my views. Not sure I know as many willing to overcome their fear of the Christian majority and say so out loud. Is was truly not that many years ago when to say what I've said would have landed me in jail or worse.

Well I am now taking SAGG out of my favourites and will no longer bother you. It has been a good source of science news and I have learnt much and enjoyed the people here. But I am now getting tired of reading posts and feeling insulted as the thing that is central to my life is trampled underfoot on almost a daily basis.

I think the following was the last straw and if it was intended to hurt and get Christians down then it was certainly successful in my case:

"Evicted, I presume, because god out father was a louse like so many fathers. Always blowing up in a rage, known for violent temper tantrums. Probably also a drunk."


This has nothing to do with reasoned debate.

Goodbye all.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Religious answer is more satisfying .. to every there is always a superior soul.Just as there is and will always be a soul superior to me.
Christ was no doubt a grand success but there can be someone who is even superior to him or her.

Shahn # 629 asks:

"Hi all, Im currently in Secondary School, and one of our major assesments in SOR (Studies Of Religion) is to provide an essay on the "Existence of Jesus." Historical, Political, Archaeological, Scientific and Gospel proof is needed."

Well Shahn, if you are still visitong this Forum you should have learned a few things.

To prove that Christ really existed I would need some serious up front retainer, about six good researchers, atleast 3 of which must speak and read 3 languages each, one specialized in bibical histroy and one atheist extra to argue with us about all the potential proofs we intend to offer, all charged to the inquirey.

Along the way depending on your ability to pay and how busy I am at that particular time, I may require you to explain why the issue is important enough for all of this focused effort?

So why is it important to PROVE Christ existed?
jjw

Dear DA,

lets face it - you are a religious zealot - its just that your religion is based on the belief that there is no God rather than the other way round.

You have been trying to convert others to to your beliefs - so you are activily evangelising for your faith.
Not only is your preaching arrogantly selfrighteous, but your arguments exhibit strong bias and inconsistent logic - which makes you a true hard core fundamentalist.
Compared to you the others are laid back, fairly balanced and reasonable, and their arguments are mostly realistic and consistant and they draw on a wide rang of sources rather than just rely on their religions texts.

You refuse to accept any source which does not say what you want it to say. You reject the Paul and Luke because they were written 30 or 60 years after the event, and Josephus who wrote another 20 year later, yet endorse the Quran which was written many centuries later by someone whose only source was the very thing you disparage - "the record essentially disappears for around 200-300 years until the story is merged with a substantial amount of 100% heathen nonsense...".
If Pliny, a historian and scholar with contacts in all the right places, is not trustworthy when writing about things which happened 80 years before (about 110 for Jesus birth) then why are you to be trusted to know what happened 16 to 18 centuries before your birth when you say "the record essentially dissappears for around 200-300 years".
Pliny was writing about events about as distant as WW1 is from us now - if in 2000 years someone came across a history book written now about WW1, would they reject it as evidence?

In one thing you are right - "The hyocrasy of religious zealots does know no bounds",
and fundamentalist Atheists are on top of the league.

ppl keep saying what has christ accomplished, yet they overlook a very vital thing.

before christ most of the religions were multi deity. if a storm brewed up and destroyed your crops it was because two gods were fighting.

after the church got into gear, the believe that there was only one god meant that there had to be another expliantion for the weather and other things.

in otherwords science, including Salk amoung others, are derived from the knowledge that things that are harmfull to humans are not the result of multiple gods.

so in essense, jesus paved the way for polio vaccine, and cancer treatment, and space flight.

dehammer wrote:
"before christ most of the religions were multi deity."

They still are. Just ask the father, the son, and the holy ghost, all of the different variations on the Buddhist/Hindu theme, and the countless extant animist religions.

Jesus paved the way for blood flowing like water in the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the countless wars in Europe.

Your reference to polio vaccine and cancer treatment is disingenuous. He created the diseases according to Christianity. If you intentionally shoot someone with a gun you don't get credit for calling 911 later.

1) according to what i know of Christianity, the son and the holy ghost are not considered gods. they are merely the path Christians are suppose to be able to talk to god.

2) he paved the way, but did not do anything more.

if i made a road and someone came along and killed someone in a drunken accident, would you claim i was responsible. if someone came along in a ambulance and saved a life, would i be responsible. the answer in both questions is no. the creator created life. according to some, disease and stuff like that are the devils work. according to others its one of the challanges god gave man to test him. (dont ask me why)

Wow, Shahn.
That's a hard paper to write.
Practically nothing can prove the existance of Christ. I mean, it's all faith and what you believe in, it's almost impossible to prove anything.
Read the Bible, any religious books, perhaps. There are ancient relics, paitings, writings-they may all contain some proof, you never know.
But then again, you can't prove that any deity or god existed either-you just believe in it.
Good luck

Anyone who understands the Philosophy of Science knows that it is harder to prove that something deosen't exist than to prove that it does. Unfortunately most people are more interested in convincing themselves and others that what they believe is true, rather than wanting to beleive what is true.
When Scientists say that they love Science and hate Religion, it is a sad day for Science. First they don't mention truth, and it is the search for truth which makes the difference between good and bad science. Secondly, History showns that people tend to hate more strongly than they love. Without a love of Truth, these people will begin to distort Science as they seek to use it to attack religion.

While Science is quite good at resisting blatent pressure from outside (e.g. from Creation Science), it is much more vulnerable to more subtle attacks from within. I suspect that the whole ID movment would never have got going if it hadn't been for the flood of documentaries, etc, which present Evolution as a kind pseudo religion.

One example of religo/philosophical beleifs harming Science is in learning theory. LJ Skinner changed learning theory from being almost purely speculative into an experimental Science. However Skinner had strong beliefs about meaning (the lack there of), and this was projected into the Behaviourist movement which he started. Skinner insisted that learning be treated as a "black box" and only behavour could be studied. This hindered the development of other approaches the study of learning for several decades.

If you really do love Science then please don't mix it with religion, or anti religion.

Peter I've yet to meet the scientist that "hates" religion. What I have met is scientists that hate hypocrisy (no matter its form), hate ignorance (no matter its form), and hate child abuse (in all its forms).

Don't flatter religion by trying to elevate it to some special place in the Pantheon. It is no better, or worse, than nationalism, gay bashing, anti-Semitism, and ethnic cleansing.

I was quoting a statement made by several contributers to this discussion group, and it is one which is strongly reflected in the letters section of several popular science magazines.

My aim is not to elevate religion, but to point out that strong anti religous beleifs (which are a kind of religion) can lead to a negative form of "Creation Science".

A balanced view of Religion would admit the possiblity of good as well as bad. When you can only see one extreme then this begins to distort everything else.
If you look at any Creation Science literature you will soon seen a distorted interpretaion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which preclueds evolution. These peoples commitment ot creation in six days is such that they think thier interpretation is correct and don't recognize that it precludes life and crystal growth.
The same thing can happen with Anti Religion Scientists.

I notice that you did not provide any positive things for religion to be "no better or worse than", although many US citizens consider nationalism to be a positive thing.
Maybe you or someone you know has been badly hurt by religious people, and I know that there is a lot of bad religion out there. The challeng is to differenctiate between the bad and the (potentially) good. People do bad things then use religion, or politics, or even science to justify it. However there are also people who do good things, and then there are the rest of us in the middle who do some good and some bad.

Peter wrote:
"My aim is not to elevate religion, but to point out that strong anti religous beleifs (which are a kind of religion) can lead to a negative form of "Creation Science"."

I disagree. It is not a religion to refute Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Why is it a kind of religion to refute religious nonsense?

You write:
"A balanced view of Religion would admit the possiblity of good as well as bad"

Oh I'll grant you the "possibility" of good as well as bad. But lets take a good look at historical reality. Take piece of paper and on one side write all of the good things that can be definitely attributed to religion: On the other all of the bad. Lets go good side / bad side.

G: Raises money to help the poor.
B: Spends billions on glorious churches.

G: Talks about the Golden Rule.
B: Supported most wars in the last 10,000 years.

G: Puts free bibles into hotel rooms.
B: Causes perfectly good trees to be cut down.

I'll grant "good" is possible if you'll grant that the overwhelming reality is that it has failed in that mission.

Why should I, or anyone, care what many US citizens think of nationalism? What is good is not a popularity contest.

Personally I have never been hurt by religion. Nor can I say that I have ever met any individuals hurt by it other than a friend who was sexually abused by a Catholic priest in the 1960s. My objection is based on 10,000 years of historical reality ... not some personal injury.

So far all of the religious organizations on this planet have not prayed their way to a cure for polio ... for smallpox ... for TB ... or obtained the favours of their creator to tell them about penicillin.

When the Pope or Father Jones or Imam Mohammed or Rabbi Goldberg delliver to humanity a cure for AIDS or war I'll change my mind.

Until then I see them as part of the problem not part of the solution.

" Unfortunately most people are more interested in convincing themselves and others that what they believe is true, rather than wanting to beleive what is true."

It's not about believing, it's about discovering. The problem is that religious types (and some others) commonly just decide what they want to believe and then go about justifying their belief. There's no serious asking "what's true?"

Religions is an attempt to define Truth, rather than discover it.

For once Falliable I agree with you but I'd rewrite your last sentence

FROM:

"Religions is an attempt to define Truth"

TO:

"Religions is an attempt to DICTATE Truth"

Their definition is that their truth is the correct one and that all others are misguided or worse.

some truths are personal and should only be discovered by the person, not dicated to others. (note, this is completely different that scientific facts. truths and fact are not necissarily the same things)

If it doesn't exist ... claiming it does is a lie.

It is no more complex than that.

truths exist that cant be proven. its not a fact if they cant be. some things are truths only for the person that discovers them.

fact: the sun appears to rise in the east. any one with eyes and even a small amount of sense will know that. it can be proven.

just because a truth cant be proven, this does not mean its a lie.

here is an example. a disabled athlete may be the very best, yet there are many athletes that are better. why, because he has pushed himself to the point where he has overcome his disability. he may never be able to run a three minute mile. but he's a champion. that is a truth, but prove it. cant be done. the only measure that exist for measuring if he is a champion or not, is inside of him. since it cant show up on a x ray, cant be tested, cant be dissected you can only measure it by his standards. it exist, it is a truth, but it does not fit the definition of a fact.

another example: "christ is the son of god". prove it. unless you can get god and christ to come in to court and give dna, your not going to prove it. The bible says he is, but that only works if you beleive the ppl that wrote it. IF you believe that he is, and IF your heart and soul says its the truth, then its the truth.... FOR YOU. IF your heart and soul says that, then by all means believe it, keep in close, and cherish it for all time. Just dont expect me to believe it if i dont feel it.

Another Christ story!

It seems that some of the members profess the belief in the concept that Jesus Christ was the son of "god" but keep searching for some new found proof. Why is that? Is that a part of their scripture that starts with, "let ye of little faith..." that they fail to understand or are they just doubtful? I would run a poll but I doubt it would prove anything more than what we observe. The proof is in the history if you choose to believe. Confirmation is unnecessary.
I do not consider Jesus to have any relationship to any god, past or present, but if I could bring myself to accept the fact I would not be seeking confirmation from non-believers.

Make you choice and grow with it.
jjw

dehammer wrote:
"truths exist that cant be proven."

There isn't enough ergot fungus on the planet to make me believe your preposterous fabrication.

Facts are provable.

If something is not probable ... it is not a fact.

Get a book and read it if you can.

Dan,

He did say 'truths' and not facts.

Einstein's relativity theory was not provable right away. But it was correct - so it was always a truth.

So truths exist that cannot be proven - doesn'tmean they will always be unprovable - doesn't mean they aren't truths.

Of course you can prove relativity theory in a lab with pencil lead (graphene) now :-)

Blacknad.

Granted: And the difference between 'truths' and 'facts'? Can you define the difference and provide a clear example that elminates the gray area inbetween?

Assuming you have access to a dictionary:

Webster's dictionary defines truth as being the "body of real things, events, and facts," in other words the colollected facts and events create the truth.

Care to dissemble ... be my guest.

facts are things that are proven. like that an object will fall if it is not supported in earths gravity. even if its in orbit, its still falling, just its falling around the earth.

Truths are usually things that are a bit more personal. things like the Christian's saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". it not a fact that will protect you from evil hearted people, but its a truth about the way they want to live.

a wiccan truth is the return of three. that means what ever you do, in some form will return to you three times. If you deliberately go out to harm others, you will be harmed three time as much. i cant prove to you, a non believer, but i know its true. that is why you find very few warlocks (male or female) in Wicca. If they betray the craft, they will be betrayed by it three times. Try to prove that to an atheist, and he will come up with all kind of excuses why those three betrayals occur.

since you brought up Websters, here's more of it

2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions

spiritual truths cant be proven, they can only be believed.

here's is another example. prove to me that Christopher Columbus actually set foot on any par of the 'new world'. there is no remaining proof, save the words of people who wrote what they saw then, or his own words, all of which could have been falsified. yet to day, it is an accepted truth that he discovered America, even though there is no evidence that he ever saw it with his own two eyes. He did discover the Americas meaning all the land in this hemisphere.

dehammer dissembles:
"Truths are usually things that are a bit more personal."

And you found this definition where? In a box of breakfast cereal?

I gave you Webster's dictionary and you give me a blivet.

no, you gave me a snip it of webster's dictionary definition and i gave you back a fuller one that included the religious aspect. It would appear that you dont accept webster's including religion as part of a defintion. either take it all or dont bother quoting it.

That's a bit unfair.

It was once considered a fact that the earth was flat, but the truth all along was that it was round.

Therefore facts change with our understanding, but the truth of the matter never alters.

There are many things we consider fact at this time, but 'in fact' will be discovered to be false. So at this point in time we consider them fact but that does not make them true.

Blacknad.

dehammer wrote:
"no, you gave me a snip it of webster's dictionary definition and i gave you back a fuller one that included the religious aspect."

One that you wrote yourself or one from a recognized book? Name the book. Name the edition. Name the page.

Lying is a sin!

Blacknad wrote:
"It was once considered a fact that the earth was flat, but the truth all along was that it was round."

That my friend is dissembling.

It has never been a fact that the earth was flat.

And neither has saying so been the truth.

It has, at best, been a error in judgement stated with conviction.

That my friend is not dissambling. Dissembling is a conscious attempt to mislead or conceal the truth. I'm prepared to admit it was dodgy thinking - but not dishonest. Would I lie to you?

But there is surely some mileage in the idea that what we consider fact is sometimes different from the truth. Science surely has its share of accepted facts that have later been shown to be false and revised. The truth never changed but our understanding of the facts did.

Come on Dan - give me a little encouragement - let me win an argument. I won't tell anyone.

Blacknad.

Not a conscious effort on your part ... that wasn't what I meant. But anyone that says this was once a common belief is ... it was not ... that is just urban legend.

I see nothing wrong with the dictionary definition other than the fact that it requires those that are incorrect to be willing to step up and acknowledge it. Something sorely lacking in most here at SAGG.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=truth

you should know about lying, since its you're so good at it. my definition has the same wordings as yours, which means they likely came from the same source. you did not give your source. that means you likely saw the same definition i did, but choose to exclude the part that did not agree with you. lying by omission is still lying.

you really should study history, at least read a book about it, before making statements. it was not an urban myth, it was what everyone believed was a fact.

urban legend
Function: noun
: an often lurid story or anecdote that is based on hearsay and widely circulated as true <the urban legend of alligators living in the sewers> -- called also urban myth (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/urban%20myth)

note that this says 'widely'. i forget who was the first one to notice that two wells dug straight down, in two latitude, had different angles of sunlight. I do know that his theory that the earth was round was not accepted at the time. this does not meet the cryteira of urban legend. it meet the cryteria of accepted facts. accepted facts change when evidents that they are wrong comes. urban myth's ignore the facts. aligators in the sewers has been proven to be an urban myth, with no evidence to back it up, yet it remains. the accepted fact of a flat earth was changed when the scientist of the day disproved it.

dehammer wrote:
"it was not an urban myth, it was what everyone believed was a fact."

Oh really? Where is even a shred of evidence that your statement is valid? Do you have a refernce?

I can easily provide evidence it is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

You might want to look up the word "ignorance" in your copious spare time.

maybe im missing something, but i cant find anywhere where i said that they believed that at a particular time. as your link shows, it was believed up to a certain point, but was then disproved.

here is a quote from your proof that no one ever believed that the earth was flat:
I need not look up the definition of ignorance. all i have to do is look at someone who cant even give a link to prove his point without disproving it.

Again no reference. YOYO!

roflol. i gave your reference and you claim none? read your own links if you want to see where that came from. you posted it. why should i post a reference when yours proves my point. maybe you should learn to read your own references before using them as part of your arguement. most of your references disprove your points.

Please see a doctor about your comprehension problem. The link does not support your contention when read in its entirety and taken in context.

I asked for link that supported what you wrote. Not one that contradicts it.

please see a doctor about your inability to keep a thread of thought together. at no point did i ever say when people believed the world was flat, only that they did believe it at one point. your link specifically states that they did believe that at one point in the evolution of human understanding. therefore your link supports my position. Your position that it was only a urban myth that people believed that is not supported.