So did Jesus live or what?

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq
That;s a just a form of insult.

I find that to be an unusual way of looking at it. You almost make it sound as though the teaching about turning the other cheek were a spiteful one - and given your inexplicable propensity to cast Jesus and his teachings in an absurdly unfavorable light, I wonder if that's exactly what you're trying to do here. Surely no unbiased reader would summarize Jesus' lessons about the treatment of enemies as "Insult them" (as you did a few posts back).

[Melendwyr]

That may be my fault. I mentioned that the place where Jesus supposedly lived didn't exist. I was refering to Nazereth, not Bethlehem. I apologize for the confusion. Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.

[CapelDodger]

Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.
Bethlehem is referred to (as a place-name, admittedly) repeatedly in the OT. It's in many ways more significant than Jerusalem. David is said to have been born there. He set up his first HQ in Hebron then captured (and transferred to) Jerusalem, which has strategic advantages for a warlord. Apart from that Jerusalem has little going for it. Modern Bethlehem is a much more natural settlement site.

Not that there's a unique Bethlehem, of course ... :)

[davefoc]

Who cares.
Hi Complexiity,
There are thousands of threads in this forum, can we look forward to you going through each one and letting us know each time you don't find the subject interesting? I notice that you've done it twice in this thread. Is that because you are especially not interested in this subject or will all threads that you find not interesting get at least two posts exclaiming your non-interest?

[davefoc]

Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.

CD alluded to this, but the city of Bethlehem near Jerusalem is not known to have existed in the first centruy. However there is a Bethlehem in Galilee that has been excavated and found to have definitely existed in 1 ce.

Some scholars have suggested that this is the Bethlehem that the New Testament is referring to:

Wikeipedia article on Bethlehem, Galilee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem%2C_Galilee

[Complexity]

davefoc - I'm answering the question posed by the thread title.

Does it matter whether Jesus lived?

If there were significant evidence that he did live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are not Christian.

If there were significant evidence that he did not live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are Christian.

Its all very well to have a discussion on the subject. I'm simply throwing in my two cents. I maintain that it does not matter whether Jesus lived.

A longer way of saying this is that the truth value of the statement 'There once lived a man named Jesus who is the same Jesus described in the Christian Bible' has no effect on the world we live in.

I seriously asked the question, 'Who cares?' I'm interested in hearing who does care and the reasons for caring.

I don't find the thread question interesting, but I do find the reasons why people claim to care about it interesting.

I think there are lot more important and interesting things to talk about. If I think people are engaged in a fruitless serious discussion, I usually find a way of letting them know. I'm not overly concerned about whether the discussion continues, but some things just need to be said.

It is likely that I will forget about this exchange and thread and rediscover what I think is a fruitless serious discussion later. When I do, I may be moved to comment. Feel free to disregard that comment as well.

[davefoc]

reasonable questions,
I don't know the answers. But I'll take a shot at some of them.

As to whether it matters whether Jesus lived or died in terms of how the answer to that question might affect the present:

I don't know. I am interested in the answer, probably for about the same reason I want to know who did it in a Law and Order episode. I'm a curious fellow and one of the things I'm curious about is how the Christian relgion got going and what role an historical Jesus played in that.

I am with you, that even if overwhelming evidence was found that contradicted most of Christianity's mythology concerning Jesus the effect on the world would be minimal. The evidence seems pretty straightforward that the basic Christian mythology is false and evidence for that has been available for a long time. That seems to have had no particular effect on anything so it is reasonable to expect that even stronger evidence that the Christian mythology is false wouldn't have much effect either. As an aside I think the best chance for better evidence to surface of the false nature of Christian mythology would be some kind of writings not now known from the original Jewish Jesus cults. I suppose after all these years the chance of something like that is probably almost zero though.

As to who cares besides people like myself:
I don't know, a certain percentage of the people who are interested in the nature of an hisotirical Jesus are previously religious folks who have lost their Christian faith but not their interest in the nature of Jesus. The writer of the Pascal's wager web site is somebody like that. I was listening to a bible scholar on NPR a couple of days ago and it sounded like he was in about the same boat.

I suppose believers are interested also, but I don't understand how they jibe their faith with the conflicting details that are inherent in trying to figure out the nature of an historic Jesus. I've wondered about that with respect to Catholic priests . At least some of them must have had the intellectual curiosity and capability to investiagete the known historical details that underlie their church and their faith. My thought is that they divide the world of faith into two parts, one a sort of fantasyland made up of all the traditions and mythology that people have come to expect and perhaps enjoy that the church has promulgated over the years and the other an intellectual world where truth is an important goal.

[ceo_esq]

If there were significant evidence that he did live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are not Christian.

Hopefully it would to the extent that such beliefs included the belief that Jesus did not live.


If there were significant evidence that he did not live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are Christian.

How do you know this? Even if only one in 100 Christians allowed his or her beliefs to be altered by knowledge of such evidence (an implausibly low number, I think), that would still result in twenty million changed minds - arguably a significant consequence.

[kuroyume0161]

Complexity:

Obviously lots of people care since this subject has been discussed and written about for nearly two millenia.

Personally, my interests are in the interplay between the fictions and the facts and wherein they were developed - more of a historical interest related to the development of the cult into religion and its mythology. Also it is interesting to see how, in the face of the reality that most of the gospel narration is fictitious and impossible, people are still able to be so credulous. We now know that most of the credulity is caused by indoctrinatory practices of one type or another (no person sufficiently isolated from knowledge of Christianity has ever become a Christian independently thereof and thereby).

I'm by no means a scholar in relation to this, only an interested bystander with a modicum of research. When I win the lottery - notice no 'if' ;) - I'll then have sufficient time to do more esoteric things like this.

[Euromutt]

Okay, let's take another look at Seimosaurus' original post:I've seen the claim from fundies several times lately that Jesus definitely existed and that all serious historians agree on this point - the debate is purely about whether he was actually God incarnate or just a man.Based on what I've read in this thread, I think it's safe to say there is no truth to that claim, and we can file it alongside the "Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed" lie (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html).

Clearly, there are valid grounds to doubt whether a historical Jesus existed at all, but even if we take the existence of a historical Jesus as axiomatic, there is still serious doubt that he bore any resemblance to the character portrayed (in rather incoherent fashion) in the New Testament.

Personally, even after having read this entire thread, I'm actually leaning further towards the idea that the Biblical Jesus was invented from whole cloth, with elements borrowed from other sources amateurishly thrown in to widen the appeal of the cult. The NT is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, both internally and with historical fact, and the references in Josephus and Tacitus are hearsay at best, forgery at worst.

Regarding the question of why Christianity succeeded where so many other Messianic cults failed, the hypothesis that Jesus was fabricated "posthumously" may provide the explanation: a messiah who isn't around any more can't be shown to be a fake. And you avoid the embarassment of somebody stumbling across his grave when you've been claiming he ascended to heaven. Note, moreover, how the epistles were all written to people who lived conveniently far away from Palestine (Corinth, Thessaloniki, Rome, etc.), and who were therefore in no position to go asking about this Jesus bloke.

[ceo_esq]

Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.

What exactly are you talking about? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

An ancient settlement, [Bethlehem] is possibly mentioned in the Amarna Letters (14th-century-BC diplomatic documents found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt), but the reading there is uncertain. Bethlehem is first mentioned in the Bible in connection with Rachel, who died on the wayside near there (Genesis 35:19). It is the setting for most of the Book of Ruth and was the presumed birthplace, and certainly the home, of her descendant, King David; there he was anointed king of Israel by the prophet Samuel (I Samuel 16). The town was fortified by Rehoboam, David's grandson and first king of Judah after the division of the state between Israel and Judah (II Chronicles 11). During the Jewish return to Palestine after the Babylonian Captivity (516 BC and following), the town was repopulated; later, a Roman garrison was there during the Second Jewish Revolt led by Bar Kokhba (AD 135).


* * * * *


Was Bethlehem a village? I'd heard it refered to as the City of David. That suggests something slightly larger. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that a group of soldiers marched into a village, stole even 12 newborns and killed them for no reason, without anyone saying anything. Given the uniqueness of the event (killing a group of babies in one village in one night), it would certainly warrant more mention than "Herod killed a lot of people."

The Britannica passage suggests that the settlement was more substantial in Old Testament times; the site was subsequently abandoned and then at least modestly repopulated.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents) adds:

If the [Massacre of the Innocents] is historical, given the small size of "Bethlehem and its vicinity," it did not involve a large number of boys age two and under. Albright estimates the area had about 300 people at the time. Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand. Given the birth rate and high infant mortality rate of the time, either of these figures would mean at most only a few dozen children killed. This would not have been a particularly large atrocity for the period in general and Herod in particular and thus might have escaped mention by Josephus and others.

[CapelDodger]

I don't find the thread question interesting, but I do find the reasons why people claim to care about it interesting.
I share davefoc's curiosity as to just what really went on, but there is also arguably a more practical reason. If we can fathom the roots of the Christian cult we may be able to make sense of the "interplay between the fictions and the facts", as kuroyume puts it, in its development. That has practical significance, since there will no doubt be cults to come and it would be best if they were spotted and stopped early on.

In this regard, an understanding of Paul is probably more significant than the existence of Jesus, but there was an existing Jesus cult for him to work with. What was its form, why did Paul choose it, how did he manipulate it, why was he so successful? What does it tell us about world-imperial societies? Could something similar happen again?

[Complexity]

Thank you, CapelDodger - your reason for pursuing this question makes some sense.

[jjramsey]

The oft-quoted reference to "James, the brother of Jesus" can be countered by a dozen references to other 'brothers of Jesus' and 'brethren of Jesus'. Priests and congregations are regularly referred to as 'brothers' and 'brethren'. Does that mean they are all related? I'd have to see a clear distinction between usages in the epistles.

As has been pointed out before, maybe even on this thread, the Greek grammar is different when referring to "brothers of the Lord" and "brothers in (or into) the Lord." Also, from the textbook The Historical Jesus--A Comprehensive Guide, here is a question at the end of the fourth chapter, pp.123-124:


By comparison with other grounds for extreme historical scepticismm it is interesting that Wells regards the Pauline letters as authentic and early, but disputes that Jesus is recognizable in them as the contemporary of Peter, James, Paul, etc. Of course, he has to explain how in Gal. 1.19 James is called the 'brother of the Lord' and (married) 'brothers of the Lord' also appear in I Cor. 9.5. His answer is that 'brother of the kurios [BTW, kurios = "lord"] does not mean (physical) brother of Jesus but 'member of the brotherhood of the exalted kurios'. The Risen Christ spoke of those who followed him as 'my brothers' in this sense in Matt. 28.9f. and John 20.17.

(a) What objections are there to understanding 'brother' in Gal. 1.19 and I Cor. 9.5 in a transferred sense? Note the other groups and persons named in this context!


And now, the answer in the back of the book (p. 581):

(a) The argument that 'brothers of the Lord' in the passages mentioned means brothers who are especially zealous in the service of the Lord is intrinsically contradictory: in the Gospels, as is clear from the context, the brothers are the eleven apostles or the disciples, and Peter is always with included with them. In I Cor. 9.5, however, the 'brothers of the Lord' are distinguished from the 'other apostles and Peter'; in Gal. 1:19 James, and not Peter, is called 'brother of the Lord'.

[Euromutt]

Excuse me, ramsey, but in the bits you cite there, there's no reference to "brothers into the Lord"*, so there isn't actually any support for the distinction you claim exists.

* - That's what, αδελφοι κυριον, as opposed to αδελφοι κυριου? If I understand correctly, you can't mean αδελφοι κυριωι as Koine has no dative case, if I understand correctly.

[jjramsey]

Excuse me, ramsey, but in the bits you cite there, there's no reference to "brothers into the Lord"*, so there isn't actually any support for the distinction you claim exists.

* - That's what, αδελφοι κυριον, as opposed to αδελφοι κυριου? If I understand correctly, you can't mean αδελφοι κυριωι as Koine has no dative case, if I understand correctly.

That's because the particular argument cited is against Wells, not Doherty. It's Doherty who mixes up "brothers of the Lord," in Gal. 1.19 and 1 Cor. 9.5, and "brothers into the Lord," which is in Philippians 1.14. Here's the NIV translation of Philippians 1.14:

Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

[kuroyume0161]

Thanks, jjramsey - always with more references than I. ;)

I'll have to load up my QuickVerse (think that it has Greek and Hebrew versions to scripture where available). My problem is that I'm a (living) Spanish, German, Japanese language person. Learning Greek and Hebrew would be beyond my current age and concentration ability. :) So, I'll have to slug it out to understand the subtleties in translations.

Here's the nasty question: Do the original letters still exist or are we only working from copies and/or translations?

[kuroyume0161]

Here's a question to either jjramsey or ceo_esq:

If you had to choose between one of these, which would be the best computer reference:

BibleWorks 6.0
Logos Bible Software
GramCord Ultimate Bundle

I ask because it appears that my QuickVerse 7 is not only outdated, but the CDs are inoperable (after only four years of careful storage). Anyway, these seem to be the most highly regarded and scholarly - unless you can profer others.

Thanks!

[LW]

Here's the nasty question: Do the original letters still exist or are we only working from copies and/or translations?

No, they don't.

Just about the only area where some original 1st century texts have been preserved is Egypt. (And of course the Dead Sea area).

[kuroyume0161]

Exactly. There are no originals except for these more lateral documents. The preservation is not meet and we must dally with what is meet out. It becomes difficult to argue from secondary (if not much further separated) sources about things conveyed without sufficient evidence.

Parsing the interpretations and reading between the lines seems to be the only recourse to arrival at consensus. Not a very scientific enterprise assuredly.

[jjramsey]

Exactly. There are no originals except for these more lateral documents. The preservation is not meet and we must dally with what is meet out. It becomes difficult to argue from secondary (if not much further separated) sources about things conveyed without sufficient evidence.

The nice thing though is that so many copies were made, even early on, so that it is very difficult for an interpolation to affect all the copies. This is especially true of the New Testament. Generally we don't have to guess where there are interpolations because they can be detected by comparing the copies against one another. The New Testament has been much better preserved that, say, Josephus.

[kurious_kathy]

We can take it on faith! Jesus not only came and lived among men, but He died and rose again. Jesus is the only one that death could not keep. He never sinned unlike all the rest of us. If it wasn't for the Messiah all would be lost! I know my redeemer lives!

[kuroyume0161]

Back to the topic at hand...

Which of the above mentioned computer software references do you recommend, jjramsey?

I am nowhere near a college, university, or major library and compiling a collection of hard literature would be more expensive and time consuming than any of these resources.

Thanks!

[jjramsey]

Which of the above mentioned computer software references do you recommend, jjramsey?

I haven't used any of them, so I can't recommend one way or another. Usually I've used things like the Strong's Concordance and a few of the books I've kept from college, and I've also made use of the libraries near me. Sorry I can't be more helpful here.

There are free tools available from Crosswire.org (http://www.crosswire.org/). I can't speak for their quality, but if they don't work for you, at least you haven't lost any money. Also, lurking around the Crosstalk discussion list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/) and keeping an eye on a biblioblog (http://biblioblog.net/) or two is useful. At the very least, it gives you an idea of who the real players are in Biblical Studies.

[kuroyume0161]

See, I've not been to college - gasp ;) - and definitely no biblical concordance or other structured religious studies in my past. Were I still a Center City, Philadelphia resident, the main library branch would be a leisurely walk or bike ride from whence I resided (as well as Temple University, Art Museum, Franklin Institute, to mention a few of the accessible resources there). Now my closest resource is the internet and purchased software and books. Otherwise, it's horses. :)

Allbethey free, online sources tend to be unreliable (put mildly). I don't even find my paid memberships to the ACM and CMP (professional computer developer references and resources) always to be very informative or contain the required practical applications when needed. ;)

The one advantage of these concordance softwares (if done well, of course) is that they are relational databases which allow access to biblical scholarship and versions to a degree that I think the online resources and even books can not possibly achieve. Of course, there is a cost factor associated with this level of organizational collection of sources (upwards to a thousand dollars or more).

Thanks for responding nonetheless. I'll have to do the research for comparisons and reviews and make the decision based upon these.

[kuroyume0161]

It appears that one of the most highly regarded bible study/scholarship/concordance softwares is Accordance by OakTree Software. The coverage is amazing and you can purchase the Scholar's Collection Core for $199 and add whatever module resources as you go. Covers full Greek and Hebrew sources, translations, dictionaries, and cross-references as well as non-canonical books, commentaries, maps, and so forth. MacOS only, but that doesn't bother me... :)

It was a toss-up between this and Logos, but this gets the highest praise and has the best structure (incremental modules with a reasonable base price). Of course, if you want everything, the cost is $1799. Don't think that I'll need that much material.

[Ossai]

ceo_esq
I find that to be an unusual way of looking at it. You almost make it sound as though the teaching about turning the other cheek were a spiteful one - and given your inexplicable propensity to cast Jesus and his teachings in an absurdly unfavorable light, I wonder if that's exactly what you're trying to do here.
Unfavorable yes, absurdly unfavorable no.

Surely no unbiased reader would summarize Jesus' lessons about the treatment of enemies as "Insult them" (as you did a few posts back). I think you need to look into cultural norms of the time. It was a shame for the viewer to look upon a naked person. The turn the other cheek is mixed in with a whole host of other insulting behavior, so why should it be considered different?

Ossai

[ceo_esq]

Here's a question to either jjramsey or ceo_esq:

If you had to choose between one of these, which would be the best computer reference:

BibleWorks 6.0
Logos Bible Software
GramCord Ultimate Bundle

I ask because it appears that my QuickVerse 7 is not only outdated, but the CDs are inoperable (after only four years of careful storage). Anyway, these seem to be the most highly regarded and scholarly - unless you can profer others.

Thanks!

I'm afraid I don't have any firsthand familiarity with any of these software packages. Sorry.

[ceo_esq]

Unfavorable yes, absurdly unfavorable no.

Considering that you earlier argued that Matthew's Jesus preached violence, when much stronger and more direct textual evidence exists for the opposite claim, I find your interpretations to be, in fact, somewhat absurd. Certainly they do not appear to be the product of an unbiased critical approach.

I think you need to look into cultural norms of the time. It was a shame for the viewer to look upon a naked person. The turn the other cheek is mixed in with a whole host of other insulting behavior, so why should it be considered different?


Unless you have some undisclosed sources, everyone here has presumably now looked into the "cultural norms" as closely as you have. If you can point out an authority that actually states that "turning the other cheek" is, according to a specifically applicable cultural norm, intended primarily to give offense to or show contempt for another person, we will read it with great interest.

On the subject, would you agree that Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels, anyhow) indicated that his followers should love their enemies and do good to them? A simple affirmative or negative will suffice.

[CapelDodger]

Considering that you earlier argued that Matthew's Jesus preached violence, when much stronger and more direct textual evidence exists for the opposite claim, I find your interpretations to be, in fact, somewhat absurd. Certainly they do not appear to be the product of an unbiased critical approach.
Unless the same text is involved in both claims you're simply pointing out the inconsistencies in Matthew.

[CapelDodger]

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.
Wasn't it more an act of defiance? Passive-aggressive, in jargon. It's an insult in a way, a denial of someone's status by not reacting appropriately as an inferior. A challenge. ("Pick up the gun." :)) Go on, make me a martyr - and martyrdom features big-time in Pauline Christianity, let's face it. It may not have featured so much in the Jerusalem Church, and I'm guessing it didn't.

I don't know if the "cheek" pun works in Latin, but a riot was reportedly set off by a Roman soldier mooning the Temple from the fortress above. Must look up the details.

[ceo_esq]

Unless the same text is involved in both claims you're simply pointing out the inconsistencies in Matthew.

As no one pointed out passages in Matthew where Jesus unambiguously preached violence, whereas several passages exhorting Jesus' followers to nonviolence were adduced, the only inconsistency identified was between the actual text of Matthew and Ossai's reading thereof.

[CapelDodger]

As no one pointed out passages in Matthew where Jesus unambiguously preached violence, whereas several passages exhorting Jesus' followers to nonviolence were adduced, the only inconsistency identified was between the actual text of Matthew and Ossai's reading thereof.
Ossai may not have pointed out any passages, but he has certainly read passages that he so interprets. If there's no chapter and verse mentioned, it doesn't mean there isn't chapter and verse. And "unambiguously" is a weasel word. Look at what happened to "Turn the other cheek". Ambiguity is to argument as vacuum energy is to space-time.

[jjramsey]

Ambiguity is to argument as vacuum energy is to space-time.

However, if we have ambiguous passages that may be interpreted as preaching violence, but the larger context has passages that clearly advocate nonviolence, then it makes sense to resolve the ambiguity by interpreting the passages to fit with the larger context.

[ceo_esq]

However, if we have ambiguous passages that may be interpreted as preaching violence, but the larger context has passages that clearly advocate nonviolence, then it makes sense to resolve the ambiguity by interpreting the passages to fit with the larger context.

Indeed, the couple of passages that were advanced in favor of the "violent preaching" thesis were, in fact, not especially ambiguous. They could not reasonably be understood as exhortations to violence at all.

[Melendwyr]

However, if we have ambiguous passages that may be interpreted as preaching violence, but the larger context has passages that clearly advocate nonviolence, then it makes sense to resolve the ambiguity by interpreting the passages to fit with the larger context. Then the real question becomes: Were these highly unusual teachings about non-violence and living peaceably under the Romans made before or after the failed Jewish rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem?

[jjramsey]

Then the real question becomes: Were these highly unusual teachings about non-violence and living peaceably under the Romans made before or after the failed Jewish rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem?

Not all messianic movements were violent. In some movements, such as those at Qumran and arguably John the Baptist's own ministry, the initiative to bring about the kingdom of God was at God's end, and the obligation on the human side of things was repentence in order that the benefits of the coming kingdom be received. So Jesus' message isn't that unusual, especially if his ministry is a spin-off of John the Baptist's.

[CapelDodger]

Not all messianic movements were violent. In some movements, such as those at Qumran and arguably John the Baptist's own ministry, the initiative to bring about the kingdom of God was at God's end, and the obligation on the human side of things was repentence in order that the benefits of the coming kingdom be received. So Jesus' message isn't that unusual, especially if his ministry is a spin-off of John the Baptist's.
At least we can be confident of John the Baptist's real existence, but the nature of his movement is more obscure. He was regarded as a threat to public order by the powers-that-were. If there was a movement based at Qumran its non-violent nature is uncertain. There certainly were violent zealots whose religious views coincided closely with them. The Jerusalem Church was eclipsed by the destruction of Jerusalem, which does suggest that it was actively involved in the insurrection. Had it retired to Galilee and gone fishing it would probably have survived.

The Jesus Church may have survived in part, and been carried to Alexandria by refugees. That might explain the Gnostic movements.

IIRC, there's still a religious group that dates back to the Baptist, the Mandeans, found amongst the Marsh Arabs of Southern Mesopotamia. I know nothing more about them than that, never having met one. It would be interesting to know their take on Jesus.

[jjramsey]

If there was a movement based at Qumran its non-violent nature is uncertain.

Go and read: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_15.html

[CapelDodger]

Go and read: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_15.html
I don't see anything definitive there showing the Qumran Community to be non-violent. The Dead Sea Scrolls are big on Daniel and his apocalyptic style, and Daniel is closely associated with the Maccabees, who were definitely violent. So it's not unreasonable to suggest they were expecting a Holy War, in which they would participate.

[jjramsey]

I don't see anything definitive there showing the Qumran Community to be non-violent. The Dead Sea Scrolls are big on Daniel and his apocalyptic style, and Daniel is closely associated with the Maccabees, who were definitely violent. So it's not unreasonable to suggest they were expecting a Holy War, in which they would participate.

Once the Messiah came, perhaps, but their behavior in the meantime is pretty much passive. IIRC, they are waiting in seclusion for the Messiah (or Messiahs) to come, not plotting an overthrow themselves, but I may have some of the details misshuffled in my mind.

More to the point, note second and third paragraphs:

However, there were clear contradictions. Sometimes, the Messiah is a warrior, sometimes he is a man of peace. Daniel 7:14 describes the triumphant son of man coming with power, but Isaiah 42.3 states that he does not even break a bruised read. Daniel 7:13 has him arriving over the clouds, but Zechariah 9:9 states that he will be riding a donkey.

To make sense of such contradictory messianic notions, the sect at Qumran speculated that there were two or perhaps even three Messiahs (more). A question that we have not systematically explored, is: what was the Messiah expected to do?

The page about the "Messiah as Sage" may be more on point: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_08.html

Given the mishmash of ideas on the Messiah, it isn't that surprising that someone would preach living peacefully with the Romans, especially if it wasn't on the grounds of wanting to be nice to the Romans so much as waiting patiently for God's vengence, which was what I was trying to get at in the first place.

[CapelDodger]

Given the mishmash of ideas on the Messiah, it isn't that surprising that someone would preach living peacefully with the Romans, especially if it wasn't on the grounds of wanting to be nice to the Romans so much as waiting patiently for God's vengence, which was what I was trying to get at in the first place.
The Messiah is indeed a foggy concept, and can only be called in evidence when some movement defines it. Some will await the vengeance of their god through the agency of a Messiah in a Holy War that they are saving themselves for. Some will expect the vengeance to be direct, followed by a Messiah to tidy up. The Qumran document stache provides no single Messianic definition. It seems more like an attempt to rescue at-risk collections of scrolls without discrimination.

[Huntster]

The Messiah is indeed a foggy concept, and can only be called in evidence when some movement defines it.......

Like, say, a new religion based upon the teachings of that Messiah, and that has lasted ever since (nearly 2,000 years)?



I was driving down the road today and passed a church. It is one of many churches around here, and it made me think of you folks (yeah, really!).

I gotta know:

Do you folks get depressed, frustrated, or angry when you see all these churches that get filled with the faithful every weekend?

Or are you all just satisfied that you're so much more intelligent than the great majority of humanity who foster their spiritual development?

[Z]

Like, say, a new religion based upon the teachings of that Messiah, and that has lasted ever since (nearly 2,000 years)?



I was driving down the road today and passed a church. It is one of many churches around here, and it made me think of you folks (yeah, really!).

I gotta know:

Do you folks get depressed, frustrated, or angry when you see all these churches that get filled with the faithful every weekend?

Or are you all just satisfied that you're so much more intelligent than the great majority of humanity who foster their spiritual development?


Boy, if this wasn't a stupid post, I don't know what is...

I'm rather pleased to see how empty the church parking lots are these days. Why, every weekend, there are more cars parked at the shopping centers and theatres than at the churches, proportionately. Even the old Catholic church across the street only really fills up at funerals... of which there are at least two per month. No weddings or baptisms, though... another positive sign, I think.

But I do imagine that the atheists here are pleased that they are more intelligent and sensible than the majority of humanity who wastes time and effort praying and moaning for a future world that might never be, rather than enjoying and caring for the world they have today.

[kuroyume0161]

Tongues of fire - let the flames arise!

No, I smirk under my breath at the sheer gullability of 'the masses' (you can take that both ways, if you like) waisting their time in prostration before something unevidenced and, when inspected, unbelievable. It shows the effectiveness of mass-media campaigns (proselytizing) and mass indoctrination (community, cultural, traditional, and familial).

I'd be more satisfied if they'd stop trying to 'foster' their spiritual development down my throat.

Good day and happy new orbit around the Sun.

[David Swidler]

Like, say, a new religion based upon the teachings of that Messiah, and that has lasted ever since (nearly 2,000 years)?

Except that "this messiah" wasn't the Messiah. Didn't even fulfill the basic requirements of the prophets. Oh, if you mistranslate, distort, and take certain verses out of context you might have "support" for a few marginal characteristics. But we're still waiting for the real thing. You know, genuine Davidic descent (on his father's side), bringing peace (enjoy the irony of Palestinian gunmen running the show in Bethlehem). BTW, Jesus was a textbook case false prophet, and so deserving of death. Perform a few "miracles," claim divine connections and lead the people away from the faith of their fathers. I don't begrudge you your faith, but don't claim it makes any sense.


I was driving down the road today and passed a church. It is one of many churches around here, and it made me think of you folks (yeah, really!).


I'm sure I speak for the monolithic JREF collective when I say we're all intensely flattered by your thoughtfulness. After all, every last one of us is a faithless, arrogant, resentful sinner. I'd like to know: do you really think of me, an orthodox Jew, when you pass a church? Count me out next time. My people have had enough of your "love".


I gotta know:

Do you folks get depressed, frustrated, or angry when you see all these churches that get filled with the faithful every weekend?

Don't flatter yourself by assuming we care, or even notice.


Or are you all just satisfied that you're so much more intelligent than the great majority of humanity who foster their spiritual development?

No, because we lack the superiority complex that seems to plague you, and we're willing to change our minds when the evidence dictates it. Some of us do pursue "spiritual development," Huntster, whatever the hell that means. You want real spiritual development? Work on interpersonal relationships. Treat people as having inherent individual worth, not as targets for "witnessing." Worry about their physical well-being instead of whether or not they've accepted Jesus. God cares more how you treat everyone else than how you treat Him.

Me, I'm not "satisfied," because there's always more to do, and it's a waste of time to compare my own accomplishments with anyone else's. To paraphrase an early Hasidic leader, God doesn't want us all to be Moses. He wants us to be ourselves, and comparisons among unique entities are meaningless.

[Huntster]

...I'd like to know: do you really think of me, an orthodox Jew, when you pass a church?....

Actually, no. I was thinking of the God-haters.

...Count me out next time...

Okay.

[davefoc]

Hi Hunster,
I do spend a bit of time wondering about how religious folks see the world. I sort of enjoyed the idea that you would spend a bit of time thinking about how me and my fellow heretics see it.

I am not exactly sure why you used the phrase "god hater". I don't think that is a remotely accurate notion about how non-believers think. We believe there is probably no entity that exists that might satisfy the definition of a God. That doesn't mean we would hate that entity if it does exist. Before forming a hate/don't hate view of God I think we would like to have some idea of the nature of this God and since we don't think there is any evidence a God exists, we also don't think there is any information available about the nature of the hypothetical God. So at worst, I suspect most atheists are pretty neutral on the hate/don't hate question.

As to your question about how we feel about all the churches and about all the people that attend them:

I, personally, am somewhat ambivalent about that. It is pretty clear that people derive some benefits from church. There is the social aspect and there might be some kind of inner peace that is provided. I certainly hope that people that are attending church get that out of it and I don't begrudge them that in the slightest. I am happy for them if they are happy.

On the other hand, religion, can cause massive human disaster. Currently the Catholic Church requires priests and nuns to remain celibate. Coming from my point of view that is one of the largest human disasters in the history of the world. Being with a woman is a critical aspect of my life and my humanity and I believe that is true for most men. To have a significant portion of the population that denies themselves that because of beliefs based on lies is a truly sad situation.

And of course there is other miscellaneous pieces of non-sense like all this anti-gay crap and the denial of science in the face of overwhelming evidence that strikes me as pretty bad too. But the really big human disasters are the wars that get promulgated with religion as an excuse or at least a contributing factor and it would be nice if I didn't see people so wrapped up in something that has led to so much human misery.

I suppose we non-believers are similar to other people in that we would prefer that people agreed with us, but on the issue of religion, I am pretty well resigned to the idea that for some people believing in some kind of supernatural is an inherent part of their personalities and so my reaction to the fact that so many people are relgious is pretty much one of acceptance.

I will say that of the various religions I am aware of Christianity is both one of the most reasonable and one of the most ridiculous. I say reasonable in that it promotes ideas of peace and it promotes ideas of a somewhat ambiguous God that we can't exactly know the nature of. Nothing too harmful there. But my God man, have you ever given much thought to the fairy tale nature of the underlying Christian story? If you believe that story, what is there that you wouldn't have believed with the appropriate propaganda?

[CapelDodger]

I'd be more satisfied if they'd stop trying to 'foster' their spiritual development down my throat.
I'm sipping some cognac with my coffee here. A well-developed spirit, most satisfying. :)

Good day and happy new orbit around the Sun.
I'll drink to that.

[Huntster]

...I am not exactly sure why you used the phrase "god hater". I don't think that is a remotely accurate notion about how non-believers think....

Some don't, but I believe that some do.

...As to your question about how we feel about all the churches and about all the people that attend them:

I, personally, am somewhat ambivalent about that. It is pretty clear that people derive some benefits from church. There is the social aspect and there might be some kind of inner peace that is provided. I certainly hope that people that are attending church get that out of it and I don't begrudge them that in the slightest. I am happy for them if they are happy...

I sure enjoy it.

...On the other hand, religion, can cause massive human disaster. Currently the Catholic Church requires priests and nuns to remain celibate. Coming from my point of view that is one of the largest human disasters in the history of the world. Being with a woman is a critical aspect of my life and my humanity and I believe that is true for most men. To have a significant portion of the population that denies themselves that because of beliefs based on lies is a truly sad situation...

The celebacy of the Catholic clergy, especially during a historical era when sex is used as a tool of commercialism, and one of the results is an out-of-control sexual culture, is clearly a problem. And it has caused the Church great problems, and will be part of the overall catastrophe that will destroy the Church as we currently know it.

...But the really big human disasters are the wars that get promulgated with religion as an excuse or at least a contributing factor and it would be nice if I didn't see people so wrapped up in something that has led to so much human misery...

If, for example, we look at the current military action the U.S. is involved in in Southwest Asia, many would propound that it's a religious war. Some say it's all about oil. Some will say it's a war of colliding cultures.

What a bunch of ********. It all depends on whose ******** we listen to at any particular time. It (like all wars) is about control, who has it, who wants it, and who will ultimately get it (until the next time). Sometimes religious figures play prominently in these games, but the majority of the religious faithful are pawns, just like the taxpayers.

...I say reasonable in that it promotes ideas of peace and it promotes ideas of a somewhat ambiguous God that we can't exactly know the nature of....

I agree.

...But my God man, have you ever given much thought to the fairy tale nature of the underlying Christian story? If you believe that story, what is there that you wouldn't have believed with the appropriate propaganda?...

Yes, the presently accepted story of Jesus Christ requires an incredible leap of faith to accept. Many are called, but few are chosen.

I have given it great thought. In my life I've wavered between ambivolence and total acceptance. It's what we call "the Mystery of Faith".

Faith cannot come if one nurtures an ideology of doubt.

[ceo_esq]

Currently the Catholic Church requires priests and nuns to remain celibate. Coming from my point of view that is one of the largest human disasters in the history of the world. Being with a woman is a critical aspect of my life and my humanity and I believe that is true for most men. To have a significant portion of the population that denies themselves that because of beliefs based on lies is a truly sad situation.

Based on data from the 2006 Catholic Almanac, fewer than 1 in 500 American Catholics is in a position (priest, brother, sister) requiring ecclesiastical celibacy. Can this really be described as a "significant portion of the population"? Also, although no doubt the Catholics come up with some alleged theological justifications for clerical celibacy, it remains a discipline rather than a doctrine, which means that the reasons are first and foremost practical ones - i.e. the Church believes that celibacy is conducive as a practical matter to the pastoral duties, etc., of priests. For all we know, might this not be true? A lot of priests seem to agree, and it appears to be technically true for at least some other professional vocations. So I would suggest that however many Catholic beliefs are based on lies (which would cover doctrinal beliefs), clerical celibacy, as a non-doctrinal matter, might not fall into that category.

[davefoc]

Hi ceo_esq,
I am not ignoring you in the other thread, I think you are basically right and am just doing a little bit more reading on the subject before I respond.

I think that one in five hundred is a pretty significant number. In absolute terms that's something like 600,000 Americans.

I think you are unnecessarily quibbling a bit as far as the doctrinal/non-doctrinal issue goes. A bunch of people have developed such strong beliefs in Christianity and the importance of the Catholic Church Doctrines that they are willing to forgo one of the most important aspects of life for most people. Catholic theology has developed as a result of a succession of lies by people who probably thought that everybody else involved couldn't be lying so that a little lying was ok if it was in support of a good cause. The whole deal about the archeological evidence for Peter is a modern example of this kind of thinking.

I suppose in return the priests get a more peaceful, more secure existence so maybe there is something of a balancing going on here. And of course a lot of them don't exactly remain celibate. But overall, how many priests would keep being celibate priests if they figured out that Christianity is based on mythology?

[ceo_esq]

I think that one in five hundred is a pretty significant number. In absolute terms that's something like 600,000 Americans.

Six hundred thousand would be roughly 1 in 500 Americans, but I meant fewer than 1 in 500 American Catholics. The actual figure is something like 120,000 priests, brothers and sisters. Still a significant number in absolute terms, but not a significant portion of the population as a whole.


I suppose in return the priests get a more peaceful, more secure existence so maybe there is something of a balancing going on here. And of course a lot of them don't exactly remain celibate. But overall, how many priests would keep being celibate priests if they figured out that Christianity is based on mythology?

Not very many, I grant you.

[CapelDodger]

Some don't, but I believe that some do.
Someone who doesn't believe in there being any gods cannot hate any of them. Can your "belief" overcome something as irrefutable as that?

[Ryokan]

Yes, the presently accepted story of Jesus Christ requires an incredible leap of faith to accept. Many are called, but few are chosen.

With Christianity being the world's biggest religion, I'd love to see your definition of 'few'.

[Huntster]

Someone who doesn't believe in there being any gods cannot hate any of them. Can your "belief" overcome something as irrefutable as that?

Nope.

Because even though they claim to not believe in a god, they clearly speak and write as though they hate my God.

Can your scientific mind understand that?

[Ducky]

With Christianity being the world's biggest religion, I'd love to see your definition of 'few'.

I wouldn't count on his authority on the matter of Christians. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1349004#post1349004)

[Huntster]

With Christianity being the world's biggest religion, I'd love to see your definition of 'few'.

Like foul-sound cites, I'm no authority.

But, fortunately, those words are cited from Christ, and we do have a definition of "few", courteousy of the dictionary:

...An indefinitely small number of persons or things:
An exclusive or limited number:

pron. (used with a pl. verb)
A small number of persons or things: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14)....

Christian or not, and subtracting naughty people (like me), say 5% of the world's population, past and present? Sound fair?

[Z]

'cited from Christ'...

heh heh

Well, if Hunster here could just prove that the Christ existed as such, we might take some stock in these alleged citations. But as it stands, non-Christians have to give such a citation credit on the same level as quotes from Sherlock Holmes or Viktor Lazlo or Hrothgar.

Now, a true Atheist simply cannot hate God. That being said, an atheist can certainly hate those who peddle this God, or hate the infrastructure of religion, or the mindlessness of the sheep who follow such a non-existent God.

I hear something similar all the time when people hear that I'm Wiccan. "How can you worship the Devil?" they'll ask, and when I explain that we can't worship/love something that doesn't even exist, they insist that we can and do. *shrug*

...

Now, if we go on some Christian sects' beliefs, the 'few' is easily defined: 144,000. That ain't much, is it? Of course, every generation believes that theirs is the last of this number, and every generation expects 'The End' shortly after their passage - and every generation has been wrong so far. Or maybe 'few' is in relation to the TOTAL population of Humanity from its first origins to its final extinction - and if Christianity were to die out in the next 500-1000 years, but mankind continues on to a reasonable degree... sure, that would certainly be very few, wouldn't it?

Of course, I find it interesting that Jesus made claim that he would return when everyone leasts expects it. Doesn't that basically mean that no one on Earth can expect his return when he returns? So pushing the faith only delays his return? Interesting.

[Huntster]

...Of course, I find it interesting that Jesus made claim that he would return when everyone leasts expects it. Doesn't that basically mean that no one on Earth can expect his return when he returns? So pushing the faith only delays his return? Interesting.

Ever consider the possibility that He meant that we will all see him return when our own physical lives end?

Or is your hateful rejection so profound that even thoughtful consideration of his words is beyond your ability?

You are so hateful and resentful of pushy Christians that you have become like them in reverse?

You are truly a work of art.

[Ducky]

Like foul-sound cites, I'm no authority.

But, fortunately, those words are cited from Christ, and we do have a definition of "few", courteousy of the dictionary:



Christian or not, and subtracting naughty people (like me), say 5% of the world's population, past and present? Sound fair?

Oh foul-sound. how original. I have never seen someone make that joke with my moniker. You are the first. How clever. Really.


Even if Christ existed, the landscape for christians in that time vs. now is very different. So his definition of Christians being the few is only accurate 2000 years ago, and not today.

You don't hold water with the "few" comment.

[Huntster]

Oh foul-sound. how original. I have never seen someone make that joke with my moniker. You are the first. How clever. Really.....

Really, truly, or are you pulling my leg (again)?

...Even if Christ existed, the landscape for christians in that time vs. now is very different. So his definition of Christians being the few is only accurate 2000 years ago, and not today...

I don't believe all Christians will be saved ("chosen"), nor do I believe that all non-Christians will be condemned.

The number of Christians has nothing to do with it.

...You don't hold water with the "few" comment...

Maybe. I don't know. I'm not the accountant.

But, considering the entire human population, past and present, and the number of us who truly live humble, respectful, hopeful, selfless, and faithful lives (and I certainly don't include my sinful self), I think the word "few" is very appropriate.

[kuroyume0161]

But the question arises: What use is there in 'spreading the good news' if so 'few' are to be saved?

Why dont' we just admit it and say that all 'good' people (those that live a descent life and do nothing harmful to others) are saved and those that do really nasty things are not? In essence, this is the Word of the Lord. There is no compulsion to 'accept Jesus' or 'be baptised' except by particular sects. There is but one command - to be excellent to each other and party on... dude. ;)

The compulsion to 'accept Jesus' is a particularly Catholic notion of salvation. It fosters the notion that one must accept certain precepts before salvation is granted (holy trinity, resurrection, virgin birth, and so on). These are just later ideas implemented as the 'Creed' established by an institutionalized church.

If you are really to embody the spirit of the new religious precepts, then you must reject these and accept that each person achieves salvation by living a life that provides more positive influence than negative. And this mirrors the more basic and humanistic precept that communal support and generalized coherence foster the longetivity of societies and the expansion of their capabilities.

[Ryokan]

Nope.

Because even though they claim to not believe in a god, they clearly speak and write as though they hate my God.

Can your scientific mind understand that?

Well, I 'hate' Sauron, and in any debate on the Lord of the Rings that involves Sauron, I will express that 'hate' for him and what he stands for.

It does not mean I believe Sauron is real.

[Z]

Ever consider the possibility that He meant that we will all see him return when our own physical lives end?

Or is your hateful rejection so profound that even thoughtful consideration of his words is beyond your ability?

Ah... where did you get that I was 'hateful' in any way? I simply dislike idiots. Or are you simply saying Christians are idiots? :D

But I've considered His words for many years. And considering the various and sundry interpretations of what happens when our lives end, it is pretty clear in context that He was referring plainly to our mortal existence - that His return would be during our physical lives, but only when we least expect it. After all, upon our deaths, we all would (in theory) be staunch believers, and would eternally expect his return.

You are so hateful and resentful of pushy Christians that you have become like them in reverse?

Not in the least - kindly show me where you have pulled this prejudiced opinion from? In point of fact, I do resent pushy people of all walks of life. It's just that fundamentalist extremists are likely to make this world a living hell if they're not stopped short.

I suspect that it is your own hate, your own resentment, of other people who are clearly more intelligent and reasonable than you, reaching a conclusion that challenges your comforting faith, that causes you to sense hate and resentment in others. It's a common psychosis, actually. No one likes to realize how ignorant or unreasonable they actually are; and the comforts of faith only last so long as we remain ignorant; for truth denies faith, and without faith, we are nothing, right?

Don't project your own shortcomings on others, Huntster.

You are truly a work of art.

Well... thank you. I agree.

[Z]

Just to stir the pot a bit - let me remind the board that I am in fact partially Christian, as well. I think there was a living Jesus who possessed supernatural powers and recognized his descendency from the divine; who taught peace and love; and who probably was the best Wiccan the ancient world had ever known. So I don't 'hatefully reject' Christ. That being said, I also don't think there's a shred of valid evidence that Jesus as recorded in the Bible ever actually existed.

Thank you.

[Huntster]

But the question arises: What use is there in 'spreading the good news' if so 'few' are to be saved?....

Mark, 4; 21-23..."Is a lamp brought in to be placed under a bushel basket or under a bed, and not to be placed on a lamp stand? For there is nothing hidden except to be made visible; nothing is secret except to come to light. Anyone who has ears to hear ought to hear."...

...Why dont' we just admit it and say that all 'good' people (those that live a descent life and do nothing harmful to others) are saved and those that do really nasty things are not?...

I can say that with some comfort and belief:

All good people, those that live a decent life and do nothing harmful to others, are saved, and those that do really nasty things are not.

Now, having said that, I'll say that I don't think it's that simple because we are very complicated creatures, and that many need more help and guidance than others, but in essence, I believe that statement to be true.

...There is but one command - to be excellent to each other and party on... dude...

Matthew, 22; 36-40..."Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."...

...The compulsion to 'accept Jesus' is a particularly Catholic notion of salvation...

Actually other Christian faiths are much bigger on that, actually accusing the Catholics of straying from Christ in it's traditions and doctrines.

...It fosters the notion that one must accept certain precepts before salvation is granted (holy trinity, resurrection, virgin birth, and so on). These are just later ideas implemented as the 'Creed' established by an institutionalized church.

If you are really to embody the spirit of the new religious precepts, then you must reject these and accept that each person achieves salvation by living a life that provides more positive influence than negative...

I do not reject them, because I have come to believe them. And I believe that salvation is granted by one's faith more than simply "being good", because the sacrifice of Christ was to enable the forgiveness of sin (which we all commit, regardless of our good intentions), and if I truly believe in Him and his sacrifice, appreciate it, dwell on it in thankful prayer, how can it possibly be in vain?

Repeatedly, Christ said to the beneficiaries of his miracles:

It has been done to you in accordance with your faith.

These things haven't been proven, they never will, and faith is required. Faith, in both New Testament and Old, is the central theme of God's relationship with man.

[Huntster]

Ah... where did you get that I was 'hateful' in any way? I simply dislike idiots. Or are you simply saying Christians are idiots?....

No. I'm saying that you believe that Christians are idiots.

...And considering the various and sundry interpretations of what happens when our lives end, it is pretty clear in context that He was referring plainly to our mortal existence - that His return would be during our physical lives, but only when we least expect it...

That is an interpretation that the diciples believed, but it was obviously wrong, wasn't it?

...After all, upon our deaths, we all would (in theory) be staunch believers, and would eternally expect his return...

That is clearly another interpretation that is in error.

...It's just that fundamentalist extremists are likely to make this world a living hell if they're not stopped short...

Fundamental extremists?

Well, there are clearly some fundamental extremists within Islam who are causing some serious trouble, and they are being appropriately dealt with. Is that who you are referring to?

...I suspect that it is your own hate, your own resentment, of other people who are clearly more intelligent and reasonable than you, reaching a conclusion that challenges your comforting faith, that causes you to sense hate and resentment in others...

Not at all. It's the words they use to describe their perceived superior intelligence and reason that I like to address.

...No one likes to realize how ignorant or unreasonable they actually are; and the comforts of faith only last so long as we remain ignorant...

You couldn't be more wrong.

One of the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith is that we are nothing..........well below ignorant and unreasonable.

Sorrow looks back, worry looks around, ignorance doesn't look at all, doubt looks around and denies what it sees.

Faith looks up.

[Huntster]

...I think there was a living Jesus who possessed supernatural powers and recognized his descendency from the divine; who taught peace and love....

I agree.

[Z]

No. I'm saying that you believe that Christians are idiots.

Nope. Just certain ones.

That is an interpretation that the diciples believed, but it was obviously wrong, wasn't it?

Yeah, those nutty Christians have pretty much been wrong from the start.

That is clearly another interpretation that is in error.

Evidence?

Fundamental extremists?

Well, there are clearly some fundamental extremists within Islam who are causing some serious trouble, and they are being appropriately dealt with. Is that who you are referring to?

As well as those fundamental extremists in the U.S. who seem to think that the earth has to end in a big holy war, and that the good and faithful Christians will come out on top. Worse, those fundamental extremists who are in power and using an ill-defined 'war' to rob Americans of their rights and freedoms... for example. Or those fundamental extremists who declare that this world is not their home, and therefore we can f__k the environment any way we see fit.

Pretty much ANY fundamental extremist.

Not at all. It's the words they use to describe their perceived superior intelligence and reason that I like to address.

Oh... ok. I'm sorry - I jumped to a conclusion. Please, go ahead and address their words... I thought we were discussing what you've already said.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Evidence?

One of the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith is that we are nothing..........well below ignorant and unreasonable.

heh... Yep. God's chosen people, made in His own image, whom He loved so much He would sacrifice His holy lamb for us.

And if that's not a reason to throw the whole Judeo-Christian mess in the trash with the latest fliers for Quik-Loan, I don't know what is.

Sorrow looks back, worry looks around, ignorance doesn't look at all, doubt looks around and denies what it sees.

Faith looks up.

And reason actually thinks about what it sees.

But that would make a nice Hallmark moment, Hunt. Hallmark loves those empty, meaningless platitudes. And I'm sure you're full of them.

[Huntster]

...After all, upon our deaths, we all would (in theory) be staunch believers, and would eternally expect his return...

That is clearly another interpretation that is in error.

Evidence?....

You need evidence?

Are we all "staunch believers"?

If so, you (for one) sure don't show it.

Fundamental extremists?

Well, there are clearly some fundamental extremists within Islam who are causing some serious trouble, and they are being appropriately dealt with. Is that who you are referring to?

As well as those fundamental extremists in the U.S. who seem to think that the earth has to end in a big holy war, and that the good and faithful Christians will come out on top. Worse, those fundamental extremists who are in power and using an ill-defined 'war' to rob Americans of their rights and freedoms... for example. Or those fundamental extremists who declare that this world is not their home, and therefore we can f__k the environment any way we see fit.

Pretty much ANY fundamental extremist.

I'll leave your political drivel as well as your delusional opinion on "the-end-of-the-world" insecurities stand, but I must ask this:

Are scientific fundamental extremists included in "ANY fundamental extremist".

...No one likes to realize how ignorant or unreasonable they actually are; and the comforts of faith only last so long as we remain ignorant...

You couldn't be more wrong.

Evidence?

Here it is:

I love to realize how ignorant and unreasonable I actually am. Like I wrote (and that you apparently couldn't understand), that understanding is part of my beliefs.

Further, I am fully aware of the shadows of doubt you and people like you cast upon faith, God, religion, and Christianity. I have not ignored them. After reading them, and considering them, I have rejected them.

[Z]

You need evidence?

Are we all "staunch believers"?

Are we dead yet? Or are you just unable to read? I guess that's another point of ignorance you revel in, isn't it?

Quick - reach for your dictionary, grab a definition of 'dead' that means alive, and whip it out... :rolleyes:

I'll leave your political drivel as well as your delusional opinion on "the-end-of-the-world" insecurities stand, but I must ask this:

Are scientific fundamental extremists included in "ANY fundamental extremist".

Yes, they are. I certainly don't want the world reduced to such a purely logical scientific viewpoint that we become cogs in the machine, either. After all, eugenics would be a perfectly logical scientific point of view, wouldn't it? So, yes, ANY fundamental extremist.

All things in moderation... including moderation. :D

Here it is:

I love to realize how ignorant and unreasonable I actually am. Like I wrote (and that you apparently couldn't understand), that understanding is part of my beliefs.

Further, I am fully aware of the shadows of doubt you and people like you cast upon faith, God, religion, and Christianity. I have not ignored them. After reading them, and considering them, I have rejected them.

Yeah, we can tell. And since you have now admitted to being an ignorant and unreasonable creduloid, I'll be sure to include your admission in my sig, so that any time some passers-by happens upon me here, they'll realize that anything you say must be taken with a grain of salt - or, perhaps, a pillar of salt - because you have no credibility whatsoever. You are a willfully ignorant troll, who has chosen to reject logic, reason, and evidence in favor of your preferred beliefs, and have now admitted this is so.

Welcome to my sig, and welcome to ignore. Buh-bye.

[Huntster]

...After all, upon our deaths, we all would (in theory) be staunch believers, and would eternally expect his return...
That is clearly another interpretation that is in error. Are we dead yet? Or are you just unable to read? I guess that's another point of ignorance you revel in, isn't it?

Quick - reach for your dictionary, grab a definition of 'dead' that means alive, and whip it out...

Are you stating that, upon death, all (including such as yourself) will conveniently become believers?

Are you claiming that somebody believes that?

Just what are you dancing away from?

[CapelDodger]

Nope.

Because even though they claim to not believe in a god, they clearly speak and write as though they hate my God.

Can your scientific mind understand that?
A lot of the religious clearly speak, write and even act as if they hate your concept of god. That makes "god-hater" an imprecise and misleading misleading synonym for atheist, which is how you use it. My scientific (some say pedantic) mind is naturally uncomfortable with such imprecision.

[jimtron]

It is a historical fact that (Scientology) was founded in 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard


{nitpick}That's Dianetics (which is not a religion). I believe Scientology came a few years later.{/nitpick}