Truer words have never been spoken.

The new religion is Global Warming. Articles that bring AGW into question never see the front page. Christianity is yesterday's religion, and stories that suggest that it is fading get equal billing with the IPCC.

There is a good reason why the secular extremists at the Globe and Mail print this stuff; they don’t like competition from another faith that does not promote statism. In fact, Christianity teaches that we are accountable for our actions and Christianity opposes the secular extremists’ view of moral relativism . Christianity is bad for the welfare statists at the Globe.

Christianity works for a couple of reasons:

There is a lot of competition amongst Christian sects for worshipers. Christian capitalists believe competition is a good thing.

Christianity eventually learned to separate Church and state.

What doesn’t work is Islamofascism because Mosque and State is one and the same. Ditto for the post modern secular extremist moral relativists .. so they’ve temporarily partnered wiht Islam. Secular extremism has religious qualities; High Priests like Mo Kyoto Strong, Temples like the UN. Most importantly these secular extremists try to shut down competition like Christianity (they don’t worry yet about the 700,000 Muslims in Canada because the are still a minority, so the Globe and Mail doesn't offend their new partners with Danish Cartoons).

The Globe's secular extremists do not like competition from Christianity and they do not believe in the separation of their quasi-religion and the state .. they are one and the same.

There's a reason why it's called the "Protestant Work Ethic", well, prior to the United Church anyway.

Too many United Church poobahs are pink-underwear socialists living in Tarawna. Once you get past Oakville things settle down a bit, eh?

Al least Christians have had a middle ages "reformation" period which produced spritual and moral renewal that gave rise to the most socially tolerant and technologically advanced culture on the planet. Judeo Christian principle produced liberal democracy, recognition of the natiral rights of man, universal commoner sufferance, ended slavery and other human cultural mile stones.

Other belief systems remain mired in stone or bronze age mysticism and continue to confuse sypathetic magic for justice...they have produced theocracies which are both brutal and imperially aggressive.

Post modern secular political philosophies have offered little to the advancement of the human condition other than repression or abandonment of human spirit and political genocides.

But by all means, follow the 5th column left and scape-goat Christianity for all the ills of the world...when it's erradicated we will be one step closer to the true god....Big Brother.

Perhaps the reason Christianity is the focus of criticism is that Christianity is the predominant local superstition. Buddhism is hardly relevant in North America.

Jim,

Interesting point. Where Buhdism is predominant do you get the same kind of counter reaction?

Nondenet: "There is a good reason why the secular extremists at the Globe and Mail print this stuff; they don’t like competition from another faith that does not promote statism."

On the money Nom!

Statists are largely belivers who have abandoned faith in the spirit of god and place all responsibility for human evolution in the hands of government and political solutions. Without doubt political dogma is their bible, bureaucracy is their saviour and government their god.

But like all myopic "identitiy politics" people they make a mistate in trusting the affairs of the cosmos to something as frail and fallible as as the human intellect and the feeble machinations of man....nature is still a mighter force, and human nature a more demanding master.

For man to step into God's roll (as all secular statists wish) is truly an apocolypse in the making.

Right, Stephen, in your reply to Jim's silly comment. Where Islam is predominant, do you get the same kind of criticism of Islam? You sure don't; it's a capital, ie, death, crime to criticize Islam in Muslim countries. It's a capital crime to even change from Islam to another religion. So, jim, kindly get your facts straight before you say something as silly as you did.

However, I think it is important to consider that Christianity allows and enables criticism of Christianity. It keeps its axioms open to the constant 'gaze' of reason (as Pope Benedict said in his famous speech on the importance of reason). Theocratic cult-like religions, such as Islam (and Kyotoism) reject reason, reject thought, reject criticism and insist on blind emotional enslaved obedience.

Therefore, it is a strength of Christianity that it can allow criticism, can allow even mockery. It acknowledges the fallibility of the human experience, even the fallibility of the human experience of religion. That's a strength, not a weakness.

Jim: "Perhaps the reason Christianity is the focus of criticism is that Christianity is the predominant local superstition."

Profoundly flawed observation....Christianity is the ONLY religious belief system which is NOT a superstition, but a reconing of the human condition in the larger scope of cosmic events.

You may confuse the trappings and ritual of some ancient Christian sects with the teachings of the refomed Chritian churches ( which were the basis of Anglo-American constitutions and law)....which teach the trinity...this is not superstition this is the result of centuries of intellectial reconing with man's nature and his divine purpose.

Now, I'm not particularly religious and I haven't been in a Church for years but if you read the writings of the philosphers of the enlightenment which gave us modern rule of law and liberal democracy, you can't miss their influence by the writings of the Christian teologians of the day.

Islam and other religions are certainly "superstitious" bacause they all rely on sympathetic magic....even sects of buddism ( which started merely as a philosophy) belive thay can shape shift and conjure demons.

Everyone has some kind of an agenda these days.
More so now than every before, people now have access to the media and therefore can be reached, deceived, intimidated, ripped-off, coerced, and influenced - if they are not grounded.

Short Story:
When I was a kid, I went to see something called "Chariots of the Gods" by a guy named Von Daniken.
I was blown away by all the evidence of aliens having come to earth; the great pyramads; the landing strips in Chile; the carvings and paintings of ancient astronauts and aliens in space suits and on launch platforms - and all over the world even. I I think even references from the Bible were all over the place to support the theory that space travellers and empregnating our women and started the human race, etc. etc. etc - and even the movie music was awe inspiring.

I ran home and told my parents about this great movie and about aliens being on earth and that the evidence was irrefutable. I even talked them into coming to see it with me again so that they could understand the truth.

After seeing the movie (and I was now doubly awestruck), I asked my parents what they thought - did they now undestand the importance of these discoveries?

My parents, and themselves being dumb ditchdigger types, said, "We're Catholic and we believe in our faith - to us it is the true faith - and we're not buying this stuff".

Years later, I managed to see this movie again. I had just finished a masters degree in engineering. This movie was the silliest non-scientific piece of crap I'd ever seen.

Moral:
So it just shows, that if you are grounded in faith or even real science and engineering, it's hard for people to screw you around with secret agendas.

I've not seen this new movie, but if it is an agenda thing, it will influence a lot of non-grounded people - and this can really cause damage and it just increases the confusion we call relativism.

Drinking the Kool-Aid: mass suicide of the Left-Socialists:

Find the words, "social justice."

Citizen Dion has drunk the Kool-Aid:

OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Stephane Dion will deliver what his party is billing as a major speech on "social justice" in Dartmouth today,...
(chronicleherald.ca)

Peoples Temple Christian Church

"Jim Jones initially relied upon the prophetic texts of the Holy Bible to exhort his congregation to work for social justice. The letterhead of Peoples Temple Christian Church bore the words of the Parable of the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:35-36). Jones eventually rejected the Holy Bible, however, believing it full of lies and contradictions (see "The Letter Killeth"). He turned to Pravda, the news organ of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, and to radical sources as his "sacred" texts once the group moved to Guyana." ...-
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Jonestwn.html

cconn: a rebutal lesser know work 'crash go the chariots' came out afterward and pretty much demolished vondaniken's evidence.

on the other hand, feel free to watch 'crop circles: quest for the truth' or whatever.

these babies are cropping up (pun intended) all over the world for decades and getting more and more complex in the design. like Polly the farmer says, no mistakes, no practice sites and no incomplete ones. square THAT with xian faith.

analysis of plant stems show microscopic iron particles embedded, deeply wedged in the folds. explain THAT in addition to any claims its all hoaxery.

alternatively, try to explain how the plant stems were subjected to sudden extreme heat which caused the nodes to deform or explode depending on the age and dryness of the plant, and was the mechanism that bent them.

Im waiting !!

check out IMBD internet movie database for the reviews.

If you want to prove to everyone just how tolerant you are with respect to your religion there's a simple way to do it, don't get into a twist when someone criticizes it.

The whole DaVinci code style nonsense isn't a refutation of christianity. People who subscribe to that bs are clearly into Jesus, they're largely having a run at undermining the vatican's take on things.

There is another possibility that doesn't get mentioned: the gospels never happened and Jesus as desribed never exsisted. It's impossible to prove but it has the virtue of satisfying Ockam's Razor based on what has been factualy established about the origins of Christianity (and the inconvienent fact that King Herod died in 4 B.C whereas Pontius Pilot didn't show up ont the scene until 30 years later).

cconn... it sounds like you saw through the movie because of your education, not because of your religious grounding! most people I've met who claim to be "grounded" in their faith are mostly close minded unless things fit their particular beliefs...

The truth is that stories about Christianity sell, whether good or bad. Newsmagazines best selling issues are ones that feature front page stories about Christianity.

Unfortunately the anti-Christian bent of the staff seems to get the most play these days.

"Now if Christ is preached
that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there
is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is
vain and your faith is also vain... For if the dead do not rise, then Christ
is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile;"

1 Corinthians 15:12-20

Looks like St. Paul was right on the money. Modern society likes to hammer the 'your faith is futile' proposition, you will be assimilated by the state.

Christianity stands or falls in the wind, on the Christ is risen proposition. It is a radical statement against the culture of 'life is cheap'.
Rather it radically proposes life is very dear.

For the Mop & Pail crowd G K Chesterton comment comes to mind:

"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." - ILN, 1/13/06

The vacuity of the faith is futile proposition is underscored by the following:

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - Chapter 5, What's Wrong With The World, 1910

Jose, you are confusing Herod the Great with Herod Antipas who was a contemporary with Pilate (not Pilot, BTW). They are two different people. Check Wikipedia.

Unfortunately the same level of thinking is often behind these new stories about Jesus.

As I've often said, the distance between a free country and tyranny is a good ad campaign.

The Islamofascists have a REALLY good ad campaign for the Third World. They sell pride and war to the poor, always popular with the Great Unwashed. Well, as long as they don't have to do the dying anyway.

The Western Lefties conversely are selling guilt and poverty to the comfortable, a much harder sell. They have to sex it up with lots of naked babes just to get people to pay attention.

Recently they seem to have figured this out and are switching over to the old fall back, hate.
Hate the Joooos, hate America, hate the red necks, hate the eeeeevile Conservatives, hate Bush/Harper. Hate is always a big seller.

Christians (and Conservatives) meanwhile are selling freedom, moral probity and personal responsibility. That's a crappy ad campaign, unless you've got some years under your belt and have figured out there's more to life than money and babes. Hence the skew toward middle age in the Conservative voter profile.

We need to work on that a bit. Rona Ambrose swimsuit calendar?

Hahhaaa you guys are hilarious! Read Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation".

If you want to believe in things that defy any reasonable explanation, based on ancient superstition written thousands of years ago, that is fine as far as it goes. If it helps you cope, then go for it. But don't pretend that one religion is any less mockable than any other. "Faith" is a 'compliment' passed between people who reward irrationality.

Jose “If you want to prove to everyone just how tolerant you are with respect to your religion there's a simple way to do it, don't get into a twist when someone criticizes it.”

I’ll get into a twist if I want to, you should learn to “tolerate” my twist… as long as I won’t blow things up. The irony is that you tolerate “blowing things up” by your new partners in statism.

WLM says “on the money”. Yes that’s it, follow the money:

The reason the Globe likes statism is because Government controls 42% of the economy and the Globe only has to wine and dine one customer, the government, to sell advertising to, the Globe/MSM has a huge investment in the status quo of that customer.

The Globe knows that those Christian Capitalists will shrink government and shrink the 2-way patronage that has gone on for decades between the Liberals and the left wing MSM. In return for media editorial support the Liberals reward the Globe with some full page ads for EDC for example. EDC is government monopoly, as is the Post Office, they don’t need to advertise, and their customers know where the mail box is. But it is another way to keep the money flowing under the table in 2-way patronage support.

So the Globe slams people of faith, especially if they have faith in themselves and not the government.

Back under your bridge, Anon.

Phantom:

How about some campy depictions of Mary Magdalene in her hey day?

Sex sells today, just like it did 2000 years ago!

But of course Mary got smart and figured it out.

One word: Ew. Haven't you noticed how gnarly most hookers are Hans? Old Mary M. probably looked like 40 miles of rough road. Gimme Anne Coulter any day.

Never understood how hookers make any money looking that nasty.

What's with this fixation that Mary Magdalene was a hooker? Why is she usually portrayed as a flirtatious, twenty-something hottie who brought a level of sexual tension to the group of disciples? How do we know this? Where do we get this information?

More likely she was a highly respected woman of financial means and like the other women in the group, was quite probably a widowed woman roughly the same age as Jesus mother.

Phantom: Your response (i.e., lack thereof) to my comments illustrates exactly why religious belief (including Christianity) is for mental deficients. Keep denial alive.

Matthew (also found in the tomb) is not one of Jesus' brothers. So what's the explanation there?

Furthermore, Christianity has some 26,000 accredited historical volumes written about it - starting 40 years after the suspected death and resurrection of Christ (although the NT was not written chronologically, according to most sources, the oldest is still thought to be the book of Matthew). In fact, there are more period eyewitness accounts and other texts written about Christ, than for all of the Caesars, or the complete history of Greece, or any other ancient historical event or person, for that matter.

Yet, I would imagine the plebaeins at the G&M have no problem taking those historical accounts as 'gospel.'

Odd.

As well, unlike Mo's autobiography - the Quran - the NT wasn't written, rewritten or tampered with to justify and reward horrific and barbaric behaviour and deeds (by the Papacy, the Crusaders, the inquisition, or anybody else for that matter). Although, certainly it could've been, given the fact that the great unwashed didn't have access to it until Gutenberg. (That's why barbaric actions by Christians are not foundational to Christianity - and makes that comparative form of argument moot).

"Back under your bridge, Anon."

Nice wack-a-troll, Phantom.

Actually Anon, my beliefs are based much more on observation than faith. Arguments which deny God and free will ignore certain inconvenient aspects of cosmology and mathematics. Atheism is a bigger leap of faith than theism IMHO.

Go read Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, then come back and talk to me.

In the mean time, how about having some respect for your fellow man eh? You are not the only human being in the world with a brain, it may be barely possible other people can disagree with you and not be morons.

Yeah, what about those Danish cartoons? CNN wouldn't even show them on air. But they've devoted literally hours to this Cameron bullcrap. Bit of a double standard, there.

Someone observed recently that if Christians want to get any respect from the MSM they're going to have to start blowing things up and chopping people's heads off.

Jose, et al.

Just read "Jesus, Man or Myth?" by Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede, Professor of New Testament History with Papyrology and Archaeology in Basel, Switzerland.

It is not an attempt to "prove" anything, just an honest and deliberate look at the plausibility of the proposition, given the standards available at the time.

You will be forced to conclude that if Gaius Julius Caesar existed, then so did the (controversial in his day) Rabbi Yeshua Nazareta (did I get that right?) and he indeed was crucified, under the governorship of Pontius Pilatus, at the urging of the forces of "political correctness".

About the only thing you need to wrap your head around is whether or not you believe the Resurrection happened. The "miracles" as they were, stand, else the Rabbinate would have simply dismissed Jesus as a charlatan and a trickster out of hand. They did not. (A miracle is just a phenomenon we can't yet explain, by the way. They happen every day, in hospitals around the world).

In fact the ONLY thing the Rabbinate attacked the Christians on was the Resurrection. It was the only thing they had. All the rest (miracles, celibacy, EVEN raising Lazarus!!) was pretty much accepted as was, otherwise, believe me, the synagogues would have been all OVER it.

What set Christianity apart from the getgo was the requirement that people be brought in by the demonstration of love, compassion, and the dictates of their faculties of reason. If you search with an open mind, not one that is arrogant, corrupt or selfish, you will find the answers you seek.

Whilst I agree that there is a definate media slant against Christianity in the MSM, and there is a place for religion (if practiced peacefully and non intrusively)in todays society, I myself abstain and treat them all equally. I find the basic tenets of most religions quite interesting, but in the end I view all with equal disdain. From my experience, and I have friends and relatives from all stripes, JW's to Mormons to Muslims, over 99% are hypocrites and the most pious people I've known are not what you would call "heavy-duty" religious.

Some are entertaining though, my sunday morning chortles used to come courtesy of the likes of Falwell, Tammy Faye and Swaggert et all, but the world of islam also has its share of kooks , and the big problem here is, a lot of their kooks are truly dangerous.

Skål!

"where they may rest in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave shall live forever"

This 'documentary' is nothing more that a gotcha Hollywierd thing--it is the Zionists way of a duel--they want to zing Christians for the Mel Gibson movie Passion of the Christ.

"In fact, Christianity teaches that we are accountable for our actions ......"

In fact, Christianity teaches a mass murderer will spend eternity in paradise if he repents on his deathbed and accepts Jesus as his savior , while one who lives a saintly, charitable life will spend eternity burning in a lake of fire if he is not a believer. Some accountability.
Why should Christianity be exempt from the scorn reserved for all other forms of superstitious nonsense?

Long Live Martin Luther, one of the noble reformers.

You like Penrose! So do I, but I prefer the Road to Reality. If you're a big fan, then you won't mind reading Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation", since Penrose endorsed it.

I'm not sure what aspects of mathematics or cosmology you claim are ignored by arguments that ignore God and/or free will. You'd better elaborate on that a bit more. There is no missing variable in any equation or interpretation thereof that requires God or free will to fill it, and you won't find one, unless you REQUIRE the two beforehand and go looking for problems after the fact - and that would be begging the question.

BTW, in case you didn't know, atheism is not the absence of belief, it's the presence of reason. The presence of reason does not discount the acceptance of expert view - which is the simplest form of faith, to be sure - but you are disingenuously using two definitions of faith ambiguously. Accepting the view of the scientific community that is based on the repetition of physical experiment, the verification of theory and the incessant formulation, deconstruction and re-formulation of physical mechanism and law is quite a bit different from the strong faith involved in simply buying into something that was written thousands of years ago and postulates ridiculous metaphysics that are entirely unverifiable. This is particularly so given the preponderance of superstitious belief that would be reasonably expected to infuse any work written during that time. The very fact that you claim that acceptance of (or as you call it, 'faith in') expert or peer-reviewed-community findings based on the scientific method is EXACTLY the same beast as religious faith, makes it clear that you probably shouldn't speak on either.

You should know that trotting out an eminent mathmetician's name doesn't automatically lend credence to your argument - and just because people see deep connections between still poorly understood physical concepts (e.g., information, measurement problem in QM, second law of thermodynamics, QT interpretation, the wave function, evolution, the Big Bang, etc, etc) also doesn't lend any credence to strong faith or ridiculous sprituality. Penrose's book is fascinating to be sure (as usual), but quantum consciousness doesn't need to be mystical; the 'non-algorithmic' nature of consciousness may not imply anything deeply spiritual. For some researchers, it may be due entirely to the dynamics of complex systems, emergence or self-organization, which are not well understood. Just because something involves quantum physics on a tiny scale doesn't mean those effects carry into the macroscopic world. The short of it is this: one book doesn't make a metaphysical view, particularly one that represents a minority opinion in it's field, and even if it IS done by a brilliant thinker and researcher.

Sourdust says “In fact, Christianity teaches a mass murderer will spend eternity in paradise’

Sure Sourdust, but that’s after us “accountable “Christians execute him, so why would you care where he spends eternity?

But Sourdust , you guys and your Liberal Judges would have that mass murderer out on parole and I do care about that , which is why I’ll vote for law and order and not more utopian morale relativism from your party.

You see sourdust , we're all equal in the eyes of our creator, but not in the eyes of a Conservative judge .. you guys can't grasp the difference.

"In fact, Christianity teaches a mass murderer will spend eternity in paradise if he repents on his deathbed and accepts Jesus as his savior , while one who lives a saintly, charitable life will spend eternity burning in a lake of fire if he is not a believer."

Christianity teaches that we are ALL given a chance to choose being with the Creator,or not .
Our life on earth is preparation for that ultimate choice, when face to face with God. That sounds like accountability to me.

"In fact, Christianity teaches a mass murderer will spend eternity in paradise if he repents on his deathbed and accepts Jesus as his savior , while one who lives a saintly, charitable life will spend eternity burning in a lake of fire if he is not a believer."

Christianity teaches that we are ALL given a chance to choose being with the Creator,or not .
Our life on earth is preparation for that ultimate choice, when face to face with God. That sounds like accountability to me.

"In fact, there are more period eyewitness accounts and other texts written about Christ, than for all of the Caesars, or the complete history of Greece, or any other ancient historical event or person, for that matter."

Personaly I wouldn't consider something an "eyewitness account" if it was written by someone who wasn't alive at the time the event occurred.

http://www.cin.org/jp2ency/augustin.html

Reason and faith

First of all, there is the problem that occupied him most in his youth and to which he returned with all the force of genius and the passion of his spirit: the problem of the relationship between reason and faith. This is a perennial problem, no less acute today than yesterday, and the direction taken by human thought depends on its solution. It is a difficult problem, however, because one must pass safely between two extremes, between the fideism that despises reason and the rationalism that excludes faith. Augustine's intellectual and pastoral endeavor aimed to show, beyond any shadow of doubt, that "since we are impelled by a twin pull of gravity to learn,"[69] both forces, reason and faith, must work together.

He always listened to what faith had to say, but he exalted reason no less, giving each its own primacy in time or importance.[70] He told all, "Believe that you may understand," but he repeated also, "Understand that you may believe."[71] He wrote a work, perennially relevant, on the usefulness of faith,[72] and explained that faith is the medicine designed to heal the eye of the spirit,[73] the unconquerable fortress for the defense of all, especially of the weak, against error,[74] the nest in which we receive the wings for the lofty flights of the spirit,[75] the short path that permits one to know quickly, surely and without errors, the truths which lead the human person to wisdom.[76] He also emphasizes that faith is never without reason, because it is reason that shows "in what one should believe."[77] "For faith has its own eyes, by means of which it sees in a certain manner that which it does not yet see is true."[78] Therefore "no one believes anything, unless he has first thought that it is to be believed," because "to believe is itself nothing other than to think with assent ... if faith is not thought through, it is no faith."[79]

So Augustine the Bishop of HIPPO recommends you get a "phat soul" lest you be spirited away by the Vandals.

Yours sincerely,

Hans the "Hun".

religious belief (including Christianity) is for mental deficients

Very erudite, troll-boy. Now listen up.

Atheists such as you apparently enjoy preening in self-professed intellectual superiority when denigrating religious folks who profess faith in scripture, God, or some other Divine force.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your beliefs.

However, what's truly amusing is the fact that few of you secularists identify their own professed faith (and moreover, zealotry) in their 21st century substitute for organized religion: environmentalism.

I reckon you howl with derision, anon, at the thought of Christians believing Moses parted the Red Sea wtih his staff. Right-O. But secularists have no problem in their blind faith in faulty computer models, scientific "consensus" and FUD that proclaims assuming that the oceans and seas will rise 20 feet in the next hundred years if we don't trash our SUV's & speed hither & yon in a Vespa scooter, and abandon our industrialized economies and current standard of living.

As for blind faith, anon, you lot still hold the scientific world in unimpeachable esteem, despite their utterly wrong-headed stands on global cooling, nuclear winter, the population "explosion", pellagra, eugenics, puerperal fever... ad nauseum. The list of scientific errors over the centuries are long and distinguished, and each one was rigidly upheld by scientific "faith", many of which cost the lives of untold thousands or even millions of humans.

Mock Christianity all you like, anon, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a better roadmap for setting up a society than the 10 Commandments, notwithstanding your scorn for the passages that deal specifically with the icky God-related stuff.

Compare this to some of the more virulent secular societal failures in the last century:

Naziism - 6,000,000 dead, systematically slaughtered in death camps

Stalinism/communism - 30,000,000 dead

China/communism - 80,000,000 dead

Communism (Khmer Rouge) 2-3,000,000 dead

Environmentalism - estimated 30,000,000 unnecessary African malarial deaths in the 20th century due to the unnecessary hysteria & banning of DDT.

Still preening, anon?

mhb23re
[at gmail d0t calm]

There's plenty of egocentric people that love to share their self loathing and hate. These people won't really participate in raising children or local charities or adding value to their community. Basically they can't imagine a world beyond the ends of their noses in the midst of a pathetic self imposed cynical existence. Too bad, they're missing out on the really good stuff...the daily miracles we all can choose to experience and participate in.

I'm far richer for acts done to the benefit others. Those very things strengthen my faith in god and give life greater purpose. I'm a far better man because of my Christian beliefs.

Those that attack Christian beliefs and values with selfish hateful zeal seek to usurp individual progress itself. They offer up nothing better in return...only the promise of a miserable selfish existence leading to a meaningless death.

Anon, your attitude indicates you read the book but didn't understand what he was saying.

The whole premise of The Emperor's New Mind is that consciousness is a non-mechanistic phenomenon. He demonstrates this using examples from mathematics where people have come up with things that cannot, in principle, be derived by an algorithm. I'd quote you the page but I cant find my copy.

Bottom line, a human is something other than a fancy piece of software running on a meatware computer, because we do things software cannot do. Leaving room for both free will and a Being to use it. Maybe the Being arises from quantum mechanics or something we have yet to find, but there is indeed evidence for it.

So much for "ridiculous spirituality". Now kindly stop being a dick, would you? Its rude.

I was teaching a junior high science class a few years ago when the 'bones of Jesus' brother' were 'found'. I predicted, on the spot, that it was a hoax (primarily because of my Catholic faith, though it's more complicated than just saying that) - and it was shown to be so only a few weeks later. It seems like the same thing has happened again, but it only took hours to disprove the new sensationalist claims.

Long Live John Calvin, one of the noble reformers.
Long Live John and Charles Wesley.
Long Live Charles H Spurgeon.

mhb: Nice try with the 'secular' regimes, but these had only a tangential relationship to secularism. They substituted faith in God for faith in an individual or the state. If this is your comparison, it is horribly flawed, and many others have pointed it out in far more detail. If you have a look around you'll see that this argument fell flat about a decade ago, but again, have a look here: http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/harris/ If you're up to it, read the book.

Truth be told I shouldn't have said that Christianity or any spiritual beliefs should be mocked, but it should be realized that while they may help people cope by providing a safe, structured belief system that requires no additions, they also compel people to abandon reason and reward irrationality.

When you make this statement: "...blind faith in faulty computer models, scientific "consensus" and FUD...", do you have any idea what you're talking about? Did you miss the explanation I gave about how Phantom et.al. clearly use two unequivocable meanings of the word "faith"? I thought that was pretty clear. There is a difference between religious faith (the strong version) and the 'faith' that scientists put in peer-reviewed research done by a community under a strict method of repeatable experimental verification. If you can't see the difference, I don't think this can go any further.

"...that proclaims assuming that the oceans and seas will rise 20 feet in the next hundred years if we don't trash our SUV's & speed hither & yon in a Vespa scooter, and abandon our industrialized economies and current standard of living." I think you've lost me here. It sounds like we're no longer talking about reason, faith or religion. It sounds like you are creating a strawman and then attacking it, but it's totally off-topic. However, if you'd like to talk about proclamations, I will indulge you. Perhaps we can talk about how old the Earth is (hint: not 6000 years)? Maybe you don't believe that particular extreme version of Creation, but do you believe that a man who lived and died 2000 years ago is going to come back to Earth and judge corpses and people alike and send the unbelievers to a fiery pit in the 'worstest place in the whole wide world' for ever and ever and ever? Do you believe that the Red Sea was parted, or that Jesus walked on water? Of course you do, and yet you are intellectually dishonest enough to tell me that these things are MORE PLAUSIBLE than (to use one of your examples) the rise of GHGs? Are you serious? AT THE VERY LEAST, there exists the POSSIBILITY of measuring at least one component of GHGs, forget about the models and everything else. How exactly do you verify, model or justify any of your claims? Ancient hearsay is not justification.

You know, almost everything you bring up was already addressed by Harris. For example, the 10 commandments: the first few (five or six) have to do with ceremony, rules and not dissing God. The very few that do relate to moral or ethical matters could and were very easily discovered long before the Bible was written. Don't kill people? How long did it take to figure that out? Don't take other people's stuff? I'm sure that upset many ancient people - even primates show some concept of property. I'm pretty sure that the benefits of being truthful were pretty apparent. The last one advises (among other things) not to desire your neighbours slave, which reminds us all that the brilliant moral shining light that is the Bible has advocated for all manner of cruel and dispicable things.

As for the Golden Rule, you are seriously misled if you think that that one started in the Bible, or that the majority of the Bible's adherents even abide by it.

Yes I'm quite sure that all atheists live shallow, meaningless lives without purpose, as you believe. In fact, you can get a first hand understanding of how atheists view religion: just think of how ridiculous, misguided and incorrect you view the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Taoists. And next time you think Christians are so! persecuted!, just remember what would happen if a politician admits he's an atheist.

From LtaCN:

"We read the Golden Rule and find it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impluses. And then we come across another of God's teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father's doorstep." Yup, a real shining moral beacon to guide a society.

"The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive"

Anyways, this is tiresome, so as usual I cede the last word.

Christians seem to respond to criticism by having a tantrum. They don't seem to understand that they are being criticized as being superstitious because they insist on their beliefs despite having no proof that there is a god, no evidence that their Jesus was the son of that god, and no argument that supercedes the findings of science.

Anon, you are entirely missing the point of this posting. This post is NOT trying to say that Christianity shouldn't be mocked, it is saying that if the media feels free to mock one religion, they should feel free to mock all religions. Trouble is, they don't.

They mock the religion that is peaceful and then huff and puff about tolerance and love when asked why they don't mock a religion that is NOT peaceful. Hypocracy!

Got it? If you want to believe that Christians or Muslims or Buddists or any other adherant to a religion is a moron, go for it! It's your right to choose to believe whatever you want! Just don't try to pretend you're anything but a coward for openly attacking the religion of the meek but hiding from the "Religion of Peace"...which is what the media does.

Just have to say, not all of us on the right side of the political spectrum are religious. I'm a libertarian agnostic, for instance.

My problem with Christianity is that so many of its adherents are more or less ignorant of its history. (A university educated co-worker, for instance, argued with me that Jesus was Catholic, not Jewish...). One only has to look at some of the comments here as well.

Best quote I've come across to describe my understanding is from Stephen F. Roberts: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

As for "insulting" any religion, I would think that not believing in it at all is the worst insult, no?

The problem with "Jesus" stories like this one is the fact that Christians are just as guilty. Any bit of historical evidence, no matter how thin or shaky of provenance is held up as proof of the mystical Jesus. You can't have it both ways. (Although I am of the opinion that this particular story is as false as the "James, brother of Jesus" ossuary from a few years ago).

Try reading some Hugh Schonfield and get back to m.

just something to look for as Easter approaches. We should be seeing "the Ten Commandments" but rarely do you see "The Robe"," Ben Hur "or "Barrabas" or "The Greatest Story ever told"

just an observation.

maybe this on Easter Sunday from CBCpravda in the interest of diversity.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/

"As for "insulting" any religion, I would think that not believing in it at all is the worst insult, no?"

Muslims seem to think so,to the point of cutting your head off.

Jim: You seem somewhat confused.

If one wanted incontrovertible proof of God's existence that was clearly demonstrable to every observer it wouldn't be called FAITH.

Science may answer the how to and find causal connections.

Science however, does not answer or suffuse knowledge with moral agency or give mankind meaning.

The film "Life of Brian" gives a good parody on how people are easily mislead. The Judean Peoples Front or JPF as a marxist foil against the prevailing Romans of the day was brilliant.

So too, the Beatitudes being recast as "Blessed are the cheesemakers." With the 'scholars' immediately suggesting that what was meant was, blessed are those involved in the dairy industry.

The proposition that Christians respond to criticism by having a tantrum, is simply false.

Christians didn't run into the streets and blow themselves up because Monty Python blasphemed or held to chagrin the proposition of faith.

Quite the opposite, a lot of Christians laughed right along with Monty Python at how easily people can be misguided by their dogmatic assertions that science, political marxism, or any other of a host of errors are humourously shown to be false.

Science can be used for good or evil, but science, in and of itself, answers nothing whatever of why one should behave with moral agency.

The last century has seen enough 'experiments' of the proposition that 'might makes right' in the absence of the Divine, as expressed in relentless statism.

If one is not a theist, why not be a Vandal?

Why should one not accept the credo that 'might makes right', survival of the fittest etc.?

Nietzsche's "Ubermensch" comes to mind. Why shouldn't we have hearts of stone? Why not uncritically accept any of the latest '-isms'?

Your position is flawed as even people such as Oriana Fallaci had enough respect for Pope Benedict XVI to leave all her collected works to the Vatican. Pretty interesting for a one who spent her life in the redoubt of the atheist position.

Perhaps your mis-characterization of people who have a faith perspective is the real problem.

The proposition that people of faith are bereft of all reason is false.

By the same token there are those who have untrammeled dogmatic belief that only science has anything to say can depart the bounds of rationality to violent excesses. History is replete with such examples.

The trick Jim is to find a balance.

Harris' text is basically a 'straw man' on people of faith. In short it insinuates only an atheist should be in charge of all those weapons in the US nuclear arsenal.

Of course it is useful to point out that we have had atheists in charge of nuclear weapons notably the USSR and China which are hardly shining examples of how to run one's society.

If the premise is that one can find idiots in any group of humans, thus all are idiots; perhaps we need a new premise.

The premise that faith is violently opposed to reason is just as ridiculous as the proposition that reason is violently opposed to faith.

One can find plenty of examples of both premises in history, it doesn't make them desirable.

If you don't subscribe to radical Islam off with your head is equally repugnant as the proposition as you are not a member of the Communist/Nazi party you should be shot.

What Pope Benny has been at pains trying to point out; is that one needs to reconcile the extremist errors of faith without reason and by the same token reason without faith.

Faith without reason is merely the obverse of reason without faith. Both positions when taken to extremes lead to destructive behaviours.

Fundamentally when states take either extreme position bad stuff usually happens.

Freedom from all religion as expressed in the state is just as bad as no freedom of religion.

Wow!
Thats amazing Hans,
Along with Phantom and William you provide alot of great genuine thought. Very enjoyable to read, very interesting.

As for anon and Jim, I would say proof is a double edged sword, I will prove God Exists when you can prove he does not! (Science is a long way from that now and will remain that way for the forseeable future)

Christians seem to respond to criticism by having a tantrum. They don't seem to understand that they are being criticized as being superstitious because they insist on their beliefs despite having no proof that there is a god, no evidence that their Jesus was the son of that god, and no argument that supercedes the findings of science.

I think those doing the 'criticizing' are having a pretty hard time of it if this is what passes for 'criticism'. By all means, call Christians to account for the sins/hypocrisies of our members (abuse by priests, for example - you'll forgive us, perhaps, for noticing that others who abuse at least as much, and probably more; teachers, for example, don't get nearly the same negative air-time, though). It strikes us as a little odd that Christianity is attacked pretty much exclusively by those who say they take issue with 'faith' in general, when it's precisely in countries with a Christian history that have developed the tolerance to allow this kind of criticism.

To say there is 'no evidence' of [G]od or Jesus' divinity is to tell us that you haven't seriously looked at what we claim as evidence of both these propositions. It's also to discount all knowledge other than scientific knowledge. To be consistent, you should disbelieve in all science that you haven't personally verified - to believe otherwise is to exercise a type of faith.

I can't speak for other strains of Christianity, but Catholicism has always emphasized reason (think of St. Thomas Aquinas), and the compatability of truth, derived from both religion and from science. The problems arise when either one of these attempts to authoritatively explain things properly belonging in the others' domain, using its own inner logic. You shouldn't expect God to show up in a test-tube, and neither should we expect the Bible to explain the chemical composition of the Sun.

when asked my religion I reply Im a Usedtobe.

?

Usetobe?

yep, as in I 'used to be' of a certain denomination but no longer consider myself tobe, ie used to be = Usedtobe.

has to do with a particularly offensive response I got at a supper meeting that reminded me od the scripture passage about not sitting at the head table 'cause ya might get the boot; better to wait to be invited.

well I got the boot alright, apparently I wasnt at par in imporddance with the esteemed elders. and I didnt get invited back either since I quit the next week when something even more offensive occurred.

not gonna take THAT from ANY bunch of religionists.

'you cant sit there Robert, those seats are saaaaaved'

oh, incidentally, they dont have the dinner meetings anymore; couldnt shanghi enough suckers to man the kitchen. heh heh heh.

" I will prove God Exists when you can prove he does not!)"

I don't have to prove the non-existence of gods. You are the one asserting that they exist so you are the one that has the burden of proof. In the meantime I will remains a skeptic and rely on St. Darwin and Mother Dawkins as the purveyors of truth..

According to the "scientific method" we cannot prove Gaius Julius Ceasar ever existed. His life is clearly not a repeatable experiment.

"To be consistent, you should disbelieve in all science that you haven't personally verified - to believe otherwise is to exercise a type of faith."

I disagree. I'm exercising my own logic as to if I agree with a certain science. A prime example would be global warming science.

multirec - My point wasn't to discount all science, nor was it to have us all blindly accept all science. Something as politicized as global warming should give us all pause as to who is trying to sell us what.

I was taking issue with Jim's assertion that all knowledge can be explained through science. There are 3 ways that we can 'know' anything: reason, experience, and 'faith'. Reason, entirely of its own, requires each of us, from square one, to figure out everything about everything. Jim seems to discount experience out of hand, as though the billions of humans through history who claim genuine religious knowledge, are all simply wrong. Faith is simply the act of believing somebody or something in whom we have trust. Most of what we 'know' about science comes through other people (be they teachers or whoever), so most of our knowledge is grounded in whether these people accurately (a) understand of what they speak, (b) convey what they mean to convey, and (c) are not lying (ie, are trustworthy). That certain scientific explanations appeal to our reason is nice, but not necessarily compelling. These 3 ways of knowing support each other, and it's foolishness to use one to put down the others (although they can provide checks and balances on each other too).

You make a compelling argument Shane. Although my religion is evolution, I respect your views.

For anyone interested,

www.leestrobel.com

has some excellent resources. Lee Strobel, now a Christian, was a Chicago Sun Times investigative journalist.

Christians seem to respond to criticism by having a tantrum

Are you sure about that? Even Piss Christ couldn't get a riot going. Heck, the worst ACLU's anti-religious antics are met with a whimper.

With Muslims on the other hand we are talking murderous rage, fatwas, jihads and pure vengeance. Two kids got run over by a Muslim cab driver last week because he didn't like their comments. Sudden Jihad Syndrome is being a frequent event even here.

One thing to keep in mind is that Christianity for those of us that aren't regular church goers is a cultural identity, and, a very wholesome one. It was Christ that gave us permissions, as opposed to Mohammed's pathetic followers, to be secular beings.

I'm so damn tired of the vacuous criticism leveled at Christianity, which even in my lifetimes, has transformed and reformed itself into a religion of tolerance that lefties refuse to acknowledge.

Christ Himself separated church and state; 'render unto Ceasar...'. and only asked for 10% tithe. or as I used to put it 'fithe' 5% LOL !!!

none now, now its 'zithe' ie ZERO percent !!! (see above)

anyways as far as difficulties for xians in the world, read revelation, its a foregone conclusion; there will even be a world wide xian religion claiming to be the true faith but exposed as the harlot church in bed with human authorites interested only in power and dominance.

when Israel is attacked that final time and the EU gets dragged into it via nato or UN or some such snag, Germany will take pause and decide no, we're not going there again, and will in fact send its army to mount a DEFENSE of the jewish homeland as a final atonement for the holocaust.

etc etc. read it for yourself so even if you disagree its from an educated position.

The Enviroment is the "new" religion.

Actually, it is part of the "New" Age movement, which in itself is very old and dates back to earliest of paganism.

Prophecy for the final end time...........it states in the KJ Bible.

"They worshipped the CREATED, not the CREATOR"

Which is exactly what is happening. God to these leftwing Eviromental extremists is Gov't.

They are using the enviroment into brainwashing the weak and feeble minded into drinking their Kool Aid.

Goodness! There have been so many substantive and brilliant posts on this thread that I almost feel it's pointless for me to say anything.

However, I wish I had time to reflect on all this, but I only have a moment to point out a couple of things.

-- Faith is not unusual. Everyone has it.
We have faith that the sun will be there tomorrow, that our family loves us, that our dog is going to be happy to see us. Regrettably, some people even have faith that their washday detergent is better than another. So faith is nothing at all unusual. It's one of the more commonplace features of our life.

-- Religious experience cannot be subject to scientific examination beyond a point.
To imagine that science could evaluate religious experience is a bit like telling someone who has some brilliant insight into the nature of life that illuminates his entire outlook that his insight has no validity unless it has been subjected to repeatable experimentation and double-blind studies.

Religious experience is a little like this insight.

-- When I first took intro courses in philosophy, they instructed me that theologians started from the premise that there was a God, and philosophy started from the premise that the existence of God was something to be established. So the theologian was saying, yes, there's a God, and the philosopher was saying if there's a God, it's necessary to be proved.

(Of course this all turned out to be utter nonsense, as theologians read philosophers, philosophers read theologians, and belief or disbelief in God was all over the map.)

Theologically, the starting point is a little bit like a person who wants to know something. In order for him to know something, he has to automatically assume that there is a "knower". At the same time, this knower cannot be proved. The many particulars and content of knowledge can be established by proof, but the knower himself cannot be proven. A bit like a finger trying to grasp itself. An eyeball that has the ability to see everything, but lacks the ability to turn and look at itself.

-- In terms of Christianity, I personally don't have trouble with the Christian story for a lot of reasons.
However, the value of Judeo-Christian religious belief is not limited to its historicity. Religion can also be seen as sacred symbols directing attention to the ineffable. Throughout the creative works of art there's always the intention of opening up the depth of our own being.

As Tillich says, religion "...unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond to the dimensions and elements of reality."

"I'm so damn tired of the vacuous criticism leveled at Christianity, which even in my lifetimes, has transformed and reformed itself into a religion of tolerance that lefties refuse to acknowledge."

But the criticism that Christians do everything except prove that god exists is not vacuous. The qustion would vanish if they had any evidence. Instead their arguments work equally well for the Easter bunny.

glad I'm an atheist, thusly I don't have to identify with the foolish babblings of the good kristians

"Instead their arguments work equally well for the Easter bunny."

Thanks for that tautology Jim.

That precisely the whole point of the Christian faith is EASTER!!

Doin the resurrection shuffle. Guess you missed the quote from St. Paul.

Absolutely brilliant JIM! :) :0 :)

I've made one other comment on religion here on SDA in the last week, and I'll start with the same preface: I'm not setting out to intentionally gore anyone's pet ox, but the topic is religion after all, and the risk is always high.
You do not need God in order to live a moral life, any more than you need Satan as an excuse to be evil . Either action is a personal choice.
You do not need God or Satan to define good or evil; the two are universal concepts applicable to all humans. Good is everything that allows a human to remain human: the right to his own life, to his freedom and to reap the rewards of his actions, whatever they might be. Evil is anything that seeks to thwart any aspect of this.
But you personally might need God to give meaning to the universe and your place in it - and that too is one of your rights. If you need to, make the most of it. Here is the thing that sets the high value of Christianity: over the centuries it has slowly come to respect the idea that a religion chosen for you in which you are held against your will, is a sham. One should choose to do good rather than be forced to go through the motions. The day the same can be said of Islam will be a great one.
We have a hung jury on proving the existence or non-existence of God in a logical manner; at the same time each of us gets a one-way ticket to find out, punched the moment we're born.

But the criticism that Christians do everything except prove that god exists is not vacuous.

Why is your onus of God's existence on Christians and not Muslims, Jews or anyone else? Your statement is ridiculous.

Religion is an act of faith. You don't have it, so religion is meaningless to you, so what. Living among Christians it won't cost you your life, that's the point.

"But the criticism that Christians do everything except prove that god exists is not vacuous. The qustion would vanish if they had any evidence."

The universe stands as a witness to the existance of God. To all those that would demand theists produce EVIDENCE in order to believe, please consider this: It would be impossible for me, a finite and mortal man, to command the power to prove the existence of an infinite and all power God, for that to be possible I would have to be the God, it’s a self-defeating proposition.

In lieu of the ability to command God to appear before you, we can deduce the existence of God beyond resonable doubt. We know that the universe had a begining, as evidenced by the Big Bang, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the expanding universe, the radiation afterglow, and galaxy seeds. So the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause. Since, it is illogical and scientifically contradictory for something to come forth out of nothing (literally no-thing, no time, no space, no matter,) the kind of nothingness that can be descirbed as "what rocks dream about" The existence of a universe proves the existence of the super-natural. Since everything in nature began at the Big Bang, anything prior to it, is logically outside of (super to) nature. Therefore, the creation of the universe was a supernatural event.

Along with the complexity of the universe the complexity of life itself stands as a testimony to its Creator. Consider this; if you were to receive a message from outer space consisting of 100 consecutive prime numbers, would you not logically conclude that it had an intelligent source? (this is the premise of the Carl Sagan novel/movie "Contact") However, the simplest single celled organism on earth holds the equivalent of 1000 encyclopedias worth of information. Yet this in not considered a sign of intelligence? Furthermore the information in these encyclopedias is not random its highly organized and small variations make life impossible. Basically, life itself is a divine message stating “I AM HERE”.

For those atheists who believe that that life arose of its own volition through blind evolutionary processes it's important to remember that science has never observed, the spontaneous generation of life from non-living compounds. Life from non-life flies in the face of common sense and science. Yet, we are asked to believe that life occurred spontaneously from Randomness? It has been said that the probability of getting 1 protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blind folded man finding a marked grain of sand, in the Sahara desert, 3 times in a row! That probability if virtually zero. I believe it is actually zero, because "chance" is not cause. Chance is a word that we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no powe of its own. Chance is nothing, it's what rocks dream about. In order to get the simplest form of life you would need to get 200 of those protein molecules together in a highly organized arrangement. Even if molecules could arrange themselves into the form of an organism, life still would not exist. The intangible "spark" of life would still not be there, life is more than a simple machine set in motion. There's something intangible, and mystical about life, and I suspect there always will be. I don't care if you believe in Darwinian Micro Evolution or Biblical Creationism; neither is possible without a creator. Once again, logic dictates; every design has a designer, Life has a design, and therefore Life had a Designer.

After all the research that I've done, I find it takes far more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.

Well, I like to think that every human being has a belief system or systems that enable them to cope emotionally with lifes uncertainties. Most humans feel there is a supreme power that we can rely on and is merciful, albeit under certain conditions. Perhaps this "universality" backs the idea of a god, although another explanation might be that as humans, we are so dependant at birth and our sences so poorly developed, that we regard our caregivers as omnipotent and god-like, and that carries on into our lives. Those of us that survive our infancy must have had a caregiver that provided for us in our need, as we do our "gods". But there is nothing wrong with that belief system. It is grounded in our experience in our infancy and gives us optimism for the future. Generally, it will enable us to move forward in a positive manner. Poor "anon"; he sustains himself with the belief that reason will save him and humanity. Our belief in a higher being actually gives us the security needed to use our extremely fallible ability to reason, but not be dependent on it, and to continually challenge the conclusions we reach using our ability to reason.
If one reviews the history of medicine, medical practice was probably one of the sciences that prided itself in its ability to reason. We, as a group, probably killed as many people throughout history as Hitler. Many medical procedures (blood letting, purgatives, various potients) killed far more people than they helped. When beta blocking agents came onto the market we were warned never to give them to a patient within four weeks of a heart attack. Now it is almost mal-practice not to give them with a heart attack.
It always amazed me how some very rational people (in their field of expertice) were totally irrational when they got out of there comfort zone. Our ability to be rational is dictated by our knowledge, and we as the human race, are still infants in the area of knowledge.

People, dont you think we sometimes put tp much faith in the various books and essays we are quoting. A case in point: My wife is a hypochondriac, she has had (or said she had) every disease in the huge book of Family medicine on top of the TV set. One day I came home and she was on the couch with a wet Face Cloth. "I have Mcarrows Syndrom," she said Happily. I went to the big back and looked it up. I returned to her and told her that Mcarrows Syndrom was noted for its complete lack of symtoms. "See" she said.

The only good religion is no religion at all.

Jim,

What kind of proof are you looking for?

Philosophically: there are numerous arguments of the 'first cause' type that appeal to reason in arguing for the presence of a supernatural creator (a la Ryan @ 10:10).

Experientially: we're not just talking about the 'religion makes me feel good' type of experiences. We're also talking of people who have personally experienced miracles (yes, even today) - go ahead and debunk each one of these. Not only are there the personal experiences, but (and this leads to the third area) there are the experiences of people who are/were eminently believable.

'Faith': It seems that without having direct religious experiences yourself, this is the area you are most mistrustful of (not sure if you've looked at philosophical/rational arguments for God's existence - not that they don't make sense, but I don't put as much stock in them as experience/faith).

Consider the following:

Are the New Testament reliable documents? We have more copies (and older copies) of these texts than any other documents in history. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls served to confirm, among other things, that Scriptures were very accurately passed down from generation to generation (understanding, of course, that the DSS were Jewish Scriptures, only corresponding to our Old Testament). Actual historical events/personages mentioned in the NT are mentioned in other writings that have no vested interest in Christianity, thus verifying some parts of it (and giving better reason to believe the rest of it).

The NT was written either by apostles (those who followed Jesus), or by people in communities spawned by his followers (if the latter case, their writings were attested to by an apostle) - they are, therefore, either first-hand accounts, or checked by someone with first-hand experience (these were some of the criteria in selecting the writings in the first place, and also the reason why so many of the Gnostic writings were rejected, which were written later).

Now, here's the kicker - virtually all of the Apostles, as well as numerous other early Christians (including ALL of the early popes) were killed because they refused to say that the truth of these writings (and, in particular, the Resurrection) was, in fact, not true. If you'd made up a story about something, would you die for it? This early persecution of the Church, though it must have been extremely difficult to go through, is what remains a sign of contradiction to our own day. We're not talking Islamic suicide bombing as a way of getting our 72 virgins. We're talking about people who wouldn't simply renounce their faith, and were put to death for it. These witnesses continue to inspire others to look seriously at what they were willing to die for - their willingness to die gives them a certain credibility.

Will we be able to provide a specific repeatable procedure that will always produce God in a test-tube? Nope. But it's stretching credibility beyond the breaking point to suggest that every religious person in history is massively and completely deluded when it comes to what they have experienced. As a religious person, I can look at people of other religions and say, "It's not quite 'right' (after all, would I follow my faith if I wasn't convinced of its truth?), but I can see how that person is trying to respond to God's call" - as an atheist, a person would have to see us all as massively deluded (which I suspect you do, but which I'd suggest is a pretty shallow position).

ronrob - I think I might have Mcarrows syndrome too ;)

(I'm a terrible hypochondriac too, ever since diagnosed and successfully treated for a melanoma spot on my abdomen)

Jose stated, "...the inconvenient fact that King Herod died in 4 B.C whereas Pontius Pilate didn't show up on the scene until 30 years later"

The historical evidence that King Herod died in 4 (or possibly 5) BC doesn't disprove the birth of Jesus Christ, only that when the Gregorian calendar was established, the scholars of the 16th century were out by several years in trying to peg "anno Domini" (AD).

Pontius Pilate is understood to have been governor approx 26 - 36 AD. That range seems to fit with the generally understood year of Jesus' crucifiction.

Also, there were 2 successive King Herods, were there not? The one who died around the time of Jesus' birth was the father of the one ruling around the time of Jesus' death, if I'm not mistaken.

(I think Jose was trying to say that PP and Herod weren't alive at the same time, which the Gospels state in their crucifixion accounts - the resolution is that PP was a contemporary of King Herod's son, also called Herod)

it has been interesting to read the many comments on this subject. it seems to me that all have been influenced by Christanity no matter what they say they believe. it would appear that Christanity is the basis for all of your arguments. it ceratainly is the basis for our law and our treatment of each other.

could someone clarify the confusion I have about the premise of evolution?

apparently one indicator of life is compounds like water, nitrogen, methane, then amino acids, and other organic compounds. any evolutionists dispute this? I thought not.

now, square that with *this*; we're supposed to believe all life, every__last__living__thing that has ever existed or will exist came from some truly unique life form, a primitive cell thing that popped up some 4 billion years ago.

Ive heard it claimed it did not have DNA (I suppose as a way to get arounf THAT conumdrum).

and evolution is a process of handing select traits down to subsequent generations and individuals.

so this primitive initial life form somehow had the astounding smarts to evolve into EVERYTHING ELSE. so it either had all the dna programming already or at the very least had to have the capability of responding to conditions in such a way that over those billions of years, somehow endowed it with the ability to evolve into all living things.

pretty tall order if you ask me.

so to rephrase the question, how does this very first cell, whatever structure it had, get from clumps of simple organic molecules, suddenly having incalculably immense potential to become absolutely every living thing that has ever existed? it either has to instantly have all the dna information necessary for all organisms in it (thus able to subdivide and specialize to its hearts content) OR at least have the instructions necessary to select a path of evolution in response to changing conditions as opportunities for various species to come into existense arise.

which is it? a built in complete 'dictionary' of dna or an algorithm spelling out how to modify the dna in response to environment? or perhaps put it this way, an algorithm to 'let' the dna modify itself. reaaaaal tall order that one eh?

this is the part of evolution I just cant fathom. for me THIS is the REAL 'missing link'.

then theres the part about how in blazes do the protons and electrons that make up all elements likewise have the 'smarts' to 'know' the exact sequence, amount and location to coalesce as needed billions of times, to congregate and become life?

keep your sarcasm to yourselves oh evolutionist, just answer the question in clear unambiguous and precise terms (including theories) as best you can.

Stephen:

Bingo!

---------------
Jim,
Interesting point. Where Buddhism is predominant do you get the same kind of counter reaction?
Posted by: Stephen at March 2, 2007 9:23 AM

Shane O. - you're right, my bad. I didn't realize that Jose had confused Herod the Great (he who ordered the slaughter of the Innocents after talking with the three magi) with his son Herod Antipas (he who questioned Jesus and sent him back to Pontius Pilate).

From the postings, Christians seem to have faith in a number of odd and unrelated suppositions:

That the universe was created.

That the creator was an odd human-like hairy beast.

That the creator listens to prayers of people living in on an obscure planet by an unremarkable star in an unpreposessing region of a minor galaxy.

That the creator sent his only son to a minor sect in a minor area of the Earth to save them from their sins.

That the death of the son absolved the people of sins already committed or to be committed and whether or not they were the people the son visited.

That people must accept the son as their saviour or the creator will visit eternal punishment on them.

Fun stuff.

Wow! nice rebuttal Jim. You sure showed us all. I especially like this "That the creator was an odd human-like hairy beast" What!?

A few surprising quotes and facts, that I'm sure albatross, jose and other assorted leftoids won't be able to digest:

There is simply no historic foundation for the position that the
Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was
constitutionalized in Everson. The 'wall of separation be-
tween church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history,
a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging.
It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
- - - Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, William Rehnquist

In 1796 the US Supreme Court issued this ruling, "By our form
of government, the Christian religion is the established religion,
and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on
equal footing." Some 57 years later, after Congress was
petitioned to separate Christian principles from government,
in 1853 the House Judiciary Committee issued their formal
report, including these words: "In this age there is no substitute
for Christianity. This was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to be the religion of their dependents. The great vital, conservative elements in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ." - - - Dr. Gerald Beavan

"It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own
their dependence upon the overruling power of God
and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the
Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those
nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord."
-- President Abraham Lincoln

Faith and love are apt to be spasmodic in the best of minds.
Men and women live on the brink of mysteries and harmonies
into which they never enter and with their hand on the doorlatch they die outside. GK Chesterton
*******
I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really
foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]:
"I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I
don't accept His claim to be God."
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was
merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would
not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic --
on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg --
or else he would be the Devil of Hell.
You must make your choice. Either this Man was, and is,
the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse ....
You can shut Him up for fool, you can spit at Him and kill
Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him
Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has
not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.
-- From Case for Christianity, by C.S. Lewis

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3)."

- - - The Laws and Statutes of Harvard College in 1643

"All scholars shall live religious, godly, and blameless lives according to the rules of God's Word, diligently reading the Holy Scriptures, the fountain of light and truth; and constantly attend upon all the duties of religion, both in public and secret."

- - - Two central requirements in Yale College 1745 charter
************
"I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man.
All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to
us through this book." -- President Abraham Lincoln

"For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill.
The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal
falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and
so cause Him to withdraw his present help from us, we
shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world."
--John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1630

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and
the Bible." - President George Washington

"The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a
power that conquers all that oppose it." - Napoleon

"That Book accounts for the supremacy of England."
- Queen Victoria

"If there is anything in my thought or style to commend ,
the credit is due my parents for instilling in me an early
love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principals taught
in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper;
but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." - Daniel Webster (Founding Father)

"The Bible is the anchor of our liberties." - President U.S. Grant

"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principals of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom." - Horace Greeley (Editor)

"That Book is the rock on which our Republic rests." - President Andrew Jackson

"In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength." - Gen. Robert E. Lee

"Bible reading is an education in itself." - Lord Tennyson (Poet)

"So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectable members of society. I have for many years made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year."
- President John Quincy Adams

"The existence of the Bible, as a Book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity." - Immanuel Kant (Philosopher)

"The New Testament is the very best Book that ever or ever will be known in the world." - Charles Dickens (Author)

"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of
confirming more and more strongly the truths contained in the
Sacred Scriptures." - Sir William Herschel (Astronomer)

"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in
any profane history." - Sir Isaac Newton (Scientist)

"Let mental culture go on advancing, let the natural sciences
progress in even greater extent and depth, and the human
mind widen itself as much as it desires; beyond the elevation
and moral culture of Christianity, as it shines forth in the Gospels, it will not go." - Goethe (Author)

"I have known ninety-five of the world's great men in my time,
and of these eight-seven were followers of the Bible. The Bible
is stamped with a Specialty of Origin, and an immeasurable
distance separates it from all competitors."
- W.E. Gladstone (Prime Minister)

"The Bible has been the Magna Charta of the poor and oppressed. The human race is not in a position to dispense with it." - Thomas Huxley (Author & Scientist)

"America was born a Christian nation. America was born
to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness,
which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures.
Part of the destiny of Americans lies in their daily perusal
of this great book of revelations. That if they would see
America free and pure they will make their own spirits
free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Spirit."
--President Woodrow Wilson

For Christians, the life and death of Jesus are the ultimate
expressions of love, and the supreme demonstrations of
God's mercy, faithfulness, and redemption. Since Christ's
miraculous Resurrection on Easter, more than 2,000 years
ago, Christians have expressed joy and gratitude for this
wondrous sacrifice and for God's promise of freedom for
the oppressed, healing for the brokenhearted, and salvation.
--President George W. Bush

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this
great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians;
not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this
very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum,
prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
--Patrick Henry (original member of the Continental Congress)
******

Oh, and these inconvenient facts (from the comments at another blog on the same topic):

The historical reliability of the Bible should be subjected to the same criteria as any historical document: 1) a bibliographical test, 2) an internal evidence test, and 3) an external evidence test.

There are more than 5,300 known early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, add 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and 9,300 other manuscripts and you get over 24,000. No other document in antiquity even BEGINS to approach such numbers.
The earliest know copy of the New Testament is from 125 AD and scholars agree that it was written in 40 AD. The manuscipt is less than 100 years older that the events it records. No one questions the veracity of Ceasar's Gallic Wars manuscript, even though the earliest known copy is 1,000 years younger than the events. In fact, almost all surviving ancient manuscripts are more than 1,000 years later than the events they record.
Whether someone wants to face it or not, the manuscript evidence is overwhelming. Only when someone's eyes are opened will they face truth, until then, they will willingly wallow in darkness, believing the lies they tell themselves.

The internal evidence test, well, our distinguished atheist says that you cannot interpret Scripture with Sripture, so I guess we also cannot understand Homer's writing style and find other writings that mimic it. And we cannot understand anything we cannot touch, feel, see, hear or taste while we're at it. Internal evidence abounds, such as the Dead Sea scrolls and the book of Isaiah and the prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. But Noooo, we canot consider that. It was TAINTED.

Is a crime victim's testimony tainted by their biased observance of a criminal beating them up?
External evidence test? How about the writings of Josephus, or Eusebius who preserved the writings of Papias from 130 AD, and Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 AD who was a student of Polycarp, one of John the Apostle's followers? Facts are easy to find. . . if you look.

The Bible was written over a 1,500 year time span, over 40 generations, by more than 40 authors (kings, peasants, fishermen, statesmen, a doctor, poets, etc), written in different places, on three different continents, in three different languages. Yet it has one central theme: the redemption of God's people.

It is unique in its continuity, its circulation, its translation, its survival, its teaching, and its influence on surrounding cultures and literature, not to mention its unique effect on millions of people worldwide who have been genuinely changed. Skeptics don't or won't, actually, they CAN'T understand that.

If you are an intelligent person, you will read the one book that has drawn more attention than any other throughout history, IF you are actually searching for truth.

After that, read A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

1. The earliest known copy of the New Testament archaelogists have discoverd is dated around 130 AD...shortly after we had approximately 25,000 copies in existence that archaelogists have found.

2. Caesar's Wars written between 100-44 BC - the earliest copy we can date is 900AD and we only have 10 copies.

3. Tacitus' Annals written in 100AD - with an earliest known copy found in 1,100 AD and we have 20 copies

4. Plato's Tetrologies written between 427 - 347 BC - earliest known copy 900AD and we have 7 copies.

5. Aristotle - any one work written between 384-322BC. Earliest known copy 1,000AD and we only have 5.

Now here is some VERIFIABLE evidence regarding the New Testment (just a sampling).

1. 1 Corinthians was written by PAul about 55AD
2. Only 25 years after Christ's death.
3. Succinctly shows the Gospel of the early church
4. "Hundreds" of eyewitnesses are noted, most of which would still be alive at this time and presumably would have easily refuted a contrived Resurrection story.

Just to put in perspective...none of us (at least I assume) question to much the history (oral or written) of World War II, Vietnam, or even the year 1982...these events occurred roughly 60, 30 and 25 years respectively.

However, some so-called enlightenend people would never question Plato or Aristotle (very few copies and known 1200 - 1400 years following their origination), yet they question eyewitnesses recorded less than 30 years after Christ's Resurrection and of which we have over 25,000 original copies.
As the noted Jewish historian Nelson GLueck has noted, "It may be stated categorically that no archaelogical discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

valster: "...most people I've met who claim to be 'grounded' in their faith are mostly close minded unless things fit their particular beliefs..."

Is that opposed to people who have no grounding in any faith being so open-minded that they don't have any beliefs and anything goes?...

Gee, falling for anything because you don't stand for anything doesn't seem like a great alternative to believing in in a faith creed.

You've simply substituted nothing for something.

I am not sure what the existence of a large numbers of copies of the New Testament as against other historic works proves. After all there were over a thousand years of handcopying by monks who scraped pagan documents away in order the write copies of the New Testament and lives of invented saints.

We can probably assume that Christians spent a lot of time inventing myths and destroying evidence of the lack of support for their beliefs. The Christians in Alexandria even murdered non-Christians to intimidate anyone who didn't immediately fall into the Christian line.

Jim, you historian, you. It's wonderful how you provide evidence for your wildly-biased assertions.

"Jim, you historian, you. It's wonderful how you provide evidence for your wildly-biased assertions"

Actually, there were some benefits from taking history at U of T. You can find the burning of the books at Alexandria and the murder of Hypatia in most good books about the period. If you want something more specific, see Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ, or Pollard and Reid, The Rise and Fall of Alexandria.

"I am not sure what the existence of a large numbers of copies of the New Testament as against other historic works proves."

I reckon at the very least it proves your inability to comprehend what it means. And your other comments are peripheral and meaningless.

We can probably assume that Christians spent a lot of time inventing myths and destroying evidence of the lack of support for their beliefs.

If I come across those books, I'll have a look.

Oops - my fake tag didn't show up. After the quote, it was supposed to show (/wildly-biased assertion>

We can probably assume that anti-Christians spend a lot of time inventing myths about Christianity and ignoring evidence that goes contrary to their beliefs. There, I can make wild assertions too!

I took a quick look at the first site on a google search for Tom Harpur, and found http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

I think you'll find your source to be an incredibly biased anti-Christian, hardly the model of neutral scholarship you make him out to be. What exactly are they propagandizing you folks with at university these days? I suppose you'll be taking up the 'history' behind the DaVinci Code next semester?

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that Harpur is "an incredibly biased anti-Christian." He is a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and the New Testament at the University of Toronto, a Rhodes scholar, and religious columnist for the Toronto Star. Perhaps anyone who disgrees with you is "biased."

You might google "Hypatia" as well. Her murder by Christian mobs is well known and is merely one example of how Islam is merely a poor copy of Christianity who did it all before.

I'll have to go back and read that source - perhaps I overstated some of what I said. My first impression is that he is not some towering historian, in fact, no one in the history circles that article discusses seems to have heard of him.

many of the major news rags are secular just look at the way they savage christians who oppose such junk science as EVOLTION,ENVROMENTAL EDUCATION,SEX EDUCATION and such other poppycock

"they savage christians who oppose such junk science as EVOLTION,ENVROMENTAL EDUCATION,SEX EDUCATION and such other poppycock"

I think you will find that the theory of evolution is a fundamental tenet of modern biology. The other items you mentioned depend on what is taught.

All religion sticks. You are all on a ship of fools. Bibles were written by men,all religeous books.