News
Navigation
Other Issues
This Issue
- Front page
- News
- Sports
- Opinions
- Intermission
- Dining Guide
- Night Life Guide
- Careers
- Features
- Classifieds
Buy
SMS
RSS feeds
Comments about "Jesus Never Lived, Speaker Says"
<< Back to Jesus Never Lived, Speaker Says
43 Comments on this article:
Very interesting article. I too have the same beliefs. I have personally always thought the Bible and it's stories were quite silly and mythical. (By the way, I was brought up in a Southern Baptist home in Oklahoma.)
Aren't there other, more parsimonious ways of accounting for Paul's silences about Jesus's earthly ministry? Perhaps the Jesus of the gospels is a fiction, and the Jesus of whom Paul writes was an obscure figure ala Isaiah 53 whose crucifixion led to the belief that he was the messiah.
aren't there accounts of him in roman record, or other non-biblical historical writings?
jon -- no, there aren't any accounts of him in Roman records or any other non-biblical historical writings of the same time period that he lived, or even shortly after. Decades after Jesus supposedly died, Josephus mentions a "Jesus" in his historical record to the Romans, but there's a lot of scholastic debate about how much of that statement -- known as the Testimonium Flavinium -- was forged. Most scholars agree that up to half was forged by later scribes, but some say all, that its very existence is suspect because Josephus clearly hated messianic cults. This ain't what they teach you in Sunday school, so sirree.
And, moreso, as Brian Flemming has argued, Jesus did VERY noteworthy things (was a general rabble-rouser, etc) that would have been recorded if someone had actually done them.
Since they were not recorded, then we can (reasonably) assume that they did not happen.
If a person existed who did not have super-powers, and did none of the things that we hear about in the stories of Jesus, then how could that person be seen as the historical basis for Jesus?
In what way would he be Jesus-like?
Joseph Campbell laid out most of Carrier's points, situating Biblical mythologies among similar tales by storytellers worldwide. But this Carrier's discussion presupposes an either/or choice: accept the historical Jesus with a literal interpretation of the Bible, or be an atheist. What about as another choice, an Eisteinian faith, committed to interpreting all myths for their transcental truths, relative to today's questions and problems, and which doesn't depend upon whether the central character of particular myths was historical, or not? Elaine Pagels explains how the early Gnostic Christians were consummate open-minded thinkers, but with a rational and spiritual sensibilty. We aren't going to wipe out the human impulse to mystify or mythologize, or pray before exams, for that matter, so why not offer a new mythology relevant to a post moon-landing worldview?
I disagree with most of the methods Carrier uses. Take the assumptions being made about how to determine if Jesus did really exist. For example, the assumption that "if he existed, his actions would have been recorded". Since all written and oral religious material about him clearly states that most contemporaries of Jesus did not believe he was who he claimed to be, nor did they believe the stories about his actions, how can we assume that these people would have made records about him and his actions, if they, by definition, shunned him and refused to believe him? Why would they use the time required with the "technologies" they had at the time to make the considerable effort to write extensively about him (and to accept the considerable expense of such writing: they had no Office Depot to buy cheap paper, nor did they have word processors!) The idea that they would have written extensively about him assumes that his existence was so significant at the time that he would be the subject of many writings, but that is not what is said about him, even by those who believe he existed and that he was/is the son of God. There were many who claimed to be "prophets" and even "gods" during the time he would have existed; it seems more reasonable to believe that he would have been viewed as just another one of the many religious zealots who were making trouble for the Romans, than to assume he would have been singled out of the crowd as "the one" who should be written about. To do so would be to transfer the controversy being addressed by Carrier back two thousand years, and assume most people of the time would have known Jesus was so controversial and so widely known that he should be the subject of the instense study and analysis his life receives now, so that we would have the records we need to prove he existed. Again, all through the religious texts, one theme clearly stands out: whether it was Jesus, or Moses, or any other significant person in the texts, they have one thing in common: they were not believed by the vast majority of their contemporaries. Neither was Jesus; even his most avid followers today acknowledge that. Perhaps his message was not as significant to the people of his time as we assume it was? WHY does it seem so obvious and certain that Jesus, among all the "rabble-rousers" of his time, would have been written about so extensively that enough records would still exist to prove HE existed? Do we have extensive records of all those who caused as much "trouble" as he did/does to validate the assumtion that "if he existed, we would have many written records of it"? And why do we assume that those whose records did survive to be read today, would have written about Jesus for our benefit, when, again, one of the most universal statements about him is that few people of his time believed him, much less, believed he was the son of God? Wasn't he crucified because he was not believed? Carrier makes an assumption which I cannot accept. That is, he assumes that if Jesus existed, those proofs which Carrier accepts would also exist. Since he cannot find them, his assumption is that Jesus did not exist. I cannot recall the phrase used to describe this kind of "logic", but, I can give an example of it: "All dogs are green. I have a frog that is green. Therefore, my frog is a dog." The premise "all dogs are green" is false. Even though the premise "my frog is green" is true, and the conclusion follows from the premises, that really does not matter. Because the first premise is false, the only conclusion which may be logically drawn from it is either that the conclusion may be false, or, that nothing may be logically assumed from the premises, which are trivial conclusions. There is no logical way for a false premise to lead to a true conclusion which is not trivial. So it is with Carrier's argument(s): even though he follows the rules of "logic", his premises cannot be proven to be true. He begins with the premise "if Jesus existed, there would have been much written of him" (why? because the issue of his existence is so important to us? How do we know it was important to them? We assume the absence of writings is a valid proof, which it is not). Referring to the example of the "frog who is a dog", once the first premise is known to be false or not logical of itself, the rest of the argument could be logical but trivial, so there is little to be gained by exerting oneself trying to figure out how to make the conclusion TRUE. (An argument can be logical without being true, such as the "frog who is a dog" example shows). It is doubtful that one could prove that every significant historical figure who lived was extensively written about. How would we know without doubt if that assumption was true or false? We would have to know about every significant historical figure who ever lived, and then, see whether he was written about, which we could not do if the assumption is false, since the only way we accept such proof is if that figure is extensively written about! That makes the whole argument circular. I am more inclined to accept that it is possible that Jesus was not perceived to be as important a figure in his time by those who shunned him as he is by so many of us now. Even atheists spend a great deal of time thinking about him and trying to "prove" he either did not exist or was just another guy like everyone else. Each of the arguments made here pre-supposes that he did NOT exist, based on the personal bias of the author(s), then proceeds to argue why that bias is "true", by making illogical arguments about how proof may be established. As always, the existence of Jesus boils down to what is often called "faith", which by definition cannot be verified by the physical sciences. "Atheists" and "Believers" really are very much alike: each seems dedicated to the task of changing the beliefs of the other. "Been there, done that". Each "side" of the argument really is base on personal biases rather than the pseudo-logic which arguments such as this seem to "prove". I doubt few on either "side" will cross over.
(apologies for the length of this; alas, I have the weakness of too many words.....)
Warrior Wizard, Carrier does not at all present us with a binary choice between believing either that a historical Jesus existed (on the one hand), or that there is no god (on the other). Based on this article, at least, he explicitly states that the original Christian sects viewed Jesus as a non-corporeal figure. So, then, we could in princple buy his account, but still believe that the non-corporeal Jesus is real or meaningful. Or we could do exactly as you suggest, and interpret mythologies for their relevance to the contemporary world. Or, indeed, both.
I have to agree with Carrier and have felt this way for some time after doing some of my own research and lots of reading. One would think for such a celebrated person like jesus, you would find more documentation when we can find written documents on some of the less known people of the time. people that had not impact on history. anyway, i prefer the logical approach which carrier communicates well, just like many others. it is interesting to note that religious believers all seem to disagree on the true god and what is the true word of god with several different interpretations and various denominations for each of their religions. however, the non-believers seem to basically agree on what they believe.
Larry Holmes uses the standard circular argument.
"Since all written and oral religious material about him clearly states that most contemporaries of Jesus did not believe he was who he claimed to be, nor did they believe the stories about his actions, how can we assume that these people would have made records about him and his actions"
So the fact that his 'contemporaries' (Thus he MUST have existed) didn't write about him shows that the contemporary writings that do not mention him MUST be evidence of his existence!
Classic mythological 'logic'!
More for Mr. Holmes: It's not just that historians of the time didn't write about Jesus. They didn't write about the very notable events that supposedly happened around the time. Herod's slaughter of the innocents surely would have been noted by one of the Roman historians. What about the darkness that covered the earth at the crucifixion? Pliny the Elder is silent on it, even though he meticulously recorded natural events both during and after the supposed life of Jesus. It is mentioned in no records of the time. What about the supposed census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem? No mention of it, and it is illogical on its face. The Jewish historian Josephus is the ONLY historian that mentions a Jesus in the first century, and, as others have said, his entries are easily concluded to be later insertions.
When you combine the silence outside the Gospels, the absense of details of Jesus' life in the New Testament Epistles -- and not just Paul's -- and the conflicting accounts of Jesus' life, crucifixion, and resurrection in the Gospels, it is easy to see how a rational person concludes Jesus was a mythical figure.
I think Carrier is on too an important argument, one that very much needs more discussion and more research. I'm an atheist myself, yet I never want to dismiss whole some of the very cool things attributed too the "entity" of Jesus. Nor do I want to subcribe to the fact that this single entity was the only one utter cool things. Buddha, Lao-tsu, Chief Joseph, all had great things to say about the very best of being a human being, all at differnt points in history, different cultures, differnt points of views, and usually removed from each other by those differences...yet on the same page.
Why interfear with what people believe? You have nothing better to do with your time than disprove people religions. Why do you care if Jesus existeed or not? What do you accomplish? So people will say, "wow, that's neat." or "What an idiot." Let people believe what they want. It doesn't matter. Don't mettle in other people's religions. And why pick Jesus? Why don't you go try to prove that Budah is some fat guy that had no powers and most likley is in Hell right now? Your mettling in things that don't even matter. Your not gaining anything but trying to disprove religions. WHY DO YOU CARE?!! LEAVE OTHER PEOPLES BELIEFS ALONE!!! GOODNESS.
Alora seems to be utterly unaware of historical or current events. If it were just a matter of people believing irrational, unsupportable claims in the privacy of their own homes then perhaps there is little need for people like Richard Carrier. But this is far from the case. Perhaps Alora has heard of the Inquisition and the witch hunts. Millions have been brutally tortured and murdered in the name of Christianity. And, while Christianity has taken on a kinder face more recently -- although everything is relative -- it is still pernicious. Largely because of Christian beliefs more than half of the people in the United States refuse to believe in evolution. Our president can announce that he is in direct contact with God, and God has chosen him to lead the country in the "war on terror." Members of Congress can stand up before the public and announce they are against stem cell research because the soul enters the zygote at conception. Justice Scalia can state with confidence that in a Christian nation such as the United States, death is not such a big deal, so executing some innocent people in states with capital punishment is acceptable. How many more examples do you want? I know parents who force their children to attend catechism every Wednesday rather than allowing them to participate in a math club I sponsor at the local school. Is this fair to the child? Is it better for the child if his or her parents' faith is based on a myth. No.
We certainly don't need to single out Christianity. In fact, Islam is at a more dangerous phase of its development -- about like Christianity in the 14th century. Is it harmless that apostates -- Muslims who want to convert from Islam -- are subject to the death penalty? Or that a woman can be killed by her husband if she is raped, because she has dishonored the family? No. Alora, wake up!
Shall we go even further? Not only are there no historical accounts of Jesus, but Pontius Pilate wrote he'd put to death 'The Teacher Of Righteousness' who was none other than James (Jacov), assassinated by Paul at the Temple. Immediately following his death, the Jews revolted, resulting in the destruction of Qumran in 68 AD and the eventual fall of Jerusalem two years later. No response when 'Jesus' was supposely killed in 27 AD, yet James' murder at the hands of the butcher Saul/Paul warrants the destruction of both Qumran and Jerusalem?
The allure of Alora's argument escapes me. Most fairy tales do when they're turned from fiction to a belief under pain of death, as the Roman Catholic church has managed to do for seventeen hundred years since its inception by Constantine. Praise Mithra?
Indeed.
Funny how Carrier fails to address WHY Saul/Paul would be motivated to create a divine person. It was Paul's job to persecute and kill Christians - he was the original "witch hunter". Then, all of a sudden, he pulls an immediate and total 180 turn and creates a character that goes against everything he and his kind believed in, thusly putting his life in danger? Why would such a man do this? There's no monetary gain. He would receive no public applauds for doing this. Carrier also fails to account for Peter and John the apostles who lived well into Paul's life, who spoke of and preached well before Paul was involved. How could Paul "create" a divine character that was already being preacehd about from eye witnesses? Maybe Paul created these people, too. And Mary - and the Trinity, and everything Christian while tying it perfectly to the Old Testament with over 2000 years of history. Wow, what an imagination. He must have had a lot of time to do think this all up on his own. If this is the case, then Carrier should at least recognize Paul's enormous genius. Funny how no one in the first century disputed Jesus' existence.
According to Sir Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) Christianity was myth invented to destroy the Roman Empire! It's too bad, because Roman paganism was more advanced than Christianity (in many respects) and Roman scientific knowledge was lost for over 1000 years (due to the Dark Ages) because the Roman Catholic church refused to acknowledge pagan science!!!!
Mike from Kanada is mistaken about the Dark Ages theory, as well as Sir Edward Gibbon and his "invention theory" (whom Mike uses a reference). The term "Dark Ages" is a vague term that is typically being dismissed in most university and academic circles. The term was first used by a 14th century Italian who was trying to bring classic Roman culture back in to 14th century Europe. He assigned the term as a negative when discussing this era as an effort to assign blame to the Church as to why there was a period of turmoil. The fact is many areas in Europe were blooming at this time, but the ones that weren't were frequently those conquered by barbarian like tribes who did not posses written language, therefore nothing was written down in these conquered areas. In fact you will find that the Catholic monks and brothers in places like Germany and France hid much of the texts from the barbarians in order to protect them. It was these saved texts that were used in the middle ages that were used to help bring written language back that eventually spurred the Renaissance. If you do thorough research on the so-called "dark ages", you will actaully find periods of growth (economic as well as intellectual) during this time in European places you never knew about. It is called "dark ages" because at one time there was not much known or written about this era. That is no longer true due newly discovered texts and accounts, and therefore the term is not valid.
As for Edward Gibbon, his theory is a convenient one without much to go on (no texts, no 1st century authors, no real evidence to support Gibbons). It's just a theory that not many apply much weight to. Gibbon was an ex-Catholic at the time he authored this book, so he had motivation to view things a certain way. Not many people agree with this born again-pagan on this theory.
There is a sinister article that says that the powers of the day (Sanhedrins) destroyed the Roman Empire as revenge for the Romans destroying the Third Temple in 70A.D.9(C.E.)!
The article is by MARCUS ELI RAVAGE (CENTURY MAGAZINE FEB., 1928 War by Propaganda. I couldn't sleep that night that I read this, as "BOY, HAVE WE BEEN DUPED!". Any feedback on this article?
Thanks for the article, Mike from Kanada. I read the article, and you must look at the context from where the article comes from. MARCUS ELI RAVAGE seems to have been a pro-Semite, anti-Christian Jew during a very rough time for the Jews. There was strong global anti-Semitism during the 20's and 30's, and any Jew who was an intellect would have made a defense for their culture/religion. But Ravage goes beyond a well reasoned defense. He goes on the attack. It seems his point of view is that Christianity was a politically motivated sect of Judiasm that acted entirely on removing the Romans from their land. Christ was merely a rabal rouser who presented a small resistance from the Romans point of view. Whatever actions and motivations the young Christian church had was based on removal of the Romans. A properly educated Christian would see the fatal error in this theory. Christ never spoke of this world as his kingdom. God's kingdom was the penultimate kingdom, and only through Jesus can one obtain entry in to Heaven. Jesus preached let all things Roman to the Romans. His concern was man's eternal salvation, not earthly matters such as the removal of the Romans. Savage does not even address this point of view. I cannot accept Savages opinion because he ignores the first and most fundamental teaching of Christ.
For Bdsman:
You should really read some of the recent literature on the Jesus myth. Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle" is a good place to start. For example, Bdsman writes 'How could Paul "create" a divine character that was already being preacehd about from eye witnesses?' There is no record of eyewitnesses preaching about Jesus. In fact, as Doherty forcefully argues, the record outside the Gospels is silent on Jesus as a human on earth. That is part of the puzzle. Once one rules out Josephesus' "Testimonium" (published some SIX decades after Christ supposedly died) -- which is easy, as shown by Doherty -- there is no neutral historian who mentions Jesus in the entire first century. What is Bdsman talking about? At this point, Christians usually provide a list of a dozen or so, but they were all in the second century, and, even then, they do not provide support for a historical Jesus. They could simply be commentary on what Christians were saying at the time.
Bdsman is likely more knowledgeable than most Christians, yet he is ignorant about the early church history. Why, after all, would the church want Christians to know that there are no independent accounts of Jesus as a human? Why would the church want followers to know that Jesus is an almagamation of gods of the various mystery religions that pre-dated Christianity -- filtered through Old Testament scripture? They wouldn't. And no believing Christian can afford to do the research himself or herself because it would really make one question Christianity. Believe me. Both of my children were baptized in the Lutheran church, and I gave it a go for a while. That is, until I started reading the Bible for myself.
Clearly, previous gods such as Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Attis, and so on were "created" by someone. Paul was very much in that tradition. He just happened to also be a Jew. And, remember, Paul claims that it was a vision that led him to believe in Christ. Perhaps he was struck by lightening and had hallucinations. There are any number of simple explanations about why Paul would "create" a Jesus in the spiritual realm. It certainly had plenty of precedent.
MetricSU - I must comment that if you really want to destroy this whole Jesus thing, one should dismantle and attack his message. Once that has been shown to be a sham, the fact that whether or not there was a Jesus would become moot. Why don't I ever see people doing that? I'll tell you why. Because it is entirely true and entirely pure. I don't care if you're an athiest of the highest order - no one attacks love, foregiveness, perfect justice etc... Continuing, Earl Doherty is looking at this through 21st century eyes. Record keeping in the 1st century was done orally much more readily than writing down on parchment. Those who kept records probably did not care about this crazy religious fanatic - why would they? Most record keepers were much more in tune with Rome, leadership, wars, sicknesses, mass killings, the secualr world... in other words, things that made news. No - there probably wouldn't be a biographer following Jesus as he preached. There would be no reason to. Only a few people knew how to read and write back then, so Jesus sent his message in a way that people of his time would be able to relate to, just as all poor people of his day would - orally. Also, Doherty would have to account for Peter, the Apostle John who were eye witnesses to Jesus. There are historical records of their existense... that is widely known. Also, why wouldn't the competetitors of Christianity deny Jesus existence? Judiasm, Islam and Paganism were all competeing for followers, yet NONE of them deny his existence in the early AD centuries. That would be a crucial time to do it. All they do is deny his divine nature - NOT his existence. It is only over 17oo years after Jesus lived that people began to question His existence. That's a long time. Not to mention, no created god like figure (Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Attis)claimed to be the Son of Man, directly sent from God, all man, all God, and was resurrected and went to heaven.
MetricSU - also, Doherty is making two fatal assumptions - one, that only written documents prove a person's existence, and two, the New Testiment is not a valid historical document. There were millions (probably billions) of people who have lived on this earth that have no written records of their existence. Does this nullify their existence? Of course it does not. I can tell you that there are pens in my desk drawer at home, but there is no written record of it. The pens are there - and through experience I know what a pen is, and I know what a drawer is, so I tell you it's there because when I look to see, the pens are there. Yet, there are no written records, and yet they are there. Also, family stories get past down from generation to generation without a single word being written down - does this lack of writen record wipe out family history? Going on, four seperate valid authors in the first century wrote very similar yet distinct Gospels about the same man. John was very different from the other three in style and content, but just as valid. They all provided historical style information, locations, names of cities and towns, names of leaders, real events and so on. With the fact that at the time of Jesus' evangelizing there were no scribes writing this down (again, Jesus preached to those who did not write, and those who did write probably did not find him of interest), the word was spread orally until it did get written down, but only a few years after the proposed death at 33AD or so. We cannot judge 1st century historical evidence on written word alone, or for that matter the many other centuries that did not depend on writing as an essential tool until. It wasn't until the second millenium that writen word was considered essential in many cultures. Judea was a different culture that used different criterea for historical record. So in conclusion, the historic evidence available does not match Doherty's criterea. That has some but ultimately little relevance in the matter, because there are many other methods historical facts are proven and true that Doherty does not touch. The question is why does Doherty ignore all the other styles evidence used in the 1st century?
Thanks. This is great. Recovering alky, and catholic, who had numerous sociology profs from Stanford sez, yes. This fits in with all the evidence I have been compiling too.
"No one knows if this Jesus Christ existed, and if he did, nothing is known about him!" Bertrand Russell 1928
Does it really matter? If you are a Christian, you believe that God loves us and that we are forgiven for the sins that we, as imperfect humans, commit. We cannot earn eternal life because we already have it. Because we are beloved children of God we do our best to live as God wants us to live, loving and praising Him, and loving and helping others because this is what family does. We don't have to worry about anything, including whether there was a historical Jesus or whether Paul made up the whole Jesus story for some obscure reason, or whether Jesus fits some mythical profile. If you are a Christian you have the joy and assurance of faith and belief. So it really doesn't matter what some silly intellectuals do or think. This "research" is annoying/amusing, but it can't shake the faith of those who truly believe!
Lois:
I'm certainly sympathetic about the benefits of the Christian faith, especially its impact on peace of mind. Life is difficult to get through and, whatever helps seems fair to me. But I draw the line when someone's unsubstantiated beliefs impinge negatively on others' lives. For example, gays are persecuted in the name of Christ or Muhammed regularly. And why is that? Because "the book" says that homosexuality is a sin. It says so in the Old Testament more than once. So, what are we to make of this. Did God not really mean it? Are you a moderate Christian who picks and choses from the Bible? What do you say to fundamentalists who have the more honest position? Was the Bible inspired by God or what?
What about slavery? Was God initially mistaken? The OT treats slavery as a matter of fact. Jesus didn't see the problem, either, as he never condemns slavery in the New Testament. What about the role of women in the church? Do moderate Christian factions get their moderation from a more careful reading of the Bible? No way. Paul said that women should be silent in church, and women should not teach men. It's in the NT. What do you make of this? We ignore it because there are some good parts?
The problem is, religious beliefs have consequences. If you are a fundamentalist Christian then your beliefs can be traced to suffering for millions around the world. If you are a moderate, you are providing shelter for the fundamentalists -- even as you might criticize them.
The possibility of a Jesus figure actually existing is very seductive. But just because we want something to be true doesn't make it so.
MetricSU wrote: "Perhaps Alora has heard of the Inquisition and the witch hunts. Millions have been brutally tortured and murdered in the name of Christianity."
Well, perhaps MetricSU has heard of a fellow named Hitler, who brutally tortured and murdered millions in the name of atheism. And Stalin. And Pol Pot, etc. Atheists who like to point back to the Inquisition as evidence of Christianity's heinousness always seem to conveniently neglect the fact that the most brutal regimes in the history of the world have been godless, atheistic dictatorships.
MetricSU wrote: "More for Mr. Holmes: It's not just that historians of the time didn't write about Jesus. They didn't write about the very notable events that supposedly happened around the time. Herod's slaughter of the innocents surely would have been noted by one of the Roman historians. What about the darkness that covered the earth at the crucifixion? Pliny the Elder is silent on it, even though he meticulously recorded natural events both during and after the supposed life of Jesus."
So what does all that prove? A lot of people in today's world get angry at the media for picking and choosing what they report as news. Apparently people in such positions 2000 years ago are guilty of the same sort of bias. Back then I'm sure historians (and the media of the day) were even less inclined towards impartiality than they claim to be today.
MetricSU wrote: "For example, gays are persecuted in the name of Christ or Muhammed regularly. And why is that? Because "the book" says that homosexuality is a sin. It says so in the Old Testament more than once. So, what are we to make of this. Did God not really mean it? Are you a moderate Christian who picks and choses from the Bible? What do you say to fundamentalists who have the more honest position? Was the Bible inspired by God or what?
What about slavery? Was God initially mistaken? The OT treats slavery as a matter of fact. Jesus didn't see the problem, either, as he never condemns slavery in the New Testament."
So are religious people the only ones in the world guilty of persecuting homosexuals? Has there never been a case of atheists persecuting homosexuals? And do you think all Christians believe it is their duty to persecute homosexuals just because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin? Are religious people the only ones who have approved of slavery at one time or another? And so what if in the Bible Jesus didn't explicitly condemn slavery? I'm sure we can come up with a hundred other sins or deplorable acts that Jesus didn't condemn. Do you believe that Christians believe that just because Jesus didn't explicitly condemn something, then everything he failed to condemn must be okay?
I believe atheists and Christians alike are both guilty of committing the same deplorable acts in persecuting others. The only difference is, Christians have a book that seems to tell them the persecution is okay because those being persecuted are sinners. So what excuse does the atheist have for committing these persecutions? Apparently they just do it out of the sheer ugliness of their hearts.
Scott wrote:
"Well, perhaps MetricSU has heard of a fellow named Hitler, who brutally tortured and murdered millions in the name of atheism. And Stalin. And Pol Pot, etc. Atheists who like to point back to the Inquisition as evidence of Christianity's heinousness always seem to conveniently neglect the fact that the most brutal regimes in the history of the world have been godless, atheistic dictatorships."
Hitler was, in fact, a Christian....he believed in the existence of this man-god Jesus.
Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria. As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church and as a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.
Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt:
“The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party
Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education.
Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.”
Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings:
“The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines, and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda.
“Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, Berlin in 1936.
As for Stalin and Pol Pot...they didn't kill in the name of atheism...it was for political reasons and nothing to do with atheism.
Thank you, Pladecalvo, for setting the record straight. Scott is, like most Christians, blinded by his faith. His comments border on incoherent.
Perhaps Scott has heard that German soldiers during Hitler's reign wore the slogan "GOTT MIT UNS" (God with Us) on their belt buckles. A quick Internet search will turn up several pictures of such belt buckles complete with swastika. It seems odd that an atheist would allow his soldiers to display such a slogan so prominently.
Here is a quote from Mein Kamp: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
As Sam Harris and others have pointed out, the most atheistic countries are also the countries that provide more for people of need, both within their countries and outside. Stalin and Pol Pot were just as dogmatic as Christian fundamentalists, but their dogmatism had nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in God. Atheism is not the cause of anything. Irrational beliefs are the cause of genocide. Atheism is not an irrational belief; it is no belief.
Scott asks what, I guess, are supposed to be rhetorical questions. He has the nerve to claim that just because Jesus didn’t condemn slavery doesn’t mean he thought it was okay. This is offensive to anyone with half a brain. In fact, if Scott has read the Bible, he will know that Jesus supposedly told slaves to obey their masters (who are good Christians) and not to rock the boat. Here are just two quotes from Jesus:
“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ” (Ephesians 6:5).
How can anyone not find these passages offensive? You can try all the contortions you want, but slavery thrived for centuries with Christians leading the way. And now, people like Scott point out that it was Christians who led the abolitionist movement. That’s true, of course. Who else was there? But did these abolitionists get the motivation from the Bible? No. They got it from their common decency and, for support, cherry picked the Bible. Most Christians were initially on the other side, and they had the stronger theological case.
What more could Jesus have done for both current and future slaves than to condemn slavery in no uncertain terms? What, Jesus didn’t know that millions of future people would suffer under the institution of slavery? I thought he was God? Was it was more important for Jesus to curse a fig tree than to do something useful with his powers of persuasion? Of course, there is a simple explanation for why Jesus didn’t condemn slavery: he didn’t exist. He was a product of Mark who, like virtually everyone else of his era, thought slavery was just fine. That’s why Jesus does nothing of note in the Bible that could not have been invented by someone writing in the first century.
And how does Scott explain Paul’s creepy views toward women? Wasn’t Paul the first Christian to write down Jesus’ teachings? (In fact, Paul never does tell us anything directly about Jesus or his teachings. Instead, Paul gives his own views. But to the true Christian, Paul’s views must be Jesus’ views.) Why don’t you actually read the Bible, Scott? Actually, it may be easier for you to find the Lego Bible online. That way, the reading is kept to a minimum.
Scott writes “So are religious people the only ones in the world guilty of persecuting homosexuals? Has there never been a case of atheists persecuting homosexuals?” Probably there are some examples of atheists persecuting homosexuals, but they do not because they are atheists. How come Scott can’t point to any examples? Are atheists going around in today’s society opposing gay marriage or unions? Find some examples, Scott, or shut up. Your responses contain no information. Can I find examples of Christians persecuting homosexuals today? This is too easy. Look at the Larry Craig case. Doesn’t it embarrass you, Scott, to be associated with the cretins who call for his resignation? Of course, not all Christians persecute women, are racist, and sexist. If that were true, I’d have no friends. But as Steven Weinberg has said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
How about looking around the world, Scott, and pinpointing the countries where homosexuals are not just persecuted, but sometimes put to death. Those countries will have one thing, and often only one thing, in common: they have large blocks of religious zealots. Christians and Muslims are the worst offenders. Atheists have not organized themselves around the issue of opposing gay marriage the way religious fundamentalists do; quite the opposite.
What about the death penalty? Large percentages of Christians and Muslims support the death penalty. Atheists generally do not.
For Metric SU:
First, there are some inaccuracies in your argument I would like to address. None of the quotes you say were supposedly said by Jesus actually were. All of them were written by Paul. Also, how can you say that to the true Christian Paul's views must be Jesus' views? You are not a Christian yourself, and if you were you would know that Christians believe all humans to be flawed, imperfect beings. Including Paul. If you do any research at all you will find this to be true.
It has also come to my attention that you are failing to make the distinction between servant and slave. The Jews at that point in history had a system where, after six years of service, a servant was freed. Thus, the reason Paul was telling the servants at the church he was writing to to be respectful to their masters was so that their masters could not claim that they had given inferior service and demand more years of work from them. It is a quite logical proposition if you take the time to to look beyond what you have mistakenly assumed to be true about Christianity.
You seem to have a seriously misguided notion of what makes a Christian. According to the Apostles' Creed, agreed on by nearly all religious authorities to be definition of a Christian, a Christian must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth that Jesus Christ is lord. A Christian must also follow the teachings of Jesus, and of the Bible. Hitler, though he may of used Christianity to further his dreams of world domination, fulfills at most one of the criteria above. He verbally confesses that he is a follower of Jesus, but obviously he does not believe in his heart; this is apparent in his flagrant disregard for the teachings of Jesus and of the rest of the Bible. Though he may have believed that he was working for the will of the Lord, and even that is highly debatable, it is apparent to any true Christian then or now that he was not. One has only to look at the Bible to see the obvious discrepancies.
You are quite willing to forgive atheists for what some misguided minority of them might have done in the past. You say that it probably wasn't even for reasons of Atheism that it occurred. What you do not realize, however, is that the same is true of Christians. The Spanish Inquistion, in its historical context, was not solely a religious tragedy. The King and Queen of Spain at that time were scared of the financial power of the Jews because of their economic success, and wanted to gain money and influence. This does not in any way justify the atrocious happenings of the Inquisition, but it is important that these atrocities were not perpetrated by true believers in the message of Jesus.
In contrast to your argument about atheistic countries being more likely to support people of need, I think you would be interested to know that Christian organizations give more money and resources to the world's poor than any other group or religion.
As you rightly argue, Christians in the past and present have persecuted homosexuals. However, this is condemned by the vast majority of Christians. Though the Bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin, it also says to love your neighbor no matter the circumstances. Most Christians treat homosexuals with respect and kindness; though they might not love the person's choice of sexual preference, they do love the person who made it.
It is slightly disturbing that you ignore the fact that more Christians are martyred for their beliefs each year than any other religious or minority group. And this number continues to rise. Jesus, as seen by thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses, did exist and he will continue to affect the lives of billions of people for infinite years to come.
Tyler2011:
You seem like a sensible sort, but you are engaging in theological hair splitting. Paul is the earliest author supposedly spreading the good word. It's true he doesn't quote Jesus, as you seem to recognize. That is one of Carrier's and Doherty's points. If you only read Paul, you have no knowledge of an historical figure. So if Paul, writing within two decades of Jesus's supposed death, tells us nothing about Jesus of Nazareth, how can you think he existed? To say that he Jesus was "seen by thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses" is just wishful thinking. If this were true, surely at least one historian of the time would have commented on it. But none did.
How many of Jesus' disciples were women? Do you expect me to believe that the Son of God could be so short-sighted as to exclude half of the population from his inner circle? I don't buy it for a minute. The gospels simply reflect the rampant misogyny of their time.
Do I have to quote Jesus from the gospels to get his view on divorce? Divorcing and remarrying = adultery, according to Jesus. Further, Jesus said explicitly that he was on earth to uphold the laws of Moses. One of those laws is that adultery is punishable by death. Anyone who can string together a simple logical progression concludes that, according to Jesus, remarrying is punishable by death. What, the Son of God could not see this simple implication? Sorry, Tyler2011, but you are not being honest if you deny these simple, logical conclusions.
What about Jesus saying he wanted to pit family member against family member? I recommend the Lego Bible, which distills many of the most repugnant and illogical statements from the the OT and NT together in an entertaining way.
You write "It is slightly disturbing that you ignore the fact that more Christians are martyred for their beliefs each year than any other religious or minority group." I'm not sure what your point is. Martyred where? In the U.S., Europe, or Latin America? I don't think so. I assume you are talking about Christians in, say, largely Muslim countries. I don't deny this, but what does it have to do with whether the Bible contains odious material, or whether Jesus was an historical figure? Yes, Muslim beliefs are every bit as crazy as Christian ones, and Christians have been killed. Does this somehow nullify the bad stuff in the Bible, or change the fact that there is little evidence for an historical Jesus? No.
This sort of reasoning is what makes us rationalists crabby. The arguments of Christians usually have nothing to do with the points that rationalists are making. Of course, if you don't have evidence on your side, obfuscation is the best defense, I suppose.
Metricsu:
You seem a little knowledgeable about some parts of the bible. First how many women were Jesus's disciples? Your right probably none. But the first people to spread the word about Jesus's reserection were women (Luke 24). Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary all women. If the gospels really did reflect the rampant misogyny of their time it showed the people, not Jesus, not his teachings but if anything showed the love for the women of that time. Remember when one woman was about to get stoned and Jesus stood there and told them "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." and nobody did so for they knew they were wrong. Pretty much anything you did back then you were stoned. I'm surprised any body was left alive(haha). If anything that Jesus did it showed God's Mercy and Love. (he could have flooded the earth) and if anything the bible shows man's harden heart which is by choice. It shows God's Love(character)
Now for the historical Jesus. There are a lot of writings on him. First what about the writings on some of the authors at the time of Jesus. I'll give some examples: Lets see we have Josephus, Tacitus, New Testaments Greek Manuscripts. Josephus had about 9 Greek Manuscripts(The Jewish War). Then we have Tacitus of the Roman historian(Annals of Imperial Rome about 116 AD). Six books exist today in only manuscripts and it was copied about 850 AD. Not too much for historians right? and modern scholars treat as authentic. Now you have the new testament. Here is a shocker 5,000 in Greek.Thats not including the ones in different languages. Now as far as we can get with age on some of them I believe I read somewhere some of the oldest Gospels were written around 200 AD! One of them for sure was some of Johns Manuscripts dated 200 AD.
So Metricsu there is some of the historical Jesus evidence. I have more, just too much to post. If you want the name of the books and articles I've read I'll send them to you. Jesus Loves you, God bless, and remember we are responsible for this world. Remember in the beginning of Genesis when GOD created us, remember what he says take dominion over the earth.(That means everybody and everything) Thats why he sent his son Jesus. Because he knew we couldn't do it by ourselves.
Metricsu:
You seem a little knowledgeable about some parts of the bible. First how many women were Jesus's disciples? Your right probably none. But the first people to spread the word about Jesus's reserection were women (Luke 24). Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary all women. If the gospels really did reflect the rampant misogyny of their time it showed the people, not Jesus, not his teachings but if anything showed the love for the women of that time. Remember when one woman was about to get stoned and Jesus stood there and told them "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." and nobody did so for they knew they were wrong. Pretty much anything you did back then you were stoned. I'm surprised any body was left alive(haha). If anything that Jesus did it showed God's Mercy and Love. (he could have flooded the earth) and if anything the bible shows man's harden heart which is by choice. It shows God's Love(character)
Now for the historical Jesus. There are a lot of writings on him. First what about the writings on some of the authors at the time of Jesus. I'll give some examples: Lets see we have Josephus, Tacitus, New Testaments Greek Manuscripts. Josephus had about 9 Greek Manuscripts(The Jewish War). Then we have Tacitus of the Roman historian(Annals of Imperial Rome about 116 AD). Six books exist today in only manuscripts and it was copied about 850 AD. Not too much for historians right? and modern scholars treat as authentic. Now you have the new testament. Here is a shocker 5,000 in Greek.Thats not including the ones in different languages. Now as far as we can get with age on some of them I believe I read somewhere some of the oldest Gospels were written around 200 AD! One of them for sure was some of Johns Manuscripts dated 200 AD.
So Metricsu there is some of the historical Jesus evidence. I have more, just too much to post. If you want the name of the books and articles I've read I'll send them to you. Jesus Loves you, God bless, and remember we are responsible for this world. Remember in the beginning of Genesis when GOD created us, remember what he says take dominion over the earth.(That means everybody and everything) Thats why he sent his son Jesus. Because he knew we couldn't do it by ourselves.
Steven:
It always amazes me to see how little Christians actually do know about the Bible, an the historical evidence for Jesus' existence.
You say that Luke says that women were the first to spread the news about Jesus' resurrection. True, but what does Mark (widely believed to be the first gospel) say?
Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
In fact, in the first gospel, Mark has women acting the way men thought women acted in those days: flitty and unreliable. Doesn't it bother you in the least that the resurrection accounts in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are in such conflict? (This is a rhetorical question. Of course it doesn't. That's part of the nature of being Christian.)
Remember, Paul's letters are the first writings about Christianity that we have. And Paul is a misogynist. Where did Paul get his views about the role of women in Christianity? Actually, it’s true that Paul seems to be making things up as he goes, as he never tells us about Jesus’ teachings. (Again, Steve, don’t you find this a bit strange? See Earl Doherty’s “The Jesus Puzzle” to see how widespread Paul’s silence on an historical Jesus is.)
You agree that misogyny was rampant during that time. How come Jesus didn’t renounce it with a few simple words? Instead, Jesus is in large part responsible for the shabby treatment of women in the past 2000 years. How come fundamentalists still think the man is the master of the household? Because that’s what they read in the Bible.
Jesus told slaves to obey their masters. It’s right there in the Bible, Steven. Here are just a couple of excerpts:
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Christians just look silly trying to explain away these and many other statements by Jesus on slavery. For centuries, Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. And they had the Bible on their side.
Isn’t it odd that the Son of God has the same backward views about women and slaves that most others had at the time. One might suspect that Jesus, if He existed, was not the Son of God.
Jesus showed mercy and love? How come he didn’t tell someone that diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria, and not demons? Jesus did nothing to help human knowledge. And that’s just what we should expect from Jesus and the hundreds of other so-called gods over the ages.
You really need to read more, and just think logically. The number of manuscripts of the Bible has nothing to do with whether it is recorded history. How many copies of National Enquirer do you suppose are sold each week? Tens of thousands, I would guess, at least. Does that mean we should believe everything we read in it?
More to the point, once Christianity took hold in the 4th century, much other literature was destroyed forever – and certainly almost anything that didn’t support Christianity. That many copies of the Bible were made makes it no more true than if there were only a few. In fact, as Bart Ehrmann has pointed out, the presence of so may manuscripts makes it very difficult to know what the originals said.
You should go to Earl Doherty’s web site, if you have an open mind. But, briefly, here are the conclusions – none very controversial.
1. No historian living around Jesus’ time has heard of him.
2. No historian within 80 years of his supposed crucifixion has heard of him. (And it might be in the latter part of the 2nd century.) The Josephus entries are easily shown to be forgeries. If Jesus did only half of the things attributed to him, someone should have noticed.
3. Paul and other first-century epistle writers know nothing of an historical figure. No Pilate, no Mary, no wise kings, no Bethlehem, and so on. This is as shocking as it is true.
4. Well into the second century, some Christian apologists (for example, Minucius Felix) are essentially denying that Christians worship an historical figure.
I may not live to see it, but I suspect some day – if humans live long enough – the myth of Jesus will fall by the wayside, just like Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus, Attis, and so on. (Gods who had much in common with Jesus.)
I appreciate your sentiments, but they cannot change the fact that Christianity was built on a myth.
One final question/comment: Do you believe that Genesis is literally true, or do you believe in evolution by natural selection over billions of years? If you believe in the latter – and it’s getting harder and harder not to, as the evidence is overwhelming – then that means there was no Adam and Eve. And it means no original sin. That means Jesus is
unecessary. See how modern science along with simple reasoning destroys the foundations of Christianity? It’s almost too easy.
Okay, this is my final-final comment. Do you really think the creator of this splendid universe (that is, if there is one) would really need a human sacrifice – essentially of himself – in order to forgive the sins of His creations? Why would He care? If He is omniscient, he would know we were created imperfectly. He would also know that people like me, who put their minds and energies to good uses, would one day find the evidence for the New Testament stories woefully lacking. If your God set things up this way, then He is evil.
The last post was interesting I know that it was a rhetorical question, but let’s answer it anyways. Since you may really think or think not this is an opinion or a fact however you want to take this its up to you (choice). When the four gospels were written (Mark, Luke, John, Matthew.) Which is strange, because if you want it to sound more believable why not (Mark, Thomas, John, Peter) all the disciples instead. Well since it was different people that wrote the gospels it was from different a perspective that’s why they were different. When I read the gospels it appears to me they are writing about the same events, just in different perspectives. Example: lets say there is a major event that happens in the area where you live. You have three different news papers. They all report on the main reason of the event (fire/noble prize/ etc.) Each Journalist however has different sources for the event. When written some may be more detailed, others vague, but still the main event was still the center point of the article. Meaning those so called “conflicts” are just different sides of the event (gospels).
Now the other part where we have Paul (Misogynist) was he really a woman hater? From every letter that was written if we look at it whole, the answer is no. One example how does Paul say we should treat the wives. This is beautiful Ephesians 5:25-27 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her. To sanctify her, Cleansing her by the bath of water with the word. That he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” WOW is that the definition of a Misogynist? I don’t think so. Now don’t get me wrong I don’t know what Paul was like back then, but perhaps he had some run ins with women in his past and his upbringing of his time made him that way, but he changed from Saul to Paul when he met Jesus. About Jesus’s teachings not being mentioned in Paul’s letters that is what you stated, but they are all over the place in his writings. In the first place who was Paul writing to? I think he was already writing to people who believed in Jesus already, and most likely they already had a copy of one of the gospels or maybe Paul had already spoken to them or someone else in person. Jesus talked about the Commandments and the Torah. Even though the word Torah was not mentioned in the gospels doesn’t mean he wasn’t following the Torah’s teachings. Instead he lived it, he exercised it, just as Paul did with Jesus’s teachings. To say Paul was perfect “NO” look at Paul (Saul) in the beginning, he killed Christians. Other people in the bible Moses (killer) David (killer and adultery), Saul, Salomon. Everyone had issues, but God still had a purpose for them. (second chances). Yes I agree the Misogynist was rampant. You say how come Jesus didn’t renounce it? Well his actions prove he was doing his part, look at the women in the New Testament. Mary Madeline (prostitute), Lady at the well (slept with many men, “Samaritan”) The lady that had hemorrhage, and rising a young girl from the dead. Looks like he was doing something for women.
The next thing that was brought up was the scripture about slavery. Well if you remember at the time if you served for a while you were set free. How come you didn’t finish reading the rest of the Ephesians 6:5-9 when he talks about the master? Ephesians 6:9 “Masters, act in the same way toward them and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality.” I’m sure you read that part, right? Then you had Peter 2:18 that was nice, but this right here you say Jesus’s teachings were not mentioned. If you continue on in this chapter you see him explaining to persevere, to hold out, to be like Christ, to take up the cross, to receive grace. Looks like Jesus’s teachings. Mathew 16:24-28 (Look it up) Finaly I’ll end it with this. It is logical to think that I came from somewhere, that I was an offspring from someone, that also the human race, the plants and animals, this world, the universe, was created (intelligent designer). Even in science today there is more proof that the universe had a beginning, which we function by certain laws of science. (GOD) We have the plans written down in our genes. So yes I do believe we were created. How long? Don’t know a day to God could be a billion years or maybe a minute I don’t know. I was made in an image a likeness of him. The one thing that I’ve read from you so far is that this religion Christianity. That is a myth to “you” but to “me” it is a reality. If you really break it down it’s the humans race and the choices we make is what causes the downfalls (WRONG choices) Again that’s why we have a creator who is willing to take the blame by having his own son on the cross. If we didn’t have choice then that means we would be just mere robots (Perfect little robots). Since we are created in his image we have freedom in him with choice (with a possibility of sin). Learning, understanding, growing, Loving, hurting, feeling, choosing right, choosing wrong BOTH with consequences. Anyways you choose everyday in everything you do. So did God when he made us, and made the universe. He is GOOD, and he made everything GOOD. Genesis 2:3 “God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.”
Steven:
Be sure to keep reading whatever apologists you are reading so that you can remain safely deluded. You seem not to be the least bit worried that documents that supposedly were inspired by God contain so many contradictions. You cite Paul’s patronizing suggestion that husbands “sanctify their wives” as evidence, I guess, that Paul was not a misogynist. Of course the wives, evidently, have no say in the matter. Yes, you can show me a passage or two where Paul tells husbands to treat their wives well (but still like property). But I have shown you several instances where Paul’s statements about women are totally offensive to anyone living today. To me, such contradictions are expected from a product of fallible humans. Somehow, the contradictions do not seem to bother you at all. Nor, evidently, do the contradictions in the Gospels themselves. I certainly understand that people can have different interpretations of events. But is it conceivable that only Matthew noticed the earthquake, darkness, and corpses rising from their graves? Steven, do you believe that all really happened? If Luke and Mark were eyewitnesses, or had access to eyewitnesses, how could they not have reported this amazing incident? To claim that Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John are just reporting different sides of the same event is special pleading. Such conflicts on key points are rife throughout the NT. In the early centuries of Christianity it was understandable that virtually no one new about the obvious problems with the NT: most people could not read and the clergy did not want people to. You, however, have no excuse. Except that you probably were raised a Christian.
To say that “most likely they already had a copy of one of the gospels or maybe Paul had already spoken to them or someone else in person” is torturing logic. Paul was trying to convert gentiles who knew little about Jesus! Paul never mentions anything to anyone about any feature of Jesus’ life. See early Doherty for 200 silences that are incredible if Paul knew of the NT Jesus. How come Calvary is never mentioned by Paul? No one Paul is preaching to wants to know anything about Jesus? Then why is Paul preaching to them? The places where Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead should have played a key role in Paul’s preaching.
Further, it is simply untrue that Jesus’ teachings are “all over the place in his (of course, Paul’s, since Jesus wrote nothing) writings.” Find a place where Paul says “and as the Lord Jesus Christ said ….” There is one possibility, in the Last Supper scene. But you should read Doherty’s account of why this is taking place in a mythical realm. Doherty points out dozens of examples where Paul SHOULD have deferred to Jesus on various matters, but never does. In fact, Paul is receiving his revelations directly from God. Paul himself states he did not receive any of his information from man.
Your comment about slavery again misses the point. I agree that people on both sides of the issue can find statements in the Bible to support their views. That is why it is obvious the Bible was not written by an omniscient being. You, evidently, think it is okay to have slaves for a short period and then release them. Your quote from Ephesians 6:5-9 is offensive. Anyone who understands plain language can see that Paul condoned slavery, subject to certain niceties. Give me a break, Steven.
You also say that, referring to Peter, “If you continue on in this chapter you see him explaining to persevere, to hold out, to be like Christ, to take up the cross, to receive grace. Looks like Jesus’s teachings.” How can you say this is Jesus’ teaching? This is Peter trying to teach by using Jesus as an example. The Gospels are fully of Jesus’ supposed teachings, but the first century epistle writers have heard them not.
What does Matthew 16:24-28 have to do with whether Jesus existed as an historical figure? Nothing. Like all Christian apologists, you are tossing out red herrings left and right.
The rest is just blathering platitudes. Just because you think humans were created does not make it so. You quote Genesis. Any honest reading of Genesis concludes that the earth was created in six days as we know them. That’s why the vast majority of Christians and Jews and Muslims believed this until a relatively short time ago. Evolution is a fact. You might want a story about how it all started 15 billion years ago, but even that story is a far cry from Christianity. Frankly, I’m stunned that you think that this wonderful, powerful, God would choose exactly the form of redemption that ignorant, superstitious people in various lands believed in well before Christianity. Do you know, Steven, how the early church fathers, such as Justin and Tertullian, explained why Jesus had so many features in common with other, earlier Gods? They blamed it on “diabolical mimicry” by the Devil. Yes, that’s right. The Devil knew Jesus would be coming, and so he invented these other Gods to confuse people later when the true Son of God made his appearance. You must believe that, too.
Without God we are not merely robots. We are products of a process so long that it is outside our ability to comprehend it. We have plenty of choices we can make. We can choose to be good people and help others in THIS life – the one we know that we have. Or, we can waste precious time worrying about the afterlife and the silliness that comes with such worries.
If you respond to this, and feel like only writing a short response, please consider the following scenario. Suppose a 28-year-old woman – an atheist, or, at least, agnostic – heads to the poorest parts of Africa to help the poor with medical care. She devoted her studies to learning about science and other cultures, rather than worrying about the afterlife as created by any number of myths. While on a visit to the U.S., she is stalked and killed by a man who was her high school boyfriend. The man gets life in prison and finds Christ. Here’s your question: Who goes to heaven, the man or the woman? (Your answer must be the man. And, thus, Christianity – indeed, the notion of a benevolent God – is laid waste.)
oops got carried away with writing mark is not one of
the disciples sorry what I meant to write was Andrew
but hey mark was the cousin of Barnabas.
I've noted some have asked the question "Why question someone's beliefs or religion?" I say that they have a perfectly logical reason. You see, people have spent what would amount to ka-trillions of dollars building cathedrals and churches. All of this money could have been better spent helping the whole of mankind versus unharmonios hymm singing by the tens of thousands. Religion in all honesty has gotten us nowhere. The main basis for warfare has overwhelmingly been about religion throughout history. Whole societies have been destroyed by religious war. A bunch of dudes sit around a camp fire 4000 years ago telling their versions of the comos and we end up believing this stuff and killing each other over different theories.
Sheeze, what a waste of time!
WoW! This is some interesting stuff. I've read most of the comments and have drawn a conclusion. The mere fact that both sides of the debate can come up with interesting points, leads me to believe that the religious argument (Does god exist or doesn't he/she/it?, which I believe is the underlining argument of the debate) is null. When both parties come up with good points, it means;
1) We are not dealing with a divine construct;
or
2) We are dealing with a human construct.
I think it's both. To say that there is a god, is to invent an answer for everything. I think the most valuable question of all, that believers tend to want to forget is "where did god come from." If you believe that god is everything and that everything that exist is because of god or must have been derived from him, than you must also believe that god is satan himself.
Religion is flawed because of this. God is so powerful, but unable to escape the evil of himself. The religious are suggesting that god created a partition of good and evil. Why? Are life is just some kind of game, being played by some almighty space daddy. You have to be kidding me. This story is defiantly one of primitive men. To bad primitive men still exist.