h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

True. Most people would prefer to follow blind than swim against the current. Call it Scientology and bingo you hit the nail on the head.
Classic example of being sold washing powder by a man in a white suit with glasses.

In response to Lucinda

"I think (but have been wrong before) the essence of the problem is that you regard "hate your enemies" as a default commandment - in the absence of such a command we would still hate our enemies. I disagree,"

I think hating their enemies came naturally and was already being practiced as default behavior.

"Suppose you heard of a religion which had a ceremony in which a member of the congregation was 'symbolically' murdered, but in fact was just stabbed with one of those fancy retracting knives. One could well view this ritual as 'bad' .."

I have to admit these ritual cannibalism "charges" are quite humorous. Once again you're arguing against your own fabrication (enter straw man, stage left, douse with kerosene, light match). First, an atheist calling anything "bad" amuses me, but this aside, does cannibalism always imply murder? Think about the movie "Alive" for instance, and the true story behind it. A team of soccer players crash-lands in a Chilean mountain range and eats the bodies of their dead friends in order to survive long enough to be rescued. Almost all of them are Catholic, and use a reference to communion ("he died so that we might live") in part to argue in favor of cannibalism. Is this type of cannibalism justified? Absolutely. But, you say, Jesus didn't die in a plane crash, he was murdered. Let's say one passenger killed another. Would this murdered passenger be eaten too? Probably. His carcass tastes the same. But, you say, don't you Catholics kill Jesus again at every mass? NO. Absolutely not. If you think we do, attend a mass and pay close attention to the words and prayers. We are made present again to the events of the crucifixion, which happened once and for all. It's like replaying a televised account of a historical event, similar to that war footage of the Nazi holocaust they showed us in social studies class. Communion is a bit more metaphysical than that, of course, as we believe we're not just watching a re-enactment, but that we are transported back and made present at the event itself. Some saints have described it the other way around, saying the crucifixion event is one that transcends time, a concept the human brain cannot comprehend and hence the necessity of faith.

"Substitutive sacrifice I see as a morally dire idea. If a man has done wrong, and deserves to be punished, then that punishment should land on him. It should not land on the shoulders of another, whether they are willing or not to take the punishment"

(Cue slightly charred straw man - enter stage right) Who are you arguing against? The Church agrees with you. Criminals should be fined, penalized, and/or jailed. The sacrament of penance doesn't negate temporal punishment. It never has. The redemptive sacrifice of Jesus makes it again possible to attain heaven in ETERNITY, but doesn't free us of our temporal responsibilities in TIME. If you don't believe in heaven, why is this an issue for you? Consider this: A priest never reveals what was said in a confessional, nor can he be forced to in most countries (since these are "privileged communications" similar to consultations with your lawyer, doctor, etc.) The priest who hears a murderer's confession could withhold absolution until the guy turns himself in, however, and would be the first to say "Thank God" when the guy is finally incarcerated.

"If Xtianity wishes man to rise further above his primitive instincts, it should be leading ethical debate, rather than lagging several centuries behind"

I believe in the concept of absolute truth, so attempting to appeal to my sense of fashion or get-with-it'ness will have a limited effect!

To the Collonel:

Thanks for the three new testament quotations, and your analysis of them. I agree with you.

The cannibalism thing was already dealt with above, as with the substitutive sacrifice concept.

To both of you:

I'm intrigued at your aversion to typing the word Christ when writing Christianity. Your keyboard won't hiss, bubble, nor exude brimstone, I assure you. If you keep this up I may begin to think you're talking about another religion - a religion about which I cannot, in good conscience, speak with any authority.

To Twophlag:

"1> Whatever Jesus might have had to say, the Bible isn't a terribly accurate record of it"

Ever notice how excerpts of the bible (in or out of context) can be used verbatim when attacking Christian beliefs, but then described as "not terribly accurate" when the tables are turned?

2> All this "love your enemies" stuff is a load of hogwash, really... it ignores human nature, it ignores reality"

Well said. I made the same point earlier when discussing animal territorial conflicts. "Love your enemies" IS a load of B.S. and totally incomprehensible to our animal nature. Some kind of physical transcendence is required, hence the spiritual nature of mankind.

"and it doesn't proceed well from a tradition that commands its followers to, for example, stone disobedient children.

Nowhere does it say stone children. See my earlier refutation of this statement, and the Collenel's agreement.

"The OT God commands people to kill all the time. The "commandment" in question was actually part of a codified domestic law, which was generally taken as "Thou shalt not kill each other, unless you have a really good reason, like war, or punishing adultery."

The circumstances around which these laws were handed down, interpreted, reinterpreted, modified, revised, sub-paragraphed and enforced has been discussed countless times already. The point is - in the statement alone "thou shalt not kill" - what do you find offensive?

"You believe that... I'm not much swayed by your beliefs. You seem to be arguing that the Jews invented the notion of not killing each other, but cooperative society has much older roots than that. I, myself, think Aleister Crowley had a much better idea when he said "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", because that's pretty much what people do anyhow."

Now in a forum on the existence of God we're demonizing Judaism in favor of the Satanic bible. Sheesh. That quotation leaves a lot of room for abuse, as anyone's action becomes justified. Any action including.. um.. even stoning, perhaps?

"Lucinda's point, and an excellent response to this bit of imperialistic propaganda, is that there aren't many Aztec children around these days to thank us for saving them. "

You can call my points propaganda, but are they historically unfounded? If, for instance, my numbers were off, please correct me. To address your other point - about 10% of the population of Mexico, I believe, claims direct Aztec ancestry. Almost everyone else is a descendant of Spanish/Aztec intermarriage.

"... you seem to be implying with no apology that your way is better than their way, so annihilating their culture was therefore justified. I'm not big on human sacrifice, which is why I steer clear of Christianity, actually, but I am no bigger fan of genocide as a solution"

Yes I believe child sacrifices are a bad thing. I won't apologize for that belief. There are many things within Aztec culture that I admire, however, such as their architecture, art, advanced knowledge of astronomy, and zest for sport (although I'm not crazy about skinning the losers alive).

"Blood for the blood-god. Where have I heard that before? My intent here was to point out to you that atrocities of all sorts are usually carried out by those who firmly believe that God and goodness are on their side of the dispute."

... and the rest of the human race. Everyone acts according to what they perceive as a good or desirable thing. What's their motivation? If not religious conviction, then it's lust for power, greed, egoism, vanity, sensuality, hormones, ... the human condition ...

Hanz, some points.

"I have to admit these ritual cannibalism "charges" are quite humorous"

Not really. The ritual communion as practiced by Christians everywhere can qualitatively be said to be symbolic ritualistic canibalism, and Christianity itself has its basis in the worship of a bloodthirsty semitic war god and the sacrifice of said god's avatar. Your argument is showing signs of breakup here, because rather than addressing these points you are trying to spin them and say "no it isn't", or dismiss them as folly. Fair enough since I have already dismissed Christianity as folly. But I think the ideas in this debate are starting to get lost amidst the point scoring. Do you have somthing you'd like to try to convince us of? Be my guest. But before you start getting dismissive with the arguments, keep in mind that you are asking us to seriously entertain the notion that a giant invisible super-powered patriarchal hominid with magical mind powers is the supreme moral and cosmic manifestation of reality. Moving this argument forward might mean we all have to stretch a bit.

"First, an atheist calling anything "bad" amuses me"

He probably means relatively bad. Don't worry, I feel the same way when a Christian calls anything immoral.

"Is this type of cannibalism justified? Absolutely"

It's not a matter of justifying it. Stories and myths about men eating the flesh of gods as a method of transcendence predate Christianity by a long shot. This one example of it seems particularly gruesome, but of course people are free to "believe" anything they want about what it is they are doing... the point here is that those of us standing against the practice see it as a superstitious and backward practice that has no place in our lives, however much others might claim to be validated by it.

I might point out that I found the movie "Alive" to be disturbing enough that I wouldn't want to sit through two hours of it every Sunday. I couldn't imagine how twisted it must make a man to actually spend hours a week celebrating such notions, had I not met hundreds who actually did just that.

"The Church agrees with you (about substitutive sacrifice)"

You are first off confusing the Catholic church with Christian thinking as a whole. The issue here is not what the church happens to agree to or not, since everyone who disagreed with the church was annihilated within a few centuries of its being founded.

That being said, you have missed the point here... because we non theists do not have "faith" in your ideas, we can only weigh and judge the value and meaning of such ideas by their seemliness and practicality. I see no use to an individual or to society in the notion that shortcomings can be eradicated by some mystical rite.

"I believe in the concept of absolute truth, so attempting to appeal to my sense of fashion or get-with-it'ness will have a limited effect"

You've really hit the nail on the head here. You're stuck in a 17th century cosmology. To your credit, you're about three centuries ahead of nosretep. Even given that the idea of absolute truth were to have some (relative) meaning, I have to question your assumptions about the way in which that truth is uncovered by men... by magical revelation from some superbeing? By the authority of a guy with a pointy hat on his head? By your "beliefs"?

"Ever notice how excerpts of the bible (in or out of context) can be used verbatim when attacking Christian beliefs, but then described as "not terribly accurate" when the tables are turned"

I would say touche, except that if you look back over our conversation you'll see that you're the one who insisted on dragging all the "Jesus said" stuff into the conversation, and I've done enough exegetical study on the New Testament to know better than to take it at face value. I'm not some naive village peasant who needs the priest to read the verses to me in latin.

"and totally incomprehensible to our animal nature. Some kind of physical transcendence is required, hence the spiritual nature of mankind."

This is a dogmatic reply, not a rational one. If you're going to shovel this "spiritual nature" crap on me, please do so from first principles of explanation rather than as a sermon. The only response I can otherwise offer is "uh, no." I don't see that mankind has any nature beyond his "animal" one.

"Nowhere does it say stone children. See my earlier refutation of this statement"

I saw it, and disagree with it, and still think this particular verse (among many) is a fine example of the draconian fanaticism driving Judaism from 600 BC onwards, and I still feel a tradition that preaches love and empathy while basing its authority on a violent nationalistic warrior society's writings is lacking something.

"The point is - in the statement alone "thou shalt not kill" - what do you find offensive?"

Well, I find it hypocritical for one thing, coming as it does from an apologist for colonialist genocide. I also am not naive about the world and know that killing is sometimes a necessity, though it offends my sensibilities to see it glorified. I also don't recognise the ten commandments as anything other than a set of codified laws set up by some desert semites thousands of years ago, so I find it offensive to be held to those laws as if they were ethical absolutes... the society I live in has its own codified laws and they seem to work fine. I can covet my neighbour's ass all I want, and let me tell you some of the best sex I ever had was adulterous. Good thing I think marriage is a sham .

"Now in a forum on the existence of God we're demonizing Judaism in favor of the Satanic bible. Sheesh."

Crowley didn't write the Satanic bible. He was a weirdo, no doubt. Still, I mean, how can anyone demonize JUDAISM? Just because they're currently using their religion as an excuse to supress the palestinians and carry on a war that stretches back for millennia...

"That quotation leaves a lot of room for abuse, as anyone's action becomes justified. Any action including.. um.. even stoning, perhaps"

Or impaling your subjects through the intestines on dull oiled stakes and leaving them in the sun for weeks to frighten off an invading army. Or torturing someone (for their own good) who happens to disagree with your divine authority. Or disembowling a pregnant muslim woman so that she does not spawn another infidel. Or burning someone at the stake for having the gall to say something intelligent and politically damaging against you. Or invading a continent, stripping it of its resources, and enslaving, breeding out, or reeducating its native cultures. Or wearing jackboots and loading gay people into a gas chamber. Or going on television to tell your nation that the reason you went to war was because it was the right thing to do, not because the country you went to war with had oil you needed to keep your economy going. Any idea that leads to such abuses obviously isn't worth looking at, right?

"You can call my points propaganda,"

I haven't met any non Catholics who agree that church-sponsored genocide is a defensible thing, so yes.

" but are they historically unfounded?"

Beats me, I can look it up and tell you for sure.

"To address your other point - about 10% of the population of Mexico, I believe, claims direct Aztec ancestry. Almost everyone else is a descendant of Spanish/Aztec intermarriage."

Oh, sort of like the English and the Scots. Well, that's not so bad.

"Yes I believe child sacrifices are a bad thing. I won't apologize for that belief."

Fair enough, I happen to think that animal sacrifice is equally abhorrent. But you aren't answering the question. Do you believe that destruction of a culture is justified because you disagree with or find abhorrent the practices of that culture when judging it from the paradigm of your own? This, to me, is what you are saying. My only response to this is, you are obviously a good Christian.

"There are many things within Aztec culture that I admire, however, such as their architecture, art, advanced knowledge of astronomy, and zest for sport (although I'm not crazy about skinning the losers alive)."

It was the winners of the match that were sacrificed. The losers were just killed. Aztecs apparently considered it a great honour to be sacrificed for the good of their people, much the way in which Templar Knights and martyred saints who died in defense of Christianity viewed their own deaths. Not that I would want any part of either religious practice, myself.

"Everyone acts according to what they perceive as a good or desirable thing. What's their motivation? If not religious conviction, then it's lust for power, greed, egoism, vanity, sensuality, hormones, ... the human condition."

Sure. The triumph (and disaster, depending on your POV) inherent in religions of Zoroastrian heritage is that all these complex causes can be reduced to absolutes of "Good" and "Evil". My point was that "Good" and "Evil" quickly became, and have since remained, synonymous with the terms "us" and "them".

TG marvelously covered all the relevant points, some even better than I could have. I only have a couple of further things to add:

"I'm intrigued at your aversion to typing the word Christ when writing Christianity." - You really shouldn't be. There is no aversion to the word, but you have to admit, it is quite a long word, and abbreviating it is really no different than throwing in a contraction or two. Especially since it is a word that ends up repeating itself often in posts that discuss the very thing. It is your extreme reverence for your beliefs that prevents you from taking a simple shortcut.

"Ever notice how excerpts of the bible (in or out of context) can be used verbatim when attacking Christian beliefs, but then described as "not terribly accurate" when the tables are turned?"" - This doesn't help your argument. Nontheists don't believe a word in the Bible, because we know that it is not terribly accurate. It is the theist who bases his concepts on a literal interpretation of the work. Therefore, there are two ways to attack it... show where the information is flawed, and show how it contradicts itself when taken literally. The theist argument, if it were valid, would be able to stand up to both avenues of scrutiny, and yet it fails miserably in both.

"Thanks for the three new testament quotations, and your analysis of them. I agree with you." - Excellent. Now that we agree that Jesus had no intention of changing the laws, I would like to ask you why so many acts of atrocity in the OT, and so many awful laws, should be considered to be morally good. You said that the bit in Deuteronomy did not involve young children, and I agreed that your argument, in that case, had merit. I believe you go too far when you say that the stoning of children occurs nowhere in the Bible. Granted, finding an entry that specifically mentions stoning would be a reach, but you imply that God doesn't do any mean things to children at all, and that implication is completely invalid. Aside from the laws I mentioned before from the OT concerning children being put to death for rather minor crimes (what child doesn't curse his parents at some point?), I would also like to raise the incident in 2 Kings 2:23-24, where 42 "small boys" are torn apart by bears for vengeance for taunting the prophet Elisha. In this case, there is no mistaking the youth of those involved. And, of course, there's all those innocent women and children who are slain by the army of Israel, to the greater glory of God. In that context, it's a wonder the modern Israelis don't simply ravage Palestine and kill all the first-born kin... they did it before, so what would be wrong with it now?

Mr. Gargleblap

"Not really. The ritual communion as practiced by Christians everywhere can qualitatively be said to be symbolic ritualistic canibalism"

Sure. Call it ritualistic cannibalism. Call it transubstatiative mastication. Call it anything you want to elicit an emotional reaction. I'm not arguing about what you should call it. I was merely showing that the "retractable knife ritual example" scenario didn't apply, and the beliefs and practices relating to communion (at least in the Church to which I belong) weren't so sinister nor "bad" after all. I was asked to address this topic, and I complied.

"..and Christianity itself has its basis in the worship of a bloodthirsty semitic war god and the sacrifice of said god's avatar."

You could put it that way, sure. It's certainly an example of creative verbal engineering.

"Your argument is showing signs of breakup here, because rather than addressing these points you are trying to spin them and say "no it isn't", or dismiss them as folly."

I didn't mean to offend you by honestly stating my initial reaction to this ritualistic cannibalism thing. I had never heard it described that way before, and perhaps the shock-value-effect elicited a reaction from me. Had I intended to dismiss your points, I never would have provided a lengthy explanation that followed. Show me where I haven't addressed an argument concerning this, and I'll be happy to comment further.

"..the point here is that those of us standing against the practice see it as a superstitious and backward practice that has no place in our lives, however much others might claim to be validated by it."

Fair enough. Of course an atheist finds these beliefs superstitious. My entire faith is superstitious to an atheist, and this comes as no surprise.

"I might point out that I found the movie "Alive" to be disturbing enough that I wouldn't want to sit through two hours of it every Sunday"

After a few months, I admit that movie would leave a bad taste in my mouth too.

"You are first off confusing the Catholic church with Christian thinking as a whole"

As requested, I was providing a defense to the concept of so-called "substitutive sacrifice" from my perspective as a Catholic. I used the word "Church" to refer to the universal (translated: Catholic) church, and I agree with you that Protestant denominations may have different interpretations.

"You're stuck in a 17th century cosmology"

Having created time itself, theists believe God is outside time, so putting number in front of the word "century" if fine with us.

"I have to question your assumptions about the way in which that truth is uncovered by men.."

My assumptions are these: truth about the physical world is uncovered by men, and truth concerning God (other than his mere existence) is revealed to men *by God. I would say that belief in his mere existence requires no revelation at all and can be determined by human reason alone. It is rational for me to believe that IF there were a personal God, he would not desire to remain a complete mystery to men, but would directly intervene in the affairs of his creation from time to time. I believe truth gets tainted by our own expression of it, however - similar to the way music suffers from being played with a faulty instrument.

"This is a dogmatic reply, not a rational one. If you're going to shovel this "spiritual nature" crap on me, please do so from first principles of explanation rather than as a sermon"

I wasn't trying to convince you of the existence of the spirit. I was showing why, to a theist, the notion of "love your enemies" isn't a load of bullshit.

"Well, I find it hypocritical for one thing, coming as it does from an apologist for colonialist genocide. I also am not naive about the world and know that killing is sometimes a necessity, though it offends my sensibilities to see it glorified."

Let's say it *wasn't coming from a colonialist genocide apologist. Would this commandment offend you? Would you thwart any attempt to build it into a system of belief and code of conduct?

"Crowley didn't write the Satanic bible. He was a weirdo, no doubt. "

I stand corrected. His works are more like the Satanic Apocrypha, though.

"Or impaling your subjects through the intestines on dull oiled stakes and leaving them in the sun for ... etc."

Exactly. You and I could cite thousands of examples of "do what thou wilt is the whole of the law."

"Fair enough, I happen to think that animal sacrifice is equally abhorrent."

I view animal sacrifices more as "unnecessary" - but I won't bore you with more sermon-prone catechisis.

"Do you believe that destruction of a culture is justified because you disagree with or find abhorrent the practices of that culture when judging it from the paradigm of your own?"

Destruction of an entire culture? Well, I can't think of a situation where the destruction of every facet of a culture is justified. But as for only certain aspects of a culture? Technically, yes. For example, let's say there is a culture whose belief system includes ridding the world of Christians. I would advocate changes to their belief system in self-defense.

"Aztecs apparently considered it a great honour to be sacrificed for the good of their people.."

And a great honour to sacrifice children who aren't old enough to have a say in the matter...

"My point was that "Good" and "Evil" quickly became, and have since remained, synonymous with the terms "us" and "them"."

True enough, but don't forget it's also synonymous with terms such as love/hate, feed/starve, give/steal, honor/dishonor, honesty/deceit, and empathy/indifference.

Colonel sir,

Regarding Christian vs. Xtian, "It is your extreme reverence for your beliefs that prevents you from taking a simple shortcut."

Correct. Just try debating the existence of our pal "Al" with a Muslim sometime.

"Nontheists don't believe a word in the Bible"

You must believe in *some* of it, at least the parts that coincide with non-religious historical accounts of Jesus' trial.

"It is the theist who bases his concepts on a literal interpretation of the work."

Not exactly. Much of the OT was handed down via oral tradition before being committed to scroll, and we interpret it accordingly - i.e. sometimes poetically/metaphorically, sometimes as historical legends, sometimes as a parable to teach a certain lesson. For instance, as a Catholic, I'm not obliged to believe that God created the universe in exactly 144 hours, but that creation generally occurred in six stages. The NT is interpreted more strictly, but as you would be quick to point out, there are minor variances between the gospels. I would expect this from four witness accounts of any similar series of events.

"Excellent. Now that we agree that Jesus had no intention of changing the laws, I would like to ask you why so many acts of atrocity in the OT, and so many awful laws, should be considered to be morally good."

Some points of contention remain. Jesus had no intention of destroying the law. Does fulfilling/refining/expanding/extending a law change it? I don't know. I would argue that the fundamental truth and spirit behind the law (which is morally good) hasn't changed, but the manner in which it is applied or understood (which tended towards scrupulosity and extremism) *has* changed.

"I would also like to raise the incident in 2 Kings 2:23-24, where 42 "small boys" are torn apart by bears for vengeance for taunting the prophet Elisha."

Bears are unpredictable creatures. Elisha may have been ticked, though there is no proof that he specifically wanted these boys eaten alive by she-bears. This book, anyway, is a Jewish historical account, probably verbally transmitted before being written down, and the author probably linked these two events while telling the story in order to impress on listeners that it's bad to piss off a prophet. Show them some respect, dammit!

"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." - It sounds to me like there is a very specific cause and effect relationship here. Elisha deliberately wished this upon the children, God agreed with his reasoning, and answered his call. It teaches the moral lesson that children should not taunt elders, lest they be destroyed. Is this consistent with modern morality?

"'Nontheists don't believe a word in the Bible'
You must believe in *some* of it, at least the parts that coincide with non-religious historical accounts of Jesus' trial." - There are none to believe. It is the absolute dearth of historical corroboration for the gospels that fueled the debate over whether or not Jesus ever existed as a real human being. If you could show me such a reference that was in any way reliable, I would be truly amazed. The only historical accounts of Jesus either come centuries after him, are obvious forgeries, or both.

"The NT is interpreted more strictly, but as you would be quick to point out, there are minor variances between the gospels." - I wouldn't point out the minor variances, especially since three of the authors had access to the same source material... Mark was in essence plagiarized by Matt and Luke, or else Mark simply plagiarized the same source the other two did. I would stick to the major variances, which begin at the trial. At that point, the gospels tell such wildly incompatible tales that they can only be making it up. And this is before that crucial moment in the story which is so vital to the xtian dogma... nothing but a literal interpretation of the ascension of Jesus can be accepted. There was very serious debate on that subject in the religion's infancy, but the literalists managed to exterminate the others.

"I don't know. I would argue that the fundamental truth and spirit behind the law (which is morally good) hasn't changed, but the manner in which it is applied or understood (which tended towards scrupulosity and extremism) *has* changed." - Even an ancient culture can understand that adultery is bad, that drunkenness and debauchery are bad. But this is extremism at its worst: "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." That is not from the Old Testament... that is from the New. That is the word of Jesus, whom you mistake for having refining the law. This sort of morality would have appalled Jesus' contemporaries from Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Persia. They had already advanced beyond such cultural barbarities, and they were still several centuries away from our current level of enlightenment. Do we have any such law, anywhere, about cursing your parents? No... because we realize that children will do what children will do. We also realize that, quite often, the child is justified and the parents deserve it. The bible is not the source for our morality... and it's a good thing.

Now, here's an interesting sidenote. The word "curse" can mean two different things in that quote. For example, in the quote from 2Kings, when Elisha "curses" the kids, he is invoking the power of God. It's a form of magic, in much the same way that witches allegedly had the power to curse during the witch trials of the 17th century. If Jesus is referring to this, then he is saying that they have the power of magic, which reduces the entire thing to the superstition of the ancient world. We have no laws against this sort of cursing because we know they're unnecessary... if someone wants to kiss a frog or burn candles, it isn't going to have any impact on anyone else, however much they might try to convince themselves otherwise.

I'm going to try once more to justify using terms such as 'bad' without having absolute morality.

When I see a pile of garbage, I call it ugly. This is despite firmly believing that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. When I see people killing each other for no reason, I call it evil - and this is totally independant of my beliefs on morality.

Do you need to have a concept of absolute beauty to say that something is beautiful? Do you need to have a concept of absolute comedy to laugh? I would say no - and in this case I fail to understand your position.
--
As I say - I'm ambivalent about cannibalism - I'm merely stating the arguments that can be made - there is no 'straw man' here. It is one of the many wonderful features of humanity - we can empathise and understand with things we disagree with. This is such a case. I note that you agree with me that cannibalism is not something which is necessarilly bad - but I do wonder whether you agree with me that it is not something that should be *encouraged*.

I have been to a Mass, and plenty of other religious meetings - I don't recall saying that catholics killed Jesus at every mass. Don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put words in yours, eh?
--
re: "you don't believe in heaven, why is this an issue" - You don't believe in sacrifices to ensure the sun will rise, yet that didn't stop you disagreeing with the aztec sacrifices. What I believe in does not stop me judging ideas to be 'not elevating humanity'.

re: priests withholding absolution. Or you could visit certain churches in Italy during 2000, and gain total absolution. Or, indeed, go on the crusades. Again, irregardless of the level of that crime.

> > "If Xtianity wishes man to rise further above his primitive instincts, it should be leading ethical debate, rather than lagging several centuries behind"

My argument was that Xtianity is not a means of encouraging man to rise above his primitive roots - contrary to your statement. Try and bear in mind what I'm trying to refute here...

Not a bad arguement at all there Mr Gargleblap. I have been wrestling with the problem of trying to explain to myself how Christianity has affected my life.

You see, at one time, I was a Christian (or so I thought). But I couldn't seem to justify all the contradictions in the faith and in the Bible itself. The people around me kept telling me that Gods word in the Bible was written by men inspired by God and was itself the word of God. And these friends also told me that God represented everything that is perfect and that He Himself is Perfect. Then I started to question their logic (which many of them did not like) about their contentions by asking such questions as; If God is perfect, then anyone writing God-inspired works like the books of the Bible should in fact be writing a perfect text. I went on to say that if the works in the Bible were perfect, then how is it that many places in the original Hebrew and Greek condradict other parts? Well needless to say, they did not have a good answer and were quite perturbed with me.

It was a year or two later that I finally decided that most Christians I met were fairly good people, but way too judgemental for my tastes. It would make me sad when some of my best friends (who were not christian) were supposed to either convert to christianity, or suffer the conciquence of eternal damnation.

Well I'm tired of the Christian masses (not nescisarily the individual) bullying and pushing people around trying to scare people into their faith. How has any religeon helped our Earth or helped us as an entire population? Few if any have! Instead, it has been the works of individual people like Ghandi, Bhudda, Jesus, Galleleo and Ben Franklin that have made the biggest difference in our world and have helped the most people.

Whether or not those people had religeon is not of consiquence. And the reason that I say that is because each persons religeon is different because each person percieves his or her beliefs differently. No two peoples definition of their beliefs are the same. So, in my conclusion (and opinion), it is the individual who makes the final determination of his or her fate and who affects change on the world. Not God and not Religeon.


Noj Trebor

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

Like I said previously, you cannot infer from that passage that Elisha specifically envisioned bear-dismemberment when he cursed them. We also cannot infer that these she-bears were escapees from a travelling circus, bears which Elisha befriended in Grizzly-Adams fashion. Also mentioned previously, these events were presented together to impart a forceful message - don't mess with prophets, regardless of your age. Other lessons might be - justice can be brutal, bad things can happen to unsuspecting people, don't trespass on a female bear's territory, etc.

"Is this consistent with modern morality?"

We use similar lessons as a teaching tool today, so I would say yes.

"The only historical accounts of Jesus either come centuries after him, are obvious forgeries, or both."

More historical evidence exists for Jesus than for Julius Caesar! (i.e. Thallus' account of the crucifixion, Josephus in the 70's, Tacitus in the 110's, the many references to Jesus in the Talmud...) Dismissing such accounts, to me, seems like an atheistic act of faith. I'm curious as to what you would consider adequate proof of the existence of anybody who lived 2000 years ago, if this doesn’t suffice.

"I would stick to the major variances, which begin at the trial. At that point, the gospels tell such wildly incompatible tales that they can only be making it up."

Wildly incompatible? In my bible, at least, the events of the trial are: Jesus's arrest, questioning before the high priest, questioning before Pilate, the release of Barabbas according to Jewish custom, Jesus' scourging, crowning with thorns, carrying of the cross with the help of Simon, mockery by soldiers, and crucifixion. About the only discrepancy here is that Luke mentions an additional questioning by Herod before Jesus is handed back to Pilate for sentencing.

"... nothing but a literal interpretation of the ascension of Jesus can be accepted. There was very serious debate on that subject in the religion's infancy, but the literalists managed to exterminate the others"

I'm not sure what you're point is here. The Ascension is described in the gospels of Mark and Luke, and referenced countless times in Paul's letters.

"But this is extremism at its worst: 'For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.' That is not from the Old Testament... that is from the New. That is the word of Jesus, whom you mistake for having refining the law."

No, actually that *is* the old testament, specifically Exodus 21:17. Jesus is quoting that passage from Exodus in order to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who had been hassling his disciples for eating bread without first washing their hands.

Anyhow, until next month when I return from vacation, have a great Christmas all you h2g2 regulars.

Hanz.

Unlike other historical figures, the majority of the written 'evidence' about Jesus was written long after his death. An old person in his days was 50 years old, and it was unusual to learn to write before about age 10. So all this 'evidence' written more than about 40 years after Jesus' death can be considered suspect depending on the source. You can hardly call them eye-witness accounts.

And while there is historical evidence that a fellow by Jesus' name travelled a lot and was credited with preaching certain things, there is not really any historical evidence about the primary things Christians worship him for -- the whole rising from the dead and being God's son business. If not for that part, he would be regarded as just some guy with interesting ideas, right? Many people outside Christianity view him as just that. Others consider him a myth.

I dunno. You have a right to your opinion, Hanz. And the atheists have a right to theirs. But speaking from a position in between the two extremes, I would counsel against using 'historical' and 'scientific' evidence to justify your faith. It just isn't your strongest argument. Appealing to people's emotions has always been religion's strong suit.

"More historical evidence exists for Jesus than for Julius Caesar! (i.e. Thallus' account of the crucifixion, Josephus in the 70's, Tacitus in the 110's, the many references to Jesus in the Talmud...)" - You'll have to give me more information about this Thallus. As for Josephus, his little paragraph on the subject has been proven to be an obvious forgery... I've read it, and it's clear as day. For one thing, the paragraph can only have been written by a believer, since it accepts assumptions as true that only a believer would. Josephus was not Christian; he was a Messianic Jew. For the another, the paragraph interrupts the flow of the paragraphs that surround it. And most convincing of all, it is missing entirely from the oldest copies of Josephus, and isn't referenced by any church scholars until the 4th century. This is also when the text first appears in new copies of the work. And for the Talmud, it was pieced together between the 4th and 7th centuries after Jesus. There is no historical merit there.

"We use similar lessons as a teaching tool today, so I would say yes." - True. We have all sorts of fables and fairy tales. The major difference is we recognize them as fairy tales. Nobody is out looking for the lost slipper. Nobody is warping quantum mechanics to justify the validity of the Pinocchio story. We know them for what they are... simple stories that convey a moral lesson.

"Jesus' scourging" - These accounts differ. One says he is hit on the head with a stick. Another mentions the scourge, which may refer to a whip with various sharp bits sticking out of it.

"the release of Barabbas according to Jewish custom" - There is no record of any such custom, and this goes against what we know of Pilate. It's fiction.

"carrying of the cross with the help of Simon" - Only John says Simon carried the cross. The Synoptics say Jesus carried it himself.

"The Ascension is described in the gospels of Mark and Luke, and referenced countless times in Paul's letters." - Paul is not an eyewitness, since he doesn't surface until after Jesus is dead. When I refer to the gospels, the important point is that every detail from the time the tomb is discovered until Jesus ascends contradicts the details of the other books. If they can't agree, they must be lying. If they are lying, then the ascension cannot be literal truth. Christianity is invalidated.

No, actually that *is* the old testament" - True, but he is reiterating it because he feels it is just as valid in his time as it was when it was first written. Jesus is therefore guilty of the same immorality.

Sorry to interrupt - please carry on if you were going to - but I just wanted to say that I agree with Colonel Sellers' original point about the poor argument of the 'theist response to an atheist stance'. I'm not about to offer a substitute, but at the very least surely it's not in the spirit of the 'edited guide' to label something the thoughts of one researcher?

The whole 'atheism is delusion' argument is poor and embarrassing, although I *think* what was meant by eternal consequences was ones after the world has boiled away or the Big Crunch has happened (if it ever does) - does the word 'eternal' in its strict sense make sense if you don't believe in God?

In fact, isn't that whole section out of place in this article? Wouldn't it be more at home in the atheism article (if anywhere)?

First off I would like to say that agree with everything that was stated above. I am an atheist and have been pretty much all my life. I would just like to say to any theist that might be looking at this that not only am I a happy person I believe myself to be a moral person as well. Just to give you a quick statistic out of the whole jail population in the US only 1% are atheist. Does that make us as a majority more moral people? I would also like to say that the second the earth was supposedly created your god knew everything. Even the fact that I was going to be an atheist. So if your god did not want any non believers to roam his earth he simply would not have created us. Well I just needed to get that off my chest.

Some interesting points, and I agree with many.

"...if people would get over themselves and admit they don't know much about the universe and how it works."

I 'believe' this is one of the only 'truly' rational statements made in this entire discussion! If people would realise that religion is only a distorted, or if you prefer, organised, version of philosophy, they might have a little more fun discussing it.

I consider myself some form of pagan, but reading other ideas and arguments of all religions I find fascinating and enriching. The only thing that could possibly offend is misquotes or any other form of ignorance. It's only ideas after all!

However, faith may well be a positive thing. I have never been able to have blind faith in anything. So I am not even convinced of my own 'religion' or any of my other beliefs, (including faeries, despite the fact that I've seen them.) But that's not to say it isn't something which might be right to have.

As a sceptic I have to take into consideration the numerous unecessary deaths, and other terrible things that have occured in the world caused by (what I perceive to be) misguided faith. But as a philosopher, I have to agree that I do not know what may lie beyond our comprehension, or life on earth, and therefore can not be certain that faith will not help the indivdual or indeed the world in the long run.

I certainly think that if your belief helps you get through this life, and you aren't hurting anyone else by believing, then go for it! Although, delusion is probably not a good thing.

Ofcourse, who is to say what's deluded and what's not? I am convinced many wonderful people who just thought a little too much have been unfairly put into institutions, simply because they had a different perspective. And I have been told that some people actually believe that thinking is dangerous, but I am young and idealistic (so I'm often told) and so I have yet to believe that it could be true.

Anyway, I've gone a little off track, so I'll go and have a discussion with myself, and leave the intellectual debate to the rest of you.

"Let me clarify my point even further - eternal consequences for YOU or ME, is what I'm getting at here. So a butterfly's wings lead to a succession of events that eventually lead to a cure for cancer. If there's nothing after death but oblivion, then we won't even exist to care about how a cure for cancer affects mankind, hence no eternal consequences for US. "

Arggggggggggh! You're absolutely right. I -don't- believe in 'eternal consequences' as you describe them. Each time we leave this earthly existence our part in that timeline has ended (unless we hang around to manipulate it). (Kinda makes the death sentence rather lame, don't you think?) Should we return, we don't take up where we left off but rather start fresh. Just because I don't believe I'm going to spend eternity in some cage (whether it be a burning pit or something as boring and confining as the heaven Xtians in general believe in) doesn't mean I don't have the temerity to strive to be better than I am. This is improvement, btw. And yes, improvement is -very- individualistic, and goals which are inflexible are an abomination.

'Nonnie

" I am convinced many wonderful people who just thought a little too much have been unfairly put into institutions, simply because they had a different perspective."

Ah... The sentiment behind this is -so- true, though those who were 'institutionalized' might be the lucky ones. Many individual thinkers (ie: those not confined to society's normal views) have been stoned, burned at the stake and otherwise tortured and/or killed. Not that being locked in an 'institution' is not its own form of torture, mind you, but at least there's a chance to survive there.

Society frowns on those who think for themselves and do not allow themselves to be drug along blindly by a few who delude themselves into thinking that they alone know what's 'right'... Any individuality is a perversion. If one gets angry they're either paranoid or psycotic. This has been one of my pet peeves for ... eons.

'Nonnie