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

Hi GargleBlaster!
Nice article, but I have to disagree with a few points. Okay, most of the points.

I don't want to provoke any argument, because I'm not terribly good at them and explaining things. But here's a few points:

- The Old Testament
Christians hate Jews? Since when? How can a religion based on love of fellow humans hate others?! I find this assumption a bit offensive actually.
In the past, people have done a lot of terrible things under the name of Christianity. E.g. the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. But seeing as that kind of action directly contradicts the definition of a Christian according to the Bible, I don't think they were Christians at all.
The continuouing failure of the Vatigan to acknowledge the Spanish Inquisition is pretty appalling, I have to say. The Church of England is currently apologising to the groups of people that suffered during the Crusades. But as I said, I don't see how people who do such things can be Christians.
One of the basic principles of Christianity is that we are all responsible for Jesus' death, not just the Jews.
The laws in the Old Testament were replaced when Jesus died. The old laws were to 'atone' for the people's sins; kind of a payment for sinning. Jesus, when he died, made himself a sacrifice for all our sins - we need to acknowledge that, and apologise.
The old testament is filled with history, folklore and prophecy? well... history is relevant, isn't it? We can learn from it. Folklore? The old testament fits in with other history documents. As far as I'm aware there's no folklore. Prophecy? Well, seeing as the prophecies have worked out to be true, I think we can't really ignore them.

Oops, I'm rambling on a bit. At this rate, my forum entry will be longer than your article

- The New Testament
Ravings of a psychopath??!! A psychopath who's ravings are turning out to be true? But anyway.
Jesus' birth: They find him in a manger. Not in a stable. A manger is a trough for animals. Nowhere does it mention a stable. This is a common misconception of christmas cards. To quote: 'She gave birth to her first son, wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger - there was no room for them to stay in the inn.' So why not a house?
Herod did NOT send the astrologers!!!! Where on earth did you get that from? Not the Bible, anyway. They came from the east, and Herod found out about Jesus from them. They avoided Herod after that, because God warned them about his true intentions.
His visitors were shepherds and astrologers. I agree, astrologers were despised. So were shepherds, in fact. Jesus was frequently seen with 'low life scum'! He came to save the sinners, remember, not the perfect.
Quotes: I for think the first one, it means people should be WILLING to forsake their family. We should put God first, not our family or even our wives/husbands.
The second one: you haven't looked at the context. The people didn't believe that Jesus could drive out a demon possessing somebody. He did.
The third one: I'll be honest: I can't give you a straight answer for this one, so I won't try! Better no answer than a false answer.

Remember that I'm only human - I can't provide all answers. And if I asked you about, say, how the Big Bang happened, I bet you couldn't give an exact answer.

- Misconceptions - I agree that there are many misconceptions about Jesus. These are usually not by the Church, but by popular opinion, e.g. three shepherds, three kings, etc.
Jesus' father was a carpenter. Due to the culture of the time, this meant that he would have been apprenticed to his father when he was a teenager. So he was trained as a carpenter. A carpenter was one of the lowest types of people in Jewish culture. It is saying more about his roots than anything.
Jesus was celibate? I'm not sure whether he was married or not. I'm inclined to say he wasn't, because it isn't mentioned in the Bible. Remember that people can have girlfriends without having sex!
'The disciple whom Jesus loved' was used by John in the gospel of John as a alternative name for himself. It was common practice to do this, so he didn't refer to himself by name. You will find that nowhere in John's gospel does he refer to himself by name, and in fact at the end of the gospel says, in as many words, that he himself is that disciple.
Remember that almost all Christians do not view the Nag Hammadi as part of the Bible.
Jesus' healing powers were not proof of his divinity. In fact he got quite annoyed when people said as much. Also, all 'spiritual healing' is not created in some way from the person, but from God.
Nailing to the cross: I can't find any reference to nails, so I'll agree with you there. But I have heard a medical opinion that nails could be put through the joint at the wrist, and support the body.
Barabbas - I'm no Bible scholar, so I don't know much about that.
Death - I don't know exactly why Jesus died. But I'm sure he did. And the spear wound produced a flow of blood and water. Although they probably didn't know it then, death causes your blood to seperate out into plasma and...er...the other stuff. Whatever it's called. But it looks like thick blood and water.
And it would be a pretty amazing person to be able to survive a spear wound through either his stomach or heart...
- The Christian Response - You've got to love the Catholics, haven't you I think the Vatican has been waaay to ready to condemn. Remember the Bible teaches that God is our judge... not the Pope. I personally believe in the Bible, and any teaching that contradicts it I avoid.

Well I think I've written more than enough for now
I hope you see my point of view. Ask me if you have more questions, and I'll try to answer. But, as I said before, I don't know all the answers. No-one does, except God...
One more thing - My belief in Jesus is based apon personal experience, not convincing through facts. If I debated whether God existed or not, I'd never know what to believe. Logistically all points of view have holes in!
I would appreciate it if you would check your sources a little more carefully though ... no offense intended!

I love a good debate about religion, but I keep my points to myself. Until challenged. You have challenged, and I am willing to answer. You have to realize that I didn't get into esoteric discussion of my every point in the article, because that would have bogged it down, and filled up all of h2g2's available hard drive space. So many points...where to begin...

Christians hate Jews: I know we live in a more tolerant time now, but Christians have been persecuting Jews throughout history. As recently as 1945, if you recall your history. As for them being Christians or not Christians, that's all just semantics. They called themselves Christians, went to church, paid their tithe, etc. Sure they were jerks, but there are jerks in every faith.

History: an incredible valueable resource, however, the succession of kings and such aren't all that important in the religious world, and that's what I came to discuss. As for the prophecies, they've been rather twisted to fit the role. There is a website that breaks down lots of the prophecies that are mentioned in the New Testament. It goes on to show how they either do not exist in the Old Testament, or weren't really fulfilled. The site's owner then challenges anyone to posit a prophecy that he cannot disprove. I'll find the url and post it for you later, myabe you're up to the challenge.

Ravings of a psychopath: Revelations is gibberish, and nothing but. People have been saying it's all coming true for 2 millenia now. The truth is, there have always been floods, and famine, and pestilence, and there always will be, because nature is smarter and more powerful than man.

Nag Hammadi: Definitely not part of the Bible. The early Christian Church (aka Catholic) banned these books, and burned every copy they could find. They did that because they were dangerous to Christianity. I think I've already demonstrated exactly HOW dangerous. We never would have gotten these new insights if not for some lovable Gnostic scholars centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Catholics did get their hands on an even better find, the Dead Sea Scrolls. No one can know for sure if they managed to destroy some of the documents before they lost control of them, but, from all available evidence, they were clearly trying to cover up something. Now we have to wait for translaters and analysts to get through with them before we can discover what.

Quote #1: You are welcome to your interpretation. After all, my English teachers always said that no interpretation is wrong. My bosses didn't always agree, though.

Herod sending the astrologers: (Matthew 2:7-2:8): "Herod called the astrologers aside and found out from them the exact time of the star's appearance. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, after having instructed them: 'Go and get detailed information about the child. When you have found him, report to me so that I may go and offer him homage too.' " They didn't originate with him, but he did send them on.

The manger: Are you suggesting they kept the animals in the house? Mangers are found in stables, even the churches agree on that, which is why every nativity scene ever produced is in a stable.

Carpenter: A nonbeliever will argue that Jesus could not have had his extensive education as a carpenter. A believer will argue that God told him all that scripture. It's an argument that is doomed to go in circles, so I would prefer to avoid it.

Disciple whom Jesus loved: You have to look at this one in its context: "Near the cross of Jesus there stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Seeing Jesus there with the disciple whom he loved, ..." No mention of John's presence, but you'd have thought it would be necessary, if John were the one being referred to. There are three people here, who is the most likely to be a disciple? His mother? His aunt? Or a lady who had been following him around for some time? Just remember, in Da Vinci's 'The Last Supper', it's a woman who sits on Jesus' right hand side, not John.

Nails: I've heard that same theory from Apologists, and you're right; it would support the body. However, there is no tradition, nor archaeological evidence, that Romans ever did this. The Christian tradition is nails in the palms, which is just plain silly.

Spear: First of all, you would think that a fact so important as the desecration of Jesus' body by the guard would merit inclusion in all four Gospels, and yet it only shows up in one. That throws a shadow of disbelief over the whole episode. Secondly, the only mention goes like this: "One of the soldiers thrust a lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out." There is not enough detail here to draw conclusions...how deep was the puncture, what precise location, were any vital organs really in danger? Not enough information for me to say he was in no danger, nor for you to speculate that he lost a lung. But then, to throw a bigger veil of disbelief over the subject, this follows it, in parenthesis: "This testimony has been given by an eyewitness, and his testimony is true, He tells what he knows is true, so that you may believe." This reminds me of another quote: "He doth protest too much." It sounds like John expected to be disbelieved even in his own time. No miracle Jesus performs is so vehemently defended.

Well, there you have it. I'm sure now you see that I check my facts very carefully, which gives me an advantage in most of these type argument; most Christians prefer to have the Bible interpreted for them, rather than reading it themselves. I personally am a nonbeliever in religion, and this is also based on personal experience as well as empirical research. I'd like to see more people set aside mysticism and embrace life, as I have. But I respect that a lot of people out there can't cope with that. If there's anything I've said in here that offends you, I'm sorry, but just remember, you chose to respond, which means you may have an open mind about it. I may make a conversion yet.

This response took me so long to write, my ISP kicked me off!

Hmmm...it appears that I wasn't as thorough as I believed. I didn't remember which quote was #2, and you didn't give me enough to go on, so I had to finish my response and then go back to the article to identify it. It appears I did take it a bit out of context; it wasn't said to the disciples, but to the general public. But still, these are the people he came to save, as you say, but I'll have to change that parenthetical remark. Thanks for pointing out my error.

OK

Perhaps I ought to write an article entitled 'The Failure of Atheism to stand up to reason'! The only problem with Atheism is that it isn't definitive ... if I 'disprove' the big bang theory and evolution, you could just say you don't believe in them anyway!

Atheism has nothing to do with the Big Bang, even though lots of them ascribe to the theory. I'll accept it at face value until someone comes along with something better.

Atheism is simply nonbelief in any mythologies. And that is the only reasonable stance. But if you want to give it a shot, I'll drop by your effort, and shoot it down in flames.

Wow, you've been helpful to my article again! I was looking up some other stuff, and came across a very important point, and one that will find its way into the article. It seems that the original Aramaic word for carpenter is "naggar." This word, like many of ours, performs double duty; in certain contexts, it means scholar, or learned man. Obviously, this other definition makes more sense.

I didn't know that either! Cool. I always thought a naggar was an annoying wife.

Dear Gargleblaster

1) How can you possibly try to apply scientific reason to a "faith"

It does not work. Nor will it ever if you go through the Bible in such a haphazard way. As for the "disprove prophecy" website, I'm sure that with enough working around you can prove/disprove anything from Scripture - the trick is reading it all in context and seeing what comes out. I know also of a man who offered $1000 to anyone who could prove the world was not flat - the prize remains unclaimed.

2) Please explain without God the occurrence of modern miracles. Such as prophecy, healings, people filled with the spirit of God etc etc. If you claim these don't exist I'll laugh at you. If you claim they come from within, I'll ask how someone can know something they have never been told, or which hasn't happened yet. If you claim the mind can heal, I'll ask if the mind can grow new limbs onto a person.

3) Can people please stop associating science with atheism and allocating all christians the label of anti-science.

4) A lot of people hate Jews. A lot of people hate Blacks. None of these people are Christians. If a man claims to love God and yet hates his brother, he is a liar. See also the Good Samaritan. Therefore, no Christian can be anti-semetic. All anti-semites or racists are not Christians.

5) In terms of the historical & archeological accuracy of the bible, most of it has supporting evidence, and the only evidence _against_ the bible is a _lack_ of evidence to support it, which is not really the same thing. In terms of internal consistency, the Bible is one of the best documents ever written, surprising given the disadvantages of being written by a lot of people over 3000 or so years.

I think that will do for now.

Replies to each in turn...

1) Of course it doesn't work. When you apply science to religion, religion crumbles. If there really was a god, science would reveal his hand at every juncture. As for prophecy, Jesus cannot possibly be the prophecied Messiah, because he failed to do any of the things the Jews were looking for in a Messiah, which, incidentally, is why the Jews are still looking for him. And as far as that $1000 prize, I'd like the guy's address; I have some pictures I'd like to show him.

2) Modern miracles: first, you'd have to show me a miracle. I don't believe I've ever seen one.

3) Science disproves Christianity. Christians refuse to listen. Draw your own conclusions.

4) As with Peregrin, this is semantics, and nothing more. People who call themselves Christian are anti-semitic, as well as anti-everyone else. Whether they qualify as true Christians or not is a moot point. Anyway, historically, Christians have been the least tolerant of any religion.

5) The historical part of the Bible is very useful. We know from archaeological evidence that some of the people and places in it are valid. And there is geological evidence that something akin to the Great Flood occurred in the area around the Black Sea, but this isn't really startling, since every religion that has roots in that area has its own Great Flood myth. The Jewish version is no more (or less) accurate than any of the others.

However, evidence of creation in 6 days? The world is only 6000 years old? Archaeologists have visited the likeliest site of the Parting of the Waters, and found a trickle of water. And after sifting through pages and pages of prophecy, the people who wrote it (Jews) refuse to believe that Jesus fulfilled the role of Messiah. And this is just a small list of highlights where the Bible fails to explain the world. It's mythology, and nothing but. And it's not even good mythology; Norse and Greek make better reading.

Here we go again.....

1) Science does not and can not ever be used as a guide to the validity of a religion. Why? Ask a scientist. Science deals with the "how" wheras religion deals with the "why." Any science, because it is based upon an observation of the universe God created, cannot by its very nature be seen as anything but proof of God.

"And as far as that $1000 prize, I'd like the guy's address; I have some pictures I'd like to show him."

Pictures can be forged ))

2) Modern miracles: first, you'd have to show me a miracle. I don't believe I've ever seen one.

Well, can I tell you about MY personal experiences of prophecy etc? To pick some from the many I have had -
During a prayer meeting two years ago, I managed to give someone a word which told them accurately how much money they would receive in donations to go to France on a mission, and exactly the timespan that they would receive it in. After this, I did not even remember what I had said exactly, until one week later she came up to me and said that what I had said had come true EXACTLY.

I was in another prayer meeting this October in Croatia. During this, I this feeling I have grown to recognise that something was being "placed on my heart" as we say. I said my part, and went back to praying, hoping that it was necessary for someone. However, the next day I was told that everyone else in the prayer meeting knew exactly who it was, a person who I had never met but who confided in someone that she knew the word was for her. I have never seen her since, I had never seen her before. I did not know anything about her before I met her that night, while I was praying all I knew was her name.

These things happened. I have also seen other things happen around me which have been more amazing. Now, without using God, tell me how I can know the future and how I can know what someone needs even though I have not met them before.

3) Many scientists are Christians. How can they ignore their field? I think you are ignoring everyone who doesn't fit into your stereotype.

4) This next thing REALLY pisses me off, boyo!

"As with Peregrin, this is semantics, and nothing more. People who call themselves Christian are anti-semitic, as well as anti-everyone else. Whether they qualify as true Christians or not is a moot point."

If I lived in a garage and drank petrol, would that make me a car? I could call myself a car, would exhibit some characteristics of being a car, but not all the important ones, such as having an internal combustion engine.

If I _called_ myself a Physics Professor, woudl that make me one? No. I would have to spend time getting a PhD in Physics and actually live like a physics professor to be one.

If I call myself a Christian and yet hate people, I am either a non-christian or a very, very, very bad Christian. I do not consider people like the KKK to be Christian groups.

"Anyway, historically, Christians have been the least tolerant of any religion."

Apart from, quite possibly, Hindus and Muslims. Tell me where you'd rather live - the Bible Belt or Iraq?

5) Please accept that not everyone outside your obviously narrow experience of Christianity is a 100% literalist. Please also accept that the diverging possibilities espoused in quantum physics make it possible for two things to be true - that the universe could have be 6000 and 600000000 years old at the same time!! Also, approx 95% of evolutionary biologists agree that the order of creation in the Bible is the same way that they not only think it did happen, but that it MUST have happened. You don't put genetics in a text to tell people how to live - you don't tell people how to live from a study of genetics.

Anyway, how can you say in your article that "every ology" disproves Christianity and then admit you know that archaeology does no such thing?

Not all Christians are "anti-inetllectual." And not all of your arguments have any weight to them at all! Most of them are lightweight, but some are just daft.

Can you please explain to me just _how_ you can claim that the Bible has flaws when I know people with PhDs in theology who have spent 12 years studying the thing and they can't find the flaws you have!!!

1 more point, for now:

"Atheism is simply nonbelief in any mythologies. And that is the only reasonable stance."

Atheism is non-belief in a divine being or deity. A "myth" is a piece of folklore which may or may not involve a reference to a deity. So Atheists may still believe that "science holds all the answers" or "politicians are honest deep down," and these are myths. You bandy big words about with alarming regularity, don't you.

As for a decision as to whether it is "reasonable" or not, I feel that you need to make a more educated decision than your own personal belief system. You believe that there is no God, because you have never seen any evidence to the contrary. I, however, cannot deny the existence of God without discrediting not only my own eyes, but my own instincts, my ears, and the same things on the 4-6,000 Christians a year I personally encounter. As I have said to someone else, for my experiences to exist, either God exists or I am a schizophrenic, and this also applies to the people who have the same experiences as I. Feel free to make an uninformed decision about my state of mental health, won't you. Christians have been called hysterical before now by psychologists, so I won't take offence if you say the prophecies are just my brain firing neurones at random.

I don't mean to butt in here, but like GargleBlaster, I love a good religious debate, too! As a PK (my father is a priest in the Episcopal church) I think that I may be able to lend you a hand here, Peregrin.

First of all, I agree that this was a well thought out, well written entry. I, being a Christian, have some difficulties with the premise, but there it is. Most of the arguements I would have made were already made by Peregrin, so here's some supporting details:

Christians and Jews have had a history of conflict - some due to hostility on our side, some on theirs. Over all though, its been very much like a parent/child relationship, where we enjoy our salvation and they cluck their tongues still waiting for the Savior. (Oddly enough, this is also the cause of strife between Jews, Christians and Muslims. The Islamic faith teaches that Jesus was a prophet, just like those in the Old Testament, and should be listened to, but that he wasn't the Savior.) Now, whether they are right, we are right, or both of us are wrong isn't something that anyone can discover until they die, so the debates here are Earth of kind of silly. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe and we are happy. In theory.

The Old Testament is a series of stories. Most are historical in nature, but - just like Hesus in the New Testament - many are parables for what God was trying to teach his people. All of these should be taken with a grain of salt and the understanding that these are stories that were passed down for hundreds of generations before being written down, and then have been translated at least twenty times since then to end up in the copy that you hold in your hands. This will cause little changes in wording to grow in size - much like a game of Telephone - and the result may have nothing to do with the message actually delivered.

Question: Which psychopath are you referring to in the New Testament? Saul/Paul is the one I think is the nuttiest, but I don't see that it can be blamed on just one psychopath. Continuing on, Jesus was laid in a manger, but was probably foun elsewhere by the astrologers. They didn't show up for four to five years after he was born. By this time, Jesus was probably a rambuncious kid running around in the yard. The shepards were the only ones to actually see him directly after his birth - except for Mary & Joseph of course!

Jesus was thirty when he began his teachings. There is no mention of him being married, but this would not have been uncommon during this age. Apprenticeships in all trades often took men well into their 30s to work off, and they couldn't get married until they could practice a trade. Tough luck that Jesus started travelling before that, but not necessarily a sign of his sexual tendencies or preferences. The use of the word "love" refered - in the case you bring up - to more of a fraturnal love than a sexual love. I think that the Greeks had it right when it came to words for love - its much less confusing if it is broken into three different words. If you can, find a copy of a Greek translation of that passsage - you'll see by the word used which was meant.

Nails were the traditionally used in crucifixion, which is why they are depicted in modern pictures. They are incorrect about the positioning of the nails however, it would have to be in the wrist rather than the hand. This is something that has been proven by skeletons found in the area of Golgotha, but artistic liscenses were taken with the pictures... Most victims of crucifixion died of asphixiation; fluid filled their lungs and they were no longer able to breathe. Those whose lungs filled slower, however , could have died from exposure or blood loss - the nails did go through a major artery after all.

There ya go! Lemme know if you have any questions rebuttals, etc! I *love* these discussions!

Looks like I could be here replying all day...
1. "They didn't show up for four to five years after he was born."-Where on earth does it say that? In order for this to happen, the following conditions would have to be met: 1. The star would have to remain in place over Jesus for 5 years, because they followed the star to him. Not likely. 2. Some time later in Matthew, Herod orders the death of all boys under two. Herod knew when Jesus was born, so he would hardly have ordered all the the infants murdered if he knew Jesus was five already. And Jesus is obviously already gone on to Egypt when this order comes.

2. The psychopath in the New Testament is John, but not the Gospel John, the Revelations John. It's the most entertaining book in the whole Bible, but it's nothing more than a bad acid trip.

3. "Apprenticeships in all trades often took men well into their 30s to work off"-in an age when a man in his 40's was a venerable old man, and people only lived into their fifties if they were wealthy aristocracy? Pull the other leg. Anyway, you have an answer (of sorts) for the John quote, but I notice you didn't attempt to explain away the Nag Hammadi quotes. And I don't have much faith in the Greek versions of the New Testament anyway, because they've all been altered.

4. Exactly what fluid is draining into the lungs? I'll go along for a bit with the nails in the wrists thing for the sake of this argument, but exactly how does it enter the windpipe or lung? Think carefully on this response, because I've punctured my own limbs without choking on my own blood.

There ya go then! Enjoy!

McDuff: Peregrin and Gwen are doing an excellent job of keeping this debate going in the realm of fact, and I prefer to keep it that way. I therefore abstain from debating you in this area; besides, I'll only end up pissing you off. However, if you want to discuss the order of creation, I suggest you check this link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html/ There's a feedback link where you can argue it with him.

1. It wasn't four or five years, but it was a matter of months. How long after we are not sure - as you point out, it would have had to have been before the age of two. About 6 months to a year is normally considered. So Jesus would not have been running around, He would have been teething.

The "star" is was an astrological event. It was not a major event, like is popularly depicted, but rather an event recognisable in Oriental prophecy. And before you disregard stars moving around the sky, please remember you are talking to people for whom the argument is about the signs of God becoming a Human Incarnate. Anything else He chooses to do is just an afterthought!

2. Your mind is made up on Revelation. I'm not even going to offer my views on it.

3. If you believe that all the versions of the Bible have been altered, that there is some vast conspiracy to propogate the Christian faith, then go to it, and good luck. You won't find much support outside of the UFO worshippers camps though, because the evidence is as chronically tenuous (if not fabricated).

4. Given that you were quoted actual evidence for the use of nails in the wrists, I feel it is more from the sake of argument (btw, for this article did you conduct 1st hand, 2nd hand or 3rd hand research as your primary source?). And there are a number of possible causes of death from crucifiction. The first is trauma. The physical shock of nails being thrust through the carpal nerves will sent the body into a state of severe shock. Also, I don't know where you got the information that Jesus was healthy when He got to the cross, but you omitted the whipping that took place. The blood loss from this would have been fairly considerable, and the damage to the muscles on the back would have meant that Jesus was less able to keep Himself up. When fatigue set in, the body would have been hung in a position with the muscles stretched across his chest, and his oesophagus partially obstructed, amking it more difficult to breathe. The reason that the legs were broken was to speed up this process. The reason Jesus' legs were not broken is that He was too fatigued to keep Himself up for long, and the process took place naturally. The "blood and water" flowing from His side is an indication that He had been dead for a long time - the blood clot separating from the plasma - ask any pathologist!

The realm of fact? Hang on, how can I be deviating from fact? Go on, keep going, this is the basis of all arguments. Don't just point blank ignore what I ask of you because you deem it to be outside what you consider "fact". (define "fact", anyway. To you, "there is no God" is fact. To me "There is a God" is fact. Do either of us have the right to decide "fact"? No. So don't)

As for that link, well, He goes through the entire Bible and makes judgements on it, verse by verse, with obviously no inclination to read it for any other purpose. Have you ever read "QED" by Richard Feynman. The absurdities propagated in this book are far more bizarre than anything you will read in the Bible, and yet this is posited as fact, mainly by being able to observe the evidence.

I observe the evidence which suggests to me that there is a God and Christianity is not a myth. Everything in the Bible seems to be based on a much sounder premise to me that Feynman's quote "In truth, everything we know about this theory is down to drawing lots of little arrows on pieces of paper." Oh, and then there's the _hilarious_ statement where he says "The angle of incidence is not necessarily equal to the angle of reflection." Go on, walk into your Optics lesson in school and write that on your exam paper......yet it is considered fact. I could go through many, many books which you would consider "Gospel" and make the same criticisms - to someone who does not want to believe them, they sound absurd.

OK, how about this: light is a wave and a particle at the same time. Oh, and it always travels at the same speed, regardless of the speed of the observer. Except over small distances, when it goes faster or slower depending entirely on chance. Think about everything Newton _knew_ about motion, and apply it to this model......think how stupid the argument sounds applying the knowlege of Newton to the knowledge of Einstein, who said most of the stuff above. Now think how stupid it sounds applying the knowledge of a non-Christian who really has only a detrimental interest in the Bible, than someone who has spent their life studying the text and actually getting to know it.

3. I have offered irrefutable evidence of the tampering with the Gospels in my article. An actual letter by an actual church father describing actual deletions from the Gospel of Mark, which leaves no room for misinterpretation. The Gospels are edited. Period.

4. In all my research, I use 1st or 2nd hand knowledge, never third. All the first hand research comes from my readings of the Bible and the Nag Hammadi codices, and offer my own interpretations of them, plus the relevant quotes in the case of the codices, and at a minimum, the location of the information referred to from the Bible. This is so people can look it up for themselves, because I stand by my conclusions. But I confess that I must rely on 2nd hand knowledge for certain things, like the Aramaic word "naggar," and such. But I was not quoted actual evidence on this Golgotha bone thing, so I cannot look it up to verify it, but I will do further research.

As for the death thing, I did not omit the whipping, the Bible did. Never in there is there any indication that he was whipped, and I challenge you to find one. Blood loss from the nails (if there were any) would be minimal, because the nails would be blocking the path of blood flow. If you've ever gotten a nail lodged in your body you'd know that. And if you would care to experiment, you'd find that you can tuck your chin into your chest without restricitng airflow to the point of suffocation. Besides, if he were suffocating, where would he have gotten the wind to do all that talking? As for trauma, Inquisition torturers had victims surviving far worse trauma than this.

And for John's little spearing exercise, I think I've already demonstrated that the whole episode is completely unbelievable, and why.

Oh this is lovely! Thank you!

1. You are correct. Having gone back and read that section again Jesus had to be about two when the astrologers found him. Remember, the astrologers returned to Herod and reported the baby's existance right before he ordered the death of all children under age two. As for the star, the latest theories is that it was not a star at all but rather the supernova of a relatively close star that hung in the sky. This is backed up by soil analysis of that time's layer of soil. There is an unusual amount of "star dust" if you will... Creepy huh?

2. John's actually a pretty cool guy. Revelation is one of my favorite books because, if you wade through the acid-trip (and I agree, the man was definitely smoking something in prison when he wrote that one) it gives a wonderful message of salvation and hope. It all comes down to, "If you're bad, this is going to happen to you. If you're good, skip to the end."

3. All modern translations of the Bible are suspect at their very heart, which is why we can't take it too seriously. Joseph, Jesus' step-father if you will, was in his 50s when he married Mary - at least according to Biblical historians. You had to have your fortune made before you were allowed to marry. The age thing isn't quite as amazing as it may seem as well - think of the Old Testament where ages into the hundreds were reported. While studies show that they were more than likely using a lunar calendar, this still makes the Jews a long-lived race, living well into their 60s or 70s.

4. The fluid that fills the lungs is the natural phlegm in your system. While you and I are capable of swallowing it - and do so in amazing quantities according to my doctor - when you are hanging on a cross in the manner that the Romans use, you cannot swallow enough of it. That nasty thick stuff pours into your lungs and makes it impossible to breathe. Now once again, this information is coming from historians and biblical scholars, not personal experience (thank goodness! ) so its not necessarily 100% accurate.

And as to replying all day, you love it as much as we do and you know it! Thanks for the fun! This is great!

Of course I love it, otherwise I wouldn't have written this article in the first place!

1. He wasn't necessarily two already. If I were Herod, I would give some leeway for error, and I would order all kids under two to be killed if I were after a kid that was only a year old. But the relevant point here is when the astrologers visited him, not when Herod ordered him killed. If there were an astrological event (highly unlikely, for reasons I won't go into until some of the other debates reach a terminus, because this is one that could go on and on), the shifting skies would put it away from Bethlehem in short order. The astrologer visit must then be within one season of Jesus' birth.

2. I dunno about that. It seems pretty scary all the way around, especially when you consider that only 144,000 people are going to be spared, and none of them are Christians, but Jews. But this particular legend has given rise to some excellent movies, so I enjoy it.

3. Jews were living into their 60's and 70's? This is close to modern lifespans in developed countries. Life expectancy in the United States was only 52.6 years as recently as 1911. And anyway, how much could there be to learn about carpentry? We employ 18 year-old kids to build skyscrapers with little training and experience.

4. Recent research has brought the nail debate to a terminus. John 20:25-"I will believe it without probing the nailprints in his hands." John states unequivocably that the nails were in Jesus' hands. And we all agree that they couldn't possibly have supported him. Yet if you continue to assert that they were placed in his wrists, then you say that the Bible is flawed, and the unassailability of the Bible is central to the entire Christian faith.

So once again, these arguments turn up new fuel for the article.

Alrighty then, off to the world of superstition we go...

You predicted the future. Congratulations. But I've predicted, so far without error (but my pick this year looks to be a longshot) Super Bowl champions 6 times succesfully, but not in consecutive years. I've been away for lots of those years, and so I wasn't in any position to choose. The latest any of those picks were made was in week one, when I predicted the Redskins would go all the way. They won it that year (I think it was 1991), and during that same year, I predicted Dallas would win the next one, which they proceeded to do. Encouraged by my success, I made picks at the beginning of each year that I had been able to follow the sport through the previous one. Some were obvious, like Dallas' return trip. Others were highly unlikely, like the year Denver struggled to make the playoffs and didn't even manage to win their own division, but made the trip as a wildcard, and had to win 3 road games to even make it to the Super Bowl, then defeat heavily favored champion Green Bay (whose championship I foretold the season before). So what does this prove? Nothing, and neither do your two little episodes. Many has been the time that I've known what someone was about to say to me, be it a job offer, or a break-up, or a hook-up, without any prior knowledge. This just means I can read people. Then there's the statement I made in the Future Predictions forum that is already beginning to come true, from what people have told me. And there's no god talking to me, because I've done everything possible to piss him off.

As for that link, if you read the parts he refers to, you'll see that the Bible tries to say that plants were growing before the sun was made, and all sorts of other rubbish. Don't make hasty judgements before you actually check what he's saying. You are making the mistake you accuse me of making...you cannot possibly conduct biblical research, because you refuse to question its integrity. And by the way, I wasn't always like this. I was a fervent Christian at one time of my life, but I've always had an open mind, and the preponderance of evidence has shattered all my illusions. Nowadays, I do have a proclivity to biblical research because I want to disprove it, but you'll notice, in my arguments with others, I have maintained my open mind, and when people have pointed out my mistakes, I've acknowledged them, and made the necessary corrections in the article.

As for "QED", I couldn't care less. I'm not saying all scientists are infallible, but Christians do believe their pastors are infallible, or at least until they're caught in a compromising position with the alter boy. I read scientific research with the same open mind that I read the Bible, and I question everything. One example is my four alternate endings for the Bible...I read a long and detailed argument in favor of that first one, but I don't believe it for a second.