That knocking you hear? Somewhere far away, the kindly old Mother Superior from Sweeney's school is slamming her head, over and over, against His Banqueting Table.

So let me get this straight. She wrote a book about atheism? And she thinks we're the ignorant savages and she's Margaret Farrickin' Mead?
seedubya | 08.16.05 - 3:21 am | #

Oh, dear!
rrrrose | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 6:41 am | #

I love meeting people who claim they're atheists. In forty years of actually trying to understand them I find I've only ever met two - and they at least admitted Atheism is a faith: and a damned negative one if you ask me.

But back to those pigs that took fright - it was a bit tough on their owner(s) don't you think? Or were they wild pigs?
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 6:52 am | #

No, the pigs were owned, that is why Jesus and the disciples were run out of town. The point of events was not what happened to the pigs, remember Jesus and the 12 were Jews and the pigs were of no value to them for food at any rate. (which furhter begs the question that unless the people of this place were gentiles or, ever worse, Samaritans, what were they doing raising pigs?) So the healing of the demoniac to these people was not worth the price of a bunch of pigs to these people (I guess Julia Sweeney would be among that crowd as well).
Moral:When it comes to salvation at any level, there is no disclaimer stating:"No living creature was harmed in this recollection"
J Rob | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 7:18 am | #

i heard her do a complete monologue of her position and pilgrimage away from christianity - apparently this is a travelling show she does, and, though i may be mistaken, i believe i've seen where it is on vcr or dvd or something. anyway, i heard this thing on NPR [National Public Radio - or at least on a local affiliate] - and she's been doing it for more than a couple of years already, honing it into a story telling adventure. pray for her!
uncle jim | 08.16.05 - 7:21 am | #

"Apparently, it is too much to expect a San Francisco Chronicle religion writer to have the Bible knowledge of a 7-year-old Sunday-school student."

Yes, it is. And much the same can be said about "religion reporters" across the land. Sometimes, their animus against religion, especially Christianity, is teh only required qualification for the job.

As for Julia Sweeney, I have some real compassion for her - somewhere she met Catholics she hated for whatever reason. I suspect, unfortunately, that she also discovered, as did Bill Maher, that taking cheap shots at the faith of her childhood really pays well, gets Larry King salivating all over his tie and suspenders, and has HBO eager to produce another of its artistic masterpieces for the masses.
Dan Crawford | 08.16.05 - 7:21 am | #

looks at my redundant sentence and groans
I really shouldn't attempt to write before the 3rd cup of coffee.
J Rob | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 7:23 am | #

Dawn, showing any knowledge of the Bible might hamper their "impartiality". I think they feign ignorance to feign neutrality.
BillyHW | 08.16.05 - 7:26 am | #

Actually when I read this:

With conservative Christians calling the shots in Washington, creationism crawling back into the nation's schools and even normally decadent Hollywood hopping onto the spiritual bandwagon, it's a beleaguered time for atheists in America.

I got my answer as to why the writer did not call her on it. He probably thinks she is recounting what is written in the passage in question.
Okay people of faith repeat after me:
"just because they are 'religion writers' does not mean they are on our side". I would not be surprised if we were to learn the writer agrees with her.
J Rob | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 7:31 am | #

---

It's probably good for her sake that she didn't get around to recounting the part about Jesus jumping off the pinnacle of the Temple and turning the rocks and stones into bread and fishes to feed the 5000 people!

Whenever I hear people make such elementary and egregious errors about the Bible, it reminds me of the TMBG song "Purple Toupee". They've heard a lot of Bible verses over time, but those verses havve become muddled in their heads over time, because they didn't really get them in the first place. Which is sad, really.
AWG | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 9:06 am | #

J Rob - my local newspaper sidesteps the problem by calling its weekly section "Faith and Spirituality." I'm constantly amazed at what's included under that umbrella.
Belinda | 08.16.05 - 10:10 am | #

Many years ago I made a snap judgment about Madalyn Murray O'Hair based on her snap judgment of the Bible: she said she'd sat down at age 15, read it through, and seen nothing useful in it. Well, you gotta be pretty shallow to say that, at least if you're much older than 15.

I stumbled across Ms. Sweeney's web site a few weeks ago (maybe linked from Amy Wellborn's Open Book?) and was more saddened than offended by it. She didn't strike me as O'Hair-shallow, or even Maher-shallow. Sounds like more of a genuine questioner than a cheap-shot artist. I actually sympathize with her intellectual difficulties regarding the difficulty of reconciling evolution and Genesis.

("Beyond the Fringe"--now there's spirituality for ya--"Will this wind lay low the moun-tains?")
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 10:43 am | #

Don't be surprised Dawn. I have been in so many college classes where the Bible is bashed or dismissed, but the instructors couldn't even identify where the major stories were located. This is a particularly serious lack for the English instructors as the foundation of English lit is based largely on the Bible and Biblical reference.
*sigh*
Renee Poudrier | 08.16.05 - 11:34 am | #

It's terribly sad that Sweeney is so confused and clings to her confusion because she cannot find "credible evidence" of God. She has reduced the world to mathematics that is so simple it crowds out what is most basic about being human - that we are created to know our Creator.

Of course, even sadder, is that she will teach others to cling to such a tiny existence.
Drusilla | 08.16.05 - 11:49 am | #

And when Miller asked Sweeney her name she said, "Legion, for we are many."

What's next, Jesus was born by an immaculate 'contraption'?
J. Michael | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 11:57 am | #

And then I had one night where I had an experience that I considered to be religious -- it's not like God's face came and talked to me or anything, but I just felt a presence in the room, and then I felt really kind of healed.

I felt like I was being taken care of by God, and then after that, I thought, you know, I'm 38. It's time to get serious about religion.

So, after this, she decided that the Bible was wrong. But whose presence did she think she felt, then? What good is demanding evidence from others when it comes to your room in a desperate time and you turn away?

Notice, Julia, that He knew your reaction and came for your aid and comfort anyway.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 12:03 pm | #

In Mark 5:22, Jesus warns that those who call their brothers "fools" risk Hell. It's seems that the title of this post, "Sweeney Clod," comes perilously close to violating that prohibition.

There's also something about motes and planks and eyes, as I recall, but perhaps I'm just another fool.
The Raving Atheist | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 12:40 pm | #

Somewhere in the last couple of days I read a description of the Assumption: "Catholics ASSUME Mary went to heaven."
-sigh-
At least when Aloise Buckley Heath's kids responded to her question,"Now just WHO is 'Round John Virgin'" and they answered, "One of the twelve oppossums" they all had the good sense to laugh hysterically.

Ah, well. At least God and Sin are reconciled.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 12:45 pm | #

Jesus still killed a bunch of pigs, and Sweeney made it clear that she considered that hateful, as well. So maybe she had her "facts" wrong, but the sentiment didn't really change, did it?
Aequitas | 08.16.05 - 1:31 pm | #

Also,

Had today's media been alive and well in Biblical times and witnessed the event in Mark, I can imagine a headline such as this.

Jesus kills herd of pigs, at only the price of a man's soul.
J. Michael | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 1:47 pm | #

What's next, Jesus was born by an immaculate 'contraption'?

"Immaculate conception" does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus (the pun I think the poster was trying to make). The doctrine of Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, saying that she was conceived without the stain of the original sin.

See, for example: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 07674d.htm
Kris | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 2:18 pm | #

Kris...

I understand that, I was making a pun combining the two. Sorry, should have been clearer.
J. Michael | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 2:22 pm | #

Raving Atheist, you are absolutely right. I plead guilty to choosing the easy pun. It was not the right or godly thing to do. I wish religion journalists knew as much about the Bible as you do. (I am not being sarcastic.)

Would someone please suggest a better title for this post? Thank you.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 2:40 pm | #

Neither your position nor Sweeney's is "ignorant of the bible", they are just different conclusions drawn from the same story.
Your position seems to be "Jesus used his power as God to stop a man's torment by evil spirits (and presumably saved his soul as well), and even if some pigs died, it was for the greater good."
Her position seems to be "Since supernatural powers are impossible this story cannot be historically accurate. And, even if the story were true, destroying a man's livelihood is an act of petulance, unworthy of a God, who (if omnipotent) could have chosen to keep the pigs alive and still save the man - therefore Jesus, at the very least, is willing to harm some people while helping others."
Both positions are entirely based on the exact words in the bible and are therefore neither are ignorant.
Mr. Bill | 08.16.05 - 3:19 pm | #

Julia'S ween(s)y mistake?

Ok, ok, ok, its a stretch but I am not a professional you know.
Colleen | 08.16.05 - 3:20 pm | #

>Would someone please suggest a better
>title for this post?

How about "Sweeny Viper".

I'm trying to be more "Christ-like"
lately.
holmegm | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 3:47 pm | #

Holmegm, ROFLM[deleted]O!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 3:54 pm | #

Mr. Bill--

Actually, the quotation from Mark, while it does say that people fed those pigs, doesn't say that it was their entire livelihood. I realize that sounds nit picky, but if we're going to get into exegesis, let's get into it, and not worry about paraphrasing. And while we're at it, let's be sure to be clear that the demons asked to go into the pigs. So, what, you'd rather a herd of demonic pigs were ravaging the landscape and wreaking havoc on agricultural livelihoods?

IN short, it is possible to give an ignorant reading of a text, reliying on the same words as a good reading. It's called misinterpretation, and it happens all the time.
Kate B. | 08.16.05 - 3:58 pm | #

Ooh Dawn, Swine is a bit snarkey don't you think? Why not give her the pedestal she craves. why not SWEENEY GOD?
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 4:25 pm | #

Hi Kate,
Please don't take this as an angry challenge. I have never met a live Christian or read a book written by theologians (and I've read a *lot*) who can convince me on answers to the questions below. As you probably know they have been asked for more than a thousand years. When I ask an atheist, his answer just seems to make more sense - nothing more than that:

First, why does an omnipotent god not find a better way to get rid of evil spirits? Why not just destroy them on the spot. Now that would be worthy of praise. For me the problem is the problem that Jesus gives the evil spirits what they want (isn't that a bad thing?) and doesn't come up with a better idea on his own. Why bring the pigs into it at all?

Second, how is your defence of a more traditional interpretation different from the following: "I know what the correct interpretation is, and it is X; if you don't agree you're ignorant."

Third, many of the posts in this thread just say disparaging things about Sweeney, not refuting her point at all. Aren't they just being mean? Don't Christians try to avoid this behavior?
Mr. Bill | 08.16.05 - 4:34 pm | #

As they used to say on Saturday Night Live... if I remember correctly "OH NO Mr. Bill!!! and then they squashed him.

I too used to doubt God and did not understand faith and this whole faith thing is rather perplexing. However to many of us Christians, in the long run, it is the only thing that makes sense. The more I learn at church the less I know and the more I want to learn. I know that does not make much sense.

The Christian Church - Yes, it is sappy, Yes, we are goofballs and hypocrites, Yes, we are real mean to each other at times however in the long run we have a sense that we are heading in the right direction with Christ as our lord and savior.

As sinners we have a long way to go but it is a journey that we cherish and in which we rejoice.

So, in this silly sappy vein I would like to include just a bit of an old hymn:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

Find a church and join in the worship services for a month or two and see if you have a better understanding of us. It won't hurt and you might make a friend or two.
'I once was lost' | 08.16.05 - 4:52 pm | #

I fear you may have missed the bio at the bottom:



There's no "God stuff" there, and as you noted, it shows in Miller's piece. What's even more egregious is that Don Lattin, who IS the "Godbeat" writer at the Chron, knows far, far better. Lattin is no Falwell clone, but he knows his stuff quite well.

Here's the embarrassing conclusion I come to: Miller's a jerk, and Sweeney's illiterate, yes. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COPY DESK?
Mark Kellner | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 5:16 pm | #

I thought the original title was fine.

I recall that the Apostle Paul, in a discussion about blowhards insisting on the necessity of circumcision, wrote that he wished they'd go all the way and castrate themselves.

I think a certain degree of righteous indignation is permissible in such matters. Righteous indignation is overdone these days, sure, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate.
seedubya | 08.16.05 - 5:20 pm | #

Re: "Apparently, it is too much to expect a San Francisco Chronicle religion writer to have the Bible knowledge of a 7-year-old Sunday-school student."

This is also why the Chronicle finds nothing newsworthy in the Adventures of Dianysis.

And so it goes.
C.J. | 08.16.05 - 6:30 pm | #

Mr Bill wrote "I have never met a live Christian or read a book written by theologians (and I've read a *lot*) who can convince me on answers to the questions below."

Mr Bill, it's not about being convinced with satisfying answers - It's about Faith.

French writer and poet Charles Peguy 1874 - 1914 (I think)in "Clio I" wrote this paragraph:

For your whole apparatus (Christianity) is built and founded on their being a risk; a total risk; man must make his choice in absolute freedom. There must therefore, in the last analysis, be a risk; one always comes back to the bet. If you cut out anything, my friend, any of man's miseries, sickness, poverty, death, all would be lost, everything would collapse. For then the whole world would want to enter, and there would be a rush. An appalling rush, a crowd. If there were any escape, above all, escape from death, my child, God could never have known his own. Such is the price of death. There had to be that risk and everything had to remain as it was, so that in the last analysis everything comes back to a gamble. The risk must be preserved, integrally. That, my child, is Christianity.

Now Mr Bill I know you are still going to say, "but it doesn't make any sense" but then neither does Ms Sweeney's stand: after all as Flannery O'Connor famously said, "A God you understood would be less than yourself."

The marketing of Christianity from Day 1 turned on Christ's followers being reviled and ridiculed. They were warned. You would have to say today if you went out to sell a product and you told people that, you'd go bust in no time. Funny thing though, from a marketing standpoint Christianity has been the most successful thing the world has ever seen. There must be a lesson there somewhere. One that Ms Sweeney would be well advised to re-engage. But she has become her own God and the rest of us, for better or for worse, have to put up with her weird ranting.
Another Steve | 08.16.05 - 6:32 pm | #

Mr. Bill said: First, why does an omnipotent god not find a better way to get rid of evil spirits? Why not just destroy them on the spot. Now that would be worthy of praise. For me the problem is the problem that Jesus gives the evil spirits what they want (isn't that a bad thing?) and doesn't come up with a better idea on his own. Why bring the pigs into it at all?


First of all, you're talking about the guy who brought somebody back to life, and still they didn't believe. He fed thousands with fishes and loaves, he healed the lame and the blind. How many miracles would he have to perform to make people believe? For some folks, no number will suffice. Some may praise him more, some won't.

And second, the demons asked to be moved into the pigs. Did they intend to kill themselves? If not, then Jesus gave them what they wanted, but what they wanted wasn't what was best for them. There's a lesson there somewhere.

By the way, I don't expect these words to change your mind. That's the job of the Holy Spirit. You might continue in your unbelief, you might not. Good luck to you. And God bless.
Anonymous | 08.16.05 - 6:52 pm | #

Mr. Bill...

I'm going to try to answer your questions with my own responses, and with respect.

The pigs (swine) are brought into it of very important reasons.

There is a big contrast of attitudes here. verse 17 indicates that the inhabitants of the region allowed economic concerns i.e., the loss of the swineherd, to overcome any rejoicing which they may have experienced as a result of the healing of the on who formerly terrifed them. The flip-side is, the rescued demoniac gratefully asks to be allowed to accompany Jesus. It is very significant and encouraging that Jesus has mercy and compassion on the dissenters. He tells the man to return to his home and own people to tell them waht God had done for him.

The pigs in essence committed suicide, as the possession by a legion of demons drove them mad enough to drown themselves. Remember all of these demons were inside of one human being.

Also, this was a predominately Gentile territory (Decapolis), a market for hogs apparently brings Jews into that business. Jesus' actions were therefore and apporpriate response to God's law concerning this unclean animal (Lev 11:7-8)

As for your second question, I find that directed to an individual, so I will only say that.

Lastly, while every Christian strives to 'not be mean' or to be more Christ-like, we admit that we are sinners, and will ALWAYS fall utterly short of the Glory of God.

As sinners, we will always make errors, and will never be perfect. But that is what being a Christian is about, coming to know that we are forgiven our transgressions by accepting Jesus as our Savior, and that he DID die for our sins. It does make our sometimes ill-actions right. But it does allow us redemption in God's eyes.

But are Christians the only group that falls short of their God, and judged on their actions rather than by their doctrine?
J. Michael | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 6:57 pm | #

Mr Bill,

They aren't just different conclusions. She said that he turned a bunch of people into pigs. Thats not even close.

And the pigs. They were defiling themselves by raising and eating pigs. Its like Jesus walking into the temple and throwing over the tables. He just disturbed buisness for a minute but the point was that "this system is dead". "This system is wrong. Raising these pigs in willful disobedience to a law you swore to is wrong".. That was the point.

Lets say you promise your wife that you'll take her to a nice place for your anniversary dinner and you don't. Then she gets ahold of your wallet and tosses your I-Pod/favorite CD whatever out the window. Or she doesnt cook for you. Or any number of things to let you know what you did was hateful and hurt her deeply.

Jesus really didnt hurt thier buisness by casting those pigs into the ocean. The other problem was that they had let this man remain desolate and he was chained, let me repeat that-he was CHAINED, down by the pigs. Have you ever seen Snatch. All that stuff about be wary of a man with more than 15 pigs. Well these particular pigs may have considered this ill man a food source had they gotten hungry enough.

And Jesus was saying-You are not to use people as food for pigs. Not only were they raising them against the covenant of Abraham they were abusing a man in favor of pigs.

So you have men abusing another man. disobeying a commandment from God, whaom they believed in. And to boot they were profitting from the pigs and Gods Son came in and said No no. Does that make sense to you.
josephine | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 6:58 pm | #

Everyone, Thanks for your comments.

Josephine: You made a great point that Sweeney messed up when she confused people with spirits ("turned a bunch of people into pigs"), and then you did it yourself! ("men abusing men"). You also added a bunch of things not really inferred in the passage (mostly about the economics and morality of hog raising.) I think we will just have to disagree; I think Jesus really did hurt their business (if the story is true).

J. Michael: Your argument seems to be that the swine owners deserved some punishment for breaking kosher-related laws, so Jesus was getting a 2-fer by saving the man at the same time. If that is true it is only implied - and Mark isn't usually shy about identifying sinners - which he doesn't do here for the pig owners. As for the pigs committing suicide, of course that is what happened but is not the point. It is probably fair to assume that they would have stayed happily grazing if it weren't for the evil spirits that Jesus gave them. But if these pig owners are sinners, then so are most modern Christians, because I've had many a tasty bacon-wrapped snack at church events. But, more importantly, doesn't the old testament say that it is against god's law to destroy your neighbors property? Isn't Jesus guilty of breaking his father's (his own) laws?
And, as far as the meanness issue, I know that the comments here were only meant in fun, and nobody really meant anything seriously mean, but it has always bothered me that Christians seem, despite heartfelt claims of universal sinning, to believe that most Christians are basically good and most basically good people are Christians. The statistics don't bear this out; for instance there are the same proportion of violent criminals, child molesters and people with STD's in the weekly church-going population that there are in the stay-at-home on Sunday crowd, so being a believer doesn't seem to help with that. The only demographic that stays at home more than proportionally is the gays, and I assume that's because they don't feel welcome.

Another Steve: Usually people say they don't need any convincing arguments when they don't have any. I actually agree that Christianity has been phenomenally successful from a marketing point of view, but remember the Jim Jones crowd were totally convinced too, and Islam is more successful than Christianity at the moment (based on membership growth worldwide).
Your argument that troubles me the most is that your faith doesn't need to make any sense because, after all, Sweeney's ideas (and presumably those of anyone who doesn't agree with you) don't make any sense either. Actually, they do. How much of your time and your hard-earned salary have you given to an institution that tells you that if you do that you will get a fantastic reward - after you die. They can't prove it will happen - nor will they guarantee it (after all there is a final exam), and they set up the system so that no proof of their claims is necessary, and the less you want proof, the higher up in the organization you go. All of the leaders are silver-tongued orators, all telling you punishment awaits those who don't obey - frightening children into obedience. Their philosophy is that there is something wrong with you and shameful and worth only pity if you don't believe them, and terrible things will happen to you if you don't do exactly what they say - but again they'll only happen after you die. Again no proof; no need for proof. They tell you this is set up by a being whose very definition is self-contradictory. They offer for collaborating evidence a bronze-age text written by middle-eastern warlords.
Now I have to choose between this bizarre supernatural explanation and the possibility that the Christian industry is an elaborate, but very effective and ancient, con. I see con artists all around me every day. Humanity has never found a verifiable case of a supernatural event - not in at least 100 years of serious trying by millions of scientists. For now I'm just going with what's more likely.
And, if there is a god that expects me to make this crazy choice; he is not a loving god - he's a cosmic Allan Funt.
Mr. Bill | 08.16.05 - 9:16 pm | #

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion but I think there are some things that need to be said that haven't been, which actually proves how nice every Christian here is, except me.

Mr. Bill, you are all over the board. You have a very well-developed point of view and apparently believe that you have all the answers. So your questions aren't really questions but challenges. Okay. Fair enough-- up to a point.

But in turn I want to ask you what you have done to inform yourself. Have you read any of the readily accessible introductory texts like, say "Basic Christianity" (John Stott) or even the ever green CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity"? Have you read anything more than snippets of the Bible? Do you have any real understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Testament?

You need to learn enough to ask real questions. Most of what you claim to "know" is dime store atheism. I mean, honestly, what adult believes the sort of nonsense you have written here?("How much of your time and your hard-earned salary have you given to an institution that tells you that if you do that you will get a fantastic reward - after you die., all leaders are silver tongued orators; frigtening children into obedience etc.).

This is what passed for sophisticated intellectual argument in the 19th century, when challenging orthodoxy was slightly less easy than it is today. It isn't possible to take it seriously in the 21st.

I suspect you will get more satisfying answers when you ask better questions.
Colleen | 08.16.05 - 9:58 pm | #

Mr. Bill

But if these pig owners are sinners, then so are most modern Christians, because I've had many a tasty bacon-wrapped snack at church events.

Christians (Gentiles) are not forbidden of this. The Wewish people were, as they were God's CHOSEN people (YES, God does have a favorite poeple)

but it has always bothered me that Christians seem, despite heartfelt claims of universal sinning, to believe that most Christians are basically good and most basically good people are Christians. The statistics don't bear this out; for instance there are the same proportion of violent criminals, child molesters and people with STD's in the weekly church-going population that there are in the stay-at-home on Sunday crowd, so being a believer doesn't seem to help with that.

What statistics are you referring to, do you have a reference? Being a believer may or may not help with that. That's not really the point. Being FORGIVEN of one's sins is the point.

And as far as destroying a neighbor's property. Is it not greater for the Jewish people than to disobey God's wishes of eating of swine? Are not the animals subject to God's rule also?

And no, Mark doesn't specifically identify the sinners. But together with other scripture, such as Matthew and Luke's account of the incident, one can clearly see what Jesus' goals were.

I can't assert claims on stay at home population as I do not have any numbers to allude to. It is sad that homosexuals are made to fell unwelcomed at churches. But let us make sure we know the reason's why. Is it because they feel guilty of living in sin, or that their lifestyle is an abomination? (Not committing sin, there's a difference) Is is because churches do not do enough to accomodate them? Or do they simply not believe?
J. Michael | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 10:07 pm | #

Mr Bill, Mr Bill, Mr Bill. You’ve misread me. My fault probably but calumny is still a sin. With due respect you sound to me like a closet Calvinist – and we Catholics have our portion of that as well. We call it Jansenism. Calvinism encourages Stoicism: Jansenism encourages Asceticism. Neither are healthy mindsets nor fertile seedbeds for Christian charity. Both are born out of a very real fear of God, something St John spoke out against in his first letter saying, “Perfect love casts out fear.” Actually you don’t have to go past the Gospels to see that nowhere and I mean nowhere does Jesus say a fantastic reward awaits only those who do such and such. Of course those who know their duty – to unconditionally love their fellow man – and who willingly ignore that duty: yes sure, things will go hard with them – that message comes through loud and clear. But the fact remains that authentic Christianity says we shouldn’t be believers just because belief buys us something – that’s not freedom: although I’ll admit that that sort of belief is common to Calvinism.
You also wrote “the less you want proof, the higher up in the organization you go. All of the leaders are silver-tongued orators, all telling you punishment awaits those who don't obey - frightening children into obedience.” Sorry I don’t buy into that. It’s not what I call Christianity and I’m sure those of us you’ve elected to answer here also reject that view. You’ve unintentionally set up a ‘straw man’ to beat up on. There’s just not sufficient space on this thread to engage you misconceptions – no copout I assure you. But I do urge you to keep on hunting around for the truth. I’ll give you a clue. If as I suspect you lean toward Atheism, then go read the “Sermon on The Mount” from which you should be able to extract a meaning of Universal Justice and Mercy. Then think on the Darwinist view of random Evolution and see if Natural Selection cum Survival of the Fittest could ever have brought forth Justice. It’s impossibility.
Pax
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 10:15 pm | #

Hi Colleen!
Straight to the ad hominem eh? Best defence is a good offence? Angry attacks are another tool of those who have no argument. Did they teach you to do that when flustered in middle school debate club? How about answering the questions. It is true some of them were posed before Jesus was born, others in the 1700's and more still later, but the philosophers of our age still write on these subjects in such a way as to lead me to believe they remain unanswered.
Yes, I have read the entire bible including the parts that were left out at Nicea. The NT in several versions to verify how they all contradict each other - fascinating stuff. It is a terrible mish-mash of insanity. Yes, I know what *I* think the relationship between OT and NT is, and I have an idea what you might think but since you didn't do anything except claim my questions were beneath you I'll just have to wonder. Yes on the Lewis (for traditional reasons only, most of it is babyish), no on the Stott (the dust cover left me cold).
How's *your* enemy reading list? Plato, Aristotle, Paine, Hume, Dawkins , Atkins,... Do you know what a theory is? Do you understand why omnipotent is a self-contradictory concept? How about giving an argument. You do know what an argument is?
Mr. Bill | 08.16.05 - 10:28 pm | #

Mr. Bill, I read Colleen's comment and I don't think she was being ad hominem. If she had just accused you of speaking nonsense, that would have been over the line. Instead, what she called nonsense was what you claimed Christians believed. In essence, she was saying that what you believe is nonsense is nonsense—not that you yourself are nonsensical.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 10:44 pm | #

J. Michael:
Being forgiven! I had forgotten how peculiar that argument is: It's not whether you do good things or bad things that makes you bad or good, or gets you the reward, it's whether you are sorry later. (Or, according to some, it's not even how sorry you are - being sorry is a necessary but not sufficient condition - there's some unpredictability in there - I forget which of Another Steve's sects think which on this) But, you have to admit that it's strange. There's no system of earthly law that works that way.
But your history books will tell you that Christians didn't always believe that. Things were tougher in the old days. It used to be that you had to pay a priest to get out of punishment.
The doctrine arose just conveniently at a time when the best way to take power away from the Vatican was to cut off some of their money supply. How's that for a reason to change the philosophy?
I guess we got away from the pigs, but it got down to which old laws take precedence and that's just boring.
Mr. Bill | 08.16.05 - 11:00 pm | #

Hi Dawn,
"You need to learn enough to ask real questions" isn't ad hominem?
But you're right, I came across as if I believe that all Christians are bumbling fools who never struggle with these questions, when I know that's not true. It is very difficult to argue my position forcefully without taking liberties against the other point of view. I think Colleen maybe finds it difficult too!
Mr. Bill | 08.16.05 - 11:09 pm | #

Quick!! Somebody get a hose! Mr. Bill, Mr. Bill, calm down. I didn't mean to pour salt in your wounds. Neither I nor anyone else here is angry at you.

Frankly, I thought your message was hilarious, trotting out as it did, all the worn out arguments of the past. But writing apologias is real work and you haven't demonstrated that you really want an answer nor enough knowledge to repay that work. So, I am not going to do it for you. I give full credit to Steve G, another Steve and Josephine, among others, for trying.

I will also give you credit for knowing the names of Plato, Aristotle, et al. Interesting that you consider them our or my intellectual enemies. You know, or should know that Aristotle was the preeminent philospher of the Middle Ages. As a medievalist, I have read more theologians and philosophers, some in their own languages, than you have likely heard of. So please don't bother trying to impress me or the rest of us with your erudition.

So again, try posing questions instead of hurling invective. If you would demonstrate the possibility of an open mind, a real discussion might ensue.
Colleen | 08.16.05 - 11:11 pm | #

Mr Bill. I can hardly type for laughing. You strayed on to the subject of sorrow - a very good topic to stray onto. I'm sure it was Chesterton who said "The problem for the atheist is when he wants to express gratitude and has no one to thank." Well, the same rationale applies to sorrow and both gratitude and sorrow are natural projections of a knowledge of Justice and Mercy which as I pointed out in a previous post could never have evolved via Darwin's methods or else we surely must be on the cusp of cloning Justice. Wow; think of that eh! a world where everybody has been genetically altered to be Just and Merciful. Wow! The Society of the Just must be only a weensy way around the corner. The Human race perfecting itself totally unaided by anybody but itself. Well Mr Bill, you're in good company - Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer and before them Adolph Hitler.
Another Steve | 08.16.05 - 11:32 pm | #

Ok, Dawn, now you be the judge. Ad hominem or not?

Colleen, is this a test? A Jay Leno kind of thing? Or is your philosophical knowledge a little suspect? Aristotle was dead by about ~300 BCE and the middle ages started somewhere around 500 AD, 800 years later. Oooooops! Now I'm wondering about all those other knowledge claims you just made!
I think of Aristotle as being in my camp because he was the one who first gave a good argument why gods cannot be omnipotent. He also gave some good answers when asked why he did not like to worship gods (even though he appears to have believed they exist) - not Jesus of course, but the arguments still hold.

Apologies for the invective - I was just getting excited. The questions are still out there if you'd like to have a go.
Mr. Bill | 08.16.05 - 11:37 pm | #

Mr. Bill-

But, you have to admit that it's strange. There's no system of earthly law that works that way.

No system of earthly law. But one of natural law. ( I take it from your posts that you have read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity). And God made natural law.

But your history books will tell you that Christians didn't always believe that. Things were tougher in the old days. It used to be that you had to pay a priest to get out of punishment.
The doctrine arose just conveniently at a time when the best way to take power away from the Vatican was to cut off some of their money supply. How's that for a reason to change the philosophy

The Bible and its elements existed before any other man made 'doctrine' seeped its way into the church. The fact that the church became a corrupt group of men is undeniable. The fact that the Bible hasn't changed its message for all this time is also undeniable. In fact the transformation of the Church from a perfect form to a corrupt form greatly alludes to the fall of man from God to sin. And the fact that Christianity and Christians rebelled against the corrupt system it employed shows the power of God over sin.

Yes we did get away from the swine, but why was that?

The main point I think Dawn's post tried to show, was that for somone claiming to have all the facts straight about the Bible, then to turn around and misrepresent it so grossly, showed how valid their argument really was. And that a supposed Religious 'expert' (Jury is still out on that) did nothing to correct her or make note of it. - whether by his choice or not.

I feel sad for Ms. Sweeney, that she seemed to have more compassion for the swine than for the man who had been possessed and whose soul was most clearly in danger. And who said that the Bible was supposed to show the insight into the human nature (it does,btw). What it does show us the true nature of God, and shows us how to more closely follow that way, than our own.
J. Michael | Homepage | 08.16.05 - 11:44 pm | #

Another Steve:
Adolf Hitler? Come on! He considered himself a Christian for most of his life. Most of his atrocities he found (his own twisted) support for in the bible. Let's be clear here - I don't think the bible had support for his ideas, but HE DID. Many middle level Nazis escaped justice by escaping Germany at the end of the war on Vatican passports.
But, your post was so interesting I'm going to pretend you didn't add that last name. I say this because there has been a lot written on this subject recently and there are some excellent books on the subject. The two I have read are "The Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley and "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe" by Erik Wielenberg. It turns out that there really is a lot of scientific evidence for a genetic basis for certain behaviors that we consider "virtuous". (Groups of remorseless murderers missing the same gene, that kind of thing.) But, it's a very new field and the jury is still out. I share your fear of the day we find the kindness gene.
There's just one more point I'd like to make about your post and that's a rookie mistake about evolution: The human race isn't perfecting itself - it, and all other species, are changing to survive, not necessarily get better. That's one reason why we atheists think it's a better explanation of why we're here. Our bodies are great but they could be a lot better. I think it was Isaac Asimov who said "If I had unlimited power and eternity and all I came up with was this universe I should be ashamed of myself." The betterment idea, along with the phrase "survival of the fittest" was never part of the theory, even in it's earliest forms. Darwin never said it or wrote it - it comes from the popular press in the late 1800s.
Mr. Bill | 08.17.05 - 12:03 am | #

Mr. Bill, I believe I can speak for Colleen when I say that by calling Aristotle the preeminent philosopher of the Middle Ages, she meant that he was the most-admired philosopher of that era. She is right.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 12:21 am | #

No, Dawn. She is wrong. He was the preeminent philosopher of the early Hellenistic period (or late ancient Greek, depending on who's book you're reading). Colleen's statement is like saying William the Conqueror was the preeminent British Monarch of the 20th century. Much admired, to be sure, but the statement is nonsense.
And if Colleen's knowledge is so voluminous, why doesn't she share a bit? So far she's just been rude. Wait a second! Has anyone ever seen Dawn and Colleen in the same room at the same time?
Mr. Bill | 08.17.05 - 12:45 am | #

Mr Bill, Hitler was delusional - especially when it came to considering himself a Christian. Lots of people do when all they really mean is in their own estimation they're good people. See I'm good. Look how I behave. Okay I apologise for comparing you to Hitler.

No you're right Darwin never used the term "Survival of The Fittest" but his offsider Wallace coined it and the mass media found it convenient. Darwin and Wallace jointly presented a paper on Evolution to the same meeting in London in 1858 (I think).

One thing that gets me about 'determined' atheists is their pathetic clinging to the idea that some day the truth will out. So there's all this chatter about Bower Birds being on the brink of becoming artists, Chimps and dolphins speaking, wolves about to hold elections (who keeps the minutes?) and soldier ants that give their lives altruistically to defend the family. It's all tripe and you know it. The soldier ant can't help himself when it comes to battle - he/it has to defend his post - he/it cannot desert but as for the human soldier deserting? Just ask any front line vet.

Back to what gets to me with atheists is the irony of their disputing anything that smacks of biblical scholarship and then they turn around (like you Mr Bill) and latch onto the slightest new theory on the origins of virtue.

You may be afraid of the day the kindness gene is discovered (exactly why would you be?) as for me I'm confident it doesn't exist. Science knows vast amounts about the human brain but on the Human Mind science is completely clueless. Okay that's my dogma but it's at least better than your dogma which ultimately must reject all dogma.

One final thing, that great champion of Evolution/atheism British scientist Sir Thomas Huxley once said, "If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger?" Yes I guess he had his tongue firmly in his cheek but in doing so he sure helped the cause of the Theists.
Anonymous | 08.17.05 - 12:52 am | #

Mr. Bill.

This is getting silly.

Read my comment again, please.

It is possible for someone to be the preeminent ANYTHING of a time without having lived in that time. One only has to be the most-admired. For example, Elvis remains the preeminent male star of the rock era.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 12:53 am | #

Oops. That anonymous was me.
Another Steve | 08.17.05 - 12:54 am | #

Mr Bill your use of that argument comparing preeminent philosophers to British monarchs sure is silly. It actually makes me think your whole basis of logic is faulty. I knew what Colleen meant. Your taking her to task was nothing other than the action of a smart alec literalist. You've done none of your arguments any good by doing that. And by the way I reckon St Thomas Aquinas is the preeminent philosopher of the 21st Century along with people such as G. K. Chesterton.
Another Steve | 08.17.05 - 1:09 am | #

Anonymous: Now you and Another Steve are the same person?
I am afraid of finding a kindness gene because it will be abused - our military will decide that it is in the national interest to breed some men without it. They develop every technology we discover for use in war. I actually don't believe we'll ever find a kindness gene, because genes don't appear to work that way, but they found a gay gene in fruit flies so you never know.
Anyone who believes the examples you give of animals becoming more humanlike doesn't understand the theory. Those things sound like they came from that crazy PETA crowd. I also have not "latched on" to anything regarding a genetic basis for ethics. It doesn't seem like such a crazy idea to me (as I see it does to you) because I think we made god and ethics up, so it's not such a stretch that tendencies towards good or bad behavior should be inborn in some of us and not in others. BUT, I will wait until honest decent hard-working scientists prove (or disprove) the principle before I pass judgement on it. Until then, as I said, the jury is out. We atheists have an annoying habit of needing reasons for doing things.
And, thanks for the nice flourish at the end, again with the fear tactics. I guess it puts bums in pews.
Well, I'm off to bed. This has been fun. I hope nobody is too offended. We should do this again sometime.
Mr. Bill | 08.17.05 - 1:18 am | #

Blimey, gay fruit flies!!! Were they homosexual or lesbian? (Head's been shaking for the last five minutes)

Mr Bill said,"I think we made god and ethics up"

No wonder Jesus wept. But Mr Bill before you get the opportunity to pass judgment on the origin of virtue I'll bet SOME BEING passes judgment on you. Fortunately the God of the Christians is merciful. Now I must be off to cook the evening meal.

Yes you're right we should do this again some time.
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 1:33 am | #

Mr Bill I was refering to the men abusing the demon posessed man not the pigs.
josephine | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 7:21 am | #

Bill, find the dictionary (that's the big book in the corner of the library) and look up "argumentum ad hominem".

"A Christian beat me up in second grade, so Christianity is false" is argumentum ad hominem.

"Your arguments are fallacious because they are based on tons of impacted assumptions which are not true" (like yours) is refutation.
Will | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 8:24 am | #

Shoot, I went to bed before all the good stuff happened. Just to clarify, Aristotle was the preeminent philosopher of the Middle Ages, as I and others have said. In fact, he was so honored that theologians and philosophers rarely used his name, they would write things like "The philosopher says ..."; the philosopher holds that" ..., etc. In the same way they would later refer to Aquinas often not by name but by quoting "the angelic doctor". All educated people knew who was meant.

Having clarified that let me clarify yet again that I will gladly share my "voluminous" knowledge when you actually ask a question. People here have been very generous in engaging you on your terms but I will not. You ask too much when I have to tease out what you really want to know (assuming that you really want to know anything) from a mass of tangled sentences and then try to answer that. This may work in the back and forth over coffee at the local diner but not in blog space.

Like Ms Sweeney, you think that you understand what Christianity teaches and that you understand the Bible. For that reason, you didn't pose any real questions for discussion; you hurled challenges, secure in your belief that they can not be adequately answered.

Here are some examples of questions suggested by what your have written (in no particular order) that would be interesting to discuss (but are probably not on topic, which is or was Ms Sweeny's ideas and the religion columnist's apparent ignorance of a very familiar story):

What are miracles? What is the relationship of the Old and New Testament? Are Christians bound by Old Testament laws/regulations? How was the canon of scripture chosen? etc., etc., etc.
Colleen | 08.17.05 - 8:31 am | #

I hate it when you Catholics are honest, consistent, classy and nice (if still wrong). Anyway, here’s your earthly reward.
The Raving Atheist | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 9:13 am | #

I don't think altruism (kindness) can be found on the genes, because the altruism trait is self destructing. See if a chimp (it is easier to use animals, because they have simpler lives) is altruistic he will sound an alarm if he sees something bad (a big snake for example). That is super nice of him, he warns all the other chimps and they can head for the hills, unfortunatly he just gave away his position and will now be eaten by the big bad snake.
sarah | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 10:20 am | #

It is funny because I am actually picturing the diagrams from my "origins of humanity" book from the anthro class I took in college.
sarah | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 10:21 am | #

J. Michael,

Oh, sorry for correcting you, then. Glad to hear it was part of your pun. Lots of people who should know better make that mistake.

Kris
Kris | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 1:29 pm | #

This is going back quite a while, but I didn't see it answered - why didn't Jesus destroy the evil spirits? Why cast them into the pigs?

One reason was practical. Seeing a hysterical man suddenly calm down could have a number of explanations. Hearing the man ask to be cast into a herd of swine, then seeing him calm down while the swine go mad and stampede to the river? Clearly the man is still there. That says something entirely different - that the man wasn't merely hysterical but afflicted, and that affliction passed to the pigs, but only with the permission of Jesus. Mark is trying to demonstrate that Christ is superior to the demons. The pigs are also meant as a reminder that the demons are unclean.

Beyond this, there is justice to be done upon the demons. Obviously they didn't drown. They just didn't want to have to get stuck in Hell again - they preferred the life of a swine to that. (Apparently, not much, considering how the swine reacted.) This is a warning to us not to get stuck in Hell ourselves. Besides all this, to be merely annihilated is to cease to be. Remember these are devils - they rebelled against God despite having the Beatific Vision, seeing His face in glory evermore. They preferred self to service. I think by not merely willing them out of existence, Jesus was pointing out to us that their crime is such that it merits infinite punishment. They are not going to get off the hook by causing more trouble.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 1:32 pm | #

-Kristen

That's ok. In retrospect it would have been a better pun to say,' what's next, Mary was conceived by an immaculate contraption?' Glad someone is paying attention, lol.
J. Michael | Homepage | 08.17.05 - 1:44 pm | #

"I know what the correct interpretation is, and it is X; if you don't agree you're ignorant."

Mr. Bill--
I'm not saying this--certainly not trying to. I'm trying to argue for the same standards of literary crticism to be applied to a Biblical text as would be applied to any other piece of writing. What do the actual words mean? From there, what symbloic or spiritual meanings can be inferred? Literary critics get into fights all the time about correct interpretations, and they win those fights by being able to pull support quotes from their text. Sweeny's use of the text, in the first instance, is flat wrong. No people were turned into pigs. That makes me very suspicious, therefore, of her second textual point, that Jesus was cruel to the pigs involved. I'm especially doubtful of that one because it seems that her judgment of cruelty stems from her misunderstanding of the original nature of the oigs as human. If the pigs were never people, does the cruelty judgment have any legs to stand on?

If we want to go beyond this and look at what Jesus meant to do, we need to sit down and read the entire Bible as a complete text--and actually give it credit for being one, the way we'd give a poem credit for being a complete statement of something, even if there are individual lines we can't at first make sense of. And if we still can't make sense of it, we start looking at the critics--those who wrote commentaries on the Bible, those who compiled works on Jewish law so as to have an understanding of Jesus' cultural millieu, etc. But Sweeney doesn't seem to have done this. Why, therefore, should I give credence to a poorly-supported statement of supposed exegesis?

I'm going to tack on a final blanket statement, here. A request, really. PLease don't ask people to prove the existence of the god/s the beleive in. God can neither be proven nor disproven. No one has managed either. Rather, everyone has taken a starting axiom ("God exists" or "God does not exist") and followed a logical series of steps to draw conclusions from that axiom. Kind of like Euclidean geometry: change that first axiom about a point existing, and you change the entire system. Now, "God does not exist" may be your starting axiom. Fine. But you can't prove it. As you said, it's a choice about what to believe, and you have chosen to believe what sounds more rational to you. If I take "God exists" as my starting axiom, and then prove from it that God is omnipotent but not destructive, then Jesus not obliterating the demons makes sense. The pigs were killed, but their bodies still existed. They didn't just contribute to universal entropy. Demons have no bodies of their own. If you destroy demonic spirits, are they just wiped out? If God does not destroy, then why would he go that? Again, the answers depend on your axiom. St. Thomas Aquinas, relying heavily on Aristotle's Metaphysics, takes "God exists" as his axiom and and proves God's goodness and omnipotence without the use of Biblical material in the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1 (I think). I find it reasonable. You might not. I find it unreasonable to say that a silver-tongued orator frightens people with the fear of punishment, and that that alone has sustained a con for two thousand years. I don't think you're ignorant, but I disagree with your exegesis. I don't think the text supports it, as my lit professors would say.
Kate B. | 08.17.05 - 2:09 pm | #

Yes Julia misspoke about the Gadarean swine story. The real story here is the following;

Prior to 66 CE (the year the Jewish/Roman war broke out) the Romans occupied Jerusalem with a garrison of 200 auxiliaries and in Jesus' time the nearest Roman Legion was stationed in Syria. The Roman X Legion, about 2,000 strong, was stationed in Jerusalem after 66 CE. In Mark 5:1-20 the writer has the demon/unclean spirit called "Legion" and has the # of pigs at 2,000.
Note also that the X Legion's emblem was a PIG!

Thus we have a thinly disguised fable written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in which when the Messiah returned he would drive out the Romans, here characterized as evil beings.

A further difficulty is in the name of the country; the RSV has it as Gerasenes (of Gerasa, a town now called Jerash located about 30 miles SOUTH of the sea), Matt has it Gergesenes. Thus we have the early manuscripts with 3 different names - Gerasa, Gadara, and Gergesa. This would be a quibble except for those who view the Bible and literally and inerrantly true. How they handle this I do not know.

Lastly, the idea that disease in human beings is caused by demon possession was held by Christianity for 1800 years. This belief was confirmed in their minds by Mark's story and several other biblical demon possession miracle stories. Fortunately for the rational minded, in the middle of the 19th century Pasteur gave us the germ theory of disease and liberated us from supernaturalistic medicine. Only the feeble-minded could believe in demon possession today. It would also be feeble-mindedness to believe that people were possessed by demons 2000 years ago.

It is highly unlikely that a seven year old Sunday school student could come up with this real history as legions of ardent Christians are as biblically illiterate as your hypothetical seven year old.

Thank you for your listening to my point of view.
Dan Kelleher | 08.18.05 - 3:02 pm | #

Dan K.--

How do you square the above fable with the presentation of Jesus as a big disappointment to the Jews for refusing to drive out the Romans? For rendering Caesar's unto Caesar? And for having the ignominious position of claiming to be a Jewish Messiah who was himself done in by the Romans? I'm not sure, in the context of the rest of the Gospels, that reading the swine story merely as fable will work.
Kate B. | 08.18.05 - 3:15 pm | #

Just because disease is not a matter of demonic power, does not mean that there are no demons, nor nor possessions. It simply means that they are not the source of that particular ill.

Only the feeble-minded could believe in demon possession today. It would also be feeble-mindedness to believe that people were possessed by demons 2000 years ago.

Perhaps today, the demons don't have to possess people because people have no faith to begin with?
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.18.05 - 4:14 pm | #

Wow, jeez, I guess I am feeble-minded then. Man, are my teachers going to be angry when they find this out. They are going to be so upset that they gave me A's and allowed me to graduate cum-laude with two degrees.
sarah | Homepage | 08.18.05 - 4:16 pm | #

I get really tired of the fact that so many people assume that all Christians are bumbling idiots who don't know how to tie our own shoes.
sarah | Homepage | 08.18.05 - 4:18 pm | #

Dan,

You have never met my mother. I assure that there are demons and I hope one day to rewind some of the things that Ive seen in my life and show them to you. Including 2 attempts on my life one in my own bed and one in a church my aunt took me to- by a being that could not be seen. In the one case in my bed I lost conciousness. I have felt that feeling more times than Id like to count including what I assume was attempt to possess me the week before my baptism and a feeling like I was hit with a wall of ice that splintered and ripped through me after my baptism. And ya wanna know something really queer. After I was baptized my mother called my sister in a fury asking what I was doing. And this heaviness that was in my house left. Ohh And then there was the time when I was down stairs in my first town house washing dishes, where my mother lived not 6 doors down. And my husband walked behined me leaned up against the stove and I started talking to him. When I turned around he wasnt there so I went up and checked the bed and he was sound asleep. There was no way he could have gotten up the stairs that fast. And again it get really queer- my mother was acting funny the next day talking to me about stuff I had been asking my husband when he leaned up against the stove. Ive mentioned that my mother practices witchcraft before. I wasnt kidding.
Josephine | Homepage | 08.18.05 - 5:32 pm | #

And you know I just thaught of something that scared the hell out of me. Is Jesus gonna sit me down and rewind my life and say "look at all the times you missed, I had to watch you closely".
Josephine | Homepage | 08.18.05 - 5:34 pm | #

Yes. I misrepresented the Jesus-commands-evil spirits-to-go-into-pigs-and-run-them-off-a-cliff story in the bible. I suggested that that Jesus caused the people & pigs to run off the cliff. He didn’t. He just caused a COUPLE OF THOUSAND PIGS to run off the cliff.

The point I was trying to make is that Jesus does several things that aren't particularly charitable or compassionate or even logical. I mean, if Jesus is capable of anything, why doesn't he just kill the evil spirits right there? Why does he have to kill two thousand innocent pigs to do that? Regardless of the fact that Jews of the period thought that pigs were unclean, we know that this is not true. So if we know this, why didn't Jesus? Why would that action be acceptable to him?

Plus, evil spirits? COME ON. Are we to believe that there are "evil spirits" that can infect a person and then be driven out of a person? And then driven into an…animal?

You say my mistake is the reason that Christians have to remind the mainstream media of the most basic facts concerning their religion. I completely agree. I think you should remind everyone in the mainstream culture (which is predominantly Christian) that their God is someone who sends evil spirits into pigs and drives them off mountains. (Pigs owned by people, by the way. Even if the mainstream culture you are trying to remind the “most basic facts” to isn’t moved by the specter of two thousand pigs hurling themselves off a cliff by Jesus’ direction, they might be upset – in this most commercial & profits driven culture -- that those pigs were owned by someone. Even by today’s standards, two thousand lost pigs have to be counted as an economic loss.)

So yes. Jesus didn’t send some people and pigs off a cliff. He sent the “evil spirits” into two thousand pigs and they ran off a cliff. Is that so much better? Is this the story that you say any seven-year-old Church student knows?

Personally, I would find that defending Jesus’ killing off of a couple of thousand pigs after he infected them with evil spirits a “basic fact” of your faith not worth defending. But that’s just me.

Good luck to you. I hope your mother gets well.

Julia Sweeney
Julia Sweeney | 08.18.05 - 6:58 pm | #

Poor Julia. She just doesn't get it. Maybe if she had just read the comments before posting she would have a clue.

Can she really believe that anyone sane is going to work up a sweat about suicidal pigs? Since, according to her, demon possession isn't possible, and, presumably, Jesus isn't really God, how else were the pigs killed off, other than by freely choosing suicide?

And I, for one, respect their freedom to determine their own fates.
Colleen | 08.18.05 - 8:34 pm | #

Julia, what I love about parsing the Bible is that so often you end up getting parsed. For example, your reaction to the death of the pigs is uncannily biblical.

After the pork went into the soup, the Gerasenes Chamber of Commerce came out to Jesus, glanced at the crazy guy (who was now clothed and in his right mind), found his quiet state disquieting yet unremarkable, and then begged Jesus to bug out.

The story you follow reveals your values: on the one hand, you have a naked, crazed, destructive dude with super strength who is now cured, sane, clothed and cool as a cucumber. And in other news, the price of bacon has dropped precipitously.
Joel | Homepage | 08.18.05 - 11:19 pm | #

I don't think you're thinking this through, Julia. You disbelieve the story because "demons aren't real" - and that's WITH the physical evidence of A/ the demons asking to be sent to the pigs, B/ the man calming down and C/ the pigs making like lemmings. Yet you expect Christ's audience to believe that the demons were destroyed without any visible evidence whatsoever!

As far as why He didn't destroy them, I may as well brag a little and suggest my own reply. The short version (if you don't want to click or scroll up) is that the demons' punishment had not been served, and they aren't eligible for relief - even the relief of non-existence. We as humans get mercy, and a life in which to learn how to live in His kingdom. They already had it all and spurned it.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 1:15 am | #

Ruling out the existence of demons apriori is like a man seeing a dog smelling something that he can't smell and saying, "stupid dog! Sniffing at nothing."
TSO | 08.19.05 - 2:58 pm | #

"Personally, I would find that defending Jesus’ killing off of a couple of thousand pigs after he infected them with evil spirits a “basic fact” of your faith not worth defending. But that’s just me."

But Jesus's cure of a raving man forced by his illness to live in a graveyard on the very verges of society is a point of faith well worth defending.

IN Christian theology, God created the angels with free will. Some of them freely chose to become devils. Why didn't God destroy them? And why didn't Jesus just destroy them? For one thing he created them out of love, and love does not destroy. For another, destroying anything that rebelled would pretty much negate free will. If you want a God of free will, you have to accept that he allows even demons to make choices.
Kate | 08.19.05 - 3:28 pm | #

The above is me, BTW--different computers ahve different cookies!
Kate B. | 08.19.05 - 4:01 pm | #

I wonder what Julia thought was going to happen to those pigs if they didn't run off the cliff? Does she think they were going to retire to Boca Raton and play Canasta? Does she think pig farmers raise pigs because they are lonely and need company? So Jesus killed a bunch of pigs... I guess he is going to lose his PETA membership.
Tom | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 4:37 pm | #

I think Julia has hit on something profound. Jesus isn't a just a gentle blanket Who goes around saying "Here, here" to the unfortunate. He also powerful, mysterious, decisive, dramatic, and sometimes difficult to comprehend. I love that!
Gray | 08.19.05 - 5:06 pm | #

I think that hard-core vegetarians (and I've no idea if Julia is one) or animal rights activists would also have a hard time with Christianity and Old Testament Judaism. Not only do we have the pig scene, but multiple scenes of people eating meat, and rather than Christ making a new, no-meat rule to go along with his general policy of making his Rule conform even closer to God's Ideal (ruling out divorce and telling people to forgive seventy times seven, for example), the Holy Spirit tells St Peter that he can eat any meat he likes, even pork. Jesus certainly could have told his followers to 'kill no animal' if he had so chosen, and he didn't. While I have always felt sorry for those possessed pigs, and never really understood why Jesus let the demons go into them instead of just saying 'no you lot can get right on back to hell,' I think that they serve to show how dreadful the possessed man must have felt. If each pig, possessed with one demon, was so tormented as to commit suicide, how much more in despair must the demoniac have been? I think the attitude of Christ is very challenging for the modern animal lover. It is definitely the 'animals are under God's care, but humans are worth much more than many sparrows' line. Jesus' words and actions certainly indicate that human life IS valued much, much higher than animal life. Christianity is a specist religion, and there's no getting around it. Christ came to earth to die and rise to save humans, and he ate fish and lambs and caused the suicide of pigs. And Catholics pray the Joyful Mysteries, remembering his Presentation in the Temple, during which doves were sacrificed (and not released to the sky, but split in half rather gruesomely). I think that it is not at all surprising that, in an age where many people love animals very much and even refrain from eating them or wearing them out of love for them, there would be someone appalled at the pigs story. Maybe it would be best to explain how God does love all of His Creation, but that yes, our religion does say he gives humans greater rights and love than animals, and holds them in higher esteem. It would still piss people off, but it would address the true issue, which is not just the swine, but the overall non-PETA approved attitude.

I am mostly confused about the "Iliad" bit, because they were certainly more brutal than Jesus, as they not only ate meat, but fought over who got to rape the captives first, and gleefully tortured their enemies, as did their gods and goddesses. While the tale is great for its exciting adventures and heroism, I don't think I'd want to emulate any of those heros or deities!
viciousmongoose | 08.19.05 - 5:23 pm | #

Plus, evil spirits? COME ON.

Christians really do believe in the existence of evil spirits. And we're not at all ashamed of it.
BillyHW | 08.19.05 - 5:46 pm | #

you're all insane...

julia: big fan
Roman | 08.19.05 - 5:52 pm | #

Roman--

Don't you mean possessed?

:P
Kate B. | 08.19.05 - 5:54 pm | #

Well, with the VAST majority of the nearly 7 billion souls on this rock praying to some sort of "imaginary friend," as you put it, wouldn't it be much more logical to assume the psychological defect resides elsewhere?
Anonymous | 08.19.05 - 6:36 pm | #

Apparently I've lost my cookie . . . the above is me. NEVER let it be said that I posted behind the safety of anonymity. :-)
Lance | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 6:38 pm | #

Considering that the countries with the highest standing of living are the least theistic, then the logical response is no. Just because the majority of the population holds an irrational belief doesn't make it right.
Rob | 08.19.05 - 6:51 pm | #

Soviet Russia.
BillyHW | 08.19.05 - 6:55 pm | #

North Korea.
BillyHW | 08.19.05 - 6:56 pm | #

Hmmmm...I like Julia. She may be anti-Christian but at least she's an honest one. True to form, she actually considers the innocent lives of pigs to be just as valuable as human life.
Jason Beckett | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 7:00 pm | #

Soviet Russia was and North Korea is infected by something similiar to theism. Communism incorporates irrational beliefs, like theism does. It made them vulnerable to such scientific crackpottery aslysenkoism. Do you know that Communism is the most successful when the people are religious? Monasteries have lasted hundreds of years. The Amish society also has a communist feell to it. Don't associate the atheism or agnosticism that freethinkers have from the false atheism that communists had.
rob | 08.19.05 - 7:22 pm | #

As a Bible educated Christian, I have always found the passage where Jesus sends the many swine off the cliff, imbedded with a demonic hoard as a strange, angry turn for the Savior to follow.

With ultimate powers running through His veins and neurons, perhaps a power overload gave Him a little ripple in the wrong direction and He over-reacted. He was, after all, here to experience the full course of our weaknesses and foibles along-side His glorious mission.

I have faith, but I also have faith that the imperfect world that God designed us to live in can be moderately confusing (especially without the Internet to explain it all) in those formative days gone by. Even Jesus could experience confusion. He even wondered why the Father had forsaken Him under his extreme duress at one point on the cross.

Jesus could have misdirected his interpretation of the right thing to do. Was it righteous anger? Was it misdirected neuro responses? Under duress and the eye of the anticipating audience, perhaps Jesus simply went for a crowd pleaser.

Just my guess...
middlegal | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 7:51 pm | #

why your christian religion is better than Hinduism, islamism or shintoism?.
By the numbers, islamism and hinduism (including buddishm) seems to have more adepts than christianism. Attendance to christian churches is going down in Europe and Latin America and even in USA.
I'm tryng to choose a religion, for the time being I think I will become buddhist. Some help?
looking | 08.19.05 - 7:54 pm | #

Looking asked "why your christian religion is better than Hinduism, islamism or shintoism?"

"cos if for only one reason and a theological one at that: only Judeo Christianity has the Doctrine of the Fall which provides the best explanation of the human condition.

You either believe in the Doctrine of the Fall or by default you adopt the Doctrine of Progress. There ain't no middle ground, its a radical watershed and looking back on just the last hundred years we haven't seen a lot of progress unless its in the area of blood letting; Nobody should need reminding should they? that The Fall is honoured by failure and death and Progress is dishonoured by those same two things.

Looking, puhlease don't confuse material progress with spiritual progress. However the two are connected. The unshakeable (and unpalatable to some) fact exists that all the social and civil advantages gained by any State from its Christian roots have accrued as a direct consequence of the Missionary Church's main aim of saving souls. And most of these advantages were born out of the concepts of freedom and equality that came straight out of the gospels.

Now let battle begin.
Another Steve | 08.19.05 - 8:22 pm | #

The whole point (ONE of the whole points) is that He did NOT "kill" the demons (leaving aside the impacted assumptions in talk about "killing" immortal spirits). They complained "You are just summarily evicting us! Don't you care about the homeless-demon problem?" So he gave them somewhere else to go. And then THEY made the pigs do a lemming act.
Would you please READ the passage again? (As I am trying to be charitable in assuming you read it once already.)
Will | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 8:26 pm | #

Last week I created these really intelligent artificial life creatures that live in my computer, which they call the universe. I decided that they would only get to live in the computer for about 1 minute, more or less. When they die I take their program and decide whether to place them in my Mac, which I call Heaven, or in my PC, which I call Hell.

I thought it would be fun to every now and then give them conflicting messages, via prophets, about what they need to do to reach the Mac. I made sure that there was no way they could get any real evidence of the existence of my other two machines or even the fact that they live inside my computer. All they have to go on is the word from my prophets which, of course, they cannot differentiate from that of any other insane program (and, there are many, I'm not that good a programmer). In fact, many of my prophets are considered insane.

Oh, and in Hell I have programmed them to experience incredible levels of pain for all eternity, while in Heaven I give them similar amounts of pleasure.

So, they have formed hundred of thousands of what they call "religions" in order to figure what it all means. Of course, only one of them is right, and I am NOT telling them which one it is, even though it would be trivially easy thing for me to do. Like, I could write it in their sky with fire. But, I much prefer to watch them workship all these made-up gods of theirs and worry about whether or not they picked the correct religion. Its too bad almost all of them are going straight to Hell.

Yes, I am one sadistic son-of-a-bitch.

But, please, just call me God.

The best part is, I am constantly creating new programs just so I can send them (sorry, so they can choose the wrong religion and I am forced to send them) to Hell.

Yup, there is no need for a Satan when you've got me around!
The Awakened | 08.19.05 - 8:44 pm | #

Steve, the concepts of freedom and equality didn't come from the gospels. I can quote phrases there that promote both slavery and the submission of women, among other things. Freedom and Equality are concepts that got derived from free thought, not religion.

The doctrine of the Fall is at least partially derived from previous myths. The idea of Adam's rib was taken from a Sumerian Goddess who formed infant's bones from their mother's ribs.
Satan was derived from Sata, an egyptian god of the earth tht took the form of a serpent. The lege nd of Jesus is derived from many previous gods such as Mithras, Dionysus, all who share the same virgin birth on winter solstice and death/rebirth stories.

Will, do you really think Julia really cares whether Jesus made the pigs fall off the cliff or the demons did it? Could you say that Jesus didn't know the outcome? He's still responsible for the pig deaths.
Rob | 08.19.05 - 8:57 pm | #

Rob, as soon as we come back to Gospel interpretations the danger is always present that all we'll see is what we want to see and that is exactly what got this thread kicked off.

I'm sure you could take plenty of Gospel texts and use them to support the claims you have just made above and the rest of us could just as easily come in with stuff to refute what you say. However if you want to look truly objectively at the Gospels for evidence of equality and freedom start with the Sermon on The Mount - once described by Sir Winston Churchill (definitely a man of progress) as the world's greatest speech. And from the Sermon on The Mount go to Christ's words at the crucifixion, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." If you don't have forgiveness you end up with revenge and progress - the end point of every other religion including atheistic Communism, which make no mistake is a religion.

But as has been either stated explicitly or inferred in the foregoing comments, it all comes down to free will and either the acceptance of Christ's Redemption or the rejection of it. There is no middle ground. NONE.

Get hold of G. K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man." No don't read it it's very dangerous after all C. S. Lewis was an atheist up until he read that book.
Anonymous | 08.19.05 - 9:31 pm | #

Aw shucks. Anonymous is me again. Sorry.
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 9:32 pm | #

Steve, I was agreeing on Communism being a religion, that was the point of my rejecting Soviet Russia and North Korea as counter-examples.

Well, Steve, I have to reject the redemption. The idea that we are all sinners is a distasteful one to me. We have altruistic tendencies because its a survival instinct to be so. We do good because in the long run, it benefits us to do good. Theres no afterlife because it would make the current life meaningless. (killtheafterlife.blogspot expains the problem in more detail.)

I doubt that The Everlasting Man would change my mind, and I'd rather be reading more meaningful books. Can you summarize the points he makes?
Rob | 08.19.05 - 10:10 pm | #

"Can you summarize the points he makes?"

Not easily since he makes so many but the only way to read more something meaningful is to tackle the subject of miracles and I would start with Ruth Cranston's "The Mystery of Lourdes." Cranstone was not a Catholic so approached the subject with if anything an anti agenda. Anyway she dealt with the facts - medical and scientific facts. The book is probably no longer in print (came out in 1956?) but I'm sure there would be plenty of copies 2nd hand at abebooks.com or if you're near a halfway decent library there should be a copy available and in the meantime I'll have a gander at killtheafterlife blogspot.
Anonymous | 08.19.05 - 10:36 pm | #

Done it again haven't I. Anon is me.
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 10:37 pm | #

killtheafterlife blogspot:

I've looked, I've seen, I'm dumbfounded. It's pretty shallow Rob. All materialist dogma. Yep I know that's a dogmatic statement as well but at some stage everyone has to take a stand, everyone has to make that choice.

BTW I looked on abebooks.com and saw sixteen copies of Cranston's book. It was a Brit publication but Cranston was American.

Cheers
Another Steve | 08.19.05 - 10:58 pm | #

Just a reminder: Comments that contain personal insults will be deleted, as per my clearly posted comments rules. There's an insult above that I've allowed to stay only because someone else posted a witty rejoinder. In general, however, where rude commenters are concerned, please don't feed the animals--it'll only make me have to delete your replies as well as their comments. I thank the vast majority of you who are polite and make these comments a pleasure to read.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 11:04 pm | #

I spotted the book on the web. I just wanted to know if it was really worth my time. There's been a lot of advancements in philosophy and science since Chesterton wrote the book, after all. I'll admit to being influenced by Richard Dawkins, for example.

ABout the Lourdes thing. Carl Sagan encountered a reverse outcome:
"When Carl Sagan studied the cancer cures resulting from a visit to Lourdes, he found that the cure rate was, if anything, lower than the one for spontaneous remission. It was lower than the average for those who didn't go to Lourdes at all. (So does your chance of survival diminish after you visit the place?)"

[Rob cites a csicop.org Web page for the Sagan quote, which I've deleted, as this is too off-topic. Note to all commenters: Half of "polite discourse" (see my comments rules) is discourse. Sending readers off to other sources is not discourse. Thanks go to those commenters who stay on topic and write in their own words. — Dawn]
Rob | 08.19.05 - 11:08 pm | #

Materialist dogma, huh? Sorry, but I have to consider what you've been selling Spiritualist dogma. I fin the materialist dogma a lot more logical. I guess we can agree to disagree, I suppose.
Rob | 08.19.05 - 11:10 pm | #

Since there seem to be atheists here trying to get a grasp of christianity, might as well give you christians a chance to get a grasp of atheism.

Here is a well worded description (in Q and A form no less) for all to enjoy.

[Deleted—off topic. Seattle, if you'd like to respond to the specific issues raised in my original post or in other comments in your own words, please do so — Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Seattle Slough | Homepage | 08.19.05 - 11:14 pm | #

I know its your forum, Dawn, but I don't think the Atheist FAQ was off topic, Dawn. A bit long perhaps, but not off topic. Perhaps Slough could post a link, perhaps?
Rob | 08.19.05 - 11:31 pm | #

another steve

You propose I chose judeo-chistian.

Whcih one? I don't like judaism if only because i don't like circumcision and I like pork chops.
I prefer catholicism since this church is in step with science and no literlism related to the bible. But I don't liken its stance in abortion and marriage of priests. But after all I think is the beter because the other christian sects are very listeralistic about the bible and by doing so go against science findings. Islamism is very childish,I cannot imagine a god who award you eleven virgins or 70 special passports for heaven for your family if you become a martyr. If I decide convert to catholicism ( I'm not sure) it won't be for that of The Fall. This is nonsense. Catholicism for me has nothing to do with the old testament.Catholicism is the new testament and christ. If you'd leave the old testament to jews, christianism would discharge a lot of nonsense. Buddishm is nice because has phisical experiences tha you ccan combine wit spiritual ones but of course it lacks "explanation"
lookin | 08.20.05 - 12:13 am | #

Rob, the Atheist FAQ is off-topic. If someone posted a link to the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church here, I'd delete it as well. If there's a specific point in the Atheist FAQ that addresses a specific point in my post or in another reader's comment, Seattle is free to print whatever is necessary to back his point. This is a comments section, not a literary dumping ground.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 12:17 am | #

OK, I'm back. Was looking at what I wrote last. figured out what Another Steve didn't like about killtheafterlife.blogspot. My question to him then is Why do you need a belief in the spirit? Why isn't the material world enough? I guess thats a question for lookin as well for anyone else. My guess is that its an "Is that all there is" syndrome. But to think that it isn't all there is, isn't logic. Its a wish.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 12:30 am | #

Isn't atheism a wish too Rob?

The wish to have all the sex and other sinful pleasures you can fit into the day without any consequences?
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 1:10 am | #

Rob said, "When Carl Sagan studied the cancer cures resulting from a visit to Lourdes, he found that the cure rate was, if anything, lower than the one for spontaneous remission. It was lower than the average for those who didn't go to Lourdes at all."

Rob I'm baffled to think that Carl Sagan or you could think that anyone going to Lourdes for a cure is automatically cured. I'm sure you never meant that. This is a huge subject - many of the cures that have been authenticated have had nothing to do with cancers: in fact the most spectacular ones are those that involve open tubercular lesions and deformities which have cleared in the space of a day, sometimes minutes. Anyway get Cranston's book and see for yourself.

This thread started with somebody who couldn't get their head around a particular NT miracle but miracles didn't stop after the death of St John the Evangelist which is why I'm prepared to debate the issue of miracles occurring in our own time.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 1:16 am | #

'Lookin' I'm not sure if you're for real or not. If you are serious, get hold of a New Testament and read Matthew chapter 5, verse 17. They are the words of Jesus Christ stating the link between Judaism and the new Faith. One is an extension of the other: like seeing the second act of a play after the first.
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 1:22 am | #

Oh and another thing Rob. You said, "I find the materialist dogma a lot more logical."

If Dogma was logical it wouldn't be dogma. Dogma is the guardian of mystery, so I suppose you're right. Atheism being a faith (albeit a mighty negative faith) is a mystery.
Another Steve | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 1:27 am | #

No Billy, its not a wish. Whats the wish? To wish that something that shows no evidence of being real doesn't exist? Seems a little silly to me. Though maybe it doesn't to you. You seem to think just because we don't believ e we have a god watching over our head that we're less moral. That is not the case. Frankly, I think Atheists are more moral because we don't believe we suffer the consequences of an afterlife.

Another Steve, is this book mostly anecotal evidence? Thats sort of a problem. If I started to believe all the anecdotal evidence that came along without some way to verify it scientifically, I'd become a very gullible person. i'd have to believe Whitley Striber really did get abducted by little green men, for example. See the problem?
I don't think Sagan thought the people would be automatically cured, but I think they did think the phenomena could be scientifically tested. The skeptics may not have had faith, but the believer patients may have. Anyway, I heard Sweeney's sketch and it sounded like the lack of miracles wasn't the only thing bothering her about Christianity.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 1:48 am | #

Well, Steve, for that matter, I didn't really think the killthe afterlife blog was dogma, I typed that too hastily and I was just mimicing your words. Its materialist philosophy, not dogma.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 1:51 am | #

rob, spirit is a complicated word, Would you as atheist, have not "spirit-soul-mind" whatever you desire to call it?. An strict materialist approach will never, strictly, and for the time being exclude the role of concioussnes, and more when conciousnes has a material base:you brain. For me, spirit, soul. and mind are exactly the same :the product of a wole brain in acction and especially the cortex. Is Nothing miraculous, insufflated by god an under risk on being perpetually fry-ed in the hell if you behaves bad, Is the way for you to understand the world whee you live putting for you by biology. When you adopt a religion consciously you make a bet "there is some thing called soul that I will now onwards if that exists" But not before te compromise. You have to pay you ticket. Finally strongly desagree with the oldfashion mode of detracting pogress because reality doesn't proved it. Maybe not in the long run or trough all humankind history. But the fact is, that in the period you quote XX century, the balance was for progress. Put Te bad an the good and you find, I will help you. iN THE bad: Two terible wars including revolutions and massacres. Atomic and H bombs. The equilibrium of teror. Hitler, Mao,Castro,polpot.

THE GOOD: Technology, the transistor, the moon, the planes (in 1901 there were no planes) THE autos, the truck, the green revolution who stopped famine Asia. the revolution in techniques an medicines (remenber penciline; BEFORe It THE RISK yOU DIe FOR A INFECTIOn WAS 60%.
In the social field, prjucides receded.
Afteernazis,jews live peacefulii, blacks has got equall rights, womans han benn empoweered, Not beeing for the outbust of terorism, I coul say the worl wqs nevr better, This,pleass rememeer, is a relative concept. i.e antes erasmos pocos y teniamos batate problemas: hambr, racismo, etc. Hoy somos ma y tenemos menos hambre, mens recosmos, tratamos mejor a las mujere, hay menos dictatorships y la gente dies older. SO iwould'be so pesimisytic
lookin | 08.20.05 - 2:03 am | #

Lookin', we don't have a control group to show what things would be like if religion had less of an influence. For all I know with a more secular population, the period between 500 to 1500 would have had more progress made and we'd have colonized Jupiter at this point. Its all conjecture and theres no way to show exactly what would happen.
I do know that many events, discoveries and inventions such as the American Revolution, theory of relativity, were by secular people. George Washington was a Deist, for example. He didn't believe in a personal god. Usually religion tends to hinder change. (Keep in mind that this was before the theory of evolution and the big bang. You have to go with the theory of some creator without the knowledge of these things.)

Lookin', I won't say that religions are totally bad. There's probably a genetic disposition that favored religious people in the past. When we had less knowledge about the universe than we do now, it may have been needed to motivate people to go on quests.

I think though, that we're ready to outgrow religions. To find out what the real answers are instead of following an old book fulll of myths.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 2:29 am | #

tradition to the three final lines:

"i.e prior we were few, and we had
enough problems. we Had : hunger an famine in Asia, racism specially in usa but not only. Today we are more and have less hunger, less racism, women save in Muslim countries, have elevate his importance, and generally people dies older which is an indirect measurement of better alimenting and beater systems of health. So I cannot be pessimistic and pay 10% OF ATENTION TO WATH SAY The media. To be agnostics as may parents, don't work for me,I am a gambler.To be an atheist self impose on youself limitation material and spiritual. Have you see the profound perturbation on a matron o beverly hill when some body tel her he is islamic? Imagine if you Say you are aheist. That is the material. The sprirual is that you are denayng youself a last recourse in a very difficulty situation when only the azar or probabilities can operate on your behalf. YOu need
somebody Who helpes you -GOD?.
lookin | 08.20.05 - 2:37 am | #

Can we at least pretend to give the god of spelling and grammar some respect?
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 2:46 am | #

Rob, how can you believe in the existence of any morality if you don't believe in God?
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 2:49 am | #

I consider myself a very moral person. I do not need to BELIEVE in morality or a God to distinguish right from wrong, it's just a matter of common sense.
Bucket | 08.20.05 - 3:21 am | #

The webmasters and moderators should be ashamed of themselves for banning people who have opposing view points. [Such as the viewpoint that one should break clearly posted rules? Remember, commenters, please don't feed the animals. Thanks for your cooperation — Dawn]

Roman | 08.20.05 - 3:24 am | #

oh, and haha you can't ban me...[Expletive deleted — Dawn]
Roman | 08.20.05 - 3:24 am | #

"haha, you can't ban me..." Sit back and watch it happen, bunkie.

As for "The Awakened," I fear you labor under a false assumption - that humans are capable of doing nothing. Your little computer program analogy gives it all away; a program has no power to choose, but we do.

You also state that you send errors into the little program world, so you get to condemn your programs to Hell. God does not do this with us; we're the ones who decide (as you have done with your post) to invent all sorts of preposterous ways of looking at life.

From your account that might mean that faith itself is one of the absurdities. I suppose that you deserve full credit for this flash of enlightenment, even if it must have been inserted into your brain from without by the Great Programmer in the Sky.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 3:42 am | #

Rob wrote, "is this book mostly anecotal evidence?"

Definitely not. Cranston's book is very well researched. As I say go read it.


Oh and by the way you mentioned, "Keep in mind that this was before the theory of evolution and the big bang." Just to keep you up with the play. The theory of the Big Bang (it's nick name) was put forward by Georges Lemaitre in the 1930s. Actually his name was Father Lemaitre - he was a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist and Albert Einstein considered Lemaitre's theory to be brilliant.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 3:52 am | #

Roman, there can be no one more delusional than those who delude themselves into thinking that quite spontaneously nothing turned itself into everything. At least Christians believe that an admittedly unthinkable God was behind it all: but then I suppose it could be argued that Nothing is another name for God - for some people.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 4:03 am | #

I pray for Julia and all the visiting atheistsagnostics that they read or reread the Bible and come back to God. I think it's great that they came to this site because I believe the Holy Spirit has drawn them here.

To Julia I'd like to say that God's ways are unfathomable and mysterious to us, so please don't reject Him when He doesn't conform to our modern-day notions and expectations. And if there are stumbling blocks to your faith (and we all have them), then please try to focus more on the biggies (eg Triune God, God incarnate, resurrection) rather than being put off by minor ones.

Hannah
hannah | 08.20.05 - 5:35 am | #

Roman's advice. "Don't take anything on faith."

Well Roman you obviously haven't taken that on board yourself since Atheism IS a faith and as I've repeatedly said here, a mighty negative faith at that.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 6:20 am | #

"Yet you expect Christ's audience to believe that the demons were destroyed without any visible evidence whatsoever!"

Yes, it would be ludicrous for Christians to believe in something without any visible evidence whatsoever. Perish the very thought of it.
Philip | 08.20.05 - 7:42 am | #

Another Steve. Atheism is not a faith. (And Steve, I was referring to Washington's embrace of Deism, The idea that there is a creator god, but that he doesn't get personally involved. It was not a reference to your silly book.) Baldness is not a haircolor as the analogy goes. The Big Bang Theory is not quite how "nothing turned into everything" as you put it. While anything that happened before the big bang is pure conjecture, one popular theory is the oscillating universe theory, that the big bang is followed from a big crunch, the death of the previous universe, so our universe is the remains of the previous universe, which was the remains of the universe before that, etc. Theres also the black holes that are considered to rip holes in space time. The energy inside could be in fact the start of another universe. I don't claim to know exactly what the pre-big bang history of the multiverse was, but a singularity isn't "nothing".
Rob | 08.20.05 - 7:50 am | #

Whats funny is that I have heard Occam's Razor used to explain the existence of God. I have had miracles happen in my life, big and small (from hundreds of white roses washing up on shore when I asked God if he really wanted me to accept Christ into my heart to getting random emails from people I don't know, and who don't know me when I told God I was lonely and needed a friend). I think in the case of many miracles Occam's Razor points to God. Or else you have to be a huge believer in coincidences.
sarah | 08.20.05 - 9:32 am | #

Roman, if you don't grow up or stop posting, you will only succeed in having the comments shut down completely.
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 10:31 am | #

BillyHW, you ask how I can believe in morality if theres no god. I think that natural selection tends to favor moral behavior over immoral behavior.
Have you ever heard of the tit for tat simulation?

[Link deleted. Say it without relying on an external link — or don't say it at all. If you do use an external link, explain in your own words why it's relevant. Otherwise, it's not discourse. See my clearly posted comments rules. — Dawn]
Rob | 08.20.05 - 12:15 pm | #

The reason why Occam's razor is faulty in explaining the existance of God, is that it doesn't really explain god. Sure, you can say he's there, but how does his power work? Where does he get his energy source to fuel his miracles? What is he made of? Spiritual energy? Where is that supposed to come from? How does spiritual energy get created or destroyed? This "god" has to be a more complex being than you or me, why doesn't he need an intelligent designer?
Rob | 08.20.05 - 12:25 pm | #

I do wish that this latest crop of atheists had taken the time to read the comments, particularly the excellent post made by Kate (12 or so posts above).

Let me reiterate. God is ... is a proposition. Propositions are either true or false. God is not ... also a proposition which is either true or false. Neither is ultimately provable but one does make decisions based on the available evidence. Obviously both sides think that they have abundant evidence. I know why I and millions of others believe that God exists and that Christianity faithfully reveals Him.

I for one would like to hear the atheists tell us what *evidence* they have for the proposition that God does not exist. Simply telling us that the Bible is wrong in this or that place, doesn't do it. Even if it were proved to be the work of a madman locked in a closet in 1933, that would not prove that God does not exist.
Colleen | 08.20.05 - 12:44 pm | #

Colleen, you are right that it is unprovable that god doesn't exist or not....

However... we're not talking about all possible types of gods, but a personal god that is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (Any other omnis I missed?) That is what is represented by a Judeo christian god. And such a god carries with it so many contradictions that it cannot exist.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 1:07 pm | #

Rob, if morality is just a vestige of the evolutionary process, why then follow it? What's the point?

You acknowledge some sort of "right and wrong" but utterly refuse to acknowledge any kind of sexual morality. You're confused.

If morality is a product of evolution, how do you explain humans caring for and loving the disabled among us? How do you explain the only sexual morality that is common to both the left and right: that sex ought to be "consensual". Nothing in the animal kingdom would suggest that evolution could produce that sort of behaviour.
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 1:08 pm | #

"How can a good all-powerful God allow evil and suffering?

Therefore God cannot exist."

Rob, has it ever occured to you that there is another possible explanation?

Christianity is the only religion that has an explanation. And that explanation is most developed in the Catholic Church.
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 1:13 pm | #

Rob, you jumped over a whole bunch of intervening hurdles in order to conclude "However... we're not talking about all possible types of gods, but a personal god that is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (Any other omnis I missed?) That is what is represented by a Judeo christian god. And such a god carries with it so many contradictions that it cannot exist.

This is simply not self-evident. A God who is not omnipotent and omniscent is irrelevant. He/she/it is meaningless. If he/she/it isn't benevolent, he would not earn any respect, much less love. We would simply fear him (unless he has no power, etc.). So you haven't made any argument at all, much less a persuasive one for your side.

Again, what is your evidence that God does not exist?
Colleen | 08.20.05 - 2:04 pm | #

I replied to you and got a server error. There's the whole problem of evil existing if an all good all powerful entity is running the show. What kind of opposition can exist for such an entity? I can'to see evil even existing under such a case.
And before you go into me about free will, isn't it better to suspend free will for a time to keep a murderer from committing a crime than to allow the murder? The victim has free will too, you know. I think such an entity that you describe can only exist in a perfect world. The world is not perfect, therefore god does not exist.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 3:20 pm | #

Yes, it would be ludicrous for Christians to believe in something without any visible evidence whatsoever. Perish the very thought of it.

This is part of why Christ became man and died, and then rose again. Much like in healing the demoniac, this gave physical proof of the cost of evil, paid in full. But unlike the pigs, Christ rose and was seen again.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 4:06 pm | #

I would just like to thank you for considering the atheist way of life...

For a while religion never made sense to me....never will.

Too many assumptions, interpretations, scandals, and bad morals passing as good ones.

We all know (Logical people) that the bible isnt close to being accurate.

Jesus MAY have existed, Jesus MAY have been a good man....but if today a man claimed to be the son of god.....would he be taken seriously?

Faith is the surrender of the mind.....the surrender of logic.

Keep strong Julia.

~A-A~
Ethical Atheist | 08.20.05 - 4:48 pm | #

collen

somebody in this world who thinks that earth is flat would be insane or absolute ignorant. Why?: It's definitely proved the earth is more or less round.

How come that after 2000 years and with so powerful sponsor as The Father, 85% of the people on the planet don't believe in Christ as God. Are they insane or ignorant? or is a problem of PR?
lookin | 08.20.05 - 5:24 pm | #

The Big Bang Theory is not quite how "nothing turned into everything" as you put it.

Rob, I emphatically deny saying that. I just wanted to enlighten you that somebody with (probably) a great deal higher IQ than you exhibit put forward the so called Big Bang theory and that furthermore that person (Georges Lemaitre) was both a physicist and a loyal Catholic priest.

(Commenter would like to stick tongue out but is afraid to lest he incur the wrath of Dawn.)
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 5:26 pm | #

30% of the world is Christian
sarah | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 6:03 pm | #

Another Steve, Didn't you type "those who delude themselves into thinking that quite spontaneously nothing turned itself into everything?"

Am I missing something? It sounded like you were misrepresenting how people view the big bang theory to me. If not, then I apologize.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 6:21 pm | #

Ye gads, Rob got a server error and I just pressed a key accidentally that erased my powerful and unanswerable argument for the existence of God. What a bummer.

Seriously, Rob-- the existence of evil and the existence of pain has always been a powerful stumbling block for many people. It was for most of us, too.

If I think about just the latest children murdered by pedophiles in horrific ways, it makes me want to shed their killers' blood in the most disgusting way possible. But why do I feel that way? What is there in reality that enables me to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the way the world is supposed to be? If it is supposed to be this way, what is my beef?

And, what is it that makes me know that I must not act on my emotional response to horrific acts?

You wrote "And before you go into me about free will, isn't it better to suspend free will for a time to keep a murderer from committing a crime than to allow the murder? The victim has free will too, you know

Free will suspended, when I am about to exercise it, is free will denied. There either is or is not free will. Of course, we believe that God has and does intervene in many, many, situations to prevent the seemingly obvious outcome but that is not predictable.

We are now in the realm of the nature of reality. A number of years ago I was in grad school taking a bunch of philosophy courses that were dismissive of theism. However, friends kept challenging me to read the Bible. I finally came to a point when I realized that its description of the nature of man was consistent with my own observations and beliefs. Once I got to that point, other things started making sense ...

I do rejoice that you care about the existence of evil and hate it. So does God. You may be much closer to us than you suspect.
Colleen | 08.20.05 - 6:30 pm | #

"Free will suspended, when I am about to exercise it, is free will denied. There either is or is not free will."
I disagree. You are trying to create a false dichotomy. In any case, are you stating that the free will of the murderer is more important than the victim's life?

Of course, we believe that God has and does intervene in many, many, situations to prevent the seemingly obvious outcome but that is not predictable."
Ah, the god moves in mysterious ways idea. The problem with this idea is that it implies that this is the best possible world. What does that leave for heaven?

Incidently if evil is a by-product of free-will and evil cannot exist in heaven, does that mean that free-will cannot exist in heaven? Why do we suddenly stop sinning in heaven?

Speaking of the bible, did you read all the bizarre bits such as all the mayhem in Judges, or just the good stuff? A lot of atheists are ex-theists that read the bible more carefully and got turned off.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 7:02 pm | #

isn't it better to suspend free will for a time to keep a murderer from committing a crime than to allow the murder?

Is there a third option?
Anonymous | 08.20.05 - 7:43 pm | #

Incidently if evil is a by-product of free-will and evil cannot exist in heaven, does that mean that free-will cannot exist in heaven? Why do we suddenly stop sinning in heaven?

I feel like we've just joined in on a two thousand year long conversation that still hasn't gotten anywhere.

Rob, have you even tried to find the answers to these questions yourself, or do expect everyone (including God) to spoon feed you for your entire life?
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 7:52 pm | #

Too many assumptions, interpretations, scandals, and bad morals passing as good ones.

I'd become an atheist but there's too many assumptions, misinterpretations, scandals, and bad morals passing as good ones.

That, and the fact that history's three greatest monsters were atheists. The hundred million plus murdered dead people in the 20th century really turned me off atheism.

Ethical Atheist

Funny how you have to add the adjective, lest anyone should confuse you with any of the more well-known atheists.
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 7:58 pm | #

Hey, I'm not a member of the religion that claims to have all the answers but doesn't. Frankly, there are more questions than there are answers, Billy.


Yeah, there is a third option, Anony, God could create a well "act of god" and prevent the murderer from reaching the victim that way. God could have prevented the murderer from being born in the first place and saving such a murderer an afterlife of torment in hell. God could remove the reason for why the murderer wants to attack the victim in the first place. So many options, and yet murders still occur. For someone who is infinitely benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he sure doesn't do much, but I wanted to tackle this free will idea since I figured someone would bring it up if I brought along this line of thinking.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 8:06 pm | #

Billy, Hitler was not an atheist. Google hitler and atheist and look at the straight dope link.
Rob | 08.20.05 - 8:08 pm | #

Ethical Atheist said, "For a while religion never made sense to me....never will."

EA, I'm not surprised you can't make sense of it, after all you can't make sense of your own religion - Atheism.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 8:09 pm | #

Rob:
The proper exercise of free will is to always will what God wills. That isn't possible until we have been received in heaven. We won't get there until we have been perfected. Hence, no sinning either.

I would recommend CS Lewis (not just his Mere Christianity but also the The Problem of Pain. Because he was writing to reach the less educated, as well as those who were educated, you may find his prose a bit simple. But it is lively. You may find enough in what he says to answer many of your questions and help you understand us better.

You remarked Speaking of the bible, did you read all the bizarre bits such as all the mayhem in Judges, or just the good stuff? A lot of atheists are ex-theists that read the bible more carefully and got turned off. Bishop Ulfila left Judges out when he translated the Bible in to Gothic (ca 350) because he felt the Goths were plenty warlike already, thank you.

Doesn't that tell you something about the Bible? Don't you get that it isn't a Sunday School text or a philosophy text? It is a book of poetry, history, reportage, myths, etc. It reflects the history and times of its authors and is, first and foremost, a record of what God has done in particular places, in particular circumstances. It is, above all, a book for adults.

Anyone who wants sweetness and light needs to look elsewhere.
Colleen | 08.20.05 - 8:23 pm | #

Please please you Atheists, be reasonable. Contrast and compare the following.
A definition of Universal Justice (look for it in the Sermon on The Mount: Matt. 5: 7-9)

With Darwinian Evolutionary theory, i.e. Natural Selection/Survival of The Fittest/Force.

The two don't match. You have to be stupid to think Universal Justice could be the product of Natural Selection.

Do we really have to traipse all the way back through what the earlier comments have covered? Go on admit it. For as long as your rear end points downward you are going to have to look to some other worldly explanation for Justice - otherwise you're stuck with a genetic basis.

Somewhere I saw on the Dawn Patrol reference to some cynical scientist claiming he'd never discovered a 'soul' at the bottom of a test tube. Pity the people who heard that weren't quick enough to challenge him by asking if he'd ever come across a 'mind' at the bottom of a test tube.

You people are going precisely nowhere with yourselves as your God.

God bless and Cheers
Oh and Pax.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 8:30 pm | #

That was me by the way, not anonymous.

Yeah, there is a third option, Anony, God could create a well "act of god" and prevent the murderer from reaching the victim that way.

Sure but if he did that all the time, well, that would make the concept of free will pretty ridiculous wouldn't it.

God could have prevented the murderer from being born in the first place and saving such a murderer an afterlife of torment in hell.

But then there would be no creation. You are correct, God could have chosen not to create, but we see clearly that he did. People (and murderers) exist.

God could remove the reason for why the murderer wants to attack the victim in the first place.

Same as the response to your first suggestion.

So many options

But you're still missing the correct one.

and yet murders still occur.

Hint: In the correct answer, the murders still happen.

For someone who is infinitely benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he sure doesn't do much,

Maybe he's doing a lot, but you just can't see it. It's not unknown for God to hide himself from the arrogant.

but I wanted to tackle this free will idea since I figured someone would bring it up if I brought along this line of thinking.

Great! Keep looking for the right answer.
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 9:00 pm | #

Wow, great contrast Steve, one is a scientific theory, the other is religious dogma. Do you think any of us really use evolution as a law book? When I talked about morality, I was just pointing out how being moral is a more fit behavior, so the idea that good and evil came from god isn't necessary. Now, just because helping society is beneficial for our survival doesn't mean we shouldn't write it into law. And accrediting the law to a god tends to strengthen it.

"Pity the people who heard that weren't quick enough to challenge him by asking if he'd ever come across a 'mind' at the bottom of a test tube."
I don't know what you are getting at here. We don't claim that a mind is seperable from the body.
Do you really think we consider ourselves God, Steve? It sounds like you really have some issues. (If thats too close to a personal attack, sorry Dawn.)
Rob | 08.20.05 - 9:24 pm | #

Personal attacks don't bother me Rob. Yes of course I've got some issues, haven't you? And the biggest issue is the false pernicious dogma of Materialism and the people who promote it.
Ever been inside the Sistine Chapel Rob? If you ever get there be sure to look up.
Anonymous | 08.20.05 - 9:41 pm | #

That Anonymous is the cookie-less Another Steve, isn't it?

Please, everyone, I realize we're discussing what some people (myself included) believe to be the most important thing in the world—but remember, this is only a comments thread on a blog.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.20.05 - 9:44 pm | #

Woe is me. Anon is me.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 9:44 pm | #

Sorry Dawn.
Another Steve | 08.20.05 - 9:45 pm | #

Billy, I know the right answer. Its that there is no god. (Or that god is actually evil, I don't believe anyone deserves eternal suffering whatever the crime. And the implication that they put themselves there doesn't make the idea of hell even more appealing.)

But lets get to this "its not unknown for god to hide himself from the arrogant" response. I find it curious that an omnipotent, omni-etc. god would really care what the arrogant or anyone for that matter would think of him, but then again there are a lot of strange human traits. So he actively hides his presence from us. Interesting.
Tell me, is god's goal the salvation of all mankind or isn't it? Shouldn't he be trying more to convince me or say, James Randi of his evidence than his believers. No one is beyond salvation, isn't that correct?
Rob | 08.20.05 - 9:46 pm | #

Rob:
No one is beyond salvation, unless he puts himself beyond salvation. Heaven forbid that you should find the idea of hell appealing!

The always quotable CS Lewis wrote a novel in which he showed how easy it was for people offered heaven, to choose hell because they didn't want to give up their petty complaints and animosities. But always, it was their choice. That is a pretty good analogy to our actual state. And we can hope that, by the mercy of God, those who chose hell will be happier there than they would be in Heaven.

Actually, I wonder what it would take to convince you or James Randi? Would a man executed for a crime who then comes back to life three days later to eat and drink with his friends do it? If not, what would?
Colleen | 08.20.05 - 10:38 pm | #

Billy, I know the right answer. Its that there is no god.

Maybe. Maybe you're completely right. Maybe the answer to the problem of suffering is that there is no God. But there is still an option 3.

An option that permits God to exist, to be all good, and to permit free will (and the resultant suffering that comes with that free will).

Certainly your answer that God does not exist is a possible solution to this conundrum. I just want you to recognize that there is another solution to the problem of suffering that you haven't heard of. You think you have it all down with the logic and that your argument is water-tight, but you are missing one other possibility.

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that the Problem of Evil was the single greatest argument atheists had in their arsenal. The objections you bring up Rob are not new. This is an age old question. Philosophers were having this very same discussion thousands of years ago. It just happens that Christianity has found another answer to the Problem of Evil. Frankly, I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it.

I'm not sure if I want to start another discussion on the nature of hell or the concept of "salvation" and God's role in it. That would be a great discussion certainly, but perhaps another time and place. I'd rather just finish up this conversation we're having on the existence of God and the Problem of Evil and then leave it at that.
BillyHW | 08.20.05 - 11:15 pm | #

Colleen, thats a tough question. I don't completely trust my own ability to discern the real from the fake. Thats why I mentioned James Randi, professional skeptic/magician. After all, if I see that seemingly impossible scene, I'd try to see if it wasn't a look alike or someone wearing prothetics/makeup to look like the executed man. I'm sure this hypothetical god can create a miralcle that can't be explained by trickery or self deception though. After all, such a god is infinitely creative, right?
Rob | 08.20.05 - 11:32 pm | #

If I think about just the latest children murdered by Religious Freaks in horrific ways, it makes want to isolate them and their insanity in a safe place where they can no longer hurt anyone else in the name of their violent delusional gods.

Demons! LMAO!!!

And btw, I read several people (unblievable! LOL!) ask Julie how she thought the pigs "decided" to go lemming and they proferred that it had to have been Jebus! That is so dang smokin' funny I almost couldn't imagine how someone able to hold a job could be so gullible! Hilarious!

Well, except that it's the same kind of insanity that lets psychotics bomb medical clinics and train stations.

If any pigs went over any cliffs (highly unlikely to begin with if it weren't in ancient Judaea) it was cuz people drove them over. Occam's freakin' razor folks!

Let yer Santa Christ go already. You're no longer children and are woefully irresponsible in your juvenile and willfully ignorant beliefs.

Oh, and have a beauty day eh!
MBains | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 4:49 am | #

And BillieHW,

the single greatest TOOL atheist, no, Homo Sapiens has in its "arsenal" is honesty: what is it that I am actually and definitively observing?

The honest answer is frequently "I don't know." So we can observe and test and observe and verify with more testing and observation and Peer Review. Religion, including the sophistry of the extremely intelligent Aquinas, HAS BEEN thoroughly debunked using this method.

Sure there might still be a creator. Until our species gets a more comprehensive understanding of the Quantum processes, we simply won't be able to test that hypothesis.
MBains | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 4:57 am | #

You can't argue the justice or kindness exists for the benefit of society within the Theory of Evolution. Within the theory of evolution you do what is best for YOU not society, you want to advance your own personal genes, not your species, and as I explained before altruism is a self-defeating trait.
sarah | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 9:40 am | #

Not so. Look at Dawkins' summary of evolutionary stable strategies in "The Selfish gene". (I know he's as big an atheist as we come, but even theists admit he's good on biology). This was published 30 years ago! Get with the programme.
A lot of these theist arguments against evolution seem to be on the lines of "I don't like it, so it can't be true".
Tim | 08.21.05 - 10:48 am | #

Exactly Tim.

Survival of the Socially Fittest is WingNuts game. It has nothing to do with evolution of species and everything to do with Reactionary Politics.

Altruism is, at its core, about ensuring the survival of the community/tribe. ONE of the first things necessary to enable one's ability to be altruistic is that one Takes Responsibility for One's Self and Actions. Personal Responsibility leads to altruisim and is a empirically observable fact of reality.
MBains | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 12:36 pm | #

Rob,

It sounds like you're admitting that nothing can convince you that God exists. Really? Sort of an anti-faith if you will.

Btw, knowing that God exists doesn't guarantee obedience. Lucifer, for example.
Hannah | 08.21.05 - 4:14 pm | #

A lot of these theist arguments against evolution seem to be on the lines of "I don't like it, so it can't be true".

Yes, there are a lot of honest old fools that need blessings. But it's probably not too surprising to hear that Intelligent Design is suspect in theist circles as well.

The flaw is that much of ID boils down to, "It can't be explained, therefore it's God." Well, what happens when we learn to explain more and more? That leaves less and less ground for God to act, and the athiests rightly think that, given enough time (and Science), they will succeed in driving Him from the field.

Which brings us to MBains' argument that we've cooked up God, rather than the other way around. Of all people, Rob is the one who's refuted it most cleanly - because if we're the inventors, we seem to have done a lousy job.

Chesterton, I think, offers an answer for Rob when he talks about Christianity as the key that opens the human heart - we are quite complicated and our world, more so, as there are so many of us working in it (for good or harm). One would expect the key to this lock to be very intricate, much as the equations governing complex physics and mathematics are themselves complex.

He also suggests in the same book that God doesn't confine Himself to the unexplainable. To paraphrase, "A million daisies are the same, not because of boredom, but because God never tires of making them the same way. A child will demand, 'Do it again!' of some mundane trick until the adult is nearly dead from doing it. God, perhaps, never tires of saying 'Do it again!' to the sun each morning, and 'Do it again!' to the moon each night. But we have sinned and grown old, and Our Father is younger than us."

That strikes me as plausible, if prosaic. God is certainly a masterful designer to have made everything we see workable, governed by such complexity as it takes our finest minds, working in concert, centuries to attempt to describe. But it's all very beautiful work too. I think of Him first as an artist and second as a scientist. ID? Eh. That's not even the point.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 4:23 pm | #

"Well, with the VAST majority of the nearly 7 billion souls on this rock praying to some sort of "imaginary friend," as you put it, wouldn't it be much more logical to assume the psychological defect resides elsewhere?"

History is rife with individuals or groups with extremely different points of view from the VAST majority who turn out to be quite correct. Just because an idea like an omnipotent invisible friend, with many (100's) of different variants and interpretations is practiced by most people doesn't make it so. Popularity is not evidence. It's not even truth. It's just popularity. I do like the way you use people who's ideology you wouldn't dream of actually supporting to support your flimsy point though. You believers crack me up.
Roi Trieux | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 4:30 pm | #

Roi, kindly turn down your sarcasm and lose the insults if you wish to continue posting here. See my clearly posted comments rules.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 4:32 pm | #

Just watched Ran with my baby's Mama. It's the Japanese adaptation of King Lear. Had a thought during one of the horseback battle scenes... Every ancient culture has several pieces of art and clothes that depict man using horses as transportation. Adorning cloth with color, and even using cloth in the first place along with structure, fire, iron, etc... All these things came independently to all people of all continents. Some were better than others at it sooner to be sure, but still the basic ideas were similar. Yet where worship is concerned, they all came up with something different. I mean all of them. Why do you suppose that is (no sarcasm, I would really like to know what you think)? Lacking the tools and intellect needed to understand the world around them, they invented a god or goddess to explain. Many came up with the multi-god explanation for multi-phenomena. They carried these until they were conquered by another different god believing sect.
Roi Trieux | Homepage | 08.21.05 - 9:11 pm | #

There are a lot of assumptions in that comment of yours Roi. Until you trash them, i.e. start with a clean slate, you won't be going anywhere, because they'll always be blocking your way.
Another Steve | 08.21.05 - 10:49 pm | #

What assumptions exactly? I'm also not clear on what I'm trashing either. Please elaborate. This has always been a bit of a problem for me. The times I've sincerely asked questions, my answer has always been either cryptic, or requires me to completely rewrite my understanding of history and the world around me. My example of the varied god or gods steam from logic. If there is another equally plausible explanation, I'd be interested in hearing it. You've latched onto my closing statement with little or no regard to the meat of the post. Why did everyone come up with a different god? Some continents being so large, there'd be different gods for different regions even.
Roi Trieux | Homepage | 08.22.05 - 9:55 am | #

...the concepts of [political] freedom and equality didn't come from the gospels.

I agree with this. Which is why, when you treat them as Gospel, you end up with planned parenthood, Auschwitz, and the gulags.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.22.05 - 10:01 am | #

Roi - let me try to tackle the "different gods" concept, from my non-anthropology background.

God is always speaking to us, and at all times. I think that different people developed differences in their metaphysics because each group, having somewhat different circumstances and a different group character, were able to more clearly understand different aspects of that message. (In the same way, major events are often remembered quite differently by different eyewitnesses, depending on where they were standing, what they were doing when the event occurred, and so on.)

So a panoply of gods could be as different as those of the Norse, Greek, and Egyptian cultures; each of those people responded to different parts of the message, but the other parts are often still there. The idea that a god could die and then rise again, for example, comes in quite often. The need for sacrifice for atonement is nearly universal - offering that which is most precious, leading some to monstrous errors such as offering their own children. (Right question, horrifically wrong answer.)

We tend to notice, on first contact, the differences and not the similarities. But human nature has certain universal properties. Despite the differences in the various people, they are all people, all of one kind of thing.

Likewise, the similarities in the various religions suggest that there is one God that everyone's looking for, but have looked in different ways. With the rise of Judaism comes the idea that there is only One of God, and the kind of conduct he wants; then, with Christ, comes the idea that this law is not meant only for one people, but all people. For this reason the early Church became known as catholic (small c, "universal").

As time went on, the Catholic Church's missionaries and theologians have taken many of the aspects of other people's faiths and fitted them back into the whole, correcting the distortions along the way. A people used to celebrating the rebirth of life in spring could easily get with celebrating the Resurrection; a people with many smaller and lesser gods (including some that had been mortals) could understand the idea of the saints; the many many people with the idea of a blessed afterlife for the righteous were relieved to find that this was a true insight.

Hope that makes it a little clearer.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.22.05 - 11:54 am | #

Auschwitz: committed by Jesus-worshipping Socialist-Nationalists.

Gulags: committed by state-worshipping Communist-Nationalists.

Planned Parenthood: committed by caring humane people.

One abortion saves two lives. But one religion destroys millions of lives.
AK | Homepage | 08.22.05 - 11:55 am | #

Auschwitz: committed by Jesus-worshipping Socialist-Nationalists.

Um, yeah, OK. Those wacky Nazis were always attending Mass.

I wasn't making a point about religion-irreligion though, I was making a point about treating political freedom and equality as Gospel, as the highest form of permissable truth rather than as political objects of some value but only in the service of higher goods: a distinct side-topic raised higher in the thread.

People may not be aware of the fact that political freedom and equality were gospel truths to the Nazis and the Communists, but that can be settled by a little light reading, e.g.:-

"I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government."

-- Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 3

"The army united a people who were split up into classes: and in this respect had only one defect, which was the One Year Military Service, a privilege granted to those who had passed through the high schools. It was a defect, because the principle of absolute equality was thereby violated; and those who had a better education were thus placed outside the cadres to which the rest of their comrades belonged. "

-- Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 10

"To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energy and a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks."

-- Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Vol. I Chap. 11
Zippy | Homepage | 08.22.05 - 4:08 pm | #

"something similiar to theism."

Since I've read the commenting rules, I'll let the readers of this post come up with the next line.
jay | 08.22.05 - 9:51 pm | #

Three greatest monsters:
1) Hitler was Catholic and extolled the virtues of Christianity in making his Reich possible.
2) Stalin studied for the priesthood.
3) George W Bush professes to be a Christian.
Aaaargh | 08.24.05 - 3:17 pm | #

This whole post reminds me of the follwoing exchange in Seinfeld:
Jerry (incredulously): You prefer "dumb and lazy" to "religious"?
Elaine: "Dumb and lazy" I understand!

Dear Julia if you're reading this, since you are scandalized by the pig story (and scandalized has a different, Catholic meaning), I suggest you read
"A Severe Mercy" by Sheldon Vanauken. It's a true love story that I know will scandalize you, but it's beautiful and full of Christian truth.

Another book full of Christian truth is "He Leadeth Me" by Walter Ciszek.

I'd give them to you if I could. Reading either of these will explain better than any of us how it feels to live in faith. It's not cheap and easy, rather it's terrifyingly beautiful.

Best,
Hannah
Hannah | 08.24.05 - 9:56 pm | #