 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
I just wanted to say 'thank you' for have such an incredible refrence for atheists. I just browsed through your library section and I found more material there than I can find at my local library! I was in need of some anti-xian arguments and have found a good resource.
Once again, thank you!
Internet Infidels Response:
On behalf of all of the Internet Infidels, "you're welcome." We're glad to have supplied you with the information you needed - that's what we're here for :)
I think you're performing a great service by bringing a bit more reason into the world. You've helped "recovering fundamentalists" (which I used to be). Maybe you can help me maintain a little sanity.
I have a pretty close-knit (read: too damn close) circle of friends. They have been rallying around this one literally schizotypal girl the entire time we have known her. She sees dragons and thinks she can turn into a lycanthrope if she could just get into the right frame of mind. And then there's the usual tired philosophy of "If you think it's reality, then by golly it must be."
Now I know what you're thinking: why don't I just dump the fruitcake and find some new friends? I would prefer not to. I don't think it's necessary to go to that extreme. However, I would like to engage my friends in an intelligent conversation without having the one girl start spouting gibberish about wolf totems and unicorns and most of all herself. How do I do this (if it's possible) without having the rest of them take it as a personal attack? I don't ever want to take the "fundamentalist" approach again if it can be avoided.
Internet Infidels Response:
It sounds like it might be difficult to have an intelligent conversation with such friends. However, if you wish to let them know that you do not share their beliefs and don't want to hear about them, the best way to do so would be to just tell them as sincerely and politely as possible, and to explain to them that you do not intend your words to constitute a personal attack. If you and they are truly good friends, they shouldn't take it as a personal attack. If they do, maybe you should look for people who are more like you - people who do not demand that someone believe the same as they do before they can be friends.
In any case, good luck.
I am a junior in high school who is struggling on my project on Ben Franklin for my Honors English class. I was delighted to find a whole web page on his beliefs. I have no idea why you took the time to write all that but thanks anyway.
I am a big fan of your website. Keep up the good work, spreading the REAL good news that xianity is a bunch of nonsense.
[This message was written in response to September Feedback]
In response to the Sept. feedback posting on how to deal with members of the Religious Right (RR) who get themselves elected to school boards and the like: I believe it was Jefferson who said that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." The answer is to get involved in all the aspects of your local political scene. Find out who the candidates are well in advance, confront & challenge them at public appearances (many will be running "stealth" campaigns out of sympathetic churches); get them to state clearly and publicly their positions on issues such as organized prayer in public school, censorship of materials in public libraries, etc.; make this information known to the voters; get your friends and neighbors to the polls; vote against the RR and/or vote them out.
The RR is well-organized, disciplined, financed and trained. What they are not is a majority. Bringing them into the light is half the battle; getting as many people as possible to the polls is the key to victory against them. They know how to take advantage of low-turnout and multi-seat elections, but as long as enough people are vigilant enough they can be beaten.
If there is no League of Women Voters or Interfaith Alliance in your area, start one. If there is, encourage and support them.
[This message was written in response to 21 Actual Announcements Taken From Church Bulletins by Richard Lederer.]
As someone who spend her youth as a "preacher's (grand)kid," I can imagine reading through the announcements during an overlong sermon, finding one of thesse gems and having to stifle giggles for the remainder of the service. Or, just giving up and "making a joyful noice unto the Lord."
[This message was written in response to Editorial: Why Do Freethinkers Have to Be Sooooo Negative? by Jeffery Jay Lowder]
As a dedicated, evangelical Christian philosopher, I am impressed with your forthright attitude towards those who disagree with you on the nature of the universe. Correct you are in saying that most Christian websites do not provide links to Atheist sites, and that is a shame. It does lend the impression of being fearful of defending one's position, which need not be. I believe the debate between the two is the most far-reaching, important dialogue in philosophy. It is too bad that most people are too apathetic to realize that, and many on both sides are wallowing in ignorance.
Kudos to you, sir.
I am a young christian geologist. How do I tell Norwegian christian leaders to show humility on these subjects? Saying: What is the easyiest argument to understand for non-scientists?
If you don't know what you are talking about....................................
Than don't talk about, but rather learn about....................................
Internet Infidels Response:
Actually, none of us have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
[This is in response to Jesus Should Have Been Aborted by Jenn Shreve]
After reading the article I could not have been more amazed at how pathetic her logic is. I'll address 3 issues that seem to stick in my mind. The first is the idea of the Holy Spirit raping her. For it to be rape there must have been sexual contact; there was none. You said yourself that she was a virgin. There was in no way in consummation between Mary and the Holy Spirit. It was simply the implanting of the seed of God. Secondly, you said that she should have aborted him because of the life he would live. Remember that up until his crucifixion he was not tortured or hurt. So, what you are saying is: instead of killing him later, go ahead and kill him now? Where's the logic in that? Either way he's going to be unjustly killed. Thirdly, and most obvious is her statement about all the 'evils' that have come from Christianity. Even the most basic of philosophy students should know that you can't judge a philosophy or idea by its abusers. Jesus never condoned violence. There has been far worse damage done by atheistic philosophy. Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl said that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were developed in "the classrooms and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." In the 8th chapter of Mein Kampf Hitler explicitly states that the two pillars on which he built his social philosophy were Nietzsche and Darwin. Yet, you would think it absurd to equeate atheism with genocide. Likewise, do not state that the violence done by people claiming to be Christians is Jesus' fault.
Internet Infidels Response:
I don't speak for Jenn Shreve, but I would like to address the arguments you made against her article.
First, you state that the immaculate conception does not count as rape because there was no sexual contact between Mary and the Holy Spirit. I'm sure that, in fact, forced immaculate impregnation is not considered rape by law, but that is because no one believes such an act is possible. If it were deemed possible, then I suspect it would be considered a type of rape - the victim is after all, being impregnated, which is arguably sexual regardless of whether or not the victim is entered in the conventional human way. But perhaps this is just my opinion - perhaps you believe it is perfectly moral to impregnate a woman without her consent if you find a way to do so without entering her in a way that matches the current legal definition of rape.
Secondly, you state that if Mary were to have had an abortion to prevent Jesus from suffering later in life, she would have unjustly killed him instead of letting him be unjustly killed later. However, your objection just assumes without argument that abortion is always equivalent to unjust killing, which is precisely what Jenn was calling into question.
Finally, you state that it is wrong to judge an idea by its users. That is certainly the case, but the fact that you make this criticism against Jenn suggests that you have not bothered to read her article closely - her point is not that the violence done in Jesus' name shows that Christianity or Jesus himself was evil; her point was that had Jesus never existed, all of the violence done in his name would never have been comitted, which falls outside the domain of your criticism. Let me quote her: "I don't believe Christ would have advocated all this evil [done in his name], but because he existed, it happened...If Mary had simply chosen abortion, infinite amounts of suffering could have been alleviated."
None of any of this is to say that I advocate Jenn's thesis, or that I consider abortion good or morally acceptable (I'm undecided about the issue) - I just wanted to point out that you should be a little more careful with your own arguments before you announce in public how pathetic you believe someone else's logic is.
You must have a great deal of conviction to put forth a effort like this into print Although I must admit I find it rather unfruitful to think that if God did exist and was put into human form, Jesus, that we could possible reason with our minds the truths of a infinite God. Although we are blessed with human reason and questions to pursue I think that when we address the issue of God we have to get beyond our mental capacities and into our spiritual capacities and take things by faith. Not that I think I'm a more intellectual person than you because that would probably be false nor do I think that I intend to persuade you to my beliefs but I must also admit that when I look into the infinite landscape of our solar system or at the perfection of our own bodies that each of us have I must personally admit that these things are beyond any mental reasoning or capacities that any mortal man or group of men could possibly understand. I pray that you find what your looking for. Good luck. Thank you for your point of view.
Internet Infidels Response:
I'm not sure who your letter was intended to address, but it resonated with me, so I would like to give you a reply.
I understand how you feel that when dealing with questions about God, we should abandon reason and embrace faith. After all, if common lore is correct, then God is so far advanced beyond anything we can imagine, that there is no way human reason can touch him. However, let me try to explain why some of us still do not choose to have faith.
As well as I can explain it, the situation seems to be this: if God does not exist, then we are best off if we use reason instead of faith - having faith in something that does not exist could be dangerous, and at the very least is intellectually undesirable. Now, what if God does exist? Well, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that "we are blessed with human reason." If God does exist, he gave us our faculty of reason, and he knows that it will lead some of us to reject his existence. If he did not want this to be the case, he would either provide enough evidence to convince everyone through reason, or else he would not have given us the gift of reason in the first place. Since he wants us to use reason, we have nothing to fear from him even if it turns out that he does in fact exist, but has just hidden himself from the sight of reason. So the punch line seems to be that we have nothing to lose by using our reason, but may very well lose everything if we do not use it - this constitutes an inverted Pascal's Wager, I suppose.
Thank you for your courtesy, and for your own point of view.
Howdy from the land of religious intolerance (Oklahoma). I don't qiute know how it happened, but I am one of two Atheists in this intellectual vaccum of a state. I noticed that some material is lacking on other religions. I'm not saying that I can offer very much, only practical experience in dealing with religious fanatics of various branches of Hinduism.
I was an Embassy guard in New Delhi for about 15 months between 1993-1994. During this period, I became well aware of religious intolerance as displayed by fundamentalist Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and whatever other superstitions lurk in that damned country. They are constantly fighting for either an ethnic or religious place of their own. Just a few short years before I arrived in Delhi, the Hindus burned to death several Sikhs in open rioting in the streets. Great, more carbon in the air---just what we need.
Another place in India, Nagaland, is almost all Christian. The Nagas are a different ethnic group (Mongoloid) than most of the other Indians. This religious conversion to Christianity has been unfortunate for them. Not only do they resent the predominantly Hindu majority, but feel that they must now fight against them to create a Christian state of their own. Christianity has been nothing but a curse to these people, and they fared better as head-hunting Animists.
As for me, I don't really give much concern to humanity as a whole. I don't exactly have a positive view for the outcome of the species. So, I don't guess that I could be labeled as a Humanist. But if anybody wants to label me, I guess that "Atheist" suits me best. Another thing, that bullshit about there not being any Atheists in the military is just that----bullshit.
There were 4 other Atheists besisdes myself in my platoon in the infantry in the Marine Corps.
Now for a tasteless joke:
Q: What is the difference bejust piss you off, you can certainly make their day with that one. Thanks for the meticulous research of your arguments, they are much appreciated. Please keep up the excellent dialog.
[This message was written in response to Biblical Vulgarities and Obscenities by Donald Morgan.]
In the article "Biblical Vulgarities & Obscenities" by Donald Morgan, he says that the words testament and testify come from the manner in which oaths were taken at that time. He mentions Gen 24:2-9 , 47:29 as the source of this.
Is there any way to find out that this is the true origin of these words ?
Internet Infidels Response:
What I actually said was this: "Note: This means "put your hand under my testicles," which is the manner in which oaths were taken at the time; "testament," "testify," and "testicle" have the same root."
In other words, the words have the same root [test]. It is a separate matter that this was, in fact, the way that oaths were made in the early Old Testament period.
In any case, there is never a way that I know of to find out the "true origin" of a word or words. The best that can be expected is to ferret out the earliest-known, probable source of a word or words. With regard to the words "testify," "testament," and "testicle," one can see the obvious connection in both English and Latin.
Here's what my American Heritage Dictionary says about it:
"testify": "... from Latin: testis, ...."
"testicle": "... from Latin testiculus, diminutive of testis, ...."
"testament": "... from testis, ...."
There are some other dictionaries which are even better at showing this connection. You should have no trouble being able to support the point that these words are from the same Latin root if that is what you are after.
[This message was written in response to Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable? by Jeffery Jay Lowder]
I have to compliment you. This is one of the better things I stumbled upon while playing on the Web Sat afternoon. I too have been consistently disappointed with the arguments seen in Josh McD's books. Quite frankly, they have appeared too uncritical and confessional to me. I enjoyed your use of "Historian's Fallacies," an old friend from my undergraduate days. I like to add a few comments.
First, in regards to Tacitus, Drew commented in the 19th century that the martyrdom account of Nero's talking torches probably wasn't historical, as there was no martydom account or veneration of early martyrs of this incident. Secondly, Chrestus is indeed not only a Greek name, but fairly comon among the slave and freed population of Rome. I've come across it several times in CIL IV, which list Pompeian graffiti! Ed. Yamauchi has factored this into his discussion of early Christian sources after we talked about one afternoon a summer or two ago.
Finally, there has been periodic talk about there being evidence of Christian presence in Pompeii and Herculaneum around the time of its destruction in 79 C.E. Although there are several graffiti which have some interesting possibliities (Among them, the name "David" scratched in the wall, and the phrase "Sodom and Gomorah" on another) these are probably written by Jews. In Herculaneum, there is a mark of a cross in the wall of the House of the Bicentenary, though this probably would have been from a shelf support. For the record, the Book of Acts records Paul travelling in Puteoli, a town nearby, in around 61 C.E.
Anyway, a good critique of a popular book. There are better works that attempt to collect the historical data on the enigmatic Christ....some worse as well.
I would say that some early Christian literature, as biased as it is, was written with a generation or two of the crucifixion, and some appears to cite earlier works. Not every scholar, atheist, agnostic or whatever accepts, for example, Helmet Koester' date of 140 C.E. It is the most radical late dating. There is more of a consensus for 85-95 C.E., while the fundamentalists insist on 64 C.E. But the bulk of the Christian material is later, when the safety of toleration allowed the preservation of massive quantities of documents. I enjoyed your presentation very much. It was a well thought out review.
Jesus was tribally... of Bethleham. The reason he was born there is because that is the tribe his father was, and under the order of a tyrannt King Ceasar, Joseph had to return there for Tax Purposes.
Better do some rereading man...
Blessings to the Infidels!
This 48 yr old former Fundy Preacher turned Goddessian welcomes your thoughtful, much needed work toward educating the vast sea of souls lost to the Church of the Non-Thinkers.
Where the Christians went wrong was mistaking their metaphors for reality. Their experience of the Divine nature resulted in the metaphor we now call Christ. Some where along, and early on it seems, the metaphor become matter and Jesus was born. The realization that this religion didn't know that spiritual lanquage is metaphorical lanquage was my first clue to how far wrong things had gone.
Even having "been there" I am ever surprised and saddened at the lengths to which they will go not to "see". The twists and twirls in their "logic" whould shame a Dervish. But let us be kind. The fear of all that is "of the world" is more powerful than any outside can imagine. The magical doctrine of contagion still holds sway in many Christians minds. To even admit to doubt can bring Satan and his demons racing in for the kill. Will they lie? Yes. Will they deny what is plainly true? Yes. Will they attack the honest and good as evil and Satanic? Yes. And all because it is that or watch your whole world view crumble before your eyes. An eternity is a terrible thing to waste. I know, I've "been there".
"By their works ye shall know them". Yours is a good work my friends. And if you don't mind some good thoughts from an old Pagan I send them your way.
THIS IS WONDERFUL!!!!
....I'll be back, and next time I'll be ordering, commenting, etc...! Thanks for a great a.m. upper!
THANKS FOR BEING HERE!
I'll be back to order, listen, think, and laugh! If you lived where I live you'd be ecstatic to see you, too!
This is just my curiosity, and i dont really know anything about frre masons so please dont take offece to my questions, but what are the free mason religious practicies of today? i always used to think they were kind of a big fraternaty. Do modern masons still practice from the old system of beliefs?
I was reading the craig-washington Q & A and wonder if you have the debate itself?
Internet Infidels Response:
The Craig-Washington debate is available at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/corey_washington/craig-washington/
Dr. Craig and Dr. Washington are in the process of finalizing their annotations of the debate.
Jesus Christ totally existed.
Internet Infidels Response:
Totally? Dude, like, not even :)
I will pray for you.
Internet Infidels Response:
Then I'll be thinking for both of us. ;-)
[This message was written in response to Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable? by Jeffery Jay Lowder]
I grieve your rejection of the gospel of Jesus. Once you have truly known Him, you cannot doubt His existence. If you have been where I have walked in my life and known His known His presence, you would not doubt. I will you will discover the truth. If we seek, we will find. I only you really seeking and not on a vandetta in your anger. For when our emotions are directing, and unforgiveness is our driving force (whether we admit or not), we have shut our minds, spirits and hearts out from receiving. Check into a book called Signature of God by Grant Jeffrey.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I agree that someone needs to read some more books, but I don't think that person is me. You did not even attempt to discuss my arguments. Trying to explain away my arguments by engaging in patronizing armchair psychoanalysis is rude and irrelevant. If you don't deny the premisses or logic of my argument, then you can't deny the conclusion.
I wrote to you a long time ago (months, it seems) asking about a statement F. Till made. He said in his debate with Dobbs that Eusebius said that we must be willing to lie in order to preach the gospel/uphold the gospel, or something like that. I asked you where I could find this statement by Eusebius. It seems strange to me that he would say that seeing that he ridiculed the idea that the apostles were lying about what they said.
I have scoured the Web and found almost nothing written against "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. The only thing I have found is a terribly weak rebuttle in Keith Robison's posts to talk.origins. The other item was a critique by a creationist (big deal). Is there anything else?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Internet Infidels Response:
To my knowledge, Keith Robison and Terry Gray's critiques are the only ones currently available on the Internet. Perhaps you should indicate what exactly about those critiques you find unsatisfying, so the authors can revise and expand their papers. Btw, please note that Terry Gray, while a Christian, is not a creationist.
Readers note that Keith Robison's critique is located at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/behe.html and Terry Gray's critique is located at http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/evolution/irred_compl.html
thank you for this article on defending atheism
I am very impress with your page. I woul like to stablish a more closser contact
[This message was written in response to Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
Hello there, I was very heavy into Christianity. It was all my strength. All my friends were Christians, and I love them very dearly, we shared loves, fears, hopes..everything....it was like I was married to every one of them..just amazing. As i became an applied physics undergraduate I found atheism is true. Inititally I was very very suicidal, but now I am getting better. I find many atheists are hostile towards Christians...I think we should love them.
Anyway do you know where I can go for emotional support?..I really need some.
Internet Infidels Response:
The best suggestion I can make at this point is that you subscribe to the Ex-Christians' Mailing List. This mailing list is a forum for people, like you and I, who were once Christians but are considering rejecting or have rejected their Christian beliefs. To subscribe, send a message (from your account) to ex-tian-request@infidels.org with the word "subscribe" in it.
Hope this helps. Take care!
I like your site very much. There's a wealth of information here, but I'm not finding much of anything on the subject that's most on my mind lately -- what happens to Christian marriages when one partner walks away from Christianity.
I've been an evangelical Christian for several years, and married my wife of 2 1/2 years in that context. Now I'm re-examining my beliefs, and while I may or may not end up an atheist, I'm almost certainly going to end up not a Christian -- or at most, a very liberal Christian. My wife is devoutly conservative in her theology, and is terrified of that prospect.
I don't know what she'll do as the outcome of my quest becomes clearer. I've been looking for some guidance ... whether such an unequal marriage can, or even should, survive, and how to cope whether it does or not. Most of the family advice I've seen has dealt with ongoing relationships -- parents, siblings, friends, etc. Even Dan Barker's otherwise excellent book notes in passing that his marriage ended, with no details regarding how it fell apart or what he did to cope.
Any insight you can give me, books to suggest, etc., would be appreciated.
Internet Infidels Response #1:
> I like your site very much. There's a wealth of information here,
but
I'm
> not finding much of anything on the subject that's most on my mind lately
> -- what happens to Christian marriages when one partner walks away from
> Christianity.
I would say that it is entirely personal. For some, one partner could lead the other. For others, tolerance could keep them together. For still others, "irreconcilable differences" lead to inevitable consequences.....
I sincerely doubt that there is a "one size fits all" solution to your dilemma. That is why I sincerely doubt that you will find "the answer" ying in any particular place.....
> I've been an evangelical Christian for several years, and married my
wife
> of
2 1/2 years in that context. Now I'm re-examining my beliefs, and while
> I may or may not end up an atheist, I'm almost certainly going to end up
> not a Christian -- or at most, a very liberal Christian. My wife is
> devoutly conservative in her theology, and is terrified of that prospect.
My personal prejudice is in favor of agnosticism. I have been working on converting some of the writings of Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the word "agnostic" over a century ago. The current state of this project is at: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_huxley/
I find the first two books of the Huxley-Wace written "controversy" to be extremely enlightening. In the first book, the Rev. Wace says this:
Now we are not here concerned with [agnosticism] as a mere question of abstract philosophy respecting the limits of our natural capacities. We have to consider it in relation to the Church and to Christianity, and the main consideration which it is the purpose of this paper to suggest is that, in this relation, the adoption of the term agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, and that it involves a mere evasion. A Christian Catechism says: "First, I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me, and all the world; secondly, in God the Son, who hath redeemed me, and all mankind; thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God." The agnostic says: "How do you know all that? I consider I have no means of knowing these things you assert respecting God. I do not know, and can not know, that God is a Father, and that he has a Son; and I do not and can not know that such a Father made me, or that such a Son redeemed me." But the Christian did not speak of what he knew, but of what he believed. The first word of a Christian is not "I know," but "I believe." He professes, not a science, but a faith; and at baptism he accepts, not a theory, but a creed.
In the second book, Huxley explains agnosticism thusly:
It appears that Mr. Gladstone, some time ago, asked Mr. Laing if he could draw up a short summary of the negative creed; a body of negative propositions, which have so far been adopted on the negative side as to be what the Apostles' and other accepted creeds are on the positive; and Mr. Laing at once kindly obliged Mr. Gladstone with the desired articles - eight of them.
If any one had preferred this request to me, I should have replied that, if he referred to agnostics, they have no creed; and, by the nature of the case, can not have any. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. Agnostics who never fail in carrying out their principles are, I am afraid, as rare as other people of whom the same consistency can be truthfully predicated. But, if you were to meet with such a phoenix and to tell him that you had discovered that two and two make five, he would patiently ask you to state your reasons for that conviction, and express his readiness to agree with you if he found them satisfactory. The apostolic injunction to "suffer fools gladly," should be the rule of life of a true agnostic. I am deeply conscious how far I myself fall short of this ideal, but it is my personal conception of what agnostics ought to be.
This reduces the distinction to a question of pure epistemology. The Christian asserts an epistemology of faith in the Word (the Word of God; the Word of Jesus; the Word of the Bible; or whatever other Word is currently popular to believe in). The agnostic asserts an epistemology of faith in scientific inquiry and logic. New facts and/or new ways of thinking about things can therefore lead to new conclusions about virtually anything. This presents a lack of fixation about knowledge which many find uncomfortable. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is an oxymoronic statement to an agnostic. No truth is "self-evident" in an agnostic universe. All forms of truth are associated with some level of probability of correctness. The probability may be very high or very low, but very few things will reach the level of certainty in either direction.
So, one attitude which you could rationally adopt would be to assert a belief that there is some degree of probability that your wife's view of "ultimate truth" is correct. But that would probably lead her to attempt to "reconvert" you back to the fold, and that is not what you would really be interested in.....
This is the ultimate difficulty with all differences of religious points of view. Because all religious beliefs are essentially arbitrary, and are based solely upon a "faith" in the correctness of the teaching of the particular religion in question, there is usually no way to either prove or disprove the fundamental world-view of any religion.
The last issue deals with a historical view of religions. Anyone who takes the time to study religious sects from the history of early man through the present will surely come to believe in the arbitrary nature of religious beliefs. I know of no world-class historian who did not adopt either a pantheist, atheist, agnostic, or similar viepoint by the time that they reached the end of their studies. There is simply no historical support for the "correctness" of any particular religious point of view; in fact, all of the support is for quite the contrary position: religion is simply what the people of any particular civilization choose to believe in at each key point in the overall development of their civilization.
From this historical perspective, fundamentalist Christianity is the "Second Religiousness" defined by Spengler. It is a reaction to the liberalization of religion which occurs when the "intellect" destroys the "soul" of the Culture. It is also a reaction to the declining morality which occurs when the lack of a moral "governor" causes increasing numbers of people to behave immorally.
The essence of fundamentalist Christianity is a belief that humanity would be better off if everyone were FORCED to believe in this particular faith..... To my way of thinking, this is what scares me to death about this religious sect. With no concern for scientific "correctness," the fundamentalists act to force their views onto a resisting population at large. Whether they succeed or not is a question yet to be answered. But the game is clearly afoot.
Now, I have given you my view of what "the truth" happens to be..... The next issue, which involves your wife, will require you to apply "the truth" to the particular facts and circumstances of your relationship with her.
> I don't know what she'll do as the outcome of my quest becomes
clearer.
>
I've
been looking for some guidance ... whether such an unequal marriage
>
can, or even should, survive, and how to cope whether it does or not. Most
> of the family advice I've seen has dealt with ongoing relationships --
> parents, siblings, friends, etc. Even Dan
Barker's otherwise excellent book
> notes in passing that his marriage ended, with no details regarding how it
>
fell apart or what he did to cope.
>
> Any insight you can give me, books to suggest, etc., would be
appreciated.
I don't believe that you need any particular guidance which is specific to your particular reasons for "growing apart from" your wife. I think that general guidance on the subject of failing marriages ought to suffice, and there is a great deal of that sort of material available.
As I indicated above, there is no one answer, and virtually any possible end-state is theoretically within your grasp. The specific end-state that you and your wife will personally achieve will depend upon a number of factors which I cannot assess, such as:
1. Whether or not your wife would "listed to reason."
2. Whether or not your wife would decide that her love for you was more valuable to her than the idea that she is required to be married to someone whose religious beliefs are "compatible."
3. Whether or not one or both of you begin to perform destructive behavior towards each other as you each recognize the futility of dialog on the subject(s) which divides you from one another.
The rule is: there are no rules. If the two of you can learn to tolerate each other regardless of any religious differences, then you can easily stay married to one another. (You need to mutually address the issue of any children --- and you need to personally watch out for the "kid trap," which usually manifests itself by her trying to get pregnant as a way to "save" her marriage, but which usually devolves into using the kid as a control mechanism.) And, finally, you may find a way to convince her to abandon her own Christianity, or to at least liberalize it to the point where you no longer have a religious war to wage with each other.
The likelihood of this last option increases with the level of intelligence of your wife. Again, as Spengler noted, it is intellect which destroys the "soul" of the Culture. So too is it intellect which generally leads individuals into a renunciation of their most basic beliefs. If your wife is at all intellectually inclined, then I would work hard towards enlightening her intellectually. Under those circumstances, you could probably lead her to "the truth."
On the other hand, a lack of intellect is generally associated with superstition and a reliance upon learned religious behaviors. If your wife is a bit on the dense side, there is probably no hope for you to lead her in this way.....
If you have been married as long as you have, and presumably have dated quite a bit before that, then you ought to be able to make some sort of preliminary assessment of your chances of success for the three options: lead her to the truth; promote tolerance; or separate due to "irreconcilable differences." If it is likely to end up with that third option, you should protect yourself from the many consequences of separation and/or divorce by at least minimizing the opportunity to have (more) children.....
These are MY words of advice to you..... Of course, you get what you pay for.....
Internet Infidels Response #2:
> I like your site very much. There's a wealth of information here,
but I'm
> not finding much of anything on the subject that's most on my mind lately
> -- what happens to Christian marriages when one partner walks away from
> Christianity...
I'm the owner of the ex-tian (ex-Christian) mailing list and home page. The list software has been broken since Dec 6, but hopefully will get resurrected sometime in the next week or two. In the meantime, check our web site at www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/ex-tian. I did a quick search and found a couple of people that have been through a similar situation:
[names excised - Sec.]
You might want to read their stories on the web and then mail them. I'll do a detailed search and get some more names for you later.
Hang in there,
[This message was written in response to Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
Why would one exert so much effort to disprove a God he did not believe in ? Is there anything else you strive to disprove ? Why do you think that is? I do not wish to debate the existance of God, He is a personal friend of mine and to debate something I know to be true would be a large waste of time. I beleive that deep down you hope someone will convince you that God is real. What bennefit would there be in not having a God. If we both die tomorrow and God exists I'll go to heaven and I would imagine that you might end up in Hell. If God does not exist then we would both simply die. You're in a lose lose situation. Unfortunately no man can convince you that God exist, You must seek God to find him. If you put the same energy into finding God as disproving him, at the very least you have the opportuniy to win. What possible gain could you have from disproving God.
One last thing. There are several reasons for the amount of evil in this world , although I also have questions on this issue. But, when loking at the evil in this world from the perspective that God has and Christians should have on this temporal world the worst of evils on this world are as a bee sting in comparison to an eternity of life in the world of Heaven that God has intended as our home. From that perspective 30 years in a concentration camp deminishes to a 1 second bee sting when compared to eternity. For a Christian with his head on straight the joy of the Lord can be experienced in any given situation here on Earth, because the things of this world are insignificant. It is the things of the spirit that matter and bring true happiness.
Internet Infidels Response:
I admire your conviction and sincerity. However, surely others who disagree with you can be equally sincere in their beliefs (or lack of). By your comments, I gather that you believe all nontheists are insincere. You are making a sweeping generalization you could never know, about people you have never met, which strikes me as rather tactless. You are simply refusing to take the possibility of God's non-existence seriously.
The statement that atheism is a "lose lose situation" is an argument known as Pascal's Wager and does not even attempt to prove the existence of God. Rather, the whole purpose of the wager is to convince nontheists that it is in their own self-interest to start praying, start going to church, etc., _even if they don't believe_, because if they do this long enough they might actually start to believe that God exists. In other words, as originally conceived the wager was simply a ploy to get nontheists to participate in self-imposed brainwashing.
Not only do I have no desire to engage in such behavior, I also know from personal experience that it doesn't work. There was a time in my life when I claimed to be a Christian. I gradually started to have increasing doubts about my beliefs until I did not believe Christianity at all. Although I still wanted to call myself a Christian and for a while tried to pretend that I was, eventually I had to be honest with myself about the fact that I did not believe Christianity was true.
If you accept the stories of many Christian apologists, including Josh McDowell and the late C.S. Lewis, they also report the futility of trying to fight something one believes to be true. Of course, in the case of McDowell and Lewis, they unsuccessfully tried to maintain that Christianity is false, but deep down they believed in Christianity.
My point is simply that if you believe something is true -- regardless of whether you are right -- that's what you believe, and it is extremely difficult and painful (if not impossible) to try to pretend otherwise.
As for the pain and suffering in the world, the fact that infinite happiness in the kingdom of God outweighs any potential suffering here on Earth is besides the point. The issue is not whether the mere existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God, rather it is whether the amount and kinds of suffering are compatible with existence of the Christian god. And you haven't really said anything about that argument yet.
Thank you for your interest.
Best wishes,
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU BEGIN LOOKING SOME OF THESE "INCONSISTENCIES" UP IN A STRONG'S CONCORDANCE OR OTHER GREEK AND HEBREW TRANSLATION REFERENCE. I TRUST THAT YOU WILL NOT BE SO QUICK TO JUDGE THESE THINGS. I KNOW BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN WHERE YOU ARE. GOD HAS GIVEN US A CHOOSING NATURE. WE HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOOSE HIM OR TO CHOOSE THE WORLD. I DECIDED TO STUDY SOME OF THESE INCONSISTENCIES AND FOUND THAT MANY OF THESE THINGS ARE MISUNDERSTOOD. GOD DOES SEE ALL YET HE GIVES US THE CHOICE TO TELL HIM OR SHOW HIM-- IT IS A RELATIONSHIP. MUCH LIKE A PARENT: WHEN YOU WERE YOUNG AND YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG, YOUR MOM WOULD SAY "WHAT DID YOU DO?" KNOWING QUITE WELL WHAT YOU DID. WHY DID SHE ASK? SHE WANTED TO SEE IF YOU WOULD TELL HER. SHE WAS YOUR MOM AND SHE WANTED YOU TO BE OPEN WITH HER. THERE ARE ALOT OF THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE MUCH SENSE BUT WHEN YOU YIELD YOURSELF TO A LESS CRITICAL MANNERISM YOU MAY FIND WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR ALL OF YOUR LIFE. PEACE.
P.S. it can be light outside without the sun.
Internet Infidels Response:
P.P.S. The main body of an email message can be written with lower case letters.
[This message was written in response to an unspecified article calling into question the historicity of Jesus]
Shame on you for publishing a document such as this. Every assertion is old, every criticism has been answered , and the only thing you can do is to try to get people who cannot defend themselves against your lives. Oh yes, Jesus did live, whether you like it or not. Your pointless and outdated communist rethoric will disappear. So why are you so utterly stupid?
Internet Infidels Response #1:
I suppose that we could embark upon the obvious name calling routine: "No, why are YOU 'so utterly stupid?'" But that would get us noplace.
Simply put: there is not one single genuine contemporary piece of evidence of the existence of Jesus from any independant source. The notations in the writings of Josephus are apparent forgeries. Everything else dates from no earlier than several decades AFTER the alleged death of Jesus.
Ask yourself the following question: you have a father, two grandfathers, and four greatgrandfathers. But what proof do you actually have in your possession of the existence of your four greatgrandfathers? And yet, a hundred years ago, they were most likely all alive. Now, how about Jesus from 2,000 years ago? Nothing but a bunch of suspicious writings from a bunch of people who have a lot to gain from forged writings.
==========
But this all misses the point: Christianity is a cult religion no different from any tribal religion in deepest Africa. It is born of superstition, and will die when we finally eradicate ignorance. Until then, the ignorant, such as yourself, will continue to annoy those of us who have found a larger truth within the overall history of mankind.
My advice to you is to study the history of civilizations which were non-Christian in their religious beliefs. For example, study the contributions of the Moors in Spain to Western Civilization. Discover the scientest in about 100 b.c. who accurately measured the circumfrence of the Earth. And lose yourself in descriptions of ancient Egyptian monuments, and their counterparts half a world away in the Myan and Incan empires. Christianity had nothing to do with any of THOSE people, and yet they grew to a level of greatness which in some ways exceeds our own.
History teaches us the folly of the man with only one book.....
Internet Infidels Response #2:
Thanks for writing. Your message certainly underscores the need for strict and sustained historical argumentation when addressing a topic like the historicity of Jesus. But why restrict yourself to documents which are over a century old? Why not avail yourself of the modern information available? I recommend you check out http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury_chap5.html. I agree with you that Jesus did live, and in that article I discuss the alleged extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus.
Thanks again for your interest in the Internet Infidels.
Best wishes,
for a laugh, check out members of "god's chosen people" in the act of incest in Genesis 19:30-38 and 24:4.
[This message was written in response to New Testament Contradictions by Paul Carlson]
I found this rather informative article as a hyper-link, and wanted to commend you for publishing it. It contained much of the info I am seeking as research for a book I am writing, without having to pour through pages of the New Testament one by one! A real time saver for me.
I wanted to point out an error in Mr. Carlson's column, though. In the section where he discusses Judas Iscariot and the betrayal of Jesus, he has the phrase "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" in quotations and gives the reference Matt.26:15. He also mentions that Matthew is simply quoting Zechariah 11:12-13 in order to prove fullfillment of Old Testament prophecy. (A theory with which I whole-heartedly agree.) However, I have the King James version in my hand, and I always verify all quotes for accuracy before using them in my own writings. The words "weighed out" were never used in that chapter and verse of Matthew, as Mr. Carlson's quotations would imply. The verse says the chief priests "covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver". The quote containing the word "weighed" is contained in his Zechariah quote, not Matthew. (I looked up a dictionary definition of "covenanted", by the way. It simply means to denote an agreement between parties, so there was no implication of "weighing" going on there, either.)
Perhaps not a significant error, but very valid when considering that one of the reasons Mr. Carlson sites for biblical inaccuracy in Matthew is the fact that silver was no longer "weighed out" as a form of payment in Jesus' time. But, it probably was in the time Zechariah was written, which is where that phrase comes from, so it's not a very good example of inaccuracy. Makes a huge difference when one is writing a book which will fall under EXTREME scrutiny by the Christian Right! Have to be certain that all words in quotations are unquestionably correct before using them, or the balance of my work could be called false as a result! As a trained journalist, I was taught that you had better be certain you are quoting VER BATUM when you use quotation marks! Outside of that, wonderful and informative piece! Thank you once again.
I have found your new page :-)
I am currently a Christian, but boy, this site sure challenges me! I read the critiques of Josh McDowell and can see pretty well through his arguments (I've always been leary of them before). I also read a lot about the 16 other messiahs who died for the sins of the world. Very Interesting. It's amazing how the human mind can so thoroughly shape reality and existence. Reading all of this just makes me think of Kierkegaard- truth is completely subjective. I believe that God does exist and that there is objective truth out there. Unfortunately, it's so difficult for humans to discern. I'm so torn between Christianity and (I guess, nothing). I can see why it's so hard for people to change their beliefs, especially if that's all they've ever been taught. Somehow, I keep getting drawn back towards doubting Christianity and the Bible, and no matter how well I convince myself that Christ is the Son of God, I can never really know it. Of course, I could choose to believe it and make it true in my own life, but that has nothing to do with objective reality. I always wished the Bible would be more specific on certain things. It just seems to leave huge gaps, and these are filled in by popular belief and dominant culture. Religion is mess.
Internet Infidels' Response:
I really appreciate your honesty and open-mindedness. I know from experience what you must be going through; but why go through it alone? There is an entire community of online ex-Christians on the EX-TIAN mailing list. For information on subscribing, please see http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/secular.html#ex-tian.
I hope this helps. Take care!
[This message was written in response to "Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject the Bible" by Joseph Sommer]
The excellent essay by Joseph C. Sommer "Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible" asserts as a contradiction on page 3 the idea that that "Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month, but the very next verse asserts that the tops of the mountains could not even be seen until the tenth month." So where is the contradiction, pray tell? Can a ship not run aground with no visible land in sight? It does not take much imagination to guess that Noah's ark might run aground in less that 15 feet of water and that it might take 3 more months for the water to recede until the land is visible.
I only point this out because I thinks it detracts from an otherwise excellent essay and Mr. Sommer might consider removing it. In an article of this sort, weak points are pounced upon immediately as proof of poor scholarship and consequently should be avoided if possible. After all, are you not claiming that the literalists are making weak arguments for their assertions?
Internet Infidels Response:
Your message has been received and, if I'm not mistaken, was published on the feedback page the first time we received it. However, we have no contact with Joseph Sommer, so please don't be upset if you find that your changes are not incorporated.
Atheism, as portrayed in this article, seems to mean anti-God. I don't believe in Santa Claus, if I were trying to convince someone that Santa Claus does not exist, I wouldn't cast aspersions on my perception of his personality. The premise of the non-existence of God requires faith to believe. Christianity is a very simple question- was Jesus God? Whether he was or he wasn't does not put to bed the question of the origin of the universe.
Quantum physicist's have found that everything in our experience is a manifestation of energy. There is no distinction in the truest sense between matter and light. They are both manifestations of energy. Light can be modeled as a wave or a particle but it truly is neither--light is light. Matter does not consist of atoms, atoms are models that were created to describe a portion of our physical reality. The truth is being discovered in labs with the best and brightest the world has to offer, and the truth is that our universe is basically a hollodeck (As seen of Star Trek NG). The energy source that is continually sustaining our existence and the existence of the universe could be construed to be sentient and creative. If there is a creative force that is the answer to the question of the origin of "Life, the Universe, and everything" why are atheists so obsessed with disproving it. It seems irrational to me. My impression of Atheism is that it defines rationality as a non-believe in anything beyond measurement. That, my friends, is the definition of dogma.
Fight the good fight!!
Internet Infidels Response:
I don't speak for George Smith, but wanted to offer my thoughts on atheism. I thought Smith was relatively clear in defining atheism as the absence of belief in God, and not as anti-God. "Anti-God" (to me) carries an emotional connotation which I don't think accurately represents Smith's article, but I'd have to re-read it to be sure.
At any rate, I don't think the following sentence is really very accurate:
>The premise of the non-existence of God requires faith to believe.
Does it require faith to believe the non-existence of time machines? Square circles? A bug-free version of Windows? I don't think so. There's nothing inherent in the concept of non-existence which requires faith.
I also don't think it's very honest to claim that atheists are "so obsessed" with disproving the existence of God, for two reasons:
As for your claim that atheism "defines rationality as a non-believe [sic] in anything beyond measurement," that is simply mistaken. Atheism says nothing of the sort. It is true that many atheists accept the type of epistemology you describe, but there is nothing inherent in the concept of atheism which requires atheists to believe this way.
Thanks for writing!
Sincerely,
Great Work Everywhere....
I laughed.....
[This message was written in response to Best-Selling Errancy by Mark Ball.]
Please convey my congratulations to Mr. Ball for his somewhat brilliant essay, "Best-Selling Errancy". He strikes to the core of Christian evangelical/fundamentalism. His piece on the inconsistent Biblical position of salvation was particularly well articulated. I look forward to future contributions by him at this site.
[This message was written in response to Bible Absurdities by Donald Morgan]
I recently read your "Bible absurdities".
I agree that some of the Bible passages mentioned by you seem illogical, but there are others which do not seem so, and then there others which, in my opinion, are symbolic episodes to be interpreted, not simply to be thrown off as illogical or absurd.
In any case, I do not think that the question is whether the Bible is fully logical or correct. Remember the Bible was hand-written and copied by several authors along several thousand years, and that the Catholic Church and other corrupt institutions could have manipulated its contents at different stages and for different purposes.
No, I think the basic question is whether the Universe and mankind were created by a superior being, or whether they simply "came to be" out of chaos and chance (as the "big bang" and evolutionist theories claim). When you look at a building, what is your logical reaction, that it came out of "chaos", or that someone intelligent must have created it?
In a similar sense, to state that something even more complex, as a cell, a genetic code, or the human brain could simply "come out" of chance and chaos, THAT seems to be a true absurdity, does it not?
I must say that I quite enjoy your site and have it bookmarked. Having struggled with religion for many years myself(my own little "wresting match" with angels you could say) I usually would take the agnostic position. However, your website has allowed me to be a bit more sceptical and slightly less credulous. Keeping that in mind, I hope you wouldn't mind answering a quesion or two. Dan Barker states in his book (Losing faith in faith) that religion has been responsible and is responsible for a great deal of evils in society (this isn't exactly what he says of course, I'm paraphrasing). While I wouldn't disagree with him on this point, he goes on to say that the religious people who were compassionate and good would've been that way anyway. If that is true, than for the sake of being consistent wouldn't you have to concede that the cruel and malicious individuals who were religious would've also been that way anyway? Dosen't it simply relegate religion to the status of a utility? For example, one person uses a hammer to build a house, another uses it to bash your face in. The difference or problem isn't with the hammer, it's with the people who use it. You can't blame or praise the hammer,poor thing, but the actual person who decides wat use the hammer should be put to..
Internet Infidels Response:
Dear Friend,
Jeff forwarded your letter to me.
The difference is that most religions claim to make you a better person. Since they make that claim, they should be held accountable to it.
Also, many of the intrinsic teachings of religion contain the seeds of "evil." (In quotes to differentiate between the religious concept of cosmic evil and the naturalistic concept of harmful consequences.)
If you teach people that they are sinners by nature, deserving of eternal punishment, then that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Self image drops.
If you teach people that they should obey rather than think, then they can become pawns in the hands of the powerful. They will more readily "kill for god."
If you teach men that they are superior to women, as St. Paul does, then you have built-in sexism and degradation of half the population.
If you teach believers that slavery is the natural order, as Jesus did, then you may have to fight a Civil War to abolish it.
And so on.
Of course, without religion there would still be "evil" people, but quite a lot fewer of them. Happy people are less likely to commit crimes, I believe.
Are you a member of FFRF? If not, send me your address and we'll mail you some free introductory literature, including a sample of our newspaper, Freethought Today.
Have a happy New Year . . . however you celebrate it.
You will regreat every word on the day of judgement according to the Bible, If I were you, ( and I used to think just as you do and I did untill I woke up to reality and relized I was just running from what I knew was the truth and did not want to face my accountability to God) I would stop the playing around and beg God to honor his promise to save anyone who will ask. And accept the FACT that Christ died for you as well as he died for anyone else. Believe me, I was just kicking around on the net looking for some kids stuff and I intend no disrespect. I just lived for 35 years in the same frame of mind you are in. You can run, But you will not hide. Stop lieing to yourself and give God a chance to make himself real to you. If you will reach out to him in faith, He is oblagated to respond to you. After all if He did not then he would be a lier, and then He would not be God. I pray this will be the most important Christmas in your life because you made the most important decision of your life. It is not to Late!!
I am a sixteen year old boy who attends a Catholic high school in Kansas City Missouri. At my school we are required to take courses such as Old Testament, New Testament, Sacraments, and Morality. Up until I began to learn more about the bible and its meaning I was what you could call a person who accepted the existence of God and Jesus as true. As I began to become more and more educated regarding the content of the bible I began to quietly question it's purpose, and what value it had for me. Just to clear up what I could see as a common assumption, I AM NOT a person who rejects the faith they are taught due to personal frustrations and problems. For as long as I can remember I have not been like most people, my outlook on life always appeared to be much different. I only recently began to realize that I held atheistic views. The contradictory nature of the bible and all of it's contents became more and more clear to me as I began to mature mentally more. It seems to me that religion is a factor of environment just as what kind of up-bringing you received is. If you are brought up in the U.S. chances are you are taught one form of Catholicism or another. If you are raised in the Middle East or Asia you may be taught Judaeism or Bhudism. I was raised a Presbyterian, not a strict religious upbringing though. My mom has noticed that I am not very religious and says that she feels sorry for me, she does not know that I am basically an atheist. I realize that with many people this would be a very devastating comment to come from one's mother, but it did not affect me much because I see fully where she is coming from. I don't hold any kind of contempt or malice towards those who accept religion for what it is, the school I go to is run by Jesuits and I am on good terms with all of the priests. They are all very nice people. One thing that I have discovered is that it is easy to be put in uncomfortable positions by simple questions, with no underlying intent, that have to be dealt with carefully, if people knew my view they could accuse me of hypocricy but I only do what is necessary for those who do not have the insight to see where I am coming from, blindness by religon. I have never talked to anyone about my views because I know what kind of reaction I would most likely receive. I would appreciate maybe some tips of advice on how to deal with my position better.
P.S. I am only sixteen so have not yet learned or noticed many things that may be obvious to those who are older, but, one thing that I already know is that there is no better support for my view than a good education. The more I know about the bible, the better off I am in defending my view.
Internet Infidels Response
Jeff Lowder forwarded your message to us here at the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Wisconsin. Check out our Web Page at:
http://www.ffrf.org/
Thanks for the intelligent letter. Most atheists and agnostics have stories similar to yours, though you are braver than most sixteen-year-olds.
For my part, I used to be an ordained Protestant minister and preached for 19 years. It was not an easy struggle to break away. I think your are luckier (or smarter) than me to be able to see through it all so soon. I wasted a lot of years in the ministry.
The Foundation is helping a number of high-school and college students start and maintain freethought (atheist/agnostic) clubs at their schools. Let us know if you would be interested.
Send us your mailing address if you would like a sample issue of our newspaper Freethought Today and other freethought goodies.
'cerely,
Where can I go on the web for some skeptical views on Islam or the koran? I would like to see it (them) lambasted as much as I see the x-ian crap ridiculed.
Pop Quiz, someone tells you that what they are saying is true, and you have no reason to doubt them, but ought to jest accept what they say on faith. This is a sign that you ought to?
A: Accept their word on faith.
B: Conduct your own research, and find your own truth.
C: crucify the individual as a martyr to your cause.
Right on!!!!
Your dissertation was hard to read. Other than your wish that is so, you do not show that Christians and masons flow from the same roots. The tenets of the Christian faith are:
There is a God;
No man is Him;
Without God's grace, no man can overcome his imperfection
The masons believe in:
All "roads" lead home (All beliefs are equally righteous);
Rituals will wash away all sins
I am 16 years old and am an atheist. I am having some problems telling my family. Do you have any suggestions for me??
Internet Infidels Response #1:
There is no "one size fits all" answer to your question. You need to think about the following sorts of things:
1. Do you expect to be thrown out of the house if you tell them?
2. Do you expect to go to college, and then expect that this opportunity will be taken away if you tell them?
Things like that.....
My best advice is to "go with the flow" and don't do anything which will prove to be "shooting yourself in your foot" at your young and tender age. The old parent's rant is unfortunately true: so long as you live under their roof, you have to live by their rules.
If you can't stomach attending their church, try to find another church to go to until you can tell them. If you have any UUs around (that is the Unitarian-Universalist Church), that is a good place for an atheist to go who "has to go to church" for "political" reasons..... Find yourself a girlfriend in your "new" church, and tell your folks that you are hanging out with her....
You made this decision to become an atheist. Now, you have to show your own maturity and make your own decisions about how to live with the consequences of that decision. If you can't stand "living a lie," then you should just tell them, and live with what happens. But tell someone you trust beforehand, so that somebody will know to look for your body.
====
Actually, your parents should be pround of you. At such a young age, you have read and studied enough to make a conscious, intellectual, decision to abandon "faith" and adhere to "reason" as the source of Ultimate Truth.
If you can bring yourself to crafting a proud announcement: "Hey, Mom, Dad, I've just graduated to become an atheist!" that might be an interesting approach.
=====
Unfortunately, the Internet Infidels are not a support group for young children trying to deal rationally with their parents. If you are REALLY troubled by the "trap" you feel you are in, then seek counseling from a local source. Most medical psychologists are sensitive to atheist beliefs. However, under the circumstances, you should avoid counseling from ministers (except, perhaps, an Episcopalian; they are supposed to have an atheist for a bishop someplace here in the USA).
Of course, it is your parents who need the counseling if they cannot accept you for what you are..... Like most family crisis situations, it is the innocent victim who needs to seek treatment first; then it is a question for the therapist, and possibly the authorities, whether to seek to "force" unwilling family members into family therapy.
=====
I really don't know what else I can say, except: "GOOD LUCK!"
Living in this country "only" over 10 years I still can not comprehend some of the influences the religion in the life here. Most of the facts, you mentioned are taught in history classes in elementary schools in most of the mainland european countries. I have a great admiration for the courage, you have to stand up against the all powerfull "black collar" (or black asses - as we used to call them in my old country) commumity leaders.
I hope, more and more people realize, that democracy or religion is an oxymoron.
[The following message was sent in response to "The Great Proposition" by Robby Berry.]
I know that i's a bit late for me to comment on this, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. In the response to section 4b(to silence the critic) You state "there is no evidence that they[the jews] did not deny the miracle of Lazarus". Isn't that like trying to prove a negative? Wouldn't the equivalent to such a statement be "Well prove that there isn't a god"? I might be wrong on this, still I'd appreciate hearing it straight from the horses' mouth if I am. I'm not a christian or anything, so don't worry about me flaming you later if I'm right. I would realy appreciate any clarification you could provide.
These are but the rantings of a zealous anti-catholic bigot who at one time was probably a catholic who was probably hurt by some priest or nun and now consumes himself with his hate and reveals his consequent ugliness in his contrived ravings.
Internet Infidels Response:
You must be talking about the writings of Joseph McCabe, though I cannot be sure from your message. At any rate, even if the author was "hurt" by a Catholic priest, that wouldn't make his arguments false.
Mr. McCabe intentionally or ignorantly used the term "Mohammedans" to make reference to Islam. Adherents to the Islamic faith are called Muslims. As Atheists, you have the right to believe what you want. However, you do not have the right to miseducate thereby spreading ignorance. Islam was the civilizing force during the period of enlightenment. Atheism has not and will not every civilize. Atheism is the main ingredient to moral decay.
Internet Infidels Response #1:
Joseph McCabe (1867-1955) used the terms of his time. Even earlier, the term used was "Musselmen," which is the term used in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.
Internet Infidels Response #2:
Mr. McCabe referred to Muslims as they were called when Mr. McCabe wrote, i.e. the early twentieth century. You responded to a man who has been dead for a long time.
Islam had a civilization, but the civilizing force behind Islam was the few men who put reason to practice. No civilization has ever come about from the practices of blood-thirsty barbarians. If anyone should be exalted the Greeks ought to be -- their rediscovery and translation by some thoughtful Muslims is what made the golden age of Islam possible.
Atheism in and of itself does not civilize. Nor does theism in and of itself civilize. Neither of these in and of themselves promote moral decay. Moral decay is a laziness or unwillingness on the part of a people to uphold the standards which make a particular civilization possible.
Stephen
I'm glad to see that someone out there is thinking. It's amazing that it takes an insane machine to interact with intellangence (are you really there). I just read the Essay/Lecture on your web site, it was very good. I'll keep in touch with your web site, maybe I'll purchase a book in the future -- if I can order through the mail.
I was just wondering if you "free thinkers" know where you get your ability to think freely. Don't you realize that the concept of God is beyond the capacity of your puny monkey brains. You are lying about and paraphrasing the word of God (written by imperfect human prophets). The men who wrote the Bible were also constrained by their human brains. They explained their Godly visions by the measure of men. The Old Testament is 5000 YEARS OLD! Each manuscript was hand written and translated by monks until the 19th Century. Only a moron would think there would be no mistakes or mistranslations. The Old Testament was mainly history; Who cares if Abimelech lived to be 876 or 752? The New Testament is filled with metaphors and parables; Don't always take it literally. Please note that science does not disprove the existence of God. Science is simply a way of explaining some of God's creations.
God is the beginning and the end....God does not obey the rules of your puny understanding of Space, Time, Light, Dark, Hot, Cold, Gravity, Cheeseburger, etc.
Evolution...? God did it.
Big Bang...? God did it.
Whatever else you believe...if true. God did it.
All you have to know is that God created Humans and probably BILLIONS of other free thinking creations on BILLIONS of other worlds or dimensions at any given time, out of time or out of dimension.
Please answer the following questions: What are the properties of nothingness? What is physical? Where did the physical come from? How can physical come from nothingness?
You don't believe in God...Right? I'll wager your just of bunch of Vegetarian "New Age" "Psychic friends" Shop Till You Drop Believing Everything You See On The Tube Politically Correct Tree Hugging Druids. It's funny the things some people BELIEVE in.
Internet Infidels Response:
> You don't believe in God...Right? I'll wager your just of bunch of
>Vegetarian "New Age" "Psychic friends" Shop Till You
Drop Believing
>Everything You See On The Tube Politically Correct Tree Hugging Druids.
>It's funny the things some people BELIEVE in.
1. I'm not a vegetarian.
2. I'm not a New Ager.
3. I don't care whether I am "politically correct."
4. I'm not a "Tree Hugging Druid."
>P.S - If you respond; please concern yourselves with the matter at
hand.
>Don't base my level of intelligence or cheeseburger on any grammatical
>errors I have made or may make in the future.
I think you're confusing me with someone else, for I always try to focus on the substance of a person's argument. At any rate, I don't care for your tone of voice or for the name-calling. I have no desire to argue with you.
Thank you for interest in the Internet Infidels; I wish you well.
Sincerely,
I am afraid I have a problem for you. I have seen your site on the web. I have been in the business of secular research of the 1st century in the land of Israel for over 40 years, and I am sorry to have to disagree with you.
True, Christian historians have no historical documents from the first two centuries of Christianity, other than the New Testament itself and a few controversial "external" books (Apocrypha).
Today, in our practical, pragmatic, science-oriented civilization, where we always look for scientific confirmations, the world is filled , more than ever, with "doubting Thomases". They often ask: "Are there actual verifications to support the Biblical story?", and "can the Bible be 'backed up' by real, scientific clues, provable beyond any doubt?"
The answer, now, is a resounding, emphatic "YES!"
In the Land of Israel there are astounding, unquestionable actual physical proof of the Biblical truth.
Most researchers, however, are unaware of this. Hidden for centuries, it is only recently being uncovered. A lot is still hidden under the rubble of centuries; more is being revealed as we write these lines.
Plenty, however, was unearthed and is available to all who wish to know them.
Obviously, we cannot "prove" EVERYTHING in the Bible. No evidence, by itself, can bring salvation. It is up to our own personal faith to bring it to ourselves and to the world.
But the Jerusalem Christian Review, and its affiliated ministries, are a source for this extremely valuable recently revealed faith-building evidence, supporting the Bible.
If you are interested in a dialogue and scientific information, please write us
Here in Poland we atheists, freethinkers and all types of infidels etc. are isolated as hell, so please connect us to the world community of kindred folk so we ca feel more powerful in these days of medieval religious revisionism, which especially in Poland is clearly seen.
I recently end the electronic publication titled: "The War of Two Gods" This is an electronic publication in Winhelp (*.HLP) format, beautifully illustrated with sounds, graphics and animation.
I need to inform an international community of non-fidels about the existence of such a publication. I hope you will answer me with some helps and suggestion how to do this?
I will wait for your more or less positive answer, then will post more info about the application which runs under Windows 3.11 and W95 as well.
I would just like to let you know i love the humor section in the libary. At the moment i have no religion and find it all funny. So keep it up. Don't feel shy e-mailing me.
Your religion is not so cool as a matter of fact as soon as you mentioned money and heaven for all eternity, you have become like the others you are that you are trying to mutilate.
Please, don't forget Psalm 14:1.
Toda Raba.
Internet Infidels' Response:
We haven't. However, it appears that you have forgotten Matthew 5:22.
[This message was written in response to Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable? by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
Why are "Free" Thinkers so closed-minded on the existence of Christ? The hard edge of atheism continually cuts at the conscience of Christ's critics
Internet Infidels Response:
>Why are "Free" Thinkers so closed-minded on the existence
of Christ? The
>hard edge of atheism continually cuts at the conscience of Christ's
critics.
Freethinkers aren't closed-minded on the historicity of Jesus. Unlike most Christians, freethinkers actually investigate the historical evidence before accepting or rejecting the historicity of Jesus. A freethinker has the freedom to accept or reject the historicity of Jesus according to the evidence. A Christian _must_ accept the historicity of Jesus, regardless of the evidence, in order to remain a Christian.
>Regarding the Josh McDowell article. Remember, this is an individual
who was
>a "Free" thinking skeptic or agnostic who set out to disprove
Christianity.
I believe McDowell was an anti-Christian. I don't, however, believe he ever questioned the existence of God. But so what? What does the fact that McDowell was once anti-Christian have to do with the quality of his arguments?
[This message was written in response to 50 Fun Things For Non-Christians To Do in Church by Dave Henley]
Excellent page! Rolling on the Floor Laughing! Love to know more about infidels on the net.
[This message was written in response to "Was There a Jesus? "]
I really think you have completely missed the truth of Christianity. It is not a thing of proof, but of faith. You have brought up alot of good points but the only way to know if there IS a Christ is to belive. All faith systoms are based on faith. I am a 14 yr old Christian and I have a strong belife in Jesus. If you read the whole Bible you will see all of the prophises about a coming Savior. I guess that if you don't belive in Jesus you have a religion of your own. See no matter what you belive in something. Oh and you should read Revelation, the last book in the Bible, I guess I'll meet you face to face @ the Great White Throne Of Judgement, and if you still don't belive in the Son of God, you'll be in the Lake of Fire, Hades, or as we say, burning in hell. And don't say I didn't warn you. My God is all powerful, and all sin is to be punished one day. But if you repent Jesus will forgive you and God will recieve you to His own.
Internet Infidels Response:
I think I understand what Christianity is about. I think it's safe to say that Christianity is unintelligible without a historical Jesus. I think even you would agree that point. However, as I read you, you seem to think that a historical Jesus can only be known through "faith" which you seem to define as a personal relationship with him. However, I think this is just confused, at least if this is supposed to be an objection to my essay. In the first place, if we took your message at face value, then historical evidence for Jesus would not even be possible, which would be an odd result for a hypothesis proposed by someone who is a Christian.
More importantly though, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith are the same. The Christ of faith could not exist without a historical Jesus. (If there was no man named Jesus, then there could not have been a Jesus who rose from the dead.) And, as I argued in my essay on McDowell's evidence for Jesus, I do believe there was a historical Jesus. I just reject the Christ of faith.
As for threatening me with hellfire, I thought this was rather tactless. Even if you do believe Hell is real, do you really believe you will convince other people by threatening them? I think it is quite doubtful that Hell exists. I certainly don't think an all-loving God would create a place like Hell. The only possible reason a person could have for believing in Hell is because they accept the theological claims of Jesus as given in the New Testament. And I've yet to hear a good argument for trusting the theological claims of the New Testament. Remember that not everyone holds Jesus in as high regard as you do.
I recommend you consider what I've written, re-read my essay, and then contact me if you have any questions remaining.
"One has nothing to fear and everything to gain, from the honest pursuit of truth." I must admit that I cannot agree more with this statement. I commend Mr.George Smith, for the educated way in letting, not only Americans, but the whole world know that the lack of reasoning is ignorance which eventually leads to all pains and miseries. I will even take reasoning one step further - when truth is realized there is nothing to defend, for truth is truth in every conceivable way, in short, it is eternal.
Here is his words in the right way, "Atheists, the people who believe in no god, are very close to being monotheist. They are only one step removed from atheism. They're just a hairline away from being a monotheist. All I have to do is to make them reason beyond the material universe and they have made it over the line."
There is only one true monotheist religion and it can only be accepted by a few who exercise their power of reasoning, and as he rightly said, over years of proper guidance.
All men of reasoning I consider my closest friends as they try to live within the Laws (which I called Divine) of Nature. I will like to pursue this wonderful and most interesting debate with Mr. Smith for as long as it takes.
The one true religion will be of interest to many who reason.
Are debates available on video or cassette?
Internet Infidels Response:
We don't sell anything. However, the Christians might. Which debate are you interested in getting a copy of?
[This message was written in response to Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable? by Jeffery Jay Lowder.]
I am a High School senior and a Christian. In my church in my Bible study we read many of Josh McDowell's books, at first like you I was a skeptic. I always looked for problems with his writings. Trying to prove both him and Christianity wrong. Reading his work and saying yes but that's not the exact answer I am looking for. I was just very narrow-minded. Then my minister back where I used to live told me this. First of all God is to Awesome and to Powerful, "he's" God, you can not place him in such a small box and expect to know everything about him or he just wouldn't be God, he would lose his mysteriousness. He went on to say God gives us everything we need to know to live life and tells us what we need to do to spend eternity in Heaven. To some yes, it is broad. Your never going to know everything about God, but God will reveal to you what he wants you to know and what he knows you need to know to enter his Kingdom. That's when my minister came to this conclusion; he said In God's eye's Josh and every other believer is saved, so by writing these articles he gains nothing, but if you go into it and read it with a closed mind you lose everything. Mr. McDowell like you is human, and like you he will never know the all the answer's about God. But in God's most awesome and mysterious way God gave Mr. McDowell the gift of writing and reaching out to those who want to be reached out to.
So basically my point is don't criticize Mr. McDowell for what he doesn't know but applaud him and learn from what he does know. I realize your job is to be a critic and evaluate people's works, but for one set aside your criticing and really read one of Mr. McDowell's article's or another Christian author's articles with an open heart and hear what God has to tell you rather than Josh, yourself, of the Devil. Thank you for taking the time to critic, I mean read my letter.
Internet Infidels' Response:
Let me get this straight. First we are criticized for not responding to Josh McDowell. So we finally give in and write the rebuttal McDowell fans had been asking for. But now we have a different problem. Instead of being faulted for having no rebuttal to McDowell, now we are being criticized for being too hard on McDowell! We shouldn't criticize McDowell "for what he doesn't know but applaud him and learn from what he does know."
Now I've heard everything!
please inform me where can an alledged cancerous tissue, miraculously removed, be appropriately tested for tissue identification and genetic matching to the idividual from which it was removed. thanks.
Internet Infidels Response:
You don't indicate where you are located, but assuming you are near a large city in the United States, you should check the yellow pages for medical testing labs. DNA matching and cancer screening should be appropriate tests to conduct. You may need to locate two labs, one for each type of test, but if you look hard enough, you should be able to find one lab which can conduct both tests.
I should also add that this site is not particulary the "correct" place for getting advice on this subject. Instead, I would refer you to: http://www.csicop.org/home.html which is the home page for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Claims of the Paranormal. If you contact them, I am certain that they will be better able to advise you than anyone here at the Internet Infidels. They deal with these sorts of claims on a regular basis.
Neat page!
is it true that all american presidents have been (or are now) masons?
Internet Infidels Response:
Absolutely not.
For example, take John F. Kennedy, who was a Catholic. Now, I don't know for certain, but I haven't met very many Catholic Masons.....
Yes, there were a LOT of Masons in the early days of this country. But the Masons were sort of the only "freethought" game in town in those days. And remember: those days were not far from the days when you could be executed for heresy..... If you felt the way our founding fathers felt about freethought ideals, you generally would gravitate towards the Masons. That isn't true in this century.
I have two grandfathers and an uncle who were/are Masons. In modern times, it is more a social club than anything else, and is largely dying out in the latest generations. The used building market in Los Angeles contains several former Masonic halls. So far as I know, neither myself nor any of my relatives in my generation has taken up the Masonic tradition of my family.
If you were able to track down the records of all presidents who were/are Masons, I believe you would find a steadily decreasing percentage, considered half a century at a time. As for the Masons, it will be interesting to see if they can reinvent themselves so that they continue to survive into the 21st century. From what I have seen over my own lifetime, though, you don't see Masons mentioned in the newspapers, or anywhere else for that matter, with anywhere near the frequency that you did when I was a child, several decades ago.
LOOOOOVE your page!!! I've been researching religious weirdness today on the Web because I'm designing my own home page on how to deify yourself and where to find more weird religions--would you mind if I add your page as a link?
I've got a couple of good stories on how to blow annoying door-to-door snake oil salesmen off...these stories are supposedly true but I can't verify that. Even if they're not, they're great ideas...;)
I used to be in a medieval re-creation group called the Society for Creative Anachronism. If you're into medieval stuff and have the costumes and the gear, answer the door in your best garb carrying a mace or a battleax.
Allegedly, what some other SCA friends did to rid themselves of these pests is a couple showed up at the door one day wanting to proselytize, and someone from inside the house called, "Who is it?" The person who answered the door answered, "Some Christians wanting to talk about God." Whereupon someone from upstairs threw a knife down the stairs so that it stuck in the floorboards below, vibrating rapidly after it stuck, and yelled, "Oh good, the sacrifices have arrived!!!"
Thought you'd find this amusing...;)
Internet Infidels Response:
>LOOOOOVE your page!!! I've been researching religious weirdness today
>on
the Web because I'm designing my own home page on how to deify
>yourself and where to find more weird religions--would you mind if I add
>your page as a link?
Oh, go right ahead and link to us. The more the merrier.
>I've got a couple of good stories on how to blow annoying
door-to-door
>snake oil salesmen off...these stories are supposedly true but I can't
>verify that. Even if they're not, they're great ideas...;)
<Write 'em up, post 'em on your personal web site, then drop me a line. We'll evaluate it, and if it is O.K., we'll include a link on our comedy page(s). If they get really good, we'll ask to mirror it.....
Since its a comedy/creativity contest, embelishing the stories is considered appropriate conduct. Truth is not a requirement for the comedy page(s)...... So, have a go at embelishing the two stories you sent in, and then let us know when the result is ready.
[This message was written in response to Theodore Drange.]
I am delighted to find a philospher on the Secular Web who 1) has clearly formalized two arguments which had led to my own rejection of Christianity and theism, and 2) teaches at a university in my home state of West Virginia!
I am interested in some contact information so I may invite him to speak at my university, and so I may discuss the possibility of setting up a freethought org at WVU.
I am sorry that you seem to think that all Christians are incapable of deep thought and are less than "free." Rather, I find that most Christians go beyond the prevalent superficiality of today's society to address the deepest and most meaningful issues of life. Christians know freedom from guilt and enjoy the abundant life that Christ promised.
What many people consider freedom is really slavery to their ever-increasing desires and the consequences that result from complete lack of discipline. I train my body and my mind to be the best I can possibly be. I've tried many other paths, but I've found the best and truest in following Christ. Do you fault me for wanting to tell others about it? Wouldn't it be unkind not to do so?
Think about it.
Internet Infidels Response:
>I am sorry that you seem to think that all Christians are incapable
of deep
>thought and are less than "free." Rather, I find that most
Christians go
>beyond the prevalent superficiality of today's society to address the
>deepest and most meaningful issues of life. Christians know freedom from
>guilt and enjoy the abundant life that Christ promised.
Oh, really? This is really not in accord with my own life experiences.
In fact, Christianity is second only to Judeism in its use of guilt as a motivating factor. Christians are all the time obsessed with one form of guilt or another.
Are you sure you are a Christian? I've never met one who was totally free of guilt......
Or, are you falling victim to the sin of pridefulness now?????
>What many people consider freedom is really slavery to their
>ever-increasing desires and the consequences that result from complete lack
>of discipline. I train my body and my mind to be the best I can possibly
>be. I've tried many other paths, but I've found the best and truest in
>following Christ. Do you fault me for wanting to tell others about it?
>Wouldn't it be unkind not to do so?
>
>Think about it.
Well, most of us here at the Internet Infidels have thought about it a lot more than any single Christian.
I've recently had a great insight. I've long wondered how people can possibly come to believe these various loads of BS that the various organized religions pass out. Now, I have an answer:
Hypnotism!
Yes, candles, music, and rythmic speech can all be used as part of a process of inducing a hypnotic state. And, candles, music, and rythmic speech are all associated with most religious groups.
A light trance will do for implanting the suggestion that Christ is the one true Lord..... Once implanted, the follower will continue to come to church and have that message reinforced by repitition, over and over again, for years on end.
And children are among the most suggestible of subjects. Did you obtain your belief in Christ as a child? I'll bet you did, at least to some degree.....
Have you had any visions of Christ or the Virgin Mary? Seen any good miracles lately? All of these can be explained away by hypnotism!
You want something sooooo badly that you invent "the answer" in your mind. You see what is not there. And then, when the scientific minds call you to task for reporting that which does not exist, you chastise these honest scientists in various ways. Historically, those ways even included torture and execution......
And all of this for a hypnotically induced false system of beliefs!
Its really sad, isn't it, that you have been living your life based on a false memory induced into your mind through a process of hypnosis.
Now, just when (if ever) are you planning on taking the cure for your illness? Most of us took our cures a long time ago.....
A State-Church separation case
In Chile the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" had been banned since 1988 due to religious presure. The civilian governement which replaced Pinochet's rule since 1990, lifted the ban in November 1996.
Local fundamentalist groups filed an injunction petition before the Courts trying to overturn the State's Censorship Board that had lifted the ban. The issue is pending.
I have a Web Site [in spanish only for now, unfortunately] that deals with this issue. I have included there the brief a concerned group of citizens filed before the Court contesting the fundamentalist's petition (I wrote it). We claimed there that this was a Heresy and a separation of state-church case. Moreover, Ihave placed a link to the Secular Web. FYI.
[This message was written in response to Jeffery Jay Lowder]
It is interesting to learn that the LTC is still causing trouble. Here in Kentucky it created a huge flap when it came out; people boycotted theatres, some theatres swore they'd never show it, et cetera. To me it reveals fundies who have little faith in their faith. I can't help but think back to my grandfather who was a Methodist minister. I think he would have said "Go see it; if it changes your mind, it should have. If not, your faith will be even stronger for the test." Why can't everyone see it that way? Is their faith so shaky they are afraid a mere movie will turn people away from true belief?
I appreciate your efforts, and I wish you the best of luck. Let me know if there is anything I can do.
[This message was written in response to Jesus Was a Hypocrite by Donald Morgan ]
Thanks Mr. Morgan for this lightweight attempt to indicate contradictions in the character of Jesus as indicted via the four gospels--you helped my faith with what was either transparant manipulation of the obvious meaning of certain text, or sheer dullness on your part.
Internet Infidels Response:
First of all, your words are typical of those believers who, because of their preconceived notions about the character of Jesus and the inspiration of the Bible, cannot see that non-Christian scholars (and even some Christian scholars) might see it in a different light.
Secondly, the alleged "transparent manipulation" and/or alleged "dullness" on my part--were they accurate descriptions--would be little different than my accusation that there has been "transparent manipulation" by Christian apologists and "dullness" on their parts--not to mention on the parts of most believers. The difference between our accusations, however, is that I have given ample evidence to support my contention whereas you have made an unfounded assertion.
Thirdly, I did little other than to compile what many others who are far more qualified than myself have noticed in the Gospel descriptions of Jesus and have then written about in their own books.
Have you read, for example, "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" by Robert M. Grant, or "Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels" by Michael Grant, or "Jesus Son of Man" by Rudolf Augstein, or "Jesus" by Charles Guignebert?
I have read these books and hundreds more. My reading began while I was still a born-again, Bible-believing, fundamentalist Christian and has continued for more than twenty years after I rejected Christianity as simply untrue. I believe that if you were to do the same, you would see my short piece on Jesus in quite a different light.
"Error needs the support of gods; truth can stand on its own."
You have writen in your article that science has proven the existance of the earth for millions of years! I dissagree science has proven the oposite acording to science the Sun is and has been shrinking at a constant rate and if the earth had been around a few million years ago life could not have possible existed! Allso you refer to the faith of christians being some what blind, but I tell you now it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than creation mathmaticaly speaking its compleatly imposible for evolution to have occured.
Internet Infidels Response:
I don't know where you get your alleged facts, but when it comes to evolution, the writings of Richard Dawkins are much more persuasive to most of us here at the Internet Infidels than would be anything which is implied in your writings, above.
Check out: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_dawkins/
[This message was written in response to Don Morgan]
Why don't you read the bible...you are taking everything from Genisis before the first sin...you really should put the whole verse and the surronding verses in...you don't understand that the things you are compairing happened in compleatly different times. God creat man before the trees, birds, or animal...he put man ahead, or incontrol of them. He made Adam and Eve equal not at the same time. God made a Greater light and a lesser light. Then he created the sun and stars. But it never says sun until after the flood...impling that there was a big canopy over the whole earth. Before the flood it never rained...the conopy rained down water. The lesser light was the sun through the canopy...the lesser was the moon. Open yourself up....you could be trying to disprove something just because you have something against it. Be more open and you will find the truth...
Internet Infidels Response:
>Why don't you read the bible...
I have, thoroughly. Much of it many times.
>you are taking everything from Genisis before the first
>sin...
Not hardly. Are you talking about my material or someone elses?
>you really should put the whole verse and the surronding verses
>in...you don't understand that the things you are compairing
>happened in compleatly different times.
One of the best ways to understand the inconsistencies in the Bible and in the Judeo/Christian God, YHVH, is to take the Bible as a whole.
>God creat man before the trees, birds, or animal...he put man
>ahead, or incontrol of them. He made Adam and Eve equal not at
>the same time. God made a Greater light and a lesser light.
>Then he created the sun and stars. But it never says sun until
>after the flood...impling that there was a big canopy over the
>whole earth. Before the flood it never rained...the conopy
>rained down water. The lesser light was the sun through the
>canopy...the lesser was the moon. Open yourself up....you
>could be trying to disprove something just because you have
>something against it. Be more open and you will find the
>truth....
This is typical Christian teaching--but not very realistic or scholarly. It certainly reflects nothing new.
In my opinion, if a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and loving god had had anything to do with the writing of a book, he could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it than the Bible.
>Please e-mail me so we can talk
We could probably talk about it a lot more intelligently and meaningfully if you were to read something about Bible criticism--how it is done, and what it has found. A good start would be "The Historical Approach to the Bible" by Howard M. Teeple. Another would be "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" by Robert M. Grant.
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
