That was truly beautiful...
i will have to print some copies.
-well done
>From: "TheHermit" <carlw@hermit.net>
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>To: <virus@lucifer.com>
>Subject: 2nd Try under a new identity - please ignore if you have
received it already - virus: Faith vs Religion
>Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 17:55:47 -0600
>
>SnowLeopard
>
>I have stayed relatively quiet while you preached, due to lack of time
and
>inclination, together with a firm belief that we should all be free to
>choose our own vices. That your vice happenes to be a blind devotion to
a
>particularly nasty god did not really offend me until you began
attempting
>to propagate your favorite lies about it on this list. Before you
continuing
>doing so, please consider a few minor points.
>
>In the following I have tried not to quote versus from the bible, only
>references, that way you can look them up for yourself (in context and
your
>favorite translation) and hopefully nobody will become unhappy and
certainly
>they (who know who they are) will have no grounds to accuse me of
quoting
>out of context.
>
>Most available evidence indicates that "Jesus Christ" did not exist.
There
>is no believable contemporary support for the idea of this mythical
>creature. He seems to be a composite of a number of earlier
>resurrection/redeemer gods smeared over the persona of a rabid
>fundamentalist zealot sometime during the mid first century. The New
>Testament was only glued together out of documents dated after 60 CE
(After
>73CE for the Gospels) and arbitrary decisions were made as to what
should be
>included and what should be edited out between 325CE and, some would
argue,
>till as late as 550 C.E. For a reasonably competent view of this, I
strongly
>recommend that you read "James The Brother of Jesus" by Robert
Eisenman. Let
>me quote from a review of this book from
>http://www-ctp.mit.edu/~alford/james.html
>
>The New Testament contains strong indications that that the most basic
>doctrines of modern Christianity were promulgated by the evangelist
Paul,
>over the strenuous objections of Jesus’ original followers. In this
book,
>Robert Eisenman looks closely at this struggle. His work dissolves away
the
>comforting features of modern Christianity and uncovers a skeleton:
James
>"the Just", brother of Jesus, and an apocalyptic, xenophobic,
fundamentalist
>agitator. The unstated but overwhelming implication is that Jesus was
not
>the inoffensive love-preacher of subsequent tradition. That figure is a
>creation of the dominant Graeco-Roman culture of the time. Jesus, it
seems,
>was Ayatollah Khomeni not Ghandi; Elijah Muhammed not Martin Luther
King. In
>essence, Jesus was the brother of James.
>
>...
>
>Eisenman peels back the layers of pro-Roman sugarcoating in the Gospels
and
>Acts. The Romans in Palestine were a merciless colonialist force, their
>tactics documented for us by the Jewish turncoat Josephus. Their
portrayal
>in the Gospels and Acts as good-hearted moderators of the excesses of
the
>Pharisees (themselves depicted as zealous/populist) appears to be a
fiction
>designed to appeal to a Roman audience.
>
>...
>
>Think on it. This is not the babbling of some net-head, but serious
research
>from one of the towering giants of modern religious research and the
>foremost expert on the "Dead Sea Scrolls".
>
>You might also profitably read
>http://members.aol.com/JAlw/did_jesus_exist2.html or obtain The
Encyclopedia
>of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey that bears on the next topic
as
>well. A reference source of biblical criticism can be found at
>http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/bc.htm.
>
>Quoting a little from the first of those:
>Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived
until
>long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews
>covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth.
He
>was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the
>Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal
>entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its
attendant
>earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took
>place--when Christ himself rose from the dead. Yet, he did not mention
these
>events. (b) Under the reign of Tiberius the whole earth, or at least a
>celebrated province of the Roman Empire, was allegedly involved in a
>preternatural darkness of three hours. Yet, Seneca and Pliny the Elder,
who
>recorded all the great earthquakes, meteors, comets, and ellipses they
could
>find and who lived during the period of Jesus, failed to mention the
event.
>(c) Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee.
He
>wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This
work
>perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th
century,
>was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least
mention of
>the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the
>wonderful works that he did" (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33).
>
>The Bible is full of contradictions that cannot be refuted. From
>misstatements about the universe, solar system, mathematics and history
all
>the way to severe internal contradictions that nobody can reply to
except by
>saying, oops, sorry. Try Pi = 3 sometime (2 Chron 4:2). That is an
example
>of the bible attempting to contradict reality. Please don't try to
argue
>that this was a religious work not a math’s book. As a defense it fails
>utterly. The number is plain wrong. The Ahmes papyrus shows the
Egyptians
>using the square root of 10 or 3.16 for PI in a religious work in
1500BCE,
>while the Rhind Papyrus (also called the Ahmes Papyrus, named after the
>British collector, Rhind, who acquired it in 1858. It was copied by a
>scribe, Ahmes (or Ahmos), (~1650 BCE) from another document written
~2000
>BCE, which, probably possibly in turn, was copied from a document from
~2650
>BCE (the time of Imhotep?). The Rhind Papyrus is located in the British
>Museum, and contains mathematics problems and solutions.) indicates
that the
>Egyptians knew that PI = 3 + 1/13 + 1/17 + 1/160 = 3.1415 (from problem
50).
>As the biblical book of "Chronicles" was most likely written by Ezra
around
>the time of 450 BCE the Jewish god was at least 1,000 and possibly
2,250
>years behind the Egyptians. Internal examples abound. Here are a few
simple,
>straightforward problems that even some well-known spokesmen for the
>fundamentalist position grudgingly concede:
>(a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron.
18:4)
>horsemen from Hadadezer;
>(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he
>began to reign;
>(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when
he
>began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10
days
>(2 Chron. 36:9);
>(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron.
21:5)
>men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000
(1
>Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
>(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the
>officers that bare the rule over the people;
>(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2
Sam.
>21:6) during her lifetime;
>(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
>(h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by
Ishmaelites
>(Gen. 39:1);
>(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young
Amalekite (2
>Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
>(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26),
3,000
>(2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
>(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron.
>2:18) overseers;
>(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth
forever;
>(m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14),
is
>not true (John 5:31);
>(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron.
>35:24);
>(o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six
(Matt.
>17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
>(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8),
tenth
>(Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.
>Besides hundreds of singular contradictions, the Bible has several
instances
>in which contradictory statements appear in blocks or groups of
anywhere
>from 10 to 25. The numerous problems associated with the Resurrection
show
>this quite well. Probably the most blatant example concerns the
listings in
>Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 of the family units of the returning exiles.
There are
>about 33 units that appear in both lists, starting with the children of
>Parosh. Fourteen of these units disagree, as can be seen by simply
reading
>down the lists and comparing the numbers. Moreover, Biblical writers
often
>had difficulty in adding figures, and this instance is no exception.
Ezra
>2:64 says the whole congregation together was 42,360, whereas, one need
only
>add the figures to see that it is actually 29,818. Neh. 7:66 says the
total
>number of returnees was 42,360, whereas, the actual number of people
listed
>in Nehemiah 7 is 31,089.
>
>If we stipulate that the Bible is "the word of god" to refute it more
>effectively, then your problems become more severe, not less so.
>
>The bible claims to have been written by a god who is self-admittedly
not
>only a liar (I Kings 22:23), but powerless against mechanically
competent
>opposition (Judges 1:19) and who not only inspires but accepts human
>sacrifices including people sacrificing their own children (Judges
>11:29-40). A god whose bible calls a man good (2 Peter 2:7-8) after the
man
>offered his virgin daughters to a mob for a gang-bang (Genesis 19:3-9)!
This
>loving god of yours who advocates genocide (read Joshua 10 to see how
he
>stopped the movement of the sun and the moon - yes, it seems god's
>understanding of the solar system was a trifle primitive - in order to
give
>the Jews and himself more time to kill their enemies - yes it says that
god
>fought for the Jews that day!), and the killing of people who don't
like the
>idea of him ruling over them (Luke 19:27). This is the same god who
>allegedly killed his own son in order to allay his own anger at other
people
>long dead who did wrong in his eyes (the whole "New Testament"). People
who,
>at the time they are supposed to have committed "sins" against your
god,
>were unable to tell right from wrong and were incited to their actions
by a
>snake who was created by the same god and whom that god knew was going
to do
>this (at least if the god is omniscient), yet this god failed to take
any
>steps to prevent it. This is justice? This is fair? This is kind? Spare
me!
>This god should be locked-up as a nasty, homicidal, antisocial
psychopath.
>
>This same loving god hates people so much, that any rational humans who
look
>at the world and say that the lack of available evidence compels them
to
>deny the existence of this god, will be punished by being cast into
hell
>forever for a "sin" that this god has defined, a lack of evidence
created
>because this god did not seem to want any evidence for its existence,
and a
>"sin" which could only last as long as the "sinner's" lifetime. So this
god
>promotes infinite punishment for finite "crimes". This is the kind god
that
>you are espousing here. I think you can keep your primitive gods -
modern
>men have infinitely superior ethics.
>
>TheHermit
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
>> Of Snow Leopard
>> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 11:52 AM
>> To: virus@lucifer.com
>> Subject: Re: virus: Faith vs Relig
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> Great. I agree. Anyone can be religious. I religiously brush my
>> teeth. Maybe we should come up with anoher word, like "relijious" or
>> something. Anyhow, religions lack faith is what I've been saying all
>> along.
>
>Religions don't have faith or phaith because religions are
organizations,
>not people. Only people can have faith or phaith. Then again, religions
do
>not commit atrocities - only people (and gods, at least according to
the
>bible) do. When a person performing atrocities says that he is a member
of a
>religion and is doing something because his god commanded him to do it,
whom
>do you blame for the atrocities? Try Psalm 137:9. Or tell the
inquisitors
>that they were wrong, that they were not carrying out "Jesus'"
commandments
>when they burnt heretics. After all, they had read in parable (but
spoken of
>favorably) "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth..., and men
gather
>them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
>
>> If I have the most phaith in the goodness of God,
>> then I'm not
>> going to kill someone for their beliefs, because God is good
>> and killing
>> is bad.
>>
>That is not what your bible says or how your god behaves. Your bible
claims
>that your god wreaked evil (Exodus 32:14, Joshua 23:15, Judges 9:13, 1
Sam
>16:14-16 et ff, 2 Sam. 12:11 et ff, 2 Sam 24:16, 1 Kings 9:9, 1 Kings
14:10,
>1 Kings 21:21, 1 Kings 21:29, 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Kings 6:33, 2 Kings
22:16, 2
>Kings 22:20, 1 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 7:22, 2 Chronicles 18:22,
2
>Chronicles 34:24,28, Nehemiah 13:18, Job 2:10, Job 42:11, Jeremiah 4:6,
>Jeremiah 6:19, Jeremiah 11:11, Jeremiah 19:3, Jeremiah 23:12 et ff,
Ezekiel
>5:16-17, Ezekiel 6:10, Daniel 9:12-14, Joel 2:13, Amos 3:6, Amos 9:4,
Jonah
>3:10, Jonah 4:2, Micah 1:12, Micah 2:3, Lamentations 3:38, Isaiah 45:7
and 2
>Kings 21:12 the last three are especially noteworthy. Try Malachai 1:8
and
>while on the page notice that your god can hate a whole people forever
>(Malachai 1:5). Zephaniah 1:12 is only confusing if you imagine that
the
>Jewish God does not kill and does not do evil. Now these are but a
number of
>the places I could cite your god doing evil. And yet your bible says in
>Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
>corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Excuse my quotation here but it
makes
>the point better than I can. I used the KJV and please check for your
self
>that I have provided an adequate "context"). If your bible says that
your
>god can do evil, and if the bible is the word of god, and if according
to
>your bible evil cannot proceed from good, then your god is not good.
Matt
>12:35 also applies. So where do you get the temerity, the chutzpah to
call
>your god good. After all, your bible warns you against just this,
Isaiah
>5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness
>for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet
for
>bitter!"
>Please don't misquote things about your god that you thought you read
in the
>bible without checking them.
>As another aside, killing is not necessarily bad and can be good. Even
the
>bibles 10 commandments do not prohibit killing. Only unlawful killing.
>
><Another snip>
>
>> ><<
>> >The bare definition of the Christian faith is “Jesus Christ, the
>> >perfect Son of God is the only thing that can save us from our own
>> >wrongdoings. All you have to do is let him live through you,
>> >accepting him as Lord and Savior.”
>
>No. There are a bunch of "other requirements" - even in your bible. As
one
>example, every time Jesus was asked about "being saved" he is alleged
to
>have replied with an emphasis on works and the law. If there was a
>"prototype Jesus" then he was a Zealot, as were all of the Qumran and
>Jerusalem community. That name originated because they were "Zealous
for the
>law". They wanted to return to strict Mosaic Law. It was only when Paul
came
>along that he started to try to wipe out "the law". So according to
Jesus
>(not Paul), you had best start living according to strict Mosaic Law.
Or are
>you saying that your Jesus didn't understand as well as Paul did? By
the
>way, I can justify all the above with your bible and analysis and
>commentary. But then, you can too, so why should I bother.
>
><Another snip>
>
><<<snip>>>
>
>> >This argument is known as Pascal's Wager, after Blase Pascal, who
>> >first made it. There are many refutations available, but consider
>> >this:
>>
>> >Calvin: Well. I've decided I do believe in Santa Claus, no matter
>> >how preposterous he sounds.
>> >Hobbes: What convinced you?
>> >Calvin: A simple risk analysis. I want presents. Lots of presents.
>> >Why risk not getting them over a matter of belief? Heck, I'll
believe
>> >anything they want.
>> >Hobbes: How cynically enterprising of you.
>> >Calvin: It's the spirit of Christmas.
>> > -- Calvin & Hobbes comic by Bill Waterson
>>
>> That's nice, but I can disprove Santa Claus a lot easier than you can
>> disprove the God of the Bible.
>>
>That is not our job. If you are making extraordinary claims for your
god,
>then some extraordinary evidence provided by you is needed. So far you
have
>merely whimpered. Eric tried to make the point gently. The argument you
>proposed is so weak that many atheists sit and laugh about the
stupidity of
>the people who raise this argument and take bets on how soon until the
next
>time that it will be attempted in various forums. It proves nothing but
the
>weak-minded inability of Christians to think rationally and grasp the
>challenge to debate logically. You see, it is not for the people who
are
>opposed to the idea of something to disprove it, but rather for its
>supporters to prove it. If you really feel that we should have to
disprove
>your idea, state the attributes of your god or where we are supposed to
find
>out about them, and I am sure somebody will demolish it as neatly as I
>demolished your assertion of your god's "goodness" (Of course, once you
>quote a source, you cannot then deny it, and must be prepared to defend
it).
>On the other hand, you then will need to attempt to demolish the idea
of
>gods such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her pinkness), the
>hermaphroditic purple squid, the Purple Oyster of Doom, and other gods
more
>rational and much more difficult to "disprove" than the Christian gods.
>
>> >Pascal's Wager, although at first convincing, has some serious
flaws,
>> >not the least of which is that it assumes one can *choose* to
believe
>> >whatever one wants to. Next on the list is that Pascal's wager does
>> >not consider the fact that perhaps choosing to believe in the
*wrong*
>> >God could have infinite negative consequences, balancing off the
>> >infinite positive consequences of belief in the correct god.
>>
>> The right god? Pardon me, Eric, but it occurs to me that I
>> may have the
>> bases covered. I have a working set of beliefs, and in charity to
>> whatever may be out there, I check out everything else.
>
>SnowLeopard, for just a moment imagine that your bible is a book of
lies and
>imagine for a moment that the only gods that exist are rational,
sensible,
>ethical and merciful beings, that will reward people for being ethical,
>kind, rational and obeying the golden rule. Let us further assume that
these
>gods "created" you and your ability to think by guiding evolution. You
are
>going to be judged sometime soon, and the only criteria that you will
be
>judged upon is how well you do in the tests enumerated above. If you
were
>irrational and believed in things for which there was no evidence,
despite
>having perfectly good senses and a mind to analyze what you see, then
you
>will have failed the test and will be quickly, mercifully and
permanently
>euthanased. Otherwise you will go to live for as long as you wish to in
the
>most pleasant environment you can imagine.
>
>Are you feeling a little uncomfortable? Why not? This god is a much
nicer
>god than the ones in the bible, the religion makes much more sense, and
the
>ethics displayed are impeccable. Any university ethics committee would
be
>horrified if somebody proposed to do to rats, the kinds of actions that
your
>god is documented as having done (e.g. the flood - fortunately another
myth)
>to humans, while the test described above would be regarded as ethical.
Can
>you see the qualitative differences?
>
>Maybe now you can see why proposing Pascal's wager is a losing
proposition.
>It only works if the only god/s involved in judging you, approve
totally of
>your attitude, beliefs and actions. If you made a mistake, or if the
gods
>are different in any way from what you expected, you run the risk of
being
>condemned to eternal torture or worse for your mistake. Just as a
simple
>example, assume that your Jesus really was talking about a real god
that
>will end up judging you. And assume that your words here you have maybe
>mislead somebody here - you are not judged on your faith or words, but
on
>your deeds and works. And of course, on your adherence to mosaic law.
>(Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17, John 7:19, 1 Peter 1:17, note especially
John
>7:49)
>
> The
>> funny thing
>> is, every Biblical *discrepancy* I've heard of so far can be
>> explained,
>> if one looks though the Biblical world view.
>
>Thomas Paine said it well: "...it is, I believe, impossible to find in
any
>story upon record with so many and glaring absurdities, contradictions
and
>falsehoods, as are in those books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). They
are
>more numerous and striking than I had any expectation of finding, when
I
>began this examination..." (The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, p. 67).
>
>> I challenge
>> anyone reading
>> this to point out a few, I'll show you what I mean.
>
>Hope you enjoy the few contradictions mentioned here. The day you prove
that
>PI = 3 I will personally agree that the bible is free of discrepancies.
>
> On the
>> other hand,
>> I have invested an incredible amount of time trying to understand the
>> viewpoints of otherr religions. I see the discrepancies, ask around,
>> and then the members of *whatever* think that I'm being
>> spiteful.
>
>Really? So why not tell us about the "discrepancies" you have noticed?
Not
>that we are claiming perfection for any religion. Just interested to
see
>such a refreshing approach as yours.
>
>> So,
>> it looks like they're being sore losers. I keep checking. If God is
>> not what I think he is, and he is powerful enoughto do anything, and
>> caring enough to think of humans as more than giga-pets, then
>> He'll make
>> the truth known to me. He knows I'm listening.
>> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>Think about that concatenation of ifs. Assign some probabilities to it.
I'd
>love to see the results. Truly. No sarcasm at all.
>
>Regards TheHermit
>
>P.S. still looking for your other passage. I have found a lot dealing
with
>miracles and warning that the ability to do miracles does not prove one
is
>from God, is God, or represents God. e.g. Matt. 24:23-24 and Mark
13:21-22,
>2 Thess. 2:9, Rev. 16:14, but I am not sure that any of these are the
>passages you were thinking of.
>
>P.P.S. Not entirely signed off the list, just not able to answer as
>immediately as I would like or as carefully and completely. If anyone
feels
>that this smacks of hit-and-runnism, please let me know and I will stop
>commenting and simply read.
>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com