Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

[josie_L]

Wouldn’t want to do that

Just keep looking at the watch as it swings back and forth, back and forth, you’re getting sleepy, sleepier, your asleep

Oh I couldn’t resist “religulous” as it is: :hypno: (now’s the time to ask me questions).

 

[KathleenGee]

I think I spoke with Another Atheist about a year ago, and then this past year until I was banned from this liberal site because I said a comment about STD’s from unsafe sex and also because I was anti-abortion.

I asked some of those debating me to visit Catholic Answers. But I also offered friendship, that some times faith is better witnessed in relationship. Another Atheist is quite sophisticated, a brilliant man who has a compassionate heart. I have been praying for him and I think I was banned either in June or July this past year…Another woman came on who I also think was part of that group.

Many of us were banned while a great deal of hatred was being expressed against the Church as well as fundamentalist Christians.

Keep them in your prayers.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Oh I couldn’t resist “religulous” as it is: :hypno: (now’s the time to ask me questions).

About what?

 

[KyivAndrew]

When we know the roots of Judeo-Christianity lie in earlier mythological systems, the most logical and probable conclusion is that Judeo-Christianity is an offshoot of these earlier systems.
OK

To the latter, no they don’t ; to the former, no it isn’t . If you have ever read one of the most prominent historians of World History, Paul Johnson, he establishes quite well, that of all the ancient cultures in the world, there was only ONE that began with Monotheism attached to ethics. The Jews were the first people in the world to practice Ethical Monotheism. Please name one other ancient world culture who believed in One God, the Creator, and who propagated a Set of Moral Laws. Not a polytheistic religion, a monotheistic one. Any other ancient religious system that practiced Monotheism (a belief in One God) who commanded a Morality? The Jews’ One God was inseparable from the Law He gave. The Jews are unique in all of history for this for bringing Ethical Monotheism into the world, a fact that was even acknowledged here on Catholic Forums by a gentlemen studying Egyptology in University on another thread where I asked him this as well.

Even such utter former skeptics like A.N. Wilson formerly wrote:
The pagan gods of classical antiquity had no concern with ethics, which is why Greek moralists, from Socrates and Plato onwards, viewed the activities of Mount Olympus with disdain and stretched out to abstract concepts of Goodness and Justice of a kind which had been axiomatic to the monotheistic Jews centuries before their pagan neighbours. The purity and abstractness of the Jewish theology, from the eights century BCE onwards, is remarkable. While others were bowing down to images of wood and stone, the Jewish prophets were calling on their people to a recognition that the will of God could only fulfilled by a virtuous and neigbourly life; by making provision for the poor; by establishing a just society in which men and women could live with the dignity of believing that they were the children of God. (pp.8-9 A.N. Wilson Jesus.

.

All this talk of Horus (did he set up Commandments? for morality). Perhaps the most famous historian of world history J.M. Roberts who wrote the incredible History of the World (recognized as the best by names like Allan Bullock and A.J. Taylor - these names will mean something if you study legitimate history), wrote after an in-depth analysis of Ancient Egypt and its religions that: “A highly literate elite utilizing a complex and subtle language and a material of unsurpassed convenience uses them copiously but has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to the Greek or Jew to give the world” emphasis mine, pg. 98 amazon.com/History-World-J-M-Roberts/dp/0195210433

On the Jews’ original contribution Paul Johnson: amazon.com/History-Jews-Paul-M-Johnson/dp/0060915331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253076508&sr=1-1

Even the most severe critics of the conventional view of Jesus Christ have to concede that there actually lived a person named Jesus Christ in first century Palestine - a real person not a mythical figure like Horus. People like the Jesus Seminar and John Crossan all acknowledge the historical (not mythical) existence of the Teacher Jesus. The only people claiming Jesus as myth are ones who barely study the evidence as a scholars and whose works are not taken seriously by most biblical scholars (even those that deny Jesus’ divinity). Mostly the Jesus myth propagators are malcontent journalists like Tom Harpur.

A.N. Wilson who set out to debunk Christianity even had to admit: "Those who believe that Jesus was an invented character, that did not exist at all, are in a very small minority of New Testament scholars. We are not obliged to believe that the evangelists had the same purpose as modern historians…But it is eccentric to deny that they are describing actual people, actual places, even on occasion actual events, of which the Crucifixion was surely one…it strains belief to suppose that there was not an actual Galilean preacher, exorcist and miracle-worker who died on a cross in or around the year 30 C.E… And this came from a writer who at the time was writing a book against divinity or resurrection for Jesus. (A.N. Wilson Jesus pg. 57)

God Bless.

p.s. since writing that book, A.N. Wilson realized his arguments couldn’t hold and has come back to the Church. see his conversion story dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169145/Religion-hatred-Why-longer-cowed-secular-zealots.html

p.s. sorry for experimenting with colours.

 

[KathleenGee]

Regarding the former post, our pastor was sharing with us about why the Jews were the Chosen People of God, and it was speculated that perhaps they were the only ones who believed in a monotheistic God.

I read most of the Code of Hammurabi, being made aware of it on this liberal website. But I found it very rambling, circular, essentially reflecting the value of retaining what you worked for and protection of your property.

Confucianism reflected essentially all of the Commandments pertaining to one’s neighbor. But it did not reveal Who God Is. That was revealed to the Jewish People.

Furthermore about shared myths, the land of Ur was the homeplace of Abraham and Noah. These peoples migrated and thus the Semitic people drew on shared reflections regarding the beginning of man’s existence. In general, I believe these people as well were polytheistic. Thus there is room to assume that there were others as well who were monotheistic. There is no issue in my mind of anthropological (name removed by moderator)ut of shared traditions of man’s beginnings, because they are essentially the same people.

What is scientifically true is that there was a huge flood a long time ago in that region of the world. People in those days didn’t usually travel more than a little over 20 miles from their dwellings. So to them, an epic flood would appear to cover the entire world. Studying beliefs of ancient times, you must also consider geology and anthropology, understanding events in the context of their times. This was the problem of Another Atheist who is also a very compunctual intellectual, having difficulty understanding people in their context. He was very apt to project nuances onto others’ arguments, and this made him believe he won the argument.

We know faith is not about winning arguments. It is to be lived out, and the Good News extended to others.

Just as the conflict between Islam and Judaism is actually fratricidal rather than religious.

 

[yankee_doodle]

To the latter, no they don’t ; to the former, no it isn’t . If you have ever read one of the most prominent historians of World History, Paul Johnson, he establishes quite well, that of all the ancient cultures in the world, there was only ONE that began with Monotheism attached to ethics.

Two observations Kyiv. First, Johnson is a RC writer (and I guess I have a problem giving too much consideration to someone who writes a book aimed at rationalizing his world view). Secondly, I never posited mythological systems that predate Judeo-Christianity were monotheistic. Indeed there’s no reason not to believe monotheism was a Jewish innovation.

My point was the parallels between numerous earlier mythological stories and both Judaism and Christianity has probative value. While not conclusive within itself, when taken in concert with numerous other facts, the case becomes decisive (reasonably speaking).

The Jews were the first people in the world to practice Ethical Monotheism.

as far as we know yes, again, not a fact I ever disputed.

Please name one other ancient world culture who believed in One God, the Creator, and who propagated a Set of Moral Laws. Not a polytheistic religion, a monotheistic one. Any other ancient religious system that practiced Monotheism (a belief in One God) who commanded a Morality? The Jews’ One God was inseparable from the Law He gave. The Jews are unique in all of history for this for bringing Ethical Monotheism into the world, a fact that was even acknowledged here on Catholic Forums by a gentlemen studying Egyptology in University on another thread where I asked him this as well.

I suppose. Certainly other ancient cultures, although polytheistic, usually believed one of their gods was the supreme god. Judaism differed because its characters drew their power from the supreme creator god (and acted as a conduit for this god), yet an interesting fact you’ll notice when studying the old testament is it validates competing mythological systems. It doesn’t treat the polytheistic gods of their neighbors as fictional characters, but rather as “demonic forces.” In fact the old testament even tells us unicorns existed.

I guess now-a-days when someone like me says ‘do you seriously believe there were unicorns’? The modern theist just says, ‘of course not, those were figurative references.’ I suspect it won’t be long before science picks apart the whole thing; then it will be interesting to see how Judeo-Christianity (and its offshoots like Islam) continues to validate itself?

Continued below

 

[yankee_doodle]

Even such utter former skeptics like A.N. Wilson formerly wrote:
The pagan gods of classical antiquity had no concern with ethics, which is why Greek moralists, from Socrates and Plato onwards, viewed the activities of Mount Olympus with disdain and stretched out to abstract concepts of Goodness and Justice of a kind which had been axiomatic to the monotheistic Jews centuries before their pagan neighbours. The purity and abstractness of the Jewish theology, from the eights century BCE onwards, is remarkable. While others were bowing down to images of wood and stone, the Jewish prophets were calling on their people to a recognition that the will of God could only fulfilled by a virtuous and neigbourly life; by making provision for the poor; by establishing a just society in which men and women could live with the dignity of believing that they were the children of God. (pp.8-9 A.N. Wilson Jesus.

First, the striking similarities between Greek and Christian philosophy can’t be ignored. In fact Greek ethics are so similar to Christian morality I think it was Ambrose who posited Plato and the biblical prophet Jeremiah came into contact with one another (which has of course been debunked; and I believe Ambrose himself later retracted the idea). Just to note the obvious, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle pre-dated Christianity by a few centuries. Indeed it was believed by the Greeks that Plato was born to a virgin. Origen, an early Christian father and apologist comments on this parallel (See Against Celsus, Book 1, Chap. 37).

However, we also see numerous other parallels, such as the Sumerian flood account as compared to the Noah narrative (virtually a polytheistic twin).

Few would seriously deny the offshoot Semitic tribe, who most likely originated in Mesopotamian civilization, who eventually became the Jews … created or at least preserved monotheism. But the fact that they borrowed from some of the themes of earlier mythology is probative.

When Joseph Smith created Mormonism he didn’t invent a completely new religion, but rather a hybrid of Christianity (albeit one that makes serious changes to the original). When Benny Hinn slaps a wheel chair ridden man and the man gets up and starts jumping around, isn’t that a modern example of how easy it is to fool people who really want to believe in this sort of stuff.

The right answer is usually the more logical one. The more logical answer is that these religions started in much the same way we see crack pots inventing religions or denominations today. Indeed we have more than enough examples of crack pots inventing religions in contemporary society, whereas we have no examples of men dividing oceans in half, god-men rising from the dead, rivers turning into blood, etc.
.

All this talk of Horus (did he set up Commandments? for morality). Perhaps the most famous historian of world history J.M. Roberts who wrote the incredible History of the World (recognized as the best by names like Allan Bullock and A.J. Taylor - these names will mean something if you study legitimate history), wrote after an in-depth analysis of Ancient Egypt and its religions that: “A highly literate elite utilizing a complex and subtle language and a material of unsurpassed convenience uses them copiously but has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to the Greek or Jew to give the world” emphasis mine, pg. 98 amazon.com/History-World-J-M-Roberts/dp/0195210433

On the Jews’ original contribution Paul Johnson: amazon.com/History-Jews-Paul-M-Johnson/dp/0060915331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253076508&sr=1-1

Even the most severe critics of the conventional view of Jesus Christ have to concede that there actually lived a person named Jesus Christ in first century Palestine - a real person not a mythical figure like Horus. People like the Jesus Seminar and John Crossan all acknowledge the historical (not mythical) existence of the Teacher Jesus. The only people claiming Jesus as myth are ones who barely study the evidence as a scholars and whose works are not taken seriously by most biblical scholars (even those that deny Jesus’ divinity). Mostly the Jesus myth propagators are malcontent journalists like Tom Harpur.

A.N. Wilson who set out to debunk Christianity even had to admit: "Those who believe that Jesus was an invented character, that did not exist at all, are in a very small minority of New Testament scholars. We are not obliged to believe that the evangelists had the same purpose as modern historians…But it is eccentric to deny that they are describing actual people, actual places, even on occasion actual events, of which the Crucifixion was surely one…it strains belief to suppose that there was not an actual Galilean preacher, exorcist and miracle-worker who died on a cross in or around the year 30 C.E… And this came from a writer who at the time was writing a book against divinity or resurrection for Jesus. (A.N. Wilson Jesus pg. 57)

God Bless.

p.s. since writing that book, A.N. Wilson realized his arguments couldn’t hold and has come back to the Church. see his conversion story dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169145/Religion-hatred-Why-longer-cowed-secular-zealots.html

p.s. sorry for experimenting with colours.

Frankly I don’t necessarily dispute that a man named Jesus lived (although this river of evidence you seem to think exists amounts to a few sentences from Josephus and brief mention by two Roman era historians, but in none of these references do the authors claim to have witnessed Jesus … they were merely references to a cult of people who followed Jesus), just like I don’t dispute that David Koresh lived (albeit we have much more concrete proof Koresh lived). I just don’t think Jesus (assuming he did exist) was a god-man, or even that his theology was particularly unique. Sure, forgiveness, love, and all the rest are great ideas (that sadly human rarely live up to). However, it’s not like Jesus invented these virtues (if he even enumerated them at all, and Christianity wasn’t invented by perhaps Paul trying to spread monotheism … who the heck knows).

If you ask me Christian ethics sounds strikingly similar to stoic philosophy? But I guess my overall point is showing a plausible likelihood that Jesus existed or that the Hebrew people invented monotheism … doesn’t help much when debating against someone who doesn’t dispute those assertions & doesn’t base his view on them.

 

[josie_L]

I think I spoke with Another Atheist about a year ago, and then this past year until I was banned from this liberal site because I said a comment about STD’s from unsafe sex and also because I was anti-abortion.

I asked some of those debating me to visit Catholic Answers. But I also offered friendship, that some times faith is better witnessed in relationship. Another Atheist is quite sophisticated, a brilliant man who has a compassionate heart. I have been praying for him and I think I was banned either in June or July this past year…Another woman came on who I also think was part of that group.

Many of us were banned while a great deal of hatred was being expressed against the Church as well as fundamentalist Christians.

Keep them in your prayers.

Hi Kathleen, I’m interested in knowing what they were saying about the Church and fundamental Christians. Thank you and God bless.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Frankly I don’t necessarily dispute that a man named Jesus lived (although this river of evidence you seem to think exists amounts to a few sentences from Josephus and brief mention by two Roman era historians, but in none of these references do the authors claim to have witnessed Jesus … .

Philo never wrote of Jesus nor did he ever write of anyone who could be mistaken for Jesus.

Philo 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 (which also has no independent corroboration) supposedly occurred. He was personally very interested in the concept of resurrection. He was there when Christ supposedly would have made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead would have taken place–when Christ himself supposedly would have rose from the dead. Yet, none of these events are ever mentioned by him.

Pliny the Elder never wrote of Jesus nor did he ever write of anyone who could be mistaken for Jesus.

Pliny wrote a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; he even writes about the Essenes in Natural History, section V, 15 . Yet nowhere in his works is any mention of the Jesus phenomena described in Mark. The typical apologist response is that Pliny would not have taken interest in a backwater preacher, but given the claims given in the Gospels concerning the purported life of Jesus, it is glaringly obvious that Pliny would have either seen, heard of, or at least investigated events as incredible as those reported in the book of Mark; yet not a word of these putative events is alluded to in his work.
Pliny also provides us with a direct refutation of the Gospel claims of earthquakes and eclipses (i.e. such as those found in Matthew). Pliny collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary - which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, yet he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem.

Neither the elder nor the younger Seneca, both contempories of Jesus, ever mentions him.

Josephus was not a contempory so any of his writings would have been hearsay.

as a Jewish historian who focused on Jewish history and religion, he would have been greatly interested in the appearance of the Jewish Messiah. Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews, See his works here: reluctant-messenger.com/josephus.htm This is a work that focused on Jewish history from “Adam” to Josephus’ time. Yet, while Josephus devotes a good deal of time and space to John the Baptist (Note, the claim that he actually writes about John the Baptist is controversial) and other historical figures mentioned in the Gospels (He gives a detailed account of Pontius Pilate in The Jewish Wars, inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html) he does not appear to have actually written anything at all concerning the life of Jesus the Christ! This is ‘damning’ considering that we would expect that the appearance of the Jewish Messiah ought to have dominated a work dedicated to Jewish history.
Furthermore, Josephus was interested both in the concept of resurrection, as well as in the histories of various Jewish sects which a real Jesus would have either 1) been a member of or 2) have had substantial discourse with. How could a man with these experiences, and with these interests, not have dedicated volumes to “Jesus” if there were any reason to believe such a messiah existed?
Josephus writes:
“When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups.”
(Life, 1.2, 10-11)
Now we have a man with a keen historical interest in Judaism, combing this interest with a wealth of first hand experience concerning the very groups Jesus would have been numbered amongst, who doesn’t mention a word about Jesus! Josephus is also known to have recorded the term in office of Joseph, son of Caiaphas, the very same Caiaphas whom the Gospels claim organized the plot to kill Jesus. Yet nothing in his report on Caiaphas alludes to such an event.

For this very reason, the claim that Josephus never mentions a Jesus the Christ was a concern for early Christians. Therefore, it is no surprise that a later interpolation of a reference to Jesus the Christ appears in the Antiquities. The infamous “Testimonium Flavium” appears to have been inserted into the Antiquities about the time of the 4th century. A key proof for this comes from the fact that while early Christians cited Josephus, none of them ever cited the Testimonium, even in situations where they were striving to provide historical proof for Jesus (i.e. in debates with Jewish scholars):

• Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) never once quoted the passage – even in the face of charges that Christians had “invented some sort of Christ for themselves” and that they had accepted “a futile rumor” (Dialogue with Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135).

Not only do the preserved writings of Tacitus not mention Jesus but the specific years covering the reserection were purposefully removed at some point during antiquity from the only surviving copies of his work. Since these document were stored at monistaries it would be a safe bet that the monk’s would have left any reference to Christ intact.

rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus

There’s more see the link if interested.

 

[josie_L]

Philo never wrote of Jesus nor did he ever write of anyone who could be mistaken for Jesus.

Pliny the Elder never wrote of Jesus nor did he ever write of anyone who could be mistaken for Jesus.

Neither the elder nor the younger Seneca, both contempories of Jesus, ever mentions him.

Josephus was not a contempory so any of his writings would have been hearsay.

Not only do the preserved writings of Tacitus not mention Jesus but the specific years covering the reserection were purposefully removed at some point during antiquity from the only surviving copies of his work. Since these document were stored at monistaries it would be a safe bet that the monk’s would have left any reference to Christ intact.

rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus

There’s more see the link if interested.

Josephus was a contemporary of the apostles and his writings have not been invalidated because some sentences were later added in by scribes, in fact, much of what he wrote still coincides with the N.T., Pliny the younger not the elder wrote about Jesus, Tacitus did mention Jesus as Christus (the Christ) and moreover other pertinent details. Furthermore, those who deny Jesus’s existence are repudiated by biblical scholars and historians alike.

p.s. I will give you the necessary sources later.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Josephus was a contemporary of the apostles and his writings have not been invalidated because some sentences were later added in by scribes, in fact, much of what he wrote still coincides with the N.T., Pliny the younger not the elder wrote about Jesus, Tacitus did mention Jesus as Christus (the Christ) and moreover other pertinent details. Furthermore, those who deny Jesus’s existence are repudiated by biblical scholars and historians alike.

p.s. I will give you the necessary sources later.

Josephus is thought by a minority of scholars to have written at least two passages about Jesus, however, the majority of scholars believe there were several interpolations (particularly the messianic and resurrection references). Indeed few modern scholars believe the current version of Testimonium is uncorrupted from its original form, or even referred to Jesus at all.

I have no problem believing Josephus wrote a few words about Jesus (but that doesn’t show us anymore than we already know, there were Christians in first century Palestine). However, if some of the more fantastic passages averred to be written by Josephus were authentic, one would have to imagine Justin Martyr, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria would have eagerly pointed them out when they mentioned Josephus in their apologetics.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Not only do the preserved writings of Tacitus not mention Jesus but the specific years covering the reserection were purposefully removed at some point during antiquity from the only surviving copies of his work. Since these document were stored at monistaries it would be a safe bet that the monk’s would have left any reference to Christ intact.

rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus

There’s more see the link if interested.

What I know for certain is the writings of these men, whether they’re authentic or not, merely confirm what we already know. There were Christians in the first century.

Most intellectually honest Christian apologists I’ve talked to don’t pretend Josephus really wrote the more fantastic passages about Jesus attributed to him by a small minority of scholars. They do generally believe Josephus wrote something about Jesus, but that only provides evidence that there were Christians in first century Palestine.

Christian apologists usually use the alleged references of Roman historians as evidence of early first century Christian martyrdom (which they frame as evidence supporting the supernatural claims made by the bible. After all, as the argument goes, would people willingly die for a lie?). However, whether authentic or not these alleged writings don’t prove anything beyond many people throughout history have indeed been gullible enough to die for a lie. In fact we need go no further than our local news-stands to see abundant proof that people can still be just as gullible. It’s hard to imagine anyone could be ignorant enough to believe if they commit murder-suicide their soul will be rushed to paradise, where 72 virgins lie waiting for them; but unfortunately there are thousands, perhaps even millions of people who are exactly this gullible.

Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us that there were plenty of equally gullible people in the first century near east, a society already predisposed to all sorts of bizarre superstition, who were also of course much more primitive than we are today (at least as compared to educated westerners).

So even though the authenticity of the alleged Jesus statements made by Josephus is a minority view I usually don’t argue the point. The fantastic passages (making messianic and resurrection references) have been shown to be interpolations. The rest of these alleged passages don’t provide relevant proof of anything (besides stuff we already know or can fairly assume anyway).

 

[KathleenGee]

Josie,

The problem with the American Catholic Church, and that is our famous or infamous bishop councils, that abusive priests were moved to various parishes…Bishops were told these priests could be healed. I read an account recently that a priest heading a treatment center as far back as 1954 or so stated repeatedly that these men could not be treated.

The other problem is that it is impossible for people to understand the sacred nature of the priesthood. A priest told me about 20 years ago that the Vatican did have prisons for abusive priests. In the Dialogues of S. Catherine of Siena, in the book on ‘Church’, she alludes to this sort of behavior as well as those who could not live up to to the rule of celibacy, as well as the impact homosexual activity had on the action of the priest during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…We now have the intrusion of civil law into the church. In the past, it was the intrusion of the Church into the secular world after the Protestant reformation and the disintegration of the unity of Christianity. Psalm 101, I believe, ‘Dare not touch my anointed ones…’ They don’t get it and they don’t respect it because of what happened to these children.

I am of Irish descent and I was abused by Irish nuns many years go in a parochial school in the inner city. You read today about what is happening in Ireland. The American church is essentially Irish and Irish people, such as myself, have put priests on pedestals, or enabled this clergy class to exist here. I have known many excellent Irish American priests as well. But I also grew up in an Italian neighborhood, and we mostly went to the Italian mission church run by an elderly Jesuit from Italy who was always telling people to remember the poor – we who live in the inner city.

The other problem is that without the sacraments, living up to what the Church professes and expects of us is impossible for those not fed by the sacraments and the Word of God. As Christians, however, our sacred duty calls us to respond to 3 sins that cry to heaven for justice…That is, the taking of innocent life as we believe all human life is sacred, not helping the poor, not paying workers just wages. These points we must cry out to the world – but with reason and charity.

The other problem they have is American fundamentalism. I wrote today a piece of the origin of Martin Luther’s place of inspiration…it was factual, but I did not by any means wish to personally hurt anyone. But it was the truth, and I could not believe a faith based inspiration coming from his circumstances. The protestants do not believe in most of the sacraments, they believe in Sola Scriptura which has in fact created 34,000 Christian sects and cults all claiming to get it right.

The other problem, as was implied with Another Atheist’s valid concerns, was the denial of science, the belief that the world was created in 7 days. I have no problem with science, evolution…but I believe in a mystical way the progression and increase of complexity of life…and 7 days is merely a metaphor.

St. Athanasius said in his time, an early church Father, that we strive in the apostolic tradition to be educated, to learn science. I grew up under the persecution, however faint, of Southern Baptists. My dad, a very devout Welsh/Irish Catholic did not have prejudice, but a great deal of anger and hurt towards the Southern Baptists and what was done to African Americans under the name of Christianity. Seculars who did not grow up with any religion see Christians pretty much as hypocrites, let alone believing in myths, and lacking much education.

Our neighbor invited my mother and my siblings and I to attend her southern Baptist church. I remember the minister getting up in his business suit. I looked around and it looked like a secular building. He looked over at us, got all emotional, raising his voice, and denouncing our faith. To me, even though I was 8, he looked like he was in darkness, and frankly, I thought he was an evil man, and I found their religion based mostly on emotion and prejudice. Sorry.

If these so-called denominations didn’t have the Catholic Church to constantly attack, you would see their balloon deflate quite a bit. Again, I don’t like what I said, but their beliefs are reactionary and lacking academic education. They do not understand anthropology and inculturation.

It points to scrupulous understanding of Scripture that denies the basic humanity and brokenness in all of us, the human condition, that I deal with myself as well as others. A priest told me years ago that scruples are one of the first steps towards insanity.

 

[KathleenGee]

About the bishop councils, they mean well, but they operate like clubs…when a bishop votes or makes a decision alone, he is not so subjective or relative, but gives the full assessment of a given situation in accordance with Rome.

When they vote in the conferences, they admit they would have voted differently if done so alone. What this does, as my Italian friends have shared with me, is that American Catholic Church appears to be a compromising Church.

There are complaints about the big public funeral Sen.Ted Kennedy received. He was writing to the Pope before he died, confessing that he did not live up to various tenants of his faith. He went to confession. His former remarks were meant to be public. He received the last rites, he was restored into full communion with the Church, and in the Irish Catholic tradition, we should be deeply forgiving and rejoice. He is on his way to heaven.

 

[josie_L]

Josephus is thought by a minority of scholars to have written at least two passages about Jesus, however, the majority of scholars believe there were several interpolations (particularly the messianic and resurrection references). Indeed few modern scholars believe the current version of Testimonium is uncorrupted from its original form, or even referred to Jesus at all.

I have no problem believing Josephus wrote a few words about Jesus (but that doesn’t show us anymore than we already know, there were Christians in first century Palestine). However, if some of the more fantastic passages averred to be written by Josephus were authentic, one would have to imagine Justin Martyr, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria would have eagerly pointed them out when they mentioned Josephus in their apologetics.

The majority of scholars hold the consensus that the Testimonium is partially authentic, here are a list of some of those who hold this view:

"Liberal commentators such as Robert Frank, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as from Josephus’ hand. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter, as well as secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Frederiksen. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web and Infidels.org, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. Paula Frederiksen sums up the state of the question among scholars: “Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes.”

Most Scholars who accept the “partial authenticity” theory conclude that something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was likely original to Book 18:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out."

Imagine this was written not so many decades later (which in ancient times can be considered something akin to a newsflash), and what strikes me most about the above paragraph is that the last line shows that this Jesus was special/unique in that even though others before him claimed to be the messiah and failed, Jesus didn’t (even after Jesus quite a few Jews purported to be the messiah and likewise failed).

Source for quote taken from “Shattering the Christ Myth” by James Patrick Holding, ED.

 

[josie_L]

Josie,

The problem with the American Catholic Church, and that is our famous or infamous bishop councils, that abusive priests were moved to various parishes…Bishops were told these priests could be healed. I read an account recently that a priest heading a treatment center as far back as 1954 or so stated repeatedly that these men could not be treated.

The other problem is that it is impossible for people to understand the sacred nature of the priesthood. A priest told me about 20 years ago that the Vatican did have prisons for abusive priests. In the Dialogues of S. Catherine of Siena, in the book on ‘Church’, she alludes to this sort of behavior as well as those who could not live up to to the rule of celibacy, as well as the impact homosexual activity had on the action of the priest during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…We now have the intrusion of civil law into the church. In the past, it was the intrusion of the Church into the secular world after the Protestant reformation and the disintegration of the unity of Christianity. Psalm 101, I believe, ‘Dare not touch my anointed ones…’ They don’t get it and they don’t respect it because of what happened to these children.

I am of Irish descent and I was abused by Irish nuns many years go in a parochial school in the inner city. You read today about what is happening in Ireland. The American church is essentially Irish and Irish people, such as myself, have put priests on pedestals, or enabled this clergy class to exist here. I have known many excellent Irish American priests as well. But I also grew up in an Italian neighborhood, and we mostly went to the Italian mission church run by an elderly Jesuit from Italy who was always telling people to remember the poor – we who live in the inner city.

The other problem is that without the sacraments, living up to what the Church professes and expects of us is impossible for those not fed by the sacraments and the Word of God. As Christians, however, our sacred duty calls us to respond to 3 sins that cry to heaven for justice…That is, the taking of innocent life as we believe all human life is sacred, not helping the poor, not paying workers just wages. These points we must cry out to the world – but with reason and charity.

The other problem they have is American fundamentalism. I wrote today a piece of the origin of Martin Luther’s place of inspiration…it was factual, but I did not by any means wish to personally hurt anyone. But it was the truth, and I could not believe a faith based inspiration coming from his circumstances. The protestants do not believe in most of the sacraments, they believe in Sola Scriptura which has in fact created 34,000 Christian sects and cults all claiming to get it right.

The other problem, as was implied with Another Atheist’s valid concerns, was the denial of science, the belief that the world was created in 7 days. I have no problem with science, evolution…but I believe in a mystical way the progression and increase of complexity of life…and 7 days is merely a metaphor.

St. Athanasius said in his time, an early church Father, that we strive in the apostolic tradition to be educated, to learn science. I grew up under the persecution, however faint, of Southern Baptists. My dad, a very devout Welsh/Irish Catholic did not have prejudice, but a great deal of anger and hurt towards the Southern Baptists and what was done to African Americans under the name of Christianity. Seculars who did not grow up with any religion see Christians pretty much as hypocrites, let alone believing in myths, and lacking much education.

Our neighbor invited my mother and my siblings and I to attend her southern Baptist church. I remember the minister getting up in his business suit. I looked around and it looked like a secular building. He looked over at us, got all emotional, raising his voice, and denouncing our faith. To me, even though I was 8, he looked like he was in darkness, and frankly, I thought he was an evil man, and I found their religion based mostly on emotion and prejudice. Sorry.

If these so-called denominations didn’t have the Catholic Church to constantly attack, you would see their balloon deflate quite a bit. Again, I don’t like what I said, but their beliefs are reactionary and lacking academic education. They do not understand anthropology and inculturation.

It points to scrupulous understanding of Scripture that denies the basic humanity and brokenness in all of us, the human condition, that I deal with myself as well as others. A priest told me years ago that scruples are one of the first steps towards insanity.

Thank you Kathleen for your response, I pretty much agree with and understand everything you’ve said. And although I never went to parochial school I too experienced mistreatment (although nothing substantially cruel) from a few of my teachers in the public school system. I did spend two years with the nuns though, but my experience was wonderful, I’m sorry they mistreated you so.

p.s. A little off topic here but I’ve noticed that Italians and Irish mix very well together (I myself have an affinity for the Irish, I grew up believing I would one day marry an Irishman, and I’ve always wanted to go to Ireland).

 

[josie_L]

Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us that there were plenty of equally gullible people in the first century near east, a society already predisposed to all sorts of bizarre superstition, who were also of course much more primitive than we are today (at least as compared to educated westerners).

But the apostles and first disciples were Jews and therefore not predisposed to bizarre superstition, they were in fact a people waiting for their messiah as the Jewish scriptures prophesied (this was so for centuries upon centuries). There could be no conceivable reason that such pious Jews would suddenly believe in something so “bizarre” and “dangerous” unless they saw an event so incredible that it transformed them forever to the point that they would suffer all their lives and eventually die for what they knew.

 

[yankee_doodle]

But the apostles and first disciples were Jews and therefore not predisposed to bizarre superstition, they were in fact a people waiting for their messiah as the Jewish scriptures prophesied (this was so for centuries upon centuries). There could be no conceivable reason that such pious Jews would suddenly believe in something so “bizarre” and “dangerous” unless they saw an event so incredible that it transformed them forever to the point that they would suffer all their lives and eventually die for what they knew.

I was referring to first century believers, not the men who may have invented this mythology.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The majority of scholars hold the consensus that the Testimonium is partially authentic, here are a list of some of those who hold this view:

"Liberal commentators such as Robert Frank, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as from Josephus’ hand. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter, as well as secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Frederiksen. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web and Infidels.org, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. Paula Frederiksen sums up the state of the question among scholars: “Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes.”

Most Scholars who accept the “partial authenticity” theory conclude that something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was likely original to Book 18:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out."

Imagine this was written not so many decades later (which in ancient times can be considered something akin to a newsflash), and what strikes me most about the above paragraph is that the last line shows that this Jesus was special/unique in that even though others before him claimed to be the messiah and failed, Jesus didn’t (even after Jesus quite a few Jews purported to be the messiah and likewise failed).

Source for quote taken from “Shattering the Christ Myth” by James Patrick Holding, ED.

Look, it’s obvious enough no matter what facts I post, you’ll try and conjure up another spin job, misrepresent the truth, or whatever you can think of to defend your religion. I mean look … at this point lady if you like these fairy tales so much, good luck with it.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The majority of scholars hold the consensus that the Testimonium is partially authentic, here are a list of some of those who hold this view:

"Liberal commentators such as Robert Frank, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as from Josephus’ hand. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter, as well as secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Frederiksen. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web and Infidels.org, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. Paula Frederiksen sums up the state of the question among scholars: “Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes.”

Most Scholars who accept the “partial authenticity” theory conclude that something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was likely original to Book 18:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out."

Imagine this was written not so many decades later (which in ancient times can be considered something akin to a newsflash), and what strikes me most about the above paragraph is that the last line shows that this Jesus was special/unique in that even though others before him claimed to be the messiah and failed, Jesus didn’t (even after Jesus quite a few Jews purported to be the messiah and likewise failed).

Source for quote taken from “Shattering the Christ Myth” by James Patrick Holding, ED.

oh btw, the few scholars you mention are hardly a “majority of scholars.” A majority of biblical scholars reject the idea that Josephus wrote about Jesus at all (unless, that is, you limit your sources to Christian apologetic web sites, which I imagine you do). However, it’s not relevant, because as I said previously I think it’s possible Josephus might have written something about Jesus (even if the probability is somewhat remote) … so I don’t base my personal views on Josephus.

The funniest one is “a few latter insertions by Christians scribes.” I mean you guys have no shame, you’ll stop at nothing to pawn your myths. I have to admit … it does amaze me sometimes when I think about how gullible people can be in this world, or maybe gullible is unfair, but perhaps they think of themselves as having so little significance in this world they would go as far as to imagine they were chosen and are loved unconditionally by a mythological character, who will give them eternal paradise in return for living an obscure and uninteresting life. I guess the only catch is … you have to wait till you die

I mean come on … look I have a bridge for sale. If you buy this bridge you’ll get a great reward while you’re alive. You can install tolls between Brooklyn & Manhattan and make a killing