 |
|
|
|
Stephen (Colbert) v. Stephen (Prothero) on Religious Truthiness
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN It’s probably not the best venue for promoting religious literacy, but I managed to get a few words in edgewise during my brief border crossing into “Colbert Nation” last night. In our mini-battle of the Stephens, Colbert was his usual staccato self, but he allowed me to make a few points about my new book, God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World—and Why Their Differences Matter. Colbert came out swinging, insisting on the superiority of Christianity as the one true faith. I got in a few jabs of my own, however, including my argument that the atheists (who say all religions are one and bad) and the liberal multiculturalists (who say all religions are one and good) both have it wrong. The world's religions aren't different paths up the same mountain, I said. They are “going up different mountains with different techniques and different tools.” The best line of the night belonged, however, to the truthy Stephen. As I was struggling to say something coherent about how Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism try to solve very different problems, he delivered classic Colberesque non sequitur: “Adam and Eve were Jewish. Check under the fig leaf, my friend.” Oh, and Stephen Colbert (the man, not the character) was a gracious host backstage. He told me he used to teach Sunday school in his Catholic parish, and he made the day of my star-struck cousin by having a picture made with him. All in all, great fun. I hope it was just round one. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero.
« Previous entryUgandan couple charged with having sex in church
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Dan Gilgoff and Eric Marrapodi, with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2010 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Help | Advertising Practices
Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.
Why does religion have to be an us-vs.-them thing? It's not different sports' teams, with one the winner (superior) and the other the loser (invalid). Religion is meant to transcend duality and realize ___________ (fill in the blank with your favorite.)
Like this
That how many (most?) define themselves. The One true... none before me... no way but through me... It's mine all mine.. My precious... (oops, got a little off-track there.)
If there's one point I'd like to get across to everyone about religion, it's that all the texts have been translated and rewritten to the point where you can take your parables on the big stories, but never use a one-liner as a basis for your actions. For Christians, it's as simple as WWJD – and I don't think the answer is start a bunch of wars, prop up the moneylenders and deny services to the poor.
_Misquoting_Jesus_ by Bart Ehrman. Fabulous book for those who are interested in the historical progression of the Bible and the socio-political climate of books were added and removed, or rewritten.
Edit, sorry.
"...the socio-political climate of when books were..."
Thanks.
Religion was needed centurys ago to teach morals and give consequence to those who don't live by those morals (hell), but now we have laws and police and jails if you cross the moral lines. Religion was needed centurys ago to explain the unexplainable, like the sun rising and setting (a god in chariot dragging it across the sky) or rain (some god urinating). But today we have science that explains those "unexplainable things" we have truths instead of lies constructed to cover for our intellectual shortcomings. Why do some insist on living in the past? The only way we will have a future is if we shed these arcahic beliefs and start working together instead of fighting over the little inconsistences between our different religions.
Listening to someone who is deluded can be hazardous to your intellect.
I agree. Your opinion is deluded and flawed and hazardous to everyone's intellect incluidng yourself.
I watched the interview. Stephen Colbert had an excellent point drawing an analogy " ...Jesus was to Judaism, what Buddha was to Hinduism." Good one. I had never thought of it that way, but it sums it up beautifully.
A good movie about religion that uses alot of common sense is Bill Maher "Religulous"
It had some good stuff in it, but he also got a bit too extreme in it, and I kind of wished he would have taken some parts more seriously. Bill Maher is an Atheist who claims that all religions are bad though.
I was actually kind of interested in reading your book, but at one point you lost me:
"the atheists (who say all religions are one and bad)"
As an atheist, I was a little offended by this. I can't speak for every atheist, but I know I personally don't view all religion as one or as bad. I can't think of any atheists that I personally know who do. I know that there are some more famous ones who have made such claims, but that doesn't mean that that is the actual viewpoint of most atheists. You're reading too much into a small but vocal minority.
In the same sense, I don't think that all Christians believe that 9/11 was caused by " the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU" Just because Jerry Falwell said so. I don't think that all Muslims believe that Americans need to be killed because of what Osama Bin Laden says.
I'm not sure what Atheists have said something that caused you to think that we don't view religions separately or that we view them as bad, but if some have given you that impression, remember that those views are coming from the minority of Atheists. And think about what you say before you post it on CNN or write it in a book, because you might be spreading stereotypes or worse.
Also, atheists tend to think for themselves and form independent opinions. We have no doctrine, no cannon, no Pope, priest, minister, or other authority figure to dictate our views. To say, “Atheists believe this” is to both misunderstand the word “believe” and to give the relationship between people who have no god too much weight.
@ april
Way to go trying to belittle Reality's comments by saying that he needs to cite specifics (which he did – Conservative Jews), by giving no specifics yourself and using nothing but conjecture!
I'm sure Mr. Prothero is using a stereotype within religious studies of atheists and liberal multiculturalists. I'm also sure he understands that beliefs and meanings vary from person to person. But his summaries aren't that off. Most atheists do lump all religions together as the people who believe in something that don't believe exists. And many I have heard certainly think religion in general is a bad thing. Its a very popular stance nowadays. The same goes for the multiculturalist views.
So I'm pretty sure the man who is a religion scholar knows what he's talking about here.
Just because you've heard Atheists say that doesn't make it a majority opinion. I've heard Christians say that atheists should be killed so their organs can be harvested for sick Christians who deserve them more than the Atheists. I've heard Christians say that Atheists are really the army of satan trying to destroy the world. I've heard a lot of Christians say a lot of bad things about Atheists, but I certainly don't rush to the conclusion that most Christians believe that.
As far as him being a scholar in his field, there were quite a few biology scholars some time ago who said that Africans were a weaker race, and were only suited to serve that white man, but just because they were a scholar didn't mean that they weren't being influenced or spouting off racists beliefs as if they were facts.
Yes, but being a "religious scholar" is like being an expert in Santa Claus. He can rationally defend against people who take an antagonistic stance towards Santa (religion), and provide expert and well thought out academic arguments steeped in historical fact, but he's still defending Santa Claus...
I agree with you Daniel. Note my comment on the earlier thread of what seemed to be quite angry atheists.
Much respect to you, sir – going one-on-one with Stephen Colbert takes guts! A great interview, despite the time constraints.
Oh how funny! But even the story of Jewish exile has no merits in Archeology. Nothing. There is no proof it even took place!!! It is a biblical myth.
That's not true. There is proof of the Jews leaving Egypt in large number. There is, however, no proof of them ever having been enslaved. The Egyptians kept very detailed records and inventories, and in those were the equivalent of modern census records showing the number and nationality/race of their slaves. Jews were not among them.
Bazinga.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0111/Egypt-says-Jewish-slaves-didn-t-build-pyramids
I have to humbly disagree with the author for a few reasons. If we could be reconciled to God through our own actions or religions, then why did Jesus have to die for us? His coming fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies written hundreds of years earlier giving great weight as to who He is. It also demonstrated the diviine origin of God's Word in prophetic fulfillment, which we're seeing continue to this day. In John 14:6, Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." As the Bible says, God's forgiveness and eternal life are found only in the finished work of Jesus Christ, not in anything we can do to earn it.
Just my two cents.
Your logic is flawed.
You take one religion as incontrovertable fact and then state the rest are wrong because they are different? Seriously? That is not really an argument. And certainly not a "humble" point of view.
oh my word. There may be historical proof of a man named Jesus, and that he was crucified, but how in the world does that prove he is a son of god? any god? how does that prove a god? it doesn't.
If christians and muslims and every organized religious group would just agree to respect the beliefs and opinions of others (to believe or not believe) then this could be a better world, like instantly.
The one and only thing i think is most worthy from any of the religions is the commandment: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If everyone practiced this, there would be real tolerance, and no hate because you would not hate, or harm others if you did not want them to do it to you, or your loved ones.
End of story. the Bible is called "The greatest STORY ever written" look how that has affected the world for the last 2000+ years. Amazing.
Let's hope the archeologists of the future dont stumble upon the harry Potter series and create some wierd, religious movement from it that lasts an equally idiotic amount of time...
Everyone has a right to their own belief system, whether it is Christianity, Atheism, Catholicism, etc. It's called free will.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
— Stephen F. Roberts
Alex – It's really easy to fulfill a prophecy when you've read it all your life. Jesus, if he existed, was according to all accounts Jewish. As such, he would have studied the Torah from a very young age and known about the prophecies.
"[atheists] say all religions are one and bad"
By which Mr. Prothero indicates that he has no idea what atheism is. Atheism is lack of belief in a supernatural bearded guy in the sky. No more, no less. Most atheists could care less about religion. Some are atheists because no religion has ever shown any verifiable fact for supporting their particular beliefs. Some are antagonistic towards religion, but that is not a defining characteristic of atheism.
I know these blogs don't necessarily represent the opinions/views of CNN, but can't they at least be edited for basic correctness and not such blatant and biased errors?
Editting for basic correctnes would indefinitely lead to an nearly empty page and certainly little discussion at all. So many people believe so many opposing ideas, that correctness is impossible make universal, especially when discussing religion.
Like many others, I don't believe in God as a bearded old guy in the sky, neither am I an atheist–unless believing in Infinite Spirit, all-encompassing and formless (think of Tao) is non-theistic. Being spiritual is different from being 'religious' if religion demands dogma–which is why I left the church of my upbringing, and that was a metaphysical one. Churches are narrow and depend on the level of understanding or enlightened thought of its congregation. Dogma is narrow and keeps people in a medieval mindset, even if it's progressive. Pastors and Priests are often as bad as Imams for preaching fire, brimstone, and eternal hell if we don't go to church and 'obey' their interpretation of Truth. I love science, nature and knowledge, and goodness. "god" is synonymous with "good" in perhaps 2 dozen languages on Earth. Organized religion is the problem.
Yeah, well that nature of God thing has always been a problem for believers. Without some direct knowledge, the definition of a god is kinda hard to make without having to be the person that tells God what he can and cannot be. Leaving it up in the air kinda ruins it, because how can you be effective in following a religion if you don't have a clue what is or isn't the religion?
Religions .....they are consuming your time ....what elsc could you accomplish w/out that thought......Think what you want......Consider the source of ALL opinions.........LOOOOL ....foools one and allll.......and who said FOOL is a bad thing.....loool
How is it that the most probable, believable, rationale, and logical explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created on a whim by a grandfatherly supernatural being who lives outside of time and space and the only way you can ever get to see Him is to die ...
you are wrong.. i know a lot of people that wont see him when they die
Have you heard the one about how we all came from monkeys?
JG, you mean the one with all of the empirical evidence in support of it?
empirical evidence? The definition of empirical is "observed". Ive been to Africa. Didnt see any half ape people there. Also, who observed the Big Bang? My point was that it is unbelievable that some would believe in a loving God. It is just as unbelievable as any other theory. Seriously, think about it. I personally do believe in the unbelievable God. But I am not a moron if you are talking "empirical evidence". God has made himself plain to us through this world – through the longing of our hearts to seek him. Just read this from Romans 1 and maybe you would understand where I am coming from.:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
As opposed to it simply happened from a big bang? How do you know the big bang wasn't God? Frankly, when it comes to the exact moment the the Universe was formed there is no evidence of anything other than some sort of explosion. And there is no evidence of anything before that. Believing in a big explosion without anything before is no smarter than believing in the existence of God.
Except that the Big Bang theory doesn't make any claims about a supernatural being. Big Bang theory comes from the fact that we perceive the Universe to be expanding, and that a large explosion would be the most plausible explanation for that expansion since something had to set all that matter in motion.
God theory comes from the fact that we don't know, so it must be God.
Davey - you say "Believing in a big explosion without anything before is no smarter than believing in the existence of God."
The modern science of cosmology does not simply assume that "there was a big explosion without anything before". There are several theories and models for what might have happened "before" the big bang (though in some models that concept doesn't even make sense), or more generally, what sort of larger context might enclose and explain the big bang. Some of these models have observable consequences.
In the end, it all comes down to selecting the most plausible theory to fit all of the observed facts. But you can't make that judgment without knowing what those facts and theories are. Unfortunately it takes several years of graduate physics to be in a position to make a meaningful judgment in this case.
I will bet any amount of money that JG has no college degree and probably never heard of cosmic microwave background radiation and NASA's WMAP... He probably has no idea where all the heavy elements that the Earth and his own body are composed of came from... What's the point to argue with people who simply lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate a reasonable argument? Everywhere in the world uneducated people simply keep their mouths shut but in America they are the ones who have the audacity to express their idiotic opinions about the nature of the world... But you know what – let them talk and let them expose their own stupidity for the whole world to see.
Thank you, Bob! Very well said.
Well here's the problem. The Big Bang theory in essence says that "nothing exploded and here we are." As u can see we Christians are responding to the seeming absurdity of your arguement. However your rebuttal is that you are making "rational conclusions based on the limited observable evidence" and then you claim we are trapped in an illusion. However, consider how you would fair if you were watching a magic show and based conclusions only on observable evidence. You too would be just as prone to fall for the magicians "illusions" because u did not have a complete picture. What I am saying is that you may have observed many things, but u were not behind the scenes when it all began. You make bold claims and mock our stupidity when you have your own limitations on your knowledge. You refuse to admit that it requires faith on your own part to fill in the gaps and believe your theory. Just because u may have observed certain things does not mean you have certianty. You require faith as well.
@ Alethia: You make a good point that there is no absolute certainty to be had. However, you seem to misunderstand the argument. To observe a complex phenomenon, whether it be a rabbit out of a hat or the universe, and say that it was "magic" is a sloppy conclusion that requires unfounded belief in magic to begin with. Science, whatever it's flaws might be, attempts to chart out best possible conclusions based on observable evidence and consequent theory. You make a good point when you say that science does not have the advantage of a 'behind the scenes look,' but nobody is claiming such a powerful perspective. Yet you claim such power for your own. How can you claim insider knowledge when it is offered by those who hold no evidence to the least? It appears that the 'truth' you report to enjoy was handed to you by magicians themselves. Perhaps your certainty is the true illusion.
I love the atheist's comeback that I have no college degree. That I must be stupid to believe in a God. I think the fact that you would bet "any amount of money" that I have no degree makes you the biggest idiot on here. Seriously why would you bet money a poster on a website you have never met would have no degree? All Christ followers are uneducated? Or maybe you have to have a degree to be smart and think about life. Sort of like Plato or Christ himself. College makes you smart. I bet you have a lot of degrees. But remember what is knowledge to man is foolishness to God.
JG, my original post was probably too rude and even somewhat offensive, for which I deeply apologize. My point was that many scientific theories as well as many observable phenomena do require some level of knowledge (or education) to be discussed in an intelligent way. It is not uncommon to see people with zero knowledge of biology and genetics expressing their opinions about the evolution of species and all they have to say is that they haven't seen a "half monkey half human". Likewise, people talk about physical phenomena with close to zero knowledge of modern physics.
This may partially explain why they sometimes resort to the book of genesis or other biblical nonsense – because it is a lot easier to digest than quantum field theory. The biblical answer is always the same – this is how God created it.
But is this answer intellectually satisfying?
As a statistician and amateur physicist, my understanding of the Big Bang is that it is an event that can happen and does happen quite often, though usually on a tremendously smaller scale. A 'Bang' the size of the one creating the current universe would typically happen about once in, well, a universe's lifetime...
I am also intrigued by recent assymmetries discovered in particle collisions which create more matter than antimatter. This seems to contradict certain assumptions, but it helps explain why there is so much more matter in the universe than antimatter.
I think one of the biggest problem most people have with scientific theory is that it depends on very rigorous mathematical thinking, and our brains were not inherently designed to handle that level of rigor. Intuition based on a thousand years or a thousand kilos simply does not extend to scales of a billion years or a trillion kilos.
ahh the big bang... all we can says is that something for some reason happened.... and this something is responsible for all the matter & energy in our universe. Our current ignorance is almost adorable...
What happened? was it a process? How does it happen? How is it connected to our four forces? or the types of sub-atomic particles? Are such things (particles, & strength of the forces) formed by chance?
Why did it happen? Could it happen again? Does it happen often?
Are there other universes? is it a cyclical process? is the standard model nearly complete?&~If not, how much is there to learn (about our current laws of the universe*)? are such things knowable & to what extent?
With all this talk of God vs. Evolution. God vs. the Big Bang...why can't they go together? why do people say that God/Religion are for the people that do not know the workings of math and science? Why isn't it suffice to say that God created and works with math and science? What about the argument that what we discover in Math/Science is what God has already placed? I guess a counter argument would be...Then that wouldn't make God all powerful, as he is limited by the laws of science/math. But isn't he limited by continually doing Good and not evil? B/C if he were to do evil, he would then cease to be god? (this as been argued amongst philosophers already...so have fun going in cirlces like they already do) so if he is limited to that, could he not be limited to 2+2=4? with that being said, I'm sure he's made a formula to make 2+2=15897....b/c he is "all knowing."
As for Evolution...there is strong evidence in support of it. I am a firm believer in Evolution. But if you have every taken a Evolution/Diversity of Life college level Biology class...you'll know that your professor will say the words "I don't know" about 15 times per class when anyone asks a question. my point, is that there are holes/unanswered questions/ etc in evolution.
At the same time, why are more religious people not educated? why is it that they only take what their pastor/priest says as the only truth in life, while shielding any other science as a benefit? why are there wars caused by religions? why can't anyone who professes a religion act better than someone who does not? why does God cure cancer but not regrow a severed limb as a miracle? why is it that when people get an ounce of knowledge or indoctrination from a professor, they are quick talk down to those who believe in religion? Why do they feel that they know so much when mankind still has so much to learn?
I guess my point is this...Theologists say they know it all....Evolutionists say they know it all. But really...both have a lot to learn. Both sides have their respective debaters and have great arguments that can't be brought down (thats why we have philosophy and theology). So whats the point in cutting each other down and arguing? start debating not arguing. but even then...it doesnt do any good does it? what will you change? nothing. so just live your life, be civil, find your eudaimonia...and take a nap.
You can have a degree, or two or three and still not be educated. I can't understand why people need to believe in anything other than friends and the people around them. They're our only asset. And those who believe that we find out about the existence or non existence of god when we die have not thought this thing through very thoroughly. Even if there is a heaven, doesn't prove there is a god. Just that there is a heaven. We seem to be coming to the end of the era of believing in things such as God. It may take a few hundred years for that to happen, but it will eventually. Seems the only reason people believe in God is their fear of death.
Edwin, you said "I think one of the biggest problem most people have with scientific theory is that it depends on very rigorous mathematical thinking, and our brains were not inherently designed to handle that level of rigor." I too find it hard to believe that our spectacular brains were not 'designed' in lieu of evolving from a protien soup by total chance.
Wilporter, you said "We seem to be coming to the end of the era of believing in things such as God. It may take a few hundred years for that to happen, but it will eventually." A bold prediction. Interestingly over 1900 years ago this was predicted. The end of false religion was predicted in Rev18 which describes how the worlds religions will be devastated, refering to them as 'Babylon the Great', fitting name since the origin of false religious doctrine came from the first world power, the Babylonian Empire. It later relates that the end of religion will be the beginning of God's judgement of humankind, in which he will cleanse the earth and restore his original purpose in creating the first human couple before their disobedience. I'm only relating what it says, not a belief.
Also 2Tim 3 1 'But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, ...not open to any agreement, ...headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of god..." Kind of describes most of the comments on this post.
"Have you heard the one about how we all came from monkeys?"
It is always just a matter of time before some religiot tosses out the "monkey" line.
For future reference, evolution theory asserts that humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, not that we evolved from monkeys. You look a lot less stupid when you get it straight.
@Wikiknowsall: You are making a very good – indeed, there is a lot we do not know about the world around us. But does it automatically imply the existence of a supernatural being??
A few thousand years ago people did not know why the lightning strikes and why the wind is blowing, so they “invented” Zeus and Poseidon… Before that people did not even know where the rain comes from so they sacrificed animals to their gods.
Today, we are pondering about the origins of organic life, Cambrian explosion and Permian extinction, we are thinking about the mystery of baryogenesis and what happened during the Planck epoch. But just because we do not yet have the answers to all those questions does not mean that there must be a behind the scene puppet master who is trying to entertains and intimidate us… Oh, yes, and who also sent his son to our planet to redeem the sin of Adam and Eve (who never existed in the first place)… Indeed, it takes a threat of eternal damnation to make people actually believe it!
I think it is intellectually fundamentally deficient to try to explain phenomena of the natural world by postulating the existence of a supernatural being.
Regarding your point about the dialogue between science and religion… Unlike religion, which never changes its dogma, science evolves to accommodate new observational and experimental evidence. Quantum mechanics was born out of a conflict between theory and experiment. Einstein admitted his mistake after Hubble discovered the expansion of the Universe, Hawking admitted that he was wrong about some aspects of black holes. Not long ago we thought that the Milky Way was the entire Universe, now we know that there are 100 billion galaxies like ours… But religion appears to be stuck in the Bronze Age with the stories about Noah’s Ark and Moses parting the Red Sea… What dialogue are you talking about?
Joe the monkey bit was in response to the original post that made fun of the existence in God. It was meant to say to the thought that it is ridiculous to believe in a loving God it is just as ridiculous that we evolved from monkeys (or the same line). Point being all theories are hard to believe which makes me believe that the only answer is an unbelievable loving God because that would be the only answer to why we are debating it in the first place. And the hatred that comes out from non believers should say something as well. It is further evidence of Jesus' teaching being offensive but true.
Flip are you talking about Wesley?
Epheshions 2: 8-9
If ya can't comprehend, This verse, ; (eph.2.89 , STOP YER LIFE RIGHT NOW, AND STOP AND FOCUS ON IT!!!
Read All You Can::: obtain, comsume, undedrstand, ,,, God's simple message to you. 'God is Offering You A Gift!
Ya can't earn it, buy it, or inherit it...! It's a Free Gift, like a child, ya believe it and Except It.!!!
Do Not Rely on yer own understanding, we as humans, cannot comperhand it!!! Yer Saved BY FAITH...! ONLY!!!
I'm going to buy and read Mr. Prothero's book. It might help me how to practice my own brand of Christianity, which is closer to a "fallen-away agnosticism".
Your interview made me buy your book.– You had a great way of thinking regarding religion. I can't wait to read it!!
Not all atheists say all religions are "one and bad." Our defining characteristic is that we don't believe in any gods, for a variety of reasons that vary from person to person. Thanks for putting words in our mouths, though.
this is true
EXACTLY what I was thinking. where did he get his definition of atheism??
indeed. people for some reason think that atheists hate religion, which isn't true. The atheist position is simply 'there is no deity.' and that is all there is to it.
Eh, you know, for whatever reason the religious think whatever they learned in Sunday School about atheists is the truth. We certainly don't think all religions are the same... I don't know any atheist that believes that. I *do* believe they're all bad, in a sense that they promote sloppy thinking and extol the idea of believing in things for no good reason, but (A) I doubt that's what he meant (I don't think religion is, itself, *morally* bad, just rationally bad) and (B) not even all atheists agree on that.
Excellent. Thank you for saying it first
I agree. Actually I was intrigued enough to buy his book on my iPad. There is, in fact, a short chapter on atheism, but most of it seems to be devoted to disparaging "angry atheist" writers such as Hitchens, Onfray, Dawkins, and Dennett. Personally I have not paid any attention to Hitchens or Onfray, but Prothero does a great disservice to Dawkins and Dennett, who, apart from their atheist writings, are respected scientists who have made significant contributions. It is this position of scientific authority - in highly relevant fields - that gives them license, in my book, to analyze just why human minds are so vulnerable to religion.
Thank you for saying it Kay. After I read that line I stopped reading the article; anyone who claims to be any kind of religious expert should know better than to make false claims about different the religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Exactly. I was going to post this exact point but you have done it very well. In my case I couldn't care less what anyone else believes unless they are trying to impose their views on me.
Bob–
Glad you replied. Like you, I was going to order the book, but anyone who disparages the likes of Dawkins and Harris as "angry" is biased, and not really listening to what's being said by them.
The appropriateness or inappropriateness of the tone of these gentlemen (a word I choose in deliberation) is determined by whether or not what they are saying is true, not by whether one made an a priori decision to agree or disagree with it. Given that–rightly or wrongly–they see grave danger in religion, the restraint they show is actually quite remarkable. If anything, it could be argued that they should go further to grab people by the shoulders, shake them, and yell "WAKE UP!!!"
John, actually it looks like the book will be a worthwhile read, on the whole. I agree with his main thesis that it is incorrect to view all religions as aspects of the same thing, and that it is worthwhile understanding the differences in the various religions, for the simple reason that one can't fully appreciate what is going on in the world without this kind of perspective. And I have to admit that I am relatively uneducated here; this book seems pretty close to what I would ask for to fill the holes.
It's just too bad about his perspective on atheism and atheists.
Zach I am a biblical Christian not to be confused with the cultural "Christians" that have become the norm. I believe you may be a little biased when you say that religion by default promotes sloppy thinking. There are sloppy thinkers who claim to be Christians but it is not necessary to be a sloppy thinker to be a Christian and I really doubt that a person can really be a Christian who does not understand the Gospel and the doctrines connected to it.
I for one take atheists with a grain of salt. I am well aware that they have very little knowledge of biblical Christianity and many are sloppy thinkers that have been granted the bully pulpit of the academic world and hope that no one challenges their unfounded unbelief. I mean really, I haven't seen God so He can't exist. You talk about sloppy thinking.
Thank you Kay. People don't seem to understand that atheism is not the negative or nullification of their religious beliefs; it is a positive belief that there is no necessity for Divine Intervention for the universe we know to exist as it is. I was raised Moravian and in many ways I treasure those teachings, but serious investigation into my own thinking has confirmed what I had a hunch about back in catechism class. I was struck by how condescending, in his own subtle way, Bill Moyers (of all people) was when he hosted Colin McGinn on his show on religious belief. It was patronizing. And McGinn showed himself to be the bigger man by shrugging it off and continuing to explain how incredibly LIBERATING it can be to really believe in the world as it is, in the uniqueness of this life we are given, and the need to treasure each moment rather than thinking we are storing up good deeds for salvation in another life. Your good deeds should come honestly because you are a good human being, not someone imitating one.
Thanks Kay!!!! I had to read that twice. I just love how xtians try to stand on intellectual ground. Saying big words and sounding logical do not equal truth.
Unfortunately I think Professor Prothero's words are being misunderstood here, as he had 5:33 seconds to answer hard questions–having taken a class with him, I know that he actually understands the beliefs of atheism as some on this thread see it (i.e., not that religion is bad, but that rather no gods or deities exist). I have met atheists, on the other hand, who do indeed hate religion and think it is bad. It's all relative, but I would say don't let it shy you from reading the book. Then you're just as ignorant as everyone else, by judging Stephen Prothero on his one comment. I've read it, and as a religion major, thought it was brilliant and just what is necessary in a world where it seems the only to answers to the question are "we're all right" or, "we're all wrong." This complicates the answers a little.
PS- Also note that Stephen Prothero never said he was a Christian or ascribed to any religion at all in the telecast. Don't make assumptions about that.
I like it when the uneducated or short sighted confuse atheism with anarchist ... happened many times. Really, can they really be that shortsighted? Explains a lot though about American politics, policies and current popular beliefs ...
On some level it is true, however. An atheist believes that religions can be lumped together as fictional systems of belief, and you'd be hard pressed to find any decent person that believes basing one's life on erroneous beliefs and assumptions is a good thing. Of course, if Prothero declares atheists to be wrong in this case, he's either offering to provide reasonable proof that those systems of belief are NOT fictional, or he's disagreeing that basing one's life on fiction is a bad thing which, by the definition give above, excludes him from the "decent person" category. I'm interested to see which.
Sorry, Kay. I accidentally hit "Report abuse" to your comment instead of "Reply," which is actually pretty sound. CNN needs to put in a "Are you sure?" prompt when you click that or something.
Anyway, the reason why a lot of people perceive atheists as being overly prejudiced against those with a religious leaning is simple: a lot of atheists are. Dawkins has made extremely disparaging remarks about religion. Read the comments to any CNN article discussing religion, and you'll see some atheist talking about how religion is a crutch and that people are stupid for believing in it. It's not every athiest, no. I doubt it's even the majority of them. But just like how Christians are mistakenly perceived as believing the world was literally created in a matter of days or not believing in dinosaurs, atheists are perceived as being elitists without respect for others' beliefs because there are plenty of vocal minorities in both who personify those very same faults (rejection of science among Christians, rejection of other people's faiths by atheists).
I agree. I realize that religion is a mixed-bag, with some benefits to society, and some negatives. My personal opinion is that our culture/society is at a point where the positives have become very few, while the negatives are preventing us from moving on to the next phase in our humanity; one of education, reason, science and benevolence.
If anything, a lot of atheists hate ORGANIZED religion, but that mostly has to do with how much religion is forced upon our lives. Religion forced into politics and laws, religion forced into schools, religious billboards and signs every 100 ft on the roads and giant Jesus statues and crosses all over the place(the irony of the whole graven images thing entirely lost on them), proselytizers forcing religion into our very faces, religious extremists inciting violence, all in the name of pushing their specific beliefs on other people. As George Carlin said in his 10 commandments bit, "Keep thy religion to thyself." If religious people would do that, atheists wouldn't care what they believed. Even the bible says to pray alone, look up Matthew 6:5-6.
Wesley, quite a large number of atheists are very knowledgable about the Bible, Christianity in general, and other religions. Many grew up as believers, and it was studying the religion that pushed them away from it. I'll put up any number of the atheists I know up against the average Christian on biblical knowledge any day of the week, and they'll blow them away.
Kay, atheists (the most famous ones anyway) are always putting words in the mouths of people of faith....take me for example....most people here would find one way or another to categorize and dismiss me so that they sleep at night. Some would call me a religious nut. Some would call me a bible-thumper. Some would call me a hayseed hick, etc. Why? All because of the fact that my personal experience, education, research, and logic have led to one conclusion: it takes more faith to believe that everything in the seen and unseen universe from the most distant planet to the microscopic single-cell organisms all around me and the infinite complexities of it all .....just happened...by accident. The chair I'm sitting in wouldn't put itself together by chance even if the wood and plastic and metal were laying on top of each other ready to go for the next 789 trillion years. Nope. The chair had a designer and someone assembled it. Once you've concluded that there is a God, you can't get away from the fact and you say to yourself "gee, I'd better learn about Him". You see, I know God. He has revealed Himself in nature, in the Holy Bible, and in His son, Jesus. I know Him. I've spoken with Him this morning. He loves you and me. He desires a relationship with you and me and he made a way for that through Jesus. The Bible says in Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." it also says that in Romans Chapter 3 "22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." I HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE JESUS LORD OF MY LIFE! When I did, I asked him to forgive me of my sins and he did. Now he is my best friend.
"I mean really, I haven't seen God so He can't exist. You talk about sloppy thinking."
That is not what athiests say. What we say is, "I see no evidence of a supernatural being who runs the show. Can you show me some proof."
The answer to that question is invariably, "he exists because I believe he exists." or "it is so complicated that god must have done it" or "just look around you, everything is evidence that god exists"
Talk about sloppy thinking.
Thanks Kay! You have defined the central dogma to the Church of Atheism. Athiesm, by the way, is the 9th religion the author missed.
[quote] believe you may be a little biased when you say that religion by default promotes sloppy thinking. There are sloppy thinkers who claim to be Christians but it is not necessary to be a sloppy thinker to be a Christian and I really doubt that a person can really be a Christian who does not understand the Gospel and the doctrines connected to it.[/quote]
It's called a Venn diagram. Sloppy thinkers here. Christians here. Overlap here. "Really be a christian", does that mean you are better than other psuedo christians? Judge not, lest thee be judged. Your rules, not ours.
[quote]I am well aware that they have very little knowledge of biblical Christianity and many are sloppy thinkers that have been granted the bully pulpit of the academic world and hope that no one challenges their unfounded unbelief.[/quote]
That run-on sentence has no factual basis. Much like your faith.
[quote] I mean really, I haven't seen God so He can't exist. You talk about sloppy thinking.[/quote]
Yeah, sloppy.
The foundations of all religions are flawed theologically and historically.
Take Judaism for example. After careful study of the existing texts and archeology, most experts have concluded that there is no proof that Abraham existed. Ditto for Noah. Ditto for Moses. The 1.5 million Conservative Jews have taken the bold step of deleting these mythical heroes from their new Torah.
Both Stephens should therefore address the flaws of all religions. If they did, it would reduce today's religions to a few lists of things to do and not do making the world a much better place to live. And these lists are not new. Both the Babylonians and Egyptians had versions of them.
I don't know what experts your choosing to cite. But all the experts I know of are 100% sure that Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus are all real historical figures. In fact, there is more evidence for their existence than for the existence of Alexander the Great. If we're going to doubt someone's historicity, it ought to be his. You, Mr. Reality, need a reality check.
April, you simply can not say with a straight face that there is more evidence of Jesus's existence than of Alexander the Great's. If you are an American you are an embarrassment to our school system. Actually, of any nation's school system. The amount of visual, textual, and archaeological evidence for Alexander is overwhelming and incontrovertible. On the flip side, there is NOTHING in this world to prove the non-Roman characters from the bible existed other than the bible itself. And everyone knows that you can't make a philosophical argument from that position. You have to just take a leap of faith. I'm a Christian but you are making us look pretty bad.
April, you are a liar. Plain and simple.
Robert you are really not being intellectually honest. We have over 6000 existing manuscripts and portions of manuscripts attesting to the accuracy of the New Testament and less than 100 really less than 50 attesting to the accuracy of Caesar's Gallic Wars and yet this is taught as history in schools while the New Testament with so much more supporting evidence is discounted. It seems men will do anything to erase their accountability to God. Caesar is much easier to believe since he is dead and there is no accountability.
Not a liar, just misinformed. Fortunately, that can be remedied with trips to a good archeological museum.
There are over a million texts attesting to the life of Harry Potter.
Doesn't mean they are true or accurate.
Way to throw in a Harry Potter reference.
Very funny TB.
And how many religions do you know about? ALL religion? What, specifically, are the flaws of Amazonian shamanism, Bon Buddhism, First Nation religions (all very different)? What about Inuit beliefs? I ask you to be a bit careful of sweeping comments like this or you become precisely like those "religions" you attack–swift to judgement based on little, flawed information
Actually, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of Jesus the man. What PHYSICAL proof do you have of anyone from antiquity other than writing, and there is plenty of writing on the existence of Jesus. The question is whether you believe in his divinity.
Christianity as we know it today is a fabricated religion, created by a very corrupt emperor in an effort to control his empire. It still today is used for people control. It is a perfect blending that included paganism to not miss anyone. It has something for everybody. As most Jewish people know, it is a revival of the worship of Mithra, who was the primary god of Roman soldiers.
Delete Moses from the Torah? I will stone you for that!
TBera you are confusing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. There is a world of difference between the two.
Sorry Wesley. Unless "Christians" suddenly don't believe Jesus was born on December 25th to a virgin and died on a different day every year based solely on the timing of the Equinox, then you're no different from Roman Catholics. The story of the Christian Jesus was embellished with pagan mythos during the time of Constantine. Does that mean he never existed? Certainly not. Does that mean he's not the divine son of God? Entirely up to you.
True, Christianity and Roman Catholicism are not exactly the same, but Roman Catholicism is one of the larger denominations within Christianity, if not the largest, so they are definitely related.
Proof I guess the time that you have spoken of has arrived again. I do not believe that the Lord Jesus was incarnate (born) on December 25th. I do not believe that the Lord died on any Friday nor do I believe that it changes every year. I do not celebrate the Winter Solstice or the Festival of Eastre. There is a world of difference between the cultural "Christians" that fill American pews and biblical Christians. How's that for proof.
Monica you are mistaken. There is a world of difference between Roman Catholicism (RC) and Biblical Christianity (BC). RC teaches Pastors cannot marry while BC teaches they are to marry. RC teaches that certain types of meat are not to be eaten on certain days while BC teaches that this is a doctrine of devils. RC teaches that the cup and bread of the Lord's Supper are the real blood and body of the Lord while BC forbids the consumption of blood. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.
* I tried to put the Bible references but it seems that CNN is allergic to them.
There is more than one religion in this world that directly state that if you don't believe in their 'god' your going to 'hell', so really, what's the point in any of them. No matter which one you believe in, you're going to 'hell' ... if you believe in all that. You're born, you live and try to make life better for yourself and mankind, you die. The end.
The best evidence that Jesus existed and was a real person is the fact that his existence was not disputed by even his enemies. His lineage is recorded in Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3. When these accounts were recorded in the Bible, the secular records of him and his lineage was also in existence (the Jews kept careful records). Those records were destroyed in the year 70 of our common era when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman Army. These accounts were written at least 10-30 years before those records were destroyed. If he didn't exist why was it not disputed at that time? It is easy to say now that he never existed but that would be ignoring the fact that those living at the time did not dispute his existence.
Claiming no evidence for any non-roman biblical character is simply wrong. We at least have excellent independent evidence for a number of Israelite biblical kings as well as the Maccabees. As for many other characters of the Hebrew bible, this would hardly be surprising. In an overwhelming number of cases we have no evidence for anybody of the ancient world who wasn't either a monument builder or, in a few later instances, an author.
Faith aside, it's Pascal's Wager: Either God is Creator and Jesus is his redeeming Son, or not. We all find out someday.
There is no independent confirmation of the existence of Jesus as described in Christian writings. Only the writings later compiled into the Christian bible mention such a person, and they obviously cannot be considered reliable or independent sources. Josephus and Philo of Alexandria wrote extensively of the events of that period, Josephus in several volumes. Surely a person who created the stir Jesus supposedly caused would have been mentioned. In fact, the omission was so damning that medieval churchmen actually forged a chapter of Josephus to make up for it. The forgery was soon exposed as such. Whether a humble preacher saying things attributed to Jesus actually existed is unknowable, but it may be fairly inferred that his life did not attract the attention claimed by the Christian bible.
"Biblical Christianity?" Just as absurd as any other form of it. To the extent that they are all rooted in ignorance and steeped in fear, there's no difference between "Biblical Christianity" or any of its other incarnations, including the Catholic Church.
Eli your post is a great example of the sloppy thinking that atheists say they fear is a part of Christianity. Your reasoning has just relegated all biographies of the world t the trash heap of fictional literature. Brilliant!
TrolleyFish the arrogance and ignorance of your post is mind boggling. You have determined that because you don't accept the truth of a matter that those who do are ignorant. You then show your ignorance of Christianity by stating that it is steeped in fear when the Bible teaches that love is the primary motivation for the atonement of Christ and motivation is the primary motivation for the service of the Christian.
The words that stand out the most in this string are words like "absurd," "uninformed," "no better," "Roman Catholics" (meant disparagingly), etc. I like to think I've done my time studying this stuff, so I'm not going to try to one-up anyone. But when I imagine this blue-collared hippy who preached around the Sea of Galilee approximately 2k years ago – and yes, I believe the man existed, if not the divinity – I think he would have had a snit fit similar to the one detailed in the Garden of Gethsemane story or the Thieves in the Temple yarn.
It puzzles me that so many people argue about the divinity of this man...or really any religious figure. This guy, whose name we think was Yeshua (we don't know for sure, since no one wrote anything down during his life, an uncomcomfortable fact we can't really explain), talked himself blue in the face that we need to be kind, merciful, giving, humble, principled, etc. We often gloss over this stuff, claiming that it's obvious. I've done the same thing, but I can only speak for myself when I say that I've glossed over this stuff in the past not because it was the easy stuff, but because it was the hardest stuff.
Does it feel good or satisfactory to no longer be convinced in the divinity of Yeshua – and to shove that down people's throats? I can attest that it does not. I, for one, would want people to keep whatever beliefs that will get them through the day as long as they don’t tread on mine.
I had a thought this morning. It's probably not an original one, but it is what it is. I pretended I was one of the supposedly poor people who came to hear this guy preach. I'm hungry for food as well as knowledge and it shows. A family sitting next to me has a small portion of bread and some dates, which they see me glance at a bit. Feeling a tap on my shoulder, one of them hands me a small bite of bread with a shrug that is clearly meant to be taken as, "I can't spare much, but I can spare this."
Now, cut forward to modern times. We have a story in the New Testament about Yeshua/Jesus multiplying the loafs and fish to feed the masses. The more conservative-minded (I always read that as ‘more scared‘) interpret this to mean that Yeshua was indeed a mystic who could literally defy the laws of physics. The more liberal-minded scholars have come to the conclusion that early writers used Yeshua as an analogy for the kindness these people showed to each other by sharing what meager provisions they possessed with those who "had not."
Going back to my little fantasy, if I had a choice between that bite of bread from the family that could hardly spare it…and a whole loaf of bread supposedly conjured up out of thin air by a self-labeled mystic, I like to think I would have told that mystic to shove that loaf so far up his ass he'll be coughing unleavened yeast. Then I would pick my bag of bones up and go home, having learned my lesson for the day.
Obviously I don't believe "He" multiplied the loaves. I suspect that kind-hearted people did. And that's all I need to get through the day and to strive to be a better person than I am. I don’t know it all, but that’s what I know now. Tomorrow I most certainly hope I know something more.
From an contemporary historic Jesus exegete:
"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.
“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.
“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "
“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.
I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered." – Professor JD Crossan from his book "Who is Jesus?"
See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .
Oops, make that: "From a contemporary historic Jesus exegete:"
@ april: maybe they existed, maybe they didn't. let's say, they did exist, and so did alexander the great. the difference is, people aren't f***ing up their and other people's lives by their "belief" in alexander as they are with stuff that abraham, moses, jesus and mohammed said and did.
folks are bashing April about whether Jesus was more or less a historical figure than Alexander the Great. Josephus, a solid Roman Jewish historian who existed in the same period as Jesus, wrote a few different things about him. Josephus was not a follower, but he verified Jesus was a real person who was shaking feathers in the Roman Empire and among the Galilean Jewish community. Just look the guy up folks. You hear about Alexander the Great more than you hear the actual historical facts of American slavery in classrooms these days. Because Jesus is worshiped as God and a "religious" figure, he's not likely to be reviewed like Alexander the Great, ie.
Being jus' folks myself, I looked up Josephus. Now, I'm not trying to do a gotcha move here, but the sources I looked up said that Josephus wasn't born until 37 A.D. Now, acknowledging that the Gregorian calender was adopted from the Julian well after the life of Yeshua/Jesus, thereby making it possible that we could have been off by up to ten years, this tells me that Josephus couldn't have been more than about three years old when Yeshua was crucified. Please correct me if I'm looking up the wrong person.
I love how many Christians like to say there are 'cultural' Christians and then there are 'Biblical' Christians and they don't realize how much of a contradiction that is.
The Bible is NOT a store!!!
You can't go through the pages and pick out what you do and don't believe. Hmmm I like this, so I'll choose to believe that. Hmmm, that ones is stupid and is unrealistic so therefore I won't believe that. If you're going to do that, you've just indicated your insecurity in your own God's holy book, therefore you're insecure in your own God's perfection. Therefore you are insecure in your God!!! 'Cultural' Christians (aka moderate Christians) are insecure about their religion and their God but it's all they've known so they keep doing it. They're hypocrites. Welcome to the 21st Century where we don't need to take orders from a far outdated book of mythology. If you had never heard of Jesus before (as in ever, even since you were little), would you believe in Jesus? NO! How could you, you've never even heard the name before? It's all relative to how you were raised. So brainwashed it's incredible....
April,
I find it very hard to believe that even you believe your statements. You can not have read any serious book on the subject which used even remotely historical standards. Even the religious scholars I have seen admit to chasms in the historical record. In the case of Alexander the Great, there are literally hundreds of carvings, and historical records from dozens of cultures. There is evidence of his army's camps and forts for example.
There is no direct evidence of Jesus existence, and the same goes for Noah for sure. There are legends of an Arc and a Noah like man in multiple cultures, but that only means the legend has been repeated. As for Moses, there is only limited evidence of the escape of the Jews from Egypt, and no clear evidence that the Jewish People showed up in the promised land at one time, and a fair amount of counter evidence.
To my knowledge, the one major figure in the Bible there is evidence of is Eve, and in that all of mankind has a single common female ancestor. Note there is no way to tell if there is a single common male ancestor. Of course doesn't prove the Garden story in any way, it just means that we may have a common female ancestor, or it could mean our understanding of genetics is flawed.
I am really confused how anyone could believe your statements, but I have a test to see if you have ever tried to understand even your own religion.
What is the accurate translation of the name of the body of water Moses was supposed to have split?
To MuddyBuddy.
The discrepancy of the Red Sea: Yam Suph was thought to be the Red Sea or the Reed Sea, and the latter dried up due to the Suez Canal in Egypt. It is still pretty close to the Red Sea.
To Christopher M.
Josephus wrote about everything pertaining to Jewish culture and history because he was a proud Jew in Rome. He wrote about Jesus' impact, whether he agreed with it or not, because it led to the Jewish revolt against the Roman government in his day at one point. It doesn't refute what he said about Jesus. He was recording the recent history of the Jews in Rome based off what was relayed to him as he grew up.
Christians are not all fundamentalists, ignorant, hateful or stupid. Love is the propellent from knowing God and that's what the world doesn't see about Christians. Just the horrible stuff. Truth is we're all horrible.
@ Wesley: "TBera you are confusing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. There is a world of difference between the two." Oh how you proving all of my points against you for me. Christianity is comprised of a ridiculous amounts of varying sects...even Christians can't decide what they want. Sure they all follow the bible, Jesus is their savior and they believe in God....but why do we need Roman Catholics, Catholics, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans etc etc. I could go on forever. Riddle me that Wesley....If you want to oversimplify and trivialize Christianity and this type of discussion go some place where there might be people who'll fall for it.
"Whether a humble preacher saying things attributed to Jesus actually existed is unknowable, but it may be fairly inferred that his life did not attract the attention claimed by the Christian bible."
This is just an excuse not to confront what the New Testament says and what Jesus confronts humans with the gospel and frankly , sin.
There is plenty of evidence that he existed and significant evidence that His disciples believed to the point of martyring themselves to spread the news of the amazing Jesus living Christ.
You just want to dismiss it out of hand.
Are people who simultaneously practice more than one religion simultaneously climbing different mountains at the same time? How does that work?
Maybe they are climbing a mountain of their own invention. Or working their way up a narrow crevasse between the two. Then again, maybe metaphors should not be pushed too far.
Probably.
They do it like Pat Robertson–they just make s@#t up. It's kind of like religion itself. Now you know!
Miracles
A fool says there is no GOD.
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
Religion is more like an abyss, not a mountain. You throw your common sense, rational behavior, money,and individuality into it. In return you get someone else's beliefs crammed down your throat (usually very ancient, meaningless "traditions" that are sometimes very harmful) and a false sense of security that if you pray hard enough, discrminate against anyone who isn't of YOUR faith, kill enough infidels, or give child molesters enough money, you will have a place in their made up afterlife. Like I said, it's an abyss.
Wow and even here people are trying to force their own religious views on other people... wow it's almost as if anything that this article talks about goes in one ear and out the other.
In the end "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord".
that's a good question?!
Knowing that the roots of all manstream religions go back to the "axial age" of the sixth century B. C., I have also come to believe that the Living God calls each individual to a "religion" that is the clothing–the cultural and psychological clothing–for a heart-felt faith that, in the end, I personally believe in a Trinitarian reality–like it or not, we are related to Creation (the Father), to society (the "son of man"), and to one's "spirit" (within each and all of us).
Faith is a wonderful thing. Organized religions, unfortunately, are not. It was the religions, not faith, that told man, "We are correct. Everyone else is wrong and must therefore die." Religions divide people, promote fear and conformity, and in some cases take advantage of their own people. Religion and faith are not the same thing. It freaks me out when people say the words, "We are the one true faith". Debating the validity of religions is ridiculous because none of them actually exist. These religions are nothing more than organizers of spiritual faith. People have become lost, it seems. The faith doesn't exist because of the church. It's the other way around. Faith is whatever the individual wants it to be, not what the church says it's supposed to be. It's the religions that have pitted individuals of different faith against each other. Somewhere along the line people became lost and began to believe that the church decides our faith. This is wrong. The truth is, there is no "one, true religion". The truth is, everyone is right because faith is determined by the individual who believes, therefore no one is wrong.
Let me put it in perspective: Two kids are in drawing pictures. On kid says to the other, "I think blue is the most beautiful color". The other kid responds, "I think red is the most beautiful color".
Which one is right?
They both are. It's a personal choice. It's how you feel and what makes sense to you. This isn't a decision that you can make for someone else. It was the church that change things and said, "We must grow stronger, more prevalent, and unify the people." They did this to become more powerful and to gain stronger influence. They convinced the people that it was God's Law. Suddenly, it wasn't God that was calling the shots anymore. It was the church. The irony is the disposition the church demands of it's followers is violating the exact religious text it claims to uphold. Ask yourself if you could truly analyze with out evoking the wrath of God, what would you see?
Everyone, it seems, has their own version of "religion". The Bible has only one, very clear, definition. James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world
Try it
They are in a quandary of wanting to murder themselves from worshiping a false deity.
They are in fact all climbing the SAME mountain, if it were a different mountain then, the christian taliban would not be doing crusades, shia wouldnt be killing sunnis and kurds visa versa etc etc....
Transporter malfunction.
Joe I think that your reasoning is an example of sloppy thinking. You cannot change the rules for religion. Everyone cannot be right about anything else so why would that work in religion. I cannot drive 90 MPH in a 70 MPH zone and say I am right because I am comfortable driving that speed. The same is true with being reconciled to God. God has established the parameters for man to reconciled to Him and put it in a Book so that it would not be subjective as your color illustration seems to indicate. I don't know who "the church" you speak of is but the Bible is God's instructions and they are not subject to our feelings. Analyzation does not incur the wrath of God according to Scripture. We are commanded to study to be approved unto God.
practicing more than one religion is like being married to two women at the same time.....if either were a real marriage, you wouldn't be involved w/the other...
"I cannot drive 90 MPH in a 70 MPH zone and say I am right because I am comfortable driving that speed."
That is not what he is saying. What he is saying is that on a highway that has no speed restriction, one person may prefer to drive at 50mph while another may prefer 60mph. Neither is right, both are comfortable and secure at their chosen speed. Your blind faith in your particular choice of paths leads to your failure to see this.
Religions are not all diametrically opposed or contradictory. There is truth in all men at some level and we share a common bond in many ways, though our religions have differences. There is common morality in all men as demonstrated by the fact that the Golden rule is available in all cultures in some form. Pretty much all societies and religions say you shouldn't kill, steal, lie, take your neighbors wife, etc. What is true in all is what only leads up the one mountain of truth. I don't buy the different mountains theory. There is only one truth. Who has it? Well that is for each of us individually to come to. I am Catholic.
Well, scrolling through the comments it's all been said – I'll just cap it once more. Religion is a pox on humanity, the very worst bane of the human condition. Churches and other 'religious' places and movements engender hate and intolerance, abuse our youth, corrupt our industry and innovation, pollute our environment, steal money from the average person, evade taxes, harangue private citizens and plant the seeds of war every day. Rational thought will one day trump traditional super-naturalism, we can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later, or the human race could soon be decimated as it squalors in its unbridled ignorance.
Wesley, therein lies your problem. Your book. It's a nice bunch of stories, however you'll have to prove to me that it's the word of God. You can't? Well that's another problem of yours isn't it?
How about this question?
One person says, "We are driving on a highway with no speed restriction." Another person says, "Actually, there is a speed restriction."
Who is right?
There are lots of gods in the heads of humans, but just One exists outside their heads.
Some on sent me this link and after reading a few words I wanted to respond. I won't quote the Bible because people who care already believe and those that don't believe also don't care...it is pointless. Here is what I know:
1. I have seen real, personal evidence of God's existance in my life. This is not a feeling...this is divine intervention for which there is no other explaination.
2. There exists, regardless of anyone's ability to discount it, scientific evidence that Christ lived, performed acts for which there are no rational explainations other than a miracle, that he was tried and crucified and that he was resurrected.
3. Christ, NOT, religion claimed to be the ONLY truth.
4. If you attempt to lead your life the way he did, you ARE a good person.
I will not tell another they are wrong or that they faith system has no merit...I don't care what you believe. Your relationship with God or your lack thereof, is just that between you and God. Just please do not tell me that my relationship with God doesn't exist because of science or because you DO NOT believe. Also, if you are going to state facts of historical evidence then you should speak to subject matter experts and ensure you read material from both sides of camp and not just the ones that agree with your thought processes. Religion is a biased subject so finding unbiased reports is very difficult at best and impossible at worst, so it becomes necessary to implement critical thinking skills. I think many of you should take a class on what that TRULY is.
Ever occur to you that maybe people just hate religion because they have seen so much two-sidedness in it. It is not God that is bad it is the religions who use people, tell them lies and whatever it takes to get their money. The bible tells the truth. It is out there but not in every religion. Keep looking. Think of how many false religious teachers Jesus confronted.
Once you draw your final breath, you have entered into the eternity of your choosing while you were alive. There will be no going back at that point. I beseech all who read this to think long and hard before they push all belief systems aside. I personally do not believe in religion, but I do believe in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He loves us and offered Himself up as a sacrifice, for every single one of us. Now that is love beyond compare.
The human race can only cease to conflict with one another when this realization has occurred: we are all god. we are all the same thing. we may appear different on the outside – in this world – in this dimension, but we are all one. Unfortunately the complexities of this phenomenon cannot be explained by yours truly, and I do not believe that all may heed my words of wisdom. But some of you will...
It doesn't take a man with much wit to realize that the notions we people value most – time, matter, and space are all infinite. If there is no end to time, no end to space, and no end to matter (things, stuff, oceans, worlds, galaxies). then everything exists. Everything exists inside your head and outside of your head. Everything amounts and makes up to a single everything which inevitably equals... everything. With that being said there is a million gods... perhaps 1 god... perhaps no god. Perhaps there is a god of this universe that is controlled by a god of another universe. perhaps u are god? Truth is we don't know. I know i am rambling some what.. but just think... the universe (or everything) is one. There is no black wall at the end of space, and there is no black picture at the beginning or end of time. the idea of god goes way beyond the humans ability to comprehend... only until we all evolve will we truly understand... we are all a part of god.