 |
|
|
|
|
May 19th, 2011
03:00 PM ET
My Take: Doomsdayers show what’s wrong with all religion
By David Silverman, Special to CNN Let nobody doubt that religion hurts people. Good, intelligent, caring people suffer every day and everywhere at the hands of religion, the happy lie. Religion is used by dishonest people who claim to know the way to the one thing humans want most: immortality. To combat fear of death, religious people ignore their intellect, believe the lie, and follow the preacher, usually blindly and sometimes to the point of insanity. We are witnessing one very good example of this right now, as a group led by Christian ministry leader Harold Camping prepares for the end of the world this Saturday, May 21. Of course, the weekend will pass without incident and thousands of Camping's followers, having spent or donated huge amounts of money on his behalf, will be gravely disappointed. Victims will be broken. Families will be damaged. Lives will be ruined. All because someone made a good pitch, and followers believed. Opinion: May 21 Doomsday movement harms Christianity I am not sure if Camping is a liar, but I think so. He realized that religion is a great way to make tax-free money off the backs of well-meaning people, through donations to his ministry, all without fearing eternal damnation. You see, I suspect that he, like many others of his ilk, doesn’t believe in God at all. It may seem odd that I would accuse this man of being an atheist like me, but rest assured that he is nothing like me. Like most atheists, I’m a pretty nice person and would never scam someone out of his or her life savings or convince someone to quit a job just to line my pockets. The truth is that religion and ethics are completely independent of one another. Follow CNN’s Belief Blog on Twitter Consider how Newt Gingrich could campaign against President Bill Clinton's adultery as the darling of the Religious Right while actually being an adulterer himself. Consider how evangelical superstar Ted Haggard could preach against homosexuality, in God’s name, while hiding a gay lover. And consider Camping, who can get donors to cough up what appears to be a lot of money in God’s name while ruining his followers’ real lives on Earth. These are not people who fear God or hell. In my opinion, they know very well that gods are myths. They are just bad people. Atheists have bad people, too, the worst of whom feign religion for their own personal gain. Next week, Camping’s victims will ask our forgiveness for being so foolish, and we will forgive them, because we’ve all done stupid things. They will ask for money and we will help them, because most people are charitable. And then Camping victims will ask us to forget all about this whole ugly scam. That is something we must never do. We must remember that Camping, atheist or not, is no different from any other preacher. Religion thrives on fear–the constant threat of any-time-now Judgment Day coupled with eternal punishment in hell for those who don’t believe strongly enough. Since rational minds question irrational things, believers constantly have doubts, and therefore fear that they don't have enough faith to pass muster during the eventual Rapture, when the righteous will be saved and the unrighteous will be damned. Fear of hell makes believers desperate to ease those doubts so they can be sure to get into heaven. It’s a recipe for fear-based obedience, which is exactly what religion craves. It’s the method used by Camping, and by the rest of Christianity, too. If we forget about Camping, this apocalyptic madness will happen again. Next year is 2012 and, just as was supposed to happen in 2011, 2004, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1997, 1994 and other years that the world is supposed to end, according to one religion or another. What will we do in 2012? Will we sit still while preachers take advantage of the gullible again? Will we refrain from confronting the fools and continue to revere religion? Or will we, as a society, demand that people use their intellect and pay attention to their preachers, priests, rabbis or mullahs and see them as the scammers they really are? This weekend, preachers from coast to coast will talk about why they are right and Camping is wrong, and I ask you all to listen closely. They will try to justify why one interpretation of the Bible (theirs) is right while the others are wrong. In the end, they are all interpreting the “perfect word of God” in their own imperfect way so that God agrees with their own agenda. It’s obvious if you look for it; no preacher ever says "God disagrees with me." Yes, this weekend we will giggle at the fools who follow the preachers that earn their living spreading happy lies. Religion will have been proven wrong yet again. But we all must remember that people have been hurt this weekend. We hope the victims of this year’s end-of-the-world will lift themselves back up, dust themselves off, and come out of this as better, less gullible people. Hopefully, they will use their experience to help others avoid future scams by shouting loudly at tomorrow’s victims, without fear of being irreverent about something which deserves no reverence at all. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Silverman. soundoff (1,927 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next »
Next entry »Mel Gibson's passionate faith
« Previous entryMy Take: Obama yokes Arab Spring to civil rights movement
|
  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 Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: David Silverman, an atheist since age 6, is president of 
This "article" is just as agenda-heavy as the religion it opposes.
There's nothing wrong with having an agenda. It's only bad when the agenda is to cause harm or is at odds with reality. And religion has been demonstrated to be utterly at odds with reality and has caused unspeakable harm for centuries.
Is not that their is no GOD but as of this date, no one has lived as GOD has asked us to Live. We say that we believe or don't believe base on our life experiences. I would like to ask everyone,which one of us has follow God's commandments and Jesus Commandments flawlessly. Yet we wonder why the world is the way it is and question his very existence. Have you ever stop to wonder if you were flawless with God's Commandments what might your Life be like.
While I appreciate your input Kenrick, if we followed the commands flawlessly, we would not need a Savior!
Which god? Which commandments? Oh, you want us to follow your specific god and his commandments, right? Mmmmhmmm.
Thank you David for your article,
I too hope those hurt by the intentional schemes of religion can recover, and it breaks my heart to imagine the disaster that can come from such silly things. And you are right, religion does hurt a lot of people.
But I consider myself a JESUS-follower. I try to be at least, but for the most part I suck at it. Cause JESUS really seemed to emphasize loving other people and putting the best interests of others well before your own, and I'm not always very good at that. However, HIS story, JESUS's story, the story that is called Christianity (a word which unfortunately carries a lot more meaning than it originally did), I believe (and I am not the authority, but it's just my honest belief) is more than religion. Religion does hurt people and threaten people and control people. But JESUS' story seems to do something else.
Essentially (again, my understanding... there are quite a few things that 'GOD disagrees with me' about so I could be wrong) JESUS' story says GOD is the best thing for humanity. But choose. If you want GOD, you can have HIM. If you want independence from GOD, you can have it. Hell is not a prescriptive threat, but merely a description of reality without GOD... like the tragedies of regular life, but much worse.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I don't want a bunch of people to say that I'm right. I simply believe a story, but it's a story that encourages me NOT to take advantage of people or be prideful or be selfish or exploit human need... all those things that religion can do so often.
JESUS is offensive to both religon and irreligion. HE's offensive to me. But I'm trying to get over it, cause deep down, I think HE's right. There is no greater LOVE than to give up your entire life for another.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Again, not trying to debate. In fact, mostly agreeing with you. I just like conversation 🙂
You obviously don't know the true message of Jesus. It's far from fear. It's all about grace. Read the book, Truefaced to understand more.
I've read the book in it's entirety. Sure, Jesus said to love everyone, but he also condemned anyone who refused his message... much like all the closed-minded, bigoted religious leaders of today. The bottom line is that there are simply no good reasons to believe that Jesus, or anyone else for that matter, possesses any supernatural powers or that any type of god really exists.
So, if your a christian then you have to kill this guy if the world doesnt end on saturday, it says so in the bible... "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
alex
So, if your a christian then you have to kill this guy if the world doesnt end on saturday, it says so in the bible... "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
------
Alex,
Do you understand the difference bewteen the old covenant and the new? Until you get over that hump, you will have a difficult time with scripture, in general and Christianity, in particular
@Steve
I've seen the argument for the differences between the old and new testaments several times, but there is something I have an issue with there, hopefully you can help. If you believe, the OT is the direct word of God, as was given through Moses (and a number of others who are rarely if ever mentioned). The NT is the word and teachings of Jesus, the son of God (and depending on your particular flavor of Christianity the earthly embodiment of God himself).
SO, here's where I have the problem. Anyone who has read both (I am working through them, it's not easy), only needs to read about half a chapter out of each before they will find points that are in direct opposition. Where the NT directly contradicts or ignores the OT. This can only drive but so many conclusions-
1) If you believe the Jesus is the son of God, then he is passing guidance and direction that is against God's word, all while telling you that he is the path to God. That means he either has to be wrong, and God who has admitted he is quite jealous will be very cross when you meet him; OR, God changed his mind and asked his son to go tell everyone, which means he is not infallible, which means right and wrong exist independent of God, which means he's not really necessary.
2) If you believe Jesus was the embodiment of God, then God came to Earth and contradicted himself, thus he is not infallible, and back to the argument of unnecessary.
I'm just trying to understand, believers will believe, and I never will; but I've spent years trying to get my head around how people believe these things (not why mind you, how). This one would be a big help.
@BRC
I understand you're confusion so let me help you. From what I've understood, when Jesus came in the NT he spoke with god and relayed those teachings far and wide. his sacrifice was basically so he could null and void everything in the OT. Now why the OT is part of the bible is beyond me if it's completely null to christianity, but there you have it. To a rube (read believer) it doesn't make god falliable or wishy-washy to change his mind, to us skeptics it seems weird that such a vengeful and jealous god would want to send his son (or himself somehow?) to be tortured and killed so he could forgive mankind of everything. Basically what god did through jesus was say, "OK, you jews have suffered a lot and done my bidding so I'm going to reward you by just forgiving you without making you jump through all these hoops, all you have to do is kill my son (or me)"
Now how THAT makes sense is beyond me, but the natural progression of thought is god isn't fallable or changing his mind, he's just moving believers in a more "evolved" direction. Of course this would make a lot more sense if he had wanted everyone to know the messiah was here he would have followed his own rules on how the messiah would show up (with trumpets and the white horse and the ressurecting all the dead thing).
Personally I think it's a load of bullsh**, but that's how christians can reconcile the two testaments without following all the rules in the OT and still think that god whole heartedly approves of all their actions.
BRC
@Steve
I've seen the argument for the differences between the old and new testaments several times, but there is something I have an issue with there, hopefully you can help. If you believe, the OT is the direct word of God, as was given through Moses (and a number of others who are rarely if ever mentioned). The NT is the word and teachings of Jesus, the son of God (and depending on your particular flavor of Christianity the earthly embodiment of God himself).
-------–
BRC, I will give a serious answer, unlike what was previously offered. The Christian church was established not under the Law (OT) but under grace (NT). If you read the letters of Paul (Romans, The Corinthians letters, Galatians, ect) you will see Paul warning the Church not to revert back to the law. Not because it was evil (it came from God) but because it was fulfilled and ended by Christ Jesus. Abraham lived 430 years BEFORE the law and God claimed Abraham to be righteous but through FAITH and not works.
You have to realize why the law was given. It was given to identify sin and its consequences. Jesus bore our sin and paid the penalty for it. His sacrifice for sin was symbolized in the old by the sacrifice of animals. Since Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, animal sacrifices (which was a huge part of the law) are no longer valid.
In short, they are many verses i can provide to you but Christ fulfilled the law and we are no longer subject to it.
Your question maybe what happens to te ten commandemnst and are they valid? the answer would be yes. understand Jesus restated the ten and phrased the ten into two:
1. Love the Lord with all your heart, ...
2. Love your neighbor...
if you read the ten, it has 2 primary parts:
1-4 How to treat God
5-10 how to treat fellow man.
Jesus restated that as I previously shared. Like I said let me know if you want the scriptures. I will be more than happy to share. The mistake by atheists is their lack of understanding there is a difference bewteen the law (OT) and grace (NT). If that is not right nothing else will be.
@Steve
That is actually a pretty fair answer. There are still points that I don't agree with, but they're nuances that would require more in depth conversation than is possible on a forum. If someone didn't consider or agree with those additional points, I could see how this would help someone reconcile the differences.
As for the scripture, thank you but no. Of all things in these debates I think scripture is by the least useful aspect, as it has been directly interfered with by man (continuously and since its creation), and you can't use a book to verify the claims that are made within said book. The plausibility of the existence of a god, or the validity of a religion's laws should be able to be resolved through logic alone.
A god that is as powerful as most religions claim, cannot be wrong. if a God cannot be wrong then they have to observe logic, so if something proposed by a religion is illogical, it couldn't have come from a god... that's usually where most of my hang-ups with religion come from (outside of the whole not believing he exists thing).
@Steve I for one understand the distinction well, and just wish that the Christian gay bashers who incessantly cite Leviticus understood it.
John Richardson
@Steve I for one understand the distinction well, and just wish that the Christian gay bashers who incessantly cite Leviticus understood it.
---------–
They can cite Romans Chapter 1 verses 25-31 instead!
steve,
‘Abraham lived 430 years BEFORE the law and God claimed Abraham to be righteous but through FAITH and not works’
What is moral at all about any of that? It’s to suggest that faith is paramount whereas ones actions mean little or nothing. ‘Killed a whole bunch of people did you? Oh, well you had faith your whole life so you’re ok, please step right up to the pearly gates sir’. Disgusting.
‘You have to realize why the law was given. It was given to identify sin and its consequences’
Like they wouldn’t have known or figured out like 1000’s of other cultures that killing, lying & other anti-social acts are not conducive to a functioning society? They woudln't even be around to pen the books if they thought it was ok.
‘Jesus bore our sin and paid the penalty for it.’
Sin for what, the damnation of some chic who was duped by a talking snake in eating from the tree of knowledge? That by the way this god didn’t bother to prevent as he neither put the wisdom or knowledge for adam & eve to know the difference between good & evil & he left the talking snake to just hang around. If they don't know the difference between good & evil, how could they at all be held accountable for seeking knowledge abou it? Try using that excuse in court & they’d have you convicted of negligence. What is moral about damning all of humnaity, etnerally no less, for a single action by a single individual? Some how the notion of 'some one elses faults, for which I had no involvement in being my responsibility' I find repugnant, equally repugnant is the notion that they can be scapegoated to others, as if that even make sense.
so, according to this guy's logic... we should judge all atheists by those who only pretend to not believe in God, but really do...
somethin' wrong here...
The big flaw here is that he chose to critique only preachers who don't practice what they preach. Of course "religion" is a bad idea if you judge it all by the hypocrites, the frauds, and the scammers!
On the other hand, the world is a better place because of people who preach honesty, kindness, and dependability, and then go out to live honest, kind, and dependable lives – regardless of which religion they profess or whether they are agnostic, atheist, etc...
I agree with what you say, but I think it points to a key point against organized religion. Yes the world is a better place because of the priests who meant wwell and did good things, just as it is because of the athiests adn agnostics who did the same. the world is a better place because of good people. That makes perfect sense, and in no way requires religion. Religion doesn't make good people good, and lack of religion doesn't make good people bad; the danger, adn it has happened, is when religion makes well meaning people do bad things. That is one of my real problems with organized religion (i have nothing against personal faith), it is at best neutral, and at worst harmful.
"Atheists have bad people, too, the worst of whom feign religion for their own personal gain."
The real reason Religion gets a bad rap.
The real reason religion gets a bad rap is because it's irrational. There are no good reasons to believe any religious claims. And when people do believe things that are either demonstrably false or likely false based on existing evidence then all kinds of harm and shenanigans inevitably result.
Maybe, but don't mistake the fake religious with the honest atheists who are open with their disbelief in society. The people the author is speaking of sit on the same pews that you do, and sing the same hymns but, most importantly, they will also say that they believe in God to your face which is something that an open atheist wouldn't do.
HAROLD CAMPING IS MEGA RICH THIS ARTICLE SAYS HE HAS $100 M ILLION FROM DONATIONS
http://losangeles.ibtimes.com/articles/148239/20110519/may-21st-doomsday-does-harold-camping-s-ministry-have-money.htm
"First of all, its "your", not "you're". Secondly, the phrase "One Nation Under God" was put on currency etc. in the 1950's. Rest assured that the founding fathers (who were deists at best, but mostly atheists) would be rolling over in their graves if they knew we had put that on our currency. It was never intended to be a part of our country, and for many, it never will be. Your entire statement is not only the ramble of a high school dropout it is also just plain dumb. Stay in your hole and wait for your maker, let everyone else live their lives in this place called "reality".
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Attacking grammar = sure fire sign that YOUR counter-argument isn't worth my time.
Many, many years ago I came to the conclusion I needed a faith based belief system to make my life whole and for me to call on for the help that I seemed unable to do alone in times of abject sorrow, loss and hurt. I therefore pray to the God of the Universe. I know nothing, nothing of the doomsdayers nor of any basis for their belief that the world will come to an end tomorrow. If it does, may it be swift and with as little suffering as can be. I remember this – No man knows the day nor the hour of Christs return. I actualy feel sorry for him and the misled.
JonR,
I welcome your critique of the matters I presented regarding philosophy, history, etc..
I have been fortunate to have been able to study these matters over the years; however, I am always interested in gaining a better understanding.
Please be specific and cite your sources, if you would.
Aside from the cites he already linked to, you do know this is an opinion piece right?
Ok, Barry. Just two points. As someone already noted, the Roman Empire stood for several centuries and then fell within about a century of turning from pagan to christian. Most of Rome's influence, for good AND ill, on later civilization AND barbarism stemmed from its earlier and vastly grander and lengthier pagan period. After the fall of Rome, there was indeed a period called the dark ages, and those were precisely the centuries during which the christian church was at its height of power.
Plato's basic take on religion was that it was all a load of hooey, but was useful for controlling the populace. He'd be hooting over this latest example of people being led by the nose over the sort of silly nonsense that in fact, except for the date, defines most of christian orthodoxy.
@Barry,
Good point, what are your sources. Especially for why there would be no philosophy without religion.
I think this author has taken all his issues with the world and all religions and slapped them with the label Christian believers.
Painting such a wide group of people with the same brush shows a remarkable lack of intelligent thought, and then sneaking in the little jab that almost all atheists are loving and great clinches this view of him,
It's like me walking into a packed club and seeing five white men that can't dance followed by five black men that can and coming to the conclusion that all white men can't dance and all black men can.
Sorry but no matter what label humans wear we all come with flaws and issues and Christianity or Atheism does not make those flaws disappear.
If the atheist world is unwilling to acknowledge the best instances of Christianity then they have no right to judge us by our worst.
This author's silly idea that Christianity is a religion based on money is completely false. Are there some churches that focus too much on money? I am sure there are but there are more churches in the world whose main focus is charity, evangelism and love thy neighbor.
I have never once been made to donate to my church, I have chosen to help support them just as I give to food pantries, homeless shelters, orphan care and the sending of care packages to soldiers deployed over seas.. But yeah I must be a sheep to give to all these people..there must be something evil involved right? Especially since I am a christian.
I freely choose to be a Christian and find it humorous when atheists claim that it isn't an educated or inteligent choice. What you are really saying is : give up your religion and faith and blindly follow me.
Atheists will never be anything more than a group of people who claim to not know the answers but they do know your answer has to be wrong.
@sadie
"I freely choose to be a Christian and find it humorous when atheists claim that it isn't an educated or inteligent choice. What you are really saying is : give up your religion and faith and blindly follow me."
The "blindly follow me" is what this athiest has the problem with. Let's not cast stones about each other yea?
I can't speak for the author, but I can give one possible explanation. I have been accused of lumping all religions, and all believers, into one group labeled "bad" and ignoring the good works that they do. The reason I do this, is because I can't attribute religion with the good that is done; I believe the good things people do, are because of those specific individuals.
I am a natrually cynical and distrusting person, but if you say you participate in charitable activities and genuinly try to aid the less fortuante I believe you; but I'll do you one better. I believe that you, because of who you are, your personality, and the way you were raised, would help those people, and would try to do good, even without ANY religious drive or background.
I have religious friends who are good caring people, and I know religious people who are self abysmall people (clearly not my friends). I have just as many athiest friends who are every bit as good as the most religious of the group. If a religious person can do good or evil, and an ardently non-religious person can do good or evil, then clearly the only common denominator is that they are both people. So religion means nothing in the equation. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things.
Where the problem arises, is where religion decides what is good or bad for someone else, and inspires a well meaning person to do something bad (like denying someone else's freedoms or even actively taking their life). I'm not saying most people would do this (I will accuse almost every organized religion of causing it), but even if only 2 or 3 people, ever, took a neutral thing and used it to do something bad, wouldn't that be a rather steep cost? That is why I actually consider organized religion bad, because it can tip the scale in an otherwise neutral equation, and I really don't see it as worth it.
SeanNJ,
I am always willing to have a better understanding of matters of philosophy, ethics, history and religion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Religion doesn't promote philosophy. It retards it. Nothing makes you cease searching for answers faster than believing you already have them.
Religion is not necessary for ethics. "Do unto others" is mutually assured self-preservation. I don't want you to kill me, so I won't kill you. I don't want you to steal my possessions, so I won't steal your possessions. The "slower" members of society don't see the efficacy of that approach, so they need to have it scared into them with threats of eternal torment.
I mentioned in my other post the correlation between the adopting of Christianity by Constantine and the fall of the Roman Empire. That about covers the history and religion aspects.
@SeanNJ Which is called a "social contract". The don't kill me, I won't kill you" aspect of it.
if it were not for religion...
There would be no philosophy and reason, for there would have been no Socrates, nor Plato (Socrates’ student), nor would have there been any Aristotle, who was the student of Plato. And Aristotle would have never been able to teach Alexander the Great, who conquered the world and unified the world over an ideal (Hellenism).
Subsequently there would have been no Roman rule (a religious State), which unified the world under rule of law. This in turn would have prevented the world from advancing, under the safety and order, which Roman law afforded.
And what would have become of law and order, for there would have been no Law Code of Hammurabi, nor Ten Commandments, nor any Western sense of justice, which was the result of the Judao-Christian sense of justice.
Incidentally when Rome fell (476 CE), this plunged the world into darkness, the horrors of which lasted for about 1000 years (The Dark Ages, the plagues, the suffering, the despair!).
Incidentally there would be no ethics, to speak of, for ethics was originally in the realm of philosophy, and modern-day ethics is still largely guided by these principles.
And so many acts of goodness, which have been performed throughout the ages, would never have been done.
Do you really think that the world would be a better place without religion?
Wow, a whole new mega-batch of unproven and frankly ridiculous assumptions boldly asserted! Religion marches on!
To bad we can't ask the millions and millions of people that have been killed because of religion.
Just think where the world would be, if it were not for religion.
There would be no philosophy and reason, for there would have been no Socrates, nor Plato (Socrates’ student), nor would have there been any Aristotle, who was the student of Plato. And Aristotle would have never been able to teach Alexander the Great, who conquered the world and unified the world over an ideal (Hellenism).
Subsequently there would have been no Roman rule (a religious State), which unified the world under rule of law. This in turn would have prevented the world from advancing, under the safety and order, which Roman law afforded.
And what would have become of law and order, for there would have been no Law Code of Hammurabi, nor Ten Commandments, nor any Western sense of justice, which was the result of the Judao-Christian sense of justice.
Incidentally when Rome fell (476 CE), this plunged the world into darkness, the horrors of which lasted for about 1000 years (The Dark Ages, the plagues, the suffering, the despair!).
Incidentally there would be no ethics, to speak of, for ethics was originally in the realm of philosophy, and modern-day ethics is still largely guided by these principles.
And so many acts of goodness, which have been performed throughout the ages, would never have been done.
Do you really think that the world would be a better place without religion?
@Barry: You asked, "Do you really think that the world would be a better place without religion?"
Yes, it would be. You're pretty much wrong on everything else. Sorry.
@Barry: You said, "Incidentally when Rome fell (476 CE), this plunged the world into darkness, the horrors of which lasted for about 1000 years (The Dark Ages, the plagues, the suffering, the despair!)."
Which, incidentally, occurred shortly after Constantine adopted Christianity.
This is a joke right?
"There would be no philosophy and reason, for there would have been no Socrates, nor Plato (Socrates’ student), nor would have there been any Aristotle, who was the student of Plato. And Aristotle would have never been able to teach Alexander the Great, who conquered the world and unified the world over an ideal (Hellenism)." Philosophy and reason didn't and still doesn't need religion, in fact since religion is unreasonable I would say reason and religion are at odds with one another.
"Subsequently there would have been no Roman rule (a religious State), which unified the world under rule of law. This in turn would have prevented the world from advancing, under the safety and order, which Roman law afforded." Um......so you do know that Jesus lived under Roman rule.....which means that Rome was the Rome your thinking of before Jesus was even born. I think I can safely assume there would have been (since there WAS) Roman rule exactly how you describe it without religion.
"And what would have become of law and order, for there would have been no Law Code of Hammurabi, nor Ten Commandments, nor any Western sense of justice, which was the result of the Judao-Christian sense of justice." I think it's be proven time and time again that man is able to set laws and govern ourselves without the aid of the bible or any other religion to help us. So there wouldn't have been the Law Code of Hammurabi or the Ten Commandements..... I think I can also safely assume that the commandments that don't deal with stupid ritual (love thy neighbor, thou shalt not kill) would still probably be in effect regardless of religion, but hey thats me.
"Incidentally when Rome fell (476 CE), this plunged the world into darkness, the horrors of which lasted for about 1000 years (The Dark Ages, the plagues, the suffering, the despair!)." Religion was still around during the dark ages, plagues and all that, why do you equate Rome falling and plunging the world into darkness (keep in mind the "modern world, not the entire world) when religion was still in force and yet somehow think that makes your case stronger?
"Incidentally there would be no ethics, to speak of, for ethics was originally in the realm of philosophy, and modern-day ethics is still largely guided by these principles." Um..... again, Ethics and religion are not one in the same, everyone has their own ethical code. and like I said above, philosophy is not purely for the religious nor has it ever been, so although ethics might (MIGHT) fall into the realm of philosophy that doesn't mean by transitive property it falls into religions realm.
"And so many acts of goodness, which have been performed throughout the ages, would never have been done." you really think people only do good things because of religion? you poor, poor man.
"Do you really think that the world would be a better place without religion?" – Answer, Yes
I wish religion did not exist and people simply focused on caring about other people. If people were not so gullible and ignorant these so called religious leaders would not be able to take advantage of them. Religion is one of the oldest and greatest cons in the history of mankind. Religion has intertwined itself with governments all over the world. Pointless religious wars are claiming hundreds of lives every day. People have become too lazy to think for themselves. Lazy minds create the environment where con men flourish using religion because no one has the courage to question religion.
Historically, May 21 is the eve of Pentecost when churches began. The Jewish calendar and our calendar rarely align. They align this year. They last aligned in 1994. I was a doubter until I did my homework. People say familyradio missed the prediction in 1994?, the book, but it is stated on pages 494 and 495 that the more likely date of the return would be 2011. Reporters miss this fact. I researched their website at familyradio.com and reviewed the following 9 proofs. These combined point to May 21, 2011. They can’t all be a coincidence.
1. The discovery of the exact year of Noah’s flood in 4990BC by subtracting backwards from King Solomon’s death in 931BC using information from the Bible (see Timeline).
2. The discovery of the month and day of Noah’s flood (Genesis 7:11) – When translated, May 21 is the 2nd month and 17 day of that year (Iyar 17).
3. Apostle Peter warns the true believers regarding Judgment Day, “a day to the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).”
4. God gave Noah a 7-day warning before He caused it to rain (Genesis 7:4).
5. Combining Peter’s warning in proof #3 and God’s warning in proof #4, we have a total of 7,000 years. May 21, 2011 is exactly 7,000 years after proof #1, Noah’s flood. Use biblical rules – compare scripture with scripture (1Cor 2:13).
6. The verbal description of a single event in two different ways is a style of speech described by Joseph, Jacob's son, as "doubling." Apostle Peter used this style unknowingly when describing Christ's return. Joseph defined the usage as he interpreted the Pharaoh's dream. The discovery of this comparison and its meaning reinforces that “God will shortly bring it to pass (Gen 41:32).”
7. Finding God’s Jubilee year in view to find the tribulation period – Sept 7, 1994.
8. How to find the beginning of the tribulation period, as described in Daniel’s first vision consisting of 2,300 days.
9. From May 21, 1988 going forward 23 years, we land exactly on May21, 2011. The significance of the number 23.
I’m glad Christ did not tell us when He was going to return. The disciples that Jesus took with Him to pray on the Mountain of Olives went to sleep each time He told them to stay awake and pray. As you know the story well in Matthew 26:37-44, Mark 14:33-41 and Luke 22:39-46, we probably would have done the same thing. Based on the disciples past actions, if Jesus had told them that He was not going to return for nearly 2,000 years, they would have procrastinated and not got the word of His life out as quickly as they did. If you think about it, the best way to get our kids to clean their room quickly is to tell them nothing of our return time. Unbelievably, this same technique works on adults. Who better to teach us this lesson than Christ (John 10:30 and John 14:8-10)? Give due diligence. Go to familyradio.com and research it. The 9 easy proofs can’t all be coincidence. Craig
See you Sunday Craig. Hopefully on Sunday morning you will realize that you can't believe everything that you read, no matter what so called book it came from. Start thinking for yourself and stop letting others tell you what to think. You will be ok if you don't have anyone to follow.
@Craig: Did any of the math geniuses at Family Radio account for the discrepencies between the Julian and Gregorian calendars? Or the fact that the dates come from the Old Testemant which followed a lunar calendar then? How about the adoption of timezones or when we skipped entire weeks in the year at one point to bring the world calendars inline with each other?
All these signs can absolutely be a coincidence. Look up a little term called Apophenia.
When Sunday rolls around......start looking into getting help. Do not plan for another date of "the rapture" face realit....FACE REALITY
I I worship JuJu of the Jungle who told me that there will be no End of days orRapture on May-21...
pray into one hand and crap in the other see what fill up first!
wow i really think this is one of the best articles i have ever read on cnn! i love how camping is telling everybody the world is ending so you don't need your money but that he does for some reason.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster WILL end this existence unless we build a giant pirate ship and begin swashbuckling immediately!